iy ii Ne ane . ‘eth nu Hi Kitt 4} a i st a a AY oy i i, i i can sn Mi SS ee ee wae cy fi aie a MERRIE ie Ay Hits ' Ny YH Ke ny ett Liha yore a! eo ke > ! tee Saw. ae eas ay matin 3 = Se : eee =. pester a= S Site Se = fia ae } Ni yah dda Hi i ith uae f oe i Wi sah ty it Sit i ETINE Wee MON HAI Se i (tinh Hea HH } ify ‘ais iN ve ee OTK CAVE Mt fy i i sa i. DTK pile f nay yy Yes it AK) ih ey Ay Lh ivew shih i] aay ils fis i MG We Mil hart a Seibay, ete i ae ih ad) Wid iH uid ' . * / . y ; ike uh “ i 4 ey net bt Meh FT HEA F Pe A 4) ta A ‘ Ri if fe at nh eit ‘ ae Uae at ie Ly BU ca "pit a ayatan Neh ou ste i 7 H - Raat Py Y A ait a Wy 1 Ve Ha hs Not it atid ie yh avira D Mona wh aA fn aN a OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE VOLUME 4 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 (All rights reserved) Nd INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE OPINIONS PUBLISHED 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. Petrers (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. UA) 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 Kirspy (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 SPARCK (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). eae es ober L. Ustncer (University of California, Berkeley, California, .9.A.). IV INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 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. Mrs. J. H. Newman Secretariat : Mrs. Prudence Goldman Mrs. E. M. Lewis Indexer : Miss Joan Kelley, B.Sc. Translator : Mrs. R. H. R. Hopkin INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Chairman : The Right Hon. Walter Elliot, C.H., M.C., F.R.S., M.P. Managing Director and Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Publications Officer : Mrs. C. Rosner ADDRESSES OF THE COMMISSION AND THE TRUST Secretariat of the Commission: 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1. Offices of the Trust : 41 Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. FOREWORD The present volume—the fourth of the series entitled Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature—contains the second instalment of Opinions embodying decisions taken by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in 1948. The Opinions in question are Opinions 211 to 239. The present volume comprises 410 pages (T.P.—XIV, 1—396). 2. Of the twenty-nine Opinions included in the present volume one deals with names belonging to two different Classes of the Animal Kingdom, thus bringing up to thirty the total number of cases, when viewed from this angle. Many of the applications relating to these cases were submitted jointly by two or more applicants—in two cases by ten applicants—and when account is taken of this fact, the total number of applicants is seen to amount to sixty-one. 3. Six of the applications dealt with in the present volume were concerned with the status of books and the remaining twenty-four with individual names. Of this latter group, sixteen (66.6 per cent.) involved the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers. The use of these Powers was involved also in one of the applica- tions relating to the status of individual books. 4. The twenty-four 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 Involving the use of the Others Plenary Powers Rhizopoda Anthozoa Trematoda Insecta Arachnida Gastropoda Pelecypoda Cephalopoda Brachiopoda | Cephalaspido- morphi Actinopterygii Aves Mammalia mBePNNWrRNNR pomeh mek fee fee Totals NO aS Vil 5. When the sixty-one applicants are arranged by reference to the countries in which they are resident, applications are seen to have been received from the following countries (arranged in alphabetical order) :— TABLE 2 Distribution of applicants by country of residence ‘| Country of Residence | Number of applicants Australia Czechoslovakia Germany Israel New Zealand Switzerland United Kingdom United States of America Total 6. 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 38 names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. In the same Opinions, 35 names were placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology and seven names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. Finally, in the same Opinions, the titles of two works were placed on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature and the titles of five works on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature. 7. The twenty-four Opinions dealing with individual names published in the present volume contain fifty-nine comments VIII received from interested specialists. These comments were in a number of cases joint comments from two or more specialists. When account is taken of this consideration, the number of specialists who contributed comments on the applications dealt with in the foregoing block of Opinions is seen to number one hundred and fifty-five. In addition, ten comments were page on applications relating to the status of books. 8. If the comments relating to individual names are grouped according to the Class in the Animal Kingdom to which the genus or species concerned belong, the distribution of the comments is found to be as follows :— TABLE 3 Distribution of comments on applications relating to individual names, by Classes of the Animal Kingdom Name of Class Number of Comments Rhizopoda Anthozoa Trematoda Insecta Arachnida Gastropoda Pelecypoda Cephalopoda Brachiopoda | Cephalaspidomorphi Actinopterygii Aves Total IX 9. When the authors of the comments on individual names dealt with in the Opinions published in the present volume are grouped by reference to their country of residence, the distribution is found to be as follows :— TABLE 4 Distribution of comments on applications relating to individual names, by country of residence of the specialists concerned Country of Residence | Number of comments Canada 1 Denmark 13 Egypt 1 Italy 2) United Kingdom 15 United States of America 123 Total 155 10. 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 volumes of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 11. It is a matter for regret that the decisions embodied in the Opinions published in the present volume were taken by the International Commission as long ago as 1948. That this is so is due to the difficulties which faced the Secretariat of the Com- mission for so long as it had to rely upon the services of an Honorary Secretary who was able to give only his spare time to its work. Now however that the Honorary Secretary is able to devote the whole of his time to the work of the Commission and is moreover assisted by a capable and hard-working staff, a 4 remarkable change has occurred, as may be seen by the fact that on the average the interval between the preparation and publica- tion of the Opinions included in the present volume has amounted to less than six months. It may be noted also that the period covered by the publication of the entire block of Opinions included in the present volume amounted only to about two and a half months. In spite of this great increase in the rate of the output of the work of the Commission, a great deal remains to be done before the accumulated arrears can be wiped off and it is possible to arrange for the preparation of Opinions immediately after the decisions embodied in them have been taken by the Commission. Looking forward into the immediate future, we may note that more than one half of the next volume (vol. 5) has already been published, that the remainder of that volume and the whole of volume 6 is already in the hands of the printer and that the material for volumes 7, 8 and 9 is in an advanced state of preparation. FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, LONDON, N.W.1. 10th July 1954 TABLE OF CONTENTS OPINION 211 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a type species for the genera Hemerobius Linnaeus, 1758, and Chrysopa Leach, 1815 (Class Insecta, Order Neuroptera) in harmony with accustomed usage OPINION 212 Designation of the dates to be accepted as the dates of publication of the several volumes of Pallas (P.S.), Zoographia rosso-asiatica. . OPINION 213 Determination of the type species of the genus Schwagerina von Moller, 1877 ee oa Order Foraminifera) he OPINION 214 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a type species of the genus Actinote Hubner, [1819] (Class Insecta, Order magnet in harmony with accustomed usage : sie ae ak OPINION 215 Emendation to Palaeoneilo of the generic name Palaeaneilo Hall, 1869 (Class Pelecypoda) OPINION 216 Suppression, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic names Clavellarius Olivier, 1789, and Clavellaria Lamarck, 1801 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion supplementary to Opinion 144) OPINION 217 Designation under the Plenary Powers, of a type species for the genus Erycina Lamarck, 1805 (Class Pelecypoda) in harmony with accustomed usage - OPINION 218 Addition of the generic name Liodes Heyden, 1826 (Class Arachnida) to the Official Index of Rejected Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. . XI Page 15 25 41 51 63 73 83 Xil OPINION 219 Addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of Megachile Latreille, 1802, with Apis centuncularis Linnaeus, 1758, as ee species (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) OPINION 220 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic name Bombus Latreille, 1802 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), in so far as the use of those Powers is required to provide that name with the status of availability OPINION 221 Emendation to macfarlandi of the specific name published as mcfarlandi Cockerell, 1902, in the combination Chromodoris mcfarlandi (Class Gastro- poda) OPINION 222 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a type species for the genus 7) remataspis Schmidt, 1866 (Class ee oe in ee with accustomed usage ; OPINION 223 Suppression, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic name Te/eosteus Volger, 1860, and of the specific name primaeyvus Volger, 1860, as published in the combination Teleosteus primaevus (Class Anthozoa) OPINION 224 Determination, under the Plenary Powers, of the species of the Class Brachiopoda to which the name Anomia pecten Linnaeus, 1758, shall apply OPINION 225 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of Belone Cuvier, 1817 (Class Pisces) and eee Hall, 1847, (Class Gastropoda). . OPINION 226 Suppression, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic name Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856, for the purpose of validating the generic name Schistosoma Weinland, 1858 (Class Trematoda) (Opinion supplementary to Opinion 77) uh, Page 93. 103 115. 125 139 149 161 ti OPINION 227 Acceptance of the lectotype selected by Braun in 1901 for the nominal species Fasciola ovata Rudolphi, 1803 (Class Trematoda) OPINION 228 Rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris .. ans Ps OPINION 229. Acceptance of the lectotype selected by Lydekker (1891) for the nominal species Dinornis novaezealandiae Owen, 1843 (Class Aves) i OPINION 230 Suppression, under the Plenary Powers, of Gesner (J.), 1758, Tractatus physicus de a a for nomenclatorial purposes OPINION 231 Rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of Martin (W.), 1793, Figures and Descriptions of Petri- factions collected in Derbyshire and of the work by the same author published in 1809 under the title Petri- ficata Derbiensia . : ie ve OPINION 232 Suppression, under Plenary Powers, of twelve generic names in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) published by Illiger in 1807 in senses different from those in which those names were published by Fabricius later in the same year. . OPINION 233 Suppression, under the Plenary Powers, of the name Octopodia Schneider, 1784 (Class Cephalo- poda), and of certain reputed names eas by the same author in 1784 a Re ae OPINION 234 Rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of the anonymously issued pamphlet entitled Buprestidae believed to have been written by F. W. ae and distributed in the year 1836 XIII Page 201 209 Jy) Mailk 239 249 2d yg XIV OPINION 235 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a lectotype for the nominal species Ammonites cordatus Sowerby (J), 1813 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) ne at Me a OPINION 236 Acceptance for nomenclatorial purposes of the work by Morten Thrane Brimnich entitled Zoologiae Fundamenta published in 1771 OPINION 237 Addition of the generic name Tonna Briinnich, 1771 (Class Gastropoda) to the ~~“ List of Generic Games in Zoology : OPINION 238 Validation, under the Plenary posed of the generic name Cercopithecus as from Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Mammalia) (correction of an error in Opinion 104) OPINION 239 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of type species for the nominal genera Podura Linnaeus, 1758, and Tomocerus Nicolet, [1842] (Class Insecta, Order Collembola) in harmony with accustomed nomenclatorial usage Corrigenda Index to Authors of Applications dealt with in Opinions 211 to 239 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 Page 33 329 343 35 361 345 StH 381 395 396 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C™.c., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 4. Part 1. Pp. 1—i4 OPINION 211 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a type species for the genera Hemerobius Linnaeus, 1758, and Chrysopa Leach, 1815 (Class Insecta, Order Neuroptera) in harmony with accustomed usage SEE AIT aa — LE WN\VMSON LASS V/A ay cae | Cc os f/ ii Man Ants (f ADR QO 192 4\ “Li BK ON is LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Five Shillings and Threepence (All rights reserved) Issued 8th March, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 211 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 Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia). Glassmio 52, 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. Perers (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 BoscHmMa (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 HInpie (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 LemMcue (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologisk Labora- torium, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Kamel MANsourR (King Fouad University, Cairo, Egypt). Professor Z. P. MercaLF (North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering, University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.). Mr. N. D. RILeEy (British Museum (Natural History), London, England). Professor Ragnar SPARCK (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). Professor Robert L. UsincEer (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). OPINION 211 DESIGNATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF A TYPE SPECIES FOR THE GENERA ‘“SHEMEROBIUS”’ LINNAEUS, 1758, AND ‘‘ CHRYSOPA ”? LEACH, 1815 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER NEUROPTERA) IN HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED USAGE RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers, all type selections for the genera Hemerobius Linnaeus, 1758, and Chrysopa Leach, 1815, made prior to the present Ruling, are hereby set aside, and (a) Hemerobius humulinus Linnaeus, 1758, is designated as the type species of Hemerobius Linnaeus, 1758, and (b) Hemerobius perla Linnaeus, 1758, is designated as the type species of Chrysopa Leach, 1815 (Class Insecta, Order Neuroptera). (2) The generic names Hemerobius Linnaeus, 1758 (gender of name: masculine), and Chrysopa Leach, 1815 (gender of name: feminine), with the type species designated under (1) above, are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 644 and 645. (3) The following specific names are hereby added to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 21 and 22: (a) humulinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Hemerobius humulinus ; (b) perla Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Hemerobius perla. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 25th April 1927 Dr. Roger C. Smith (Kansas State Agricul- tural College, Manhattan, Kansas, U.S.A.) addressed a com- munication to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, drawing attention to the fact that it appeared that under a strict application of the Régles “both the family CHRYSOPIDAE and the family HEMEROBITIDAE were founded on the same types species” and raised the question : “Is not the family name CHRYSOPIDAE a synonym of Ae le 4 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS HEMEROBIIDAE, since it appears to have been erected on the same species (Hemerobius perla)?”? On 26th October 1928 the foregoing inquiry was referred to a referee by the then Secretary (the late Dr. C. W. Stiles). Unfortunately, the papers so referred were apparently mislaid, and it was only in November 1944 that they were recovered by the present Secretary (Mr. Hemming). In the mean time the problem raised by the names Hemerobius and Chrysopa had been formally submitted to the International Commission (in 1937) by the Royal Entomological Society of London, and, as will be seen, it was on the basis of this latter application that the remaining steps were taken in dealing with the present case. 2. On 30th June 1937, the late Professor A. D. Imms (President), ~ and Professor O. W. Richards (Secretary), Royal Entomological Society of London, formally communicated to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Part 4 of the work entitled The Generic Names of British Insects, published that day, intimating that the Council of the Society concurred in the recommendations on nomenclature set forth in the foregoing Part and commended those recommendations to the favourable consideration of the International Commission. The above Part contained a Report by the Sub-Committee on Neuropteroid Groups! of the Society’s Committee on Generic Nomenclature,” setting out the names of the genera of the Neuropteroid groups represented in the British fauna. Attached to the Sub-Committee’s Report was a more detailed survey of the problems involved which had been prepared for the Sub-Committee by Mr. F. J. Killington, one of its members. In his paper Mr. Killington discussed the problem raised by the names Hemerobius (: 75—77) and Chrysopa (: 78—79) and in its covering Report the Sub-Committee recom- mended that the International Commission should be asked to take such steps as might be required to prevent the confusion which would follow the strict application of the Rég/es in this case, this 1 At the time of the submission of the foregoing Report the composition of this Sub-Committee was as follows :—J. Cowley, F. J. Killington, D. E. Kimmins and Miss C. E. Longfield. 2 At the time of the publication of the Sub-Committee’s Report, the composition of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature was as follows :—Sir Guy Marshall, C.M.G., D.Sc., F.R.S. (Chairman); K. G. Blair, D.Sc.; F. W. Edwards, M.A., Sc.D. ; Francis Hemming, C.B.E.; O. W. Richards, M.A., D.Sc.; N, D. Riley; W. A. F. Balfour-Browne (Secretary). OPINION 211 5 object to be attained by the Commission directing that Hemerobius humulinus Linnaeus, 1758, be the type species of Hemerobius Linnaeus, 1758, and Hemerobius perla, the type species of Chrysopa Leach, 1815. At a later stage it was agreed (paragraph 4) that the passage in the Sub-Committee’s Report dealing with the foregoing names should be treated as constituting the actual application to be laid before the International Commission. The following is the application so agreed upon :— Proposed suspension of the Regles for ‘‘ Hemerobius’’ Linnaeus, 1758, and ‘*‘ Chrysopa ’? Leach, 1815 (Class Insecta, Order Neuroptera) By JOHN COWLEY, M.A. (Bridgwater, Somerset), F. J. KILLINGTON, D.Sc. (Parkstone, Dorset), D. E. KIMMINS (Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History)), and C. E. LONGFIELD (Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History).) In the case of the two following generic names, the strict application of the rules embodied in the International Code of Zoological Nomen- clature would cause a very serious, and quite unnecessary, disturbance in existing practice and would, in our view, cause greater confusion than uniformity. For these names we are, therefore, in favour of a partial suspension of the rules. In each case, the object that we have in view can be effected by a very slight departure from the strict applica- tion of the Code. The following is an extract from the paper prepared by Mr. Killington :— Hemerobius Linnaeus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 549. Linnaeus, 1761, Faun. svec. : 383. Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 435. Leach, 1815, Brewster’s Edinb. Encycl. 9 (1) : 138. Curtis, 1828, Brit. Ent. 4 : text to pl. 202. Westwood, 1838, Introd. Class. Ins. 2 Syn. : 48. Rambur, 1842, Hist. nat. Ins. Névropt. : 420. Banks, 1906, Trans. Amer. ent. Soc. 32 : 29. Killington, 1931, Entomologist, 64 : 112. Type (fixed by Banks)—Hemerobius humuli Linnaeus, 1761 (=Hemerobius humulinus Linnaeus, 1758). OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Latreille (1810) fixed the type of this genus as Hemerobius perla Linnaeus, which was one of the original species described by Linnaeus in 1758 and therefore a perfectly valid selection. In 1828, Curtis cited Hemerobius hirtus Linnaeus, 1761, as the genotype, but apart from the fact that Latreille had already fixed Hemerobius perla as the genotype, Curtis’s selection could not stand as Hemerobius hirtus was not included among the original species in the Linnaean genus. Westwood, 1838, also cited Hemerobius hirtus Linn. The next author to fix a genotype was Banks, who in 1906 selected Hemerobius humuli Linnaeus, 1761, which has been shown by Killington (1931) to be a synonym of Hemerobius humulinus Linnaeus (the later spelling was probably due to a printer’s error). This selection would be valid, were it not for Latreille’s action in 1810 in selecting Hemerobius perla Linnaeus. It is unfortunate that for over a century Hemerobius perla Linn. has been generally recognised as representing the genus Chrysopa Leach (family CHRYSOPIDAE) and Hemerobius humulinus the genus Hemerobius Linnaeus (family HEMEROBIIDAB), for in 1815, apparently unaware of Latreille’s action, Leach raised the genus Chrysopa for Hemerobius perla (and for Chrysopa reticulata, although the latter name was not accompanied by a description, and is, in any case, a synonym of H. perla), and the two genera Hemerobius and Chrysopa became typical genera, respectively, of the families HEMEROBITDAE and CHRYSOPIDAE. With very few exceptions Neuropterists have, since 1815, accepted Hemerobius perla as the genotype of Chrysopa. Thus it will be seen that if recognition be accorded to Latreille’s fixation of Hemerobius perla Linnaeus, as the genotype of Hemero- bius (i.e. if strict adherence to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature be enforced), not only will the name Chrysopa, so long applied to a section of the green lacewings, have to sink as a synonym to Hemerobius, but the family name HEMERO- BIDAE will have to be transferred from the brown lacewing group to take the place of the name CHRYSOPIDAE. Such a change would now be highly undesirable for the following reasons :— (1)—the long and universal usage of Leach’s division of the two groups ; (2)—the two families contain together more species than any other two families of Neuroptera ; (3)—both families are practically world-wide in distribution and the literature dealing with them is far more extensive than in the case of the other families ; (4)—both families are of great economic importance, and an important change in the nomenclature would result in confusion not only to Neuropterists, but also to economic entomologists ; OPINION 211 a (5)—many compound names have been based on the names Hemerobius and Chrysopa, and, where valid, these would have to remain, with their perpetual and misleading suggestions of non- existent affinities. For the reasons given above I consider that the strict application to Hemerobius Linnaeus of the rules laid down in the International Code of Zoclogical Nomenclature would produce a state of confusion which the International Zoological Congress intended to avoid when they empowered the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to suspend the rules in cases where their strict application would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity.? We are in full agreement both with Dr. Killington’s conclusions and with his recommendations, which we summarise as follows :— (a) The generic name ‘‘ Hemerobius ’’? Linnaeus, 1758 We are of the opinion that it would be highly undesirable to disturb the use of the name Hemerobius Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 549, for Hemerobius humulinus Linnaeus, 1758, and its congeners, having regard to the fact :— (i) that that name has been applied (with one exception : the genus Mucropalpus Rambur, 1842, contained Hemerobius humulinus Linnaeus (under the name M. lutescens Fabricius)) to species congeneric with Hemerobius humulinus since 1758 : (ii) that the strict application of the rules would transfer the name Hemerobius Linnaeus to Hemerobius perla Linnaeus, thus displacing the name Chrysopa Leach, 1815, which has been almost universally applied to that species for over a century ; (iii) that the strict application of the rules would transfer the name HEMEROBIIDAE from the world-wide and numerous group of species now universally grouped 3 The above is an extract from the Second Report of the Sub-Committee on Neuropteroid Groups of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature of the Royal Entomological Society of London. At the time the above Committee was composed of :—Sir Guy Marshall, K.C.M.G., F.R.S. (Chairman), Dr. K. G. Blair, Dr. F. W. Edwards, Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Dr. O. W. Richards, Mr. N. D. Riley, and Professor W. A. F. Balfour-Browne (Hon. Secretary). The Sub-Committee’s Report was attached to the Fourth Report of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature, which, on 24th February 1937, was submitted by the Committee to the Council of the Royal Entomological Society of London, with a recommendation that this case should be forwarded to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for favourable consideration. The Committee’s recommendation was approved by the Council of the Society, and, on the publication, on 30th June 1937, of the Committee’s Fourth Report, the recommendation regarding this case was forwarded to the International Commission by the Council of the Society. OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS under the name to another world-wide and numerous group of species known universally as_ the CHRYSOPIDAE. The fixation of Hemerobius humulinus Linnaeus, by Banks (1906, Trans. Amer. ent. Soc. 32 : 29) as the type of Hemerobius would be valid but for the fact :— (i) that Latreille (1810), Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arach. Ins. 435) cited Hemerobius perla Linn. as the type ; and (ii) that the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature had expressed the view in Opinion 11 that Latreille’s Table des genres avec l’indication de l’espéce qui leur sert de type “‘ should be accepted as designation of types of the genera in question ”’. We are of opinion that it is highly desirable that in the exercise of the Plenary Powers conferred upon them by the International Zoological Congress, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect :— Opinion 11 of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature regarding the designation of genotypes by Latreille, 1810, shall not be interpreted to mean that in the work referred to in that Opinion Latreille designated Hemerobius perla Linnaeus, 1758, as the type of the genus Hemerobius Linnaeus. Consequently the fixation by Banks in 1906 of Hemerobius humulinus Linnaeus, 1758, as the type of that genus is valid, and the name Hemerobius Linnaeus as thus defined is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (b) The generic name ‘* Chrysopa ’’? Leach, 1815 We are of opinion that it would be highly undesirable to disturb the use of the name Chrysopa Leach, 1815, for Hemerobius perla Linnaeus, 1758, Brewster’s Edinb. Encycl. 9 (1) : 138, and its congeners, having regard to the fact :— (i) that that name has been almost universally applied to those species since its establishment by Leach in 1815 ; (11) that the strict application of the rules would involve not only the transfer of the name Hemerobius Linnaeus, 1758, to the species almost universally placed under Chrysopa since the establishment of the latter genus by Leach in 1815, but would also involve the transfer of the name HEMEROBIIDAE from the world-wide and numerous group of species now universally grouped under that name to the world-wide and numerous group of species known universally as the CHRYSOPIDAE. ee OPINION 211 9 Hemerobius perla Linnaeus, 1758, the only valid species cited by Leach, 1815, in his original description of the genus Chrysopa, could be recognised as the genotype of Chrysopa but for the fact:— (i) that Latreille (1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 435) cited Hemerobius perla Linnaeus as the type of Hemerobius Linnaeus, 1758, and that if this fixation be accepted Chrysopa becomes a synonym of Hemerobius ; and (ii) that the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature had expressed the view in Opinion 11 that Latreille’s Table des genres avec l’indication de l’espéce qui leur sert de type “‘ should be accepted as designation of types of the genera in question ”’. We are of opinion that it is highly desirable that in the exercise of the Plenary Powers conferred upon them by the International Zoological Congress, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect :— The name Chrysopa Leach, 1815 (type Hemerobius perla Linnaeus, 1758) is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names. The name Hemerobius Linnaeus, 1758, is, therefore, not to be substituted for Chrysopa Leach, 1815, on the ground that it has priority over that name, though it is available for Hemerobius humulinus Linnaeus, 1758. I.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 3. At the time of the re-organisation of the Secretariat this case was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.)42. In June 1939 it was decided by the Plenary Conference between the President (Dr. Karl Jordan), and the Secretary (Mr. Francis Hemming, who had been elected to that Office in 1936 on the retirement of Dr. Stiles) that the present case should be included in the list of cases to be included in the next notice regarding the possible use, by the International Commission, of its Plenary Powers, to be issued to the serial publications prescribed by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913 (Plenary Conference, Conclusion 17) (1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 85). The prescribed notice then agreed upon by the Plenary Conference was duly issued on 27th June 1939. The publication of this notice elicited no objections to the action proposed. 10 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 4. The outbreak of war in Europe 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 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 Inter- national Commission for decision. Work was at once started on outstanding applications with a view to arranging for their publication in the newly established Bulletin. In the summer of 1944 there was an exchange of correspondence between the Secretary and Mr. John Cowley (for the Sub-Committee on Neuropteroid Groups) which led to agreement as to the form in which this application should be laid before the International Commission. This application, so settled, 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 June 1946 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 188—191). 5. Some three months after the present application had been sent to the printer, the Secretary received a letter dated 24th November 1944 from Dr. S. A. Rohwer (Assistant Chief of Bureau, United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) supporting the action proposed in this case and enclosing a Minute on this subject dated 20th November 1944, by Dr. C. F. W. Muesebeck (Officer in Charge, Division of Insect Identification, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington. D.C., U.S.A.) also commenting on, and supporting the present application. The following are extracts relating to the present case from the foregoing documents which dealt also with another case of insect nomenclature which had been submitted to the Commission :— (a) Comment, dated 20th November 1944, by Dr. C. F. W. Muesebeck : This is a good presentation of the problem. It shows that Hemerobius and Chrysopa are isogenotypic, Hemerobius perla Linnaeus being type of both, and that under the Rules Chrysopa must fall as a synonym of Hemerobius. It then recommends that the Commission act, under suspension of the Rules, to place Hemerobius on the Official List OPINION 211 11 with H. humulinus Linnaeus as type, leaving Chrysopa with Hemerobius perla as type. This would be in agreement with the practice which has been followed consistently throughout the world in the application of the two names. Since the strict enforcement of the Rules in this case would unquestionably cause considerable confusion, I believe all taxonomists concerned with these groups will support the proposal. I myself feel action in line with that proposed to be desirable. (b) Comment, dated 24th November 1944, by S. A. Rohwer : ] think this is an excellent illustration of how the principles of establishing an Official List may be used. Certainly it would avoid confusion in this case and action by the Commission in this respect would be highly desirable. 6. The only comment elicited by the publication of this applica- tion in the Bulletin was a letter (dated 20th April 1947) in which Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copen- hagen) indicated his support for the action proposed by writing Bie word ~ Yes ’’. WiIl—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 7. The present application was considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Thirteenth Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi- théatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 1730 hours. This case was presented to the Commission by the Acting President (Mr. Francis Hemming). The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commission at the foregoing meeting giving a summary of the discussion which the ensued (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 396) :— In the following discussion, the view was expressed that it would be a disaster if the Law of Priority were to be allowed to create the confusion which would be inevitable unless the Com- mission used their Plenary Powers in the manner proposed. 8. The decision on this case reached by the International Commission at the foregoing meeting, as set out in the Official Record of its Proceedings, is as follows (Paris Session, 13th 12 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Meeting, Conclusion 34) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 396— ~ 397) :— . THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their Plenary Powers :— (a) to set aside all selections of the type species of the under-mentioned genera made prior to the present decision :— (1) Hemerobius Linnaeus, 1758 ; (ii) Chrysopa Leach, 1815 ; (b) to designate Hemerobius humulinus Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of the genus Hemerobius Linnaeus, 1758 ; (c) to designate Hemerobius perla Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of the genus Chrysopa Leach, SIS 3 (2) to place the under-mentioned names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Hemerobius Linnaeus, 1758 (with the type species designated in (1)(b) above) ; (b) Chrysopa Leach, 1815 (with the type species designated in (1)(c) above) ; (3) to place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— (a) humulinus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Hemerobius humulinus) ; (b) per/a Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Hemerobius perla) ; (4) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (3) above. OPINION 211 13 9. The following are the original references for the names which appear in the decision set out in paragraph 8 above :— Chrysopa Leach, 1815, Brewster’s Edinb. Ency. 9(1) : 138 Hemerobius Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 549 humulinus, Hemerobius, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10)1 : 550 perla, Hemerobius, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 549 10. The genders of the generic names Hemerobius Linnaeus, 1758, and Chrysopa Leach, 1815, referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 8 above, are masculine and feminine res- pectively. 11. 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 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 107). 12. 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. 13. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the Paris Session. 14. 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 14 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. 15. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 16. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two Hundred and Eleven (211) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-Fourth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Three. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mretcatre & Cooprr Limitep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 4. Part 2. Pp. 15—24 OPINION 212 Designation of the dates to be accepted as the dates of publication of the several volumes of Pallas (P.S.), Zoographia rosso-asiatica —<—<—— mete lat VP {> a\i i pot @ Nia , A i vo ‘/ * ( APR 30 1954 }) ~ LIBRARY a 7 LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Three Shillings and Ninepence (All rights reserved) Issued 8th March, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 212 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 Zoologisk 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. ne 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). Professér 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 Zoologisk 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 212 DESIGNATION OF THE DATES TO BE ACCEPTED AS THE DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL VOLUMES OF PALLAS (P.S.), ‘““ZOOGRAPHIA ROSSO-ASIATICA ”’ RULING :—(1) The dates to be assigned to the several volumes of Pallas (P.S.), Zoographia rosso-asiatica are as follows : Volume 1, 1811; Volume 2, 1811; Volume 3, [1814]. (2) In view of (1) above, new names published in the foregoing work rank for purposes of priority as from the dates severally specified above. (3) The fore- going work with the ruling specified in (1) above is hereby placed on the Official List of Zoological Works Approved as Available in Zoological Nomenclature as Work No. 3. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 7th April 1934 the late Mr. W. L. Sclater, writing on behalf of the Committee of the British Ornithologists’ Union dealing with the nomenclature of British birds, addressed an inquiry to the then Secretary of the International Commission (the late Dr. C. W. Stiles) as to the dates which should be accepted as those from which names published in the several volumes of Pallas’s Zoographia rosso-asiatica ranked for purposes of priority. 2. In May 1934 this inquiry was brought to the notice of the International Commission by Dr. Stiles in Circular Letter 256. 18 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS In March 1935 this case was included in the Agenda then issued for the Session which the Commission was to hold at Lisbon later that year. When, however, the Commission assembled at Lisbon in September 1935, the Secretary was absent through ill-health and the documents relating to this case were not available. The Commission accordingly found itself unable to deal with the present application. 3. In October 1936, Mr. Francis Hemming was elected Secre- tary to the Commission on the retirement of Dr. Stiles, and in the following month (on 18th November) Mr. Sclater addressed to him a further letter on this subject. In his reply (dated Sth February 1937), Mr. Hemming expressed the view that the question at issue was one which could be settled only by obtaining an authoritative ruling from the International Commission, and he suggested therefore that the Commission should be asked to render an Opinion on this subject. In 1938 the documents relating to this and other current cases were transferred to Mr. Hemming’s care, and on the re-organisation of the Secretariat then carried out, the two sets of documents relating to this case were brought together, being given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.)25. It had not been possible to advance the consideration of this case when 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 International Com- mission for decision. Work was at once started on outstanding applications with a view to arranging for their publication in the newly established Bulletin. The death of Mr. Sclater as the result of injuries received during an air raid on London made it necessary for the Secretary himself to decide how best this case should be brought before the International Commission. After consultation with Dr. Karl Jordan, then President of the Commission, Mr. Hemming decided that the best course would be to publish in the Bulletin the letter which he had received from Mr. Sclater in 1936, to which he added one paragraph (inserted as the concluding paragraph) from the earlier letter of 1934 which deait with an OPINION 212 19 aspect of the problem not mentioned in the later letter. The application so settled was as follows :— On the date as from which the names published in Pallas (P.S.), ** Zoographia Rosso-Asiatica ”’ are available nomenclatorially By W. L. SCLATER, M.A. The question of the date of publication of Pallas, Zoographia rosso- asiatica is one which has caused us a good deal of troubled discussion and I have been asked to inquire whether the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature would take the matter up and give a decision. The facts are well known and are given in some detail in a short paper in the /bis 1934 : 164 by Dr. C. D. Sherborn, a copy of which is attached hereto (see Annex). The question really resolves itself into what constitutes publication. Some copies of Pallas are dated ‘“‘ 1811”, and there can be no doubt that the book was in the hands of some zoologists soon after that date, but owing to political troubles in Russia at that time and the Napoleonic invasion, the bulk of the edition was not issued till many years later. Most of the copies are dated “ 1831”. But from the point of view of the nomenclature of our British birds the matter is of considerable importance, as a number of new names were introduced in the work which, if dated as from 1811, would be valid, but, if dated as from 1827 or 1831, would be invalidated by other names introduced by authors whose work was published between 1811 and 1827. Annex to application submitted by Mr. W. L. Sclater on the date of Pallas’s ‘‘ Zoographia Rosso-Asiatica ”’ By the late C. D. SHERBORN, D.Sc. In order to clear away the numerous misunderstandings surrounding the dates of this work, my friend Mr. Norman Kinnear has asked me to codify and publish the notes made by me over a period of forty-five years. Pallas’s work consisted of three volumes. There were two issues, which differ slightly in the title-pages. Some of these copies are dated : 20 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Vol. 1. 1811 ; vol. 2. 1811; vol. 3. no date. Other copies, and these the most common, were dated: Vol. 1. 1831; vol. 2. 1831; vol. 3. 1831. Of the former, I have known copies in the British Museum (Nat. Hist.), O. Salvin, A. Newton, G. M. Mathews, E. Eversmann, and other libraries. Of the latter numerous copies are known, and need not be detailed. The work was known to many of the principal zoologists of Europe when it first appeared (see note to Cuvier no. 9), and the following notes will be of interest as proving the point :— 1. Rudolphi (Beitr. z. Anthrop. (Berlin), 1812, p. 70) refers to Pars Prima (1811), 568 pp. ; Pars Secunda (1812), no pp. These he received after Pallas’s death, which occurred on 8th September 1811, and, therefore, he may have received the Pars Secunda later than the Pars Prima. Rudolphi also refers in his Entoz. Syn. 1819, pp. 56 and 59, to Pallas, vol. 3, pp. 102 and 409, as “ Petrop. 1813’. 2. In Isis (Oken), 1819, Litt. Anz. p. 186, a note says the plates are being engraved under the direction of Tilesius, and that the first two volumes are printed off (Mamm. Birds, Reptiles, Fishes). 3. Tilestus, Add. Conch. ad Zoogr. Rosso-Asiat. in Mém. Ac. Imp. Sci. St. Pétersbourg, 8, 1817—1818 (1822), read Ist November 1820, p. 293. The opening sentence of this paper leads one to infer that Pallas’s work was then accessible. See entry under Jsis (No. 2). 4. Eversmann (Reise von Orenburg, Berlin, 1823) refers on p. 117 to the Zoographia as “ Petrop. 1811, 3 vols. 4to ’’, and in his text quotes vols. 1, 2 and 3 (up to p. 31). 5. Lichtenstein (Abh. k. pr. Ak. Wiss. 1822—1823 (1825), p. 6) refers to Zoogr. 1, p. 117. In Ersch & Gruber, Allg. Ency., 19, 1829, p. 255, he Telers’ to Zeogra 3. paso: 6. Meyendorff (Voy. d’Orenbourg, 8°, Paris, 1826, p. 381) says : ** Petrop. 1811, 3 vol. in 4to, ouvrage qui n’est pas encore assez connue”’. 7. Gloger (N. Acta Ac. Caes. 13(2) 1827, p. 484) quotes Zoogr. 1, 135 as a rare book. 8. Nitzsch. (Ersch & Gruber, Allg. Ency., 16, 1927, p. 152) quotes vol. 2. 9. Cuvier (Régne Anim. ed. 2, ii, 1829, p. 163, and iii, 1829, p. 398) says “ Ouvrage que lon n’a pu rendre public parceque les cuivres en sont egarés. Neanmoins l’Academie de Pétersbourg a bien volu en accorder le texte a quelques naturalistes’’. In the Hist. Poiss. 1. 1828, p. 200, he says ; “‘ n’a point encore été publié ”’. Further, in the Hist. Poiss., Cuvier and Valenciennes in it, 1828, p. 117, and iv, 1829, p. 152, quote the Zoogr. vol. tii, pp. 126 and 246. Eo OPINION 212 21 10. Eschscholtz (Zool. Atlas, 3, 1829) quotes the Zoogr., 2, p. 362. 11. In Froriep, Notizen, 28, 1830, p. 151, there is a notice of vol. 3. 12. In Rev. Ency., 49, March 1831, p. 726, is a note to say that the drawings and plates have been recovered from Leipzig by v. Behr (Baer) and presented to the Academy of St. Petersburg on 18th and 25th October 1830. The Zoographia formed the subject of a paper by von Baer in 1831 (re-issued in 1832) in a thin quarto of 36 pp. published in Koenigsberg. From this I can only quote some essentials. Baer says :—The text of the Mammals and Birds was sent by Pallas in 1806. Printing began towards the end of 1807 under the eye of Tilesius, and these portions were completely printed just after Pallas’s death. The printing of the Fishes was finished in the year 1814. In 1826 the Academy held a commission to put the three volumes on sale: “L’Académie s’est determinée a le mettre 4 vente”’. For all the elaborate details | must refer the reader to this pamphlet. The Zoographia was also the subject of remarks by Strauch in 1873 (Mém. Ac. Imp. Sci. St. Pétersbourg (7) xxi. p. 7), who says the Herpetology was all printed by 1811, but plates were delayed for 20 years later. The work appeared in 1831 with new title-pages, and was put into the booksellers’ hands. Seebohm in 1882 wrote a note to “ The Ibis’’, 1882, p. 425, but Alfred Newton in a letter to me of 7th March 1891, calls it an “ extra- ordinary assertion”’, and says that Seebohm in “ The Ibis”, 1882, p. 611, was satisfied that he had been in error, and declared his former statement to be a “‘ myth’. Alfred Newton, who was most learned on the subject, wrote me four letters upon it between 1891 and 1906. The general delay was caused by Pallas’s obstinate determination to have his plates done by Geissler, the Leipzig engraver, as is stated in a note issued by the Academy of St. Petersburg, in 1826, p. 16. From what has been quoted above it is quite clear that vols. | and 2 were available to the first zoologists of Europe in 1811 and vol. 3 in 1814, and these are the dates that I adopted in my /ndex Animalium and those which should be accepted. Some prints from certain missing plates (unpublished) are said to exist in Berlin (where, also, are Pallas’s types), as well as in St. Petersburg. The British Museum (Nat. Hist.), Rothschild, Tweeddale, Salvin, and Zoological Society’s copies of the work seem to be all alike as to plates. DD OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 4. The application in regard to the present case 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 February 1947 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 198—200). 5. As this case involved the problem of what constitutes ‘“ publication ’”’ for the purposes of the Rég/es, its further con- sideration was postponed until the meeting of the Commission in Paris in the following year when it had been arranged that the general problem involved should be brought forward for decision. Wi.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 6. The present application was considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Thirteenth Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi- théatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 1730 hours. This case was presented to the Commission by the Acting President (Mr. Francis Hemming), who recalled that, prior to the opening of the Paris Congress, there had existed no guiding principle by which the Commission could have considered the present application. During the Paris Congress, that difficulty, however, had been removed by the provisions which it had been agreed to recommend should be inserted in the Rég/es, (1) defining the meaning to be attached to the expression “ divuigué dans une publication ” as used in Article 25 (Paris Session, 7th Meeting, Conclusion 15) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 215—221), and (2) prescribing the method to be adopted in determining the date to be accepted as the date of publication for any given work (Paris Session, 7th Meeting, Conclusion 18) (1950, ibid. 4 : 223225). The foliowing is an extract from the Official Record of the Pro- ceedings of the International Commission at the foregoing meeting, which sets out the decision reached by it in this case in the light of the decisions on the underlying questions of principle, on which (as explained above) decisions had been reached earlier OPINION 212 Z 23 during the Paris Congress (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 39) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 ; 402—403) :— THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that under the provisions added to the Régles during the present Congress the dates to be assigned to the several volumes of Pallas (P.S.), Zoographia rosso-asiatica were :— Volume 1 1811 Volume 2 1811 Volume 3 [1814]; (2) that, in view of (1) above, new names published in the foregoing work rank for purposes of priority as from the dates severally specified above ; - (3) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) and (2) above. 7. 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 Zoological Works Approved as Available in Zoological Nomenclature and directing the insertion therein of the title of any work which the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature might declare to be an available work, together with any supplementary decisions which the International Commission might take in regard to any aspect of such a work (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 24). Since the foregoing provision applies to past, as well as to future, decisions by the International Commission in cases of this kind, the oppor- tunity presented by the preparation of the present Opinion has been taken to record the insertion in the foregoing Official List of the title of Pallas’s Zoographia rosso-asiatica, together with particulars of the decision in regard thereto set out in the present Opinion. 24 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 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. 2508): 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 Dalman; 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. 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 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. 12. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two Hundred and Twelve (212) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-Fifth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Three. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mretcatre & Cooper LimiTEepD, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 ee OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, CM.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 4. Part 3. Pp. 25—40 OPINION 213 Determination of the type species of the genus Schwagerina von Mdller, 1877 (Class Rhizopoda, Order Foraminifera) ee ceraiataitinen SAIC NAL 5 LIC? iP , 4A, wi \1 MoU Las om YN fi? . {ff “y j f/ al gt es fy AD 4 \ ri NOVY Iiuwo™ \\ \ XY. LIpRARN 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 Six Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 8th March, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 213 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 Zoologisk 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 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 Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). aA ue L. Usincer (University of California, Berkeley, California, OPINION 213 DETERMINATION OF THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS ‘“ SCHWAGERINA ”’ YON MOLLER, 1877 (CLASS RHIZOPODA, ORDER FORAMINIFERA) RULING :—(1) Under the Rég/es, the type species of Schwagerina von Moller, 1877 (Class Rhizopoda, Order Foraminifera) is Borelis princeps Ehrenberg, 1842, the sole nominal species cited by von Moller when he first published the name Schwagerina, and not the species which that author had misidentified with von Moller’s species and which he had before him when he established the foregoing genus, a species which was at that time unnamed but which has since received the name Schwag- erina moelleri Rauser-Chernoussova, 1937. (2) Having regard to the delay which occurred in dealing with this case and without prejudice to the Ruling which might have been given if this case had been dealt with promptly and therefore before the situation had developed in the way that it did subsequent to 1935, it is not desirable in existing circumstances that the Plenary Powers should be used to vary the application of the Rég/es in the present case. (3) In view of (2) above, the under-mentioned generic names, with the type species severally specified below, are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 646 and 647 :—(a) Schwagerina von Moller, 1877 (gender of name: feminine) (type species, by monotypy: ABorelis princeps Ehrenberg, 1842); (b) Pseudoschwagerina Dunbar & Skinner, 1935 (gender of name: feminine) (type species, by original designation : Schwagerina uddeni Beede & Kniker, 1924). (4) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby _ placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 23 to 25:—(a) moelleri Rauser- Chernoussova, 1937, as published in the combination Schwagerina moelleri ; (b) princeps Ehrenberg, 1842, as 28 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS published in the combination Borelis princeps ;. (€) ‘uddeni Beede & Kniker, 1924, as . published in--the combination Schwagerina uddeni. 5 rains I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE The case of the name Schwagerina von Moller, 1877, was first brought to the attention of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on 23rd September 1935 by Dr. Carl O. Dunbar (Yale University, Peabody Museum of Natural History, New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A.), who, after pointing out that it had now been established that this genus had been based upon a misidentified type species, expressed the view that the intro- duction, as required by the Rules, of a new generic name for the generic unit hitherto known as Schwagerina would be “ unfor- tunate in view of the fact that the ‘Schwagerina’ is widely — known as a guide fossil to the Lower Permian formations through- out the Northern Hemisphere”; Dr. Dunbar had gone on to enquire whether it would be worth presenting to the Commission a request that it should “set aside the types and validate the genus Schwagerina in terms of the current conception”. Being unable to obtain an answer to the foregoing question from the Secretary to the Commission, Dr. Dunbar felt bound strictly to apply to this case the Rules as they then existed. This led to the publication in March 1936 (J. Paleont. 10 : 83—91) of a paper in which, with Dr. Skinner, Dr. Dunbar proposed the displacement of Pseudofulina Dunbar & Skinner, 1931, by Schwag- erina von Moller, 1877, and the introduction of the nominal genera Pseudoschwagerina and Paraschwagerina for the species till then included in the genus Schwagerina von MOller. 2. In May 1939 the papers relating to this and other current cases were transferred to the care of Mr. Francis Hemming who in October 1936 had been elected Secretary to the Commission on the retirement of Dr. Stiles. These documents were then given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.)87. In September 1939 the outbreak of war in Europe 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. OPINION 213 29 Some three months later Dr. Hubert B. Schenck (Stanford University, Department of Geology, Stanford, California, U.S.A.) wrote to the Commission (on 17th November 1939), asking that, if in the conditions of the time the Commission was in a position to proceed with its work, it should declare the generic name Schwagerina Moller, 1877, to be a Nomen Conservandum, with Schwagerina princeps (MGller) nec Ehrenberg as its type species. The Secretariat 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 International Commission for decision. Work was at once started on outstanding applications with a view to arranging for their publication in the newly estab- lished Bulletin. The present was one of the first cases to be taken up in this way, Mr. Hemming writing to Dr. Schenck in regard to it on 3rd February 1943. In his reply dated 26th April 1943, Dr. Schenck reviewed the history of this case and reached the conclusion which, he explained, was shared by Professor M. L. Thompson (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) that, in view of the way in which the situation had developed, the best course in the interests of stability in nomenclature would be to accept Schwagerina von Moéller, as strictly interpreted under the Régles, and to apply the name Pseudoschwagerina Dunbar & Skinner to the genus which had for so long been incorrectly known as Schwagerina. On behalf of Professor Thompson and himself Dr. Schenck accordingly asked that the Commission should give a ruling in this sense. 3. The following is the application so submitted to the Inter- national Commission by Dr. Schenck :— On the Type of the genus ‘‘ Schwagerina ’”’ von Moller, 1877 (Class Rhizopoda, Order Foraminifera) By HUBERT G. SCHENCK (Department of Geology, Stanford University, California.) The present application to the International Commission in regard to the name Schwagerina von Miller, 1877, N. Jahrb. Min. 1877 : 143 was prepared in consultation with Professor M. L. Thompson, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, and, though the views 30 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS expressed in it are mine, they are shared in all essential points by him. The following is a summary of the Schwagerina problem :— (1) The name Schwagerina was proposed by V. von Moller in 1877 and is valid according to the International Rules, that is to say (a) it is not a homonym of any earlier generic name and (b) it is the earliest available name for either of the species which might be regarded as its type. (2) Von Mdller said that “a typical species”’ of Schwagerina in Borelis princeps Ehrenberg, 1842, K. preuss. Akad. Wiss., Berlin 1842 : 274. That species accordingly thus became Schwagerina princeps (Ehrenberg). Later writers were unanimous in accepting this species as the genotype of Schwagerina von Moller, and it has been established by several subsequent workers beyond question as the genotype of this genus. (3) The type locality of Schwagerina princeps (Ehrenberg) is the late Paleozoic limestone outcropping in Pinega Valley, Archangel, U.S.S.R. (4) Ehrenberg’s original specimens differ morphologically from the specimens which Mdller had in hand when he named the genus Schwagerina. (5) The specimens incorrectly identified by Moller as Schwagerina princeps (Ehrenberg) have been named Schwagerina moelleri by Rauser-Chernoussova, 1937, Bull. Acad. Sci. U.R.S.S. 1936 : 578—S579. (6) Dunbar and Skinner hold that only specimens closely similar to Schwagerina princeps (Ehrenberg)—not Schwagerina princeps (Ehren- berg) as identified by von M6ller—can be correctly allocated to the restricted genus Schwagerina von Moller. (7) Therefore, Dunbar and Skinner assert that specimens of S. moelleri Rauser-Chernoussova, 1937, and related species must be assigned to another genus which in 1935 they named Pseudo- schwagerina Dunbar & Skinner, 1935, J. Palaeont. 10 : 83, with Schwagerina uddeni Beede & Kniker, 1924, Univ. Texas Bull. 2432 : 27, pl. 1 figs. 1—2, pl. 4 fig. 10, pl. 6 figs. 1—2, 5—7, as type by original designation. This species was described originally from the Wolfcamp formation, late Paleozoic, of Texas. (8) The genus Schwagerina, as conceived by the original author (von Moller) who misidentified material as “ Borealis princeps” Ehrenberg, had become thoroughly entrenched in the geological literature prior to 1935. Since 1935, the names Pseudoschwagerina Dunbar & Skinner, 1936, and Schwagerina von Méller, as interpreted by Dunbar & Skinner have become adopted by most workers to replace the old concept. (9) Rauser-Chernoussova in 1937 (Bull. Acad. Sci. U.R.S.S. 1936 : 577—584) expressed the opinion that the International Commission EEE o OPINION 213 31 should suspend the rules in order that the generic name Schwagerina might be employed in the sense conceived of by von MGller and as used for fifty-nine years—from 1877 to 1936.*) The above is an objective statement of the case—at least as nearly objective as I can make it. I have introduced no opinions, except biological ones. For example, it is an opinion that “* Borelis princeps ”’ Ehrenberg is generically distinct from the species which von MoOller described and illustrated, under the trivial name princeps. I thus arrive at the question: Should our concept of the genus Schwagerina von Moller be based upon the original specimens of ‘“‘ Borelis princeps”’ Ehrenberg—the genotype of Schwagerina von Mdller—or upon the material which Valerian von MOller had in hand when he named the genus? What will cause the least confusion, to return to Médller’s concept or to accept Pseudoschwagerina Dunbar & Skinner ? Since Dunbar and Skinner took the course they did, and since the International Commission did not act promptly in 1937 to save the generic name Schwagerina in the sense conceived of by von Moller, I believe that greater stability will be now introduced into zoological nomenclature by adopting the generic name Schwagerina von Moller as restricted by Dunbar and Skinner. Professor M. L. Thompson concurs that the Commission should stabilise the nomenclature of this group by rendering such a decision. IL—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 4. The application received from Dr. Schenck in 1943 threw an entirely new light upon the present case, the original enquiry regarding which received from Dr. Dunbar in 1935 havingevidently become out of date. Before Dr. Schenck’s application could be published in the Bulletin, it was necessary to clear up certain bibliographical obscurities, and this led to correspondence between Mr. Hemming and Dr. Carl O. Dunbar, Professor M. L. Thompson and Dr. Myra Keen, who, in the absence from the United States of Dr. Schenck on foreign service, kindly assisted also in this matter. In the following paragraphs extracts are given from this correspondence, in so far as the letters received dealt directly with question of the action which it was desirable should be taken by the Commission. * The International Commission received a preliminary inquiry in regard to this case from Dr. Carl O. Dunbar in September 1935, but they never received any communication on this subject from Dr. Rauser-Chernoussova. (int’d) F.H. 32 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 5. Comment by Dr. Carl O. Dunbar (Yale University, Peabody Museum of Natural History, New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A.) (extract from a letter dated 9th June 1943): The following is an extract from a letter dated 9th June 1943 received from Dr. Carl O. Dunbar (Yale University, Peabody Museum of Natural History, New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A.) :— When I first wrote to Dr. Stiles, on September 23rd 1935, I had just discovered that the types of the species which Mdller had designated as genotype of Schwagerina do not have the internal characteristics which he supposed they had and which had later been assumed to characterise that genus. At that time it seemed desirable to set aside that genotype in order to avoid the confusion of redefining the genus Schwagerina. On the other hand, a strict interpretation of the Rules appeared to make it obligatory to interpret the genus in accordance with its named genotype, and, unless the Commission would agree to set aside the designated genotype, there appeared to be no alternative. In view of the then dormant condition of the Commission, I decided to stick to the Rules and redefine the genus. Since then this new inter- pretation of the genus has become widely accepted and has been adopted in extensive publications in various parts of the world, and it would now appear to be extremely unfortunate if we should set aside the rules and turn back to the older interpretation. The essential facts were presented in the following publication : Schwagerina versus Pseudoschwagerina and Paraschwagerina, by Carl O. Dunbar and John W. Skinner, Journal of Paleontology, vol. 10, 1936, pages 83—91, and plates 10—11. The genus Schwagerina was proposed by von Moller in 1877 in a short paper in which he redefined and restricted the genus Fusulina and proposed three new genera for the excluded species, the first of which genera was Schwagerina. The remaining two genera were distinguished essentially on wall structure, but Fusulina and Schwagerina were distinguished chiefly on the basis of form, the first including long, slender, fusiform species, and the latter those of globular shape. The original diagnosis of Schwagerina was followed by the words, “ Als eine typische Form derselben sche ich die Schwagerina princeps Ehrenb. an’’, and this bears a footnote reference to Ehrenberg’s original description and figures of that species. This appears to constitute a definite designation of the genotype and has been so considered by later workers. Furthermore, this species, and no other, has been repeatedly cited by subsequent authors as genotype. For example, Staff (1909, p. 506) cited it in this form, “ Typus: Schw. princeps Ehrenberg ”’. “Méller’s paper bore the title “ Ueber Fusulinen und ahnliche Foraminiferen-Formen des russichen Kohlenkalkes (Vorlaufige Notiz)’’. It was written in general terms and does not refer to any particular OPINION 213 33 material which he may have had under study. It may be presumed that it was based upon the literature. In this paper Mdller did not describe the genotype species. About a year later, he applied the name Schwagerina princeps to a globular shell superficially resembling Borelis princeps Ehrenberg, but one which we now know has a very different interior. The shell which he then figured had a tightly coiled juvenarium, followed by abrupt and rapid inflation, and this character subsequently came to be regarded as the diagnostic feature of the genus Schwagerina. Meanwhile, however, the real Borelis princeps Ehrenberg was never restudied until the original types were loaned to Dunbar through the kindness of Dr. O. H. Schindewolf, director of the Reichmuseum in Berlin. The study by Dunbar and Skinner, in 1936, showed that the expansion of the shell is gradual in the original type of the named genotype and that it has the character for which Dunbar and Skinner had previously proposed the name Pseudo: fusulina. Accordingly, Pseudofusulina was thrown into synonymy of Schwagerina, and the latter was rediagnosed in accordance with the named genotype. Schwagerina was used in this new sense by Dunbar and Skinner in a monograph on the Permian Fusulinidae of Texas, in 1937, and has now been adopted by most all of the specialists in the study of this group, both here and abroad. For example, it was accepted in a postscript to a big monograph by Huzimoto in Japan in 1936, and I know from personal communication is accepted by Hanzawa in Japan, and by Chen in China, and it was accepted by Kahler and Kahler in a monograph on fusulines from the Carnic Alps in 1937, and was adopted by a committee of Russian specialists who published the Atlas of the Leading Forms of the Fossil Fauna of the U.S.S.R., volume 6, The Permian, in 1939. In America it has been adopted by Henbest, and Needham, and Cushman, as well as by Skinner and Dunbar, and it is already widely used by stratigraphers. In fact, the name Schwagerina has probably been more extensively used in this new sense since 1936 than it was used in the other sense in all the preceding years. Accordingly, it would now cause more confusion to set aside the Rules of Nomenclature and return to the previous erroneous interpretation than it would to preserve the new usage. In short, the situation has completely changed since I first wrote to Dr. Stiles. 6. Comment by Professor M. L. Thompson (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) (extract from a letter dated 27th September 1944): The following is an extract from a letter dated 27th September 1944 received from Professor M. L. Thompson (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) :— It was long recognised by me and by other students of the fusulinids prior to the time that Dunbar and Skinner re-studied the type speci- mens of Borelis princeps Ehrenberg in 1936 that Méller might have misidentified his specimens in 1877 as belonging to Ehrenberg’s species. 34 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Therefore, it was recognised that our concept of the genus Schwagerina might have been erroneous. The opinion was published by me and others prior to 1936 that after a study of Ehrenberg’s types by modern methods, it might be necessary that the genus Schwagerina be redefined. However, there was little, if any doubt expressed by anyone prior to 1936 that the type of the genus Schwagerina Moller, 1877, was Borelis princeps Ehrenberg, 1842. I cannot feel certain that Moller ever actually examined Ehrenberg’s type specimens of Borelis princeps before he proposed the genus Schwagerina in 1877. Yet I am not sure but that he may have examined Ehrenberg’s specimens. At the same time it cannot be demonstrated that in 1877 Moller thoroughly understood the nature of the species which he described the following year as Schwagerina princeps and which Rauser-Chernoussova renamed Schwagerina moelleri in 1936. I believe the correction and reclassification proposed by Dunbar and Skinner has done much to stabilise our classification of the fusulinids, and that the temporary confusion that their discovery may have caused has practically ceased to exist. That is certainly true among most specialists of the fusulinids. At least it is certain that confusion would be repeated again if Schwagerina were to be redefined at this time. 7. Dr. Schenck’s application (paragraph 3) 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 March 1947 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 271—272). 8. Comment by the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America (dated 6th November 1947): The publication of the present application in the Bulletin elicited support for the action proposed from the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America. The views of the Joint Committee were notified to the International Commission in a letter dated 6th November 1947 from Dr. J. Brookes Knight (Research Associate, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.), who at that time was Chairman of the Joint Committee. The following is the text of Dr. Knight’s letter :— On 3rd July 1947 the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America submitted to the member- ship of the Committee for consideration and approval a resolution on the above subject. The resolution (as well as some others submitted on the same date) was the result of a recommendation of Prof. Gayle Scott, a former member of the Committee. Since it contains some points that may be relevant to the Commission’s consideration of OPINION 213 35 Prof. Schenck’s petition the Chairman’s letter laying the resolution before the Committee is quoted : Professor Scott comments as follows :— It is my thought that Dunbar and Skinner were entirely legalistic and followed the correct course. Von MOller did name princeps as the type of Schwagerina. The fact that he mis- identified specimens in his hands does not affect the legal standing of his designation. In the case Schenck does not ask for suspension of the Régles but an affirmation of the course taken by Dunbar and Skinner in recognising “ legally ” that the type of Schwagerina is Borelis princeps Ehrenberg, not what von Mller misidentified as that species. Since the action of Dunbar and Skinner, although strictly legal, did cause great confusion for a period of years both in zoological and stratigraphical nomenclature, there might have been made a good cause for suspension at the time they wrote. Actually I am informed that Dunbar did take it up with the Secretary of the Commission but since the Commission was then inactive for various regrettable reasons he received no reply and, in default of one, felt constrained to act strictly in accordance with the Régles. One might argue that, because the great bulk of the really important literature on fusulinids was written in the last few years and embodied the strictly legal action of Dunbar and Skinner in recognising Borelis princeps Ehrenberg as the genotype of Schwagerina von Moller, no action by the Commission is necessary. However, a small residuum of confusion persists in that a few workers still refuse to abide by the Régles and have seemingly considered asking for Suspension. Hence Schenck’s proposal that the Commission place Schwagerina on the official list with B. princeps Ehrenberg as its genotype seems a wise one. Therefore I present to you the following resolution for your action :— “RESOLVED: That the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America support the petition of H. G. Schenck that the generic name Schwagerina von Moller, 1877, be placed on the official list with Borelis princeps Ehrenberg, 1842, as its genotype. The vote on the Resolution was 11 committeemen in the affirmative with no committeemen in the negative. Stenzel was away and did not vote. Comments were as follows :— Romer—Agree to resolution, although with regret that inactivity prevented suspension of the Rules here earlier. Keen—It should be noted that there is a typographical error in the petition by H. G. Schenck as printed in the Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 1, pt. 11, p. 271. The generic name is Borelis, not Borealis. Although 36 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS there seems to be no opportunity of correcting this error, at least the recommendation of our Committee should not perpetuate it. The Commission will note that the Committee’s Chairman has acted on Keen’s suggestion and has corrected Borealis to Borelis. It suggests that the Commission do likewise if it issues an Opinion. In view of the above unanimous vote, the Joint Committee hereby transmits its Resolution to the Commission. _ [i.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 9. Before dealing with the present application, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Paris Session in 1948 considered, and formulated recommendations regarding, the provisions which it was desirable should be inserted in the Régles on the subject of the species to be accepted as the type species of a nominal genus established on a misidentified species. This general question was considered by the Commission at the Sixth Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphithéatre Louis-Liard on 22nd July 1948 at 1700 hours. The recommendation which the Commission then agreed to submit to the Paris Congress and which was later approved by that Congress was that there should be inserted in the Régles a provision prescribing : (1) that in any given case the initial assumption to be adopted should be that the author of a generic name had correctly identified the nominal species referred by him to the genus so named ; (2) that, where, on evidence being furnished by specialists, the Commission was satisfied that the foregoing assumption, as applied to the species designated or indicated or later selected as the type species of the genus concerned was incorrect, it should be required to use its Plenary Powers to designate, as the type species, the species intended by the original author when citing the name of the erroneously determined species, or, if the identity of that species was doubtful, a species in harmony with current nomenclatorial usage, save that, where the Com- mission was of the opinion that confusion would result from so doing, it should be its duty to direct the acceptance of the designation, indication, or, as the case might be, the selection, as the type species, of the nominal species cited by the original 1 This error has been corrected wherever it would otherwise have cccurred in the present Opinion. OPINION 213 37 author of the genus. The full text of the recommendation so adopted is given in the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission at its Session held in Paris in 1948 (Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 38) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 158—159). The foregoing decision was reviewed by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Copenhagen in 1953, but the only changes made were concerned either with matters of drafting or with other aspects of the general problem involved and did not in any way affect the substance of the decision taken by the Paris Congress (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 68—69). 10. The present application was considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in the light of the decision summarised in the preceding paragraph 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 Commission then decided that the present was a case where the proper course would be to make use of the escape clause which it had inserted in the provision which it had agreed to submit to the Paris Congress on the general principle involved (paragraph 9), that is, that it should expressly rule that, notwithstanding the error of identification made by von Moller, when in 1877 he established the nominal genus Schwagerina, it was not desirable in existing circumstances to use the Plenary Powers to rectify the mistake so made. The Commission decided, therefore, to approve Dr. Schenck’s application (paragraph 3) that the true nominal species Borelis princeps Ehrenberg, 1842, should be officially accepted as the type species of the genus Schwagerina Moller, 1877. The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission at its Paris Session setting out the decision reached by it at the foregoing meeting in regard to this matter (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 18) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 461— 464) :— THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to place on record their regret at the delay which had occurred in reaching a decision on the present case, 38 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS a delay which, the Commission recognised, had prejudiced the issues involved ; (2) that, under the Régles the type species of the monotypical genue Schwagerina von Moller, 1877 (Class Rhizopoda, Order Foraminifera) was the species Borelis princeps Ehrenberg, 1842, the sole species cited by von Moller, when he first published the name Schwagerina, and not the species which that author had misidentified with the foregoing species and had before him when he established the foregoing genus, which, specialists were agreed, was the species that was at that time unnamed but had since received the name Schwagerina moelleri Rauser-Chernoussova, 1937 (3) that, having regard to the delay referred to in (1) above, and without prejudice to the decision which might have been taken if the case had been dealt with promptly and before therefore the situation had developed in the way that it did subsequent to 1935, it was not desirable in existing circumstances to use the Plenary Powers to vary the application of the Rég/es in the present case : (4) in view of (3) above to place the undermentioned generic names with the type species severally specified below, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— Schwagerina von Moller, 1877 (Class Rhizopoda, Order Foraminifera) (type species, by monotypy : Borelis princeps Ehrenberg, 1842) Pseudoschwagerina Dunbar & Skinner, 1935 (Class Rhizopoda, Order Foraminifera) (type species, by original designation: Schwagerina uddeni Beede and Kniker, 1924) ; _ (5) to place the undermentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— moelleri Rauser-Chernoussova, 1937 (as published inthe binominal combination Schwagerina moelleri) princeps Ehrenberg, 1842 (as published in the bi- nominal combination Borelis princeps) uddeni Beede and Kniker, 1924 (as published in the binominal combination Schwagerina uddeni) ; OPINION 213 39 (6) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (2) to (5) above. 11. The following are the original references for the names which appear in the decision set out in the immediately preceding paragraph :— moelleri, Schwagerina, Rauser-Chernoussova, 1937, Bull. Acad. Sci. URSS (Cl. sci. math. nat.) 1936 : 578—579 princeps, Borelis, Ehrenberg, 1842, Ber. Bekanntmachung geeignet. Verh. K. Preuss. Acad. Wiss. Berlin 1842 : 274 Pseudoschwagerina Dunbar & Skinner, 1936, /. Paleont. 10: 83—91 Schwagerina von Moller, 1877, N. Jahrb. Min. 1877 : 143 uddeni, Schwagerina, Beede & Kniker, 1924, Univ. Texas Bull. Non 2433: 27, pl. 1, figsil, 2; pl: 4); fig. 10; pl. 6; figs. 1—2, 5—7 12. The genders of the generic names Schwagerina von Moller, 1877, and Pseudoschwagerina Dunbar & Skinner, 1935, referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 10, are feminine. 13. 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 : 114). 14. 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. 40 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 15. The ruling given in the present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the Paris Session. 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 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 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. 18. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two Hundred and Thirteen (213) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-Sixth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Three. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by MetcaLtFe & Cooper Limitep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, CM.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 4. Part 4. Pp. 41—50 OPINION 214 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a type species of the genus Actinote Hiibner [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) in harmony with accustomed usage LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Three Shillings and Ninepence (All rights reserved) Issued 8th March, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 214 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 Zoologisk 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. 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. SToLyi (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 JornGE (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. RiLey (British Museum (Natural History), London, England). Professor Ragnar SPARCK (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). Ereleso Reve L. USINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). OPINION 214 DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF A TYPE SPECIES FOR THE GENUS “ ACTINOTE ” HUBNER [1819] (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) IN HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED USAGE RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers all type selections for the genus Actinote Hiibner [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and Papilio thalia Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated as the type species of this nominal genus. (2) The generic name Actinote Hubner [1819] (gender of name : feminine), with the type species designated under (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 648. (3) The specific name thalia Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio thalia, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 26. IL—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present application, which is based upon a paper by Mr. Francis Hemming published in March 1936 (Hemming, 1936, Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (B.) 5 : 56—57) was submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature jointly by Mr. Hemming and Mr. N. D. Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London) in May 1938. The application so 44 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS submitted, which on receipt was given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.)63, was as follows :— Proposed suspension of the Régles for ‘‘ Actinote’’ Hubner [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature), and N. D. RILEY (Keeper of the Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History).) ' HUBNER ([1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett (2) : 27) founded the genus Actinote Hiibner for four species which he cited as follows :— 208. Actinote Thalia Linn. Syst. Pep. [sic] 67. Cram. 246. A. 210. A. Epaea Cram. 230. B.C. 211. A. Eurita Cram. 233. A.B. 212. A. Amesis Cram. 104. F. Scudder (1875, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston, 10 : 102) designated the third of these species, Papilio eurita Cramer, as the type. Accordingly, it is necessary to determine the identity of the species so named by Cramer. An examination both of Cramer’s published plate and of the original drawings for that plate now in the British Museum (Natural History) show that Cramer figured two species under this name. Figure A on plate 233, which Cramer regarded as representing the ¢ of Papilio eurita, in fact represents a specimen of Bematistes umbra (Drury), 9-form fasciata (Auriv).1 Figure B on the same plate, which Cramer regarded as representing the 2 of Papilio eurita in fact represents a 2 of Bematistes macaria (Fabricius).+ It is clear from the text given by Cramer (1779, Uitl. Kapellen 3 (20): - 69, 70) that he did not regard himself as the author of the name Papilio eurita, for on the top of page 70 at the end of his account of this species he added the reference “* Linn. Syst. Nat. pag. 757. n. 69. Pap. Helicon. Clerck, icon. Tab. 31 Fig. 7.8’. This is the species first described as Papilio eurytus by Linnaeus in 1758 (Syst. Nat. ed. 10 : 487 no. 180), which is the species known to-day as Pseudacraea eurytus (Linnaeus). The position is, therefore, that Actinote Hiibner is a genus, of which the species selected as the type by a later author (Scudder, 1875) is a 1 Until recently these species were always referred to the genus Flanema Doubleday. Hemming has shown (1935, Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 83 : 435) that this use of the name is invalid and has proposed the name Bematistes Hemming (loc. cit. 83 : 374) for these species. OPINION 214 45 species which was erroneously determined by the author of the genus (Hiibner), for what Hiibner intended to include in the genus as species no. 211 was a species of the genus Bematistes Hemming figured by Cramer on plate 233 (though he did not realise that, in fact. Cramer had figured two different species of that genus as Figs. A and B respectively on that plate). NHiibner referred the species figured by Cramer to Papilio eurytus Linnaeus, 1758, because Cramer had done so and he did not realise that Cramer had made a mistake of identi- fication ; Hiibner certainly had no intention of including under the name Actinote euryta (Cramer) the species of the genus Pseudacraea Westwood [1850], to which in fact Linnaeus had given the name Papilio eurytus in 1758. The genus Actinote Hiibner is, therefore, a genus based upon an erroneously determined species: first, because Cramer confused together two species (of the genus Bematistes Hemming), and, second, because he confused his composite Bematistes species with the Pseuda- craea species which in 1758 Linnaeus had named Papilio eurytus. The status of genera based upon erroneously determined species has been dealt with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Opinion 65 (published in 1914); and the decision there laid down has since been elaborated by the Commission by the further decisions taken at Lisbon in 1935 and now embodied in Opinion 168. Under these decisions, it is necessary to assume that the species designated as the type of a genus is correctly identified by the original author of the genus and, where the type is designated by a later author, both by that author and by the original author, when including the species in question in the genus concerned. The Commission have, however, made it clear that, where in the opinion of the specialists in the group concerned any of the foregoing assumptions is at variance with the facts, the case should be submitted to the International Commission for decision. Under the foregoing decisions of the International Commission, it is necessary therefore to conclude that the type of the genus Actinote Hiibner is Papilio eurytus Linnaeus, 1758. In other words Pseudacraea Westwood ([1850], in Doubleday, Gen. diurn. Lep. (2) : 281) to which Papilio eurytus Linn. has hitherto been assigned, is a synonym of Actinote Hiibner. The position is, therefore, that if the rules were strictly applied in this case, the name Actinote Hiibner, which has till now been used for a genus of the subfamily ACRAEINAE would be transferred from that subfamily to the subfamily NY MPHALINAE, and would replace the name Pseudacraea Westwood, the species of which mimic those of the genus Acraea Fabricius, the leading genus in the subfamily ACRAEINAE. It is hardly possible to imagine a case in which the strict application of the rules could lead to greater confusion than would arise if the name Actinote Hiibner were transferred in this way. ~ 46 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS All these difficulties could be avoided if the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature were to cancel Scudder’s designation of Papilio eurita Cramer as the type of Actinote Hiibner, and were to declare its type to be Papilio thalia Linn., 1758, which is the first of the four species placed in this genus by Hiibner, and which has ever since been assigned to that genus. We accordingly recommend to the International Commission :— (a) that in virtue of the Plenary Powers conferred upon them by the International Zoological Congress, they should suspend the Régles in the case of the generic name Actinote Hiibner [1819] ; (b) that they should cancel the designation by Scudder in 1875 of Papilio eurita Cramer [1779] (recte Papilio eurytus Linn., 1758), as the type of Actinote Hiibner [1819] ; (c) that they should declare the type of Actinote Hiibner [1819] to be Papilio thalia Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat (ed. 10) 1 : 467); and (d) that they should add Actinote Hiibner [1819], with the type designated in (c) above, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. On 27th June 1939 a notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in the present case was issued to the serial pub- lications prescribed by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913. 3. The outbreak of war in Europe 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 in London was re-opened in 1942, and steps were immediately taken to establish the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as a means for bringing to the attention of zoologists applications submitted to the International Commission for decision. Work was at once started on outstanding applications with a view to arranging for their publication in the newly established Bulletin. The present case was sent to the printer in September 1944, but owing to paper rationing, shortage of labour at the printing works and similar causes publication did not actually take place until June 1946 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 186—187). OPINION 214 47 4. After the re-opening of the London Secretariat but before the present application was sent to the printer for publication in the Bulletin, a letter dated 20th October 1943, communicated by Mr. Riley, one of the co-applicants, was received from Dr. Robert W. L. Potts (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.), commenting upon the present case, as presented in Mr. Hemming’s original paper of 1936 (paragraph 1) and support- ing the action proposed. The following is an extract of the relevant portion of Dr. Potts’ letter :— I am enclosing copies of my very brief summary of certain work I have been doing on the Acraeinae .... As you will note, I decided for Papilio thalia Linnaeus, although I had not then come across the excellent discussion of the genotype by Hemming. (Due entirely to a too hurried search through the Zoological Record !) I hope that a decision has been, or will soon be, reached by the International Commission. With my feeling that Hiibner intended Actinote for the American Acraeinae, I should hate to see it go off somewhere else. 5. The only comment elicited by the publication of the present application in the Bulletin was a letter (dated 20th April 1947) in which Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen) indicated his support for the action proposed by writing the word “ Yes ”’. IH.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 6. The present application was considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Thirteenth Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi- théatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 1730 hours. The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Pro- ceedings of the International Commission setting out (1) the discussion which took place on the present application at the foregoing meeting, and (2) the decision then reached on it by the Commission (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 33) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 393—395) :— THE COMMISSION had under consideration an applica- tion (file Z.N.(S.)63) submitted jointly by Commissioner 48 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) and Mr. N. D. Riley (British Museum (Natural History) London) asking for the use by the Commission of their Plenary Powers for the purpose of designating Papilio thalia Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of the genus Actinote Hubner [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (Hemming and Riley, 1946, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 186—187). THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING), said that the present application, which had been submitted by Mr. Riley and himself as specialists in the Order Lepidoptera, was concerned to prevent the con- fusion which would arise if it were necessary to accept as the type species of the genus Actinote Hiibner not the species intended by the original author of the genus (a species of the subfamily ACRAEINAE of the family NYMPHALIDAE) but the species (of the subfamily NYMPHALINAE) to which the name of the type species properly applied. The present was therefore a case of a genus having as its type species an erroneously determined species, and, as such, was submitted to the Commission in accordance with the invitation given by the Commission when taking the decision later embodied in their Opinion 168, a decision which at the meeting noted in the margin held during the present Session was now to be incorporated in the Régles. No objection had been received from any source in regard to the action proposed in this case. ALTERNATIVE COMMISSIONER N. D. RILEY (UNITED KINGDOM) said that this case was of special importance, for the strict application of the Régles thereto would not only cause great confusion in the systematics of . the family concerned, but would also have the effect of sinking as a synonym the generic name Pseudacraea Westwood [1850], a name widely known to, and used by, workers in the field of mimicry. He commended this proposal to the favourable consideration of the Commission. OPINION 214 49 THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their Plenary Powers :— (a) to set aside all selections of the type species of the genus Actinote Hubner [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) made prior to the present decision ; (b) to designate Papilio thalia Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of the foregoing genus ; (2) to place the generic name Actinote Hubner [1819], with the type species designated in (1)(b) above, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the trivial name thalia Linnaeus, 1758 (as pub- lished in the binominal combination Papilio thalia) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; (4) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (3) above. 7. The following are the original references for the names which appear in the decision set out in the immediately preceding paragraph :— Actinote Hubner [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (2) : 27 thalia, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 467. 8. The gender of the generic name Actinote Hubner [1819], referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 6 is feminine. 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 Fifth Meeting held on Monday, 26th July, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 107). 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 ; 50 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Sparck vice Mortensen ; van Straelen vice Richter ; Usinger vice Vokes. 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 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. 14. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two Hundred and Fourteen (214) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-Sixth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Three. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Metcarre & Cooper Limitrep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.™.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 4, Part 5. Pp. 51—62. OPINION 215 Emendation to Palaconeilo of the generic name Palaeaneilo Hall, ‘1869 (Class Pelecypoda) 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) a Issued 31st March, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 215 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 Zoologisk 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., 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 Kirspy (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). Dr. Henning LemcuHe (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 Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). Professor Robert L. USINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S ojJe OPINION 215 EMENDATION TO ‘* PALAEONEILO ” OF THE GENERIC NAME ‘“ PALAEANEILO ” HALL, 1869 (CLASS PELECYPODA) RULING :—(1) It is “ évident’’ that the spelling of the generic name Palaeaneilo Hall, 1869(Class Pelecypoda) was a “ faute d’orthographe ’’, and the spelling of this name should therefore be emended to Palaeoneilo. (2) The generic name Palaeoneilo (emend. of Palaea- neilo) Hall, 1869 (gender of name: feminine) (type species, by original designation: Nuculites constricta Conrad (T.A.), 1842) is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 649. (3) The specific name constricta Conrad (T.A.), 1842, as published in the combination Nuculites constricta, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 27. (4) The Invalid Original Spelling Palaeaneilo Hall, 1869, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 27. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 19th January 1937 Dr. L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History), London) submitted an application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature asking for the use of the Plenary Powers in order to emend to Palaeoneilo the generic name Palaeaneilo Hall, 1869. Commenting on this proposal in the covering letter (of the same date) with which the foregoing application was submitted to the Commission, Dr. Cox observed : “The question of the emendation of etymologically incorrect names is a difficult one, but in this case the name in question was emended by its own author and has not been adopted in its original form by a single subsequent writer’. Dr. Cox’s application, as 54 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS subsequently slightly expanded in the light of correspondence with the Secretary, was as follows :— Proposed Suspension of the °** Régies ’’ for ‘‘ Palaeaneilo ’? Hall (J.), 1869 (Class Pelecypoda, Order Protobranchia) By L. R. COX, Sc.D. (Assistant Keeper in the Department of Geology, British Museum (Natural History)) I beg to submit the following application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :—That Rule 19 be suspended in the case of the generic name Palaeaneilo J. Hall, 1869, Prelim. Not. Lamellibr. Shells, Pt. 2 and that the emended name Palaeoneilo be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The genus “ Palaeaneilo”’ was founded by J. Hall in 1869 in a pamphlet entitled “Preliminary Notice of the Lamellibranchiate Shells of the Upper Helderberg, Hamilton and Chemung Groups, with others from the Waverly Sandstones, Part 2”, distributed by the New York State Cabinet of Natural History. The generic name was intended to suggest that the genus was ancestral to the living genus Neilo Adams, [1854], Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 20 (243) : 93, but it is spelt as above throughout Hall’s paper, occurring no fewer than fifteen times. A further species belonging to the genus was described in 1873 in a paper by J. Hall and R. P. Whitfield (23rd Ann. Rep. N.Y. State Cabinet : 241) in which the emended name Palaeoneilo is introduced without comment. This emended form is used in all subsequent papers by Hall, and has been adopted by all subsequent authors, few of whom, probably, have been able to consult the rare pamphlet in which the genus was first described. Palaeoneilo Hall is an important genus of Palaeozoic Lamellibranchia found in most parts of the world and much cited in the literature. The original form of the word, Palaeaneilo, cannot, however, be rejected as a lapsus calami, typographical error, or error in trans- cription, and so, by Article 19 of the International Rules, should be accepted as the valid name for this genus. I consider that this course would be most undesirable, both on etymological grounds, and because unnecessary confusion would result. It would therefore, in my opinion, be preferable for the International Commission to decide upon the official stabilisation of the form “‘ Palaeoneilo ”’. The type of this genus is Nuculites constricta Conrad (T.A.), 1842, J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 8 : 249, pl. 15, fig. 8, that species having been so designated by Hall (J.), 1885, Nat. Hist. New York (Palaeontology) OPINION 215 55 5 (1) Lamellibranchiata 2 : xxvii. I recommend that the generic name Palaeoneilo (emended from Palaeaneilo) Hall, 1869, with the above species as type be added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. On receipt, the present application was given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 62. It had not been found possible to submit the present case to the International Commission by the time that the outbreak of war in Europe 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 destruc- tion through air raids. The Secretariat in London was re-opened in 1942 and immediate steps were taken to establish the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as a means for bringing to the atten- tion of zoologists applications submitted to the International Commission for decision. Work was at once started on outstand- ing applications with a view to arranging for their publication in the newly established Bulletin. The present application was sent to the printer in October 1944. 3. Just before the present application was sent to the printer, there was an exchange of correspondence between the Secretary (Mr. Hemming) and the then President of the Commission (Dr. Karl Jordan) on the question whether, as considered by Dr. Cox, the use of the Plenary Powers would be needed in the event of the Commission deciding in favour of granting the applica- tion submitted by Dr. Cox, or whether such a decision could be taken by way of an interpretation of Article 19. The meaning to be attached to the provision (Article 19) which at that time governed the emendation of names raised questions of great difficulty. It was accordingly decided that the best course would be to issue at the appropriate time a notice of the possible use of the Plenary Powers in this case in the manner prescribed by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913, since the issue of such a notice would not prejudice the view to be taken on the issue referred to above and would have the advantage that it would free the hands of the Commission to take 56 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS immediate action under the Plenary Powers, should it desire so to do. Moreover, the adoption of this procedure would avoid the further delay which would be inevitable if the Commission were to take the view that the grant of this application required the use of the Plenary Powers and if at that date the prescribed notice had not been issued. 4. Although, as explained in paragraph 2 above, the present application was sent to the printer in the autumn of 1944, difficul- ties arising from paper rationing, shortage of labour at the printing works and similar causes delayed its publication until 26th June 1946 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 192). 5. The publication of Dr. Cox’s application in the Bulletin elicited two comments, the first (in order of receipt) being by the late Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen), who supported the action proposed, the second, by the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America, which, by a vote of nine to two ex- pressed itself as being opposed to the use of the Plenary Powers in this case but had not taken a stand as to how this case should, in its view, be decided under Article 19. These comments are reproduced in the two immediately following paragraphs. 6. Comment by Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen): In a letter dated 20th April 1947, Dr. Th. Mortensen indicated his support of the recommendation submitted by Dr. Cox by writing the word “ Yes ”’. 7. Comment by the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America: The view of the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America on this case was submitted in a letter dated 30th October 1947 from Dr. J. Brookes Knight (Research Associate, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.), who at that time was Chair- man of the Joint Committee. Enclosed with Dr. Knight’s letter was an offprint of the paper by Cooper (G.A.) entitled ““ Concern- ing the authorship of the ‘ Preliminary notice of the lamellibranch shells of the upper Helderberg, Hamilton and Chemung groups, OPINION 215 57 etc, Part 2°” referred to in the penultimate paragraph of Dr. Knight’s letter. The following is the text of that letter :— On July 3rd 1947, the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America submitted to the member- ship of the Committee for consideration and approval the following resolution :— RESOLVED: That the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America oppose the petition of Dr. L. R. Cox that the spelling of the name Palaeaneilo Hall, 1869, be emended to Palaeoneilo under suspension of the Rules. The Joint Committee is unable to see that any serious confusion would result if the provisions of Article 19 of the Rules be strictly enforced in this case. The vote of the membership was 9 to 2 for approval, Romer, Simpson, Wells, Newell, Palmer, Moore, Keen, Reeside, and Knight voting in the affirmative. Stenzel was away and unable to vote. Those voting the affirmative made no significant comments. Frizzell in voting the negative wrote : If we want “ stability and uniformity ” we certainly must follow established usage, and have that usage validated once and for all by the Commission. Cooper opposes both the Resolution and Cox’s petition, writing : I oppose the resolution and Cox’s petition because I believe this to be a case that was settled many years ago by James Hall himself. In the article in which Palaeaneilo appeared it was shown by me (Cooper, G. A., Jour, Washington Acad. Sci., vol. 21, no. 18, 1931, pp. 459—467) to be a hastily thrown together set of des- criptions full of typographical and other errors (p. 466). Hall corrected the spelling to Palaeoneilo in later more formal descrip- tions and I think his correction should stand. Cooper did not circulate his comments to the membership of the Committee who appear to have been expressing their views on the general question of stabilising amended spellings of names under suspension of the Régles and specifically on Palaeoneilo only on the premises submitted by Cox. If the Chairman may comment, he would disagree with Cooper’s implication that Hall’s position in amending to Palaeoneilo was in any way privileged. But on reading Cooper’s paper of 1931 he finds several points that might very well influence the Commission’s judgment as to the validity of one spelling or another under the Régles without suspension. For example, the original pamphlet was apparently anonymous, and there arises the question as to the validity under the Régles of any of the names published in it, whatever their orthography. Secondly, Cooper points out that the paper abounds with errors in- cluding typographical errors. Thus the Commission might hold that 58 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS there is sufficient evidence in the original publication of Palaeaneilo (if it adjudges it a valid publication) to make a Japsus calami or typo- graphical error in orthography “évident”’. Jn this event the name could conceivably be amended without resorting to the Plenary Powers. It seems obvious that the Commission should take no action on Cox’s petition until it has studied Cooper’s paper referred to above and the significant publications introducing the names Palaeaneilo and Palaeoneilo. The premises as set forth in Cox’s petition and presented to the Joint Committee are manifestly incomplete. However, the Resolution passed by the Joint Committee is relevant in any case and is hereby transmitted to the Commission. It simply opposes suspension and advocates the enforcement of the Reégles without specifying the result that enforcement would arrive at. 8. 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 in the present case was issued to the serial publications prescribed by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913, in accordance with the arrangement agreed upon between the Secretary and the President in 1944 (paragraph 3). The publication of this notice elicited no objection to the action proposed. II—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 9. The present case was considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Thirteenth Meeting 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 Pro- ceedings of the International Commission (1) summarising the points made in the discussion at the foregoing meeting and (2) setting out the decision then reached by the Commission in regard to this case (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 36) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 399—400) :— THE COMMISSION had under consideration an application (file Z.N.(S.) 62) submitted by Dr. L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History), London) asking the Commission to give a OPINION 215 59 ruling that the spelling of the generic name Palaeaneilo Hall (J.), 1869 (Class Pelecypoda, Order Protobranchia) should be amended to Palaeoneilo (Cox, 1946, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 192). Dr. Cox explained in his application that this generic name was intended to suggest that the genus so named was ancestral to the living genus Neilo Adams, 1854. The first part of this compound noun should therefore have been spelt “‘ Palaeo-”. In fact however it was consistently spelt “ Palaea-” in the paper in which the name was first published. The genus was of importance in the Palaeozoic Lamellibranchia and, in the submission of the applicant, it would be both objectionable on etymological grounds and calculated to cause confusion if the incorrect spelling used by Hall, when publishing this name, were allowed to stand. Dr. Cox accordingly asked that the required emendation should be authorised by the Commission under their Plenary Powers. Such action would give validity to the universal practice of specialists in the group concerned. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that two comments had been received in regard to this application : (1) from Commissioner Th. Mortensen (Denmark) supporting the action proposed ; (2) from Dr. J. Brookes Knight, Chairman of the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America, stating that the Committee had adopted (by a majority of 9 to 2) a resolution opposing the use of the Plenary Powers in the present case, considering that this was a matter which should be determined by the ordinary provisions of the Régles. In his application Dr. Cox had taken the view that the result which he sought could not be attained through Article 19 and it was for this reason that he had asked the Commission to use their Plenary Powers. This was a matter however which must not be prejudged and which the Commission would need to consider before they examined the need for, or the desirability of, using the Plenary Powers in this case. IN THE DISCUSSION which followed, the view was expressed that, having regard to the fact that the compound word selected for this generic name was intended to denote that this genus was regarded by its author as being ancestral to the living genus Neilo Adams, it was quite “‘évident’’ that the first portion of the compound word was based upon the Greek adjective raruids, 60 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS in exactly the same way as the 500 odd other generic names similarly formed. In these circumstances it was “ évident ”’ also that the spelling “ Palaeaneilo”’ was incorrect and a “ faute dorthographe ”’. In these circumstances the spelling should be corrected by the emendation of the name to “ Palaeoneilo ” under the provisions of Article 19. There was therefore no need to consider the portion of the application which related to the possible use of the Plenary Powers in this case. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that it was “ évident”’ that the spelling of the generic name Palaeaneilo Hall, 1869 (Class Pelecypoda, Order Protobranchia) was a “faute d’orthographe” and therefore that the spelling of this name should be corrected by emending the name to Palaeoneilo under the provisions of Article 19 ; (2) to place the generic name Palaeoneilo Hall, 1869 (type species : Nuculites constricta Conrad (T.A.), 1842, by selection by Hall (1885)) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the trivial name constricta Conrad, 1842 (as published in the binominal combination Nuculites constricta) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; (4) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (3) above. 10. The following are the original references for the names which appear in the decision set out in paragraph 9 above :— constricta, Nuculites, Conrad (T.A), 1842, J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 8 : 249, pl. 15, fig. 8 Palaeoneilo (emend. of Palaeaneilo) Hall, 1869, Prelim. Not. lamellibr. Shells, Part 2 : 6 11. Under the provisions relating to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, the International OPINION 215 61 Commission is required to place thereon every generic name which it either rejects under its Plenary Powers or declares to be invalid. In the present instance, the entry in this Official Index, under the foregoing provisions, of the Invalid Original Spelling Palaeaneilo Hall, 1869, was inadvertently omitted from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission. This omission has been rectified in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 12, The gender of the generic name Palaeoneilo Hall, 1869, referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 9 above, is feminine. 13. Attention is drawn to the fact that the Ruling given in the present Opinion was adopted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in the light of the provisions in the Régles at the time (1948) of its adoption and that that decision is unaffected by the substantial modifications in the provisions relating to the emendation of generic and specific names made by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, that Congress having afforded express protection to all decisions on this subject previously taken by the International Commission in relation to individual cases, irrespective of whether or not those decisions were in harmony with the revision of the Régles carried out in Copenhagen (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 45). 14. The decision relating to 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 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 57: 107): 15. 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 ; 62 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Sparck vice Mortensen ; van Straelen vice Richter ; Usinger vice Vokes. 16. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the Paris Session. 17. 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. 18. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accord- ingly 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. 19. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two Hundred and Fifteen (215) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. DONE in London, this Twenty-Seventh day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Three. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mercatre & Cooper LimiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, CM.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 4. Part 6. Pp. 63—72 OPINION 216 Suppression, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic names Clavellarius Olivier, 1789, and Clavellaria Lamarck, 1801 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion supplementary to Opinion 144) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Three Shillings and Ninepence (All rights reserved) Issued 31st March, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 216 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 Zoologisk 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. PrEtTERS (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 Kirspy (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). Dr. Henning LeEMcHE (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 SPpARCcK (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). Ele Robert L. Usincer (University of California, Berkeley, California, .S.A.). OPINION 216 SUPPRESSION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE GENERIC NAMES ‘“* CLAVELLARIUS ” OLIVIER, 1789, AND ‘*‘ CLAVELLARIA ” LAMARCK, 1801 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) (‘S OPINION ”? SUPPLEMENTARY TO ** OPINION ”’ 144) RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers the under- mentioned generic names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: (a) Clavellarius Olivier, 1789 ; (b) Clavellaria Lamarck, 1801. (2) The two generic names suppressed under (1) above are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 28 and 29 respectively. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 17th February 1937 Dr. Herbert H. Ross (Systematic Entomologist, Illinois State Natural History Survey, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) addressed to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature the following letter, with enclosure, in which, jointly with his colleague Dr. B. D. Burke of the same Institution, he asked that, by way of supplement to the decision taken by the Commission at Lisbon in 1935 in regard to the generic name Cimbex Olivier, 1790 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), the Commission should use its Plenary Powers to suppress the earlier name Clavellarius Olivier, 1789. The following is the text of the letter and enclosure received from Dr. Ross :— (a) Letter dated 17th February 1937 from Dr. Herbert H. Ross We wish to petition that as a corollary of the Opinion of the Com- mission to place the generic name Cimbex (Hymenoptera) on the Official List of Generic Names, the Commission suppress the generic name Clavellarius Olivier. The statement of the case accompanies this request. 66 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (b) Paper by H. H. Ross and B. D. Burke (enclosure to Dr. Ross’s letter of 17th February 1937) ON THE STATUS OF THE NAME CLAVELLARIUS OLIVIER, 1789 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) By H. H. ROSS and B. D. BURKE (Ulinois State Natural History Survey, Urbana, Illinois.) The vote of the International Zoological Congress, 1935, to place the name Cimbex Olivier, 1790, on the Official List of Generic Names opens up an interesting piece of historical nomenclature. Cimbex has been mentioned in controversies only in connection with Crabro Geoffroy. The name Cimbex for a group of sawflies, however, is antedated not only by Crabro Geoffroy but also by Clavellarius Olivier. This latter name has been almost completely ignored since its original publication. Briefly, the history of the situation is as follows. Geoffroy in 1762 proposed the name Crabro for the large sawflies now generally known as Cimbex. Thirteen years later Fabricius used the name Crabro for a group of wasps. At this time authority and not priority was followed, so that the hymenopterists of that time followed the Fabrician usage without question. In 1789 Olivier, in the Encyclopedié méthodique, apparently decided that the group of sawflies called Crabro by Geoffroy needed a name, yet felt that the name Crabro itself should be preserved in its Fabrician sense. Hence he proposed for Geoffroy’s group Crabro the name Clavellarius (: 22):— Clavellaire Clavellarius. Crabro, Geoff. Tenthredo Lin. Fab. Antennes en masse, un peu plus courtes que le corcelet. Quartre antennules filiformes; les deux antérieures un peu plus longues, composées de cinq articles, les deux postérieures de quartre. In the next volume of the Encyclopédie méthodique, 1790, he uses the name Cimbex for this group, without any explanation. This appears in the alphabetic part of the Encyclopédie and in the next volume, in due course alphabetically, he mentions once more the name Clavellarius, indicating that he considered it too close to a name used in botany and hence changed it to Cimbex. The passage referred to reads as follows :— Clavellaire, Clavellarius. Ce mot trop ressemblant a celui de Clavaria, déja employé en Botanique, nous avant paru peu con- venable, nous lui avons substitué le mot de Cimbex, employé par 1 See Opinion 144 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2 : 89—98). OPINION 216 67 les Grecs pour désigner des insectes semblables a des Abeilles ou a des Guépes, et qui paroissent étre les mémes que ceux que nous avons a faire connoitre sous ce méme nom. Voy, Cimbex. Since Cimbex was proposed as a new name for Clavellarius the type of one automatically becomes the type of the other. Latreille, 1810, designated the genotype of Cimbex, so its type becomes the type of Clavellarius. Lamarck in 1801 introduced the spelling Clavellaria with a sole included species, Tenthredo lutea Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 555, but this is not, according to Opinion 79 of the Inter- national Rules, a type designation. The synonymy is as follows :— Crabro Geoffroy, 1762, p. 261. Genotype by subsequent designation of Bradley, 1919, Crabro humeralis Fourcroy. Clavellarius Olivier, 1789, p. 22. Genotype by subsequent designation of Latreille, 1810, Tenthredo lutea Linnaeus. Cimbex Olivier, 1790, p. 762. New name for Clavellarius, as explained in Olivier, 1791, p. 18. Genotype by subsequent designation of Latreille, 1810, Cimbex lutea (Fabricius) (=Tenthredo lutea Linnaeus). Clavellaria Lamarck, 1801, p. 264. Emendation for Clavellarius Olivier, 1789. Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. In April 1937 the late Dr. C. W. Stiles submitted the present application to the Commission in Circular Letter 348. 3. In June 1939 the documents relating to the present and other current cases were transferred to the care of Mr. Francis Hemming, who in October 1936 had been elected Secretary to the Commission on the retirement of Dr. Stiles. On receipt, the documents relating to this case were given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 120. Further progress with the consideration of this case was prevented by the outbreak of war in Europe in September 1939 which led to the evacuation of the records of the Commission from London to the country as a precaution against the risk of 68 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS destruction through air raids. The Secretariat in London was re-opened in 1942, and immediate steps were taken to establish the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as a means for bringing to the attention of zoologists applications submitted to the International Commission for decision. Work was at once started on outstanding cases with a view to arranging for their publication in the newly established Bulletin. Simultaneously with this action, a start was made with the rendering of Opinions setting out the decisions reached by the International Commission at its Session held at Lisbon in 1935. The decision then taken by the Commission in regard to the generic names Crabro Geoffroy, 1762, Crabro Fabricius, 1775, and Cimbex Olivier, 1790 (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2) (1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 27—30) was embodied in Opinion 144, which was rendered on 9th February 1943 and published on 30th March 1943 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 89—98). 4. The supplementary application submitted by Dr. Ross in 1937, being concerned with the status of a name which was both an available name and possessed priority over a name which had been stabilised under the Plenary Powers, raised an issue which, it appeared to Mr. Hemming, as Secretary to the Commission, might give rise to misunderstandings regarding the status of names validated under the Plenary Powers, unless at the time of its publication it were accompanied by an explanation on this subject. Accordingly in 1944 Mr. Hemming prepared such a note which he communicated in draft to the then President of the Commission (Dr. Karl Jordan), asking for his views. On 5th August 1944 Dr. Jordan replied: ‘‘ Your comments are a necessity and I agree with them’. The following is the text of the note so prepared by Mr. Hemming :— On the relative status of the generic names “‘ Cimbex ”’ Olivier, 1790, and “ Clavellarius ’’ Olivier, 1789 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.) The case of Cimbex Olivier, 1790 versus Crabro Geoffroy, 1762, was one of thirteen dealt with in a memorial signed by sixty hymenopterists, a OPINION 216 69 which was submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature prior to the meeting of the Commission held at Lisbon in September 1935. The object of the petition was to secure a valid nomenclatorial foundation for the commonly accepted use of the generic name Cimbex Olivier, 1790, for Tenthredo lutea Linnaeus, 1758, and species congeneric therewith. For this purpose, the petitioners recommended that the name Crabro Geoffroy, 1762, should be sup- presed by the International Commission under their Plenary Powers. 2. The memorial containing this case was referred by the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature for their observations. The International Committee was due to hold a meeting at Madrid in September 1935 immediately before the meeting of the International Commission at Lisbon and it was arranged, therefore, that the recom- mendations submitted by the International Committee should be considered by the International Commission at their Lisbon Session. 3. The International Committee at their Madrid meeting agreed to recommend the International Commission to grant the request submitted by the petitioners in the present case. This recommendation was considered and approved by the International Commission at their meeting held at Lisbon on Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 2, for the text of which see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 27—30). This decision was embodied in paragraph 27 of the Report (for the text of which see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 59—60) submitted by the International Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, by whom it was unanimously approved and adopted at the final plenary session held on Saturday, 21st September 1935 (see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl.1 : 63). 4. In accordance with the procedure agreed upon by the International Commission at their Lisbon Session (2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9, for the text of which see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 11—12), advertise- ments relating to this and other cases involving the suspension of the rules dealt with by the International Commission at Lisbon were published in the prescribed manner in the spring of 1936. As respects the present case no objection of any kind was received by the Inter- national Commission in the period of twelve months following the action described above. By 1938, therefore, all the necessary formal action had been taken and the stage had been reached at which an Opinion giving effect to the Commission’s Lisbon decision could be issued. Owing, first to lack of funds and later to the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939, it was not found possible to publish the Opinion (Opinion 144) dealing with this case until 1943 (Opinions and Declara- tions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature 2 : 89—98). 5. The object of the International Commission at Lisbon was to take all necessary steps to validate the name Cimbex Olivier, 1790, with Tenthredo lutea Linnaeus, 1758, as type. It was only because the 70 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Commission had not been apprised of the problem presented by the name Clavellarius Olivier, 1789, that they did not suppress that name under their Plenary Powers at the same time that they suppressed the name Crabro Geoffroy, 1762. The present position is that, as the result of the Commission’s action at Lisbon (now embodied in Opinion 144), the only valid generic name for Tenthredo lutea Linnaeus, 1758, is Cimbex Olivier, 1790, and, therefore, although not formally suppressed, the name Clavellarius Olivier, 1789, cannot be used as the generic name for that species. This situation is admittedly not satisfactory and it is accordingly proposed to ask the International Commission to put matters on a logical footing by rendering an Opinion suppressing the name Clavellarius Olivier, 1789, and the emended form Clavellaria Lamarck, 1801, under their Plenary Powers. 6. The fact that from now onwards all such petitions will be pub- lished in the Commission’s Official Organ, the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, before any decisions are taken thereon by the Commission will, it is hoped, prevent difficulties similar to those discussed above from arising in the future. 5, Following the receipt of the letter from Dr. Jordan quoted at the beginning of the preceding paragraph both the application received from Dr. Ross and Dr. Burke and Mr. Hemming’s note on it were sent to the printer in September 1944. Owing, however, to difficulties arising from paper rationing, shortage of labour at the printing works and similar causes it was not until 28th February 1947 that these papers were actually published : Ross & Burke, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 :201—202 ; Hemming, 1947, ibid. 1 : 202—203. 6. Issue of Public Notices : On 14th September 1947 a notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in the present case was issued to the serial publications prescribed by the Ninth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913. The publication of this notice elicited no objection to the action proposed. IIIl.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 7. The present application was considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Thirteenth OPINION 216 71 Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi- théadtre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 1730 hours. The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Pro- ceedings of the International Commission setting out the decision reached by it in regard to this case at the foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 40) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 403—404) :— THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their Plenary Powers to suppress for the purposes of Article 25 the under-mentioned generic names :— Clavellarius Olivier, 1789 Clavellaria Lamarck, 1801 ; (2) to place the generic names specified in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to render an Opinion, supplementary to Opinion 144, recording the decisions specified in (1) and (2) above. 8. The following are the original references for the names which appear in the decision set out in paragraph 7 above :— Clavellaria Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. s. Vertébr. : 264 Clavellarius Olivier, 1789, Ency. méth. 4(Ins.) : 22. 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 Fifth Meeting held on Monday, 26th July, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 108). 10. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was concurred in by the sixteen (16) Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners iw OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 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. 11. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the Paris Session. 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 Sixteen (216) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-eighth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Three. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mrercatre & Cooper Limitep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 4. Part 7. Pp. 73—82 OPINION 217 Designation under the Plenary Powers, of a type species for the genus Erycina Lamarck, 1805 (Class Pelecypoda) in harmony with accustomed usage . \ } il ! Ax : : ( APR3ot iN VJ ~ | OAD LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Three Shillings and Ninepence (All rights reserved) Issued—31st March, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 217 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 Zoologisk 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. CaS 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 LemMcue (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 SpPARCK (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). Seo L. USINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California, OPINION 217 DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF A TYPE SPECIES FOR THE GENUS ‘ ERYCINA ” LAMARCK, 1805 (CLASS PELECYPODA) IN HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED USAGE RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers all type selections for the genus Erycina Lamarck, 1805, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside and Erycina pellucida Lamarck, 1805, is designated as the type species of this nominal genus. (2) The generic name Erycina Lamarck, 1805 (gender of name: feminine), with the type species designated under (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 650. (3) The specific name pellucida Lamarck, 1805, as published in the combination Erycina pellucida, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 28. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 31st March 1937 Dr. Harald A. Rehder (Assistant Curator of Mollusks, Smithsonian Institution, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) submitted to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature an application for the use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of designating for Erycina Lamarck, 1805 (Class Pelecypoda) a type species in harmony with accustomed usage. In his’ covering letter Dr. Rehder gave the names of specialists who had indicated support for the application so submitted. The text of Dr. Rehder’s letter and of the application submitted therewith was as follows :— (a) Letter dated 3ist March 1937 from Dr. Harald A. Rehder. I am enclosing a case which I would like to have come up before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, as I believe that it is of sufficient importance to merit consideration. I may say that the request for the suspension of the Rules in the case of the type of Erycina has been read and approved by several members of 76 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS the staff of the U.S. National Museum and the United States Geological Survey, such as Drs. Paul Bartsch, Ralph B. Stewart, Wendell P. Woodring and Julia Gardner. (b) Application submitted by Dr. Harald A. Rehder (enclosure to letter of 31st March 1937) PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES FOR THE GENOTYPE OF ERYCINA LAMARCK, 1805 (CLASS PELECYPODA, ORDER HETERONDONTA) By HARALD A. REHDER (Associate Curator, Division of Mollusks, Smithsonian Institution, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.) In 1805, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris 6(36) : 413, Lamarck proposed the genus Erycina for a heterogeneous assemblage of six species, all fossils of the Paris basin. In 1807 Froriep (Lamarck Neues System der Conchylien, Weimar : 38) mentioned Erycina laevis Lamarck, 1805, Joc. cit. 6(36) : 414 (the first of the six species cited by Lamarck) as an example of the genus. This is not a type designation, although Dall apparently so considered it (1900, Trans. Wagner Free Inst. Sci. 3(5) : 1141 footnote). In 1823, Children (Quart. J. Sci. 14 : 299) selected Erycina cardioides Lamarck, 1818, Hist. nat. Anim. sans Vert. 5 : 486, as the type, but this choice cannot be accepted, as that species was not one of the six species included in the original description of Erycina Lamarck. In 1844 Recluz (Rev. zool. 7 : 291—299, 325—336) monographed the genus Erycina Lamarck, having been able, as he states, to examine Lamarck’s types. Of the six original species he considered Erycina fragilis Lamarck, 1805, loc. cit. 6(36):415 and Erycina elliptica Lamarck, 1805 loc. cit. 6(36) : 415 to belong to Diplodonta Bronn, 1831, Ergeb. nat. Reisen 2: 484; Erycina inaequilatera Lamarck, 1805, loc. cit. 6(36) : 415, Erycina Icevis Lamarck, 1805, to be members of Tellina Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 674, restricting Erycina Lamarck to the single species Erycina pellucida Lamarck, 1805, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris 7(37) : 53. Erycina trigona Lamarck, 1805, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris 6(36) : 414 he did not mention, probably because it was a single valve in poor condition. Deshayes, 1858 (Description des Animaux sans Vert. dec. dans le Bassin de Paris 1 : 700—704), agreed in general with Recluz, making, however, Erycina fragilis Lamarck the type of the new genus Psathura Deshayes, 1858, Joc. cit. 1 : 478, and doubtfully identifying Erycina trigona Lamarck as the valve of a species of Corbulomya Nyst, [1844], Mem. cour. Acad. roy. Belgique 17 : 59. OPINION 217 C0) This has been, on the whole, the view of all subsequent workers. Following this viewpoint, Stoliczka in 1870 (Cretaceous Fauna of Southern India 3 (Pelecypoda) : xix) designated Erycina pellucida Lamarck as type, which has to the present been generally accepted. Of course, it may logically be considered that Recluz in 1844 desig- nated Erycina pellucida Lamarck as type by restriction, making Erycina Lamarck monotypic (See Opinion 6).* However, five years before Recluz’s careful study, appeared Anton’s Catalogue of his collection (1839, Verzeichniss der Conchylien welch sich in der Sammlung von H. E. Anton befinden), which contains valid type designations for all the genera and subgenera mentioned. Here, on page 6, he designates Erycina elliptica Lamarck as type, the species which Recluz and Deshayes had placed in the genus Diplodonta Bronn, 1831 (now known by the name Taras Risso, 1826, Hist. nat. Europe 4 : 344). The acceptance of Anton’s type designation would mean (i) that the name Erycina Lamarck would be used for the group long known as Diplodonta Bronn and Taras Risso and (ii) that the genus Erycina of authors would need a new name. This transposition would cause endless confusion, especially as both groups are common as Tertiary fossils and used as index fossils in stratigraphy. In view of this, it is advisable that the International Commission stabilise the status of Erycina Lamarck, 1805, under suspension of the rules, by placing Erycina Lamarck on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Erycina pellucida Lamarck, 1805, as type. Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. On the re-organisation of the Secretariat, following the election in 1936 of Mr. Francis Hemming as Secretary in succession to the late Dr. C. W. Stiles, the present case was given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 69. It had not been found poss- ible to advance the consideration of this case by the time that in September 1939 the outbreak of war in Europe led to the * Opinion 6 does not provide for the restriction of a genus containing three or more species, such as Erycina Lamarck ; but is expressly confined to the case of a genus “ 4A—”, established with two species only, where one of the two originally included species is subsequently made the type of a monotypical genus. For the text of Opinion 6, with notes thereon, see 1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature 1 : 127—138. 78 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS evacuation of the records of the International Commission from London to the country as a precaution against the risk of destruc- tion through air raids. The Secretariat in London was re-opened in 1942, and immediate steps were taken to establish the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as a means for bringing to the attention of zoologists applications submitted to the International Commission for decision. Work was at once started on out- standing cases with a view to arranging for their publication in the newly established Bulletin. Dr. Rehder’s application in the present case was sent to the printer in October 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 28th February 1947 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 221—222). 3. The publication of Dr. Rehder’s application in the Bulletin elicited support from two quarters, the first (¢n order of receipt), from the late Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen), the second, from the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America. These comments are reproduced in the two immediately following paragraphs. 4. Comment by Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen): In a letter dated 8th April 1947, Dr. Th. Mortensen indicated his support for Dr. Rehder’s proposal by writing the word “ Yes”. 5. Comment by the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomen- clature for Paleontology in America: The view of the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America on this case was submitted in a letter dated Sth November 1947 from Dr. J. Brookes Knight (Research Associate, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.), who at that time was Chairman of the Joint Committee. The following is the text of that letter :— On July 3rd 1947, the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America submitted to the member- ship of the Committee for consideration and approval the following resolution :— RESOLVED: That the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America support the petition OPINION 217 79 of H. H. Rehder that the designation of Erycina elliptica Lamarck as genotype of Erycina Lamarck by Anton in 1839 be set aside under suspension of the Régles in favor of Erycina pellucida Lamarck, first designated by Stoliczka in 1870 on the ground that greater confusion than uniformity would result if the Régles be enforced in this case. The vote of the membership was 10 to 1 for approval, Romer, Simpson, Newell, Palmer, Cooper, Moore, Keen, Frizzell, Reeside, and Knight voted in the affirmative. Wells voted the negative. Stenzel was away and unable to vote. There were only two comments. Palmer wrote :—This is about a 50—S0 case. I vote “‘ Aye” on the case but it is a problem in which suspension would upset a case of a clear cut type designation. This I dislike to do. On the other hand there would be considerable confusion if the common concept of Erycina were disrupted. However, as far as disrupting names are concerned, the name Diplodonta has had to be eliminated in favor of Taras so that suspension will not restore that well-known name. I am not convinced that the suspension should take place but it would save some confusion if it were. In view of the above vote the Joint Committee hereby transmits to the International Commission the Resolution adopted. 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 in the present case was issued to the serial publications prescribed by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913. The publication of this notice elicited no objection to the action proposed. 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 Thirteenth Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi- thédtre 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 80 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS decision reached by it in regard to this case at the foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 48) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 417—418) :— THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their Plenary Powers :— (a) to set aside all selections of the type species of the genus Erycina Lamarck, 1805 (Class Pelecypoda, Order Heterodonta) made prior to the present decision ; (b) to designate Erycina pellucida Lamarck, 1805, to be the type species of the foregoing genus ; (2) to place the generic name Erycina Lamarck, 1805, with the type species specified in (1)(b) above, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the trivial name pellucida Lamarck, 1805 (as published in the binominal combination FErycina pellucida) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, (4) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (3) above. 8. The following are the original references for the names which appear in the decisions set out in paragraph 7 above :— Erycina Lamarck, 1805, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat., Paris 6(36) : 413 pellucida, Erycina, Lamarck, 1805, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat., Paris 6(37) : 53 9. The gender of the generic name Erycina Lamarck, 1805, referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 7 above, is feminine. 10. The decision taken in the present case was reported to, and approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth OPINION 217 81 International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Fifth Meeting held on Monday, 26th July, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 110). 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 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 accord- ingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Com- mission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the 82 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 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 Seventeen (217) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-Eighth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mrercarre & Cooper Limrtep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., CBE. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 4. Part 8. Pp. 83—92 OPINION 218 Addition of the generic name Liodes Heyden, 1826 (Class Arachnida) to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology tox T A , a\ + Va LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Three Shillings and Ninepence (All rights reserved) Issued 31st March, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 218 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 Zoologisk 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. oe 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 Kirspy (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 SPARCK (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). ASU L. Ustncer (University of California, Berkeley, California, OPINION 218 ADDITION OF THE GENERIC NAME ‘** LIODES ” HEYDEN, 1826 (CLASS ARACHNIDA) TO THE “ OFFICIAL INDEX OF REJECTED AND INVALID GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ”’ RULING :—The generic name Liodes Heyden, 1826 (Class Arachnida) is an invalid junior homonym of Leiodes Latreille, 1796 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), is accordingly hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 30. I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present case was submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the late Dr. Arthur P. Jacot (Northeastern Forest Experimental Station, New Haven, Connec- ticut, U.S.A.) in the following letter dated 18th March 1937 :— On the question whether ‘‘ Liodes ’’ Heyden, 1826 (Class Arachnida, Order Acarina) is a Homonym of ‘‘ Leiodes’’ Latreille, 1796 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) By ARTHUR P. JACOT Is the genus Liodes Heyden, 1826, Isis (Oken) 1826 : 611 (Class Arachnida, Order Acarina) a homonym of Leiodes Latreille, 1796, Précis Caract. Ins. : 22 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) ? The whole question is whether the two words are different enough both to be available as generic names. In America some beetle specialists spell Latreille’s name Leiodes in the emended form Liodes, as proposed by Erichson, 1845, Deutschl. Ins. (Col. 1) 3 : 87, thus engendering confusion. 86 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS As a specialist in mites, I should like to know whether the name Liodes Heyden, 1826, is available for the mite genus. It has been in use, was subsequently abandoned, and now an acarologist is reviving it. Is it technically available ? Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. In May 1938 Dr. Jacot’s letter, together with documents relating to other current cases, was transferred to the care of Mr. Francis Hemming, who in 1936 had been elected to be Secretary to the International Commission on the retirement of the late Dr. C. W. Stiles. This case was then given the Regis- tered Number Z.N.(S.)64. It had not been found possible to advance the consideration of this case by the time that the out- break of war in Europe 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 in London was re-opened in 1942 and immediate steps were taken to establish the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as a means for bringing to the attention of zoologists applications submitted to the International Commis- sion for decision. Work was at once started on outstanding cases with a view to arranging for their publication in the newly established Bulletin. 3. When the Secretary (Mr. Hemming) came in 1944 to prepare the present case for publication, he took the view that it was desirable that there should be published at the same time a note referring to the decision in regard to the criteria to be adopted for determining whether any two generic names were homonyms of one another which, on the advice of the International Com- mission (Lisbon, Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 14) (1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 39—40), had been taken by the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, Lisbon, 1935, and which had later been embodied by the Commission in its Opinion 147 (1943, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 123—132). In the same note the Secretary appealed to interested specialists to furnish their views on the question whether the names Leiodes OPINION 218 87 Latreille, 1796, and Liodes Heyden, 1826, consisted of words of the same origin and meaning, that being the criterion which, under the foregoing decision, would determine the question whether these two names should be regarded as homonyms of one another. The note so prepared by Mr. Hemming was as follows :— On the question whether the name ‘‘ Liodes’’ Heyden, 1826 (Class Arachnida, Order Acarina) and ‘‘ Leiodes’’ Latreille, 1796 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) are of the same origin and meaning By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) In Opinion 147, published on 30th September 1943, the International Commission set out certain decisions which they had taken at Lisbon in 1935 (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 14),? regarding the principles to be observed in interpreting Article 34 of the International Code in relation to the rejection, as homonyms, of generic and sub- generic names of the same origin and meaning as names previously published. Under the decision embodied in Opinion 147, “a generic name of the same origin and meaning as a previously published generic name is to be rejected as a homonym of the said name if it is distinguished 99 «66 ticreimon only by ..’. the use. of “ei”, “i,” and“ v’?.. In the case submitted to the Commission by the late Dr. Jacot, the point which requires to be determined is whether the name Liodes Heyden, 1826 (Class Arachnida, Order Acarina) is of the same origin and meaning as the prior name Leiodes Latreille, 1796 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). If the examination of the origin and meaning of these two generic names were to show that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 19, the name Leiodes Latreille, 1796, should be emended to Liodes (as proposed by Erichson, 1845), then the name Liodes Heyden, 1826, would fall as a homonym of Liodes (emendation of Leiodes) Latreille, 1796. If, however, the examination of the origin and meaning of these names were to establish that, although there was no case for emending Leiodes Latreille to Liodes, the names 1 See 1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2 : 123—132. 2 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 39—40. 88 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Leiodes Latreille, 1796, and Liodes, 1826, were of the same origin and meaning, then, under Opinion 147, Liodes Heyden would fall as a homonym of Leoides Latreille. If, however, the examination of these names either (i) failed to establish that these names were of the same origin and meaning or (ii) definitely established that they were not, then the name Liodes Heyden, 1826, would not be invalidated by Leiodes Latreille, 1796, and would, therefore, be an available name. In order, therefore, to assist the International Commission in reaching a conclusion on the case submitted by Dr. Jacot, specialists commenting on that case are particularly asked to address themselves to the questions indicated above. 4. Comment by Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts.) : The then President of the Commission, Dr. Karl Jordan, to whom Mr. Hemming had communicated a copy of the note reproduced above, replied on 5th September 1944, agreeing that the publication of that note at the same time as Dr. Jacot’s application would be very useful. At the same time Dr. Jordan furnished the following comment on the question specifically raised by Mr. Hemming in that note:— Neither Latreille nor von Heyden gives a derivation. Agassiz gives the Greek Actos for both Leiodes and Liodes, in which he was right, the beetles in question (Leiodes) being smooth, glossy. 5. In October 1944 Dr. Jacot’s application and Mr. Hemming’s note were sent to the printer 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 28th February 1947 (Jacot, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 223 ; Hemming, ibid. 1 : 223—224). 6. Issue of Public Notices: The present application did not ask for the use by the International Commission of its Plenary Powers, but it was judged useful to issue a notice of the possible use of those Powers in this case, so that, if the Commission were to consider it desirable to deal with this case under that procedure, it should be free to do so, without incurring the further delay which would otherwise be inevitable. Accordingly, on 29th September 1947 a notice of the possible use of the Plenary Powers in this case was issued to the serial publications prescribed by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology, 1913. OPINION 218 89 7. Comment by Mr. Charles D. Radford (British Museum (Natural History), London): The publication in the Bulletin of Dr. Jacot’s application and of Mr. Hemming’s note elicited a letter dated Ist April 1948 from Mr. Charles D. Radford (then of the British Museum (Natural History), London), drawing attention to the fact that in 1888 Berlese (Bull. Soc. ent. ital. 10 : 217) had taken the view that the two generic names discussed in Dr. Jacot’s application were homonyms of one another and had given the nom. nov. Neoliodes to von Heyden’s Acarine genus. IIl—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 8. The present application was considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Thirteenth Meeting 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 Pro- ceedings of the International Commission at the foregoing meeting setting out the decision which it then reached in regard to the present case (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 50) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 420—421) :— THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that Leiodes Latreille, 1796, and Liodes Heyden, 1826, are homonyms of one another and therefore that the name Liodes Heyden, 1826, as the later published of the two names, is invalid. (2) to place the name Liodes Heyden, 1826 (Class Arachnida, Order Acarina) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) and (2) above. 90 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 9. The following are the original references for the names which appear in the decision set out in the immediately preceding paragraph :— Leiodes Latreille, 1796, Précis Caract. Ins. : 22 Liodes Heyden, 1826, Isis (Oken) 1826 : 611 10. Attention is drawn to the fact that the Ruling given in the present Opinion was adopted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in the light of the provisions in the Régles at the time (1948) of its adoption and that that decision is unaffected by the substantial modifications in the provisions relating to generic homonymy made by the Fourteenth Interna- tional Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, that Congress having afforded express protection to all decisions on this subject previously taken by the International Commission in relation to individual cases, irrespective of whether or not those decisions were in harmony with the revision of the Rég/es carried out in Copenhagen (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 78). 11. The decision relating to 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 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 100). 12. 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. 13. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the Paris Session. OPINION 218 91 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 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. 15. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two Hundred and Eighteen (218) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-Ninth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Three. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, cC.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 4. Part 9. Pp. 93—102 OPINION 219 Addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of Megachile Latreille, 1802, with Apis centuncularis Linnaeus, 1758, as type species (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) J Y LIBRARL ——< ‘cen, LONDON : = |S Secretary to the Commission / = ||) ic A Mee /Ge VOLUME 4. Part 10. Pp. 103—114 Ce OPINION 220 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic name Bombus Latreille, 1802 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), in so far as the use of those Powers is required to provide that name with the status of availability 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 31st March, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 220 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 Zoologisk 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. PeETERS (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 Kirspy (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). Dr. Henning Lemcue (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 Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). Professor Robert L. UsinGer (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). OPINION 220 VALIDATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE GENERIC NAME ‘‘ BOMBUS ” LATREILLE, 1802 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) IN SO FAR AS THE USE OF THOSE POWERS IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THAT NAME WITH THE STATUS OF AVAILABILITY RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers, the name Bombus Latreille, 1802 (Class Insecta, Order Hymen- optera) is hereby validated as against the name Bremus Panzer-Jurine (as published in Part 85 of the Faun. Ins. germ.), a name at present of indeterminate date, in the event of it later being established that that name has priority over the name Bombus Latreille, 1802. (2) The name Bombus Latreille, 1802 (gender of name : masculine) with Apis terrestris Linnaeus, 1758, as type species, by monotypy, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 652. (3) The generic name Bremus Panzer, [1801—1804], is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 31. (4) The specific name terrestris Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Apis terrestris, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 30. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 16th August 1937, the late Professor A. D. Imms (President) and Professor O. W. Richards (Secretary), Royal Entomological Society of London, formally communicated to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Part 5 of the work entitled The Generic Names of British Insects, published two days earlier, intimating that the Council of the Society concurred in the recommendations set forth in the foregoing Part and com- mended those recommendations to the favourable consideration 106 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS of the International Commission. The above Part contained a Report by the Hymenoptera Sub-Committee! of the Society’s Committee on Generic Nomenclature setting out the names of the genera of Hymenoptera Aculeata represented in the British fauna. Attached to the Sub-Committee’s Report was a detailed survey of the problems involved which had been prepared for the Sub-Committee by Dr. O. W. Richards, one of its members. The Report contained recommendations regarding seventeen generic names and two specific names. Among the former was included the case of the name Bombus Latreille, 1802, with which the present Opinion is concerned. The Sub-Committee’s recommendations in relation to this and other names were set out in a schedule, prepared by Dr. Richards, annexed to its Report. The proposal in regard to the present case was lettered (n) and appeared on pages 92—93 in the Report as published. The applications submitted in the Sub-Committee’s Report were later, for purposes of convenience, treated as separate cases, though at the time of their receipt they were all given the same Registered Number—Z.N.(S.) 133—in the Secretariat of the Commission. The application submitted in the present case was as follows :— Proposed Suspension of the ‘‘ Régles ’’ for ‘‘ Bombus ”’ Latreille, 1802 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) By R. B. BENSON, M.A. (Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History)), CH. FERRIERE (Imperial Institute of Entomology, London), and O. W. RICHARDS, D.Sc. (Imperial College of Science and Technology, London) Latreille (1802, Hist. nat. Fourmis : 437) founded the monobasic genus Bombus, type Apis terrestris Linnaeus, 1758. ra At the time of the submission of the foregoing Report the composition of the Hymenoptera Sub-Committee was as follows :—R. B. Benson, M.A. ; Ferriére ; O. W. Richards, D.Sc. The composition of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature was the same at this time as at the date of the submission of Part 4 of the Generic Names of British Insects, and has been given in footnote 2 to Opinion 211, which deals with a recommendation submitted in that Part. is) OPINION 220 107 Panzer ([1801], Faun. Ins. germ., 85 : plates 19—21) published the genus Bremus and included three species, Bremus fasciatus (= Apis terrestris Linnaeus, 1758), Bremus agrorum (= Apis agrorum Fabricius, 1787) and Bremus silvarum (=Apis sylvarum Linnaeus, 1758). Morice and Durrant (1914, Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1914 : 429) fixed the type of Bremus as Apis terrestris Linnaeus. Hymenopterists have almost universally employed the generic name Bombus, except that since 1914 most American authors have adopted the name Bremus Panzer-Jurine, 1801 (ntelligenzblatt der Literatur- Zeitung, Erlangen : 160—165, i.e. the “‘ Erlangen List ’’). In view of the extensive literature associated with the name Bombus, we are of the opinion that the adoption of the name Bremus would cause more confusion than uniformity. We are of the opinion that in the exercise of the Plenary Powers conferred on 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 :— The name Bombus Latreille, 1802 (type Apis terrestris Linnaeus, 1758) be added to the Official List of Generic Names. The name Bremus Panzer, 1801 (with the same type) is to be set aside and have no status in nomenclature.® 8 The above is an extract from the First Report of the Hymenoptera Sub-Com- mittee of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature of the Royal Entomological Society of London. At that time the Committee was composed of :—Sir Guy Marshall, K.C.M.G., F.R.S. (Chairman), Dr. K. G. Blair, Dr. F. W. Edwards, Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Dr. O. W. Richards, Mr. N. D. Riley, and Professor W. A. F. Balfour-Browne (Hon. Secretary). On receiving the Sub-Committee’s Report, the Committee on Generic Nomen- clature, in their Fifth Report, recommended the Council of the Royal Ento- mological Society of London to transmit the Hymenoptera Sub-Committee’s recommendations to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature for favourable consideration. This recommendation was approved by the Council of the Society and, on the publication of the Committee’s Fifth Report on 14th August 1937, the Sub-Committee’s recommendations were forwarded to the International Commission by the Council of the Society. 108 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. It had not been found possible to advance the consideration of the present case by the time that the outbreak of war in Europe 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 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 International Commission for decision. Work was at once started on outstanding applications with a view to arranging for their publication in the newly estab- lished Bulletin. When in 1944 the present case was being prepared for the printer, Mr. Hemming came to the conclusion that the end desired by the applicants could be attained without the use by the International Commission of its Plenary Powers, for in Opinion 135 (1939, Ops Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 7—12) the Commission had suppressed the so-called “ Er- langen List ’ under the Plenary Powers, a decision which deprived of availability the name Bremus Jurine, 1801, the name which the applicants had looked upon as invalidating the name Bombus Latreille, 1802. After communicating with the applicants, Mr. Hemming annexed the following explanatory note to the applica- tion in this case before sending it to the printer :— Since this petition was submitted, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature have rendered Opinion 135 (Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2 : 7—12), in which they have suppressed the “‘ Erlangen List’ under their Plenary Powers. Accordingly, the name Bremus Panzer-Jurine, 1801, referred to in the present petition, no longer has any status in zoological nomenclature, and the object desired in the petition can be obtained by the Commission placing the name Bombus Latreille, 1802, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, without it being necessary for them first to use their Plenary Powers to suspend the Régles Internationales. (int’d) F.H. 11th August 1944. 3. The present application, with Mr. Hemming’s annexed note, 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 28th February 1947 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 204). Pe OPINION 220 109 4. The publication of the present application in the Bulletin elicited a letter of support from the late Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen) who on 8th April 1947, wrote :—“‘ The proposals by Benson, Ferriére and Richards should be accepted ”’. 5. On receipt of certain additional information relating to this case, the Secretary, when preparing the papers to be submitted to the International Commission at its Paris Session, added the following Minute to the file on Ist May 1948 :— Dr. O. W. Richards has kindly drawn my attention to a paper by Miss G. A. Sandhouse published in 1943 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 92 : 519—619) entitled ““ The type species of the genera and subgenera of Bees’, which has a bearing on the application relating to the name Bombus Latreille, 1802, submitted by the Royal Entomological Society of London. 2. Before dealing with the point made by Miss Sandhouse, I must correct a mistake made in my footnote of 11th August 1944 (1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 204), where I expressed the view that the suppression by the Commission of the “‘ Erlangen List ’’ of 1801 under its Plenary Powers (Opinion 135) left Bombus Latreille, 1802, in undis- puted possession of priority for the genus so well known under this name. In making this statement I overlooked the fact that it is neces- sary to take account not only of the name Bremus Jurine, 1801 (Litt. Ztg Intell.-Blatt., Erlangen, 1801 : 164) (i.e. the “‘ Erlangen List ’’) but also of Bremus Panzer, as published in Part 85 (pl.s 19—21) of the Faun. Ins. germ. This latter name is also attributed to the year 1801 by Sherborn in the Index Animalium (1924, Index Anim., Pars secund. (4) : 871). Accordingly, if this date were to be accepted for Bremus Panzer, that name would have priority over Bombus Latreille, 1802, and, if no action were to be taken by the Commission, might replace that name. 3. In the paper referred to above, Miss Sandhouse (1) discusses the date of Bremus Panzer, and (2) selects a type species for that nominal species. On point (1) she states that the date is uncertain and that, subsequent to the publication of the Index Animalium, Dr. Sherborn gave her “ 1804 (?)”’ as his best guess. On (2) she selected as the type species of this genus B. agrorum Jurine (= Apis agrorum Fabricius, 1787). 4. In view of Miss Sandhouse’s type selection for Bremus Panzer, the genus so named and Bombus Latreille, 1802, are subjectively identical with one another, the question which has now to be considered is therefore what date should be attributed to Bremus Panzer. In 1924 (as already noted) Sherborn dated this name from 1801, thus giving priority to Bremus Panzer over Bombus Latreille ; at some later 110 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS date, however, he gave Miss Sandhouse the date “ 1804 (?)”’, thus making Bombus an older name than Bremus. 5. In these circumstances there seems little risk of its being found that Bremus Panzer has priority over Bombus Latreille and therefore the Commission would be safe in accepting Bombus Latreille as an available name. To be on the safe side, however, it is for con- sideration whether the Commission would be well advised to use the Plenary Powers conditionally for the purpose of protecting Bombus Latreille against any possible attack from Bremus Panzer. I1.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 6. The present application was considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Thirteenth Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi- thédtre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 1730 hours. In presenting this case, the Acting President (Mr. Francis Hemming) drew attention to the problem presented by the un- certainty existing as to the date to be attributed to the name Bremus Panzer and recommended the Commission to use its Plenary Powers to such extent, if any, as might be necessary, to secure that in no circumstances should it be possible to replace Bombus Latreille, 1802, by Bremus Panzer on grounds of priority. As noted in the Official Record of the Proceedings at this meeting (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 406), ““ General agreement was expressed with the view submitted by the Acting President and with the course of action which he had recommended”. Notice of the possible use of the Plenary Powers had not been given in the present case, since until a short time before the Paris Session, it had appeared that the end sought by the applicants could be attained without resort to the Plenary Powers. At an earlier stage of the Paris Session it had however been agreed to suspend the By-Laws of the Commission for the duration of that Session (Paris Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 2) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 7—8), and the present case was accordingly dealt with under that procedure. 7. The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commission at the Thirteenth Meeting of its OPINION 220 iil! Paris Session, setting out the decision then reached by it in the present case (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 41) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 404—407) :— THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their Plenary Powers to such extent, if any, as might be necessary, to validate the name Bombus Latreille, 1802 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) as against the name Bremus Panzer-Jurine (as published in Part 85 of the Faun. Ins. germ.), a name of at present indeterminate date, in the event of it later being estab- lished that that name had priority over Bombus Latreille, 1802 ; (2) to place the name Bombus Latreille, 1802 (type species, by monotypy : Apis terrestris Linnaeus, 1758), valid- ated, to such extent, if any, as might be necessary, under the decision taken in (1) above, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and the name Bremus Panzer-Jurine [1801—1804], on the corresponding Official Index ; (3) to place the trivial name terrestris Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Apis terrestris) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; (4) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (3) above. 8. The following are original references for the names which appear in the decision set out in the immediately preceding paragraph :— Bombus Latreille, 1802, Hist. nat. Fourmis : 437 Bremus Panzer, [1801—1804], Faun. Ins. germ. 85 : pls. 19—21 terrestris, Apis, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 578 112 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 9. The gender of the generic name Bombus Latreille, 1802, referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 7 above, is masculine. 10. The decision relating to 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 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. >): 03): 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 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 Rep. zool. Nomencl. : 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. OPINION 220 113 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 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. 15. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two Hundred and Twenty (220) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London this Thirtieth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Three. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in E ngland by Metcs 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 4. Part 11. Pp. 115—124 OPINION 221 Emendation to macfarlandi of the specific name pub- lished as mcfarlandi Cockerell, 1902 in the combination Chromodoris mcfarlandi (Class Gastropoda) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Three Shillings and Ninepence (All rights reserved) Issued—31st March, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 221 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. MortTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologisk 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. Perers (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. TN E. VoKxes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.). Class 1955 Professor Dr. Hilbrand BoscumMa (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 MANsSouR (King Fouad University, Cairo, Egypt). Professor Z. P. MetcaLr (North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering, University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.). Mr. N. D. Ritey (British Museum (Natural History), London, England). Professor Ragnar SPARCK (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). eae L. Ustncer (University of California, Berkeley, California, OPINION 221 EMENDATION TO ‘‘ MACFARLANDI ”? OF THE SPECIFIC NAME PUBLISHED AS ‘‘*MCFARLANDI’”? COCKERELL, 1902 IN THE COMBINATION ‘*“‘ CHROMODORIS MCFARLANDI ”’ (CLASS GASTROPODA) RULING :—(1) On the evidence submitted, it is “ évident ’ that, when, in publishing a specific name for a new species of the genus Chromodoris Alder & Hancock, 1855 (Class Gastropoda), dedicated in honour of a zoologist named “‘ MacFarland ”’, Cockerell (1902) spelt that specific name as mcfarlandi instead of macfarlandi, a “faute d’orthographe ” was committed and therefore that the specific name in question should be emended to read macfarlandi. (2) The specific name macfarlandi (emend. of mcfarlandi) Cockerell, 1902, as published in the combination Chro- modoris mcfarlandi, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 31. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 15th March 1938 Dr. D. P. Costello (University of North Carolina, Department of Zoology, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, U.S.A.) submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature the following application for the emendation to *“* macfarlandi”’ of the specific name mcfarlandi Cockerell, 1902, as published in the combination Chromodoris mcfarlandi (Class Gastropoda) :— On the interpretation of Article 19 of the ‘‘ Régles Internationales ”’ in relation to the name ‘‘ Chromodoris mcfarlandi ’’ Cockerell, 1902 (Class Gastropoda, Order Opisthobranchia) By D. P. COSTELLO (Department of Zoology, University of North Carolina) . Cockerell (1901 : 1902) named and described three new species of the genus Chromodoris Alder & Hancock, 1855, Mon. Brit. Nudibranch. 118 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (Moll. 7 App. : xvii) on the basis of animals collected at San Pedro and La Jolla, California. These were :—Chromodoris universitatis Cockerell ; C. porterae Cockerell ; and C. mcfarlandi. The first of these species was later considered to be identical with Chromeodoris californiensis Bergh, 1879, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1879 (1) : 71 (see Cockerell, 1908, Nautilus 21 : 106; O’Donoghue, 1926, Trans. Roy. Canad. Inst. 15 : 199). According to O’Donoghue (1926), Bergh intended this species to be called Chromodoris calensis, and so named it in his manuscript plate. Later the term “ calensis” was interpreted as a contraction for “ californiensis’’, and so appeared in the text published in 1879 (not 1789, as misprinted in O’Donoghue’s article). The trivial name californiensis has, therefore, been retained for this species by subsequent writers. Cockerell (1902) states that Chromodoris mcfarlandi was named in honour of Professor F. M. McFarland of Stanford University. The name of this investigator of the Nudibranchiata is F. M. MacFarland. MacFarland (1906) has corrected the spelling of his name, in as much as he refers to the species in question as Chromodoris macfarlandi, but no reference is made to the erroneous spelling in Cockerell’s paper. The corrected spelling was also used by Cockerell (1908) and by O’Donoghue (1926). However, on the basis of the International Code of Nomenclature, and the same argument that was applied to Chromodoris californiensis Bergh, 1879, the trivial name mcfarlandi should stand unless modified by an Opinion of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. O’Donoghue, who has made an extensive study of the taxonomy of the Nudibranchiata, has indicated: (1926) that the genus Chromodoris Alder & Hancock, 1855, should be changed to Glossodoris Ehrenberg, 1831, Symbolae physicae (Moll.) : sign. ““f’’. Therefore, O’ Donoghue considers that the correct name of the first species in question is Glossodoris californiensis (Bergh, 1879). The present name of the other species in question is Glossodoris mcfarlandi (Cockerell, 1902). According to Article 19 of the International Code, the original orthography of a name is to be preserved unless an error of transcription, a lapsus calami, or a typographical error is evident. The error involved in the first use, by Cockerell, of mcfarlandi is probably not typo- graphical, as it occurs in several places in two papers. It is possible, however, to consider it a Japsus calami. Judging from Opinions 41, 60 and 63, an Opinion by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature would be required to make the necessary change in this trivial name, i.e. the change from mcfarlandi to macfarlandi. Literature cited BERGH, R., 1879, “On the nudibranchiate gasteropod Mollusca of the North Pacific Ocean, with special reference to those of Alaska, Pt. I.”’ Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1879 (1) : 71. OPINION 221 119 BERGH, R., 1880, ‘‘ On the nudibranchiate gasteropod Mollusca of the North Pacific Ocean, with special reference to those of Alaska, Pt. Il.”’ Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1880 : 40. COCKERELL, T. D. A., 1901, ‘“Pigments of nudibranchiate Mollusca’. Nature 65 : 79. , 1902, ‘‘ Three new species of Chromodoris.” Nautilius 16 : 19. , 1908, ** Mollusca of La Jolla, California.’’ Nautilus 21 : 106. MACFARLAND, F. M., 1906, “‘ Opisthobranchiate Mollusca from Monterey Bay, California, and vicinity’. Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish. 25 = 109 O’DONOGHUE, C. H., 1926, “‘ A list of the nudibranchiate Mollusca recorded from the Pacific Coast of North America, with notes on their distribution.”’ Trans. Canad. Inst. 15 : 199. Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. The present application, which had been addressed by Dr. Costello to the late Dr. C. W. Stiles was forwarded by him on 6th June 1938 to Mr. Francis Hemming who in 1936 had succeeded him in the Office of Secretary to the Commission. On receipt in London, these papers were given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 122. It had not been found possible to advance the consideration of this case by the time that the outbreak of war in Europe 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 in London was re-opened in 1942, and steps were immediately taken to establish the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as a means for bringing to the attention of zoologists applications submitted to the International Commis- sion 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 October 1944, but, owing to difficulties arising from paper rationing, shortage of labour at the printing works and 120 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS similar causes, publication did not actually take place until 28th February 1947 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 232—233). 3. The publication of Dr. Costello’s application in the Bulletin elicited the following note of support, received on 7th January 1948, from Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) :— The name Glossodoris mcfarlandi should be changed to Glossodoris macfarlandi. This should be done by suspension of the Régles. The question of preserving the orthography of a proper name which is converted to a generic or trivial name is far more complicated than appears at first, and a code of rules is needed for this purpose. There are some proper names whose orthography might be altered advan- tageously, but MacFarland is not one of them. II1.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 4. 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- thédtre 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 setting out the decision reached by it in regard to this case at the foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 4) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 430—431) :— THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that on the evidence brought forward, it was “ évident ” that when, in publishing a trivial name for a new species of the genus Chromodoris Alder & Hancock, 1855 (Class Gastropoda, Order Opisthobranchia), dedicated in honour of a zoologist named OPINION 221 121 ““MacFarland ”, Cockerell (1902) had spelt that trivial name as “ mcfarlandi”’ instead of “‘ macfarlandi,”’ a “‘faute d’orthographe”’ had been committed and therefore that, under Article 19, the trivial name in question should be emended to read “‘ macfarlandi”” ; (2) to render an Opinion recording the decision specified in (1) above. 5. The following is the original reference for the specific name dealt with in the decision set out in the immediately preceding paragraph :— macfarlandi (emend. of mcfarlandi), Chromodoris, Cockerell, 1901, Nature 65 : 79 ' 6. Under the provisions governing the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (at the date of the Paris Congress styled the ** Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology”’), the International Commission is required (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 270) to place on that List any available specific name on which it renders an Opinion. By an oversight, a note of the placing on the Official List of the specific name macfarlandi (emend. of mcfarlandi) Cockerell, 1901, as published in the combination Chromodoris mcfarlandi, was omitted from the Official Record of the decision by the International Commission quoted in paragraph 4 above. This omission has been rectified in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 7. Attention is drawn to the fact that the Ruling given in the present Opinion was adopted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in the light of the provisions of Article 19 as that Article existed at the time (1948) of the adoption of this Opinion and that that decision is unaffected by the sub- stantial modifications of that Article made by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, that Congress having afforded express protection to all decisions 122 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS relating to the interpretation of the foregoing Article previously given by the International Commission in individual cases, irrespective of whether or not those decisions were in harmony with the revision of this Article carried out in Copenhagen (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 45) 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 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5: 112): 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. 1 It may further be noted: (1) that the Ruling given in the present Opinion is not in harmony with the revised provisions of Article 19 adopted by the Copenhagen Congress, for, although in 1902 (Nautilus 16 : 19) Cockerell gave the name of the zoologist after whom the species in question was named (though he misspelt that zoologist’s surname as ““ McFarland ’’), he gave no explanation of the origin of the specific name when he first published it in 1901 ; (2) that, notwithstanding (1) above, the special protection extended (as noted above) by the Copenhagen Congress to past interpretations of Article 19 by the Commission is not needed to give valid force to the Ruling given in the present case, since a provision, quite independent of questions of emendation, has been inserted in Article 14 prescribing that, where a specific name consists of a word based upon a mode patronymic and that patronymic commences with the particle ““ Mc” (or ““ M’ ”’), that particle is to be spelled out in full as ‘“‘ Mac” (1953, Copenhagen Deseo zool. Nomencl. : 55, 48). ee OPINION 221 123 11. 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. 12. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two Hundred and Twenty-One (221) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Thirtieth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Three. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING 4 oe ae Phe e ord 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 4. Part 12. Pp. 125—138 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a type species for the genus Tremataspis Schmidt, 1866 (Class Cephalaspidomorphi) in harmony with accustomed : | OPINION 222 usage oath — iil \ { | DI U VLA : Hien > “/y : ~ | APR Re OU ly O54 )j _UBRARL LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Five Shillings and Threepence (All rights reserved) Issued 31st March, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 222 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 Zoologisk 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. Perers (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. Rivey (British Museum (Natural History), London, England). ‘Professor Ragnar SPARCK (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). eee L. USsINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California, | 1 OPINION 222 DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF A TYPE SPECIES FOR THE GENUS ‘“TREMATASPIS”’ SCHMIDT, 1866 (CLASS CEPHALASPIDOMORPHI) IN HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED USAGE RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers, all type selections for the genus Tremataspis Schmidt, 1866 (Class Cephalaspidomorphi) made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside and Tremataspis schmidti Rohon, 1892, is designated as the type species of this nominal genus. (2) The generic name Tremataspis Schmidt, 1866 (gender of name: feminine), with the type species designated under (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 653. (3) The specific name schmidti Rohon, 1892, as pub- lished in the combination Tremataspis schmidti, 1s hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 32. I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 14th May 1938 Dr. George M. Robertson (Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, U.S.A.) submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature the following application for the use of the Plenary Powers to desig- nate for Tremataspis Schmidt, 1866 (Class Cephalaspidomorphi), a genus based upon a misidentified type species, a type species in harmony with accustomed usage :— Proposed suspension of the ‘‘ Régles ’’ for ‘‘ Tremataspis ’’ Schmidt, 1866 (Class Cephalaspidomorphi, Order Osteostraci) By GEORGE M. ROBERTSON (Department of Biology, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire) I wish to submit to the Commission the problem of nomenclature of the Ostracoderm genus Tremataspis Schmidt, 1866, Verh. Russ. min. Ges., St. Petersb. (2) 1 : 233, asking for suspension of the Rules on the grounds that more confusion would result from their application than from setting them aside. 128 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS In 1856 Pander (1) described as a new species Cephalaspis schrenckii from the Upper Silurian of Oesel. Ten years later, F. Schmidt (2), having acquired a few specimens from the same locality, and regarding them as conspecific with Pander’s species, founded the genus Tremataspis Schmidt. Since he regarded his material as conspecific with Pander’s Cephalaspis schrenckii, he adopted the trivial name schrencki. He was unable at that time to find the specimens on which Pander’s species had been based. By 1892, when J. V. Rohon (3) published an extensive account of Tremataspis Schmidt, three specimens of the Pander species had been discovered. Rohon found them specifically distinct from the specimens which Schmidt had described. He, therefore, gave Schmidt’s material the name Tremataspis schmidti and left Pander’s species as Tremataspis schrenckii. The taxonomic error came with the next publication by Schmidt (4). In this he recognised the validity of Rohon’s distinction between his and Pander’s material, but restored Pander’s to Cephalaspis schrenckii. As I understand these matters, a genus is not founded on a specimen or on specimens, but on a species. One cannot, then, legitimately remove a type species from a genus without reducing the generic name to the synonymy. Since Pander’s species was the type of Tremataspis Schmidt, that name should have been relegated to synonymy, i.e. should have followed its type species. Schmidt’s material should not have been left as Tremataspis schmidti Rohon but should have been given a new generic name. In Rohon’s next contribution (5) to the literature on Tremataspis he agreed with Schmidt in removing the schrenckii species from the genus TJremataspis and proceeded to discuss the TREMATASPIDAE, overlooking the taxonomic error. This tangled nomenclature has escaped the notice of all who have dealt with Tremataspis or with “‘ Cephalaspis schrenckii’’, the latest offender being the present writer (6). However, in working through the material in the Patten collection at Dartmouth College, I discovered 57 specimens of the Pander species. Examination of these specimens demonstrated to my satisfaction that the species represented a genus of its own. I proceeded to describe it and give it a new generic name, Witaaspis, from the quarry near Rotsikiilla in which the fossils were found. The manuscript was submitted to Dr. Romer of Harvard. In looking over the account, he discovered the infraction of taxonomic rules and kindly called my attention to it. © If taxonomic procedure is to be followed, the Pander species, instead of receiving a new generic name, should once more become Tremataspis schrenckii, while the various species now known as Tremataspis should be given a different generic name. q 4 J OPINION 222 129 Schmidt and Rohon identified a number of Pander’s other species with Tremataspis schmidti. These other species Pander had founded on small fragments of shields. Their microscopic structure, as seen in thin sections, resembles that of Tremataspis shields. However, they do not seem to me to resemble Tremataspis any more closely than they do Cephalaspis, and, since a number of genera of Osteostraci occur together in the formation, it is not sufficiently established that these Pander fragments belong to one rather than to some other of these genera. I would question their identification as Tremataspis too much to regard them as possible genotypes, whose generic designation should replace Tremataspis. In the International Code, there is a provision made for suspension of the Rules in certain cases.! In the present instance, it seems to me that the inconvenience which would result from adherence to the rules would more than offset the advantage resulting from correcting Schmidt’s error. The designation ‘‘ Tremataspis”’ has attached to the polished shields from Oesel for some 72 years. To redescribe Pander’s *“* Cephalaspis schrenckii’’ and Tremataspis and to change the genus and family names of what we have known as Tremataspis to something different only makes for confusion. It appears to the writer that in this case we have a very good instance in which “the strict application of the Rules will clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity’. I, therefore, suggest that the Rules be suspended in this case, leaving us the well-established Tremataspis with Tremataspis schmidti Rohon as the genotype, and giving the Pander species the new generic name Witaaspis Robertson, 1939, J. Geol. 47(6) : 652. References : 1. PANDER, C., 1856, “ Monographie der fossilen Fische des Silurischen Systems der Russischen-baltischen Gouvernements,” St. Petersb. : 47 pl. 4, fig. 2. 2. SCHMIDT, F., 1866, “‘ Ueber Thyestes verrucosus Eichwald und Cephalaspis schrenckii Pander, nebst einer Einleitung iiber das Vorkommen silurischer Fischreste auf der Insel Oesel.”’ Verh. russ. min. Ges. St. Pétersb. (2)1. 3. ROHON, J. V., 1892, “‘ Die Obersilurische Fische von Oesel. I. Theil. Thyestidae und Tremataspidae.” Mém. Acad. imp. Sci. St. Pétersb. (7) 38(13) : 61. 4. SCHMIDT, F., 1893, “‘ Ueber neue silurische Fischfunde auf Oesel.”’ Neues Jahrb. fiir Mineralogie 1 : 99. 5. ROHON, J. V., 1894, ‘“‘ Zur Kenntniss der Tremataspiden.”’ Mel. Geol. et Pal. Bull. Acad. imp. Sci. St. Pétersb. 1. a See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31—40). 130 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 6. ROBERSTON, G. M., 1938, “‘ The Tremataspidae.” Amer. J. Sci. (4) 35 : 172—206, 273—296. Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. The present application, which had been addressed by Dr. Robertson to the late Dr. C. W. Stiles was forwarded on 6th June 1938 to Mr. Francis Hemming who in 1936 had succeeded Dr. Stiles in the Office of Secretary to the Commission. On receipt in London, these papers were given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.)123. It had not been found possible to advance the consideration of this case by the time that the outbreak of war in Europe 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 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 International Commission for decision. Work was at once started on outstanding applications with a view to arranging for their publication in the newly estab- lished Bulletin. The present application was sent to the printer in October 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 28th February 1947 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 237—238). 3. The publication of Dr. Robertson’s application in the Bulletin elicited three communications. These, in order of receipt, were :—(1) a letter dated 8th April 1947, from the late Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen) (2) a letter dated 6th November 1947 notifying the decision by the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America to support Dr. Robertson’s proposal ; (3) a letter dated 19th March 1948 from Dr. Richard E. Blackwelder (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.), expressing the view that the evidence brought forward in this application was insufficient but not commenting upon the application itself. OPINION 222 131 4. Comment by Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen) :—In a letter dated 8th April 1947 Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen) indicated his support for Dr. Robertson’s proposal by writing the word “ Yes”’. 5. Comment by the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America: The view of the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America on this case was submitted in a letter dated 6th November 1947 from Dr. J. Brookes Knight (Research Associate, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.), who at that time was Chairman of the Joint Committee. The following is the text of that letter :— Subject : Proposed suspension of the ‘‘ Régles ’’ for ‘‘ Tremataspis ”’ Schmidt, 1866. (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 1, pt. 10, p. 237.) At the instigation of Prof. Alfred S. Romer, the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America on September 26th, 1947, submitted to the membership of the Committee for consideration and approval a resolution drawn by Prof. Romer on the above subject. Since it contains some points that may be relevant to the Commission’s consideration of Prof. Robertson’s petition the Chairman’s letter laying the Resolution before the Committee is quoted :— Apparently both Prof. Scott and I overlooked this proposal. Prof. Romer has called it to my attention and has suggested a Resolution on it that I now lay before you for action. I shall quote Romer’s remarks in full because they represent the view- point of those who are rather extreme in their deprecation of the Law of Priority, which is, after all, the very heart of the Régles. The Plenary Powers were granted the Commission expressly to mitigate the harshness of the Law of Priority through special action of the Commission in cases where it can be demonstrated to the Commission that the enforcement of the Law will “ result in greater confusion than uniformity.” (Opinions and Declarations, Etc., Vol. 1, pt. 5, [Declaration 5] pp. 31—40). It is fairly clear from reading the Opinions adopted by the Commission under its Plenary Powers that “ greater confusion than uniformity ” does not refer primarily to confusion in a small group of specialists some of whom refuse to abide by the Régles, but to “ confusion ” amongst the non-specialist consumers of the specialists product; stratigraphers, physiologists, physicians, 132 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS etc., and students using widely employed text books in which the illegally employed name forms an important part. Specialists are accustomed to accommodating themselves to changes of zoological names, by far the greatest part of which are the result of taxonomic progress ; the splitting of large, polyphylectic genera and species, for example. The specialist can accommodate himself as readily to name changes caused by rectification of previously illegal nomenclature as to those caused by taxonomic progress, and by all means should do so. The consumer, however, if the name in question is in wide use by non-specialists and is ““ deeply embedded ” in general literature, is especially disturbed by the changing of names for any cause, and changes for purely legalistic reasons are understandably very irritating and confusing to him. But even in specialistic literature there are cases in which suspension seems justified. For example, the petition on Fistulipora Rafinesque vs Fistulipora McCoy, which is before you. Now in the present case, Robertson seems to have had in preparation a manuscript in which he was revising the taxonomy _of the TREMATASPIDAE and was preparing to split off a group of species as a new genus Witaaspis. This in itself involves a change of names which no-one seems to have found objectionable. But when Dr. Romer quite rightly pointed out to him that the name Tremataspis Schmidt legally applied to this newly recognised genus « and that the genus that had long passed under this name is the one that legally needs a name, objections are raised and a suspension of the Régles is asked for. As far as one can see from Robertson’s petition there is no apparent reason that he could not have followed the Régles for he gives no evidence that the name Tremataspis has any deep hold on any group other than on a small specialistic one. However, Robertson’s petition was seemingly written long ago when the Commission was moribund for various regrettable reasons and was only published this year. In the meantime Robertson very naturally was forced to a decision and took action in the sense of his petition. His paper appeared in 1939 (but Witaaspis is still of doubtful validity since Robertson failed to designate its geno- type). Furthermore, it is my understanding that considerable literature employing Robertson’s nomenclature has appeared since and that Romer’s text-book, at least, follows it. This must be reckoned with. Further, Romer states in his letter that “‘ Tre- mataspis is frequently cited in general and elementary works in zoology and anatomy ” in its old and invalid sense. This is the most important of all in support of suspension for it involves ““consumer industries”. It is to be regretted that there is no allusion to it in Robertson’s petition. Romer does not document his statement but he is definitely an authority who knows whereof he speaks on such matters and I think we can accept it without question. OPINION 222 133 I now quote below Romer’s remarks from his letter to me of September 17th 1947, including the Resolution he suggests on which I would like to have your votes by October 15th. I disagree heartily with Gayle Scott’s lament that the Com- mission is doing too much suspending. Contrariwise, here’s for more and better changes, in the name of decency, common sense and regard for the general scientific public rather than the petty legalistic quibblings of the specialist who thinks he owns a special field and that the meanings of names are things that should be kept as dark as possible. Incidentally, if we are to consider all petitions on fossils, what about Robertson’s on Tremataspis. The case is almost exactly similar to that of Schwagerina (i.e. misidentification of material upon which the concept of the genus was based.) Here, however, we can nip the trouble in the bud, and save the anguish of the Schwagerina case. “ Tremataspis”’ is a genus frequently cited in general and elementary works in zoology and anatomy, and strict adherence to the Rules would certainly cause great confusion. Would a resolution such as the following be appropriate ? RESOLVED, that the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America support the petition of George M. Robertson that the Rules be suspended for Tremataspis Schmidt, and that the geneic name Tremataspis Schmidt, 1866 be placed on the Official List with Tremataspis schmidti Rohon, 1892 as its genotype. A further important consideration that is mentioned by neither Robertson nor Romer is that the family name TREMATASPIDAE would fall as a synonym of CEPHALASPIDAE, and a new family name would be needed if the Rég/es are not suspended. The vote of the Committee was 7 members (Simpson, Cooper, Moore, Keen, Reeside, and Knight) for approval. Romer cast no ballot but since he proposed the resolution is counted in the affirmative. Opposed to the resolution were 3 members, Wells, Palmer and Frizzell. Stenzel was away and Newell preoccupied with other matters so that neither voted. Simpson, voting the affirmative, commented as follows: “On Romer’s resolution to support Robertson’s petition regarding Tremataspis—I vote “ aye’, with applause for Romer’s wish for more and better suspending of the Rules.” Comments of those voting the negative were as follows :— Wells—Nay, but it is too bad Robertson allowed this to come about. Frizzell :—I am forced to vote nay, with the suggestion that the Commission’s attention be brought to the following points: (a) Robertson is in error in regarding a specific name as the type of a genus. 134 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS The evidence presented in the petition indicates that this is a case of a genus based upon an erroneously determined species. The presumed data are as follows :— Tremataspis Schmidt, 1866 Genotype: T. schrenckii (Pander) (NOT Cephalaspis schrenckii Pander)—T. schmidti Rohon, 1892 Witaaspis Robertson, 1939 Genotype : W. schrenckii (Pander) (designated in J. Geol., 1939, 47(6) : 651) (b) According to the demands of Opinions 65 and 168, Tremataspis must be a doubtful name until a decision is made by the Commission either to declare both Tremataspis and Witaaspis as valid, under the presumptions listed under (a), or to declare them synonymous. (c) A “decision” from the Commission is required, but ‘** Suspension of Rules” would not seem to enter into the case. (Here again the Committee [Commission ?] should have formul- ated a general rule that would enable us to deal with these not uncommon cases.) The Chairman, personally, wishes to comment on some points raised by Frizzell. Frizzell’s criticism that Robertson regarded a specific name as the type of a genus is contrary to fact. Robertson clearly states that ‘““ Pander’s species was the type of Tremataspis—” and uses this same concept throughout his petition. In common with many who discuss the question of erroneously determined species as genotypes Frizzell appears to be suffering from semantic confusion as between a name and the thing named. As Robertson clearly indicates the type of a genus is a species and not specimens. But each species is symbolised by a name. Therefore no author should be accused of regarding a name as the type of the genus where he actually refers to the species that legitimately bears the name. This is true especially when he defines his position so clearly as Robertson does. In such cases it is the accuser who is confused. But this is no place to argue the merits of the Opinions 14, 65 and 168 for it is under the provisions of Opinions 65 and 168 that Robertson lays his proposal before the Commission. Frizzell’s categorical statement on the genotype of Tremataspis is erroneous as is evidenced by the numerous cases in which the Commission has ruled in the same tenor under suspension of the Régles. At best the question is sub judice. Likewise his statement that Robertson designated W. schrenckii genotype of Witaaspis is contrary to fact. At best it is genotype by monotypy. There was no designation. It is not yet certain that monotypy serves to fix a genotype since the Budapest emendations to Article 25 became effective. (See comments by Secre- tary Hemming, Opinion 6, as reissued, p. 131, footnote 9.) Indeed there is doubt that the name Witaaspis as published by Robertson in OPINION 222 PSS 1939 is valid and available for this very reason.? Parenthetically, the Commission might well use the status of Witaaspis as a case on which to base a ruling settling this vital point. The Chairman, personally, disagrees also in toto with Frizzell’s points b and c, but does not comment further. In view of the above vote the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America hereby transmits Prof. Romer’s resolution to the Commission with its approval. 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 in the present case was issued to the serial publications prescribed by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913. The publication of this notice elicited no objection to the action proposed. Il.—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- 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 setting out the decision reached by it in regard to this case at the foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 6) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 433—435) :— THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their Plenary Powers :— (a) to set aside the type designation made by Schmidt 2 The issue here referred to by Dr. Brookes Knight was considered in Paris in 1948. The Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology then decided, on the advice of the International Commission, to insert words into Proviso (c) to Article 25 to make it clear that a generic name published after 31st December 1930 with only one included nominal species was to be accepted as a validly published name with the single cited species the type species by ancy of the nominal genus so established (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 72). 136 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS for, and all subsequent selections of type species made prior to the present decision in respect of, the genus Tremataspis Schmidt, 1866 (Class Cephalaspidomorphi, Order Osteostraci) ; (b) to designate Tremataspis schmidti Rohon, 1892, to be the type species of the foregoing genus ; (2) to place the generic name Tremataspis Schmidt, 1866, with the type species designated in (1)(b) above, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the trivial name schmidti Rohon, 1892 (as published in the binominal combination Tremataspis schmidti) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; (4) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (3) above. 8. The following are the original references for the names which appear in the decision set out in the immediately preceding paragraph :— schmidti, Tremataspis, Rohon, 1892, Mém. Acad. imp. Sci. St. Pétersb. (7) 38(13) : 61 Tremataspis Schmidt, 1866, Verh. russ. min. Ges. St. Petersb. Ql 233 9. The gender of the generic name Tremataspis schmidti, 1866, referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 7 above, is feminine. 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 16th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. Sy"). OPINION 222 137 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 Hank6 ; 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. 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. 138 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 15. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two Hundred and Twenty-Two (222) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this First day of December, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Three. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mercatre & CoopEr Limitrep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 ee ee ee OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c».G., C.B.£. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 4. Part 13. Pp. 139—148 OPINION 223 Suppression, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic name Teleosteus Volger, 1860, and of the specific name primaevus Volger, 1860, as published in the combination Teleosteus primaevus (Class Anthozoa) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Three Shillings and Ninepence (All rights reserved) Issued 31st March, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 223 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 Zoologisk 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 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. RILEy (British Museum (Natural History), London, England). Professor Ragnar SPARCK (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). Professor ek L. UsINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). ee a ee ee a ee OPINION 223 SUPPRESSION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE GENERIC NAME “TELEOSTEUS ” VOLGER, 1860, AND OF THE SPECIFIC NAME “ PRIMAEVUS ” VOLGER, 1860, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION ‘“ TELEOSTEUS PRIMAEVUS ” (CLASS ANTHOZOA) RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers the follow- ing names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homo- nymy: (a) the generic name Teleosteus Volger, 1860 ; (b) the specific name primaevus Volger, 1860, as published in the combination Teleosteus primaevyus. (2) The generic name Teleosteus Volger, 1860, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 32. (3) The specific name primaevus Volger, 1860, as pub- lished in the combination Teleosteus primaevus, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 10. (4) The generic name Rhipidophyllum Sandberger, 1889 (gender of name: neuter) (type species, by monotypy : Rhipidophyllum yulgare Sandberger, 1889) is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 654. (5) The specific name vulgare Sandberger, 1889, as published in the combination Rhipidophyllum vulgare, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 33. IL.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On Ist July 1938 an application by Dr. Adolf Zilch (Natur- Museum Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany), supported by Professor Rudolf Richter of the same Institution, was addressed to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, asking for the use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the generic 142 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS name Teleosteus Volger, 1860, a name given to a Devonian tetracoral under the mistaken impression that it was a fossil fish. The following is a translation from the German originals kindly prepared by Dr. Karl Jordan, when President of the International Commission :— Proposal to suppress the generic name ‘‘ Teleosteus ’’ Volger, 1860, and the specific name ‘‘ Teleosteus primazevus’”’ Volger, 1860 (Class Anthozoa) By ADOLF ZILCH (Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Natur-Museum Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M.) Volger, 1860, Ber. Offenbach. Ber. Naturk. 1 : 37, described from the Hunsriick-slate of Caub (Lower Devonian, Siegen division) a distinctive fossil as Teleosteus primaevus, which he believed to be “ the first trace of an osseous fish” found “in the Transition Rocks ”’. Volger said about this find ( : 52): ““ Everyone who inspects it recog- nises it at once as the tail-fin, united with the last joints of the spine, of an osseous fish, which shows itself to be a true scaled fish by the strong development of the vertebrae as well as by the absence of any trace of an integumental covering. Moreover, according to this relic, the species is seen to be a perfectly symmetrically forked fish”. . . “ This remnant, therefore, is the first and so far the only proof that osseous fishes existed in the Transition Era. Hence, it appears to me pro- visionally to deserve the name by which I have designated it: ‘ der Ur-Grathenfisch ’’ (Teleosteus primaevus)”’. Although Volger pre- ferred “‘eine treue Abbildung einer auf Grund der Auffassung verdeutlichten Darstellung ’’, he described this new genus and species as follows :— Man erkennt drei kraftige Wirbelkérper, ohne eine Spur ansitzender Dornen. Von facherformig gestellten platten Knochen- stiicken an der Wurzel der Schwanzfinne oder von einer plattenar- tigen Ausbildung eines letzen Wirbels ist nichts zu erkennen. Die Wurzel der Schwanzfinne erscheint ziemlich verdickt und ohne deutliche Spur der Strahlen. Um so scharfer treten letztere auf der ganzen ausgebreiteten Flaiche der Schwanzfinne hervor. Man erkennt eine nach hinten zunehmende Zahl von solchen Strahlen . . . Jedenfalls haben wir hier auf dem Uebergangsschiefer von Caub den gleichgabeligen Schwanz eines Grdthenfisches vor uns—und damit eine neue Thatsache, welche allerdings berechtigt ist, auf bedeutenden Einfluss zu beanspruchen. According to Volger’s own statements, eminent contemporaries— like von Rath—saw the specimens, but it was less the systematic OPINION 223 143 position of the fossil and much more the high geological age of the rocks which was doubted. It was assumed to be, perhaps, a fish-slate from Glarus. During the preparation of the Catalogue of Types in the Natur- Museum Senckenberg, the original specimen of Teleosteus primaevus Volger, 1860,1 has been found, correctly arranged among the corals of the Hunsriick-slate. It is indeed, in fact, a Devonian tetracoral ; it belongs to the same species as that which Sandberger (1889, Jb. nass. Ver. Naturh. 42 : 100 pl. 1, figs. 1—4) named Rhipidophyllum vulgare. If the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature are strictly applied, the species Rhipidophyllum vulgare Sandberger, 1889, and the genus Rhipidophyllum Sandberger, 1889, will have to receive the names Teleosteus primaevus Volger, 1860, and Teleosteus Volger, 1860, respectively. As the name “ Teleosteus’’ would be misleading for a genus of corals and as, further, Sandberger’s designation “ Rhipido- phyllum-slate ’’ (—Hunsriick-slate) is of historical importance, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature are asked to make use of its Plenary Powers to suspend the rules and to declare the names Teleosteus Volger, 1860, and Teleosteus primaevus, 1860, to be unavailable. Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. On receipt, the papers relating to the present case were given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 132. It had not been found poss- ible to advance the consideration of the present application by the time that the outbreak of war in Europe 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 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 Inter- national 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 applica- tion 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, Dr. Zilch’s application was 1 For a figure of the type of Teleosteus primaevus Volger, 1860, see Zilch, 1937, Senckenbergiana 19 : 431—432. 144 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS not actually published until 28th February 1947 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 228—229). 3. The publication of the present application in the Bulletin elicited three comments. These in order of receipt, were :—(1) a letter dated 8th April 1947 from Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen) ; (2) a letter dated 30th October 1947 from the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America ; (3) a letter dated 13th December 1947 from Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.). In each of the foregoing letters support was given to the proposal submitted by Dr. Zilch. In addition, there was received a letter dated 19th March 1948 from Dr. Richard E. Blackwelder (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.), expressing the view that the evidence brought forward in this application was insufficient but not commenting upon the application itself. 4. Comment by Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen): In a letter dated 8th April 1947 Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen) wrote : “* Teleosteus must be suppressed ”’. 5. Comment by the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomen- clature for Paleontology in America: The view of the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America on this case was submitted in a letter dated 30th October 1947 from Dr. J. Brookes Knight (Research Associate, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.), who at that time was chairman of the Joint Committee. The following is the text of that letter :— Proposal to suppress the generic name ‘‘ Teleosteus’’ Volger, 1860, and the specific name ‘‘ Telecsteus primaevus ’’ Volger, 1860. (Bull. zool. Nomen. vol. 1, pt. 10, p. 228.) On July 3rd 1947, the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America submitted to the member- ship of the Committee for consideration and approval the following resolution :— Resolved : That the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomencla- ture in America support the petition of Adolf Zilch that the generic name Teleosteus Volger, 1860, and the specific name Teleosteus primaevus Volger, 1860, be suppressed under suspension of the Régles. OPINION 223 145 The vote of the membership was 10 to | for approval, Romer, Simpson, Newell, Palmer, Cooper, Moore, Keen, Frizzell, Reeside, and Knight voting in the affirmative and Wells in the negative. Stenzel was away and unable to vote. The only comment was that of Wells who wrote “I fail to see potentialities for danger to stability although it is rather a silly situation.” In view of the above vote the Joint Committee hereby transmits to the International Commission the Resolution adopted. 6. Comment by Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) : The following comment was received from Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) under cover of a letter dated 13th December 1947 :— It would appear wiser to suppress the name Teleosteus primaevus Volger, 1860, for the reasons set out in the Bulletin, vol. 1, Part 10, pp. 228—229. 7. 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. Ill—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 8. 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 setting out the decision reached by it in regard to this case at the foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 3) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 428—430) :— 146 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their Plenary Powers :— (a) to suppress the generic name Teleosteus Volger, 1860, and the trivial name primaevus Volger, 1860, (as published in the binominal combination Teleosteus primaevus) ; (b) to validate the generic name Rhipidophyllum Sandberger, 1889 and the trivial name vulgare Sandberger, 1889 (as published in the binominal combination Rhipidophyllum vulgare) ; (2) to place the generic name Teleosteus Volger, 1860 on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the trivial name primaevus Volger, 1860 (as published in the binominal combination Teleosteus primaevus) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the generic name Rhipidophyllum Sandberger, 1889, Jahrb. nassau. Ver. Naturk. 42 :100 (Class Anthozoa) (type species, by monotypy ; Rhipidophyllum vulgare Sandberger, 1889), on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (5) to place the trivial name vulgare Sandberger, 1889, (as published in the binominal combination Rhipidophyllum vulgare) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (6) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (5) above. 9. The following are the original references for the names which appear in the decision set out in the immediately preceding paragraph :— primaevus, Teleosteus, Volger, 1860, Ber. Offenbach. Ber. Naturk. 37 Rhipidophyllum Sandberger, 1889, Jahrb. nassau. Ver. Naturk. 42 : 100 Teleosteus Volger, 1860, Ber. Offenbach. Ber. Naturk. 1 : 37 vulgare Sandberger, 1889, Jahrb. nassau. Ver. Naturk. 42 : 100 OPINION 223 147 10. The gender of the generic name Rhipidophyllum Sandberger, 1889, referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 8 above, is neuter. 11. 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 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. Syl 12): 12. 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. 13. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the Paris Session. 14. 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. 148 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 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 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. 16. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two Hundred and Twenty-Three (223) of the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London this First day of December, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Three. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mretcarre & Cooper Limitep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 4. Part 14. Pp. 149—160 OPINION 224 Determination, under the Plenary Powers, of the species of the Class Brachiopoda to which the name Anomia pecten Linnaeus, 1758, shall apply uN wa cy * i] i 2 a) A> LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Four Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 31st March, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 224 A. The Officers of the Commission President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Her is, 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 Zoologisk 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. Perers (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 HANKG (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 Lemcue (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 andl 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 Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). ca L. USINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California, .S.A.). OPINION 224 DETERMINATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE SPECIES OF THE CLASS BRACHIOPODA TO WHICH THE NAME ‘“ ANOMIA PECTEN ”’ LINNAEUS, 1758 SHALL APPLY RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers it is hereby directed that the specific name pecten Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Anomia pecten, shall apply to the species of the Class Brachiopoda described and figured as Orthis pecten (Linnaeus) by Dalman (J.W.) in 1828 (K. svensk. Vetensk. Acad. Handl. 1827 : 110, pl. 1, figs, 6a—d). (2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 34 and 35 :—(a) pecten Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Anomia pecten and as determined in (1) above; (b) papyraceus Sowerby (J.), 1822, as published in the combination Pecten papyraceus. I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE In September 1938 Dr. Alan Wood (Department of Geology, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London) submitted an application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for the use of its Plenary Powers to secure that the specific name pecten Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Anomia pecten, should apply to the species of Brachiopod commonly known by that name and not to the lamellibranch species to which the figure cited by Linnaeus is 152 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS referable. Dr. Wood’s application, slightly expanded in the light of subsequent correspondence with the Secretary, was as follows :— Proposed suspension of the ‘‘ Régles ”’ to identify ‘‘ Anomia Pecten ”’ Linnaeus, 1758, with the species belonging to the Order Protremata (Class Brachiopeda) commonly known as ‘* Strophomena Pecten ’’ (Linnaeus, 1758) By ALAN WOOD, Ph.D. (Department of Geology, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London) Linnaeus, in 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 702, described a fossil shell under the name Anomia pecten in the following words :— 103. A. testa semi-orbiculata depressa multistriata: valvula altera plana. List. angl. 243. t. 9. f. 49. Habitat... . fossilis. Testa inferne s. margine cardinis linea recta s. transversa. No locality was given by Linnaeus, as will be seen from the above quotation, but a specimen is contained in his cabinet at the Linnean Society of London. Lister’s figure cited by Linnaeus, is of a specimen “ ex fodinis car- bonum Fossilium juxta Hallifax’’, and is quite recognisable as the lamellibranch Dunbarella papyracea (J. Sowerby, 1822) (=Pecten papyraceus Sowerby, 1822, Min. Conch. 4 : 75 pl. 354), which is known to occur in the Halifax Hard Marine Band in the Coal Measures. This is the species widely known as Pterinopecten papyraceus (Sowerby, 1822). The description given by Linnaeus quoted above could be held to apply to this shell. On the other hand, the shell preserved in the Linnean cabinet is a Silurian brachiopod to which the name Strophomena pecten (Linnaeus, 1758) has long been given. This is the species now known as Schuchertella pecten (Linnaeus, 1758). This Silurian form is the shell with which Linnaeus was actually dealing, and knowledge of its characteristics was spread by personal contact among Swedish palaeontologists, till Dalman in 1828 (K. Vet. Akad. Handl. 1827) published typical figures. By strict application to the rules, it would seem that the trivial name papyraceus Sowerby should be displaced by pecten Linnaeus, and that the brachiopod long known as Strophomena pecten (Linnaeus, 1758) is without a valid trivial name. Since both Pterinopecten papyraceus (Sowerby, 1822) and Stropho- mena pecten (Linnaeus, 1758) are widely distributed shells, cited by OPINION 224 153 many authors for more than 100 years, strict application of the rules in this case would lead to confusion. It is, therefore, asked that the Rules be suspended in this case, so that the trivial name pecten Linnaeus, 1758, can be applied to the Silurian brachiopod now commonly known as Strophomena pecten (Linnaeus, 1758). Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. On receipt, the papers relating to the present case were given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 130. It had not been found possible to advance the consideration of the present application by the time that the outbreak of war in Europe 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 in London was re-opened in 1942, and steps were immediately taken to establish the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as a means for bringing to the attention of zoologists applications submitted to the International Commission for decision. Work was at once started on outstanding applications with a view to arranging for their publication in the newly established Bulletin. After an exchange of correspondence between the Secretary and the applicant in the early autumn of 1944, the present application was sent to the printer in October of that year. Owing, however, to difficulties arising from paper rationing, shortage of labour at the printing works and similar causes publication did not actually take place until 28th February 1947 (Wood, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 239). 3. The publication of Dr. Wood’s application in the Bulletin elicited support from :—(1) Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen) ; (2) the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America; (3) Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.). The comments so received are quoted in the following paragraphs. 4. Comment by Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen): In a letter dated 8th April 1947 Dr. Th. 154 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Mortensen (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen) in- dicated his support for Dr. Wood’s proposal by writing the word UeXeSi. 5. Comment by the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America: The view of the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America on this case was submitted in a latter dated Sth November 1947 from Dr. J. Brookes Knight (Research Associate, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.), who at that time was Chairman of the Joint Committee. The following is the text of the letter :— Proposed suspension of the ‘‘ Régles ’’ to identify ‘‘ Anomia pecten ” Linnaeus, 1758, with the species belonging to the Order Protremata (Class Brachiopoda) commonly known as ‘‘ Strophonema pecten’’ (Linnaeus, 1758). (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 1, pt. 10, p. 239.) On July 3rd, 1947, the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Zoo- logical Nomenclature for Paleontology in America submitted to the membership of the Committee for consideration and approval a resolution on the above proposal. This resolution (as well as some others submitted on the same date) was the result of a recommendation of Prof. Gayle Scott, a former member of the Committee. Since it contains some points that may be relevant to the Commission’s consideration of Dr. Wood’s petition the Chairman’s letter laying the resolution before the Committee is quoted :— Professor Scott’s recommendation reads as follows :— My thought is that this request should be for the Commission’s authority of stabilisation rather than for suspension of the Rules. After all, Linnaeus was describing the shell since commonly known as the Silurian brachiopod Strophomena pecten. It should scarcely require a suspension of the Rules to so order it. Comments. I don’t quite understand Professor Scott’s remark that this is a case for “ stabilisation ’’ rather than for suspension of the Régles. I presume he feels that, because the concept was spread among Swedish paleontologists by personal contact that the name referred to the brachiopod and that a specimen of the brachiopod was long afterward found in Linnaeus’ collection, all the Commission has to do is to “ stabilise ”’ what had long since been customary. On the other hand, I would argue that Linnaeus : OPINION 224 155 in his original proposal of the species, Anomia pecten, gave a precise bibliographic reference to a specimen figured by Lister that is “quite recognisable as the lamellibranch”’ later described as Pecten papyraceous Sowerby. He gave a description that could apply to that species (as well as the brachiopod) and that he gave no other “‘ indication’. This specimen, then, was his figured type, so to speak. All of this was published information. The information spread by personal contact and the specimens in his collection were unpublished. Therefore this unpublished, esoteric informa- tion, however influential on contemporaries, cannot stand legally as against a contrary published and very definite indication. Therefore, it appears to me that Doctor Wood’s statement that the trivial name papyraceous of Sowerby must be replaced by its senior synonym pecten of Linnaeus, a lamellibranch, is legally correct. Hence if the trivial name pecten is to continue to be applied to the brachiopod, it can only be done legally under suspension of the Régles. In view of these facts and of the evident confusion that would result if the Régles are applied, I propose the following resolution for your action :— RESOLVED: That the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America support the petition of Dr. Alan Wood that the trivial name pecten Linnaeus (Anomia pecten Linnaeus, 1758), be applied to the brachiopod species now commonly known as Strophomena pecten (Linnaeus) under suspension of the Régles and that the specimen preserved in the Linnaean Cabinet be designated its holotype. The vote of the membership was 9 for approval of the Resolution, Romer, Simpson, Newell, Palmer, Cooper, Moore, Keen, Reeside, in the affirmative and 2, Wells and Frizzell in the negative. Stenzel was away and did not vote. Comments on those voting in the affirmative were as follows :— Cooper—Vote Aye for petition to fix Anomia pecten as the name of a brachiopod now known as Fardenia (Strophomena) pecten. Reeside—Yes, but do not think Commission should designate specimens. Frizzell, voting in the negative commented as follows :— There is no problem here, and hence no Suspension of Rules is required! Linné’s existing holotype (and not a figure included as a synonymic reference!) is the last court of appeal in regard to the biological entity to which he applied the name. I am opposed to designation of type specimens by the Commission (except as a last resort in exceptional cases, perhaps), and I certainly should not want the precedent started unnecessarily. 156 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Cooper’s comment is to be interpreted as indicating that some specialists in brachiopoda (as Cooper) now refer Anomia pecten Linnaeus to Fardenia Lamont, 1935, rather than to Strophomena. The Chairman personally desires to go on record as disagreeing with Frizzell on every issue raised in his comment and with Reeside on the issue he raises. According to the premises the specimen in Linné’s cabinet has never been designated as “holotype” in any publication. A specimen illustrated in a synonymic reference is technically every bit as available for type designation as any specimen in the cabinet of the author proposing the name. The author definitely included that figured specimen in his species and hence there are no valid grounds for excluding it as unavailable until such time as some other available specimen is selected. Indeed, to workers with no personal contact with the author or his collection the figured specimen is the only one that is presented to them for independent objective determination of what species the name was applied to. This is the function—and only function—of the type. If the Commission does not have the _ power to adjudicate differences of opinion as to what is the type speci- men of a species or to set aside a technically valid selection of a type species under the Plenary Powers, then it is cut off from jurisdiction over what is in the final analysis the most vital nomenclatural act that can be performed, the nomenclatural act that gives concrete referants for the whole elaborate framework of zoological nomenclature that without such concrete referants deals entirely with abstractions. This is unthinkable. The act of designating the type of a species is a nomenclatural act, not a zoological one as some seem to suppose. (See Simpson, G. G., Types in modern taxonomy. Amer. J. Sci., vol. 238, p. 413—431). In view of the above vote, the Joint Committee hereby transmits to the International Commission the Resolution adopted. 6. Comment by Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) : The following comment was received from Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) under cover of a letter dated 13th December 1947 :— It would appear to me wise to grant this request, otherwise we should have a species called Pterinopecten pecten, and as this was originally described as a Pecten we would have potentially Pecten pecten. Re- peated names like this are objectionable unless they are names of generitypes, which this is not. Nothing helps to stabilise nomenclature so much as rulings by the Commission, and every time a ruling is published, I feel intensely grateful to the Commission, even though its decision differs from what mine would have been. OPINION 224 157 7. 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 in the present case was issued to the serial publications prescribed by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913. The publication of this notice elicited no objection to the action proposed. THE DECISION BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 8. 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 Pro- ceedings of the International Commission setting out the decision reached by it in regard to this case at the foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 7) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 435—436) :— THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their Plenary Powers to direct that the trivial name pecten Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination of Anomia pecten) should apply to the species of the Order Protremata of the Class Brachio- poda, commonly known as_ Strophomena_ pecten (Linnaeus, 1758), i.e. the species determined as Schellwienella pecten (Linnaeus, 1758) by Dalman (J.W.), 1828, K. svenska Vetensk. Akad. Handl., 1827 : 110 pl. 1, figs. 6a—d (as Orthis pecten) ; (2) to place the undermentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— pecten Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Anomia pecten), as identified in (1) above ; 158 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS papyraceus Sowerby, 1822 (as published in the binominal combination Pecten papyraceus) ; (3) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) and (2) above. 9. The following are the original references for the names which appear in the decision set out in the immediately preceding paragraph :— papyraceus, Pecten, Sowerby (J.), 1822, Min. Conch. 4 : 75 pecten, Anomia, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 702 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 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.5 : 113). 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 OPINION 224 159 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. 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. 15. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two Hundred and Twenty-Four (224) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London this First day of December, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Three. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING hf ane > ECC RE Dee arco ; Mae sad Ame: Hi Printed in England by Mercanre & Cooper 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 4. Part 15. Pp. 161—176 OPINION 225 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of Belone Cuvier, 1817 (Class Pisces) and Raphistoma Hall, 1847 (Class Gastropoda) EM HSOW, 14 JUN15 1954 LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Six Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 21st April, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 225 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 Piata, 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. PeETERS (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 Lemcue (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologiske Labora- torium, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Kamel MANSOUR (King Fouad University, Cairo, Egypt). Professor Z. P. MeEtTcALF (North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering, University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.). Mr. N. D. Riey (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). Peat cine L. UsINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A,). OPINION 225 VALIDATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF ** BELONE ”’ CUVIER, 1817 (CLASS PISCES) AND *“*RAPHISTOMA ” HALL, 1847 (CLASS GASTROPODA) RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers the under- mentioned generic names are hereby suppressed for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy: (a) Raphistoma Rafinesque, 1815; (b) Belone Oken, 1815. (2) The generic names suppressed under (1) above are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 33 and 34 respectively. (3) The under-mentioned generic names, as validated in (1) above, are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 655 and 656 :—(a) Raphistoma Hall, 1847 (gender of name: neuter) (type species, by selection by de Koninck, 1881 : Maclurea striatus Emmons, 1842); (b) Belone Cuvier, 1817 (gender of name: feminine) (type species, by absolute tautonymy: Esox belone Linnaeus, 1761). (4) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 36 and 37 :—(a) striatus Emmons, 1842, as published in the combination Maclurea striatus ; (b) belone Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the combina- tion Esox belone. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 17th November 1938 Dr. J. Brookes-Knight (then of the Department of Geology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A.) submitted the following application for the use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of suppressing the name Raphistoma Rafinesque, 1815, thus validating both its junior homonym Raphistoma Hall, 1847 (Class Gastropoda) and its 164 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS objective junior synonym Belone Cuvier, 1817 (Class Pisces). Of the ten signatories to this application, some were specialists in Palaeozoic Gastropods and some in Living fishes. Proposed suspension of the ‘‘ Régles ’’ to suppress the name ‘* Raphistoma ”’ Rafinesque, 1815 (Class Pisces, Order Synentognathi) and to validate the name ‘‘ Raphistoma ”’ Hall, 1847 (Class Gastropoda, Order Archaeogastropoda) By J. BROOKES KNIGHT (Department of Geology, Princeton University, New Jersey), L. R. COX, Sc.D. (Department of Geology, British Museum (Natural History)), K. P. OAKLEY (Department of Geology, British Museum (Natural History)), JOSIAH BRIDGE (Palaeontologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.), EDWIN KIRK (U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.), J. R. NORMAN (British Museum (Natural History)), ETHELWYNN TREWAVAS, D.Sc. (Department of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History)), E. O. ULRICH (U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C.), LEONARD P. SCHULTZ (Division of Fishes, Smithsonian Institution, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.), and GEORGE S. MYERS (Professor of Biology and Head Curator of Zoological Collections, Natural History Museum, Stanford University, California) The undersigned, specialists in the fields of Palaeozoic Gastropoda and of living fishes, petition the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature to suppress the name Raphistoma Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse Nat. : 89 (Pisces) under suspension of the Rules, in favour of its subsequent homonym Raphistoma Hall, 1847, Nat. Hist. New York (Pal.) 1 : 28 (Mollusca, Gastropoda), and of its subsequent objective synonym Belone Cuvier, 1817, Régn. anim. 2 : 185, on the ground that the application of the Rules would lead to greater confus- ion than uniformity. As matters stand today, the name Raphistoma ee es ee ee OPINION 225 165 Rafinesque has been largely overlooked, and is not employed by sys- tematists in fishes, though it is seemingly a valid prior objective synonym of the widely employed name Belone Cuvier, 1817, while the invalid Raphistoma Hall, 1847, has been widely employed for a genus of Palaeozoic gastropods since its proposal some ninety years ago. The name Raphistoma Rafinesque appeared in that author’s Analyse de la Nature, published in Palermo in 1815, an excessively rare work. Here we find on page 89 the following :— Ill. O. Gastripia les Abdominaux 1. Sous-Ordre. Brachistomia, Les Brachistomes [defined] 19. Famille Siagonia, Les Siagéniens. 2. S. F. ESOXIDIA. Les Esoxides. Une seule nageoire dorsale, dos non aquillonne. G! 5: Esox. L.* 6. Raphistoma R. Belone Gr. 7. Lepiosteus Lac. 8. Synodus Lac. 9. Megalops Lac. 10. Elops L. 11. Stomias R. In a memorandum furnished in 1934 Mr. J. R. Norman, Assistant Keeper, Department of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History), one of the co-signatories of the present petition, who was consulted relative to the validity of Raphistoma Rafinesque and its status among ichthyologists, stated :— Rafinesque refers to Belone Gronovius. No trace of Belone is to be found in Gronovius’s Zoophylacium, 1763—1781, or in the Museum Ichthyol, 1754—1756, except in the index to the former work. Here we find “ Bellone No. 362”’, but on turning up No. 362 in the text we find no trace of this word. However, the species referred to under No. 362 is clearly the Gar-fish of European seas, i.e. Esox belone Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 314. Thus it seems that the species Esox belone Linnaeus is genotype of Raphistoma Rafinesque, 1815, by monotypy. But Esox belone Linnaeus is also genotype of Belone Cuvier, 1817, by absolute tautonymy and hence Belone Cuvier, 1817, a name widely used and currently in good standing for the genus in question, is a subsequent exact or objective synonym of Raphistoma Rafinesque, 1815, a name that has been almost wholly overlooked. If the Rules are rigidly enforced, the almost unknown name Raphistoma must of necessity replace the well-known and widely used Belone Cuvier, 1817, a substitution that is highly undesirable from any point of view save that of the most sterile priority. Furthermore, unless the name Raphistoma Rafinesque, 1815, is set aside under the Plenary Power, the rigid enforcement of the Rules would require the suppression of Raphistoma Hall, 1847, Nat. Hist. New York (Pal.) 1 : 28, aname widely in use for a genus of Palaeozoic gastro- pods since it was first proposed, and currently in good standing, as a 166 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS subsequent invalid homonum of Raphistoma Rafinesque, 1815. This again would serve no good purpose, and would inevitably lead to confusion. Annex 1 to application Supplementary Note by L. R. COX, Sc.D. (Assistant Keeper, Department of Geology, British Museum (Natural History)) Since no bibliographic reference is given by Rafinesque and the trivial name belone was not applied by Gronovius to any species, we can only guess that Rafinesque intended to found the genus Raphistoma upon the species Esox belone Linnaeus. Hence the name Raphistoma would appear to have been published without a definition, description, or indication as defined by Opinion 1, and may be ignored. It further appears doubtful if the “‘ Bellone ’ of Gronovius’ index can be accepted as more than a vernacular name, and, according to Opinion 1 again, “‘In no case is the word ‘indication’ to be construed as including vernacular names ”’. However, since other workers may object to this interpretation of the Rules, it seems desirable to have Raphistoma Rafinesque ruled out by a definite Opinion. * Dr. J. Brookes Knight has since become Research Associate in Palaeontology, Smithsonian Institution, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C. OPINION 225 167 Annex 2 to application Supplementary Note by GEORGE S. MYERS (Professor of Biology and Head Curator, Zoological Collections, Natural History Museum, Stanford University) I have not seen the original of Rafinesque’s Analyse, but, if the passage quoted in the accompanying memorandum is correct, I am inclined to agree with Dr. Cox that Raphistoma of Rafinesque, 1815, is not available under the Rules. My reasons are exactly those put forward by Dr. Cox. It should be noted that Mr. Fowler, of the Philadelphia Academy, has rejected Raphistoma Rafinesque, evidently with much the same things in mind (see his “‘ Marine Fishes of West Africa ”’ in 1936, Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 70 (1) : 438). The late Dr. D. S. Jordan (1917, Genera of Fishes (1) : 91) attempts to explain Rafinesque’s reference to Gronovius, but says: “ This refer- ence does not seem to justify the substitution of Ramphistoma [sic] for Belone’’. It will be noted that the accompanying memorandum, as well as Jordan, quotes Rafinesque’s page 89, whereas Fowler (loc. cit.) gives the page as ““15”’. This should be investigated. It should be impressed upon the Commission that Belone Cuvier is today a universally recognised genus in ichthyology, and the family of the marine gars (a world-wide group) is based on it. I have come across only one recent author who has accepted Rafinesque’s name. De Buen (1935, Instituto esp. Oceanogr., Madrid, Notas y Restimenes (2) 88 : 69) quotes “* Rhamphistoma [sic] Rafinesque 1810, [sic] ”’, and in the synonymy of Rhamphistoma [sic] belone (Linn.) he lists “1810, Rhamphistoma [sic] vulgaris Rafinesque’’. He gives no more exact reference to any of Rafinesque’s papers. So far as I know, Rafinesque published only two papers on fishes in 1810 (the Indice @ittiologia siciliana and his Caratteri) and I find no reference to a name “‘ Rhamphistoma’”’ or a“ R. vulgaris’ in either. The synonymic quotation directly above—“‘ 1810, Belone acus Risso ’’—is also non- existent, and I think that we may safely discount these references I fully agree with Dr. Cox that, in view of the possibility of disagree- ment on the availability of Rafinesque’s Raphistoma, it would be desir- able to have this name ruled out definitely by the Commission. Its use, in ichthyology, would certainly lead to greater confusion than uniformity. Ii.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. On receipt, the papers relating to the present case were given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 145. It had not been found 168 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS possible to advance the consideration of the present application by the time that the outbreak of war in Europe 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 in London was re-opened in 1942, and steps were immediately taken to establish the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as a means for bringing to the attention of zoologists applications submitted to the International Commission for decision. Work was at once started on outstanding applications with a view to arranging for their publication in the newly established Bulletin. After an exchange of correspondence on certain questions of detail between the Secretary and Dr. L. R. Cox, one of the applicants, the present application was sent to the printer in October 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 28th February 1947 (Knight et al., 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 1 : 225—228). 3. The publication of this application in the Bulletin elicited support from four quarters. Arranged in order of receipt, the letters so received were from :—(1) Dr. Th. Mortensen (Univer- sitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen) ; (2) the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America ; (3) Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) ; (4) Professor Lodovico di Caporiacco (University of Parma, Italy). The comments so furnished are quoted in the immediately following paragraphs. 4. Comment by Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen): In a letter dated 8th April 1947 Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen) wrote : ““The name Belone must be preserved ”’. 5. Comment by the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomen- clature for Palaeontology in America: The view of the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America on this case was submitted in a letter dated 28th October 1947 from Dr. J. Brookes Knight (Research Associate, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.), who at that le ee eee OPINION 225 169 time was Chairman of the Joint Committee. The following is the text of that letter :-— Proposed Suspension of the ‘‘Régles”’ to suppress the name ‘‘Raphistoma’”’ Rafinesque, 1815 (for a fish) and to validate the name ‘‘Raphistoma’”’ Hall, 1847 (gastropod). (Bull. Zool. Nom.”’ vol. 1, pt. 10, p. 225) The following discussion and resolution were drawn up by Mrs. Katherine Van Winkle Palmer and submitted to the Joint Committee . on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America for its consideration and action. 1. Rarity of a publication is alone no excuse for invalidation of its authenticity but the case of rareness of Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse de la Nature, means that for the present purposes, the quotation and accompanying data given on page 226, Bull. zool. Nom., pt. 10, are used as the text for evaluating the status of Raphistoma Rafinesque, 1815. The following comments are made on the assumption that the quotation is correct. 2. It seems that Dr. Cox (p. 227, Annex 2, Bull. Zool. Nom., pt. 10) has adequately summed up the status of the proposal of Raphistoma by Rafinesque and that the chief argument against its validity is that the name was published without a definition, description or a bona fide indication, and that the reference to Belone can be taken to interpret what was meant only by mental gymnastics. Such interpretation means stretching a point as much to retain the name as would be necessary were it to be eliminated. 3. Considering that the retention of Raphistoma Rafinesque, 1815, would cause more confusion than its elimination it would seem that a strict interpretation of the Rules would be preferable, 1e., the recognition or agreement that no adequate bibliographic reference exists than to agree on a guess as to what Rafinesque meant by Belone Gr. 4. Ordinarily, I do not believe that a long usage is an argument against a clear case of priority. But in this case, it does not seem that Raphistoma Rafinesque, 1815 is sufficiently authentic to be given priority. 5. Since the name Raphistoma Rafinesque, 1815, is used for a fish and since its suspension would affect the work of ichthyologists, their opinion should be given considerable weight. Therefore, the names of J. R. Norman, E. Trewavas, L. Schultz and G. S. Myers attached to this petition help much in evaluating the importance of the proposal perhaps as much for the usage after suspension as for the opinion on the proposal. In connection 170 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS with the forming of this resolution I have consulted Dr. E. C. Raney, Cornell University, one of the well-known younger ichthyologists. He favors the petition as backed by the fish authorities listed above. On these bases, I submit to you the following :— Resolved: That the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomen- clature for Paleontology in America support the petition of J. Brookes Knight, L. R. Cox, K. P. Oakley, Josiah Bridge, Edwin Kirk, Ethelwynn Trewavas, the late E. R. Ulrich, Leonard P. Schultz and George S. Myers for the proposed suspension of the Régles to suppress the name Raphistoma Rafinesque, 1815 (Class Pisces, Order Synentognathi) and to validate the name Raphistoma Hall, 1847 (Class Gastropoda, Order Archaeogastropoda). The following 11 committeemen voted to approve the resolution :— Wells, Simpson, Newell, Palmer, Cooper, Moore, Keen, Frizzell, Romer, Reeside and Knight. No committeeman voted to disapprove. Stenzel was away and did not vote. The only comment was by Simpson which reads :— 2. On Palmer’s resolution to support the petition on Knight and others regarding Raphistoma—I vote “aye’’, with disagree- ment with Palmer’s belief that long usage is not an argument against a clear case of priority. Itis, I think, an excellent argument, in fact the best of arguments, although it might not be wholly conclusive in all cases. It is (or most decidedly should be) our purpose to stabilize nomenclature, no more and no less. Surely there is no better way to stabilize nomenclature than to determine long and current usage and to make this official if there is clear weight of such usage. Supporting obscure names merely because they have priority and when they clearly do not correspond with long and current usage is (obviously, I would say) the very worst possible way to try to achieve stability. In view of the above the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America supports the petition of Knight, Cox, et al, which forms the subject of this communication. 6. Comment by Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) : The following comment was received from Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) under cover of a letter dated 13th December, 1947 :— I believe it would be best for the Commission to suppress the name Raphistoma Rafinesque by suspension of the Régles. If the Régles be interpreted to make their suspension unnecessary, such inter- pretation will have to be reconsidered every time a case similar to this one arises. OPINION 225 171 There is another reason why the name Raphistoma Hall should be preserved, which has not been touched upon in the Bulletin. This genus is a very important one because it is so close to the ancestral gastropod. It is desirable that its name be stabilized because it will continue to be referred to in the discussion of any fossil mollusc which seems to be primitive and whose affiliation cannot be determined accurately. 7. Comment by Professor Lodovico di Caporiacco (University of Parma, Italy): The following comment was received from Professor Lodovico di Caporiacco (University of Parma, Italy) under cover of a letter dated 31st December 1947 :— I fully agree with the view that Raphistoma Rafinesque should be suppressed, as its junior synonym Belone Cuvier is commonly employed, ~ and its replacement by Raphistoma would cause more trouble than uniformity. 8. Issue of Public Notices : On 14th September 1947 a notice of the possible use, by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, of its Plenary Powers in the present case was issued to the serial publications prescribed by the Ninth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913. The publication of this notice elicited no objection to the action proposed. 9. Minute by the Secretary dated 23rd April 1948: When preparing the present application for consideration by the Inter- national Commission at the meeting arranged to be held at Paris later that year, Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Com- mission, placed the following Minute, dated 23rd April 1948, on File Z.N.(S.) 145, drawing attention to the fact that the suppression of Raphistoma Rafinesque, 1815, as asked for by the applicants, would not, unaided, provide a firm legal basis for the name Belone Cuvier, 1817, which it was the object of the applicants to preserve, for that name would still be threatened by the name Belone Oken, 1815 :— The principal object of this application is to prevent the long-forgotten name Raphistoma Rafinesque, 1815, from usurping the place of Belone Cuvier, 1817. But, unless supplemented in one respect, the application does not definitely achieve this end, for it would still be possible to claim that the name Be/one Cuvier was invalid as a junior homonym of Belone Oken, 1815. 172 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 2. The Commission has before it a request by the late Dr. Wilfrid H. Osgood for a Ruling on the availability of the new names in Oken’s Lehrbuch (Z.N.(S.) 153), but it is possible that it may be some time before a decision is reached on this subject owing to the great diversity of practice as between workers in different groups in the matter of the acceptance of Oken’s names. In the circumstances, the Commission would, I think, be well advised if, when dealing with the Raphistoma case, it were to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the name Belone Oken, without prejudice to its final decision on the status of the Lehrbuch names, at the same time that it uses those Powers to suppress Raphistoma Rafinesque. I1l—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 10. The present application was considered by the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Fourteenth Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphithéatre 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 setting out the decision reached by it in regard to this case at the foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 2) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 426—428) :— THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their Plenary Powers :— (a) to suppress for all purposes the under-mentioned generic names :— Raphistoma Rafinesque, 1815 (Class Pisces, Order Synentognathi), Belone Oken, 1815 (Class Pisces, Order Synen- tognathi) ; (b) to validate the under-mentioned generic names :— Raphistoma Hall, 1847 (Class Gastropoda, Order Archaeogastropoda), Belone Cuvier, 1817 (Class Pisces, Order Synentognathi) ; OPINION 225 173 (2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the two generic names specified in (1) (a) above ; (3) to place the undermentioned generic names, with the type species severally specified below, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Raphistoma Hall, 1847 (type species, by selection by de Koninck, 1881 : Maclurea striatus Emmons, 1842) ; (b) Belone Cuvier, 1817 (type species, by absolute tautonymy : Esox belone Linnaeus, 1761) ; (4) to place the undermentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— (a) striatus Emmons, 1842 (as published in the binom- inal combination Maclurea striatus) ; (b) belone Linnaeus, 1761 (as published in the binom- inal combination Esox belone) ; (5) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (4) above. 11. The following are the original references for the names which appear in the decision set out in the immediately preceding paragraph :— Belone Oken, 1815, Lehrbuch Naturgesch. 3 (Zool.) (2) : 102 Belone Cuvier, 1817, Régne anim. 2 : 185 belone, Esox, Linnaeus, 1761, Faun. svec. (ed. 2) : 126 Raphistoma Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse : 89 Raphistoma Hall, 1847, Nat. Hist. New York (Pal.) 1 : 28 striatus, Maclurea, Emmons, 1842, Nat. Hist. New York (Geol. 2 dist.) : 312 The reference to the selection by de Koninck of Maclurea striatus Emmons, 1842, to be type species of Raphistoma Hall, 1847, is : de Koninck, 1881, Ann. Mus. roy. Hist. nat. Belg. (Sér. paléont.) 6 : 107. 174 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 12. The genders of the generic names Raphistoma Hall, 1847, and Belone Cuvier, 1817, referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 10 above, are neuter and feminine respectively. 13. 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 Meet- ing held on 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 112). 14. 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. 15. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the Paris Session. 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 teserved 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. OPINION 225 175 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 Twenty-Five (225) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London this Second day of December, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Three. Secretary to the International Commissicn on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING 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 4. Part 16. Pp. 177—200 OPINION 226 Suppression, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic name Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856, for the purpose of validating the generic name Schistosoma Weinland, 1858 (Class Trematoda) (Opinion supple- mentary to Opinion 77) cnt JUN15 1954 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 (All rights reserved) Issued 2\st April, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 226 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. PrETERS (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. ne 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 Kirpy (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologiske 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). Pose Ae L. UsIncGer (University of California, Berkeley, California, S.A.). | i ; OPINION 226 SUPPRESSION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE GENERIC NAME “BILHARZIA” MECKEL VON HEMSBACH, 1856, FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALIDATING THE GENERIC NAME ‘““SCHISTOSOMA”? WEINLAND, 1858 (CLASS TREMATODA) (““OPINION”’ SUPPLEMENTARY TO ‘““OPINION”’ 77) RULING :—(1) The generic name Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Schistosoma Weinland, 1858, placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in Opinion 77, is hereby confirmed in its position thereon. (3) The generic name Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856, as suppressed under (1) above, and its junior homonym Bilharzia Cobbold, 1859, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 35 and 36. I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 14th February 1938 Dr. H. Vogel Unstitut fiir Schiffs- und Tropenkrankheiten, Hamburg, Germany) submitted to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature an application for a Ruling that the name Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856 (a name which had hitherto been overlooked), should be accepted in place of the name Schistosoma Weinland, 1858, over which it had two year’s priority. The following is an English translation 180 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS of Dr. Vogel’s application as slightly expanded in the light of subsequent correspondence :— On the relative status of the names ‘‘ Bilharzia ’? Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856, and ‘* Schistosoma ’? Weinland, 1858 (Class Trematoda, Order Digenea) By H. VOGEL Unstitut fiir Schiffs- und Tropenkrankheiten, Hamburg.) Has the generic name Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856 (originally spelt Billharzia instead of Bilharzia, i.e. with a double “1” through what is obviously a spelling mistake), or Schistosoma Weinland, 1858, validity under the International Code ? The original references to the above names are as follows :— (a) Billharzia (xecte Bilharzia) Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856, Mikrogeologie : 114 (Uber die Concremente im thierischen Organismus von Heinrich Meckel von Hemsbach. Nach dem Tode des Verfassers herausgegeben von Dr. Th. Billroth, Berlin im Juli 1856). (Meckel died on 30th January 1856.) (b) Schistosoma Weinland, 1858, Human Cest. : 87. (c) Bilharzia Cobbold, 1859, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 22 (4) : 363— 366. The type of each of the above genera is Distomum haematobium Bilharz, 1852, in Siebold, Z. wiss. Zool. 4 (1) : 59—62. Meckel writes in his Mikrogeologie (: 114), published in July 1856 : ““ Bilharz beschrieb zuerst in v. Siebold und KoOlliker’s Zeitschr. ff. Zoologie, 1852, einen neuen Eingeweiderwurm des Menschen, sehr den Distomen ahnlich und deshalb von ihm Distomum haematobium genannt. Der Artname ist sehr bezeichnend, der Gattungsname darf nicht fiiglich Distoma bleiben, ist durch Billharzia zu ersetzen. Dies Geschlecht weicht von allen bisher bekannten Arten von Trematoden ab durch getrenntes Geschlecht mit dem idealen Monogamie-Verhiltnis, dass das Ménnchen sein kleines Weibchen mit sich tragt (@m Canalis gynaecophorus) ’’. On page 113 he talks about “ Billharzien-Eiern ”’ and on page 189 of “ Billharzia haematobia (Distomum haem.) ”’. The chief reason which induces me to stand for the introduction of the old name Bilharzia is to honour the memory of Th. M. Bilharz, and to give expression to the appreciation of his great merits. As is known, Bilharz not only discovered the parasite, but also connected it for the first time with the symptoms of the disease. Apart from this he was the discoverer of two other human parasites, Hymenolepsis nana and Heterophyes heterophyes, and the students of natural science OPINION 226 181 in his time were well acquainted with his name through his pioneer work on the electric organ of the “ Zitterwels”’.1 At the age of 37 Bilharz died of typhoid, while carrying out his researches. The name Bilharzia, which was formerly much in use, was gradually superseded by Schistosoma in the literature, as it was erroneously supposed that this name had the right of priority. In spite of this, the name Bilharzia is today still well known to all parasitologists and especially to doctors dealing with tropical diseases. Up to this day, the disease, when not called Schistosomiasis, is called either Bilharziosis or Bilharziasis. In the last (1935) edition of his widely read “‘ Manual of Tropical Diseases”’ Manson-Bahr used the old names Bilharzia haematobia, B. mansoni and B. japonica. If I support the re-introduction of the old name Bilharzia, this does not mean that scientific men would have to deal with a name very much out of use, having fallen into oblivion and then been dug up again. The supersession of the old name Bilharzia has been regretted by many workers. As early as 1896 (Mem. Inst. égypt. 1896 : 158) Looss urged that the name Bilharzia should be retained in honour of its discoverer and he even went so far as to express the view that an exception to the Law of Priority would be justified in this case. (The existence of Meckel’s prior Bilharzia of 1856 was obviously not known to Looss when he made these observations.) My teacher Fiilleborn also frequently expressed in his lectures his regret that the name Bilharzia should have been displaced. In 1932 Leiper wrote : “* Those, who regretted the displacement of the generic name Bilharzia Cobbold, 1859, by Schistosoma Weinland, 1858, under the Law of Priority will rejoice in the restoration of Bilharzia Meckel, 1856, under the same Law” (Zrop. Dis. Bull. 29 : 168). I am convinced that I am right in believing that students of natural science who support the retention of old-established names will welcome the restoration of the old name Bil/harzia in its rightful place, which was once disputed as a consequence of an error as regards the question of priority. I desire, therefore, to ask the International Commission to be good enough to give this matter their renewed attention. II.—_THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. On receipt, the documents relating to the present case were given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 138. It had not been found possible to advance the consideration of the present application by the time that the outbreak of war in Europe in 1 The species here referred to is the “‘ Electric-Wels ” or “‘ Electric Catfish ’ of the Nile. 182 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 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 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 International Commission for decision. Work was at once started on outstanding applications with a view to arranging for their publication in the newly estab- lished Bulletin. In the present case no formal statement of the case had been submitted by Dr. Vogel, and it was judged that the best course would be to publish a note consisting mainly of Dr. Vogel’s letter of 29th April 1938 (which dealt with the problem in greater detail than did his original application of 14th February 1938) supplemented by information of certain points on which, in response to a request by the Secretary, he had supplied additional - particulars in a letter dated 29th April 1938. A translation from German into English was kindly made for the Commission by Dr. Karl Jordan, at that time its President. At the same time, Mr. Francis Hemming, as Secretary to the Commission, judged it desirable that there should be published with Dr. Vogel’s application a brief note by himself, (1) explaining the status, as the Rules then stood, of a name which, like Schistosoma Weinland, 1858, had been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology but which was later found to be an objective or subjective junior synonym of some older name (in the present case, Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856), (2) pointing out that in such a case the only course open to the Commission was to choose between using its Plenary Powers to validate the erroneous entry on the Official List on the one hand, or, on the other hand, deleting the name in question from the Official List. Mr. Hemming concluded by making a general appeal to specialists for advice as to the choice to be made in the present case. The following is the text of Mr. Hemming’s note :— On the status of the generic name ‘* Schistosoma ’’ Weinland, 1858 (Class Trematoda, Order Digenea) in relation to ‘‘ Opinion” 77 - By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.) The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has the power (granted to it by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at OPINION 226 183 Monaco in 1913) to place nomenclatorially available names (with their types) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. When such a name is placed on the Official List, that name and no other is the correct name for the genus in question and the type of the genus is the species indicated in the Official List. 2. Further, the International Commission has the power, also conferred upon it by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at Monaco in 1913, to suspend the Rules in certain cases. When the International Commission uses the Plenary Powers so conferred upon it either to validate an otherwise invalid name or to designate as the type of a genus some species other than that which is the type under the International Code, the Commission has the power to place the name so validated and with the type so designated on the Official List and such action is final and not subject to revision. 3. The International Commission does not, however, possess—nor would it be reasonable that it should possess—the power to place on the Official List a name which is invalid under the Code, unless the Commission first uses its Plenary Power to validate the name in question. 4. It follows, therefore, that, if it can be shown that, through a given case having been incompletely presented to the Commission or for some other cause, a nomenclatorially invalid name has been placed on the Official List, the decision of the Commission as respects that name is itself invalid, since it is u/tra vires the powers of the Commission. In such a case, the Opinion (or portion or an Opinion) embodying the decision in question would remain as the record of the view of the Commission at the time that it was adopted but it would have no binding force.? 5. The “ statement of the case’ submitted by Dr. Vogel in regard to Bilharzia (emendation of Billharzia) Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856, shows beyond possibility of dispute that the name Schistosoma Weinland, 1858, is no more than an objective synonym of Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856, of which the same species (Distomum haematobium Bilharz, 1852) is the type. It follows, therefore, that, in placing the name Schistosoma Weinland, 1858, on the Official List in Opinion 77, the International Commission committed an error 2 The statement in this paragraph regarding the status of names placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology was correct at the time when it was written, but the position in this matter was materially altered by a decision taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology at Paris in 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 268). Under this decision, the position now is that, where a mistake is found in an entry made in the Official List, the generic name concerned is not on that account to be rejected “‘ unless and until the Commission, on having the facts laid before it, shall so direct’’. Corresponding protection was given by the same Congress to entries made in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 184 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS of the kind discussed in paragraph 4 above and acted ultra vires their powers. 6. What happened, no doubt, was that at the time when the Inter- national Commission had this case under consideration in connection with Opinion 77, they were not aware of the existence of the name Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856, and believed that the name was first published by Cobbold in 1859. On these premises, the International Commission were correct in concluding that the name Schistosoma Weinland, 1858, was the oldest available generic name for Distomum haematobium Bilharz, 1852, and, therefore, that the name was eligible for inclusion in the Official List. As shown above, the premises on which the International Commission reached this conclusion were, however, incorrect, because of the existence of the name Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856, which has two years’ priority over Schistosoma Weinland, 1858. It should be noted further, that the genus Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach is monotypical and was, therefore, published with an “ indication ” as defined in Opinion 1? and accord- ingly satisfies the requirements of proviso (a) to Article 25 of the International Code. 7. Clearly, it is essential that the above error should be rectified as soon as possible. It would be possible to do this in either of two ways :— (a) The International Commission could delete the invalid name Schistosoma Weinland, 1858, from the Official List and could insert in its place the valid name Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856 ; or (b) The International Commission, if satisfied that the strict application of the Rules as applied to the present case would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, could use their Plenary Powers (i) to suppress the name Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856, and (ii) to validate the name Schistosoma Weinland, 1858, thereby giving retro- spectively valid effect to the entry regarding the last- mentioned name in Opinion 77. 8. Specialists are, therefore, invited to inform the International Commission which, in their view, of the alternative courses indicated above is the one to be preferred. 3 See 1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 73—86. Opinion 1 (the Opinion here referred to) was cancelled in Paris in 1948, and the provisions of Article 25 which had been dealt with in it were substantially liberalised (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 78—80). Under the revised provisions a generic name published without a verbal diagnosis for the genus so established became an available name Gf published before Ist January 1931), even if no type species was designated or indicated and two or more nominal species were referred to the genus so. OPINION 226 185 3. Dr. Vogel’s application and Mr. Hemming’s note were 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 28th February 1947 (Vogel, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 193— 194; Hemming, ibid. 1 : 195—196). 4. After Dr. Vogel’s application had been sent to the printer but some time before it was published, a letter (dated Sth July 1945) was received from Professor R. T. Leiper, M.D., D.Sc., F.R.S. (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Institute of Agricultural Parasitology, St. Albans, Herts, England), in which Professor Leiper wrote: ‘“ Schistosoma must now give way to Bilharzia ; vide a Thesis on the Geology of the Human Body, which has recently come to light which antedates Schistosoma Weinland and Bilharzia Cobbold by several years ”’. 5. The publication, in the Bulletin, of Dr. Vogel’s application and of Mr. Hemming’s appeal to specialists for advice elicited twelve letters of comment signed by sixteen specialists. Of the letters so received ten (signed by fourteen specialists) favoured Schistosoma as against Bilharzia, and two took the opposite view. One of the foregoing communications contained an analysis of usage since the year 1931 which showed that in the 2,052 papers examined the name Schistosoma had been used in 1,415 papers and the name Bil/harzia had been used in only 637 papers. The letters referred to above are given in date order in the following paragraphs. 6. Comment by Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen): In a letter dated 6th April 1947 Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen) wrote: *“ Bilharzia should stand ’’. 7. Comment by Dr. H. A. Baylis (British Museum (Natural History), London: On 6th June 1947 Dr. H. A. Baylis (British Museum (Natural History), London) furnished the following comment :— I have been turning over in my mind, from time to time, the problem resuscitated by Vogel and by yourself in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1, pt. 9 (Feb. 1947), concerning the names Schistosoma and Bilharzia. As you have asked for views as to what action should be taken, I feel that perhaps I ought to give you mine, such as it is, 186 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS I do not dispute the logic of the argument brought forward by Vogel, but I feel that, once the International Commission has placed a name on the Official List, such action should be final and irrevocable, even if a mistake has been made. The purpose of placing names on this list is to prevent arbitrary changes in the future. If the Commission is to go back on its own decision in such a case, there will never be any stability in names at all, and I think the Commission will bring itself into disrepute. Let it by all means do everything possible at the time to see that its decisions are just, but once having given them let it stick to them. This particular hare has been started more than once already, and it has been very useful to have a clinching argument in the form of a reference to Opinion 77, of which the hare-starters have been unaware, or which they have deliberately ignored. 8. Comment by Dr. W. H. Wright (Chief, Division of Tropical Diseases, National Institute of Health, United States Public Health Service, Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.A.): On lith August 1947, Dr. W. H. Wright (Chief, Division of Tropical Diseases, National Institute of Health, United States Public Health Service, Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.A.) wrote as follows :— The writer was very much interested in the two papers appearing in the February 28, 1947 issue of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature relative to the status of the generic name Schistosoma. While there can apparently be no argument concerning the priority of the generic name Bilharzia, it would seem to the writer that removal of Schistosoma from the Official List would create a considerable amount of confusion. As you undoubtedly know, nearly all American literature has made use of the term Schistosoma having followed over a long period of years the ruling of the International Commission on the status of this generic name. While there is, of course, lack of uniformity at the present time, in this particular case it would appear that greater confusion would result from the change of the name. I feel, therefore, that it might be better for all concerned if the Commission made no change in the present status of the matter. 9. Comment by Professor Harold Kirby (University of California, Department of Zoology, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) : On 27th October 1947, Professor Harold Kirby (University of California, Department cof Zoology, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) wrote as follows :—4 In the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 196 you invite expres- sions of opinion regarding the substitution of Bilharzia for Schistosoma 4 In July 1948 Professor Kirby took part in the discussion on this case at Paris, and then changed his view, voting in favour of the retention of the name Schistosoma and the suppression of the name Bilharzia. OPINION 226 187 in the Official List. 1 am in favour of doing this, and [ see no sound reason for use of Plenary Powers to suppress Bilharzia. The name Schistosoma has come widely into use by parasitologists and medical zoologists, but it seems to me that majority usage should not constitute grounds for abandoning so well-defined a position as that which favors Bilharzia. 10. Comment by Dr. T. W. M. Cameron (Director, Institute of Parasitology, MacDonald College of McGill University, Canada) : On 10th December 1947, Dr. T. W. M. Cameron (Director, Institute of Parasitology, MacDonald College of McGill University, Canada) submitted the following comment :— With reference to the note in the Bull. zool. Nom. 1, pt. 9, p. 196, 1947, I would like to place on record my opinion that the name Schistosoma stand as one of the nomina conservanda. It is extremely probable that the name Bilharzia has strict priority but the whole function of the Rules of Nomenclature is to prevent confusion and to enable zoologists to identify the animal indicated by any given name. I submit that this is the case now with Schistosoma and that to change the name to Bilharzia again would increase confusion. Every parasitologist knows what is meant by Schistosoma—and that—forensic arguments to the contrary notwithstanding—is the function of the Rules. If, however, one were to admit the desirability of changing the name, it would set a never ending precedent which would completely nullify the value of the nomina conservanda. There are many parasites which are described by names in present use, which should, if it were not for the opinions expressed by Commission, be known by entirely different names, Dracunculus, Trichuris, Toxocara, for example, should never have been adopted as valid names. However, they have been and should now remain. I have, myself, in the past been one of the sticklers for the Rule of Priority in these cases but in the case of those names now in every day use in human and veterinary parasitology, I have now accepted the principle that where the strict application of the Rules would lead to confusion, then a generally accepted name should be added to the nomina conservanda and used by everyone. I have followed this principle in the new edition of my veterinary parasitology and some names, which are, in my opinion, wrong, are used because of their universal use by others. After all the Rules of Nomenclature were created for the use of zoologists ; to remove names from the nomina conservanda would be to reverse this truth. There is no reason why Bilharz’s name should not be used in connection with the disease caused by Schistosoma haematobium. This is a medical matter, not a zoological one, and does not really concern the Commission. 11. Comment submitted jointly by five members of the Staff of the Division of Tropical Diseases, National Institute of Health, 188 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.A.: In December 1947 Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, visited the United States for the purpose of holding consultations regarding the subjects to be discussed at the meeting of the International Commission arranged to be held at Paris in July of the following year. While Mr. Hemming was in Washington, the following statement signed by five members of the staff of the Division of Tropical Diseases, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.A., was delivered to him by hand (on 23rd Decem- ber 1947) :— The undersigned desire to express to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature their views as to the choice of two alter- native courses open to the Commission concerning the generic name Schistosoma and Bilharzia, as outlined by Dr. Francis Hemming (Bul. zool. Nomenclature, v. 1, pt. 9, 196 ; 1947). We have attempted in an objective manner to formulate our opinion as to whether deletion of Schistosoma Weinland, 1858 from the Official List and substitution therein of the name Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856 would result in greater confusion than uniformity. The effect of the change would be felt not only by systematic zoologists but more especially by specialists in human and veterinary parasitology and the audience to whom their publications are addressed. To analyse the early situation as compared with that of recent years, the terminology employed by authors in the titles of their publications which are listed by Khalil in his 1931 “ The bibliography of schisto- somiasis (bilharziasis)* ”’ has been scanned. Bilharzia or bilharziasis appears exclusively in 1163 titles; Schistosoma or schistosomiasis exclusively in 679 titles. To obtain comparable figures on recent terminology, on the other hand, a rapid count has been made of entries dated 1931 to the present year in the subject catalogue of the Index- Catalogue of Medical and Veterinary Zoology, in the files of the Zoological Division, Bureau of Animal Industry, U.S. Department of Agriculture. The results are shown in Table | provided herewith. Authors in 28 countries have employed in 637 instances the term Bilharzia or its derivatives, as compared with 1415 instances in which they used the name Schistosoma and its derivatives. French authors have continued preponderantly the usage Bilharzia and bilharziasis ; Italian authors are equally divided. In all other instances the name Schistosoma and its derivatives have predominated. This predominance is especially marked in Asia and in the Western Hemisphere ; also if one selects from the table the principal endemic areas, namely, Egypt, South Africa, China, Japan, Brazil, Venezuela, and Puerto Rico, it will be found that the total counts for Bilharzia and Schistosoma are 243 and 642 titles, respectively. * Publ. No. | The Faculty of Medicine, The Egyptian University, Cairo, 506 pp. OPINION 226 189 TABLE |.—Usage since 1931 of terminology Bilharzia and bilharziasis as compared with Schistosoma and schistosomiasis by authors of various nationalities. Terminology based on Bilharzia Schistosoma Great Britain wah Ab 159 Egypt Or ite Py 101 South Africa an ny, 135 Canada .. ie: sis 1 India e ne iS 129 New Zealand Australia .. France Germany .. Italy Holland Belgium Portugal Spain Switzerland Russia Turkey China Japan my ve Philippine Islands Brazil he ae Venezuela .. Honduras. . Yucatan Argentina .. Puerto Rico Cuba ie, United States Honor to the memory of Bilharz and his outstanding achievements may well be perpetuated by a continued use of his name in connection with Schistosoma haematobium infection, to which it should rightly be restricted for historical accuracy ; this correct usage forms the great bulk of the instances cited under that heading in Table 1. Counterparts of this situation are to be found in connection with other parasitic diseases, as for example, Chagas’ disease, caused by Trypanosoma 190 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS cruzi and Weil’s disease, caused by Leptospira icterohemorrhagiae. On the other hand, since 1922 when Schistosoma was placed on the Official List, that name has been the only correct name for the genus in question ; the disease as it occurs in the Western Hemisphere and in Asia, and caused by S. mansoni and S. japonicum, respectively, has been rightly called schistosomiasis. One might give extensive biblio- graphies as indicated by the figures cited in Table 1. Monographic studies include the following :— ‘““ Studies on schistosomiasis japonica”’, 1924, 339 pp., by Faust and Meleney. “Studies on schistosomiasis mansoni in Puerto Rico”, 1927, 1933—34, total 282 pp., by Faust, Hoffman et al. ““ La schistosomiasis mansoni en Venezuela ”’, 1943, 223 pp., by Ruiz Rodriquez. *““ The diagnosis of schistosomiasis japonica’ ; “ The epidemiology of schistosomiasis japonica in the Philippine Islands and Japan ”’ ; ‘““ The molluscan intermediate host and schistosomiasis japonica ”’ ; and “‘ The control of schistosomiasis japonica ’’ ;—four series of papers by members of the Commission on Schistosomiasis of the Army Epidemiological Board. ‘““ Studies on schistosomiasis”. National Institute of Health Bulletin No. 189 to appear December, 1947, about 212 pp. By the present writers and collaborators. We are therefore of the opinion that to change from Schistosoma to Bilharzia as the officially recognised name of the genus in question would result in greater confusion than conformity ; we recommend therefore that the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature use their Plenary Powers to suppress the name Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856 and to validate the name Schistosoma Weinland, 1858. W. H. Wright, Chief, Eloise B. Cram, Division of Tropical Diseases Medical Parasitologist Louis J. Olivier, Myrna F. Jones, Sr. Asst. Scientist Zoologist Mabelle O. Nolan Zoologist Division of Tropical Diseases, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 12. Comment by Dr. Hugh Parkhurst (Gloucester, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) : on 13th January 1948 Dr. Hugh Parkhurst (Gloucester, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) furnished the following comment :— May I respectfully add my bit to the data submitted by those who favor the suppression of the name Bilharzia, in favor of Schistosoma ? OPINION 226 191 It seems quite evident to the writer that in view of the enormous recent interest in the members of this genus occasioned by experiences in tropical places during the recent war and the preponderance of references to the genus by the name Schistosoma, that much greater uniformity would result if that course of action were to be followed. It would seem to the writer that in addition to the preponderance of scientifica opera in which the name Schistosoma is used, some consideration should be given to the fact that this designation and its derivatives are familiar to many of the informed laity. At any rate, such seems to be the case in this country. 13. Publication by Dr. Eloise Cram in January 1948 of an appeal to interested specialists to communicate to the Commission their views on the present case: In January 1948 Dr. Eloise Cram (National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.A.) published a note (Cram, 9th January 1948, Science 107 : 38) drawing attention to the fact that it had been found that the name Bilharzia, had been first published by Meckel von Hemsbach in 1856 and therefore had priority over the name Schistosoma Weinland, 1858, which the Commission had placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in its Opinion 77. At the same time Dr. Cram suggested that specialists should communicate to the Commission statements of their views on the question of the action which should now be taken. 14. Comment by Dr. M. S. Ferguson (United States Public Health Service, Communicable Disease Center, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.): On 16th January 1948, Dr. M. S. Ferguson (United States Public Health Service, Communicable Disease Center, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.) furnished the following comment :— In the latest issue of Science a note by Dr. Eloise B. Cram, National Institute of Health, reports that the generic name Bil/harzia has priority over Schistosoma. { am writing to express my opinion as to whether the term Schistosoma should be invalidated, deleted from the Official List, and Bilharzia recognised as the generic name of the blood flukes of medical and veterinary interest. Since the term Schistosoma describes the organism included in the genus in question and is being more and more widely used by those working in Tropical Medicine I think it would be most unfortunate if the generic name were changed to Bilharzia. It seems to me that here is a place where the International Commission should use its Plenary Powers. 15. Comment by Professor Ernest Carroll Faust (William Vincent Professor of Tropical Diseases and Hygiene, Tulane University of 192 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Louisiana, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.): On 17th January 1948, the following comment was furnished by Professor Ernest Carroll Faust (William Vincent Professor of Tropical Diseases and Hygiene and Head of the Division of Parasitology, The Tulane University of Louisiana, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) :— I am writing you with reference to the possible reconsideration of Opinion 77 concerning the status of the genus Schistosoma Weinland, 1858. Itis my understanding that since Opinion 77 was rendered it has been discovered that the name Bilharzia was proposed by Meckel von Hemsbach in 1856. It is understood by strict interpretation of the Law of Priority the name Bilharzia is technically the correct one for the species of which haematobium is type. As an individual and representative of a group who have given considerable attention and have spent much time in studying the biological and medical aspects of Schistosoma infection, may I respect- fully request that your Committee regard the strict application of the Rules of this case as undesirable, since it would lead to a vast amount of confusion. I would suggest that your Commission suppress the name Bilharzia and validate Schistosoma Weinland, 1858. If you desire additional information in support of my request please write me and IJ shall be glad to provide you with supporting arguments. For your information reference is made to the monographic study on schistosomiasis japonica by Faust & Meleney (1924), similarly to studies on schistosomiasis mansoni in Puerto Rico by Faust and others (1934—1937) and the recent findings of the Commission on Schisto- somiasis, Army Epidemiological Board, Office of the Surgeon General, U.S.A., of which I was Director. 16. Comment by Dr. David S. Ruhe (Surgeon, United States Public Health Service, Communicable Disease Center, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.) : On 19th January 1948 the following comment was furnished by Dr. David S. Ruhe (Surgeon, United States Public Health Service, Communicable Disease Center, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.) :— We are perturbed by the note in the latest issue of Science, reporting the priority of the generic name Bilharzia over the name Schistosoma. We recognise the importance of primacy in nomenclature ; however, in this case we heartily oppose invoking the principle if it can be avoided. The wartime importance of schistosomiasis has provoked such exten- sive interest in the study of the disease that whereas changing of the nomenclature before the war would have been a relatively minor task, now it has the importance of a major uprooting process. Moreover, it is our feeling that Schistosoma adequately acts as a memory hook because it is so descriptive of the male worm. As a parasitologist and OPINION 226 193 one interested in medical education, it is my hope that you will very seriously consider and perhaps oppose any change of this nomenclature as suggested. 17. Comment by Professor Deane P. Furman (Assistant Professor of Parasitology, Division of Entomology and _ Parasitology, University of California, Berkeley, U.S.A.): On 20th January 1948 the following comment was furnished by Professor Deane P. Furman (Assistant Professor of Parasitology, Division of Ento- mology and Parasitology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) :— Acting upon the suggestion of Eloise Cram in the January 9th issue of Science, | am writing to inform you of my personal opinion concern- ing future status of the generic name Schistosoma. I believe strict application of the Rules of Zoological Nomenclature should be waived in this instance and the name Schistosoma considered as valid. My stand is based on the desire to eliminate the confusion of the literature which I feel would result if the name Bilharzia is now accepted as valid. 18. Comment by Professor Charles H. Blake (Associate Pro- fessor of Zoology, Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.): On 27th January 1948 the following comment was furnished by Professor Charles H. Blake (Associate Professor of Zoology, Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.,U.S.A.):— I find in Science, vol. 107, p. 38 (9 Jan. 1948) a note by Dr. Cram calling attention to the possibility that Schistosoma might be removed from the Official List of Generic Names. Although not a specialist in this field, I feel strongly that all biologists have the right to be heard as to the principles involved here. It appears that Schistosoma has lain undisturbed on the Official List for 25 years. The List becomes meaningless if, after such lapse of time, registration can be invalidated by the discovery of a paper so obscure or trivial that it was unknown to competent specialists, such as Stiles and Hassall, or misinterpreted by them and was not brought to general attention for 90 years after its publication. There seem to be but two bases on which a name may be placed on the Official List. (1) The title to the name is clear and hence no objection can be raised. (2) Title is clouded and the Commission acts, in full view of the circumstances, to quiet title. The Commission having acted and registered the name, then, I admit, the maxim stare decisis becomes obligatory. This maxim is defined by Baldwin’s U.S. ed. of Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1928) as ‘“‘ when a point has 194 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from’’. A court view applicable to the present case is that “ where a decision relates to the validity of certain modes of transacting business, and a change of decision must necessarily invalidate everything done in the mode prescribed by the former case, . . ., the maxim becomes imperative...; 15 Wisc. 691’. There would appear to be only one basis on which the sort of action originally taken in Opinion 77 could be reversed, namely, that a public hardship, as opposed to a private hardship, would be wrought by a failure to reverse the original action. The grounds of such reversal must, hence, be both broad and weighty. I submit that the grounds are neither broad nor weighty in the instant case. As I have hinted above the doctrine of laches applies here. This doctrine is defined as unreasonable delay ; negiect to do a thing or to seek to enforce a right at the proper time. ‘To constitute laches... there must be knowledge, actual or imputable, of the facts which should have prompted action or, if there were ignorance it must be without just excuse ’’ (Baldwin). There certainly seems to be no just excuse for the ignoring of Meckel von Hembach’s publication at the time of the original presentation of the case. J, therefore, urge that Schistosoma remain on the Official List. 19. View of Professor Kamel Mansour (King Fouad University, Cairo, Egypt): After the opening of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology at Paris in July 1948 but before the present problem had been considered by the International Commission, Professor Kamel Mansour (King Fouad University, Cairo, Egypt) spoke to Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to (and at that time Acting President of) the International Commission in regard to this case, indicating that he was in favour of reviving the use of the name Bilharzia. Mr. Hemming, in taking note of Professor Mansour’s communication, expressed the hope that he would be present at the public meeting of the International Commission at which this case would be considered, so that he could present his views in person. Later, Professor Mansour was elected to be an Alternate Commissioner for the duration of the Paris Session, and it was in this capacity that he took part in the discussion on this case. 20. 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. OPINION 226 195 III—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 21. The present application was considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Twelfth Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphithéatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 1445 hours. This case was presented to the meeting by Mr. Francis Hemming (Acting President), who after surveying the comments which had been received in regard to this case, recommended that, in view of the general sense of the advice received, “ the Commission should use their Plenary Powers to suppress the name Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856, and to validate the name Schis- tosoma Weinland, 1858’. The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commis- sion, setting out the discussion which then ensued (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 322) :— THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that in response to the invitation contained in the paper published by himself in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature in 1947 and of the notices on the subject to which it had given rise in the journal Science, 15 specialists had written to him on this subject, of whom one only was in favour of the strict applica- tion in this case of the Law of Priority and in consequence of the use of the name Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, while 14 were in favour of the use by the Commission of their Plenary Powers to validate the name Schistosoma Weinland. Since his arrival in Paris, Professor K. Mansour (Egypt) had spoken to him in regard to this case and had indicated that he was in favour of reviving the use of the name Bilharzia. Of the specialists who had communicated their views on this subject, the two who favoured the name Bilharzia were British and Egyptian respectively, while of the 14 who favoured the suppression of that name in favour of the name Schistosoma, 12 wrote from the United States, one from Canada, and one from Great Britain. The Acting President added that it appeared clear to him that there was an overwhelming consensus of opinion in favour of the validation of the name Schistosoma Weinland. The Commission had placed that name on the Official List in good faith, believing it to be the 196 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS oldest name for this important genus, it being then thought by all concerned that the name Bilharzia had not been published until 1859 (by Cobbold), i.e. not until a year after the publication of the name Schistosoma. They certainly would not have taken that action at that time, when the name Bilharzia (attributed to Cobbold) was in wide use if they had known what the true position was. In the 26 years that had elapsed since the name Schistosoma was placed, though erroneously, upon the Official List, that name had very largely replaced the name Bilharzia ; new issues were therefore raised by the discovery that Bilharzia was the older name, for it was necessary to consider also the effect on medical literature of a reversal of the practice which for over a quarter of a century had been believed to possess the highest nomenclatorial authority. In view of the general sense of the advice received from interested specialists, he (the Acting President) recommended that the Commission should use their Plenary Powers to suppress the name Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856, and to validate the name Schistosoma Weinland, 1858. In the discussion which followed PROFESSOR R. L. USINGER (U.S.A.) supported the proposal that the Plenary Powers of the Commission should be used to validate the name Schistosoma which had become deeply embedded in the literature relating to the Trematoda and in medical literature generally. Nothing but confusion would result if it were necessary to revert to the name Bilharzia. PROFESSOR K. MANSOUR (EGYPT) said that this problem was one of special interest to Egyptian zoologists and Egyptian medical men, for it was in Egypt that the disease bilharziasis was of special importance ; the name Bilharzia was still universally used in Egypt for the Trematode parasite concerned. Now that it was clear that the name Bilharzia had priority over the name Schistosoma, it should be brought back into universal use. DR. ELLSWORTH C. DOUGHERTY (U.S.A.) (a member of the Section on Nomenclature present at the meeting) strongly supported the proposal that the name Schistosoma should be OPINION 226 197 validated. Any other course would lead to confusion in medical literature. COMMISSIONER H. BOSCHMA (NETHERLANDS) ex- pressed support for the proposal that in the circumstances the name Schistosoma should be validated, in spite of the fact that at one time the name Bilharzia had been much more frequently used. PROFESSOR K. MANSOUR (EGYPT) said that he recog- nised that American workers used the name Schistosoma in preference to the name Bilharzia, but the medical problem involved and therefore the nomenclatorial issue, was of much more direct concern to Egyptian workers who had never used the name Schistosoma. He recognised that the balance of opinion was in favour of validating the entry of the name Schistosoma on the Official List. Nevertheless, this was not a proposal which he could support, and he would feel bound to vote against it. 22. At the close of the discussion recorded in the preceding paragraph, the International Commission took its decision on the present case. That decision is set out as follows in the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission (Paris Session, 12th Meeting, 10) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 ; 319— 323) :— THE COMMISSION, Professor Mansour dissenting, agreed :— (1) to use their Plenary Powers :— (a) to suppress for the purposes of Article 25 the generic name Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856 (Class Trematoda) ; (b) to validate the name Schistosoma Weinland, 1858 (Class Trematoda) ; (2) to confirm the entry of the name Schistosoma Weinland, 1858, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) and (2) above. 198 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 23. Under the provisions relating to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, the International Commission is required to place thereon every generic name which it either rejects under the Plenary Powers or declares to be invalid. In the present instance, the entry on the Official Index of Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856 (suppressed under the Plenary Powers), and of its junior homonym, the better-known name Bilharzia Cobbold, 1859, was inadvertently omitted from its decision as set out in the Official Record of its Proceedings in the passage quoted in paragraph 22 above. This omission has been rectified in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 24. The following are the original references for the names which appear in the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856, Mikrogeologie : 114 Bilharzia Cobbold, 1859, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 22 (4) : 363—366 Schistosoma Weinland, 1858, Human Cestoides : 87 25. 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 Fourth Meeting held on 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 98—100). 26. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was concurred in by the following fifteen (15) of the sixteen (16) Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners present at the Paris Session, namely :— Beltran vice Cabrera ; Boschma ; Bradley ; di Caporiacco ; Hemming ; Hindle vice Jordan; Jorge vice do Amaral ; Kirby vice Stoll; Lemche vice Dymond; Metcalf vice Peters ; Riley vice Calman ; Rode ; Sparck vice Mortensen ; van Straelen vice Richter ; Usinger vice Vokes. 27. The decision taken in the present case was dissented from by one Alternate Commissioner, namely : Mansour vice Hanko. 28. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in OPINION 226 199 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. 29. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two Hundred and Twenty-Six (226) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London this Third day of December, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Three. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 4. Part. 17. Pp. 201—208 OPINION 227 Acceptance of the lectotype selected by Braun in 1901 for the nominal species Fasciola ovata Rudolphi, 1803 (Class Trematoda) AAW HSOW / Ay JUN15 1954 LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Three Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 21st April, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 227 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. PrETERS (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 Kirsy (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologiske Labora- torium, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Kamel MANsouR (King Fouad University, Cairo, Egypt). Professor Z. P. MeETCALF (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). Refer Rotels L. USINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California, S.A.). OPINION 227 ACCEPTANCE OF THE LECTOTYPE SELECTED BY BRAUN IN 1901 FOR THE NOMINAL SPECIES “FASCIOLA OVATA” RUDOLPHI, 1803 (CLASS TREMATODA) RULING :—(1) Braun (1901) acted in strict conformity with Article 31 of the Régles when, on ascertaining, by reference to Rudolphi’s original material of Fasciola ovata Rudolphi, 1803 (Class Trematoda), that that nominal species was a composite species containing two taxonomically distinct species, he selected one of those species to be the species to which the name Fasciola ovata Rudolphi, 1803, should adhere. (2) The specific name ovata Rudolphi, 1803, as pub- lished in the combination Fasciola ovata, and as deter- mined under (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 38. I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 7th April 1938 Dr. G. Witenberg (Hebrew University, Jerusalem) submitted the following enquiry to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature as to the validity of the action by Braun (1901) in selecting a lectotype for the nominal species Fasciola ovata Rudolphi, 1803 (Class Trematoda) :— On the holotype of ‘‘ Fasciola ovata ’’ Rudolphi, 1803 (Class Trematoda, Order Digenea) By G. WITTENBERG (Department of Parasitology, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem) M. Braun (1901, Zb/. Bakt. (Abt. 1) 29 : 12—19) found that the original vial containing specimens determined by Rudolphi as Distoma ovatum Rudolphi, 1809, Entoz. 2 (1) : 357 (=Fasciola ovata Rudolphi, 1803, Archiv. Zool. (Wiedemann) 3 (2) : 25) contained two species. One of these species was accordingly selected by Braun as being the species described by Rudolphi and the species so selected was treated by Braun as Prosthogonimus ovatus (Rudolph). Do the rules in the International Code provide for the selection of a lectotype in such a case? 204 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. The present application, which had been addressed by Dr. Witenberg to the late Dr. C. W. Stiles was forwarded on 6th June 1938 to Mr. Francis Hemming who in 1936 had succeeded Dr. Stiles in the Office of Secretary to the Commission. On receipt in London, these papers were given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 126. It had not been found possible to advance the consideration of the present application by the time that the outbreak of war in Europe 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 in London was re-opened in 1942, and steps were immediately taken to establish the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as a means for bringing to the attention of zoologists applications submitted to the International Commission for decision. Work was at once - started on 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 26th June 1946 (Witenberg, 1946, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 176). WI—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 3. One of the earliest acts in regard to the revision of the Régles taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Paris Session was to revise and clarify the provisions of Article 31 relating to the selection of lectotypes for nominal species (Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 11) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 73—76)'. It was in the light 1 The provisions in Article 31 were further reviewed and amended by the Four- teenth International Congress of Zoology at Copenhagen in 1953. The changes so made (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 722—78) did not however in any way affect the interpretation of that Article given by the International Commission in the present case at Paris in 1948. OPINION 227 205 of the decision of principle so taken that the International Commission considered the problem submitted by Dr. Witenberg 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 is an extract from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission setting out the decision reached by it in regard to this case at the foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 29) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 386—387) :— THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that Braun (1901) had acted in strict conformity with Article 31 of the Régles when, on ascertaining by reference to Rudolphi’s original material of Fasciola ovata Rudolphi, 1803 (Class Trematoda, Order Digenea), that that species was a composite species containing two taxonomically distinct species, he had selected one of those species to be the species to which the name Fasciola ovata Rudolphi, 1803, should adhere ; (2) that the trivial name ovata Rudolphi, 1803 (as published in the binominal combination Fasciola ovata), as determined by Braun (1901), should be placed on the _ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; (3) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) and (2) above. 4. The following is the original reference for the name which appears in the decision set out in the immediately preceding paragraph :— ovata, Fasciola, Rudolphi, 1803, Archiv. Zool. (Wiedemann) 3 (2) 225 The reference to the selection by Braun of a lectotype for the nominal species Fasciola ovata Rudolphi, 1803, is: Braun, 1901, Zbl. Bakt. (Abt. 1) 29 : 12—19. 206 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 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 Fifth Meeting held on 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. Sy 107): 6. 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. 7. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the Paris Session. 8. 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. 9. 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 OPINION 227 207 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. 10. The present Opinion shall be Known as Opinion Two Hundred and Twenty-Seven (227) of the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London this Third day of December, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Three. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Y 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 4, Part 18. Pp. 209—220 OPINION 228 Rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris 4 JUN15 1954 / SUIBRARN A LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Four Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 21st April, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 228 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. KS 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. Cr U.S.A.). x Class 1955 Professor Dr. ealbeand 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. StToL_i (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, Zoologiske 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. Ritey (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. UstInNGEer (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). - OPINION 228 REJECTION FOR NOMENCLATORIAL PURPOSES OF GEOFFROY, 1762, ‘‘ HISTOIRE ABREGEE DES INSECTES QUI SE TROUVENT AUX ENVIRONS DE PARIS ” RULING :—(1) Names published by Geoffroy (E.L.) in 1762 in the work entitled Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux Environs de Paris are not available for nomenclatorial purposes, for in that work Geoffroy did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature, as required by Proviso (b) to Article 25 of the Régles. (2) The foregoing work is accordingly hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature as Work No. 1. (3) Specialists in the groups dealt with in the foregoing work are invited to submit to the International Commis- sion on Zoological Nomenclature applications for the validation, under the Plenary Powers, of any name published in it, the rejection of which would, in their opinion, lead to instability or confusion in the nomen- clature of the group concerned. I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 13th February 1939 Professor H. B. Hungerford (University of Kansas, Department of Entomology, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature an application for a ruling on the question of the availability of the generic name Corixa Geoffroy, 1762 (Hist. abrég. 1 : 478) and the type species for the genus so named, and thus also for a ruling on the general question whether in his Histoire abrégée Geoffroy complied with the requirements of Proviso (b) to Article 25 (i.e., whether in it he applied what at that date—1939—was styled “les principes de la nomenclature Di) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS binaire ’?) and therefore whether names published in the foregoing work possessed a status of availability under the Régles. On receipt, the twofold application received from Professor Hunger- ford was given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 137, but later it was judged better to treat Professor Hungerford’s application as relating only to the question associated with the name Corixa Geoffroy, 1762, and for the Secretary to submit a separate application dealing exclusively with the general question of principle involved, namely whether Geoffroy’s Histoire abrégée was an acceptable work from the standpoint of the Reégles. The application so prepared by Mr. Hemming (to which the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 168 was given) was as follows :— On the question whether generic names published by Geoffroy (E. L.), 1762, ‘‘ Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris ’’, are available under Proviso (b) to Article 25 of the International Code By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.) In an application to the International Commission for a decision regarding that status and type of the generic name Corixa Geoffroy, 1762 (Order Hemiptera),! Professor H. B. Hungerford inevitably raises also the much broader question of the status, whether binary or otherwise, of Geoffroy (E. L.), 1762, Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris. The above work, as is well known, deals with all the principal Orders of insects. Its status must, therefore, be treated as a general entomological problem and not one of special interest to the specialists of a single Order. As I have explained elsewhere?, the whole question of what con- stitutes, and what should constitute, the meaning properly applicable to the expression “ nomenclature binaire ” is at present the subject of a special inquiry undertaken by the International Commission at the request of the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology (Lisbon, I1S)333)). The note referred to above contains an appeal made on behalf of the Executive Committee of the International Commission to specialists to assist the Commission in their inquiry by furnishing them 1 The.application here referred to was published in Bull. zool. Nomencl.1: 258—259). * Hemming, 1945, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 98—101. OPINION 228 pI} with factual material regarding (i) the extent to which generic names first published in works employing a ‘system of nomenclature not strictly binominal in character are at present commonly used in the systematic literature of the groups concerned and (ii) the extent to which changes in current nomenclature, whether involving confusion or not, would result (a) from the definite acceptance of generic names published in such works or (b) from their definite rejection. The full text of the appeal referred to above will be found on pages 98-101 of the present volume.* Specialists in all Orders of insects affected are particularly requested to assist the International Com- mission by furnishing them with statements showing the position, as respects their own speciality, which would arise from (i) the acceptance and (ii) the rejection of the generic names first published in Geoffroy, 1762, Hist. abrég. Ins. Paris. Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Within a few months of the receipt of Professor Hungerford’s original communication, the outbreak of war in Europe 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 in London was re-opened in 1942, and steps were immediately taken to establish the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as a means for bringing to the attention of zoologists applications submitted to the International Com- mission 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 at this point that the short note reproduced in paragraph 1 of the present Opinion was written by Mr. Hemming. This 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 26th July 1946 (Hemming, 1946, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 117). 3 See footnote 2. 214 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 3. The problem lying at the root of the issue raised by Geoffroy’s Histoire abrégée was whether an author who, like Geoffroy in 1762, used a system of nomenclature which recog- nised that a generic name (consisting of a noun substantive in the nominative singular) must form the first portion of the scientific name of an animal but which did not adopt also a single word to be the unique name, within the genus, of any given animal could properly be regarded as having complied with Proviso (b) to Article 25 of the Régles and therefore whether a generic name published by such an author possessed a status of availability under the Régles. Under a decision taken by the Twelfth Inter- national Congress of Zoology at Lisbon in 1935 (1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1:45), the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature had been instructed to study this subject and to submit a report thereon to the next (Thirteenth) International Congress. In the early part of 1948 Mr. Hemming completed the survey of this problem which he had undertaken in accordance with the foregoing decision and prepared the draft of a Report on this subject for submission to the International Commission. This draft was laid before the Commission on 5th July 1948 in Paper I.C. (48)54. Shortly afterwards, when preparing the present case for consideration by the International Commission in Paris, Mr. Hemming (on 10th July 1948) placed on the file the following Minute in which he raised the question of the action to be taken to preserve well-known names in Geoffroy’s Histoire abrégée in the event. of the adoption of the proposals which he had submitted on the question of the interpretation of Proviso (b) to Article 25 :— The question of the status of the generic names first published in 1762 in Geoffroy’s Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux Environs de Paris depends solely upon the decision to be given by the coming International Congress of Zoology at Paris on the question of the meaning of the expression “nomenclature binaire’’ as used in Proviso (b) to Article 25 of the Régles. In the draft Report on this subject which, as arranged by the Lisbon Congress of 1935, I have submitted to the International Commission on this subject (Paper I.C. (48) 5, dated 5th July 1948), I have (1) shown that the expression *““ nomenclature binaire ”’ as used in Article 25 can properly be inter- preted only as having a meaning identical with that of the expression * This Commission Paper was published, with the other papers in this series, in 1950 -(Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 20—21). For the text of the Report, as adopted by the Commission see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 152—167. OPINION 228 215 “nomenclature binominale ’’, and (2) reeommend that, to put an end to the existing confusion on this subject, the Congress should substitute the latter expression for the unsatisfactory expression ‘‘ nomenclature binaire ’’. In the same document, I have recommended (paragraphs 34, 35 and 39(4)—(6)) that special provision should be made to protect well-known names published in books by authors who, though not binominal authors, nevertheless adopted a system of nomenclature which recognised the need for securing that the scientific name of an animal should give expression to two concepts, first, that of the major group to which the animal is considered to belong (i.e., in modern terms, the genus to which it is referred), and, second, the concept of the species itself. For in some cases the rejection of names as first published by such authors would clearly give rise to great confusion. 2. If the foregoing recommendations are approved by the Inter- national Commission and adopted by the Paris Congress, it will be necessary to invite the assistance of specialists in the groups of insects concerned, to ensure the validation of important names in Geoffroy’s Histoire abrégée. Iii—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 4. The question of the interpretation of Proviso (b) to Article 25 was the first of the problems connected with the wording of the Régles to be considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Paris Session in July 1948. The Commission, after examining the draft Report submitted by the Secretary, decided to approve and adopt the recommendations so laid before it. The Commission accordingly agreed (1) to report to the Paris Congress that, in its opinion, the expression “nomenclature binaire” as used in the foregoing Proviso had the same meaning as the expression “‘ nomenclature binominale ”’, and (2) to recommend the substitution of the latter expression for the equivocal expression “nomenclature binaire”’ (Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 3) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 63—66). It was in the light of the decision so taken that the International Commission considered the problem of the status of Geoffroy’s Histoire abrégée of 1762 at the Thirteenth Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphitheatre 216 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 1730 hours. This case was presented by the Acting President (Mr. Francis Hemming), who, after drawing attention to the fact that the decision on the general question of the interpretation of Proviso (b) to Article 25 automatically involved the rejection of Geoffroy’s Histoire abrégée, invited the Commission to consider the action which it was desirable should be taken to preserve well-known generic names in common use that had first been published in the fore- going work. The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission giving a summary of the discussion which then ensued (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 367—368) :— THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) explained that the present belonged to the class of case, to which reference has been made in the discussion of the question of the type species of the genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves), where, owing to the difficulty of the problem raised, a decision by the Commission had been inordinately delayed, for it was as far back as 1915 that this issue had been raised by Dr. J. M. Swaine (Department of Agriculture, Forest Investigation Branch, Ottawa, Canada) in connection with the name Scolytus.® In addition, the same question had a year later (1916) been raised by Dr. A. D. Hopkins (Bureau of Entomology, Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.). No action was taken on these applications, and in its present form the question now before the Commission arose out of an application submitted by Professor H. B. Hungerford (U.S.A.) for a ruling in regard to the name Corixa Geoffroy, 1762 (file Z.N.(S.) 137), which would be laid before the Commission as the next following item. Continuing, the Acting President said that the recommendation in regard to the interpretation of the expression “‘ nomenclature ‘binaire ” and the substitution therefor of the expression ‘“ nomenclature binominale”’ agreed upon by the Commission at the meeting® and the subsequent approval of that recommendation by the Section on Nomenclature carried the present case a considerable step further forward. No one disputed that in the work in 5 The case of the name Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762, is now under consideration by the Commission (File Z.N.(S.) 81). ® Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 3. OPINION 228 ; 217 question Geoffroy had been a “binary” but not a binominal author. Accordingly, under the decision referred to above, new names published by that author in the Histoire abrégée did not satisfy the requirements of Proviso (b) to Article 25 and in consequence were not available under the Régles. In reaching the foregoing decision in regard to Article 25, the Commission and the Section had agreed, however, that sympathic consideration should be given to the question of validating the generic names in works rendered unavailable thereunder or to parts of such works, where it could be shown that it was in the interest of stability in nomenclature that names published in such works and at present in common use should be validated. It was therefore for the Commission to consider whether any, and, if so, what special action should be taken to validate generic names as first published by Geoffroy in 1762 in the work now under consideration. A CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION took place on the question whether availability should be given to all the generic names published in the Histoire abrégée or only to some of them. Some of these names should, it was agreed, certainly be preserved, but the position was not so clear as regards others. It was felt that this was a subject which it would be better to deal with piecemeal, Order by Order, in the light of recommendations submitted by entomologists who were specialists in the Orders concerned. 5. At the close of the discussion recorded in the preceding paragraph, the International Commission took its decision on the present case. That decision is set out as follows in the official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 14) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 366—369) :— THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that, having regard to the recommendation adopted at their Fourth Meeting’ that the expression ‘‘ nomen- 7 See note 6. 218 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS clature binominale”’ should be substituted for the expression “‘ nomenclature binaire’”’ in Proviso (b) to Article 25 of the Régles and to the subsequent approval of that recommendation by the Section on Nomen- clature (at its First Meeting), names as published by Geoffroy (E. L.) in 1762 in the work entitled Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux Environs de Paris were not available under the Régles, as Geoffroy had not applied the principles of binominal nomencla- ture in that work, as required by Proviso (b) to Article 25, as amended in the manner specified above ; (2) that certain of the generic names published in the fore- going work, being in wide use, should certainly be validated in the interest of stability in nomenclature, but that, having regard to the large number of Orders of insects dealt with by Geoffroy in the foregoing work, it would be better to consider separately for each Order, in the light of advice from specialists in the Order concerned, the question whether some or all of the generic names published in the foregoing work should be rendered available rather than to render available en bloc all the generic names so published.® (3) to invite the Secretary to the Commission as soon as possible after the close of the present Session to arrange with specialists in the several Orders of insects concerned for the submission to the Commission of statements examining each of the generic names published for that Order, by Geoffroy in the Hist. abrég. and containing proposals for the validation, under the Plenary Powers, of such of the names concerned, the rejection of which would lead to: instability or confusion in the nomenclature of the group concerned, so that, in the light of the statements so received, the Commission may validate such of the names concerned as may appear to it to be appropriate and place the remainder on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; 8 A general appeal to specialists to assist in this investigation was issued in April 1952 (Hemming, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 198—199). This led to the receipt of a number of important contributions which will be published in the Bulletin as soon as possible. OPINION 228 219 (4) to render an Opinion recording the decision specified in (1) above, reference being made at the same time to the decisions specified in (2) and (3) above. 6. 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 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, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 23—24). Since the foregoing provision 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 Geoffroy’s Histoire abrégée. 7. 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 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.5 : 106). 8. 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. 9. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the Paris Session. 220 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 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 Inter- national 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 Twenty-Eight (228) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London this Fourth day of December, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Three. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mzrcatre & Coorrr Limitep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2 RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 4. Part 19. Pp. 221—230 OPINION 229 Acceptance of the lectotype selected by Lydekker (1891) for the nominal species Dinornis novaezealandiae Owen, 1843 (Class Aves) ENT tHSO ON; DN JUN15 195 4 | LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Three Shillings and Ninepence (All rights reserved) | Issued 21st SL. 1954 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 229 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. ie. 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 Kirsy (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologiske 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. Ritey (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). Protest Robert L. UsINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California, .5.A.). OPINION 229 ACCEPTANCE OF THE LECTOTYPE SELECTED BY LYDEKKER (1891) FOR THE NOMINAL SPECIES **DINORNIS NOVAEZEALANDIAE ” OWEN, 1843 (CLASS AVES) RULING :—(1) Lydekker (1891) acted in strict con- formity with Article 31 of the Régles when he selected from among the three syntypes of the nominal species Dinornis novaezealandiae Owen, 1843 (Class Aves) the tibio-tarsus (t2) to be the lectotype of the foregoing nominal species. (2) In view of (1) above, the specific name ingens Owen, 1844, as published in the combination Dinornis ingens, 1S an objective junior synonym of the name novaezealandiae Owen, 1843, as published in the combina- tion Dinornis novaezealandiae, since the holotype of the former is the same specimen as the lectotype of the latter. (3) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 39 and 40 :—(a) novaezealandiae Owen, 1843, as published in the combination Dinornis novae- zealandiae and as determined under (1) above; (b) struthoides Owen, 1844, as published in the combination Dinornis struthoides. (4) The specific name ingens Owen, 1844, as published in the combination Dinornis ingens, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 11. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE In May 1939 Dr. C. W. Stiles, former Secretary to the International Commission, received an undated letter signed by Dr. Gilbert Archey (Director, Auckland Institute and Museum, 224 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Auckland, New Zealand) and Dr. R. S. Allan (Canterbury University College, Christchurch, New Zealand), asking for a ruling on the specimen to be accepted as defining the nominal species Dinornis novaezealandiae Owen, 1843 (Class Aves). This letter was forwarded to Mr. Francis Hemming who had succeeded Dr. Stiles as Secretary to the Commission. This case was given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 136. After correspondence between the Secretary and Drs. Allan and Archey on questions of presentation and form, this application was finally settled in a letter dated 25th September 1939 received from the applicants not long after the outbreak of war in Europe. The application so settled was as follows :— On the type of ‘‘ Dinornis novae-zealandiae ’’ Owen,! 1843 (Class Aves, Order Dinornithiformes) by GILBERT ARCHEY (Director, Auckland Institute and Museum, Auckland, New Zealand), and R. S. ALLAN (Canterbury University College, Christchurch, Naw Zealand) We are writing to ask for a ruling or an Opinion from the Com- mission as to what specimen should be regarded as the type of Owen’s species Dinornis novae-zealandiae, in connection with which we give the four relevant references as follows :— (1) In July 1843, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 11 (120) : 8, 10, Owen published the name Dinornis novae-zealandiae, the species being based on a femur, a tibio-tarsus and a tarso-metatarsus described in that order. These three specimens are the co-types, and are the f12 (femur), t2 (tibia) and m3 (metatarsus) of No. (3) below. 1 At the time when this application was submitted, its authors inserted a hyphen between the two portions of this compound specific name, this being the way in which it had been published by Owen. At Paris in 1948 the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology amended Article 15 by deleting therefrom the option under which authors had till then been free to connect with a hyphen the two portions of a compound name (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 197—198). In accordance with the foregoing decision, the specific name here dealt with is printed in the Ruling given in the present Opinion as a single word without a hyphen—thus, as novaezealandiae. The hyphen has, however, been retained in printing the application reproduced in paragraph 1 of the present Opinion and in the comment by Dr. Joshua L. Baily printed in paragraph 5, since both these documents were written before the foregoing decision was taken by the Paris Congress and in each of them the authors concerned had employed a hyphen in citing the specific name, thus referring to it as ‘‘ novae-zealandiae ”’ OPINION 229 225 (2) In March 1844, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 11(129) : 144, Owen published the names Dinornis struthoides and Dinornis ingens, both nomina nuda. (3) In June 1844, Trans. zool. Soc. Lond. 3(3) : 244—249, Owen published in full the paper of which No. (2) above was a preliminary notice. He ignored his earlier proposal of Dinornis novae-zealandiae and described instead two species :— page 244. Dinornis struthoides, the holotype of which is the metatarsus m3. page 247. Dinornis ingens, the holotype of which is the tibio- tarsus t2. On page 249 he referred the femur f12 to Dinornis struthoides. It was not, however, a co-type of Dinornis struthoides. (4) In 1891, Lydekker, Cat. foss. Birds Brit. Mus.: 224, employed the name Dinornis novaezealandiae, and on page 224, footnote, and again on page 227 designated the tibia t2 (type of Dinornis ingens Owen) as the lectotype of Dinornis novae-zealandiae Owen. On page 244 he cited Dinornis struthoides Owen, accepting the tarso-metatarsus m3 as its type. The point at issue is whether Owen’s designation of the tarso- metatarsus m3 as the type of Dinornis struthoides, and of the tibio- tarsus t2 as the type of Dinornis ingens, invalidates Lydekker’s subsequent selection of t2 as the lectotype of Dinornis novae-zealandiae Owen. IlL—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. By the time that the present application was received in its final form the records of the International Commission had been evacuated from London as a precaution against the risk of destruction through air raids in the war in which Great Britain had then become involved. The Secretariat in London was re-opened in 1942, and steps were immediately taken to establish the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as a means for bringing to the attention of zoologists applications submitted to the International Commission for decision. Work was at once started on outstanding applications with a view to arranging for their publication in the newly established Bulletin. The present application was sent to the printer in October 1944, but, owing 226 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 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 (Archey & Allan, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 257). 3. Comment by Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History) Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England): Shortly before the present application was sent to the printer, there was an exchange of correspondence in regard to it between the Secretary and Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History) Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England), at that time President of the International Commission. In a letter dated 19th September 1944, Dr. Jordan wrote :— The name Dinornis novaezealandiae Owen, 1843, cannot simply be left on one side. The species so named is the type species of the genus Dinornis. No type specimen having previously been selected for this species, Lydekker’s action was in order. 4. Issue of Public Notices : Although it appeared unlikely that the International Commission would find it necessary or desirable to use its Plenary Powers in the present case, it was decided in 1947 that, as an insurance against such a contingency, it would be advantageous to take this possibility into account, having regard to the fact that at that time the issue raised by the present application was of a novel character and the meaning of the Article (Article 31) of the Rég/es involved was far from clear. Accordingly, on 29th September 1947 a notice of the possible use, by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, of its Plenary Powers in the present case was issued to the serial publications specified by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913. The publication of this notice elicited one comment which is given in the immediately following paragraph. | 5. Comment by Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) : The following comment was received from Dr. Joshua - L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) under cover of a letter dated 13th December 1947 :— As stated, the solution of this problem seems quite clear to me. Owen had before him in 1844 three specimens designated as f12, t2 and m3. To these he gave three names—D. novae-zealandiae, which he had already published in 1843, D. struthoides, and D. ingens. OPINION 229 227 If the three specimens are con-specific, the correct name will be D. novae-zealandiae, since this was the first name given. The fact that in 1843 he designated the three specimens as co-types indicates that Owen considered them at first to be con-specific, but the fact that he subsequently published the names D. struthoides and D. ingens and designated as their respective holotypes m3 and t2 shows that he later changed his mind. Further, his choice of holotypes constitutes presumptive evidence that Owen thought it would automatically follow that f12 would become the holotype of D. novae- zealandiae. But according to the Rules a presumptive intention is not sufficient for the establishment of a type specimen ; Owen should have stated definitely that f12 was the type specimen of D. novae- zealandiae if such was his intention. But he did not do so, and this failure left the door open for Lydekker who designated f2 as the type specimen of D. novae-zealandiae. This action makes D. ingens and D. novae-zealandii identical synonyms, since they have a common type specimen, and the name D. ingens must be discarded since it has no priority, and f12 if not con-specific must be given a new name. But it might be desirable to retain Owen’s three names for the three species for which he intended them, if this custom had been established by long usage. This could not, however, be done without suspension of the Rules. Whether suspension would be justified is a question that would have to be answered by the paleoornithologists. My point is that Owen’s failure to designate a holotype or, later, to select a lectotype for D. novae-zealandiae makes it impossible to carry out his obvious intention without suspension of the Rules. Ill—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 6. One of the earliest acts of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Paris Session was to revise and clarify the provisions of Article 31 relating to the selection of lectotypes for nominal species (Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 11) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 73—76)'. It was in the light of the decision of principle so taken that the International Commission considered the problem submitted by Dr. Archey and Dr. Allan at the Fourteenth Meeting of its Paris Session held 1 The provisions of Article 31 were further reviewed and amended by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology at Copenhagen in 1953. The changes so made (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 72—78) did not however in any way affect the interpretation of that Article given by the International Commission in the present case at Paris in 1948. 228 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS at the Sorbonne in the Amphithéatre 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 setting out the decision reached by it in regard to this case at the foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 14) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 448—450) :— THE COMMISSION agteed :— (1) that Lydekker (1891) did not act in contravention of Article 31 when he selected from among the three syntypes of the nominal species Dinornis novaezea- landiae Owen, 1843, the tibio-tarsus (t2) to be the lectotype of that species and consequently the foregoing lectotype selection, being the first to have been made under Article 31, was valid under the Rég/les; (2) that, in view of (1) above, the trivial name ingens Owen, 1844 (published in the binominal combination Dinornis ingens), being the trivial name of a nominal species of which the specimen referred to in (1) above was the holotype, was an objective synonym of the older trivial name novaezealandiae Owen, 1843 ; (3) to place the undermentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— novaezealandiae Owen, 1843 (as published in the binominal combination Dinornis novaezealandiae), determined in the manner specified in (1) above ; struthoides Owen, 1844 (as published in the binominal combination Dinornis struthoides) ; (4) to place the trivial name ingens Owen, 1844 (as published in the binominal combination Dinornis ingens), on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; (5) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (4) above. OPINION 229... - 229 7. The following are the original references for the names which appear in the decision set out in the immediately preceding paragraph :— ingens, Dinornis, Owen, 1844, Trans. zool. Soc. Lond. 3(3) : 247 novaezealandiae, Dinornis, Owen, 1843, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 11(120) : 8, 10 struthoides, Dinornis, Owen, 1844, Trans. zool. Soc. Lond. 3(3) : 244 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 Sixth Meeting held on 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5: 113—114). 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. 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 230 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 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. 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 Twenty-Nine (229) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London this Fifth day of December, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Three. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mretcatre & CooprerR LimiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2 -OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.c., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 4. Part 20. Pp. 231—238 OPINION 230 Suppression, under the Plenary Powers, of Gesner (J.), 1758, Tractatus physicus de Petrificatis for nomenclatorial purposes LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Three Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 21st April, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 230 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. Perrers (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. Te 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 Kirsy (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologiske 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. Usincer (University of California, Berkeley, California, OPINION 230 SUPPRESSION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF GESNER (J.), 1758, ‘‘ TRACTATUS PHYSICUS DE PETRIFICATIS ” FOR NOMENCLATORIAL PURPOSES RULING :—(1) The work by Gesner (J.) entitled Tractatus physicus de Petrificatis published in 1758 is hereby. suppressed for nomenclatorial purposes under the Plenary Powers, in so far as the use of those Powers is necessary to secure this end. (2) The foregoing work is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature as Work No. 2. IL.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 28th June 1939 Dr. J. Brookes Knight (then of Princeton University, Department of Geology, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A.) submitted the following application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for a ruling on the question whether the work by Gesner (J.) entitled Tractatus Physicus de Petrificatis published in 1758 was an available work and therefore whether names published in it possessed a status of availability under the Régles :— Proposal that Gesner (J.), 1758, ‘‘ Tractatus physicus de Petrificatis ’’, should be suppressed for nomenclatorial purposes. By J. BROOKES KNIGHT (Department of Geology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey.) I wish to have an Opinion from the International Commission on the status of the names Gesner (J.), 1758, Tractatus physicus de Petrificatis .. . 234 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Gesner apparently names and describes (in Latin) genera, without refering species to them. Later authors have used the same generic names, usually without any statement as to the authorship of the names, and have included species in them. However, since about 1830 most of these names, all ending in “ -ites”’, have gone out of fashion. Such as are still used are attributed to authors subsequent to Gesner. A few authors have noted Gesner’s names and have rejected them out of hand as not being binominal. As a rule, they are overlooked. Sherborn accepted Gesner’s names as available. If the International Commission should decide that Gesner’s generic names are technically available, it is suggested that the whole work be made unavailable under suspension of the rules, on the grounds that the adoption, as from 1758, of the names that appear in Gesner’s Tractatus physicus would cause considerable confusion in various fields of taxonomy. Nothing would be gained by retaining them as available, Save priority of the most sterile sort. Such of the names as are taken up by later authors (with, or without, reference to Gesner) should be considered valid or not on the merits of such later usage and should date from such usage, without jeopardy of homonymy with Gesner’s names. I1—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. On receipt, the present application was given the Registered Number ZN.(S.) 146. The outbreak of war in Europe in September 1939, barely two months after the receipt of this application, rendered impossible any immediate progress in its consideration, for, as a precaution against the risk of destruction through air raids, all the records of the International Commission were evacuated from London to the country within a few days of the commencement of hostilities. The Secretariat in London was re-opened in 1942, and steps were immediately taken to establish the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as a means for bringing to the attention of zoologists applications submitted to the International Commission for decision. Work was at once started on 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 OPINION 230 235 take place until 28th February 1947 (Knight, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 222). 3. The publication of the present application in the Bulletin elicited two comments :—(1) from Dr. Th. Mortensen (Univer- sitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen) ; (2) from Dr. J. Brookes Knight giving particulars of the views of certain members of the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America. 4. Comment by Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen): In a letter dated 8th April 1947 Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen) made the following comment on this case :—‘‘ Suppression of Gesner’s Tractatus: Yes”’. 5. Views of four members of the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America : In a letter dated 12th November 1947, Dr. J. Brookes Knight, the present applicant, who at that time was Chairman of the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America, wrote :— Committeeman Stenzel was asked to draw up a Resolution on this proposal. However, he has been in the field ever since then and has had no opportunity to consider matters of nomenclature. Even without a Resolution, four committeemen, Wells, Moore, Cooper and Keen, expressed themselves as favoring suppression. 6. Issue of Public Notices : In view of the fact that in the present application the International Commission had been asked to use its Plenary Powers to suppress Gesner’s Tractatus in the event of its finding that this work had been published in conditions which satisfied the provisions of Article 25 of the Régles, it was decided in 1947 that the best course would be at once to take the action prescribed in Plenary Powers cases, so that, if the Commission were to decide to make use of that procedure, it should be free at once to do so. Accordingly, on 14th September 1947 a notice of the possible use, by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, of its Plenary Powers in this case was issued to the serial publications prescribed by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913. The publication of this notice elicited no objection to the action proposed. 236 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 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 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 is an extract from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission setting out the decision reached by it in regard to this case at the foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 49) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 418—420) :— ; THE COMMISSION :— (1) took note that the specialists who had expressed an opinion on the application submitted in regard to the treatment of new “names” published in 1758 in Gesner’s Tractatus physicus de petrificatis were unani- mous in considering that those “names ” should not be accepted ; (2) without prejudice to the question whether in his Tractatus of 1758 Gesner applied the principles of binominal nomenclature and therefore whether new “names ” in that work possessed any availability under the Rég/es, agreed to use their Plenary Powers in so far as necessary to suppress the foregoing work for all nomenclatorial purposes ; (3) placed on record that, in view of the decision specified in (2) above, any “‘ name ”’, the first publication of which subsequent to 1757 was in Gesner’s Tractatus of 1758, ranks for purposes of the Law of Priority (Article 25) and of the Law of Homonymy (Article 34) as from the date subsequent to the Tractatus on which it was first published in conditions which satisfy the requirements of Article 25 and is to be attributed to the author by whom it was so published ; (4) agreed to render an Opinion recording ue decisions specified in (1) to (3) above. OPINION 230 237 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 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. Sis 110). 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; Hinde 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. 11. 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 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, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 23—24). Since the foregoing provision 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 Gesner’s Tractatus. 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 International 238 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 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 Thirty (230) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London this Sixth day of December, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Three. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by MretcaLtFe & Cooper LimiTep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 4. Part 21. Pp. 239—248 OPINION 231 Rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of Martin (W.), 1793, Figures and Descriptions of Petrifactions collected in Derbyshire and of the work by the same author published in 1809 under the title Petrificata Derbiensia LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Three Shillings and Ninepence (All rights reserved) © Issued 2\st April, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 231 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. PerTERS (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. cas E. VoKeEs (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 Kirspy (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologiske 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 Carotina, 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). Poole sor ee L. USINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California, (U.S.A.). OPINION 231 REJECTION FOR NOMENCLATORIAL PURPOSES OF MARTIN (W.), 1793, ‘FIGURES AND DESCRIPTIONS OF PETRIFACTIONS COLLECTED IN DERBYSHIRE” AND OF THE WORK BY THE SAME AUTHOR PUBLISHED IN 1809 UNDER THE TITLE “ PET- RIFICATA DERBIENSIA ” RULING :—(1) Martin (W.) did not apply the prin- ciples of binominal nomenclature in the under-mentioned works, which are accordingly unavailable for nomen- clatorial purposes :—(a) Martin, 1793, Figures and Des- criptions of Petrifactions collected in Derbyshire ; (b) Martin, 1809, Petrificata Derbiensia: or Figures and Descriptions of Petrifactions collected in Derbyshire. (2) The foregoing works are accordingly hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature as Works Nos. 3 and 4. (3) The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is prepared to give sympathetic con- sideration to any application which may be submitted to it by interested specialists for the validation, under the Plenary Powers, as from Martin, 1809, of any specific name first published by that author in the Petrificata Derbiensia where that name is in common use and it can be shown that, in consequence of the decision given in (1) above, it would be necessary to change that name and that such change would lead to confusion in nomen- clature. 242 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 28th June 1939 Dr. J. Brookes Knight (then of Princeton University, Department of Geology, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A.) submitted the following application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for a ruling on the question of the availability of names published in the work by William Martin entitled Figures and Descriptions of Petrifactions collected in Derbyshire published in 1793 and in the work by the same author entitled Petrificata Derbiensia: or Figures and Descriptions of Petrifactions collected in Derbyshire published in 1809 :— On the status of Martin (W.), 1793, ‘‘ Fig. Descr. Petrif. Derbyshire’’, and 1809, ‘‘ Petrificata Derbiensia ”’ By J. BROOKES KNIGHT (Department of Geology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey) I wish to have an Opinion from the International Commission on the status of the names in Martin (W.), 1809, Petrificata Derbiensia ; or Figures and descriptions of petrifactions collected in Derbyshire. Martin seems to have been familiar with Linnean binominal nomenclature (see Petrif. Derb. : footnote bottom page opposite Plate 41) and yet he consistently employs for fossils trinominals such as Conchyliolithus Anomites productus, where, for example, he calls Conchyliolithus the ‘‘ genus’”’, Anomites the “ family ’’, and productus the ‘“‘ species’’. He even employs designations of four terms such as Conchyliolithus Nautilites Ammonites listeri. He explains his system of terms, I am uncertain as to whether or not they are names, in a separate work published at about the same time and referred to in Petrif. Derb. on page VIII. This separate work is: Outlines of an attempt to establish a knowledge of extraneous fossils on scientific principles, 1809. To make my question more precise :— (1) Have the names that Martin considered “ generic’, for example Conchyliolithus, any standing in nomenclature ? (2) Have the names that Martin considered as pertaining to ‘“‘ families ’’, for example Anomites, Ammonites, Nautilites, any standing in nomenclature from Martin’s usage of them, and more specifically standing as generic names ? * specific > any « (3) Have the names that Martin considered as standing in nomenclature as trivial names ? OPINION 231 243 Later authors have almost universally adopted Martin’s trivial names, citing them from Petrificata Derbiensia, 1809. His terms of higher rank have been universally ignored. His earlier usage of some of the terms may help throw some light on the matter. Thus in 1809 he uses the name Conchyliolithus Helicites catillus. In 1793 (Martin (W.), Figures and descriptions of petrifactions collected in Derbyshire (which is not his Petrificata Derbiensia of 1809, but a predecessor of that work)) he describes this species for the first time as ‘“CONCHYLIOLITHUS (catillus) HELICIS ’”—followed by a Latin diagnosis. It is perfectly clear here from the discussion in English in the following paragraph that he does not here regard ** Conchyliolithus’’ as a name but merely a designation for fossilised shells. He begins his English discussion : “* A fossil shell, of the genus Helix’. Thus to rewrite the name in its correct form and in the nominative! case we would have “ Helix catillus’’. Are the trivial names that appear in Martin, 1793, for example catillus as cited above, valid ? Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. On receipt, the present application was given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 147. The outbreak of war in Europe in September 1939, barely two months after the receipt of this application, rendered impossible any immediate progress in its consideration, for, as a precaution against the risk of destruction through air raids, all the records of the International Commission were evacuated from London to the country within a few days of the commencement of hostilities. The Secretariat in London was re-opened in 1942, and steps were immediately taken to establish the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as a means for bringing to the attention of zoologists applications submitted to the International Commission for decision. Work was at once started on 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 31 March 1947 (Knight, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 260). 1 See Opinion 183 (1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 3 : 13—24). 244 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 3. Issue of Public Notices : In view of the possibility that the International Commission might take the view that one or other of Martin’s two works were available for nomenclatorial purposes but that it was desirable that the work in question should be suppressed for those purposes, it was judged desirable in 1947 to put the Commission in a position at once to use its Plenary Powers in this case in the event of its deciding to make use of this procedure. Accordingly, on 29th September 1947, a notice of the possible use, by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, of its Plenary Powers in this case was issued to the serial publications prescribed by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913. The publication of this notice elicited no objection to the use of the Plenary Powers in this case. IIL—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 4. 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 Amphithéatre 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 setting out the decision reached by it in regard to this case at the foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 15) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 450—452) :— THE COMMISSION agreed :—- (1) that in the undermentioned works Martin (W.) did not apply the “ principes de la nomenclature binominale ” as required by Proviso (b) to Article 25 and that therefore no name, whether an apparent generic name or an apparent trivial name, published in either of OPINION 231 245 these works possessed any availability under the Régles as from the date of being so published :— (a) Martin, 1793, Figures and Descriptions of Petrifac- tions collected in Derbyshire ; (b) Martin, 1809, Petrificata Derbiensia: or Figures and Descriptions of Petrifactions collected in Derbyshire ; (2) to give sympathetic consideration to any application which might be submitted by interested specialists for the validation as from Martin, 1809, of any trivial name first published by that author in his Petrificata derbiensia where that name was in general use for a common species and it could be shown that under (1) above it would be necessary to change the name of that species and that such change would lead to confusion in nomenclature ;2 (3) to render an Opinion recording the decisions 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 Sixth Meeting held on 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.5 : 114). 6. 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 2 The invitation so extended by the International Commission has elicited from Dr. Helen Muir-Wood and Dr. C. J. Stubblefield a joint application for the validation, under the Plenary Powers, of two specific names for species of the Class Anthozoa and of eight such names for species of the Class Brachiopoda (Z.N.(S.) 461) (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 7—17). 246 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Hank6 ; 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 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. 9. 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 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, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 23—24). Since the foregoing provision 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 Martin’s Figures and Descriptions of Petrifactions of 1793 and of the same author’s Petrificata Derbiensia of 1809. 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 OPINION 231 247 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. 11. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two Hundred and Thirty-One (231) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London this Sixth day of December, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Three. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C..G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 4. Part 22. Pp. 249—274 OPINION 232 Suppression, under Plenary Powers, of twelve generic names in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) published by Illiger in 1807 in senses different from those in which those names were published by Fabricius later in the same year 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'Ninepence (All rights reserved) Issued 2\st April, 1954 “INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 232 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. 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 Kirspy (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). Dr. Henning LeMcuE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologiske 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. Ritty (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. UsINcER (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A,), OPINION 232 SUPPRESSION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF TWELVE GENERIC NAMES IN THE ORDER LEPIDOPTERA (CLASS INSECTA) PUBLISHED BY ILLIGER IN 1807 IN SENSES DIFFERENT FROM THOSE IN WHICH THOSE NAMES WERE PUBLISHED BY FABRICIUS LATER IN THE SAME YEAR RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers the under- mentioned generic names (Class Insecta, Order Lepidop- tera) are hereby suppressed for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy :—(a) Apatura [lIlliger], 1807; (b) Brassolis [Illiger], 1807 ; (c) Castnia [Illiger], 1807; (d) Emesis [Illiger], 1807 ; (e) Euploea [Illiger], 1807; (f) Helicopis [Mlliger], 1807 ; (g) Mechanitis [Illiger], 1807 ; (h) Neptis [Illiger], 1807 ; (i) Nymphidium [Illiger], 1807 ; (j) Pontia [Illiger], 1807 ; (k) Urania [Illiger], 1807. (2) Under the Plenary Powers the generic name Thymele [Illiger], 1807, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (3) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—({a) the eleven names suppressed under (1) above, as Names Nos. 37 to 47; (b) Thymele [Illiger], 1807, as suppressed under (2) above, as Name No. 48 ; (c) Thymele Fabricius, 1807, as Name No. 49. (4) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Nos. 657 to 663, with the gender severally specified below and with the type species specified in Point (3) of the Paris Conclusions quoted in paragraph 6 of the present Opinion :—(a) Apatura Fabricius, 1807 (feminine); (b) Brassolis Fabricius, 1807 (feminine); (c) Castnia DSD, OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Fabricius, 1807 (feminine) ; (d) Emesis Fabricius, 1807 (feminine) ; (ce) M echanitis Fabricius, 1807 (feminine) ; (f) Neptis Fabricius, 1807 (feminine) ; (g) Urania Fabricius, 1807 ( feminine). (5) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby confirmed in their position on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Numbers previously allotted thereto in the Opinions cited below: (a) Helicopis Fabricius, 1807, and Pontia Fabricius, 1807, as Nos. 565 and 566 (Opinion 137) ; (b) Euploea Fabricius, 1807, as No. 611 (Opinion 163) ; (c) Nymphidium Fabricius, 1807, as No. 614 (Opinion 171). (6) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 41 to 51 :— (a) aceris Esper, 1783, as published in the combination Papilio aceris, without prejudice to the prior rights of the specific name hylas Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio hylas, if that name is held to belong to a sub-species of the same collective species ; (b) caricae Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio caricae; (c) cereus Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Papilio cereus ; (d) corus Fabricius, 1793, as published in the combination Papilio corus ; (e) cupido Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio cupido ; (f) daplidice Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio daplidice ; (g) hylas Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio hylas; (h) iris Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio iris; (i) leilus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio leilus; (3) polymnia Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio polymnia; (k) sophorae Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio sophorae. (7) The question of placing on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name of the type species of Castnia Fabricius, 1807, is postponed for further consideration. OPINION 232 253 I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE The subject dealt with in the present Opinion was first raised in a paper by Mr. Francis Hemming entitled “‘ The Question of the Work in which ten Generic Names in the Lepidoptera Rhopalocera hitherto attributed to Fabricius were first published in 1807: a Case for Decision by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature” published on 15th September 1939 (Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (B) 8 : 181—191). In this paper Mr. Hemming showed that a number of extremely well-known generic names published by Fabricius in 1807 had been published slightly earlier in the same year by Illiger, by whom they had been used for entirely different species and therefore that the utmost confusion would be caused in the nomenclature of the Rhopalo- cera if through the strict application of the Rég/es it were necessary to discard the Fabrician usage of these names. Mr. Hemming then indicated that he proposed to ask the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature to suppress the names in question as published by Illiger and to validate them as published by Fabricius. In the year 1943 Mr. Hemming, as Secretary to the International Commission, had occasion to re-study the early Opinions of the Commission and, in doing so, he found it necessary, in a note dated 21st November 1943 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 79—82), to draw attention to the fact that under the interpretation of Proviso (a) to Article 25 given in that Opinion a generic name published, prior to Ist January 1931, without a definition or description in words of the genus so named, was available only if a type species was designated or indicated for the genus in question!. In these circumstances Mr. Hemming deleted from his application four Illiger names (Brassolis, Euploea, Mechanitis, Thymele) which had been included in his paper of 1939 but which, under Opinion 1, were seen to be invalid and which it was therefore now unnecessary to suppress under the Plenary Powers. Mr. Hemming’s application so modified was submitted to the International Commission on 20th June 1943. It was as follows :— 1 As explained in paragraph 6 of the present Opinion, the interpretation of Proviso (a) to Article 25 given in Opinion 1 was repealed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, 254 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS On the question whether eight generic names in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) commonly accepted as having been published by Fabricius in 1807 were published by Illiger earlier in the same year By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.) In volume 6 of the Magazin fiir Insektenkunde (Illiger), the title page of which is dated 1807, there appeared an article (pp. 277, 278) entitled ‘“ Die neueste Gattungs-Eintheilung der Schmetterlinge aus den Linnéischen Gattungen Papilio und Sphinx ’’, to which was attached a synopsis (pp. 279—289) of the characters of 49 genera entitled ‘* Schmetterlings-Gattungen. A. Nach Fabricii Systema Glossatorum Tom. I”. The article itself was anonymous, but there is practically no doubt that it was written by Illiger. The synopsis of genera was, as the title shows, taken from Fabricius’ unpublished Systema Glossa- torum, and it is therefore perfectly correct to attribute to Fabricius? the new generic names included therein and not to Illiger or whoever was the anonymous author of the article beginning on p. 277. M. Felix Bryk in 1938 edited a facsimile (published by the Verlag Gustav Feller, Neubrandenburg) of one of the two surviving proof copies of Fabricius’ unpublished Systema Glossatorum, in which all the 49 genera mentioned in the synopsis given in Iliger’s Magazin are given in a preliminary Key (“ Characteres Generum’’), which also includes a fiftieth name for a genus of butterflies (Casinia Pabnee) which did not appear in the synopsis in the Magazin. 2. In the issue dated 19th December 1807 of the Al/gemeine-Literatur Zeitung, which, though normally treated as being of Jena, was in fact at this time published at Halle, there is an anonymous article written by Illiger, which contains a detailed review of the first 34 plates of the Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge published by Jacob Hiibner. A facsimile of this article is given on pp. 43—45 of volume 2 of my Hiibner published by the Royal Entomological Society of London in 2 In order to prevent any possibility of misunderstanding from arising, it should be made clear that, although (as stated) it is likely that Illiger (as the editor of the Magazin fiir Insektenkunde) actually compiled the paper here under discussion, there is no reason whatever to suppose that he was the author of the diagnoses given for the new genera, the names of which appear in the synopsis entitled ‘‘ Schmetterlings-Gattungen ’’. On the contrary, there is every reason to believe that these were the diagnoses written by Fabricius for these new genera and that Illiger’s share in this matter was confined to picking out these diagnoses from the unpublished material written by Fabricius for his projected Systema Glossatorum—to which work the anonymous author (supposedly Illiger) of the paper under consideration attributed these names by the use of the sub-title “‘ Nach Fabricii Systema Glossatorum”. It may therefore be concluded that Fabricius and not Illiger devised the new generic names in question and wrote the diagnoses for the genera so named and that Tlliger’s role in the matter was no more than that of editor and publisher. It is for this reason that it is correct to attribute these names to Fabricius, as has always been done by subsequent authors. [F. H. 6th December 1953}. OPINION 232 255 1937. In this article each of the species figured on the 34 plates in question is considered critically, and, as explained in a preliminary note, the generic name according to the system of Fabricius is added. In the following table, I give the names of the species figured by Hiibner, the number of the plate on which each species is so figured, the genus assigned to each species by Hiibner, and the genus of the Fabrician system allotted to each species by Illiger in the review referred to above :— Generic names applied to the species figured on the first 34 plates published of Hubner’s Sammi. exot. Schmett. by Wlliger in his anonymous review of the species so figured which appeared in the issue of 19th December 1807 of the Allgem. Lit. Ztg, Halle (Jena). Name of species | PI. no. Generic name /|Generic name used in Allgem. used by Hubner Lit. Ztg, Halle (Jena) aetolus [102 Rusticus Hesperia gnidus (104) Rusticus Helicopis demoleas {sic} [116] Princeps Papilio hellica [141] Mancipium Pontia 3 fabius 148] Consul Brassolis ? licus [150] Urbanus Castnia} thraso [151] Urbanus Thymele’ proteus [155] Urbanus Thymele, niveus [159] Urbanus Thymele} cymo [2] Nereis Hymenitis doto [1] Nereis Aymenitis neso 5] Nereis HAymenitis ninonia [6] Nereis Hymenitis polymnia [7] Nereis Hymenitis dianasa [8] Nereis Mechanitis eunice [9 Nereis Neptis vesta f11} Nereis Mechanitis thelxiope [12] Nereis Mechanitis thamar [15] Nereis Mechanitis dido [17] Nereis Mechanitis cora [25] Lemnas [sic] Euploea nemertes [26] Lemnas {sic} Euploea halimede [27] Limnas Eurybia leucosia [29] Limnas Nymphidium Pharea [32] Limnas Emesis genutia [21] Limnas Euploea zygia [35] Lemonias Lemonias Julia [43] Dryas Mechanitis vanillae [44] Dryas Mechanitis amphinome [47] Hamadryas Apatura astina [56] Hamadryas Brassolis themis [60] Najas Brassolis leonte [79] Potamis Brassolis leilaria [200] Lars Urania 3. It will be seen from column 4 of the preceding table that Illiger distributed the 34 species in question among 17 of what he called genera of the Fabrician system. Of these genera 15 belong to the sub-order Rhopalocera and 2 to the sub-order Heterocera, although 256 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (as can be seen from the synopsis of Fabrician genera published in volume 6 of Illiger’s Magazin and also from the unpublished Systema Glossatorum of Fabricius, discussed in paragraph 1 above) it is clear that both Illiger and Fabricius regarded these two genera as also belonging to what is now accepted as the sub-order Rhopalocera. 4. Two of the generic names used by Illiger in 1807 in the Al/gemeine- Literatur Zeitung (namely Papilio and Hesperia) were published by other authors (Linnaeus and Fabricius respectively) long before 1807. These names are, therefore, not involved in the problem with which this paper is concerned. 5. Three of the names used by Illiger in the A//gemeine-Literatur Zeitung were not used by Fabricius in the paper published in volume 6 of Illiger’s Magazin. These three names (Eurybia, Hymenitis, and Lemonias) are, therefore, also not involved in the present problem. 6. There are thus 12 names, the first publication of which may have occurred either (i) in the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung (in which case they should be attributed to Illiger) or (ii) in volume 6 of Illiger’s Magazin (in which case they should be attributed to Fabricius). 7. Each of the generic names published by Fabricius in volume 6 of Illiger’s Magazin was accompanied with a short definition and these names accordingly satisfy the requirements of proviso (a) to Article 25 of the International Code. The names published by Illiger in the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung stand in an altogether different position. Illiger gave no description or definition of these genera and it is necessary, therefore, to consider whether he gave an “indication’’ for these genera within the meaning of that expression as used in Article 25. The meaning to be attached to that expression has been laid down by the International Commission in Opinion 1 (see 1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 73—86). Of the provisions in Opinion 1 relating to generic names, the only one under which any of the names published by Illiger in 1807 could qualify as having been published with an “ indication.”” (and, therefore, as being available under Article 25) is the provision which lays it down that the “definite citation or designation of a type’”’ is to be accepted as constituting an “ indication ”’. As pointed out in Note 5 to Opinion 1 (1944, ibid. 1 : 79—82), it is clear from Opinion 17 that, where a genus is monotypical, it is to be deemed for this purpose to have been published with “‘ definite citation or designation of a type’’. In the case of the names published by Iiliger in 1807 in the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung, it is necessary, therefore, to reject, as failing to satisfy proviso (a) to Article 25, any name published for a genus, for which no explanatory matter is given and in which two or more species were cited, none being specified as the type. 8. An examination of the table given in paragraph 2 above shows that 5 of the genera established by Illiger were cited with more than es OPINION 232 257 one contained species and must, therefore (for the reasons explained _ above), be rejected as not being available nomenclatorially as from the date of their publication by Illiger in the A//gemeine-Literatur Zeitung. The names which must be rejected on these grounds are : Brassolis ; Euploea; Hymenitis; Mechanitis; and Thymele. Of these, all except Hymenitis were published by Fabricius in volume 6 of Illiger’s Magazin and this accordingly becomes the undisputed place of their first publication. All 5 of these names cease to be involved in the problem dealt with in the present paper, since none of them was validly published both by Illiger (in the Al/gemeine-Literatur Zeitung) and by Fabricius (in volume 6 of Illiger’s Magazin). 9. It will be seen, therefore, that of the 17 generic names used by Illiger in the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung (i.e. the names enumerated in column 4 of the table given in paragraph 2 above), 9 are not affected by the question of the relative dates of publication of Illiger’s article in the above journal and of the paper giving the list of Fabrician genera which appeared in volume 6 of Illiger’s Magazin. Of these names, 2 were eliminated because they were published by previous authors (paragraph 4); 3 were eliminated because they were not included in the list given in volume 6 of Iliger’s Magazin (paragraph 5) ; and 4 were eliminated because in the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung they were not published in such a way as to satisfy the requirements of Article 25 of the Code (paragraph 8). There remain therefore 8 generic names, the first publication of which may have been in (i) the Al/gemeine- Literatur Zeitung or (ii) volume 6 of Illiger’s Magazin. These names are :—Apatura ; Castnia ; Emesis ; Helicopis ; Neptis ; Nymphidium ; Pontia ; and Urania. 10. It is necessary therefore at this stage to consider what evidence, whether direct or indirect, is available to determine whether or not the article in volume 6 of Illiger’s Magazin appeared before that in the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung ; and therefore whether Fabricius is the author of the 8 names given in paragraph 9 above (as he would be in the former event) or whether Illiger through his review of Hiibner’s plates is the author of the 8 names in question (as would be the case in the latter event). This is not a matter of theoretical interest only, but is one of great practical importance, since in most cases the included species in the two papers are different, with the result that, if it proved to be the case that Illiger’s review of Hiibner’s plates was published before the extract from Fabricius’ Systema given in Illiger’s Magazin, the types of the genera in question would need to be changed. The evidence available on the point at issue is given in the following paragraphs. 11. Illiger’s review of Hiibner’s plates which appeared in the Allge- meine-Literatur Zeitung is known to have been published in 1807 on 19th December, since it was included in Number 303 of that journal which bears that date. As regards the article in Iliger’s Magazin, the volume in question (vol. 6) is dated 1807, and in the absence of definite 258 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS evidence to the contrary must be accepted as having been published in that year. There is no direct evidence as to what month in that year the portion concerned (pp. 277—289) was published. 12. In paragraph | above, I have shown that the title of the article in Illiger’s Magazin expressly states (p. 277) that the genera (49 in number) given in the synopsis (pp. 279—289) represent the latest revision of the Linnean genera Papilio and Sphinx, and that the title to the synopsis shows that this revision was the work of Fabricius. Further, in the same paragraph, I have shown that at the time in 1807, when Fabricius finished the manuscript of his Systema Glossatorum he had slightly modified the ideas set out in the article in Illiger’s Magazin and had increased the number of genera from 49 to 50. There can therefore be no doubt that the article in Illiger’s Magazin was not only written but also passed for final printing on some date in 1807 prior to the date in the same year on which Fabricius wrote the manuscript of his Systema Glossatorum. 13. Illiger’s unsigned article published in the 19th December 1807 issue of the Al/gemeine-Literatur Zeitung was concerned only with the first 34 plates of Hiibner’s Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge and the genera of Fabricius are mentioned only incidentally in relation to the species figured by Htibner on the plates under review. Nevertheless of the 17 Fabrician genera among which (as shown in paragraph 2 above) the species figured on these 34 plates were distributed, there were not less than 3 genera which appeared neither in the article in volume 6 of Illiger’s Magazin nor in the proof of Fabricius’ Systema Glossatorum, both of which expressly claimed, as at the dates concerned, to set out the latest revision by Fabricius of the genera Papilio Linnaeus and Sphinx Linnaeus. There can therefore be no doubt whatever that Illiger’s review of Hiibner’s plates published on 19th December 1807 in the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung was written and therefore printed, subsequent to the date on which the paper in volume 6 of Illiger’s Magazin was printed and passed for publication, and subsequent also to the date still later in 1807 on which Fabricius sent the manuscript of his Systema Glossatorum to the printer. 14. There thus remains one question only for consideration, namely the possibility that the Illiger Magazin article, though admittedly written before Illiger’s review of the Hiibner plates, was nevertheless actually published after the appearance of that review. Both are dated 1807 and the latter is dated 19th December of that year. In order therefore to sustain an argument that these articles were published in 1807 in the reverse order to that in which they were written, it would be necessary to show (i) that the publication of vol. 6 of Illiger’s Magazin was delayed until after 19th December 1807 and therefore took place during the twelve-day period from 20th December 1807 to 3lst December 1807; and (ii) that, although by 19th December Fabricius had subdivided the Linnean genera Papilio and Sphinx into OPINION 232 259 53 genera (50 given in the proof of the Systema Glossatorum which was sent to the printer in 1807 prior to the date on which Illiger wrote his review of Hiibner’s plates, plus three genera, the names of which appeared for the first time in the said review), both Fabricius, as author, and Illiger, as editor of the Magazin, allowed the publication of a paper which expressly claimed to give the latest particulars relating to Fabricius’ system but which was in fact already out of date, in that it omitted 4 of the 53 genera which, on the hypothesis here under con- sideration, Fabricius had already adopted. 15. I must, however, add that in correspondence with me the late Dr. Foster H. Benjamin put forward the view that vol. 6 of Illiger’s Magazin was published after the close of 1807 (althouth it bears the date of that year), and therefore that Illiger’s review in the A//gemeine- Literatur Zeitung was published well before the synopsis of Fabricius’ genera given in vol. 6 of Illiger’s Magazin. Dr. Benjamin based this view upon the following considerations. In the first place, he considered that the fact that volumes 3 and 4 of Illiger’s Magazin were not reviewed in the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung until the early part of 1807, and that vol. 5 was reviewed in the same journal later in that year indicated that for some reason the publication of the successive volumes of Illiger’s Magazin was retarded and did not necessarily take place in the years given on the title pages of the volumes concerned. Dr. Benjamin then drew attention to the fact that in the case of one set of [lliger’s Magazin preserved in the United States which appeared to be in con- temporary binding, volumes 3 and 4 were bound in a single volume. From this he deduced that some cause—perhaps lack of funds—led to a delay in the distribution of vol. 3 with the result that that volume was not distributed until 4 was ready for distribution also. Dr. Benjamin then referred to the Reichard fire in which- admittedly a large part of the stock of vol. 6 of Illiger’s Magazin was destroyed. He stated that he was aware of three copies in the United States, which he accepted as originals, but he took the view that this volume was not distributed (i.e. was not published) in 1807 or indeed at any date sufficiently early to permit of it being reviewed by Illiger in the Al/gemeine-Literatur Zeitung. In other words, according to this argument, this volume was not distributed at least until the end of 1808. Dr. Benjamin considered that, having regard to the fact that the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung was issued at intervals of three days only and that Illiger would be the the first person in the world to have at his disposal for review purposes a copy of vol. 6 of his own Magazin, he would certainly have reviewed that volume if it had been published during the period in which he was writing reviews for the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung. Finally, Dr. Benjamin drew attention to the fact that the main text of vol. 4 of Latreille’s Gen. Crust. Ins., published in 1809, contained no reference to vol. 6 of Illiger’s Magazin, while the addenda to the above volume of Latreille’s work was full of such references. From this, Dr. Benjamin concluded that Latreille did not receive vol. 6 of Illiger’s Magazin 260 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS until about 1809, when it was too late for him to include any references thereto in the main portion of vol. 4 of his own work. 16. It is now necessary to examine the various arguments summarised in the preceding paragraph. Dr. Benjamin, it should first be noted, attached great importance to the slow and spasmodic way in which Illiger reviewed his own Magazin in the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung, and to the fact that vol. 6 of the Magazin was never reviewed in it at all. It must be remembered, however, that the A//gemeine-Literatur Zeitung was primarily concerned with the reviewing of separate works and not with that of journals ; and, in so far as journals were reviewed, it would not cause surprise if the reviewer (in this case Illiger) exhibited a certain modesty in reviewing a journal (in this case Illiger’s Magazin) of which he was himself the editor, except perhaps when there was a shortage of other material and it was necessary to fill up a space. The point made by Dr. Benjamin that in one set of Illiger’s Magazin preserved in the United States volumes 3 and 4 are bound in a single volume in what appears to be contemporary binding, cannot mean more than that the original owner of that copy found it convenient to bind up these two volumes in this way, since there are numerous copies in Europe which equally appear to be in contemporary binding, though volumes 3 and 4 are separately bound. In any case, the way in which the volumes of this work were bound depended on the choice of the purchaser and not upon Illiger, since there was certainly in this case no such thing as a publisher’s binding. As regards the Reichard fire, there is no doubt that part of the stock of vol. 6 of Illiger’s Magazin was destroyed in this way, but, judging from the number of complete sets of Illiger’s Magazin extant in Europe, a considerable number of copies had either been sold before the fire took place or escaped destruction on that occasion. The evidence afforded by vol. 4 of Latreille’s Gen. Crust. Ins. certainly shows almost beyond doubt that Latreille did not obtain a copy of vol. 6 of Illiger’s Magazin until some some time in 1809 ; but it throws no light upon the question of the date on which that volume of Illiger’s Magazin was published. Indeed, when it is remembered that the Napoleonic wars were in full swing during the period in question, it is perhaps surprising to find that in 1809 a French naturalist was able to secure a copy of a German pub- lication within two years of its publication. As regards the suggestion that perhaps Illiger found himself in financial difficulties—a suggestion supported by no concrete evidence whatever—it must be observed that vol. 6 of Illiger’s Magazin is dated 1807 on the title page and therefore that the type at least must have been set up in that year. This being so, the main cost, that of printing, had already been incurred in 1807, and, if Illiger had been in financial difficulties, he would certainly not have delayed the actual publication of the volume on that account. On the contrary, his first consideration would have been to secure that pub- lication took place at the earliest possible moment in order that through sales he might recoup himself to some extent at least in respect of the expenditure already incurred on printing. OPINION 232 261 17. The considerations advanced in the preceding paragraph appear to me to show, as conclusively as is possible in the absence of direct evidence, that there are no grounds for concluding that the publication of volume 6 of Illiger’s Magazin was postponed until after the close of 1807. Nor do there appear to me to be any grounds for holding that the portion of volume 6 of Illiger’s Magazin containing the list of Fabrician genera was published after the publication (on 19th December 1807) of Illiger’s paper in the A//gemeine-Literatur Zeitung, which (as shown in paragraph 13 above) was undoubtedly written (even it was not published) after, and not before, the compilation of the list of Fabrician genera in volume 6 of Illiger’s Magazin. I recog- nise, however, that these are no more than personal opinions on a question on which opinions may differ. I recognise also that there is always a chance that, in spite of the care with which the early entomo- logical literature has been examined by many workers, evidence may some day be found which may show that, in fact, the publication of volume 6 of Illiger’s Magazin was delayed and in consequence that the list of Fabrician genera contained in that volume was not published until after the publication of Illiger’s review in the A//gemeine-Literatur Zeitung. 18. The fact that there is a doubt regarding the place where these important generic names were first published and in consequence that there is a doubt regarding the types of the genera concerned introduces a serious element of uncertainty into the nomenclature of some of the most representative genera in the sub-order Rhopalocera. Further, the risk that the Illiger names may at anytime be found to have been published before their Fabrician counter-parts means that there is a serious contingent risk of confusion arising in the nomenclature of the groups concerned. How serious the confusion would be if the Illiger names were to take priority over those proposed by Fabricius can be gauged from the following examples :— (1) If Neptis Illiger, 1807, were found to be an older name than Neptis Fabricius, 1807, the type of the genus bearing the name ‘““ Neptis’’ would cease to be Papilio aceris Esper [1783], and would become Nereis eunice Hiibner [1807], the sole species placed by Illiger in the genus Neptis. In other words, the generic name Neptis would cease to apply to the very large group of Old World species universally referred to the genus Neptis and would be transferred to the equally well-known New World genus now universally known as Phyciodes Hiibner [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (2) : 29. (2) If Apatura Mliger, 1807, were found to be an older name than Apatura Fabricius, 1807, the type of the genus bearing the name ‘* Apatura’’ would cease to be Papilio iris Linnaeus, 1758, and would become Papilio amphinome Linnaeus, 1767. In 262 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS other words, the generic name ‘“‘ Apatura’’ would cease to apply to the extremely well-known European and Asiatic genus now universally so named and would be transferred to the very well-known Neotropical genus, the oldest available name for which is Hamadryas Hiibner [1806], but which is commonly known as Ageronia Hiibner [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (3) : 42. (3) If Emesis Mliger, 1807, were found to be an older name than Emesis Fabricius, 1807, the type of the genus bearing the name ** Emesis ’’ would cease to be Hesperia ovidius Fabricius, 1793, and would become Limnas pharea Hiibner [1807]. In other words, Emesis, which is a very well-known genus in the family RIODINIDAE, would be transferred from the extensive group now universally known by that name to the genus in the same family now known by the name Mesene Doubleday, 1847, List Spec. lep. Ins. Brit. Mus. 2 : 7. 19. It will be seen from the foregoing examples that, unless and until definite evidence is forthcoming regarding the relative dates of pub- lication of the Hliger and Fabrician names, the strict application of the Rules to the eight generic names enumerated in paragraph 9 above can never secure any stability in the nomenclature of the groups concerned. On the contrary, it would be open to any worker to form his own con- clusion regarding the relative dates of publication of these names and, having done so, either to accept these names as having been first published by Fabricius or to accept them as having been first published by Illiger. In either case, the worker concerned would be acting per- fectly correctly under the Code. The result could only be confusion rather than uniformity. The present problem, is, therefore, one which can only be resolved by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature deciding to use for this purpose the Plenary Powers conferred upon them in 1913 for settling cases where, in their judgment, the strict application of the Rules would clearly lead to greater confusion than uniformity. 20. In 1935 the International Commission were confronted with a very similar case which involved the question whether a particular paper by Fabricius (actually the paper in volume 6 of Illiger’s Magazin, . with which also the present case is concerned) was published before, or after, certain plates in volume 1 of Hiibner’s Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge. In the absence of a decision by the Commission, it was in that case a matter of doubt whether the oldest available names for the three genera concerned were the names published by Fabricius or those published by Hubner. This case was considered by the Com- mission at Lisbon on 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 21, published in 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 20) and the decision then taken has been embodied in Opinion 137 (1942, OPINION 232 263 Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2 : 21—28). That Opinion provides that, unless and until evidence to the contrary is forthcoming the names proposed by Fabricius shall have precedence over those proposed for the same genera by Hiibner and that, in the event of evidence later being found to show that Htibner’s plates (on the legends of which the names in question occur) were published before the paper by Fabricius, the names proposed by Hiibner are, under suspension of the Rules, to be suppressed in favour of the names proposed by Fabricius. This decision represented a complete and satisfactory solution of the difficulty presented by that case and a parallel decision in the present case would provide an equally satisfactory solution. 21. I accordingly petition the International Commission on Zoolo- gical Nomenclature to render an Opinion stating :— (i) that unless and until further evidence is forthcoming regarding the precise date on which was published the paper by Fabricius in volume 6 ( : 277—289) of Illiger’s Magazin fiir Insekten- Kunde, issued under the date ‘1807’, the generic names published in that paper shall have precedence over the names proposed by Illiger in the review of the portions so far published of volume 1 of Hiibner’s Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge published on pages 1177—1181 of Part 303 of the Allgem. Lit. Ztg, Halle [Jena], issued on 19th December 1807 ; and (ii) that in the event of evidence later being found to show that Illiger’s review was published before Fabricius’s paper, the names Apatura, Castnia, Emesis, Helicopis, Neptis, Nymphidium Pontia, and Urania, as published by Illiger are, under suspension of the Rules, to be suppressed in favour of the same names as published by Fabricius. 22. In order that the position may be settled beyond possibility of further argument, I consider that it is desirable that the names Apatura, Castnia, Emesis, Helicopis, Neptis, Nymphidium, and Urania as pub- lished by Fabricius should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. If the recommendation in paragraph 21 above is approved, no such action is needed as regards Pontia Fabricius, 1807, since that name was added to the Official List as the result of the decision embodied in Opinion 137. 23. I accordingly further petition that the International Commission when acting in the manner recommended in paragraph 21 above, should place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the under- mentioned generic names, with types as shown, each of which has been 264 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS duly designated in accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of the International Code :— Name of genus Type of genus (1) Apatura Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Papilio iris Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. Insektenk. (liger) 6 : 280 10) 1 : 476 (type designated by Curtis, 1831, Brit. Entom. 8 : pl. 338) (2) Castnia Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Papilio icarus Cramer {1775}, Uitl. Kapellen Insektenk. (Ulliger) 6 : 280 1 (2) : 26 (type designated by Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 440) (3) Emesis Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Hesperia ovidius Fabricius, 1793, Ent. syst. Insektenk. (iliger) 6 : 287 3 (1) : 320 (type designated by Westwood [1851], in Doubleday, Gen. diurn. Lep. (2) : 421, 446) (4) Helicopis Fabricius, 1807, Mag. Papilio cupido Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. f. Insektenk. (Mliger) 6 : 285 (ed. 10) 1 : 482 (type designated by Scudder, 1875, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 186) (5) Neptis Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Papilio aceris Esper [1783], Die Schmett. 1 Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 282 (Bd. 2) Forts. Tagschmett.: 142, pl. 81, figs. 3, 4 (type designated by Crotch, 1872, Cistula ent. 1 : 66) (6) Nymphidium Fabricius, 1807, Papilio caricae Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6:286 (ed. 10) 1 : 484 (type designated by Crotch, 1872, Cistula ent. 1 : 66) (7) Urania Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Papilio leilus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Mat. Insektenk. (Mlliger) 6 : 279 (ed. 10) 1 : 462 (type designated by Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 440) Il—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2. On receipt, the present application was given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 148. At that time the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature had just been established as a means for bringing to the attention of zoologists applications submitted to the Inter- national Commission for decision, and work was in active progress 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 3lst March 1947 (Hemming, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 261—269). OPINION 232 265 3. At the time of the submission of the present application, Mr. N. D. Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London) and Mr. W. H. T. Tams of the same Institution had already signified their support for the action proposed. 4. The publication of the present application in the Bulletin elicited support from Dr. Th. Mortensen ( Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen) who in a letter dated 8th Apri! 1947 wrote the word “‘ Yes” against this proposal. 5. Issue of Public Notices: On 14th September 1947 a notice of the possible use, by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, of its Plenary Powers in the present case was issued to the serial publications prescribed by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913. The publication of this notice elicited no objection to the action proposed. IiJ—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 6. At an early stage of its work during the Session held at Parisin 1948 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature reviewed the interpretation of Proviso (a) to Article 25 of the Régles given in 1907 in its Opinion 1 and decided to repeal that interpretation and to substitute therefor a provision under which a generic name published prior to Ist January 1931, should possess a status of availability when published without a definition or description in words, when the name or names of one or more previously established nominal species were cited by the original author of the generic name as belonging to the genus in question (Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 13) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 78—80). The adoption of the foregoing decision had the effect, inter alia, of providing a status of availability for the four names cited in paragraph | above which in his paper of 1939 Mr. Hemming had proposed should be suppressed by the International Commission under its Plenary Powers but which for the reasons explained in that paragraph he had omitted from the revised proposals which he had submitted in his application of June 1943. In view of the decision taken, as explained above, to liberalise the provisions of Proviso (a) to Article 25, Mr, 266 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Hemming at once reinstated his earlier proposals for the suppres- sion of the four names referred to above. It was on this basis that the present application was considered by the International Commission at the Fourteenth Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphithéatre 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 setting out the decision reached by it in this case at the foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 16) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 452—459):— THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their Plenary Powers, in so far as that might be necessary :— (a) to suppress for the purposes of Articles 25 and 34 the undermentioned generic names published in the issue of 19th December, 1807, of the Allgemeine -Literatur Zeitung, Halle [Jena], in an anonymous review by Illger of the first 34 plates of Jacob Hibner’s Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge to have been published :— Apatura (Illiger], 1807. Brassolis {Mliger], 1807. Castnia [Illiger], 1807. Emesis [Illiger], 1807. Euploea [Illiger], 1807. Helicopis {Mlliger], 1807. Mechanitis [Mlliger], 1807. Neptis [Illiger], 1807. Nymphidium ({Illiger], 1807. Pontia [Mlliger], 1807. Thymele {\liger], 1807. Urania [Illiger], 1807. (b) to render available under Article 25 and 34 all the generic names specified aboye other than Thymele, - OPINION 232 267 as published by Fabricius in 1807 in Volume 6 of Illiger’s Magazin fur Naturkunde ; (2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the 12 generic names specified in (1) (a) above ; (3) 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) Apatura Fabricius, 1807 Brassolis Fabricius, 1807 Castnia Fabricius, 1807 Emesis Fabricius, 1807 Mechanitis Fabricius, 1807 Neptis Fabricius, 1807 Urania Fabricius, 1807 Type species of genus specified in Col. (1) (2) Papilio iris Linnaeus, 1758 (type species selected by Curtis, 1831) Papilio sophorae Linnaeus, 1758 (type species selected by Blanchard, 1840) Papilio icarus Cramer [1775] (type species selected by Latreille, 1810) Hesperia ovidus Fabricius, 1793 [=FPapilio cereus Linnaeus, 1767] (type species selected by West- wood [1851]) Papilio polymnia Linnaeus, 1758 (type species selected by Scudder, 1875) Papilio aceris Esper [1783] [= Papilio hylas Linnaeus, 1758, ssp.] (type species selected by Crotch, 1872) Papilio leilus Linnaeus, 1758 (type species selected by Latreille, 1810) ; 268 OPINIONS: AND DECLARATIONS (4) to confirm the entries on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology relating to the undermentioned generic names, with the type species severally specified below :— Type species of genus Name of genus specified in Col. (1) (1) (2) Euploea Fabricius, Papilio corus Fabricius, 1793 1807 (type species designated under the Plenary Powers in Opinion 163) Helicopis Fabricius, Papilio cupido Linnaeus, 1758 1807 (type species selected by Scudder, 1875) Nymphidium Fabricius, Papilio caricae Linnaeus, 1807 1758 (type species selected by Crotch, 1872) Pontia Fabricius, Papilio daplidice Linnaeus, 1807 1758 (type species selected by Curtis, 1824) (5) to place the generic name Thymele Fabricius, 1807 (type species, by selection by Westwood, 1840: Papilio tages Linnaeus, 1758), on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (6) to place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology the undermentioned trivial names, being the trivial names of the type species of certain of the genera, the names of which had been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology under (3) above, with the exception of the trivial name hylas Linnaeus, 1758, which, from the standpoint of some specialists, was the trivial name of a sub-species of the same collective species as, and had priority over, the trivial name aceris Esper [1780], the type species of the genus Neptis Fabricius, 1807 :— aceris Esper [1783] (as published in the binominal combination Papilio aceris) (without prejudice to OPINION 232 269 the prior rights of the trivial name Aylas Linnaeus, 1758, if that name is held to apply to a sub-species of the same collective species) cereus Linnaeus, 1767 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio cereus) hylas Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio hylas) iris Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio iris) polymnia Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binom- inal combination Papilio polymnia) sophorae Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the bi- nominal combination Papilio sophorae) ; (7) to take note that, under the decisions adopted at the time of the establishment of the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the trivial names of the type species of the genera specified in (4) above, being ali the oldest available names for the species severally concerned, were to be placed on the foregoing Official OK (8) to invite the Secretary of the Commission, in consultation with other specialists in the Order Lepidoptera, to submit proposals for the determination by the Commis- sion, under the procedure agreed upon at the meeting? of the relative priority to be assigned to different names for the same species and to the same name for different species published in 1775 (a) by Cramer in volume | of his Uitlandsche Kapellen (b) by von Rottemburg in a paper entitled Anmerkungen zu den Hufnagelischen Tabellen der Schmetterlinge published in volume 6 of the journal Naturforscher (c) by Schiffermitller & Denis in the anonymous work Ankiindigung eines systema- tischen Werkes von den Schemtterlingen der Wiener Gegend, and (d) by Fabricius in his Systema Entomol- giae ; 8 See Paris Session, 7th Meeting, Conclusion 18 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 223); Paris Session, 9th Meeting, Conclusion 23 (ibid. 4 : 257). 270 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS -(9) to place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology whichever might, in the light of the decision on (8) above, be found to be the oldest available trivial name for the type species of the genus Castnia Fabricius, 1807 ; (10) to place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology whichever, after consultation with specialists, was found to be the oldest available trivial name for the type species of the genus Urania Fabricius, 1807 ; (11) to render Opinions recording the decisions specified in (1) to (6), and, when completed, in (9) and (10) above. 7. On the publication in 1950 of the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission during its Session held in Paris in 1948, it was possible for Mr. Hemming to initiate the investigation entrusted to him on the question of the order of priority which it was desirable should be allotted to the four works on Palaearctic butterflies published in 1775 specified in Point (8) in the immediately preceding paragraph. Towards the close of the year 1951 Mr. Hemming judged that the stage had been reached at which it was desirable that a general appeal should be made to interested specialists to furnish the Com- mission with statements of their views on the foregoing question. Mr. Hemming accordingly prepared a short note which was published in April 1952 (Hemming, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 204206). It is hoped that it will be possible for the Commission at an early date to reach a decision on this question. Pending such a decision it is impossible to determine what is the oldest available name for the type species of the genus Castnia Fabricius, 1807. Accordingly, in the Ruling given in the present Opinion it has been necessary to reserve this question for further consideration. 8. In the spring of 1951, the Secretary entered into the consulta- tions prescribed on the question reserved for further consideration under Point (10) of the Paris Conclusions quoted in paragraph 6 above with a view to determining whether the specific name leilus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio leilus (the specific name of the type species of Urania Fabricius, Ei ae er OPINION 232 pA A 1807) was the oldest available name for the species in question and whether, therefore, under the foregoing Conclusion, that name should be placed forthwith on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. On this subject Mr. N. D. Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London) wrote as follows on 20th June 1951 :—“ I have discussed with Tams the question regarding the availability of the name Papilio leilus Linnaeus, 1758, the type species of Urania Fabricius, 1807, about which you wrote to me on 15th May. I find that the decision at Paris to leave this matter over temporarily for further examination was an unnecessary precaution, for the name /ei/us is an available name and there is no doubt at all regarding the identification of Jei/us with the well-known species habitually known by this name. There is no doubt also that this species is the type species of Urania, as it was so selected by Latreille in 1810 only three years after the establishment of this genus.” In these circumstances, the name /eilus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio leilus, has, in accordance with the decision recorded in the Conclusion referred to above, been placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 9. The following are the original references for the names which appear in the decision set out in paragraph 6 above :— aceris, Papilio, Esper [1783], Die Schmett. 1 (Bd. 2) Forts. Tagschmett. : 142, pl. 81, figs. 3 3, 4.9 Apatura |Nliger], 1807, Allgem. Lit. Ztg, Halle [Jena] 1807 (No. 2) e L1St Apatura Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 280 Brassolis {Illiger], 1807, Allgem. Lit. Zig, Halle [Jena] 1807 (No. 2) : 1181 Brassolis Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 282 caricae, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 484 Castnia [Illiger], 1807, Allgem. Lit. Ztg, Halle [Jena] 1807 (No. 2) : 1180 Castnia Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 280 cereus, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : Errata corus, Papilio, Fabricius, 1793, Ent. syst. 3 (1) : 41 cupido, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 482 daplidice, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 468 272 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Emesis [Illiger], 1807, Allgem. Lit. Ztg, Halle [Jena] 1807 (No. 2) : 1180 Emesis Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Mlliger) 6 : 287 Euploea [Illiger], 1807, Allgem. Lit. Ztg, Halle [Jena] 1807 (No. 2) : 1180, 1181 Euploea Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 280 Helicopis [Mlliger], 1807, Allgem. Lit. Ztg, Halle [Jena] 1807 (No. 2) : 1180 Helicopis Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 285 hylas, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 486 3 nec 2 iris, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 476 leilus, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 462 Mechanitis {Mliger], 1807, Allgem. Lit. Ztg, Halle [Jena] 1807 (No. 2) : 1180, 1181 Mechanitis Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 284 Neptis [Illiger], 1807, Allgem. Lit. Ztg, Halle [Jena] 1807 (No. 2) : 1180 Neptis Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Uliger), 6 : 282 Nymphidium [Illiger], 1807, Allgem. Lit. Ztg, Halle [Jena] 1807 (No. 2) : 1180 Nymphidium Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 286 polymnia, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 466 Pontia [Mlliger], 1807, Allgem. Lit. Ztg, Halle [Jena] 1807 (No. 2) : 1180 Pontia Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 283 sophorae, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 471 Thymele [Illiger], 1807, Allgem. Lit. Ztg, Halle [Jena] 1807 (No. 2) : 1180 Thymele Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 287 Urania {Illiger], 1807, Al/gem. Lit. Ztg, Halle [Jena] 1807 (No. 2) 18d Urania Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 279 10. The following are the references to the type selections referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 6 above; the genera to which these selections refer are cited in brackets (parentheses). Blanchard, 1840, Hist. nat. Ins. 3 : 453 (Brassolis Fabricius) Crotch, 1872, Cistula ent. 1 : 66 (Neptis Fabricius) Crotch, 1872, Cistula ent. 1 ; 66 (Nymphidium Fabricius) OPINION 232 273 Curtis, 1824, Brit. Entom. 1 : pl. 48 (Pontia Fabricius) Curtis, 1831, Brit. Entom. 8 : pl. 338 (Apatura Fabricius) Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 440 (Castnia Fabricius) Latreille, 1810, Consid. -gén. Crust. Arach. Ins : 440 (Urania Fabricius) Scudder, 1875, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 186 (Helicopis Fabricius) Scudder, 1875, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 212 (Mechanitis Fabricius) Westwood [1851], in Doubleday, Gen. diurn. Lep. (2) : 421, 446 (Emesis Fabricius) 11. The genders of the generic names Apatura Fabricius, 1807, Brassolis Fabricius, 1807, Castnia Fabricius, 1807, Emesis Fabricius, 1807, Mechanitis Fabricius, 1807, Neptis Fabricius, 1807, and Urania Fabricius, 1807, referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 6 above, are feminine. 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 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5: 114) 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 Hanko ; Metcalf vice Peters; Riley vice Calman; Rode; Sparck vice Mortensen ; van Straelen vice Richter ; Usinger vice Vokes. 14. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the Paris Session. 274 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 15. 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. 16. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the Internationa} 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. 17. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two Hundred and Thirty-Two (232) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London this Seventh day of December, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Three. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING [=| Printed in England by Mretcatre & Cooper LimitED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 4. Part 23. Pp. 275—296 OPINION 233 Suppression, under the Plenary Powers, of the name Octopodia Schneider, 1784 (Class Cephalopoda), and of certain reputed names published by the same author in 1784 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 and Threepence (All rights reserved) Issued 2ist April, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 233 A. The Officers of the Commission President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural History), Zcological 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. PETERS (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. StoxLi (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 LemcuHe (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologiske Labora- torium, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Kamel MANsouR (King Fouad University, Cairo, Egypt). Professor Z. P. MetcaLr (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. UstnGcer (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). OPINION 233 SUPPRESSION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE NAME ‘‘ OCTOPODIA ” SCHNEIDER, 1784 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA), AND OF CERTAIN REPUTED NAMES PUBLISHED BY THE SAME AUTHOR IN 1784 RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers the follow- ing names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homo- nymy :—(a) the generic name Octopodia Schneider, 1784 (Class Cephalopoda) ; (b) the undermentioned specific names, all published in combination with the generic name Octopodia: (i) moschites Schneider, 1784; (i) nautilus Schneider, 1784; (ii) polypus Schneider, 1784 ; (iv) sepia Schneider, 1784 ; (v) teuthis Schneider, 1784. (2) The undermentioned reputed generic names were never published by Schneider, the names so attributed to that author being cheironyms, owing their alleged existence to a misreading by later authors of the relevant passages of Schneider’s work Sammlung vermischter Abhandlungen zur Aufkldrung der Zoologie und der Handlungsgeschichte of 1784, where Schneider used, as specific names of species referred by him to his own genus Octopodia, the words later wrongly thought to have been published by him as generic names, the error arising, presumably, from the fact that, following the practice of many XVIIIth century authors, he printed the words in question with capital initial letters and did not actually combine the specific names in question with the name of the genus (Octopodia) to which he referred those species, that generic name being cited only at the head of the account given for the genus :—(a) Loligo Schneider, 1784; (b) Moschites Schneider, 1784; (c) Nautilus Schneider, 1784; (d) Polypus Schneider, 1784; (e) Pompilus Schneider, 1784 (as already recorded in Opinion 166) ; (f) Sepia Schneider, 1784 ; (g) Sepiola Schneider, 1784 ; (h) Teuthis Schneider, 1784. (3) The undermentioned generic: names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology 278 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS as Names Nos. 664 and 665 :—(a) Eledone Leach, 1817 (gender of name : feminine) (type species, by monotypy : Octopus moschatus Lamarck, 1798) (Class Cephalopoda) ; (b) Octopus Cuvier, [1797] (gender of name : masculine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy (Opinion 16): Octopus vulgare Cuvier, [1797]) (Class Cephalopoda). (4) The undermentioned generic and alleged generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 50 to 60 :—(a) Octopodia Schneider, 1784, as suppressed under (1)(a) above; (b) the eight reputed but non- existent names enumerated in (2) above; (c) Ozoena Rafinesque, 1814 ; (d) Polypus Leach, 1817. (5) The undermentioned names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 52 and 53 :—(a) moschatus Lamarck, 1798, as published in the combination Octopus moschatus ; (b) vulgare Cuvier, [1797], as published in the combination Octopus vulgare. (6) The five specific names, suppressed under (1)(b) above, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 12 to 16, I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE The preparation in the early part of 1943 of the Opinion (Opinion 166) (1945, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 375—398) required to give effect to the decision taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature under its Plenary Powers at Lisbon in 1935 in regard to the status of the name Pompilus Fabricius, 1798 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenop- tera) involved consideration of the alleged generic name Pompilus Schneider, 1784, to which reference had been made in the applica- tion on which the foregoing Opinion was based. The investigation so undertaken by Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Commission, in conjunction with Dr. Karl Jordan, then President of the Commission, disclosed the existence of a complex of mis- OPINION 233 279 understandings regarding the names published by Schneider in 1784. This subject was dealt with in the following special Report prepared by Mr. Hemming, which was annexed to Opinion 166 as an Appendix (Hemming, 1945, ibid. 2 : 388—394) :— On the status of the name ‘‘ Pompilus’’ and certain other names commonly alleged to have been published as generic names by Schneider (J. G.) in 1784, ‘‘ Sammlung vermischter Abhandlungen zur Aufklarung der Zoologie und der Handlungsgeschichte ”’, and on matters incidental thereto By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.) At their Session held at Lisbon in 1935 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature agreed to use their Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating the generic name Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 212 (type : Pompilus pulcher Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 249) (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2(b)(18) and (c)(27), published in 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 28, 29). The principal question involved in that case was the situation created by the existence of the older name Psammochares Latreille, 1796, for this genus. There was, however, a secondary problem arising from the alleged publication of the name Pompilus as a generic name by Schneider (J. G.) in 1784, Sammlung vermischter Abhandlungen zur Aufklarung der Zoologie und der Handlungsgeschichte : 128, since, if there had been such a generic name as Pompilus Schneider, 1784, the name Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, would have been invalid as a homonym, quite apart from the difficulties created by the existence of the name Psammochares Latreille, 1796. After careful consideration, the International Commission unanimously agreed to overcome these difficulties (i) by suppressing the name Psammochares Latreille, 1796, under their Plenary Powers and (ii) by suppressing under the same Powers the name Pompilus Schneider, 1784, “‘ if intended as a generic name ”’. 2. It was not possible at Lisbon to consult a copy of Schneider’s Sammlung and, in order to provide for this and certain similar cases, the International Commission at their meeting held at Lisbon on 18th September 1935 agreed “‘to authorise Commissioner Hemming to examine the report after the close of the Congress when works of reference were available to him, for the purpose of checking the accur- acy of the bibliographical and other references cited therein, and to correct any errors which might be found before the text of the report was officially printed’’ (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion (1c), published in 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 44). Accordingly, the problem created by the alleged existence of the generic name Pompilus Schneider, 1784, was examined by Commissioner Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Commission, jointly with Commissioner 280 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Karl Jordan, President of the Commission, in the early part of 1943, when the text of Opinion 166, containing the Commission’s decision in regard to Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, was in course of preparation. 3. The results of the examination of Schneider’s Sammlung of 1784 may be summarised as follows :— (a) The title of the article in Schneider’s Sammlung in which the name ‘“‘ Pompilus’’ appears is: ‘‘ Charakteristik des ganzen Geschlechts und der einzelnen Arten von Blakfischen ’’, the article in question extending from page 103 to page 134. (b) In the above article, Schneider :— (i) referred (: 105) to the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae of Linnaeus and quoted the diagnosis there given by Linnaeus for the genus Sepia Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 658 (though he did not cite the date of the 10th edition or give the page reference) ; (ii) referred to the above diagnosis by the expression “ Ges- chlechtskarakter ”’ ; (iii) said that he could not retain in its entirety and without alteration the “‘ Geschlechtskarakter ”’ (diagnosis) given by Linnaeus for the genus Sepia Linnaeus ; (iv) gave a new “ Geschlechtskarakter”’ for this genus covering all the species (““ Arten ’’) which he regarded as referable thereto ; (v) set out (: 108) the revised “‘ Geschlechtskarakter ” in Latin accompanied with a version in German, thus :— Octopodia. Caput cum oculis inter pedes et ventrem . . . (and so on) Blakfisch. Kopf und Augen zwischen Leib und Fiissen . . . (and so on) (vi) stated that he had selected as the name of the ‘“‘Geschlecht”’ the word “ Octopodia”’ employed in late Greek, in place of the ancient name Polypus (“Ich habe zum allgemeinen Geschlechtsnamen ein Wort gewahlt, welches die neuern Griechen statt des alten Polypus brauchten”’), and accordingly placed the name Octopodia at the head of the Latin text of the “ Ges- chlechtskarakter ’’ (quoted in (v) above) of this genus, the counterpart in the German version being “ Blak- fisch’’ (that name being derived from the German word “ blaken’’, used to denote the “smoking” of a candle or lamp) ; (vil) divided the “‘ Geschlecht’’? Octopodia Schneider into two groups (“{Classen ’’), to which, however, he applied no names ; faa > OPINION 233 281 (viii) stated that he gave to each species its old Greek or Latin name (“‘ damit ich hernach einer jeden Art ihren alten griechischen oder lateinischen Namen wieder geben mochte ’’). (ix) enumerated under the names shown in (c) below the eight species which he referred to the genus Octopodia Schneider. (c) The following are the species referred by Schneider to the genus Octopodia Schneider :— NoTE :—The following points should be noted : (a) Schneider cited the generic name Octopodia Schneider only on page 108 and did not repeat it in combination with the specific trivial names of the eight species referred by him to that genus, each of those species being cited by him only by its specific trivial name, that name being printed with a capital initial letter (as “ Sepia’’, “‘ Loligo’’, etc). ; (b) As explained in (b) (viii) above, Schneider did not regard as new names the specific trivial names which he employed, but looked on them as old names revived, though in fact five of them are new names nomenclatorially, since Schneider was the first author to publish them after 1757 as the specific trivial components of binominal names formed in accordance with the system instituted by Linnaeus in 1758. ERSTE CLASSE ( : 109) (i) Octopodia sepia Schneider, 1784 Schneider showed that his “ Sepia’’ was the same species as Sepia officinalis Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 658, no. 2. (“‘ Diese Art halt sich in Meer naher am Strande auf ’”’.) (ii) Octopodia loligo (Linnaeus, 1758) __ This species is Sepia loligo Linnaeus 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 659, no. 4. (“ Dies soll nach Linnee [sic] die grosse Art des Rondelet und Needham sein ’’.) (iii) Octopodia teuthis Schneider, 1784 This species is the same as Sepia media Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 659, no. 3. (“ Dies ist die Art, welche Linnee [sic] Media nennt’’.) (iv) Octopodia sepiola (Linnaeus, 1758) This species is Sepia sepiola Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 659, no. 5. (Schneider says of this species: ‘‘ Diese Art ist bunt ”’.) ZWEYTE [sic] CLASSE ( : 116) (v) Octopodia polypus Schneider, 1784 This species is the same as Sepia octopodia Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 658, no. 1. Schneider 282 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS used the specific trivial name polypus because it was the old Greek name for this and, therefore, preferable, in his opinion, to the name octopodia used by Linnaeus in 1758. (Schneider says of this — species : “‘Die Hauptschriftsteller von dieser Art, welche in dem angefiihrten Kennzeichen mit | einander iibereinstimmen, sind Herr Hasselquist und Koelreuter ’’.) (vi) Octopodia moschites Schneider, 1784 . The name moschites does not appear in the 10th edition of Linnaeus. The description given by Schneider was based on classical and later accounts. The name moschites is derived from modern Greek : ‘‘ Die neuern Griechen sollen ihn [LooxitTyns nennen ”’. (vii) Octopodia nautilus Schneider, 1784 Schneider made it clear that this species is the same as Argonauta argo Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 708, no. 231. Schneider added : “Diese Art hat Aristoteles mit Recht zu dem Geschlechte der Meerpolypen gezahlt ”’. (viii) Octopodia pompilus [[recte] pompilius] (Linnaeus, 1758) This is the species named Nautilus pompilius by — Linnaeus in 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 709, no. 233. The spelling of the specific trivial name as “ pompilus’’ instead of “ pompilius’’ was due either to an error of transcription on the part of Schneider or to a deliberate return to classical spelling. Schneider said of this species: “Ich gebe dieser Art den Namen, welchen Linnee [sic] aus dem Plinius beigelegt hat, ob er ihr gleich nicht zukommt ”’. (d) In view of the fact that Linnaeus erroneously placed the genera Argonauta Linnaeus, 1758, and Nautilus Linnaeus, 1758, among the univalve mollusca, Schneider, when uniting these genera with Sepia Linnaeus, 1758, to form the genus Octopodia Schneider, 1784, was quite justified in using the expression ** des ganzen Geschlechts”’ in the title of his article and in saying, as regards his own diagnosis (“‘ Geschlechtskarakter ”’) of the genus Octopodia Schneider, that it covered all the species referred by him to that genus. 4. It will be seen from the foregoing analysis of Schneider’s Sammlung of 1784, that there is no such generic name as Pompilus Schneider, 1784, OPINION 233 283 and in consequence that the name Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, has at no time been a homonym. Accordingly, no difficulty arises under this head in connection with Opinion 166. 5. Certain nomenclatorial issues, unconnected with Opinion 166, are, however, disclosed by the examination of Schneider’s Sammlung. As it is clearly most desirable that, where it is necessary in a given Opinion (as in Opinion 166) to examine the status of a particular name (as Octopodia pompilus Schneider, 1784), account should be taken of the effects of the conclusions reached not only as regards the particular name in question but also as regards any other name or names, the status of which is identical with that of the name examined. In the present case it is desirable, therefore, to examine the status of the other names used by Schneider in the article in which he described the species Octopodia pompilus [sic] (Linnaeus, 1758). The following notes are accordingly added, in order to show how the conclusions reached in regard to the specific trivial name “‘ pompilus’”’ used by Schneider for species no. 8 in his genus Octopodia affect the other names used by him in the same article. Finally a note is added in regard to the position of the generic name Octopodia Schneider, 1784. 6. The position as regards the specific trivial names used by Schneider in 1784 for species placed by him in the genus Octopodia Schneider may be summarised as follows :— (1) There is no force in either of the two arguments which at different times have been advanced against accepting as available under the Régles Internationales the names first published by Schneider in his Sammlung in 1784, namely :— (a) that it is not clear that he used the expression “‘Geschlecht”’ as the equivalent of the expression “‘ genus ”’ of Linnaeus ; and (b) that he divided the “‘ Geschlecht ’’ Octopodia into “‘Classen’’, thereby departing from the binary system of nomen- clature. (2) As regards objection l(a) above, it has already been shown conclusively in Section (b) of paragraph 3 of the present paper that Schneider’s expression “‘ Geschlecht”’ is identical with the expression “‘ genus”? as used by Linnaeus. Further, it should be noted that in various forms the expression ““Geschlecht ’’ has often been used by other authors as the equivalent of the expression “‘ genus’’ and, therefore, that Schneider’s use of this expression in this sense, though now not usual, is far from being unique. For example, towards the end of the XVIIIth century and at the beginning of the XIXth century, the word “‘ Geschlecht ’’ was in quite 284 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS common use as the designation for the systematic category next above the category of “‘ species’ and as the equivalent, therefore, of the expressions “genus” (Latin), “ genre ”’ (French), “‘ Gattung’’ (German), “ geslacht’’ (Dutch), and ** slagt ’? (Swedish). Moreover, these words are all still in use to the present day in works on systematic zoology. The following are examples of such usage at various dates :— (a) Fuessli, 1778, Mag. Ent. 1:2 & ff. (Review of Voet’s Catalogus systematicus Coleopterorum) : “‘ Genus prim- um : Scarabaeus. Von diesem Geschlechte sind bis S. 34 liberhaubt 153 Arten beschrieben und abgebildet. S. 35 folgt : Genus secundum, Copris, Von diesem Geschlechte sind erst 10 Arten beschrieben . . .”’ (and so on). (b) Helmuth, 1808, Naturgeschichte 5. “* Das Geschlecht der Kolbenkafer, Scarabaeus” (: 24); ‘‘ Das Geschlecht der Bockk&éfer, Cerambyx” (: 41); ‘“‘ Das Geschlecht der Wasserkafer. Dytiscus”’ (: 48)... (and so on). (c) A. van Bemmelen, in Herklots, 1858, Bouwstoffen voor eene Fauna van Nederland 2: 140. “‘ Ons land is rijk an soorten van het geslacht Cyprinus ; de best bekende zijn: (Here follows a list of 6 species: Cyprinus rutilus, Cyprinus brama, etc.). (d) Reuter, 1880, in Ent. Tidskr. 1: 117. “* Slagtofversigt ”’ (i.e. ““ survey (or key) of genera ’’). (3) Objection (1)(b) above rests on the argument that Schneider was not an author who applied the principles of binary nomenclature and, therefore, that names published by him do not satisfy the requirements of proviso (b) to Article 25 of the Régles Internationales. The only evidence brought forward in support of this contention is that Schneider divided the “‘ Geschlecht ”’ Octopodia Schneider, 1784, into two groups (which he called ‘“* Classen ’’), intermediate in rank between genus and species. This objection is ill-founded, (a) because Schneider did not give names to his “ Classen’ and (b) because even if he had given names to his “‘ Classen ’’, such action would still not have constituted a departure from the principles of binary nomen- clature. Quite apart from the fact that the Régles Internation- ales recognise (Articles 6—10) the subgenus as a category intermediate between the genus and the species, it should be noted that many strictly binominal authors from the time of Linnaeus onwards have established groups within a genus identical with the “‘ Classen ’’ established by Schneider and that many of these authors have given Latin names (in the nominative plural) to the groups so established. See, for example, the six named groups established by Linnaeus within the genus Gryl/us Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) OPINION 233 285 1 : 425—433 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera). In actual fact, as will be seen from paragraph 3(c) of the present paper, Schneider in his Sammlung of 1784 employed a strictly binominal system of nomenclature. Since a binominal system of nomenclature is ex hypothesi a binary system of nomenclature, it is not necessary here to consider whether Schneider used a system of nomenclature, which, though not binominal, was nevertheless a binary system in the sense in which that expression is interpreted in Opinion 20. This is fortunate, since the validity of the interpretation of the expression “ binary nomenclature”’ as given in that Opinion is at present sub judice (see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 45, 55). (4) In view of (2) and (3) above, no grounds exist on which either the generic or the specific trivial names first published by Schneider in his Sammlung of 1784 can be rejected as not satisfying the requirements of the Régles Internationales. All such names possess, therefore, rights under the Law of Priority as from 1784. (5) The only new generic name published by Schneider in the article under discussion was Octopodia Schneider, 1784 (see paragraph 7 below). All the other generic names alleged to have been published by Schneider in that article are cheironyms (being based upon a misreading of the trivial names used by Schneider for species of the genus Octopodia Schneider) and should therefore, be deleted from all zoological Nomenclators. The cheironyms in question are :— Loligo Schneider, 1784, Samml. verm. Anhandl. Aufklar. Zool. : 110 Moschites Schneider, 1784, ibid. : 118 Polypus Schneider, 1784, ibid. : 116 Pompilus Schneider, 1784, ibid. : 128 Sepiola Schneider, 1784, ibid. : 116 Teuthis Schneider, 1784, ibid. : 113 (6) In consequence of the elimination of the first five of the above cheironyms, the following names are no longer invalid by reason of being homonyms :— Loligo Lamarck, 1798, Bull. Sci. Soc. philomat., Paris 17 : 130 Moschites Hoyle, 1901, Mem. Proc. Manchester lit. phil. Soc. 45 (No. 9) : 1 Polypus Leach, 1817, Zool. Miscell. 3 : 139 Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 212 Sepiola Leach, 1817, Zool. Miscell. 3 : 140 (7) the elimination of the cheironym Teuthis Schneider, 1784 (and of the cheironyms Nautilus Schneider, 1784, and Sepia Schneider, 1784, if either of these names have been cited in 286 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS scientific publications) can have no effect upon the nomenclature of the groups concerned, since, even if such generic names had been published by Schneider in 1784, they would have been invalid as homonyms under Article 34 of the Reégles Inter- nationales, in view of the existence of the prior names Teuthis Linnaeus, 1766, Nautilus Linnaeus, 1758, and Sepia Linnaeus, 1758. 7. The position as regards the generic name Octopodia Schneider, 1784, may be summarised as follows :— (1) the generic name Octopodia Schneider, 1784, Samml. verm. Abhandl. Aufklar. Zool. : 108, is a nomenclatorially available name, since :— (a) it was published with a definition (see paragraph 3(b)(V) above), thereby satisfying the requirements of proviso (a) to Article 25 of the Régles Internationales ; and (b) was published by an author who applied a strictly binominal system of nomenclature, and, therefore, ex hypothesi a binary system of nomenclature (see paragraphs 3(c) and 6(3) above), thereby satisfying the requirements of proviso (b) to Article 25. (2) In view of (1) above, all uses of the word Octopodia as a new generic name by later authors are invalid since the generic name Octopodia as used by such authors is a homonym of Octopodia Schneider, 1784. Accordingly, the names Octopodia Gray, 1847, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 (178) : 205, and Octopodia Grimpe, 1925, Wiss. Meeresuntersuch., Abh. Helgoland 16 (3) : 13, are invalid under Article 34 of the Régles Inter- nationales. (3) At the time when the generic name Octopodia Schneider, 1784, was published, Octopodia polypus Schneider, 1784 (one of the included species) already possessed a name (Sepia octopodia Linnaeus, 1758), of which the specific trivial component consisted of the same word (octopodia) as that selected by Schneider as the name for his new genus (Octopodia). (4) In view of (3) above and of the fact that Schneider did not designate a type for the genus Octopidia Schneider, 1784, the type of that genus is Octopodia polypus Schneider, 1784, by absolute tautonymy under Rule (d) in Article 30 of the Régles Internationales. 8. Now that it is seen that Octopodia Schneider, 1784, is an available generic name and that Octopodia polypus Schneider, 1784 (—Sepia OPINION 233 287 octopodia Linnaeus, 1758) is the type of this genus, it will be necessary to consider the position of the name Octopus Cuvier, [1797], Tabl. elem. : 380 (=Octopus Lamarck, 1798, Bull. Soc. Sci. philomat., Paris 17 : 130), since clearly greater confusion than uniformity would result from the substitution of the name Octopodia Schneider, 1784, for the name Octopus Cuvier, [1797]. Specialists interested in this question are accordingly invited to communicate with the International Commission. FRANCIS HEMMING. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Secretariat of the Commission, at the British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, LONDON, S.W.7. 25th July 1943. 2. In carrying out the survey dealt with in the foregoing Report, Mr. Hemming was greatly assisted by Mr. R. Winckworth (London) and later it was agreed by the President that it would be convenient for the International Commission if, in addition to Mr. Hemming’s Report, it had before it definite proposals for putting an end to the existing confusion regarding the names published by Schneider in 1784. Accordingly, in response to an invitation by Mr. Hemming, Mr. Winckworth prepared an application for the suppression of the names in question by the International Commission under its Plenary Powers. The application so prepared was submitted by Mr. Winckworth on 16th April 1945, when it was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 187, the earlier stages of the present case having been dealt with on the File Z.N.(S.) 3, the file relating to Opinion 166. Mr. Winckworth’s application was as follows :— The names ‘‘ Octopus ’’ and ‘‘ Eledone ”’ By R. WINCK WORTH Application is here made for the suppression of all names in Schneider, 1784, and for Octopus and Eledone to be placed on the Official List of Generic Names. In the paper by Schneider, 1784, on the whole group and the several _ kinds of inkfish, the original words for group (Geschlecht) and kind (Art) should be regarded as equivalent to genus and species. They have 288 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS however, been interpreted by some as meaning division and genus, e.g. by Herrmannsen, 1847, Indicis Generum Malac. 2 : 35 and by Hoyle, 1901, Mem. Proc. Manchester Lit. Phil. Soc. 44, no. 9, who introduced Polypus Schneider, 1784, as a generic name to replace Octopus Lamarck, 1798, with most unfortunate results.* A strict application of priority would now require Octopodia Schneider, 1784, to replace Octopus. A similar confusion of usage would no doubt arise with the further confusion between the generic name Octopodia and the ordinal name Octopoda. The name Octopus is in general zoological usage and its use is not confined to specialists in mollusca ; apart from the use of Polypus by a few specialists for about twenty years, Octopus has been consistently used for well over acentury. I should also deplore the substitution of the almost unknown names of Schneider for well-established trivial names. I therefore ask that all names in Schneider, 1784, be suppressed and that Octopus Cuvier, 1797, and Eledone Leach, 1817, be placed on the Official List of Generic Names with types Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, 1797, and Eledone moschata (Lamarck) 1798. ' Octopus is first used generically by Cuvier, an vi (27 December 1797), Tableau Elémentaire : 380 with two species of which the first “ Le poulpe commun. (Octupus vulgare) Sepia octopus L. [i.e. Gmelin] ” is by tautonymy the type. In the same year, an vi (1798) Lamarck, Bull. Sci. Soc. philom. 2 : 130 also proposed Octopus with first species O. vulgaris. Although Cuvier only gives two characters to distinguish O. vulgaris (which he writes in error O. vulgare) there is no doubt as to the species intended, since he says it is the common octopus of our seas and there is a figure on plate 9 ; he also mentions its large size. Polypus Leach, 1817, Zool. Misc. 3: 139 is an exact synonym of Octopus. Some authors have called this species Sepia octopodia (L.), but Sepia octopodia Lin., 1758, must be considered indeterminate ; it is not clear either from the references or other evidence whether it is an Octopus or an Eledone ; while Sepia octopus Gmelin, 1791, repeats the Linnean ageregate with yet other references, so that it includes species of Octopus, Eledone and Bathypolypus. Eledone Leach, 1817, Zool. Misc. 3 : 138 is monotypical with the sole species Eledone moschata—Octopus moschatus Lamarck, 1798. There is a rather close earlier generic name, Eledona Latreille, 1796, Précis Car. Ins. : 19 (coleoptera). There is also an earlier name for Eledone, namely Ozoena Rafinesque, 1814, Précis Somiol. : 29, where * A rough count based on the Zoological Record for the period 1901—1920 gives an equal number of papers in which Octopus is used and in which Polypus is used, twenty-four new species being described under Polypus. Grimpe, 1920, Zool. Anz. 51 : 205 protested against the use of Polypus ; and in the period 1921—1930 forty-eight papers use Octopus and only nine Polypus, and the latter name is now obsolete. a ee ee OPINION 233 289 it occurs twice, in the sentence “‘l’Octopus moschatus de Lamarck est mon Ozoena moschata”’ and in a list of nomina nuda “* Mes autres nouvelles espéces . . . Ozoena aldrovandi”’’. It may be noted that Aldrovandus spells the word Ozaena and that there is an earlier Ozaena Olivier, 1812, which in any case invalidates! Rafinesque’s name under Article 34. In 1901 Hoyle introduced Moschites Schneider, 1784, as a generic name to replace Eledone, on the false assumption that Schneider had proposed it generically. The only other name to discuss is Hoylea Rochebrune, 1885, substituted for Hallia Rochebrune, 1884, preoccupied ; this is based on a specimen named Hallia sepiodea, which may be an abnormal Octopus but is probably an abnormal Eledone cirrhosa (Lamarck). Well over ninety per cent.* of the literature on this genus refers to it under the name Eledone. Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 3. Issue of Public Notices : On 14th September 1947 a notice of the possible use, by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, of its Plenary Powers in the present case was issued to the serial publications prescribed by the Ninth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913. The publication of this notice elicited no objection to the action proposed. Iil—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 4. 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. * A rough count gave 130 works using Eledone, 13 using Moschites. For a further discussion on the name Eledone see Robson, 1932, Monograph Cephalopoda Brit. Mus. : 256. 1 Under the revision of Article 34 carried through by the Fourteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the area within which any two generic names are to be treated as homonyms of one another was greatly restricted, a difference in spelling of one letter becoming sufficient to prevent a condition of homonymy from arising. Accordingly, while Mr. Winckworth’s statement that the foregoing names were homonyms of one another was correct under the Rég/es, as interpreted by Opinion 147, at the time when he wrote the above note, it is no longer so. The change made in Article 34 by the Copenhagen Congress was however accompanied by a saving clause in favour of cases already settled by the Commission on the basis of the earlier text of Article 34 (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 78). 290 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS The following is an extract from the Official Record of the proceedings of the International Commission setting out the decision reached by it in regard to this case at the foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 56) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 586—590) :— THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their Plenary Powers to suppress :— (a) the generic name Octopodia Schneider, 1784 (Class Cephalopoda) ; (b) the undermentioned specific trivial names :— moschites Schneider, 1784 (as published in the binominal combination Octopodia moschites) nautilus Schneider, 1784 (as published in the binominal combination Octopodia nautilus) polypus Schneider, 1784 (as published in the binominal combination Octopodia polypus) sepia Schneider, 1784 (as published in the binom- inal combination Octopodia sepia) teuthis Schneider, 1784 (as published in the binominal combination Octopodia teuthis) ; (2) to declare that the undermentioned reputed generic names were never published by Schneider, the names so attributed to that author being cheironyms, owing their alleged existence to a misreading by later authors of the relevant passage in Schneider’s Sammlung vermischter Abhandlungen zur Aufkldrung der Zoologie und der Handlungsgeschichte where he used as trivial names of species of his own genus Octopodia the words later wrongly thought to have been published by him as generic names, the error arising (it must be supposed) from the fact that, following the practice of many 18th century authors, he printed the words in question with capital initial letters and did not actually combine the trivial names in question with the name of the genus (Octopodia) to which he referred those species, that OPINION 233 291 generic name being cited only at the head of the account given for the genus :— Loligo Schneider, 1784 Moschites Schneider, 1784 Nautilus Schneider, 1784 Polypus Schneider, 1784 Pompilus Schneider, 1784 (as already recorded in Opinion 166) Sepia Schneider, 1784 Sepiola Schneider, 1784 Teuthis Schneider, 1784 ; (3) to place the undermentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— Eledone Leach, 1817 (type species, by monotypy : Octopus moschatus Lamarck, 1798) (Class Cephalo- poda, Order Decapoda) Octopus Cuvier [1797] (type species, by absolute tautonymy under the principle laid down in Opinion 16: Octopus vulgaris (correction of vulgare) Cuvier [1797]) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Decapoda) ; (4) to place the undermentioned generic names and alleged generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— Loligo Schneider, 1784 (a cheironym possessing no status under the Régles) Moschites Schneider, 1784 (a cheironym possessing no status under the Régles) Nautilus Schneider, 1784 (a cheironym possessing no status under the Rég/les) Octopodia Schneider, 1784 (suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (1) (a) above) Ozoena Rafinesque, 1814 (invalid, because a junior homonym of Ozaena Olivier, 1812) Polypus Leach, 1817 (invalid, because an objective synonym of Octopus Cuvier [1797]) Polypus Schneider, 1784 (a cheironym possessing no status under the Rég/es) 2 See footnote 1, 292 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Pompilus Schneider, 1784 (a cheironym Possessing no status under the Rég/es) Sepia Schneider, 1784 (a cheironym possessing no status under the Rég/es) Sepiola Schneider, 1784 (a cheironym possessing no status under the Rég/es) Teuthis Schneider, 1784 (a cheironym possessing no status under the Régles) ; (5) to place the undermentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— moschatus Lamarck, 1798 (as published in the binominal combination Octopus moschatus) vulgaris Cuvier [1797] (as published in the binominal combination Octopus vulgaris) ; (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology the undermentioned trivial names suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (1) (b) above :— moschites Schneider, 1784 (as published in the binominal combination Octopodia moschites) nautilus Schneider, 1784 (as published in the binominal combination Octopodia nautilus) polypus Schneider, 1784 (as published in the binom- inal combination Octopodia polypus) sepia Schneider, 1784 (as published in the binominal combination Octopodia sepia) teuthis Schneider, 1784 (as published in the binom- inal combination Octopodia teuthis) ; (7) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (6) above. 5. The following are the original references for the names which appear in the decision set out in the immediately preceding paragraph :— Eledone Leach, 1817, Zool. Misc. 3 : 138 Loligo Schneider, 1784, Samml. verm, Abhandl. Aufklar, Zool, : 110 OPINION 233 293 moschatus, Octopus, Lamarck, 1798, Bull. Sci. Soc. phlomat., Paris 17 : 130 Moschites Schneider, 1784, Sammi. verm. Abhandl. Aufklar. Zool. : 118 moschites, Octopodia, Schneider, 1784, Samml. verm. Abhanadl. Aufklar. Zool. : 118 Nautilus Schneider, 1784, Samml. verm. Abhandl. Aufkldar. Zool. : 120 nautilus, Octopodia, Schneider, 1784, Samml. verm. Abhandl. Aufklar. Zool. : 120 Octopodia Schneider, 1784, Samml. verm. Abhandl. Aufkldar. Zool. : 108 Octopus Cuvier, [1797], Tabl. élem. Hist. nat. Anim. : 380 Ozoena Rafinesque, 1814, Précis Découy. Tray. somiolog. : 29 Polypus Schneider, 1784, Samml. verm. Abhandl. Aufkldr. Zool. : 116 Polypus Leach, 1817, Zool. Misc. 3 : 139 polypus, Octopodia, Schneider, 1784, Samml. verm. Abhandl. Aufklar. Zool. : 116 Pompilus Schneider, 1784, Samml. verm. Abhandl. Aufklar. Zool. : 128 Sepia Schneider, 1784, Sammi. verm. Abhandl. Aufklar. Zool. : 109 sepia, Octopodia, Schneider, 1784, Sammi. verm. Abhandl. Aufklar. Zool. : 109 Sepiola Schneider, 1784, Samml. verm. Abhandl. Aufklar. Zool. : 116 Teuthis Schneider, 1784, Sammi. verm. Abhandl. Aufklar. Zool. : 113 teuthis, Octopodia, Schneider, 1784, Sammi. verm. Abhandl. Aufklar. Zool. : 113 vulgare, Octopus, Cuvier, [1797], Tabl. élem. Hist. nat. Anim. : 380 6. The genders of the generic names Eledone Leach, 1817, and Octopus Cuvier, [1797], referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 4 above, are feminine and masculine respectively. 7. The decision 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 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 = 120). 294 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 8. 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. 9. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was dissented from. by no Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the Paris Session. 10. 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 eld ONES: 2 in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. | 11. 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 according- ly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Com-. mission by the undersigned Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that. behalf. —- = OPINION 233 295 12. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two Hundred and Thirty-Three (233) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London this Eighth day of December, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Three. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 4. Part 24. Pp. 297312, 1 text-fig. OPINION 234 Rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of the anonymously issued pamphlet entitled Buprestidae believed to have been written by F. W. Hope and distributed in the year 1836 ZANTHSON ZS JUL 9= 1954 tl IBRARY gs 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 Seven Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 21st May, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 234 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. HSA) E. Voxkes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., Class 1955 Professor Dr. Hilbrand BoscHmMaA (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. StToL’ (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. Veterinzr- 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. Ritey (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. UsinGEer (University of California, Berkeley, California, OPINION 234 REJECTION FOR NOMENCLATORIAL PURPOSES OF THE ANONYMOUSLY ISSUED PAMPHLET ENTITLED ** BUPRESTIDAE ” BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY F. W. HOPE AND DISTRIBUTED IN THE YEAR 1836 RULING :—(1) Names contained in the anonymous pamphlet entitled Buprestidae believed to have been written by F. W. Hope and distributed by that author in 1836 are not available for nomenclatorial purposes as from that pamphlet which was not published in the manner prescribed by Article 25 of the Régles. (2) The title of the foregoing pamphlet is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature as Work No. 5. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 5th July 1936 the late Dr. H. J. Carter (Wahroonga, New South Wales, Australia) submitted to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature the following application in which he asked for a Ruling that the names first published in the anonymous pamphlet entitled Buprestidae believed to have been written by F. W. Hope and distributed by him in 1836 possessed no status for nomenclatorial purposes :— Proposal that the pamphlet entitled ‘‘ Buprestidae ’’ privately and anonymously issued by Hope (F. W.) in 1836 should be suppressed for nomenclatorial purposes By H. J. CARTER, B.A. I am sending you a photographic copy! of a paper entitled “‘ Bupres- tidae ’’ privately issued by Hope in 1836. This paper aroused some stir in 1867 (see [1868], Proc. ent. Soc. Lond. (3) 5 : cix—cx). There is a reference to it also by Edward Saunders in 1868, Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1868 : 1—67. 1 Not reproduced. 300 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS These references make it possible to estimate the trouble that is arising in systematic entomology through the publications by Dr. Jan Obenberger of Prague on the family BUPRESTIDAE. The object of this appeal is to call attention to the confusion arising from the recognition by Dr. Obenberger of the validity of the names contained in Hope’s pamphlet, in spite of the fact that it has been repudiated by authors in this group ever since 1868, on the ground that it was not published in a true sense. I have already protested elsewhere (1934, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10) 14 : 551, 553) against the recognition of this pamphlet. Is it possible to prevent further recognition of it? The genus Stigmodera Eschscholtz, 1829, Zool. Atlas 1:9, for example, contains some 400 species. When, therefore, a large number of obsolete names are revived as the result of the publication of a Catalogue of the BUPRES- TIDAE, further serious confusion arises. I1—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Dr. Carter’s application was one of a number of current applications which in May 1938 were transferred to the care of Mr. Francis Hemming, who in 1936 had been elected Secretary to the Commission on the retirement of Dr. C. W. Stiles. On receipt, this application was given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 57. It had not been found possible to advance the consideration of this case by the time that the outbreak of war in Europe 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 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 International Commission for decision. Work was at once started on outstanding applications with a view to arranging for their publication in the newly established Bulletin. 3. When the present case came to be examined as a preliminary to its being published in the Bulletin, Mr. Hemming took the view that the information furnished by Dr. Carter was not ee OPINION 234 301 sufficient for the purposes of the Commission, and, on his invita- tion, Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England), then President of the Com- mission, investigated the problem submitted by Dr. Carter and on 3rd September furnished the following Report on it :—- On the pamphlet ‘* Buprestidae ’? anonymously issued by Hope (F. W.) in 1836 By KARL JORDAN, Ph.D., F.R.S. - (British Museum (Natural History), The Zoological Museum, Tring) According to what critics have said, the 13-page pamphlet *‘ Buprestidae’ is not a publication, but a privately printed and privately distributed list. It has no title-page, no author’s name, no price. Hagen, 1862, Bibl. entom. 1 : 379, has the entry :—‘‘ Buprestidae. (1836). 8 pg. 13. (nicht publicirt, Bibl. Hope) ”’. The Secretary to the Entomological Society of London (either J. W. Dunning or David Sharp, who were joint Secretaries at the time, but more probably the latter) criticised the pamphlet *“ Buprestidae ’’ at a meeting of the Society held on 6th January 1868 (1868, Proc. ent. Soc. Lond. (3) 5 : cix—cx). The following is an extract from the criticism there advanced :— The paper in question consists of thirteen pages, at the top of which is the word “ Buprestidae’’; this is the only title it bears. There is no title-page, preface, introduction or explanation whatsoever ; no author’s name, no printer’s name, no date ; no name of any bookseller or of any other place at which the public might obtain it ; and as to many of the insects described, there is nothing to show that they are Australian species, or to point out the collections in which the type-specimens were deposited . . . I submit that the unpublished names of the anony- mous print ‘‘ Buprestidae’ must give way to published names, whatever the date of the latter may be. In the Transactions of the Entomological Society of London for 1868 (: 1—67), where Edw. Saunders published a revision of the Australian BUPRESTIDAE, Saunders said in a footnote ( : 2) ; “* [have abandoned the names of the unpublished tract ‘ Buprestidae’ in favour of pub- lished names, though later in point of date ”’. 4. In September 1944 Dr. Carter’s application and Dr. Jordan’s note were sent to the printer, 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 302 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 26th July 1945 (Carter, 1945, Bull. zool. Nomencl, 1 : 117—118 ; Jordan, 1945, ibid. 1 : 118). 5. The publication of the present application in the Bulletin elicited two comments :—the first from Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.), the second, from Mr. Francis J. Griffin, Honorary Archivist to the Com- mission. 6. Comment by Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) : Among a number of comments on then current cases enclosed with a letter dated 17th November 1945 received from Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) was the following on the pamphlet Buprestidae :—‘‘ A paper unpublished and without standing in nomenclature ”’. 7. Comment by Mr. Francis J. Griffin, Honorary Archivist to the Commission : Under cover of a letter dated 24th January 1946, Mr. Francis J. Griffin, Honorary Archivist to the Commission, submitted the following communication in which he brought together all the information which he had been able to collect in regard to the pamphlet Buprestidae. With this communication Mr. Griffin furnished also a photostat reproduction of the first page of F. W. Hope’s own copy (now preserved in the Hope Department, University Museum, Oxford), in which Hope’s name had been added in ink as that of the author. The anonymous pamphlet ‘* Buprestidae ’’ Hope, F. W., [1836] By FRANCIS J. GRIFFIN (Archivist to the Commission) A. Introduction In view of the proposal of Carter (1945) that Hope’s pamphlet should be suppressed for nomenclatorial purposes the following notes may be useful. 2. The pamphlet consists of a single printed sheet of 16 pages with pp. 14—16 blank. It is without the name of the author, date, place of publication, or imprint of any kind, and for title bears the single word Buprestidae in large type (see fig. 1). The sheet bears the signature “B” and “ B 2” as is customary in British printing when signature A is reserved for preliminary matter, such as the title-page, contents, foreword and so forth. OPINION 234 303 3. In this pamphlet are described a number of new buprestid beetles from the collections of : Hope, Children, Spence, Banks and the British Museum. Although the pamphlet is scarce, a number of copies exist and without making exhaustive enquiries, I know of copies in London (Roy. Ent. Soc. Lond. (two copies), Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) (two copies)), Oxford, Paris, Amsterdam and Berlin. Others may also exist elsewhere. 4. The questions which need answering in considering the proposal to suppress the work are : (1) Who is the author of the work ? (2) What is the date of the work ? (3) Is the work published or unpublished ? B. The author of the work 5. It is always assumed that this anonymous work was written by Revd. F. W. Hope, founder of the Hope Professorship at Oxford University and a leading spirit in the foundation of the Royal Ento- mological Society of London. From a study of the work itself it might be possible to deduce the authorship as for example on p. 6 where Hope gives his name as the author of a newly discovered species as follows :— 48. S. Samouelli, Hope. Long. lin. lat. lin. Thorace bronzeo marginibus violaceis, clytris purpurascentibus flavostictis. Corpore subtus violaceo. Described from a specimen in the collection of the British Museum, and named in honour of the assiduous Curator of the Entomological department. 6. But there is stronger evidence of authorship to be found in Hope (1840 : 173) where he wrote : ““ Calodema Kirbii, Hope This magnificent insect, one of the most beautiful of all the Buprestidae, | named in honour of the Rev. William Kirby, in a Prodromus, which I published some few years back. The species in question is described on page 2 of the pamphlet under the genus Stigmodera. 7. Furthermore, Westwood (1874 : xxii) confirms that Hope is the author by quoting the pamphlet in a “ List of the entomological works of the Rev. F. W. Hope ”’ as follows :— “11. Prodromus of the Buprestidae of New Holland. (8vo. Lond. 1836, pp. 13.)”’ 304 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 8. Other authors e.g. Engelmann, 1846 : 536; Hagen, 1862 : 379 ; Horn & Schenkling, 1928:572; Musgrave, 1932:153; and Sherborn, 1922 : lxvili, all refer to it as by Hope and moreover in Hope’s own copy, now housed in the Hope Department at Oxford, his name is added in ink as the author as may be seen by reference to the annexed text-figure. 9. Finally, | know of no reason against Hope being the author and I suggest that he be so considered. C. The title of the work 19. As I have stated, the paper bears no title beyond the single word ‘* Buprestidae’, yet it has been referred to in print by several longer titles. Hope (1840: 173) calls it a ‘“ Prodromus’”. Engelmann (1846 : 536) cites it as: “* Description of the Buprestidae in the collec- tion of F. W. Hope”. Hagen (1862 : 379) correctly describes it as ‘* Buprestidae”’, as do Sherborn (1922 : Ixviii) and Musgrave (1932 : 153) the latter, however, adding that it was “later called ‘ Synopsis of Australian Buprestidae’’’. The library catalogues of the entomo- logical societies of Paris and Amsterdam give it under the correct title. Perhaps the most important reference to it in print is that of Dunning (?)* (1868 : cix) who refers to the “ so-called ‘ Synopsis of Australian Buprestidae’ ’’, a title under which it is cited by Laporte, Gory and other contemporary writers. Dunning (?) adds: “ ... at the top of the first [page] of which is the word Buprestidae ; this is the only title which it bears ”’. il. To sum up, I suggest that all authors who have seen the original quote it correctly as “‘ Buprestidae’’ and only those quoting it on the basis of evidence of someone else use an alternative title for it. I should add, however, that possibly some older authors such as Laporte and Gory may have started this confusion by using some descriptive phrase of Hope’s as a title for the work in describing their copy, and have been followed by later entomologists. D. The date of the work 12. In 1840, Hope refers to the “* Prodromus which I published some few years back”, while in 1874 Westwood states definitely that it appeared in 1836, a date since generally accepted (Engelmann, 1846 : 536; Hagen, 1862 :379: Horn and) Schenklne oleae Musgrave, 1932: 153; Sherborn, 1922: Ixviii). There is no indica- tion of the date of the printing to be obtained from studying the pamphlet itself. Indeed, although reference is made to several pub- lished works therein, I am unable to discover a single date of any kind anywhere in the work. * Tt is not possible to determine the authorship of the passage quoted, which is stated to be the Secretary of the Entomological Society, for there were two Secretaries at the time, e.g. J. W. Dunning and D. Sharp. I believe Dunning to be responsible but others consider Sharp the author. . —_ OPINION 234 305 a a, BUPRESTID£. Now co VES AL re Oar efore FW Srope. VA et Fife Sigh (O56. . I. Cyria, Serville. 1. C.imperialis, Fab. Vid. Herbst, pl. 146. fig. 3. 2. C. gagates, Hope. Long. lin. 16, lat. lin. 45. Nigra, eculis flavis, thorace fossulato, punctato, elytrisque striato- punctatis. Corpus infra nigrum albisque capillis variegatum. In coll. D. Hope. 3. C. vittigera, Hope. Long. lin. 13, lat. lin. 4. Flava, elytris vittis nigris variegatis. In coll, D. Hope. II. Stramopera, Eschscholtz. i. S. macularia, Donovan, pl. 2. 2. §. grandis, Don. pl.2. Bup. 3. S. flavocincta, Hope. Long. lin. 16, lat. lin. 63. . "4 . . 2 Rufc-brunnea, thorace nigro-chalybeo flavo-marginato variolisque eroso, elytris rufo-brunneis externe flavo-cinctis. Corpus subtus geheum punctatum flavisque capillis obsitum, antennis pedibusque zeneis. In coll. Dom. Hope. 4. §. Goriz, Hope. Long. lin. 16, lat. lin. 6. Aurantia, thorace zneo punctato quasi vermibus eroso, elytris fla- vis punctis impressis confluentibus atris. Corpus subtus atroeneum cinereisque capillis obsitum. In col!. Dom. Children, 306 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 13. Dunning (?) (1868 : cix) says “there is no doubt . . . that the date of printing was the year 1836 ”’ and I know of no reason to doubt that year as being, in fact, the year of printing. No other date has been suggested so far as my knowledge goes. E. Is the work published or unpublished ? 14. The author, Hope, states (1840 : 173) that he “‘ published ”’ the work some years earlier. 15. Engelmann (1846 : 536), by including it in his list of works “welche ...in den Jahren 1700—1846 erschienen sind ’’, assumes it to have been published, but assigns no price to it which is unusual. 16. In 1867, on the 26th November at the meeting of the Ento- mological Society Saunders (1868 : 1) read a paper entitled “‘ A revision of the Australian Buprestidae described by the late Rev. F. W. Hope ”’. This paper took account of Hope’s anonymous work and accepted it as published but this action led to a protest and a discussion took place which is recorded in the Proceedings of the Society as follows :— The Secretary* made the following observations on the nomen- clature of Australian Buprestidae adopted by Mr. Edward Saunders in a paper read at the meeting of the 4th of November, 1867 (ante, p. Ci.) :— The rejection by Mr. Edward Saunders, in his ‘“ Revision of the Australian Buprestidae described by the Rev. F. W. Hope’, of certain published names, in favour of the names given by Mr. Hope in the so-called “‘ Synopsis of Australian Bupres- tidae ’’, raises a question of some importance as regards priority of nomenclature. I have always understood the rule to be this—that the specific name by which an insect is to be called and known is the name under which a sufficient description of the species was first published. Names contained in a paper which is privately printed, but not published, rank only as MS. names: however freely the paper may be disseminated among the author’s friends, however wide the circle of his acquaintance, it must still remain inaccess- ible to the public—it is not published within the meaning of the rule. What then are the facts concerning the paper which Mr. Edward Saunders (following Laporte and Gory and others) cites as Hope’s “‘ Synopsis of Australian Buprestidae ” ? The paper in question consists of thirteen printed pages, at the top of the first of which is the word BUPRESTIDAE ; * As I have stated earlier (footnote to para. 10) I believe this to refer to J. W. Dunning and not to D. Sharp. OPINION 234 307: this is the only title which it bears. There is no title-page, preface, introduction or explanation whatsoever ; no author’s name, no printer’s name, no date ; no name of any bookseller or of any place at which the public might obtain it ; and as to many of the insects described, there is nothing to show that they are Australian species, or to point out the collections in which the type-specimens were deposited. At the same time there is no doubt that the author was Mr. Hope, that the date of printing was the year 1836, that the insects are all from Australia, and (when no other collection is mentioned) were in Mr. Hope’s own cabinet ; and lastly, besides the descriptions of sixty-six new species, the paper contains references to all the previously-described Australian Buprestidae (twenty-seven in number), so that “A Synopsis of Australian Buprestidae ’? would have been a very appropriate title to have given it. There can be little doubt that a print of this paper was in the hands of Laporte and Gory when they prepared their Monograph of the Buprestidae, and it must be admitted that they cite the “Synopsis of Australian Buprestidae” as if it were a published work. Other writers have done the same, probably following Laporte and Gory, without having their attention directed to the question of publication or non- publication. It is true also that Hope himself (Col. Man. 3 : 173) in 1840 speaks of ‘‘ a Prodromus which I published some years back’. ‘“* Published ”’ in the sense of being communicated to his entomological friends, I have no doubt it was; but “* published ”’ in the sense of being made accessible to or obtain- able by the public, I believe it never was... . I submit that the unpublished names of the anonymous print Buprestidae must give way to published names, whatever the date of the latter may be. Prof. Westwood argued that Mr. Hope’s paper, though privately printed, had in fact been so widely disseminated as to amount to publication ; at any rate, that it might be treated as published sub modo—i.e. as against all persons who had notice of its existence... The President [Sir John Lubbock], Mr. Bates, Mr. M’Lachlan, Mr. Pascoe and other members, agreed that accessibility to the public could alone constitute publication within the meaning of the rule of priority in nomenclature. 17. As a result of this discussion Saunders reconsidered the matter and decided against acceptance of the pamphlet as published as will 308 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS be seen from the following quotation from his paper (Saunders, 1868 : 1—2). The first work of any importance on the Buprestidae of Australia was printed by Mr. Hope in 1836, in which are mentioned all the species then known to him from that part of the world. The descriptions, however, which he gives are so short, and wanting in specific character, as to be nearly useless ; and, besides this, many of the insects he described as species can only be considered as mere varieties. Footnote to p. 2. At the time when this paper was prepared and read before the Society, I was under the impression that Mr. Hope’s descriptions of 1836 had been published, and were entitled to priority over the names given by Laporte and Gory, and subsequent authors. But finding from the discussion which is reported in Proc. Ent. Soc., 1867, pp. cix, cx, that Mr. Hope’s paper was printed only for private circulation, I have abandoned the names of the unpublished tract Buprestidae in favour of published names, though later in point of date—E.S. March, 1868. 18. The only author who objected to regarding the paper as un- published was Westwood, whose peculiar proposal that the pamphlet “might be treated as published swb modo—i.e. as against all persons who had notice of its existence’ clearly cannot be adopted. 19. In view of the very intimate association between Hope and Westwood, it is perhaps understandable that Westwood was anxious to protect the work of his deceased partner and patron. 20. By 1874, however, Westwood seems to have made up his mind, for he then wrote of this memoir (1874 : xxii) :—“‘ This memoir, which was printed for private circulation and was widely distributed by the author ’’. 21. But even more conclusive is the evidence in Westwood’s own hand written across Hope’s own copy—the word “ Unpublished ” (see fig. 1). Westwood also wrote the same word on the copy now in the Library of the Royal Entomological Society of London, which was acquired as a duplicate from the Hope Department in 1931. 22. A further small point should not be overlooked. I have already hinted at the possibility of the work being more in the nature of a proofsheet and this possibility is strengthened by reference to the passage on page 6 (no. 48). There, as may be seen, spaces are left for measurements of size to be added but in no copy I know, including Hope’s own, have these figures been added. 23. Even more remarkable is the absence of a printer’s name, a legal requirement in all printed documents published in the United Kingdom, though not an essential feature from the point of view of Zoological Nomenclature. OPINION 234 309 F. Conclusions in regard to the work entitled ‘‘ Buprestidae ’’ by F. W. Hope (1) This pamphlet was printed in 1836. (2) The only claim to “ publication” is by the author in a vague statement made in 1840. (3) The overwhelming weight of evidence suggests that the work was privately printed and circulated only to certain friends of the author. (4) There is no evidence that this work was ever published in the generally understood meaning of that word. References Carter, H. J., 1945, Proposal that the pamphlet entitled Buprestidae privately and anonymously issued by Hope (F. W.) in 1836 should be suppressed for nomenclatorial purposes. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 117—118 Dunning, J. W. (?), 1868, Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. (Proc.) (3) 5 : cix—cx pos oan W., 1846, Bibliotheca Historico-naturalis 1700—1846. Hagen, H. A., 1862, Bibliotheca Entomologia 1 : 379 Hope, F. W., 1840, The Coleopterists’ Manual 3 : 173 Horn, W., & Schenkling, S., Index Litteraturae Entomologicae 1 (2) : 572 Jordan, K., 1945, On the pamphlet Buprestidae anonymously issued by Hope (F. W.) in 1836. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 118 Musgrave, A., 1932, A bibliography of Australian Entomology 1775— 1930 : 153 Saunders, E., 1868, A revision of the Australian Buprestidae described by the Rev. F. W. Hope. Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1868 : 1 Sherborn, C. D., 1922, Index Animalium, Pars secund. (1) : Ixviii Westwood, J. O., 1874, Thesaurus Entomologicus Oxoniensis : xxi 8. Issue of Public Notices: In view of the possibility that the International Commission might take the view that the pamphlet Buprestidae was an available work for nomenclatorial purposes but that it was desirable that the new names in if should be suppressed in the interests of stability, it was judged desirable in 1947 to put the Commission in a position at once to use its Plenary Powers in this case in the event of its deciding to make use of this procedure. Accordingly, on 14th September 1947, a notice of the possible use, by the International Commission on 310 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Zoological Nomenclature, of its Plenary Powers in this case was issued to the serial publications prescribed by the Ninth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913. The publication of this notice elicited no objection to the action proposed. II—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 9. The present application was considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Thirteenth Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi- théatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 1730 hours. The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Pro- ceedings of the International Commission setting out the decision reached by it in this case at the foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 17) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4; 371) :— THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that the names contained in the anonymous pamphlet entitled Buprestidae believed (a) to have been written by F. W. Hope and (b) to have been distributed by that author in 1836 were not published (“‘ divulgués dans une publication ”’) as prescribed by Article 25 and that they therefore had no standing under the Régles as from the date of distribution of that pamphlet ; (2) to render an Opinion recording the decision specified in (1) above. 10. The decision taken in the present case was reported to, and approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth a ee OPINION 234 311 International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Fifth Meeting held on 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 106). 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 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 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, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 23—24). Since the foregoing provision applies to past, as well as to future, decisions 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 pamphlet Buprestidae. 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 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. 312 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 15. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two Hundred and Thirty-Four (234) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London this Ninth day of December, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Three. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mrercatre & Cooprr LimitrEp, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 4. Part 25. Pp. 313—328, 1 pl. OPINION 235 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a lectotype for the nominal species Ammonites cordatus Sowerby (J.), 1813 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) aN HSON 4 JUL 9= 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 Seven Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 2\st May, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 235 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. PEeTERS (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 Carclina, 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). PG ee L. USINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). Opinions and Declarations, Vol. 4. Plate 1. Fig. 2. Facsimile reproductions of the figures given by Sowerby (J.), 1813, Min. Conch. Great Brit. 1: plate 17 of the two syntypes of Ammonites cordatus Sowerby, 1813. FIG. 1.—Facsimile of fig. 2 on Sowerby’s plate 17 (= the specimen selected as the holotype of Ammonites cordatus Sowerby, 1813, by Miss M. Healey in 1905). FIG. 2.—Facsimile of fig. 4 on Sowerby’s plate 17 (= the specimen which in Opinion 235 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature designated under its Plenary Powers to be the holotype of Ammonites cordaius Sowerby, 1813). OPINION 235 DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF A LECTOTYPE FOR THE NOMINAL SPECIES ** AMMONITES CORDATUS ”? SOWERBY (J.), 1813 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA) RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers, all selec- tions of a lectotype for the nominal species Ammonites cordatus Sowerby (J.), 1813 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the specimen illustrated as figure 4 on plate 17 of volume 1 of Sowerby (J.), Mineral Conchology of Great Britain, published in 1813, is hereby designated as the lectotype of the foregoing species. (2) The specific name cordatus Sowerby (J.), 1813, as published in the combination Ammonites cordatus and as determined in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 54. I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE * On 13th August 1936 Dr. W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. (then of the University Museum, Oxford, and now of the Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) addressed a letter to the then Secretary to the International Commission (Dr. C. W. Stiles), drawing attention to a paper which he had recently published (1936, Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond. 92 : 152) on the question of the specimen to be accepted as the lectotype 316 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS of the nominal species Ammonites cordatus Sowerby (J.), 1813 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) and asking the Com- mission either to rule as invalid, or to suppress under its Plenary Powers, the lectotype selection made for this species by Miss M. Healey (1905) and itself to designate as the lectotype the other specimen figured by Sowerby in 1813 (i.e. the specimen illustrated as figure 4 on plate 17 of volume 1 of the Mineral Conchology of Great Britain.) For the reasons explained in paragraphs 4 and 5 below, it was not until 1943 that effective progress was made in the consideration of this application. Dr. Arkell’s application, as then revised by him, was as follows :— On the holotype of ‘‘ Ammonites cordatus ’’ Sowerby, 1813 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) By W. J. ARKELL, D.Sc. (University Museum, Oxford) Plate 1. Great confusion arises from the inconsistency with which different authors adopt index fossils for zones in the Jurassic. Each zone has several current indices. In consequence the present applicant has been endeavouring to stabilise usage by advocating, and himself following, a rule of priority in zonal nomenclature on the lines of that accepted in zoological nomenclature. He does not advocate rigid adherence to priority when fresh confusion would be involved, but merely the choice, for any particular zone, of the oldest established zonal index, provided that it is appropriate. It seems that, if this procedure does not come to be adopted, there will be no end to the number of times a zone will be renamed by new authors, unaware of existing names or ignorant of their appropriateness, or dissatisfied with them for some local reason. An application of this principle to the English Corallian Beds or Upper Oxfordian, in conjunction with a detailed study of the strati- graphy in the type locality, has been published by the present author (Arkell, 1936). A speaker in the discussion (: 187) of this paper remarked that the author “ had restored the Corallian almost to its original simplicity, and had given good reasons for doing so ”’. A similar treatment of the Oxford Clay (Lower Oxfordian and Upper Callovian Stages) has also been published (Arkell, 1939). There has been great confusion in the zonal nomenclature of these formations in recent years, especially during the inter-war period. OPINION 235 317 While the present paper has been in the press, the whole question of a code of rules for stratigraphical nomenclature has been taken in another place (Arkell, 1945). The subordination of stratigraphical nomenclature to zoological nomenclature makes such cases as this important, for a purely technical point in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature concerning an index fossil of a zone can cause great confusion in stratigraphy. The first author to introduce the word “‘ zone”’ into geology was Alcide d’Orbigny, and at the same time he outlined a scheme of zones with indices, many of which have been used ever since (d’Orbigny, 1852). It seems highly desirable to standardise usage by adopting these zonal indices wherever practicable. One of d’Orbigny’s indices proposed in the work referred to above was that of Ammonites cordatus Sowerby (J.), 1813, Min. Conch. Great Brit. 1:51. That name has been in continuous use as zonal index, for all, or a restricted part of, the zone for which it was originally proposed, down to the present day. I append the following summary of the history of the zone of Cardioceras cordatum (Sowerby, 1813) (Ammonites cordatus Sowerby, 1813). D’Orbigny (1852) was soon followed by Hébert (1857, 1860), who adopted the zone for the whole of the Paris Basin. Tombeck (1874), who was also one of the earlier writers to deal with Upper Jurassic zones, adopted the “‘ Cordatus Zone ”’ for the department of the Haute- Marne, using the term in its modern sense. Oppel, often (erroneously) claimed as the founder of the zonal idea, but certainly the greatest and most accurate of its early exponents, at first did not distinguish between the “ Lamberti’? and “* Cordatus”’ zones, for in south-west Germany, where he principally worked, these zones are condensed and the fossils mixed. In his last work, however, Oppel (1866) took over these zones from his French colleagues. They had already been adopted for North Germany by Credner (1863), and the succession had not since been questioned. H. Douvillé (1881), by his study of the Upper Jurassic on the north side of the Paris Basin and in the Normandy cliffs in particular, gave greater precision to the zonal sequence by establishing a “ Mariae Zone’’ between the “‘ Cordatus”’ and “ Lamberti’? zones. These three zones—Lamberti, Mariae and Cordatus—are the appropriate zones for the English Upper Oxford Clay also, and after a revision _ of English collections and a study of all the relevant English exposures —— . and of the Norman collections in Paris and Caen, I have adopted these three zones with the three zonal indices established by H. Douvillé in 1881, both in the papers referred to above and in my monograph on the Ammonites of the English Corallian Beds, now in course of publication by the Palaeontological Society. 318 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS The arrangement proposed by H. Douvillé was followed by all subsequent French writers on the subject, of whom the most modern was his son R. Douvillé, who wrote a series of monographs on the fossils from these zones (1912, 1914, 1915), and Raspail (1901), who published the most detailed and authoritative stratigraphical account of the classic sections on the coast of Normandy. Thus up to 1915, all French writers on the subject used a ““ Cordatus Zone’’, and its meaning was unambiguous and had never been ques- tioned. It was the “ Oolithe ferrugineuse’ of the Normandy coast and of Neuvizy in the Ardennes—to cite two of the best known and most highly fossiliferous localities. To trace the history of the zone all over Europe would take too much space, but that the “* Cordatus Zone’’ was used everywhere is shown by numerous works, of which perhaps the most important is Lahusen’s monograph (1883) on the Ryasan fauna of Russia. Haug’s great Traité (1908—1911) standardised the “‘ Cordatus Zone ’’, among other ‘“‘ zones classiques ’’ for all Europe. In England work comparable with that cited for France and certain other countries is only now being done. No monographs have been published on ammonites or faunas from the Oxfordian, except those recently completed, or now in progress, by the present writer. The *“* Cordatus Zone’ was, however, used officially for the Upper Oxford Clay by the Geological Survey at least since 1895 (see Woodward (H. B.), 1895). The Ammonites cordatus referred to as the characteristic fossil of the “‘ Cordatus Zone” was not always the same species. D’Orbigny himself figured three different species under this name, and many geologists took d’Orbigny’s figures as the standard rather than Sowerby’s. But this is unimportant, in view of the fact that they are all contemporary species. In his original description of Ammonites cordatus, Sowerby (1813) figured two specimens which he referred to this species. Those speci- mens were represented in figures 2 and 4 of Sowerby’s plate 17. These figures are reproduced in facsimile on plate 1 in the present paper. Both Sowerby’s specimens are preserved in the British Museum. The specimen represented in Sowerby’s figure 2 is a nucleus only 20 mm. in diameter and not definitely identifiable ; the specimen represented in Sowerby’s figure 4, although also wholly septate (i.e. lacking the body-chamber) is easily identifiable and is well representative of a whole fauna of Cardiocerates characteristic of the top of the Oxford clay and the Wiltshire Lower Calcareous Grit (the “‘ Cordatus Zone ’’). OPINION 235 319 Unfortunately Miss M. Healey (1905), in a short note, chose the smaller figure (i.e. Sowerby’s fig. 2) to be the ‘‘ holotype ” of Ammonites cordatus Sowerby. She pointed out that the smaller specimen did not come from the Oxford Clay but from the ‘‘ Lower (?) Corallian”’. As I have shown (Arkell, 1936), its true horizon is the Upper Corallian, namely the “‘ Plicatilis Zone”’. Hence, if Miss Healey’s type designation must be accepted, the name Ammonites cordatus Sowerby, 1813, must be used for an ammonite of the “ Plicatilis Zone’’ or Upper Corallian, a species not known from the Oxford Clay, of which the original “‘ Cordatus Zone” was part ; and the “ Cordatus Zone ”’ of the literature of the last 80 years will have to be renamed. Miss Healey’s procedure, as is apparent from the references cited above, has been ignored by nearly all geologists and palaeontologists. In 1913, however, A. P. Pavlow, in a description (in Russian) of some fossils from northern Siberia collected on Baron Toll’s polar expedition, gave the new name Cardioceras subcordatum Pavlow, 1913, Mém. Acad. Sci. St. Pétersb. (8) 21 (4) : 48, to the species figured by Sowerby as fig. 4 on his pl. 17. Seven years later S. S. Buckman, 1920, Type Ammonites : 15, not knowing of Pavlow’s action, gave the name Cardioceras cardia nom. nov. to the same species. Buckman’s trivial name “ cardia’’ has been adopted for the “‘ Cordatus Zone”? by Dr. L. F. Spath, who advocates rejecting the name “ cordatus’’ on the grounds of technical ineligibility in view of Miss Healey’s type designa- tion (Spath, 1943). Dr. Spath, however, rejected Pavlow’s name ** subcordatum’’ on the ground that its use might be “ misleading ”’. As I have pointed out, however, (Arkell, 1941), Cardioceras subcordatum Pavlow, 1913, is technically the correct name for the species figured by Sowerby under the name Ammonites cordatus in fig. 4 of his pl. 17 (if Sowerby’s fig. 2 of pl. 17 is to be taken as the type of Ammonites cordatus Sowerby), notwithstanding the existence of the species Ammonites subcordatus d’Orbigny, 1945, in Murchison, Geol. Russia 2 : 434, pl. 24, figs. 6, 7. This latter species is a Kimeridgian species of the genus Amoeboceras Hyatt, 1900, in Eastman-Zittel, Text-Book Palaeont. 1 : 580, and does not belong to, and was not first described in, the same genus as Cardioceras subcordatum Pavlow, 1913. The following points should be noted :— (1) Miss Healey’s procedure, setting aside the ““ obvious ”’ type ‘specimen in favour of another, too small and badly preserved to be interpreted with certainty, runs counter to Recommendation ‘“‘n” set out in Part III of Article 30 of the Rules. (2) Miss Healey did no systematic work on ammonites. She merely refigured a few isolated type-specimens for Palaeontologia Universalis. Her work therefore does not carry the authority of a revision. (3) Miss Healey’s choice of figure 2 as the type of Ammonites cordatus Sowerby reversed the decision implicit in the works of the leading Jurassic stratigraphers 320 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS and palaeontologists of several generations and countries, including d’Orbigny, Credner, Oppel, Hébert, Tombeck, H. B. Woodward, H. & R. Douvillé, Haug, Raspail, Lahusen, and de Grossouvre. (4) Since the first submission of the present application to the International Commission, Sowerby’s fig. 4 has again been quoted as the genotype of Cardio- ceras Neumayr & Uhlig, 1881, Palaeontogr. 27 : 140 (under the trivial name cordatum Sowerby) by Professor F. Roman (1938) in his monumental Ammonites jurassiques et crétacés (: 228), which will be a standard work of reference for generations to come. (5) The fact that the technically correct prior substitute name for Sowerby’s fig. 4 is Cardioceras subcordatum Pavlow, 1913, means that the name Cardioceras cardia Buckman, 1920, and the term ‘‘ Cardia Zone ”’ adopted by Buckman and Spath will in any case have to be changed again. Spath’s course, to continue to use the synonym cardia rather than risk the confusion involved in the second change, is no solution. In view of this history, I make formal application for the setting aside of Miss Healey’s type selection, as the type of Ammonites cordatus Sowerby, 1813, of the species figured by Sowerby as fig. 2 on pl. 17, and for the stabilisation of Cardioceras cordatum (Sowerby, 1813) as index of the “‘ Cordatus Zone’, with Sowerby’s fig. 4 (pl. 17) as type. Only so can confusion and unnecessary changes in strati- graphical nomenclature be avoided, and a historical name be usefully retained. References ARKELL, W. J., 1936, ‘“‘ The Ammonite Zones of the Upper Oxfordian of Oxford, and the Horizons of the Sowerby’s and Buckman’s Types”. Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond. 92 : 146—187. ——_—————., 1939, ‘““ The Ammonite Succession of the Woodham Brick Co.’s pit, and its bearing on the classification of the Oxford Clay’. Quart J. geol. Soc. Lond. 95 : 135—222, 4 pls. , 1941, ‘“‘ The Upper Oxford Clay at Purton, Wilts., and the zones of the Lower Oxfordian’’. Geol. Mag. 78 : 161—172. , 1935—1945 (in progress), ““ Monograph on the Ammonites of the English Corallian Beds ’’. Palaeontolographical Scciety. ———————., 1946, “‘ Standard of the European Jurassic”. Bull. Amer. geol. Soc. 57 : 1—34. BUCKMAN, S. S., 1920, Type Ammonites (privately printed). CREDNER, H., 1863, Ueber die Gliederung der oberen Juraformation und der Wealdenbildung im nordwestlichen Deutschland. Prague. Table A. DOUVILLE, H., 1881, “‘ Note sur la partie moyenne du terrain jurassique dans” le basin de Paris, et sur le terrain corallien en particulier ’’. Bull. Soc. géol. France (3) 9 : 443 et seq. DOUVILLE, R., 1912, “‘ Etude sur les Cardiocératidés de Dives, Villers-sur-Mer, et quelques autres gisements”’. Mém. Soc. géol. France 19 (2) : 10 (reference to “ Cordatus Zone ’’). , 1914, “* Etudes sur les Oppeliidés de Dives et Villers-sur-Mer ”’. Mém. Soc. géol. France 21 (2). i , 1915, “‘ Etudes sur les Cosmocératidés des collections de l’Ecole nat. sup. des Mines’’. Mém. serv. Carte géol. det. France. HAUG, E., 1908—1911, Traité de Géologie : 1004, 1006 et seq. HEALEY, M., 1905, in Palaeontologia universalis No. 94. HEBERT, E., 1857, Les Mers anciennes et leurs rivages dans le bassin de Paris. Paris (See p. 44). ——————_, 1860, “ Du terrain jurassique supérieur sur les cOtes de la Manche’”’. Bull. Soc. géol. France (2) 17 : 302. OPINION 235 Byes | LAHUSEN, I., 1883, ‘‘ Die Fauna der jurassischen Bildungen des Rjasanschen Gouvernement’. Mém. Com. géol. St. Pétersb. 1 (1). OPPEL, A., 1866, ““ Uber die Zone des Ammonites transversarius”’, in Benecke’s Geogn.-palaeont. Beitr. 2 : 214. D’ORBIGNY, 1845, in Murchison, Geol. Russia 2 : 434 pl. 24, figs. 6, 7. ee 1850, Paléontologie francaise, Terrains jurassiques, Céphalopodes. aris. , 1852, Cours élémentaire de Paléontologie et de Géologie strati- graphiques. 2. PAVLOW, A. P., 1913, ‘“‘ Les Céphalopodes du Jura et du Crétacé inférieur de la Sibérie septentrionale ’. Mém. Acad. imp. Sci. St. Pétersb. (8) 21 (No. 4). RASPAIL, J., 1901, ‘“‘ Contribution a l’Etude de la Falaise jurassique de Villers- sur-Mer”’. Feuille des jeunes Naturalistes (4) 31 (Nos. 365, 366, 368). SPATH, L. F., 1943, Geol. Mag. 80 : 111. TOMBECK, H., 1874, “‘ Note sur les Etages oxfordien et callovien de la Haute- Marne’. Bull. Soc. géol. France (3) 3 : 22. WOODWARD, H. B., 1895, Jurassic Rocks of Britain 5 (Middle & Upper Oolitic Rocks) : 8 et seg. (Mem. geol. Surv.). IL—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. The documents relating to the present case were transferred in January 1938 to the care of Mr. Francis Hemming, who in 1936 had been elected Secretary to the International Commission on the retirement of Dr. Stiles. This case was thereupon given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 58. 3. On 16th February 1938, Dr. L. F. Spath (British Museum (Natural History), London) wrote to the Secretary objecting to the proposal made by Dr. Arkell in his paper of 1936 and expressing the view that, contrary to the opinion held by Dr. Arkell, the reversal of Miss Healey’s lectotype selection for Ammonites cordatus Sowerby “ now after all these years would cause great confusion”’.. Dr. Spath’s view was at once communicated to Dr. Arkell, who however remained of his previous opinion, and on 2nd May 1938 submitted to the International Commission a formal application in the sense indicated in his original letter of 13th August 1936. 4. It had not been found possible to advance the consideration of the present case by the time that the outbreak of war in Europe in September 1939 led to the evacuation of the records of the International Commission from London to the country as a 322 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 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 Nomen- clature as a means for bringing to the attention of zoologists applications submitted to the International Commission for decision. Work was at once started on outstanding applications with a view to arranging for their publication in the newly established Bulletin. 5. In September 1943 correspondence took place between the Secretary and Dr. Arkell who then slightly revised his application of 2nd May 1938. 6. Comment received from Dr. L. F. Spath (British Museum (Natural History), London): In September 1943 there was also a further exchange of letters in regard to this case between the Secretary and Dr. Spath (see paragraph 3 above), as the result of which, at Mr. Hemming’s suggestion, Dr. Spath on 16th September 1943 furnished a statement of his views for the con- sideration of the International Commission. The statement so furnished by Dr. Spath was as follows :— I am taking the view that the species Ammonites cordatus has never been anything but monotypic. As Healey (1905), Crick (1910), and others recognized, the original of Sowerby’s fig. 2 has always been the holotype of Amm. cordatus and thus is not “ subject to change ”’. For according to Art. 30, ii e.g. the original of Sowerby’s fig. 4, being only doubtfully referred to the species by its author, is excluded from consideration in determining the type. With regard to any confusion that may arise, it seems to me that a number of ammonite species have been or are being loosely or wrongly used by certain stratigraphers (in the opinion of their rivals) so that zonal nomenclature is constantly being changed and rectified. But the fact that the name cordatus zone is wrongly used in stratigraphy (which I deny) has nothing to do with the status of the species Ammonites cordatus and is irrelevant from the point of view of zoological nomen- clature. 7. In the summer of 1944, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary to the Commission, prepared, in consultation with Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England), at that time President of the Commission, the OPINION 235 323 following note on the scope of the proposal submitted by Dr. Arkell :— On the scope of the proposal submitted to the International Commission by Dr. W. J. Arkell in relation to the name ‘‘ Ammonites cordatus ”’ Sowerby, 1813 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.) The proposal now before the International Commission in relation to the name Ammonites cordatus Sowerby, 1813, is :— (1) that the International Commission should :— (a) suppress the designation by Miss Healey (1905) of the species figured by Sowerby (1813) as fig. 2 on pl. 17 as the type of Ammonites cordatus Sowerby, 1813; and should (b) designate as the type of the above species the species figured by Sowerby (1813) as fig. 4 on pl. 17; (2) that the International Commission should stabilise Cardioceras cordatum (Sowerby, 1813) as index of the stratigraphical zone known as the “‘ Cordatus Zone’’, with Sowerby’s fig. 4 as type. Of the above proposals, proposal (1) would be within the power of the International Commission to grant if they were satisfied that the strict application of the Rules as applied to this case would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity ; for in that case the International Commission would be enabled to use the Plenary Powers granted them by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at Monaco in 1913 for the purpose of suspending the Rules as applied to this case. The question whether proposal (1) is one which could properly be granted by the Commission depends, therefore, on whether the evidence so far brought forward, together with any additional evidence which may be brought forward during the consideration of this case, satisfies them that the strict application of the Rules as applied to the present case would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. No limitation is imposed on the Commission as to the type of confusion of which account may be taken by them when considering in any given case whether they should make use of their Plenary Powers. It is, therefore, open to the Commission in such a case to take account not only of confusion in the taxonomic field but also (for example) of confusion in stratigraphical or other technical literature and confusion in textbooks and other standard works used in the teaching of zoology at the universities and elsewhere. Proposal (2) relates to an entirely different matter ; it is concerned not with a question of zoological nomenclature but with a question of palaeontological terminology. As such, proposal (2) is concerned with 324 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS a matter which falls outside the scope of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and is, therefore, a matter with which, under their existing powers, the International Commission is not authorised to deal. If the discussion arising from the initiative taken by Dr. Arkell in his recent paper on the “ Standard of the European Jurassic ’’! shows that there is a general desire on the part of palaeonto- logists that the nomenclature of stratigraphical zones should be brought under regulation, the International Commission will be glad to co- operate in the formulation of any such scheme, in so far as it raises, or impinges upon, questions relating to the nomenclature of the index fossils of such zones. 8. Dr. Arkell’s application and Mr. Hemming’s note were sent to the printer in October 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 26th June 1946 (Arkell, 1946, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 181—184, 1 pl.; Hemming, 1946, ibid. 1: 185). The publication in the Bulletin of Dr. Arkell’s application elicited the comment repro- duced in the following paragraph from the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America. 9. View of the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America: The view of the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America on this case was submitted in a letter dated 3rd November 1947 from Dr. J. Brookes Knight (Research Associate, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.), who at that time was Chair- man of the Joint Committee. The following is the text of that letter :-— On July 3, 1947 the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America submitted to the member- ship of the Committee for consideration and approval the following resolution :— RESOLVED: That the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature of Paleontology in America support the end sought in the petition of Dr. J. W. Arkell that the designation by Healey of the specimen shown by Sowerby as fig. 2 on plate 17 as lectotype of Ammonites cordatus to be set aside under suspension of the Régles and that the specimen shown by Sowerby as fig. 4 on the same plate be fixed as lectotype in its stead. In supporting the end sought in Arkell’s petition the Joint Committee expressly does not endorse the nomenclatural points presented by him, most of which it believes to be irrelevant if not disingenious. Likewise 1 Arkell, 1946, Bull. Amer. geol. Soc. 57 : 1—34. OPINION 235 325 it disapproves the establishment of any general principle that the use of a zoological name for a zone-fossil in stratigraphy necessarily requires the stabilization of that name contrary to the principles of zoological nomenclature or taxonomy. The vote of the membership was 6 for approval of the resolution and 5 for disapproval, with Stenzel absent and not voting. Those in the affirmative were Romer, Newell, Cooper, Moore, Keen and Knight ; in the negative were Simpson, Wells, Palmer, Frizzell and Reeside. Comments were as follows :— Romer—I agree with the resolution. But in my ignorance can the Commission fix the type specimen of a species ? Wells—Nay. Simpson—As it stands, I vote “Nay” on this resolution. I would support it if it embodied a brief statement as to why the Committee thinks suspension is justified and omitted the last two sentences. It seems bad practice to vote in favor of an action and accompany this vote by arguments against the action. It also seems to me unnecessary to bait Arkell or others who may agree with him, and this is likely to lead to needless dissension that paleontologists can ill afford if we are to get anywhere with efforts to clean up nomenclature. Keen—Yes, that is, I would support the recommendation he [Arkell] offers. Frizzell—I vote nay. Although I am not particularly con- cerned with this case, it seems to me that a dangerous precedent would be inaugurated. Incidentally, what Arkell wanted to have designated is a lectotype. The Rules sanction only “type of a species ’’ (insofar as I can discover). It is somewhat important to distinguish between a holotype and lectotype, since the latter never has the complete authenticity of the former.? Reeside—No. Commission should not designate holotype specimens. It is to be noted that Simpson’s objection is to the form of the Joint Committee’s resolution, not to its support of Arkell’s petition. Simp- son’s objections were circulated to the entire Committee and brought no second. Hence the resolution was not amended and the vote stands as cast. The Chairman is responsible for the wording of the resolution and should say that the protest on irrelevant and disingenious legal argumentation was aimed not so much at Arkell as at the all too 2 The point here raised by Dr. Frizzell was dealt with by the Thirteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, when it explicitly recognised the concepts of “holotype”? and “‘lectotype’’ and introduced definitions of those terms into the Régles (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 185—186). The position as regards type specimens was dealt with in further detail by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953 (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 72—78). 326 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS common practice of arguing disingeniously in support of desired objectives. Arkell’s legal argumentation as distinct from his request that the Régles be suspended, to which it is irrelevant, seems to be an example of this practice. Frizzell’s objection is based on the fact that the resolution originally contained the word “holotype’’ where the more correct wording would have been “‘lectotype’’. Since the difference in wording does not affect the tenor of the resolution and constitutes only a technical correction, the word “lectotype’’ in the resolution submitted to the commission replaces the word “ holotype ”’ of the original draft. Reeside’s comment suggests that his vote was conditioned on his contention that the types of species are no concern of the Commission, a view that the Chairman feels would be difficult to support except on the negative grounds that the Régles as at present constituted fail to provide for the type of a species except in an inferential way in Appendix A. On the other hand several Opinions recognize their existence. Surely here is a point badly in need of explicit clarification.? In view of the closeness of the vote on this resolution (with one member not voting) the Joint Committee does not feel justified in taking a stand. Nevertheless it passes on to the Commission the resolution and the record of the vote, with comments, for what it may be worth as a contribution to the Commission’s study of the case. 10. 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 in the present case was issued to the serial publications prescribed by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913. The publication of this notice elicited no objection to the action proposed. Ill.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 11. The present application was considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Thirteenth Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi- théatre 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 this case at the foregoing meeting (Paris 3 The defect in the Rég/es here referred to by Dr. Brookes Knight has since been rectified by the International Congress of Zoology. See Footnote 2. OPINION 235 327 Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 32) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 392—393) :— THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their Plenary Powers :— (a) to set aside all selections of a lectotype for Ammonites cordatus Sowerby 1813 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) made prior to the present decision ; (b) to designate figure 4 on plate 17 of volume 1 of Sowerby’s Mineral Conchology of Great Britain, published in 1813, to be the lectotype of Ammonites cordatus Sowerby, 1813 ; (2) to place the trivial name cordatus Sowerby, 1813 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites cordatus), determined as specified in (1) (b) above, on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; (3) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) and (2) above. 12. The decision taken in this 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 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 107). 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 Hanko ; Metcalf vice Peters; Riley vice Calman; Rode ; Sparck vice Mortensen ; van Straelen vice Richter : Usinger vice Vokes. 328 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 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 1 in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 16. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accord- ingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 17. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two Hundred and Thirty-Five (235) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London this Ninth day of December, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Three. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by MetcaLre & CooreR LimiteEp, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2 +77 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 4. Part 26. Pp. 329—342, 1 text-fig. OPINION 236 Acceptance for nomenclatorial purposes of the work by Morten Thrane Brunnich entitled Zoologiae Fundamenta published in 1771 ENN HSON/, » JUL 9= 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 Six Shillings and Threepence (All rights reserved) Issued 21st May, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 236 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 JorDAm (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. PrtTERS (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). ID}r ee 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 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. Ritey (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). Protea ever L. Usincer (University of California, Berkeley, California, (U.S.A.). OPINION 236 ACCEPTANCE FOR NOMENCLATORIAL PURPOSES OF THE WORK BY MORTEN THRANE BRUNNICH ENTITLED ‘** ZOOLOGIAE FUNDAMENTA ”’ PUBLISHED IN 1771 RULING :—In the work entitled Zoologiae Funda- menta published in 1771 (not 1772, as commonly stated) Briinnich (Morten Thrane) complied with the require- ments of Proviso (b) to Article 25 of the Rég/es, and new generic names published in that work are therefore available for nomenclatorial purposes. (2) The foregoing work is hereby placed on the Official List of Works Approved as Available in Zoological Nomenclature as Work No. 4. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 18th November 1943 Mr. R. Winckworth (London) submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature the following application for a ruling on the status of the nine new generic names published in Briinnich’s Zoologiae Fundamenta of 1771 (attributed by Mr. Winckworth to 1772) :— On the generic names published by Brimnich, 1772, ‘* Zoologiae Fundamenta ”” : By R. WINCKWORTH (London) I hereby apply to the International Commission for an Opinion on the status of the generic names of Brinnich, 1772, Zoologiae Funda- menta, in particular asking that Tonna Brinnich, 1772 (Class Gastropoda 332 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Order Mesogastropoda) should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Buccinum galea Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 734, as type. The title page of this book reads: ‘“M. TH. BRUNNICHII ZOOLOGIAE FUNDAMENTA ...GRUNDE I DYRELAREN. Hafniae et Lipsiae. MDCCLXXII”. The book, an octavo of 254 pages, is written throughout in Latin (left-hand pages) with a Danish translation (right-hand pages). In the Danish version the generic names are vernacular ; thus “ Ceratodon’’ corresponds to “ Narhval ”’. The new genera in this work require consideration as, although the author closely follows the Linnean system, and even keeps much of the wording of the 10th and 12th editions of the Systema Naturae (1767), no specific names are given, since the object of the book is to give a survey of the Animal Kingdom with tables of all the genera. Brinnich remarks in the preface: “‘ Enumeratio specierum nimis foret prolixa ”’. As an example of Briinnich’s method I give a facsimile of page 246, in which it may be noted that the descriptions there given correspond very closely with the descriptions of the same genera in Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) and 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2). I have stressed the.close adherence to the wording of the Systema Naturae of Linnaeus (Brunnich was clearly acquainted with both the tenth and the twelfth editions), because, when that is recognised, the new genera can be directly interpreted from the Systema; on that understanding species available as types can be listed. Among authors mentioned by Brunnich, Brisson and Pallas are given in the chapters on Mammata and Aves; “Pallas 1766” is again given as an author on Zoophyta; in the chapter on Insecta ““ingeniosus Geoffroy’ follows ‘‘ Systematicorum princeps C. de Linné’’. Of fifteen of the genera not found in Linnaeus, the authorship appears to be attributed as follows :— (Gj) Mammata To Brisson, 1762 :—Lutra, Hyaena, Giraffa, Tapirus, Cerodon. To Pallas, 1766 :—Antilope. (11) Aves To Brisson, 1760 :—Torquilla, Galbula, Momotus, Colius, Ficedula. To Pallas, 1768 :—Xanthornus. (i111) Insecta Cryptocephala from the errata on page 254 seems to be a lapse for Cryptocephalus Geoffroy, 1762. (iv) Zoophyta To Pallas, 1766 :—Antipathes, Brachionus. OPINION 236 246 hoy (omen ty Mollufcum, Teftaceum, Univalve, Multiloculare, Siphone interiori communicans, Spirale rotundatum - © NAUTILUS, Elongatum reftiusculum - ORTHOCEROS, Siphone exteriori communicans - AMMONIA. Uniloculare, Spirale, Apertura integra, Dilarata, ‘Tefta cymbiformis, Spirainvolutaoceulta) - ARGONAUTA, Tefta auriformis, Spira lateralis occulta - HALIOTIS. Coarétata, Orbicularis : ° . TURBO. Tetragono-rotundata ° TROCHUS, Lunaris ° - ° HELIX, Semiorbicularis e - NERITA. Longitudinaliter oblonga, Columellalevisy.plicata - - BULLA, Apertura effufa, Coar€tata, Linearis, Columella levis ° ° CONUS, Columella plicata - - VOLUTA, Columella & labrum multiden- tata . “ CYPR/EA, - Mollu- 333 334 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS There remain the following nine genera which must be regarded as new :— (1) Manatus and (2) Rosmarus (: 38, also listed : 34). These correspond to the species Trichechus manatus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1:34, and Trichechus rosmarus Linnaeus, 1766, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1:49 respectively. In Opinion 112 suspension of the Rules was declined for Manatus Brunnich, 1772, versus Trichechus Linnaeus, 1758, respectively, but the status of Manatus Briinnich was not questioned. (3) Cercopithecus (: 40, also listed : 34). The table separates Cercopithecus “‘ cauda elongata” from Simia “‘ cauda abrupta vel nulla ’’, so that the name is equivalent to Linnaeus’ section of Simia “Cauda elongata. Cercopitheci”. Sherborn gives Cercopithecus Gronovius, 1763, but the Zoophylacium of Gronovius (1763) has been suppressed by the International Commission under their Plenary Powers in Opinion 89. Quite apart from this, Brunnich did not refer to Gronovius in this chapter and the name Cercopithecus must, therefore, be regarded as a new proposal by Briinnich. Opinion 104 places Cercopithecus on the Official List as from Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 26, with Simia diana Linnaeus, 1758, as type. This decision, however, requires reconsideration in view of Opinion 124, which does not recognise the names of subdivisions published by Linnaeus, 1758, as being of subgeneric status as of that date, and also the recent Opinion 1831, by which generic names published in the plural have no status until republished in the nominative singular. (4) Hydrochaeris (: 44, also listed : 36) appears to be an emenda- tion of Hydrochoerus Brisson, 1762, Regn. anim. : 80, and to refer to Sus hydrochaeris Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 103. (5) Xiphosura (: 208, also listed as Xiphisura : 184), clearly intended for Monoculus polyphemus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 634, for which species “‘ Xiphosura Gronovius”’ is quoted by Linnaeus in 1767 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 1057). By Opinion 104, Limulus Miller, 1785, has been placed on the Official List with the same species as type. That decision will need to be re- examined in the light of whatever decision may be taken by the International Commission in regard to Briinnich, 1772. (6) Orthoceros and (7) Ammonia (: 246, also listed : 232) are separated from Nautilus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 709. Orthoceros “ Elongatum, rectiusculum” is equivalent to the Linnean subdivision “‘ Elongati, erectiusculi”’ of Nautilus, 1 An explanation regarding the present position of the name Cercopithecus in relation to the Official List will be published in Opinion 238 (pp. 351—360 of the present volume), together with the decision of the Commission in regard to that name. OPINION 236 335 which includes Nautilus raphanus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 711 (the type of Orthocera Lamarck, 1799, Mém. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris 1799 : 80) and Nautilus orthocera Linnaeus, 1758 (: 711), a fossil, and other species. Ammonia “ Siphone exteriori communicans’”’ can be inter- preted from the pre-Linnean Gualtieri, 1742 (referred to by Brunnich and frequently cited by Linnaeus). Plate 19 of Gualtieri’s Index Testarum figures three genera of Polythalamia ; these are referred to in the legend as (i) Nautilus, (ii) Ammonia, which includes figures of Nautilus spirula Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 710, and Nautilus beccarii Linnaeus, 1758, ibid. (ed. 10) 1 : 710, and (iii) Orthocera. The case of Ammonia is a difficult one. If N. spirula Linnaeus were to be taken as the type of this genus, the name Ammonia Brunnich would antedate Spirula Lamarck, 1799, Mém. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris 1799 : 80. In that event, the name should be suppressed by the International Commission under their Plenary Powers, since the replacement of Spirula Lamarck in this way would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. On the other hand, it is possible that workers in Foraminifera would see no objection to the designation of N. beccarii Linnaeus as the type of Ammonia Brinnich. As regards Orthoceros, the type must be one of the species numbered 240—249 in the section ‘‘ Elongati erectiusculi”’ of the genus Nautilus Linnaeus, 1758. I do not think that Nautilus orthocera Linnaeus, 1758, (sp. no. 249) should be regarded as type by absolute tautonymy, for Briinnich’s work is not concerned with fossils. (8) Tonna and (9) Cassida (: 248, also listed : 232) are separated from Buccinum Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 734. Reference to pages 734 and 735 of the 10th edition shows that these new genera correspond to the first two subdivisions, ** Ampullacea ” and “‘ Cassidea ”’, of the genus Buccinum Linnaeus, as defined in that edition. Tonna Briinnich, however, is used by many authors for Dolium Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. sans Vert. : 79, e.g. by Dall, 1909, Prof. Pap. U.S. geol. Surv. 59:71; by Suter, 1913, Manual N.Z. Moll. : 314, where Buccinum galea Linnaeus, 1758, is desig- nated as the type of Tonna Briinnich ; and by Hedley, 1919, Rec. Aust. Mus. 12 : 329. As already stated, I recommend that the name Jonna Brunnich (type : Buccinum galea Linnaeus, 1758) be added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. If the name Tonna Briinnich were to be rejected, the next available name would be Cadus RGding, 1798, Mus. Bolten. (2) : 150 (type : Buccinum perdix Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 734, so 336 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS designated by Woodring, 1928, Carnegie Inst., Wash. 385 : 311 (“ Miocene Mollusks from Bowden, Jamaica, Part 2 ’’)). Cassida Briinnich, 1772, is pre-occupied by Cassida Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 362. Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. On receipt, the present application was given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.)151. After an exchange of correspondence with the Secretary, Mr. Winckworth agreed that it would assist the Commission in dealing with this application if it were to have before it a specimen of a representative page illustrating the nature of Briimnich’s Zoologiae Fundamenta. After further correspondence between the Secretary and Mr. Winckworth it was agreed to select for this purpose page 246 of Briinnich’s book, this page having the advantage not only of being a thor- oughly representative page but also of being the page on which appeared the name Orthoceros Brinnich,? a name of direct interest to the Commission in connection with an application before it regarding the name Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789 (File Z.N.(S.)44). 3. Mr. Winckworth’s application was sent to the printer in September 1944, and was published on 26th July 1945 (Winck- worth, 1945, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 113—117, 1 text fig.). The publication of this application elicited a comment from Dr. Curt Teichert (University of Western Australia, Department of Geology, Nedlands, Western Australia). 4. Comment by Dr. Curt Teichert (University of Western Australia) : On 14th January 1946, Dr. Curt Teichert (University * The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature decided at its Session held in Paris in 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 312—313) to invite the Secretary to submit a Report as soon as possible on the issues raised by the name Orthoceros Briimnich. In pursuance of this mandate, an appeal for advice from specialists was issued by the Secretary in 1952 (ibid. 7 : 196—197). It is hoped that it will be possible to publish the Secretary’s Report on this case in volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological pam the issue of which will begin shortly. OPINION 236 337 of Western Australia, Nedlands, Western Australia) submitted the following comment on this case :— In this Bulletin 1 : 113 R. Winckworth submits an application to the International Commission for an Opinion on the status of the generic names published in Briinnich’s Zoologiae Fundamenta. The date of publication of this work, however, is 1771, not 1772, as usually stated (see also Opinions 90 and 112). The University of Copenhagen, Denmark, possesses two copies of Briinnich’s book, one dated 1771, the other 1772. Otherwise the two copies are identical. Perhaps only a limited number of copies was printed in 1771 and only the reprint of 1772 attained a wider circulation. The generic name Orthoceros was discussed at some length by C. Teichert and A. K. Miller, American Journal of Science 31 : 359— 360, where it was suggested that it should be regarded in the light of Opinion 46. To attempt to find out what species Brunnich might have had in mind when he established this and other generic names seems to be hopeless and irrelevant. The name Orthoceros is, therefore, available for any more or less straight, elongate, multilocular, univalve mollusc with an internal siphuncle. Since such forms are not now living, it cannot be said that Bruinnich’s work is not concerned with fossils. Teichert and Miller stated that the name Orthoceros had apparently never been used in connection with a specific name and that, therefore, according to Opinion 46, any species, for example Orthoceratites regularis Schlotheim, 1820, might be selected as geno- type. This suggestion was supported by Ulrich, Foerste, Miller, and Unklesbay, Geological Society of America, Special Papers 58 : 60. IIL—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 5. The present application was considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Twelfth Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphithéatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 1445 hours. The following extract from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission gives a summary of the statement made by Mr. Winckworth, in introducing this case, and of the subsequent discussion (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 308—309):— MR. R. WINCK WORTH (UNITED KINGDOM) said that in the Zoologiae Fundamenta Briinnich gave a general description 338 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS in Latin (left-hand pages) and Danish (right-hand pages) of the classification of the Animal Kingdom, including tables of all the genera. He did not, however, cite the names of species, as regards which he stated in the preface: “‘ Enumeratio specierum nimis foret prolixa”’. It was evident that it was only on the grounds of space that Brinnich stopped short at the genus level. He (Mr. Winckworth) asked the Commission to declare that the generic names used by Brunnich in the Zoologiae Fundamenta were avail- able under Article 25 of the Régles. He asked also that one of the new names published by Briinnich, namely Jonna Brimnich, should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Buccinum galea Linnaeus, 1758, as type species. The other new generic names published in the Zoologiae Fundamenta would need to be dealt with on their merits in the light of advice received from specialists, but it might be thought appropriate to suppress the name Orthoceros Brinnich, for, if Nautilus orthocera Linnaeus, 1758, were to be taken as the type species, it would run counter to the plan of Brinnich’s book which was not concerned with fossils. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) suggested that it might be convenient to take a decision first on the general issue involved, and second, to take such decisions as might be considered appropriate in regard to individual names concerned. As to the nature of that decision, he was in full agreement with Mr. Winckworth that Briinnich’s Zoologiae Fundamenta satisfied the requirements of Article 25 and that it was desirable that the Commission should render an Opinion to that effect. He was however of the opinion also that, in order to prevent the recurrence in the case of other books of doubts similar to those which had arisen in the present case, it was desirable that the Commission should recommend to the Section on Nomenclature that words should be inserted in the Régles clarifying the application of Proviso (b) to Article 25 in relation to books such as Briinnich’s Zoologiae Fundamenta. The Acting President further observed that, as the Commission were painfully aware from their exper- ience with Meigen’s Nouvelle Classification of 1800, it was often very dangerous for the Commission to give a ruling that a given book was an available book without at the same time examining the effect of that decision on the nomenclature of the group OPINION 236 339 concerned, for such a decision, although perfectly correct, was capable of causing great confusion in nomenclature, unless appropriate preventive action were taken immediately by the Commission under its Plenary Powers. He accordingly suggested that the Commission should recommend to the Section on Nomenclature that there should be inserted in the Régles a provision prescribing that, where the Commission gave a ruling that a given book satisfied the requirements of Article 25, it should be the duty of the Commission, in consultation with specialists, to examine the names first published in that book and, having done so, to place on the appropriate Official List such of the names concerned as were nomenclatorially available and also the oldest available names for the taxonomic units concerned, except, where the adoption of any given name concerned would lead to instability and confusion in the nomenclature of the group concerned, in which case it should be made the duty of the Commission to suppress the name concerned under their Plenary Powers. It should be the duty of the Commission also to place on the appro- priate Official Index any new name published in such a book that was either not available nomenclatorially or was not the oldest available name for the taxonomic unit concerned, together with any name which might have been suppressed under the Plenary Powers under the procedure suggested above. 6. The decision taken by the International Commission on the general question of the availability or otherwise of Brinnich’s Zoologiae Fundamenta ts set out as follows in the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission at the foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 12th Meeting, Conclusion 2) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 309—310) :— THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that, where, prior to Ist January, 1931, an author had published a new generic name in a work dealing with classification down to the generic level but no further, it was not necessary for the purpose of Proviso (b) to Article 25 that in the work concerned the author in question should have cited trivial names of species 340 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS under that genus or other genera discussed in the book concerned, provided that it was evident that the author concerned would have applied the principles of binom- inal nomenclature for species if in the book concerned he had dealt with taxonomic units below the genus level ; (2) to recommend that words should be inserted in Article 25, embodying, in relation to Proviso (b) to that Article, the interpretation given in (1) above ; (3) to render an Opinion stating that, for the reasons given in (1) above, the generic names published in Briinnich, 1771, Zoologiae Fundamenta complied with the require- ments of Article 25 of the Régles. (4) to recommend that a provision should be inserted in the Régles, prescribing that, where the Commission gave a ruling that a given book of previously doubtful status satisfied the requirements of Article 25, it should be the duty of the Commission in consultation with specialists, to examine the names first published in that book and, having done so, (a) to place on the appropriate Official List such of the names concerned as are (i) nomenclatorially available and (ii) the oldest available names for the taxonomic units concerned, save, in the latter event, where, in the opinion of the. Commission, the adoption of the name concerned would cause instability and confusion in the nomen- clature of the group concerned, in which case the name in question should be suppressed under the Plenary Powers, and (b) to place on the appropriate Officia. Index any name found to be either not available nomenclatorially or not the oldest name for the taxo- nomic unit in question, together with any name or names suppressed under the Plenary Powers in accord- ance with (a) above. 7. The decision taken in the present case was reported to, and approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth a ee OPINION 236 341 International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Fourth Meeting held on 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 98—100). 8. 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. 9. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the Paris Session. 10. 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 Zoological Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature and directing the insertion therein of the title of any work which the International Commission on - Zoological Nomenclature might declare to be an available work, together with any supplementary decisions which the International Commission might take in regard to any aspect of such a work (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 24). Since the foregoing provision applies to past, as well as to future, decisions by the International Commission in cases of this kind, the oppor- tunity presented by the preparation of the present Opinion has been taken to record the insertion in the foregoing Official List of the title of Briinnich’s Zoologiae Fundamenta with a note that the date of publication of this work is “1771 ” and not “ 1772”, as commonly stated. 11. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in 342 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accord- ingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the undersigned Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in tha behalf. ; 12. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two Hundred and Thirty-Six (236) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. DonE in London this Ninth day of December, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Three. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by MrtcatFe & Cooprr Limitep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C2 ; : 3 4 I 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 4. Part 27. Pp. 343—350 OPINION 237 Addition of the generic name Jonna Briinnich, 1771 (Class Gastropoda) to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology NN HSON/, » JUL 9- 1954 LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Three Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 21st May, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 237 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. PrTerRs (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. 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). preles et Robert L. UsINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California, .9.A,), OPINION 237 ADDITION OF THE GENERIC NAME ‘“TONNA ” BRUNNICH, 1771 (CLASS GASTROPODA) TO THE ‘“ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ”’ RULING :—(1) The generic name Tonna Brinnich, 1771 (gender of name: feminine) (type species, by selection by Suter, 1913 : Buccinum galea Linnaeus, 1758) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 666. (2) The specific name galea Linnaeus, 1758, as pub- lished in the combination Buccinum galea, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 55. I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE In his application Z.N.(S.) 151 of 18th November 1943, Mr. R. Winckworth (London) asked, first, for a ruling regarding the availability for nomenclatorial purposes of Briinnich’s Zoologiae Fundamenta of 1771 (attributed by Mr. Winckworth to 1772), and, second for the addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the generic name Jonna Brinnich, as published in the foregoing work. Mr. Winckworth’s application has been reproduced in full in Opinion 236 (: 329—342). Accordingly, only the paragraph relating to the name Tonna Brinnich is quoted here :— (8) Tonna and (9) Cassida (: 248, also listed : 232) are separated from Buccinum Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 734. Reference to pages 734 and 735 of the 10th edition shows that these new genera correspond to the first two subdivisions, 346 2. OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS ““ Ampullacea”’ and “‘Cassidea”, of the genus Buccinum Linnaeus, as defined in that edition. Tonna Briinnich, however, is used by many authors for Dolium Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. sans Vert. : 79, e.g. by Dall, 1909, Prof. Pap. U.S. geol. Sury. 59:71; by Suter, 1913, Manual N.Z. Moll. : 314, where Buccinum galea Linnaeus, 1758, is designated as type of Tonna Briinnich ; and by Hedley, 1919, Rec. Aust. Mus. 12 : 329. As already stated, I recommend that the name Jonna Briinnich (type: Buccinum galea Linnaeus, 1758) be added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. If the name Tonna Briinnich were to be rejected, the next available name would be Cadus Roding, 1798, Mus. Bolten. (2) : 150 (type: Buccinum perdix Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 734, so designated by Woodring, 1928, Carnegie Inst., Wash. 385 : 311 (“‘ Miocene Mollusks from Bowden, Jamaica, Part 9) a0) Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE The subsequent history of Mr. Winckworth’s application is recorded in Opinion 236, where also is set out the decision of the International Commission ruling in favour of the availability of the new generic names published in Briinnich’s Zoologiae Fundamenta of 1771 (not 1772, as stated in the application). It was in the light of the foregoing decision on the question of principle involved that the International Commission then proceeded to consider the portion of Mr. Winckworth’s applica- tion which was concerned with the particular name Tonna Briinnich, 1771. WWi—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 3. The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Twelfth Meeting of its Paris Session held at OPINION 237 347 the Sorbonne in the Amphithéatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 1445 hours, setting out the decision then reached in the present case (Paris Session, 12th Meeting, Conclusion 3) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 310) :-— THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to place the generic name Jonna Briinnich, 1771 (type species ; Buccinum galea Linnaeus, 1758, designated by Suter, 1913) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (2) to place the specific trivial name galea Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Buccinum galea), on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; (3) to render an Opinion recording the decisions set out in (1) and (2) above. 4. The following are the original references for the names which appear in the decision set out in the immediately preceding paragraph :— galea, Buccinum, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 734 Tonna Briinnich, 1771, Zool. Fund. : 248, 232 The reference to the type selection for Tonna by Suter is : Suter, 1913, Manual N.Z. Moll. : 314. 5. The gender of the generic name Tonna Briinnich, 1771, referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 3 above, is feminine. 6. 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 Fourth 348 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Meeting held on 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 98—100). 7. 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. 8. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the Paris Session. 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 ”’ 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. 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 accord- ingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to OPINION 237 349 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 Thirty-Seven (237) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London this Ninth day of December, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Three. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Metcatre & Cooper Limitep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 4. Part 28. Pp. 351—360 OPINION 238 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic name Cercopithecus as from Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Mammalia) (correction of an error in Opinion 104) \THSON, oN WW JUL.9= 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 Three Shillings and Ninepence (All rights reserved) Issued 21st May, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISISON ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 238 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. a E. Vokes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.). Class 1955 Professor Dr. Hilbrand BoscuHMa (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 SpARCK (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). Professor Robert L. USINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A. OPINION 238 VALIDATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE GENERIC NAME “CERCOPITHECUS”” AS FROM LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS MAMMALIA) (CORRECTION OF AN ERROR IN “OPINION” 104) RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers the generic name Cercopithecus (Class Mammalia) is hereby validated as from Linnaeus, 1758, and Simia diana Linnaeus, 1758, 1S cor gnated as the type species of the nominal genus so named. (2) As validated under (1) above and with the above species as type species, the name Cercopithecus Linnaeus, 1758 (gender of name : masculine) entered in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in accordance with the direction in Opinion 104, is hereby confirmed in its position in that List. (3) The specific name diana Linnaeus, 1758, as pub- lished in the combination Simia diana, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 56. (4) The name Cercopithecus Briinnich, 1771, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 61. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE In December 1943, Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, dis- covered, when checking the entries in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, that the entry on that List of the name Cercopithecus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Mammalia) made in accord- ance with the directions in the Commission’s Opinion 104 was 354 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS incorrect, there being under the Régles, no such generic name. A note was accordingly made that this matter would require to be examined by the International Commission before the Official List could be published in book form. When in the spring of 1938 Mr. Hemming was preparing outstanding applica- tions for consideration by the International Commission at the Session arranged to be held at Paris later in that year, he drew up the following note on the present case which on 15th May 1948 he placed on the File Z.N.(S.) 333, which had been opened for this purpose :— The generic name ‘‘ Cercopithecus ”’ By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) In preparing the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for pub- lication in book-form, I have found an erroneous entry in Opinion 104 (1928, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 5) : 28) in regard to the name Cercopithecus. This generic name is there stated to have been pub- lished by Linnaeus in 1758 on page 26 of the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae. It is also stated in Opinion 104 that the type species of this genus is Simia diana Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 26) ““tsd. 1926”, ie. “type by subsequent designation” by some (unstated) author in 1926. 2. Reference to the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae shows that Linnaeus never published a generic name Cercopithecus. What he did was to establish a genus Simia (: 25) and to divide the species placed by him in that genus into three groups, to which he applied terms in the nominative plural, the third group being separated under the term Cercopitheci. About the same time that the Commission adopted Opinion 104, it began a study of the problem represented by terms of this kind used by Linnaeus to denote groups of species within given genera. The discussions on this subject were protracted and it was not until 1936 that the Opinion (Opinion 124) giving the Commission’s decision was published (1936, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 8) : 1—2). In this Opinion the Commission gave the following ruling :—“ The various Subdivisions of genera published by Linnaeus in 1758 are not to be accepted as of this date (1758) as of subgeneric value under the International Rules ”’. 3. In view of Opinion 124, it is clear that there is no such generic name as Cercopithecus Linnaeus, 1758, and that the entry of this alleged generic name on the Official List in Opinion 104 is incorrect. 4. It should be noted however that the later Opinion 124 contains the text of a paragraph which it is there stated that the Commission adopted OPINION 238 355 in the Minutes of the Meeting which it held on 30th August 1930 during its Padua Session, which, although forming the basis of the decision recorded in this Opinion, contains an important pronouncement of policy which, it must be presumed through inadvertence, was not included in the ruling given in the so-called ““Summary’. This paragraph reads as follows :— After a discussion of the so-called subgenera in Linnaeus, 1758a, 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. 5. It is quite clear that in taking its decision on the general issue the Commission, in Opinion 124, overlooked the fact that it had already accepted, and placed on the Official List as an available name, a term of the kind which under that Opinion it rejected as possessing no status in zoological nomenclature. It may be presumed that, if the Commis- sion had then recalled its action in regard to the so-called generic name Cercopithecus Linnaeus, 1758, it would, at the time of the adoption of Opinion 124, have proceeded to validate the name Cercopithecus under the procedure laid down at Padua (quoted in paragraph 4 above). 6. The question which has now to be considered is what action should be taken to correct the erroneous entry in Opinion 104. Broadly speaking, there are only two possible courses of action open to the Commission, namely :—(1) to use its Plenary Powers to validate the name Cercopithecus as from Linnaeus, 1758; (2) to ascertain, by a search of the literature undertaken in conjunction with specialists in the Primates, what is the first valid use of the word Cercopithecus as a _ generic name, and, having done so, to substitute the name so ascertained for the erroneous entry of Cercopithecus Linnaeus, 1758, made in the Official List in Opinion 104. The second of these courses is open to the objection that in a case of this kind it is always possible, however careful the search made of the old literature, that some ancient use of a name may have been overlooked. Moreover, quite apart from this risk, there is the further danger that the oldest use of such a name may not have been in harmony with what is now currently accepted nomenclatorial usage and therefore that the adoption of the name as so published would not avoid the need for the use by the International Commission of its Plenary Powers, for they would still be necessary for the purpose of varying the type species of the genus concerned in order to avoid undesirable name-changing. For these reasons, I am of the opinion that the best course in the present case would be to resort to the procedure laid down by the Commission at its meeting held at Padua on 30th August 1930, that is, that it should use its Plenary Powers to validate the name Cercopithecus as from Linnaeus, 1758. 356 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 7. There remains the question of the action to be taken for deter- mining the species to be accepted as the type species of the genus Cercopithecus. If, as proposed above, the Plenary Powers are used to clothe with availability the at present non-existent generic name Cercopithecus Linnaeus, 1758, the position will be that the nominal genus so named will be without a type species, as any type selections which may have been made for it must have been invalid, since it is obviously impossible to make a valid type selection for a non-existent nominal genus. The Commission will therefore be perfectly free to designate, as the type species of Cercopithecus Linnaeus, 1758, when validated under the Plenary Powers, whatever species would, in its opinion, best harmonise with current nomenclatorial practice. In view of the fact that ever since the publication of Opinion 104 in 1928 the species Simia diana Linnaeus, 1758, has been on record in the Official List as the type species, I suggest that that species should be designated by the Commission to be the type species of Cercopithecus when that name is validated under the Plenary Powers. 8. I accordingly recommend that the erroneous entry of the name Cercopithecus Linnaeus, 1758, made in the Official List in Opinion 104 should be rectified by the validation of that name by the Commission under its Plenary Powers as from Linnaeus, 1758. I further recommend that at the same time the Commission should designate Simia diana Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of the nominal genus so named. Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. The problem of the name Cercopithecus arose at Paris independently of the note prepared by Mr. Hemming, for that name was one of the nine new generic names in Brunnich’s Zoologiae Fundamenta, the status of which formed the subject of an application which had been submitted to the International Commission by Mr. R. Winckworth at the end of 1943. Accordingly, as soon as the Commission had dealt with Mr. Winckworth’s application by according recognition to Brunnich’s Zoologiae Fundamenta for nomenclatorial purposes,! it decided at once to take into consideration the problems raised by those of the new generic names published in that work which had already been subjected to careful study. The fact that con- sideration of the name Cercopithecus Briinnich, 1771, involved 1 See Opinion 236 (pp. 329—342). OPINION 238 357 also consideration of the reputed but at that time non-existent name Cercopithecus Linnaeus, 1758, made it necessary in this instance to make use of the facilities afforded by the decision taken earlier in the Paris Session (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 7—8) to suspend the By-Laws of the Commission for the duration of that Session. Ii—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 3. The present application was considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Twelfth Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphithéatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 1445 hours. The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Pro- ceedings of the International Commission, setting out the decision reached by it in this case at the foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 12th Meeting, Conclusion 4) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 310—311) :-— THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their Plenary Powers to validate the name Cerco- pithecus as from Linnaeus, 1758, and to designate Simia diana Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of this genus ; (2) to confirm, in the light of (1) above, the (previously erroneous) entry of the name Cercopithecus Linnaeus, 1758 (type species as specified in (1) above), made in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in accordance with the directions given in Opinion 104 ; (3) to place the specific trivial name diana Linnaeus, 1758 (as originally published in the combination Simia diana) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, and the name Cercopithecus Briinnich, 1771, on the 358 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (4) to render an Opinion setting out the decisions recorded in (1) to (3) above. 4. The following are the original references for the names which appear in the decision set out in the immediately preceding paragraph :— Cercopithecus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 26 Cercopithecus Briinnich, 1771, Zool. Fund. : 40, 34 diana, Simia Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 26. 5. The gender of the generic name Cercopithecus Linnaeus, 1758, referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 3 above, is masculine. 6. The decision reached 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 Fourth Meeting held on 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencel. 5 : 98—100). 7. The Ruling 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 Hank6o ; Metcalf vice Peters; Riley vice Calman; Rode; Sparck vice Mortensen ; van Straelen vice Richter ; Usinger vice Vokes. 8. The Ruling in the present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the Paris Session. OPINION 238 359 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” 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. 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 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. 11. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two Hundred and Thirty-Eight (238) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. DonE in London this Tenth day of December, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Three. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 4. Part 29. Pp. 361—372 OPINION 239 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of type species for the nominal genera Podura Linnaeus, 1758, and Tomocerus Nicolet, [1842] (Class Insecta, Order Collembola) in harmony with accustomed nomenclatorial Bae ZeitHSON gs JUL 9- 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 Four Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 21st May, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 239 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. 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 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). rofessor Harold Kirsy (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). Dr. Henning LemcueE (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). ae Robert L. UstnGer (University of California, Berkeley, California, S.A). OPINION 239 DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF TYPE SPECIES FOR THE NOMINAL GENERA ‘ PODURA ”’ LINNAEUS, 1758, AND ‘“* TOMOCERUS ”’ NICOLET, [1842] (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLLEMBOLA) IN HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED NOMENCLATORIAL USAGE RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers all type selections for the under-mentioned genera made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside and the following species are designated to be the type species of those genera :—(a) Podura aquatica Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of the genus Podura Linnaeus, 1758; (b) Macrotoma minor Lubbock, 1862, to be the type species of the genus Tomocerus Nicolet, [1842]. (2) The entry in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the generic name Podura Linnaeus, 1758, made in accordance with the directions given in Opinion 104, is hereby confirmed, subject to the substitution, as regards its type species, of the species so designated under the Plenary Powers in (1)(a) above. (3) The generic name Tomocerus Nicolet, [1842] (gender of name: masculine) with the type species designated _ under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 667. (4) The under-mentioned ‘specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 57 and 58 :—(a) aquatica Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Podura aquatica; (b) minor Lubbock, 1862, as published in the combination Macrotoma minor, 364 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE The problem dealt with in the present Opinion came to notice from three different sources: first, Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Commission, while preparing the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for publication in book form, observed the equivocal and apparently contradictory entry made in regard to this name in Opinion 104, in which it was placed upon the Official List ; second, Dr. Hermann Gisin (Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle; Genéve) submitted a formal application for the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers in order to give valid force to the current use of the generic name Podura Linnaeus, 1758, and of the name Tomocerus Nicolet, [1842]; third, Dr. Jiri Paclt (then of the National Museum, Prague, Czechoslovakia) submitted an application covering, in general, the same ground as Dr. Gisin’s application. The documents so submitted are given in the immediately following paragraphs. 2. Note dated 9th February 1944 by Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission: On 9th February 1944 the following note was placed on the File Z.N.(G.) 15, in which papers relating to the proposed publication of the Official List in book form were at that time registered :— ‘* Podura ’’ Linnaeus, 1758 (‘* Opinion ”’ 104) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) When last year I started to examine the older Opinions of the Commission with the object of extracting from them the particulars regarding the generic names already placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology which will be needed when the Official List is published in book form, I was immediately struck by the un- satisfactory nature of the entry regarding the name Podura Linnaeus, 1758 made in Opinion 104 (Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 5) : 27), for in that entry Podura plumbea Linnaeus, 1758, is given as the type species but an ambiguous reference is then made to Podura aquatica Linnaeus, 1758, the species currently accepted as typifying the genus Podura. On my consulting Mr. N. D. Riley he replied on 28th Novem- ber 1943 enclosing a statement which included the following :— ‘‘ Throughout the literature, no doubt, Podura has been conceived of, in the light of aquatica L.”’, OPINION 239 365 It is evident from the information furnished by Mr. Riley that there is something seriously wrong with the entry made in the Official List in regard to the name Podura Linnaeus. A comprehensive application will need to be submitted to the Commission directly it is possible, in consultation with specialists in the group, to determine what action is required. 3. Application submitted by Dr. Hermann Gisin (Muséum d Histoire Naturelle, Genéve, Switzerland): Before any further action had been taken in this case a letter dated 27th November 1945 was received from Dr. Hermann Gisin (Muséum a’ Histoire Naturelle, Genéve) outlining a proposal for submission to the International Commission in regard to this case. After an exchange of letters with the Secretary, Dr. Gisin on 9th January 1946 submitted for the consideration of the International Commission a formal application which was then given the Registered No. Z.N.(S.) 199. The following is an extract from this application :— Need for suspension of rules in four cases of generic names in the Order Collembola (Insecta Apterygota) By HERMANN GISIN (Muséum @ Histoire naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) Podura Tomocerus Since its publication by Nicolet, [1842], the name Tomocerus is in universal use to designate a well defined, most common genus; we have good reason to establish this name as firmly as possible in the current acceptation, notwithstanding any other consideration. Unfortunately, both species—p/umbeus Lin. and celer Nic.— included by Nicolet, [1842], in his new genus, are nomina dubia. They are considered as such by all modern systematists ; all we can say is that they belong to the genus Tomocerus (subgenus Pogonognathus Borner). Now, Opinion 104 (generic names placed in the Official List) quotes Podura plumbea Lin. as type species of Podura Lin. (con- firming the first designation by Latreille, 1802, Hist. Crust. Ins. 3 : 72). On that ground, we should have to transfer Podura to Tomocerus, an unacceptable result to entomologists generally. In the whole enormous literature, Podura is restricted to a monotypic genus with the very common species aquatica Lin. In order to conserve, in a most practical manner, the current status, established by generations of workers, the International Commission 366 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS on Zoological Nomenclature is respectfully requested to recommend the following : (a) Under suspension of Rules (i) to set aside all existing type designations for Podura Linnaeus, 1758, and Tomocerus Nicolet, [1842]. (ii) to designate Podura aquatica Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 609 as type of Podura Linnaeus, 1758, ibidem. (iii) to designate Macrotoma minor Lubbock, 1862, Trans. Linn. Soc. 23 : 598 as type of Tomocerus Nicolet, [1842], N.D. allg. schweiz. Ges. 6 (3) : 67. (b) To change accordingly the type designation for Podura Lin. in the Official List. (c) To place Tomocerus Nic. on the Official List with type as above. 4. Application submitted by Dr. Jiri Paclt (then of the National Museum, Prague, Czechoslovakia): In a letter dated 21st May 1946, Dr. Jifi Paclt (then of the National Museum, Prague, Czechoslovakia) indicated his desire to submit an application in regard to the present case. This application, which was received on 18th August 1946, was as follows :— Proposal that under suspension of the Rules the genotype of ‘‘Podura’’ Linné, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola) should be fixed as **P. aquatica ’’ Linné By JIRI PACLT (National Museum, Prague, Czechoslovakia) In 1758 Linnaeus founded the genus Podura, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 608, including in it some species from which Latreille, 1802, Hist. nat. d’Ins. 3: 71, being the first author to select a type, specified plumbea Linnaeus (: 608). Later, Latreille (1806, Gen. Ins. 1 : 165, 1810, Consid. gén. : 423) reaffirmed plumbea as the type of Podura. Without regard to the latter type selection (1810, Table des genres) the species plumbea was the only one belonging to the genus Podura in the above mentioned works by Latreille. The next author to make a genotype was Tullberg, 1871, Ofv. Ak. Férh. 28 : 153, who chose Podura aquatica Linnaeus (: 609). With one exception (C. Borner), this choice was followed by all Collembologists. Also Apstein accepted in a list of Nomina conservanda (SB. Ges. naturf. Fr. Berlin 1915 : 152) the species aquatica as genotype while the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Opinion 104 (published 1928 in Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 : 27) interpreted the genus Podura in the sense of Latreille, monotypically with plumbea as type. OPINION 239 367 I am of the opinion that it would be highly undesirable to disturb the use of the name Podura Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 608, for Podura aquatica Linnaeus, 1758, having regard to the fact : (i) that that name has been almost universally applied to the species aquatica Linnaeus since 1871 ; - (ii) that the strict application of the Rules would transpose the name Podura to Podura plumbea Linnaeus, which is quite unidentifiable today and may be placed in another family of Collembola than P. aquatica Linnaeus. (iii) that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (: 26) when it decided upon the present genotype alteration, believed that this could not influence the position of the genus cited. For the reasons given above, I consider that a change on the ground of Latreille’s selection would produce a state of confusion, and con- sequently I ask the International Commission on Zoologial Nomen- clature to cancel the fixation of Podura plumbea Linnaeus by Latreille as the type of that genus. II.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 5. In 1946 Dr. Gisin arranged for the publication of a short note on his proposals in regard to this and certain other generic names in the Order Collembola for the purpose of calling atten- tion to the issues involved and of eliciting comments on the action proposed (Gisin, 1946, Mitt. schweiz. ent. Ges. 20 (1) : 135—136). The note so published bore the title “‘Sur la nomenclature de quelques genres importants de Collemboles ”’. 6. Issue of Public Notices: On 14th November 1947 a notice of the possible use, by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, of its Plenary Powers in the present case was issued to the serial publications prescribed by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913. 7. The publication of the foregoing notice elicited a comment dated 23rd March 1948 from Dr. Harlow B. Mills (Chief, State Natural History Survey Division, Department of Registration and Education, State of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.). The 368 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS following is an extract from Dr. Mills’ letter dealing with the present case, the remainder of the letter being concerned with Dr. Gisin’s other applications regarding the names of genera in the Order Collembola of which notice had been given at the same time as that in regard to the name Podura Linnaeus :— ‘* Podura ’’ Linnaeus, with the type ‘‘ Podura aquatica ’’ Linnaeus and ‘* Tomocerus ’’ Nicolet, with the type ‘‘ Tomocerus minor ”’ (Lubbock) While the suggestion may run counter to at least one previous ruling of the Commission and possibly to the best reasoning in the absence of actual type specimens, I am very much in favor of the suspension of the Rules to allow the use of the generic names Podura and Tomocerus as indicated by the types suggested. There has been approximately a century of usage of these generic names in this sense and a reshuffling of the names now would needlessly confuse the great body of literature which relates to these genera. 8. Support received from Mr. Maynard (University of Rochester, Rochester, N. Y., U.S.A.) : The following is an extract from a letter dated 17th November 1947 from Dr. Gisin, the first of the two applicants of this case, giving particulars of the support offered for his proposals in regard to this and certain other generic names in the Order Collembola by Mr. Maynard (University of Rochester, Rochester, N.Y., U.S.A.) :— Voici une opinion qui vous intéresse. Je l’ai regue spontanément de la part du seul Collembologiste Americain actuellement actif, Mr. Maynard, de l’Université de Rochester :—‘‘I think there is considerable justification for the reasoning which you follow with regard to the nomenclature as pointed out in your 1946 paper. I have reached the same conclusions and even in the case of Hypogastrura it will give me pleasure to be the first of the American workers to make the change from Achorutes ” lil—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 9. The applications in the present case were considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the OPINION 239 369 Fourteenth Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphithéatre 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, setting out the decision reached by it in this case at the foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 30) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 504—S07) :— THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their Plenary Powers :— (a) to set aside all selections of a type species for the undermentioned genera of the Order Collembola (Class Insecta), made prior to the present deci- sion :— (i) Podura Linnaeus, 1758 (11) Tomocerus Nicolet, [1842] ; (b) to designate the undermentioned species to be the type species of the genera specified in (1) above :— (i) Podura aquatica Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of the genus Podura Linnaeus, 1758 ; (11) Macrotoma minor Lubbock, 1862, to be the type species of the genus Tomocerus Nicolet, [1842] ; (2) to confirm the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the generic name Podura Linnaeus, 1758, subject to the substitution, as its type species, of the species specified in (1) (b) (i) above and of the insertion of a note that this species had been designated as the type species of this genus by the Commission under their Plenary Powers ; (3) to place the generic name Tomocerus Nicolet, [1842] (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers : Macrotoma minor Lubbock, 1862) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; 370 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (4) to place the undermentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— aquatica Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binom- inal combination Podura aquatica) minor Lubbock, 1862 (as published in the binominal combination Macrotoma minor) ; (5) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (4) above. 10. Date to be assigned to the generic name Tomocerus Nicolet : In view of the fact that Dr. Gisin allotted the date “ 1842” to the name TYomocerus Nicolet, while in Neave’s Nomenclator (1940, Nomencl. zool. 4 : 506) the date adopted for this name is “1841”, Mr. Hemming, when preparing the present Opinion, judged it advisable to investigate the evidence available on the question of the date of publication of the foregoing name. Mr. Hemming accordingly approached Miss Therersa Clay, the specialist in charge of the Collembola collection in the British Museum (Natural History), London for advice on this subject. From the evidence kindly furnished by Miss Clay in her reply of 22nd December 1953 it may be concluded that the paper by Nicolet containing the name Tomocerus, though apparently dated “ 1841 ”’, was not published until “1842”. Accordingly, the latter date has been accepted in the present Opinion, that date being cited in square brackets in accordance with the decision taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 225—226). The following is the text of Miss Clay’s letter :— As far as I can see the reference given by Gisin is the correct one. Neave’s reference is to the title of the paper only : “‘ Recherches pour servir a l’Histoire des Podurelles ’ ; the date he gives, 1841, may be due to the fact that volume VI is included at the end of V and the whole labelled 1841 (in the B.M. library). His page number, 31, is to the first reference of the name Tomocerus, but there are no included species on this page, merely a short diagnosis; the page number given by Gisin, 67, gives a longer description of the genus and is OPINION 239 371 followed by the names and description of two species to be included in the genus. If Neave’s reference is correct it would mean that Nicolet’s paper had been published as a separate publication in the previous year ; I can find no trace of this. 11. The following are the original references for the names which appear in the decision set out in the immediately preceding paragraph :— aquatica, Podura, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 609 minor, Macrotoma, Lubbock, 1862, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. (Zool.) 23 : 598 Podura Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 608 Tomocerus Nicolet, [1842], Neue Denkschr. Allgem. schweiz. Ges. 6 : 31, 67 12. The gender of the generic name Tomocerus Nicolet, [1842], referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 9 above, is masculine. 13. 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 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. sie i 16): 14. 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. 15. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the Paris Session. 372 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 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 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 accord- ingly 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. 18. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two Hundred and Thirty-Nine (239) of the LBRO OnE Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London this Eleventh day of December, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Three. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mretcatre & Cooper LimiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 4. Part 30. (Concluding Part) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS | | ZAANTHSON Ay 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 Eighteen Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 1st October, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE OPINIONS PUBLISHED 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 Casrera (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. ae 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. Stott (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 JorcE (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 SpArRcK (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). es er L. Ustncer (University of California Berkeley, California, U.S.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 4. Part 30. Pp. 373—396 (also published with this Part : T.P.—XIV) CONTENTS Corrigenda ; Index to Authors of Applications dealt with in Opinions 211—239 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 Publication Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Eighteen Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 1st October, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON — ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE OPINIONS PUBLISHED 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 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 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. a E. VoKeEs (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 SPARCK (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). Professor Robert L. UsINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). —— Corrigenda page 53. Line 11: substitute ““ subsequent ” for “‘ original ”’. page 65. Line 22: substitute “‘ Burks ’”’ for “‘ Burke ”’. page 66. Lines | and 5: substitute ‘“‘ Burks ” for ‘“‘ Burke ’’. page 70. Lines 21 and 26: substitute ‘“‘ Burks ’’ for “‘ Burke ”’. page 82. Line 8: substitute “‘ Fifty-Three ” for “‘ Fifty-Four ”’. page 345. Ruling (1) line 4: substitute ‘‘ Generic ”’ for ““Specific’’. Hts “ithe y Volume 4 377 INDEX TO AUTHORS OF APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH IN **OPINIONS ” 211 TO 239 AND OF COMMENTS ON THOSE APPLICATIONS Page lian, RIS. .. 224—225 Archey, G. 224—225 Arkell, W. J. 316—321 Baily, J. L. Jr. 120, 145, 156, 170—171, 226—227 Baylis, H. A. a se IRS) Benson, R. B. 96—97, 106—107 Blake, C. H. .. 193—194 Bridge, J. 164—166 Burks, B. D. .. 66—67 Cameron, T. W. M. Sls Caporiacco, L. di .. So LTA Carter, A.J... 299—300 Cooper, G. A. 56—58, 78—79, 131—135, 144—145, 154— 156, 168—170, 235, 324—326 Costello, D. P. 117—119 Cowley, M. A. a 5—9 Cox, L.R. .. 53—55, 164—166 Page Cram, Bo Be"... 187—190 Dunbar, C. O. .. 28, 32—33 Faust, E. ©. 2. 191—192 Ferguson, M. S. cs 25 19) Ferriére, C. 96—97, 106—107 Frizzell, D. L. 56—58, 78—79, 131—135, 144—145, 154— 156, 168—170, 324—326 Gist, SL 365-366 ‘Gatti, FL 302—309 Hemming, F. 44—46, 68—70, 87, 88, 98, 108, 109, 182—184, 212—213, 214—215, 254— 264, 279—287, 323—324, 338—339, 354—356, 364— 365 Hungerford, H. B. VearzAt Jacot, A. P. 85—86 378 Opinions and Declarations Page JointCommittee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleon- tology in America 34—35, 56— 58, 78—79, 131—135, 144— W465. s4 Sse, | ES 170, WES, B16 Jones, M. F. .. 187—190 Jordan, K. 88, 226, 301 Keen, A. M. ..- 35, 56—58, 78— 7S, 13135, owes 154-156," Nes—170, 235; 324— 326 Killington, F. J. ..3—9 Kimmins, D. E. _) Narbysiks 2 ae: 56 Shs Kirk, E. 164—166 Knight, J.B. 34—35, 56—58, 78—79, 131—135, 144—145, 164—166, 233—234, 242— 243, 324—326 Leiper, R. T. uy se85 Longfield, C. E. ..3—9 Mansour, K. hdl oo 94 Mills, H. B. .. ad .. 368 Moore, R.C. 56—58, 78—79, 131—135, 144—145, 154— 156, 168—170, 235, 324326 Page Mortensen, Th. 109, 131, 144, 154, 168, 235 Muesebeck, C. F. W. aa le Myers, G. S. 164—166, 167 National Institute of Health, Division of Tropical Di- 47, 56, 78, 99, | | M |] | seases, Bethesda, Mary- | land, U.S.A. 187—190 — Newell, N.D. 56—58, 78—79, © 144—145, 154—156, 168— ~ 170, 324—326 Nolan, M. O. 187—190 Norman, J. R. 164—166 Oakley, K. P. 164—166 Olivier, LE Ie 187—190 Paclt, J. 366—367 Palmer, V.W. 56—58, 78—79, 131—135, 144—145, 154— 156, 168—170, 324—326 Parkhurst, H. 190—191 Potts, W. L. AS .. 47 Radford, C. D. 3 O89 Volume 4 379 Page meeside, J.B. Jr. .. 56—S8, 78—79, 131—135, 144—145, 154—156, 168—170, 324— 326 Rehder, H. A. 75—T7 Richards, O. W. 96—97, 106—107 Riley, N. D. 4446 Robertson, G. A. 127—130 Rohwer, S. A. ~ am lithe Romer, A. S... 35, 56—58, 78— 79, 131—135, 144145, 154—156, 168—170, 324— 326 Ross, H. H. .. 65—67 Bane: D. S... Bra B92 Sandhouse, Miss G. A. 109—110 Schenck, H. G. 29—31 Schultz, L. P. 164—166 Sclater, W: L. UTS) Sherborn, C. D. 19—21 56—58, 78—79, 144145, 154— 324—326 Simpson, G. G. 131—135, 156, 168—170, Page Smith, R. C. ere Spat bReey ey | eeenaee Meichert. Cy =. me Leo Thompson, M. L. 29—31, 33—34 Trewavas, E. .. 164—166 Ulrich, E. O. 164—166 Vogel, H. 180—181 Wells, J. W. 56—58, 78—79, 131 —135, 144—145, 154—156, 168—170, 235, 324—326 Winckworth, R. 287—289, 331— 336, 345—346 Witenberg, G. ue ~. 203 Wood, A. 152—153 Wright, W. H. 186—190 Zilch, A. . 142—143 Volume 4 SUBJECT INDEX aceris Esper, 1783, as published in the combination Papilio aceris (Class ey placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 41. Actinote Hubner, [1819], (Class Insecta), all type selections for, set aside under the Plenary Powers and Papilio thalia Linnaeus, 1758, designated as type species. . gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 648 Apatura Fabricius, 1807 (Class pee: Blane on the es List ons Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 657. gender of name Apatura [llliger], 1807 (Class Insecta), 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 os elected and Invalid Generic Names in Wooton, as Name No. 37 aquatica Linnaeus, 1758, Podura (Class Insecta), designated under the Ree Powers, to be the type species of Podura Linnaeus, 1758 placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 57 Belone Cuvier, 1817 (Class Pisces), validation of, under the Beet Powers, with Esox belone Linnaeus, 1761, as type species. ‘ AS ae ais gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 656 belone Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the combination Esox belone (Class Pisces), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 37.. sa Belone Oken, 1815 (Class Pisces), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy.. a placed on the Official Index on Saunas and Invalid Generic Names in iiibieied as Name No. 34 Bilharzia Cobbold, 1859 (Class Trematoda), placed on the Official Index or Ree and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No, 36.. 381 Page 252 43 43 43 252 252 Zl 251 363 363 163 163 163 163 163 163 179 382 Opinions and Declarations Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856 (Class Trematoda), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Ee but not for those of the Law of Homonymy . : a a as : ae be be placed on the Official Index of ees and Invalid Generic Names in ee as Name No. 35 .. : Bombus Latreille, 1802 (Class Insecta), validation of, under the Py Powers, with Apis terristis Linnaeus, 1758, as type species .. Si5 a : ag gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 652 Brassolis Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta), pete on the pecs List on Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 658... gender of name Brassolis [Illiger], 1807 (Class Insecta), 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 ae and Invalid Generic Names in ma as Name No. 38 .. d : Bremus Panzer, [1801—4], (Class Insecta), placed on the OBA Index fo Regen and Invalid Names in Zoology as Name No. 31 .. Briinnich, Morton Thrane, Zoologiae Fundamenta, 1771, new generic names ee in declared available for nomenclatorial purposes is a : placed on the Official List of Works Appi ave: as Available in eet Nomenclature as Work No. 4.. Buprestidae, anonymous pamphlet so entitled, believed to have been written by Hope (F.W.) and distributed in 1836, rejected for nomenclatorial purposes placed on the Official Index of po and Invalid Works in 200s Nomen- clature as Work No. 5 ’ caricae Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio caricae (Class Insecta), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 42 Castnia [Illiger], 1807 (Class Insecta), 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 2 eerie and Invalid Generic Names in Foley as Name No. 39 Castnia Fabricius, 1807 (Class ae bares on the aes List a Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 659 gender of name consideration of specific name of type species for, postponed page 179 179 105 105 105 252 252 251 251 105 : 331 331 299 299 252 251 251 252 252 252 | | . Ss SS = Volume 4 centuncularis Linnaeus, 1758 de (Class i ical pelea of, as she specieais of Megachile Latreille, 1802 ? : ; ; 3 placed on the Official Mint of es Names in Zoology as Name No. 29.. Cercopithecus Briinnich, 1771 (Class Mammalia), placed on the ee a Index a Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 61 Cercopithecus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Mammalia), validation of, under the ae Powers, with Simia diana Linnaeus, 1758, as type species. ‘ a gender of name pound | in its porion on the Official List oy Generic Names in Zoology as Name o. 104 sve AAP “n ‘ ae Be ae ae cereus Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Papilio cereus (Class Insecta), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 43 as Chrysopa Leach, 1815 (Class Insecta), all type selections for, set side under the Plenary Powers, and Hemerobius perla Linnaeus, 1758, designated as type species gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 645 Clavellaria Lamarck, 1801 (Class Insecta), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy placed on the Official Index of eae and Invalid Generic Names in Fa ey as Name No. 29 .. : ; Clavellarius Olivier, 1789 (Class Insecta), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy placed on the Official Index a cee and Invalid .Generic Names in Haale as Name No. 28 constricta Conrad (T.A.), 1842, as published in the combination Nuculites constricta (Class Eecpeds), pec’ on the ee List see oe | Names in Zooey s as Name No. 27 cordatus Sowerby (J.), 1813, Ammonites (Class Sree ae ape? under the Plenary Powers, of a lectotype for species placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 54 corus Fabricius, 1793, as published in the combination Papilio corus (Class ee placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 44 cupido Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio cupido (Class Insecta), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 45 daplidice Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio daplidice (Class Insecta), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 46 383 Page 65 65 65 65 53 315 315 252 252 Zoe 384 Opinions and Declarations diana Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Simia diana (Class Mammalia), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 56.. id Eledone Leach, 1817 (Class Cephalopoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 664, with ene moschatus Lamarck, 1798, as type species é ae - : gender of name Emesis Fabricius, 1807 (Class ee pede on the a List oe Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 660 . gender of name Emesis [Illiger], 1807 (Class Insecta), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy AS placed on the Official Index of Receee and Invalid Generic Names in cee as Name No. 40 .. é Erycina Lamarck, 1805 (Class Pelecypoda), all type selections for, set aside under the PIES Powers, and Erycina pellucida designated as type species Be gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 650.. Euploea Fabricius, 1807 (Class ee posey of, on the Ona List ar Generic Names in Zoology, confirmed . Euploea [Illiger], 1807 (Class Insecta), 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 or Bea and Invalid Generic Names in Zocigey, as Name No. 41 galea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Buccinum galea (Class Sestuepeds): placed on the nus List ut ees Names in Aoclesie as Name No. 55 ; Geoffroy (E.L.), 1762, Histoire Abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux Environs de Paris, rejected for nomenclatorial purposes an be ie nae é placed on the Official Index of peed and Invalid Works in in 200 Nomen- clature as Work No. 1 Gesner (J.), 1758, Tractatus physicus de eas sUpBSsiony of, under the Plenary Powers, for nomenclatorial purposes. 2 ots placed on the Official Index of pees and Invalid Works in me Nomen- clature as Work No. 2 : Page 353 278 278 252 252) 251 Dai 75 Ws 75 Disp 251 251 345 211 211 233 233 a es Ne ee ee Volume 4 Helicopis Fabricius, 1807 (Class er position of, on the aa List Hs Generic Names in Zoology, confirmed . Helicopis [Illiger], 1807 (Class Insecta), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy.. pieced jen the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology as Name O. Se Ne a og! se aus = 3 " - ie Hemerobius Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta), all type selections for, set aside under the Plenary Powers, and Hemerobius humulinus Linnaeus, 1758, designated as type species oe eis ate ia ae Ae aus ais au gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 644.. Hope (F.W.), see under Buprestidae humulinus Linnaeus, 1758, Hemerobius (Class Insecta), designated, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Hemerobius Linnaeus, 1758 placed in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 21.. hylas Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio hylas (Class asccty placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 47. ingens Owen, 1844, as published in the combination Dinornis ingens (Class Aves), placed on the Official Index oh ected, and Invalid Peers Names in Feaioey as Name No. 11 . iris Linnaeus, 1858, as published in the combination Papilio iris (Class Meee placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 48. : leilus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio leilus (Class uae placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 49. : Liodes Heyden, 1826 (Class Arachnida), invalid junior homonym of Leiodes Latreille, 1796, piaced on the eucialy Index oa Belarc’ and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 30... Loligo Schneider, 1784 (Class Cephalopoda), placed on the Oia Index of Agee and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 51 ae macfarlandi (emend. of mcfarlandi) Cockerell, 1902, as published in the combination Chromodoris mcfarlandi (Class Gastropoda), placed ¢ on the ge List oh Speeilic Names in Zoology as Name No. 31 .. 252 223 Paap. 252 278 117 386 Opinions and Declarations Martin (W.), 1793, Figures and Descriptions of Renae collected in Derbys rejected for nomenclatorial purposes . : placed on the Official Index of, fee and Invalid Works in Ae” Nomen- clature as Work No. 3 Martin (W. ), 1809, Petrificata Derbiensia: or Figures and Descriptions of ace collected in Derbyshire, rejected for nomenclatorial purposes placed on the Official Index a ea and Invalid Works in Hoole Nomen- clature as Work No. 4.. Mechanitis Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta), placed on the Oiciogs List on Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 661 gender of name Mechanitis (Illiger], 1807 (Class Insecta), suppression of, under the Plenary Baviets, for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy. . placed on the Official Index of Bees and Invalid Generic Names in mae as Name No. 43 .. : Megachile Latreille, 1802 (Class Insecta), designation of Apis centuncularis Linnaeus, 1758, by Curtis in 1828, as type species oe a a aes gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 651.. minor Lubbock, 1862, Macrotoma (Class Insecta), designated, under the fee Powers, to be the type species of Tomocerus Nicolet, [1842] - placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 58 moelleri Rauser-Chernoussova, 1937, as published in the combination Schwagerina moelleri (Class Rhizopoda), placed on the fee List ce) Specie Names in Zoology as Name No. 23 moschatus Lamarck, 1798, as published in the combination Octopus moschatus (Class Cephalopoda), placed on the Bere List ef epee Names in pad as Name No. 52 . Moschites Schneider, 1784 (Class Cephalopoda), placed on the ea Index ee Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 52.. : proses Schneider, 1784, as published in the combination Octopodia moschites (Class Cephalopoda), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. . : a placed on the Official Index of ches and Invalid ee Names in 20a as Name No. 12 .. Nautilus Schneider, 1784 (Class Cephalopoda), placed on the ee Index a Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 53.. Page 241 241 241 241 252 252 251 251 95 95 95 363 363 27 278 278 277 278 278 ‘ 4 1 Volume 4 nautilus Schneider, 1784, as published in the combination Octopodia nautilus (Class Cephalopoda), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the PHS of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy . placed on the Official Index a eeored and Invalid psn? Names in Mosley as Name No. 13 Neptis Fabricius, 1807 (Class ee Placed on the Cee List oS Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 662 gender of name Neptis [Illiger], 1807 (Class Insecta), 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 ti and Invalid Generic Names in FONE. as Name No. 44 novazealandiae Owen, 1843, as published in the combination Dinornis novazealandiae ae placed on the Dees List of Speer Names in ZOU: as Name o. 3 Nymphidium Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta), posuiod of, on the CT List oy Generic Names in Zoology, confirmed. . Nymphidium (Mliger], 1807 (Class Insecta), 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 ee es and Invalid Generic Names in Fe: as Name No. 45 ; Octopodia Schneider, 1784 (Class Cephalopoda), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy we site a ie fn Hs a ze Hf placed on the Official Index of pecs and Invalid Generic Names in ee as Name No. 50 .. Octopus Cuvier, [1797] (Class Cephalopoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology « as Name No. 665, with Carns uueare S Cuvier, Bey as type species gender of name Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, names placed on Apatura [Illiger], 1807 Belone Oken, 1815 ae Bilharzia Cobbold, 1859. Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856 Brassolis (Mlliger], 1807 .. : é Bremus Panzer, [1801—4] Castnia [Illigerl, L807 1. Cercopithecus Briimnich, 1771 Clavellaria Lamarck, 1801 Clavellarius Olivier, 1789 387 Page 277 278 252 252 251 251 223 252 251 251 27) 388 Opinions and Declarations ! Page Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in ZepieEy names 8 plaved on (canting Emesis [Illiger], 1807 .. ea Be nis oe 252 Euploea [Illiger], 1807 .. sth ed i A he tt ny Bae 22S) Helicopis (Illiger], 1807 .. Be ae ne ie ee sh a oo Teal Liodes Heyden, 1826 .. an ee hs as Re Bs AG Bo 85 Loligo Schneider, 1784 .. Be ui po 5 ee ee if .. 278 Mechanitis [Mlliger], 1807 ie ae a ee Ne = wh ve 525i Moschites Schneider, 1784 Be a aa ee we Wye BS to eS Nautilus Schneider, 1784 ae hie i 3 is Me Bs Bee we Ths) Neptis [Illiger], 1807 ge ae a ie a als ae — wa eel Nymphidium [llliger], 1807 a ee me ae ts os ee Ash Teneo Octopodia Schneider, 1784 ot A Be he Ae an ee se 2S Ozoena Rafinesque, 1814 be a ou a ae ae as oe 208 Palaeaneilo Hall, 1869 .. as aa an ad a ae ey Me 53 Polypus Leach, 1817 ee i as a ry As ie oa ee RS Polypus Schneider, 1784 si ie Be ie as ee ‘oe on ees Pompilus Schneider, 1784 20 ae ea Be sig aes aN .. 278 Pontia [Illiger], 1807 a = Lo =