by Wt oe le 
Li 


nay 


’ ‘ 
1 

fae yteen 

hace 

WE aes eae 

thalety 


rai? 
ie 


att 
aes 


Ath ¥ 


askta sy bes 
tidinet Yoh, 


‘tity 
Wi {At 
At 
ert 


sped ity 
ies ’ 
aval TK ‘ 
Hyeae et Ne) 


foe 
‘Wit 


Lab gies by 
tt es Vee 
* 


filly eh 4 aia 
he Inet 1M 


Lien 


hat saenneds 
45 i ASS tid 


avert 


Ate 
7 it 


ua \ ual MAS i) 


hy 


basen Stall 
\ ed idhaned: ce 


t h 


Saltire 


OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 
RENDERED BY THE INTER- 
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


VOLUME 5 


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) 


\) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 


Yo. 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 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. nee E. Voxes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., 
.S.A.). 


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. 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 Landbohojskole, Zoologisk Labora- 
torium, Copenhagen, Denmark). 

Professor Kamel MANsourR (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. Rizey (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). 

pee eal L. UsINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California, 

S.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. 
{wi 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 fifth of the series entitled Opinions 
and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature—contains the third 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 240 to 268. 
The present volume comprises 440 pages (T.P.—XIV, 1—426), 
4 plates and three facsimiles reproduced as text figures. 


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 the total number of cases up to 
thirty. Many of the applications relating to these cases were 
submitted by two or more applicants—in one case by six appli- 
cants—and when account is taken of this fact, the total number 
of applicants is seen to amount to forty-five. 


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, nineteen (79 per cent.) 
involved the used by the Commission of its Plenary Powers. The 
use of these Powers was not involved in any of the applications 
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, 


VI 


TABLE 1 
Distribution of applications (a) by Classes of the Animal Kingdom 
and (b) by whether they involved the use by the Commission - 
of its Plenary Powers 


Number of applications 


Name of wn 

Class Involving the 
use of the Others 

Plenary Powers 
Sporozoa 
Crustacea 
Insecta 
Bryozoa 
Actinopterygii 
Reptilia 


Totals 


5. When the forty-five 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 


Brazil 

Israel 

New Zealand 

United Kingdom 

United States of 
America 


Total 


Vil 


6. Under the Rulings given in the Opinions comprised in the 
present volume, 17 names were placed on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology and 26 names on the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology. In the same Opinions, 5 names were 
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names 
in Zoology and 6 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 seven 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 forty-five comments 
received from interested specialists. In addition, eight comments 
were received in regard to the 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 com- 
ments 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 


Sporozoa 
Crustacea 
Insecta 
Bryozoa 
Actinopterygii 


Total 


Vill 


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 


Brazil 

Denmark 
Panama 

United Kingdom 


United States of 
America 
Union of Soviet 
Socialist Republics 


Total 


10. As in the case of the two preceding volumes of this Series, 
the Commission is indebted to Miss Joan Kelley, B.Sc. for the 
preparation of the indexes to the present volume. In style these 
indexes follow exactly the model laid down for earlier volumes. 


11. At the time of writing the present Foreword, the whole of 
the following volume (vol. 6) and a part of volume 8 are already in 
proof, while volume 7 is in the hands of the printers. Volumes 6 
and 7 contain the last instalments of Opinions embodying 
decisions taken by the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in 1948. Volume 8 
contains the first instalment of Opinions embodying decisions 
taken by the Commission in 1952 on applications published in 
1951 in volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 


IX 


This latter volume will be of particular interest, since, unlike 
those containing Opinions embodying decisions taken by the 
Commission in Paris and subsequently published in the Official 
Record of the Proceedings of the Commission at its Paris Session, 
the Rulings contained in the Opinions included in volume 8 will 
be published for the first time in that volume. 


12. The fact that the Opinions included in the present volume 
were all published within so short a period as two and a half 
months is evidence once again of the long hours of hard work 
devoted to the Commission by my assistants and of the efforts 
made by the printers to keep pace with the flow of work reaching 
them from this Office. To both of these the Commission and 
zoologists at large are alike greatly indebted. 


FRANCIS HEMMING 
Secretary to the International Commission 


on Zoological Nomenclature 


28 Park Village East, 
Regent’s Park, 
LONDON, N.W.1. 


10th August 1954. 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


OPINION 240 Correction of an erroneous entry in the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology relating 
to the type species of the nominal genus Mabuya 
Fitzinger, 1826 (Class ae ee of an 
error in Opinion 92) : : : ie ne 


OPINION 241 Rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of 
Nozeman & Vosmaer, 1758 Geslachten der Vogelen, a 
Dutch translation of Moehring’s pre-Linnean work 
entitled Avium Genera published in 1752 


OPINION 242 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of 
a type species for Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758 (Class 
Pisces) in harmony with accustomed nomenclatorial 
usage (correction of an error in Opinion 92) .. 


OPINION 243 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, 
for the nominal genus Carabus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class 
Insecta, Order Coleoptera) of a type species in 
harmony with current nomenclatorial usage . 


OPINION 244 Suppression, under the Plenary Powers, 
of the generic name Coriscus Schrank, 1796, for the 
purpose of validating the generic name Alydus 
Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) 


OPINION 245 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of 
a type species for the nominal genus Salda Fabricius, 
1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) in harmony 
with accustomed nomenclatorial usage be 


OPINION 246 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of 
a type species for the nominal genus Gastrodes 
Westwood, 1840 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), in 
harmony with accustomed nomenclatorial usage 


OPINION 247 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of 
a type species for the nominal genus Aquarius 
Schellenberg, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), 
in harmony with accustomed nomenclatorial usage . . 


XI 


Page 


13 


08) 


45 


2// 


71 


81 


1 


XU 


OPINION 248 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of 
a type species for the nominal genus Bellocoris Hahn, 
1834 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), in harmony 
with accustomed nomenclatorial usage ne 


OPINION 249 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of 
a type species for the nominal genus Beosus Amyot & 
Serville, 1843 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), in 
harmony with accustomed nomenclatorial usage 


OPINION 250 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of 
a type species for the nominal genus Catoplatus 
Spinola, 1837 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) in 
harmony with accustomed nomenclatorial usage 


OPINION 251 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of 
a type species for the nominal genus Dictyonota 
Curtis, 1827 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) in 
harmony with accustomed nomenclatorial usage 


OPINION 252 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of 
a type species for the nominal genus Oncotylus 
Fieber, 1858 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) in 
harmony with accustomed nomenclatorial usage 


OPINION 253 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of 
a type species for the nominal genus Pachylops Fieber, 
1858 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) in harmony 
with accustomed nomenclatorial usage ae 


OPINION 254 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of 
a type species for the nominal genus Pilophorus Hahn, 
1826 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) in harmony 
with accustomed nomenclatorial usage E 


OPINION 255 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of 
a type species for the nominal genus Tetyra Fabricius, 
1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) in harmony 
with accustomed nomenciatorial usage fe 


Page 


103 


115 


127 


139 


itsy | 


163 


IWS 


187 


OPINION 256 Emendation to Phlebotomus of the generic 
name Flebotomus Rondani, 1840 (Class Insecta, Order 
Diptera) under the Plenary Powers of 


OPINION 257 Rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of 
the work by Zimmermann (A. E. W. von) published in 
1777 under the title Specimen Zoologiae geographicae 
Quadrupedum Domicilia et Migrationes sistens and 
acceptance for the same purposes of the work by the 
same author published in the period 1778—1783 under 
the title Geographische Geschichte des Menschen, und 
der allgemein verbreiteten vierftissigen Thiere. . 


OPINION 258 Rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of 
the work by Frisch (J. L.) published in 1775 under the 
title Das Natur-System der vierfiissigen Thiere. . 


OPINION 259 Rejection of the names used by Mark 
Catesby in the Natural History of Carolina, as re- 
published by Edwards in the edition of 1771, but 
acceptance of names formed in accordance with the 
Linnean system inserted by Edwards in that edition. . 


OPINION 260 Rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of 
the work by Meuschen (F. C.) issued in 1778 under 
the title Museum Gronovianum .. ae 


OPINION 261 Rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of 
the Index to the Zoophylacium Gronovianum of Grono- 
vius prepared a Meuschen Se oe and Ue in 
1781 ; 


OPINION 262 Determination of the specific name of the 
Sand Crab (Opinion in replacement of Opinion 13) .. 


OPINION 263 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of 
a description to represent the lectotype of the nominal 
species Papilio podalirius Linnaeus, 1758 (Class 
Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) 


XU 


Page 


199 


Bil 


245 


253 


265 


281 


201, 


320 


XIV 


OPINION 264 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of 
a figure to represent the lectotype of the nominal 
species Papilio iris Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order 
Lepidoptera) 


OPINION 265 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of 
the specific names aristolochiae Fabricius, 1775, as 
published in the combination Papilio aristolochiae and 
ascanius Cramer, [1775], as published in the com- 
bination Papilio ascanius (Class Insecta, Order Lepi- 
doptera) 


OPINION 266 Determination of the species to which the 
specific name annulatum Dschunkowsky & Luhs, 
[1906], as published in the combination Piroplasma 
annulatum (Class Sporozoa, Order Coccidiida) shall 
be held to apply .. 


OPINION 267 Rejection of a proposal for the validation, 
under the Plenary Powers, of the generic name Porina 
Walker, 1856 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) by 
the suppression thereunder of the generic name Porina 
@Orbigny, 1852 (Class Bryozoa) 


OPINION 268 Acceptance of the generic name Aspido- 
proctus (Class Insecta, Creer Hemiptera) as from 
Newstead, 1901 


Corrigenda 


Index to authors of applications dealt with in Opinions 240 
to 268 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 


343 


367 


387 
397 
411 


413 


415 


425 


426 


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 5. Part 1. Pp. 1—12 


OPINION 240 


Correction of an erroneous entry in the Official List of 

Generic Names in Zoology relating to the type species of 

the nominal genus Mabuya Fitzinger, 1826 (Class Reptilia) 
(correction of an error in Opinion 92) 


ENN HSONi4 
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 THRE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 240 


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. Perers (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, 
Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). 

Dire eu 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 JACZEWsxI (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 Landbohojskole, Zoologisk Labora- 
torium, Copenhagen, Denmark). 

Professor Kamel MANSOUR (King Fouad University, Cairo, Egypt). 

Professor Z. P. METCALF (North Carolina State College of Agriculture and 
Engineering, University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.). 

Mr. N. D. Ribey (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 240 


CORRECTION OF AN ERRONEOUS ENTRY IN THE 
“OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY”’ 
RELATING TO THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE 
NOMINAL GENUS ‘** MABUYA ” FITZINGER, 

1826 (CLASS REPTILIA) (CORRECTION 
OF AN ERROR IN ‘“ OPINION ”’ 92) 


RULING :—(1) The statement that Scincus sloanii 
Daudin, 1803, is the type species of the genus Mabuya 
Fitzinger, 1826 (Class Reptilia) made in Opinion 92, 
when the foregoing generic name was placed on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology is incorrect and 
is hereby deleted from the Official List, there being 
inserted in its place the statement that Lacertus mabouya 
Lacépede, 1788, is the type species of that genus by 
absolute tautonymy. 


(2) The specific name mabouya Lacépede, 1788, as 
published in the combination Lacertus mabouya, is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology as Name No. 59. 


I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE 


The problem dealt with in the present Opinion came to notice 
from two different sources: First, Mr. Francis Hemming, 
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- 
clature, when examining the older Opinions in the course of 
preparing the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for 
publication in book form, noted, on referring to the original 
literature, that an incorrect statement had been made in Opinion 
92 regarding the type species of the genus Mabuya Fitzinger, 
1826 (Class Reptilia), which would need to be corrected before 
the Official List could be published. Second, at a somewhat 
later date Senhor Haraldo Travassos (Museu Nacional, Rio de 
Janeiro, Brazil) submitted a detailed statement on this case for 


4 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


the consideration of the International Commission. Mr. 
Hemming’s note and Senhor Travassos’ paper are given in the 
immediately following paragraphs. 


2. Note dated 4th April 1944 by Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary 
to the International Commission : On 4th April 1944 the following 
note by Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International 
Commission, 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 :— 


‘‘ Mabuya ”’ Fitzinger, 1826 (‘‘ Opinion ”’ 92) 


By FRANCIS HEMMING 
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 


In checking the entries made in the Official List of Generic Names 
in Zoology in the Commission’s older Opinions with the object of 
extracting therefrom the particulars which will be needed when the 
Official List is published in book form, I have found that an entirely 
incorrect entry has been made in Opinion 92 (1926, Smithson, misc. 
Coll. 73 (No. 4) : 3—4) regarding the type species of the genus Mabuya 
Fitzinger, 1826 (Neue Classif. Rept. : 23) (Class Reptilia). 


2. The facts in this case are as follows :— 


(1) In Opinion 92 it is stated that the type species of Mabuya 
Fitzinger, 1826, is “ Scincus sloanii Daud., 1803, v. 4, 287.’’, i.e. 
Scincus sloanii Daudin, 1802, in Sonnini’s Buffon, Rept. 4 : 287. 


(2) Fitzinger in 1826 did not even place the above species in the 
genus Mabuya Fitzinger ; on the contrary, he cited it as the sole 
included species in his new genus Spondylurus Fitzinger, 1826 
(Neue Classif. Rept. : Tabl.). 


(3) Fitzinger included in his genus Mabuya sixteen species, of 
which the fourteenth is of special interest in the present case. The 
nominal species in question which is there (: 52) named for the 
first time, is Mabuya dominicensis. Fitzinger indicated by adding 
in brackets (parentheses) the words ‘“‘ Lacertus Mabouya La 
Cépéde ” that the name Mabuya dominicensis was no more than 
a nom. nov. pro Lacertus mabouya Lacépéde, 1788 (Hist. nat. Quad. 
ovip. Serpens 1 : Syn. méth.). 

(4) In view of (3) above, the type species of Mabuya Fitzinger, 
1826, appears to be the nominal species Lacertus mabouya 
Lacépéde, 1788, by absolute tautonymy under Rule (d) in Article 
30. 


OPINION 240 5 


3. I have ascertained from Dr. Malcolm Smith (British Museum 
(Natural History), London) that the strict application of the ordinary 
provisions in the Régles, that is, the acceptance of Lacertus mabouya 
Lacépéde, 1788, as the type species of Mabuya Fitzinger, 1826, will 
not lead to any confusion. J am of the opinion, therefore, that there 
is no need for the Commission in this case to use its Plenary Powers 
and that all that is required is a supplementary decision by the Com- 
mission correcting the erroneous statement in Opinion 92 regarding 
the type species of this genus. 


3. Application submitted by Senhor Haraldo Travassos (Museu 
Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil): On 12th December 1945, the 
Secretary received from Senhor Haraldo Travassos (Museu 
Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) a copy of a paper recently 
published in Portuguese and English, in which Senhor Travassos 
had discussed the question of the type species of the genus Mabuya 
Fitzinger, 1826 (Travassos, August 1945, Bol. Mus. nac., Rio de 
Janeiro (n.s.) (Zool.) 37 : 1—7). On receipt of this paper, the 
papers relating to the problem presented by the name Mabuya 
Fitzinger were separately registered under the Number Z.N.(S.) 
203. It was agreed in correspondence between the Secretary 
and Senhor Travassos that the English text of the latter’s paper 
should be treated as constituting his application to the International 
Commission. Senhor Travassos’ application was as follows :— 


A note on the type species of ‘‘ Mabuya ”’ Fitzinger, 1826 


By HARALDO TRAVASSOS 
(Museu Nacional) 


Fitzinger in 1826 established within his XII family ‘‘ Scincoidea’”’ 
the genus Mabuya for a lizard which presents palatal teeth. In addition 
to this genus, Fitzinger created other genera, among them Spondylurus. 
In establishing the genus Mabuya, page 23, he did not mention on 
what species he based his description of the same, as he had done with 
other genera. On the genus Spondylurus he made the following state- 
ment: ‘ Daudin’s Scincus sloanei, die einzige bis jetzt bekannte Art 
dieser Familie, welche Schenkelporen besitzt, ist der Reprasentant 
meiner Gattung Spondylurus, welche einen vortrefflichen Uebergang 
zu Tropidosaura aus der Familie der Lacertoiden bildet, und anderer- 
seits in Mabuya abfallt’’. According to Fitzinger’s statement, the 
genus Spondylurus can have only one type species, namely Scincus 
sloanei Daudin, 1803. This is the only species given by the author of 
the genus ; it is the type species by monotypy. 


6 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


On page 52, Fitzinger cited the following species : 


4. GENUS. Mabuya. Mabuye. 


1. M. quinquecarinata. m. Finfkielige M. (Scincus quinque- 
carinatus. Kuhl.) Ex Asia, India et Insula Java. 


2. M. carinata. m. Kielschuppige M. (Scincus carinatus. Daudin.) 
Ex Africa Promontorio bonae spei. 


3. M. multifasciata. m. Vielbanderige M. (Scincus multifasciatus. 
Kuhl.) Ex Asia, Insula Java. 


4. M. trilineata. m. Dreilinige M. (Scincus trilineatus. Daudin.) 
Ex Africa, meridionali. 


5. M. dubia. m. Zweifelhafte M. (Scincus dubius, Schreibers.) 
Ex Australia, Nova Hollandia. 


6. M. capistrata. m. Gezaumte M. (Scincus capistratus, 
Schreibers.) Ex Africa, Aegypto. 


7. M. longicollis. M. Langhalisige M. Patria ignota. 


8. M. subcarinata. m. Schwachkielige M. (Scincus subcarinatus. 
Boie.) Ex Asia, Insula Java. 


9. M. vallata. m. Verschanzte M. (Scincus vallatus. Mus. Paris.) 
Ex Australia, Insula Decres. 


10. M. quinquetaeniata. m. Funfbindige M. (Scincus quinque- 
taeniatus. Lichtenstein.) Ex Africa, Aegypto et Nubia. 


11. M. quinquelineata. m. Funflinige M. (Scincus quinque- 
lineatus. Daudin.) Ex America septentrionali. 


12. M. agilis. m. Behende M. (Scincus agilis. Raddi.) Ex 
America, Brasilia. 


13. M. sancta. m. Geheiligte M. (Scincus sanctus. Kuhl.) Ex 
Asia, Insula Java. 


14. M. dominicensis. m. Domingo’sche M. (Lacertus Mabouya. 
La Cépéede.) Ex America, Insula St. Dominici. 


15. M. ocellata. m. Gediugelte M. (Scincus ocellatus. Daudin.) 
Ex Africa, Aegypto et Europa, Sardinia. 


16. M. Serpens. m. Schlangenartige M. (Scincus Serpens 
Schneider.) Ex Asia, Insula Java. 


Of the species included in the genus Mabuya, 14 were already known. 
Fitzinger transferred them to his new genus, making them agree 
grammatically. To one of these species, the fourteenth, which is 
mabouya La Cépéde, he gave a new name (M. dominicensis). The two 
remaining ones are nomina nuda. There are several errors in Fitzinger’s 
citations, but these are of no importance in the present context. The 
species which are of interest to us are the second and the fourteenth, 
respectively: Mabuya carinata (Schneider, 1801) and Mabuya 


OPINION 240 Tf 


dominicensis Fitzinger, 1826=Mabuya mabouya (La Cépéde, 1788). 
Fitzinger cited carinata as of Daudin, but that is not correct. 


According to the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, 
Article 30 : 


The designation of type species of genera shall be governed by the following 
rules, applied in the following order or precedence : II. Cases in which the 
generic type is accepted not solely upon basis of the original publication : 
(e)—The following species are excluded from consideration in determining 
the types of genera : (a)—Species which were not included under the generic 
name at the time of its original publication. 


As one may observe the type of Mabuya can only be one of the 16 
species which we have seen above, and not Scincus sloanei Daudin, 
1803, 4, p. 282, pl. 55, fig. 2 as stated in Opinion 92. That Opinion 
places the genus Mabuya on the Official List of Generic Names, and cites 
that same genus without giving the slighest explanation concerning 
it. The above species cannot be accepted as the type species, since 
that would be contrary to Article 30. The species of Daudin is the 
type species of Spondylurus Fitzinger, 1826, as we have seen. 


Upon perusal of the relevant literature, we find that Dunn, 1936 
(p. 534) selected, for the type species of Mabuya Fitzinger, 1826, the 
species Lacerta mabouya La Cépéde 1788=Mabuya dominicensis 
Fitzinger, 1826 (n. n.)=Mabuya mabouya (La Cépéde, 1788) Fitzinger, 
1826. Dunn established this type species by virtual tautonymy (Article 
30, Ill, i). This species can be and is the type species of the genus 
Mabuya Fitzinger, 1826. 


Therefore, in accordance with the Code, which is indisputable, the 
type species accepted as the type species in Opinion 92 (1926) falls 
to the selection made by Dunn (1936), although the former is the 
earlier designated. 


Thus the type species of the genus Mabuya Fitzinger, 1826 is as 
follows : 


Lacerta mabouya La Cépéde, 1788 2, p. 378, Tab. 24—Mabuya 
dominicensis Fitzinger, 1826 p. 52=Mabuya mabouya (La Cépéde, 
1788) Fitzinger, 1826. 


In 1937 Amaral cited the genus Mabuya (p. 203) with the following 
reference to the type species: ‘“‘“‘ Typo: carinata”’’’. As we were 
unable to understand Amaral’s selection since we had already seen 
Dunn’s work, we decided to address ourselves to that author, who 


8 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


replied as follows: “ “* Fitzinger p. 52 (n. 2) registrou como espécie 
tipica”’”’. Amaral was referring to carinata. We disagree with 
Amaral, for, apart from the scientific names, there is only the German 
word “ Kielschuppige ’’ which bears the following meaning: “ which 
has a keeled scale’. (See list of Fitzinger’s species). Thus, we conclude 
that the citation by Amaral 1937 is a lapse. 


We should like to stress the following fact : even though the Com- 
mission which drew up Opinion 92 considered the species Scincus 
sloanei Daudin, 1803, as synonymous with Mabuya dominicensis 
Fitzinger, 1826=Mabuya mabouya (La Cépéde, 1788), as some authors 
have done, the citation given in Opinion 92 is incorrect and should 
not have been used, especially in an Opinion. 


We consider Daudin’s species as distinct from the species mabouya 
La Cépéde. 


We avail ourselves of this opportunity to make a request to all 
zoologists that every selection of a type species be always accompanied 
by an indication stating the reason for the preference given to the 
species concerned: 


Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 


4. The present was one of a number of cases relating to 
individual names, summaries of which were given in a paper 
(Paper I.C. (48) 19), prepared by the Secretary for consideration 
by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
at its Paris Session in July 1948. The following is an extract from 
the above Paper of the portion relating to the present case (1950, 
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 136) :— 


(3) Type of “ Mabuya’’ Fitzinger, 1826 (Class Reptilia) (reference 
Opinion 92): In Opinion 92 in which the above name was placed 
on the Official List, the type species of the genus was erroneously 
cited as Scincus sloanii Daudin, 1803. This was due to a gross piece 
of carelessness, since the above species was not only not one of the species 
originally included in Mabuya by Fitzinger but was actually cited by 
that author in another genus on a different page of the same paper. 


OPINION 240 9 


Actually, Lacertus mabouya Lacépéde, 1788, is the type of Fitzinger’s 
genus by absolute tautonymy and is so recognised by specialists in 
this group. It is proposed to correct this mistake in the edition of the 
Official List shortly to be published. 


ep eivies, eo) eke fe) ‘ehiijeeee ie (0) Je te 


I1l.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


5. The applications submitted in regard to the present case 
were 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 the present 
case at the foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, 
Conclusion 4) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 356) :— 


THE COMMISSION agreed :— 


(1) that the statement that Scincus sloanii Daudin, 1803, was 
the type species of Mabuya Fitzinger, 1826 (Class 
Reptilia) inserted in the Official List of Generic Names 
in Zoology as the result of a mistake in Opinion 92 
should be deleted and that in its place there should 
be inserted a statement that the type species was 
Lacertus mabouya Lacépéde, 1788, by absolute 
tautonymy ; 

(2) to place the trivial name mabouya Lacépéde, 1788 (as 
published in the binominal combination Lacertus 
mabouya) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names 
in Zoology ; 


(3) to render an Opinion setting out the decision recorded 
in (1) and (2) above. 


10 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


6. The following are the original references for the names which 
appear in the decision set out in the immediately preceding 
paragraph :— 


Mabuya Fitzinger, 1826, Neue Classif. Rept. : 23 
mabouya, Lacertus, Lacépéde, 1788, Hist. nat. Quad. ovip. 
Serpens 1 : Syn. méth. 


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 Fifth 
Meeting held on 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
5 : 104—105). 


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 


OPINION 240 11 


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. 


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 accordingly 
hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission 
by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Inter- 
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of 
all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 


12. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two 
Hundred and Forty (240) of the International 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 


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 5. Part 2. Pp. 13—22 


OPINION 241 


Rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of Nozeman & 

Vosmaer, 1758 Geslachten der Vogelen, a Dutch transla- 

tion of Moehring’s pre-Linnaean work entitled Avium 
Genera published in 1752 


AN HSON/4 W 
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 COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 241 


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. Te E. VOKES (United States Geological Survey, Washiaas: DCs 
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, Portuga 1). 

Professor Harold Kirspy (University of California, Bekele 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 Se Museum, Copenhagen, 
Denmark). 

Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal ' des Sciences Naturelles de 
Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). 

Professor a L. UsINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California, 
U.S.A.). 


OPINION 241 


REJECTION FOR NOMENCLATORIAL PURPOSES OF 
NOZEMAN & VOSMAER, 1758 ‘“‘ GESLACHTEN DER 
VOGELEN”’, A DUTCH TRANSLATION OF 
MOEHRING’S PRE-LINNAEAN WORK EN- 
TITLED ‘“‘AVIUM GENERA”? PUBLISHED 
IN 1752 


RULING :—(1) The work published in 1758 under 
the title Geslachten der Vogelen, consisting of a trans- 
lation into Dutch by Nozeman & Vosmaer of the work 
entitled Avium Genera by Moehring (P.H.G.) originally 
published in 1752 (i.e. before the starting point of zoo- 
logical nomenclature, as prescribed by Article 26 of the 
Régles) is not available for nomenclatorial purposes, 
since Nozeman & Vosmaer did reinforce the names 
contained therein by adoption or acceptance in the 
manner first prescribed in Opinion 5. 


(2) The foregoing work is accordingly hereby placed 
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in 
Zoological Nomenclature as Work No. 6. 


I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE 


The question of a possible application to the International 
Commission to rule against the availability of, or to suppress 
under its Plenary Powers, the generic names in the Dutch trans- 
lation of Moehring’s Genera Avium of 1752, prepared by Nozeman 
& Vosmaer under the title Geslachten der Vogelen and published 
in 1758 was raised by Dr. James L. Peters (Museum of 


16 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa- 
chusetts, U.S.A.), at that time Assistant Secretary to the Inter- 
national Commission, as follows in a letter dated 23rd October 
1937 :— 


If you should happen to be able to consult a copy of the 1758 
edition of Moehring and find that the generic names in it are available, 
I think that the Commission should publish an Opinion outlawing 
these names, since the wildest sort of confusion would ensue, were 
they to be adopted. In this connection I think that it would be a good 
plan if the Commission should publish a list of approved binary or 
binominal authors between 1758 and 1800, and then prohibit the use 
of any authors except those on this list, except where additional names 
may be added by a subsequent Opinion. 


2. It was not found possible at that time to prepare material 
relating to the Geslachten der Vogelen for submission to the Inter- 
national Commission, but, following the re-opening of the 
London Secretariat in 1942 when the records of the Commission, 
which had been evacuated for safety against air raids at the 
beginning of the war in Europe in September 1939, were brought 
back to Headquarters, Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the 
International Commission, asked Dr. Karl Jordan, then President 
of the International Commission, to examine the foregoing work, 
since a copy was available to him in the library of the Zoological 
Museum at Tring, whereas no copy was at that time available 
in London, owing to the evacuation of the great scientific libraries 
to the country for safety. Dr. Jordan kindly undertook this 
investigation, at the conclusion of which he submitted two Reports, 
the first dated 19th December 1943, the second, 12th January 
1944. These Reports were as follows :— 


(i) Report dated 19th December 1943 : 


By KARL JORDAN 


(British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, 
Tring, Herts, England) 


I have read the introduction by Vosmaer and the Bericht van den 
Vertaaler (translator) (Nozeman) in order to find out whether there 
was anything said about nomenclature. Nozeman says : (my free 
translation from the Dutch) “ to find the right names in our language 


OPINION 241 17 


as terms for the genera (and geene anderen — and nothing else) which 
the very learned Moehring has described (aangetekend) has cost me 
long and sometimes annoying inquiries... .”’ 


To judge from what I have translated above, Nozeman wanted 
Dutch names only, and only for genera. The descriptions of the genera 
begin on p. 9 and the method is as follows :— 


1. WARVOGEL, in’t Latyn door den Heere MOEHRING genoemd 
Collyrio. Hy is by den Heer C. LInNAEus, in Edit. 6 Syst. 
Nat. Gen. 78 gezet by den Beemer, [Ampelis]. [The square 
bracket means the name is added by Nozeman.] 


3. GROOTBEK, TOUCAN, in het Latyn Bucco. 
Hy is de Ramphastos van Linn. Syst. Nat. het 38ste geslacht. 


56. KASUARIS, in’t Lat. Cela. 
Casuarius by Linnaeus gesl. 63. 
Emeu. by Clusius. Exot. L. v. c. 3. 


(Then follows the description in every case.) 


As exemplified by 3 and 56 (and others) the principle of priority was 
not in Nozeman’s mind. The Latin names were added to the Dutch 
ones because Moehring 1752 had them. Neither Nozeman nor 
Vosmaer indicate anywhere that they accept them as the scientific 
names of the genera. However, they are certainly published after 
Linnaeus’s 10th edition. 


(ii) Supplementary report dated 12th January 1944: 


By KARL JORDAN 
(British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, 
Tring, Herts, England) 


I have now compared Moehring, Avium Genera 1752, with the 
translation of 1758, and am perfectly satisfied that the translator has 
not added any Latin names of his own. All the Latin names are those 
of 1752 ; the spelling is the same except that the letter i is replaced by 
y and that there are one or two printing errors or penslips. The 
additions to Moehring 1752 made in the translated 1758 edition contain 
some Latin names, but all these are quoted from older authors and 
are not available. 


Examples :— 
1752 
36. Parus. Linn. gen. 76., ed. 6, gen. 83. 
[Then follows description of genus. | 


note (a) Variat incisio apicis linguae : in paro maiore apex 3 vel 4 
setis terminatus ; in paro caeruleo apex setis quidem 


18 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


terminatus, sed setarum una vel altera in quibusdam 
individuis lacera evadit. Paro atro est singula seta in 
singulo apicis truncati margine, medio spatio fere 
verticali, integro. (All “‘ v’s” are printed “u’”’. K.J.). 
37. ORITES. 
Parus caudatus Auctorum. 
[Then follows description of genus. ] 


1758 


36. MEES, in’t Latyn Parus. 


Linnaeus. Syst. Nat. geslacht 83. 
then follows description ; words in italics in 1752 here again 
in italics. Sometimes in the 1758 edition a word or two are 
added in square brackets. 


note (a) De sneede in de punt der Tong is verscheiden: In den 
Grooten Mees eindigt de punt in drie of vier borstel- 
haairtjes : In den Blaauwen Mees, [of Pimpel] eindigt 
de punt mede wel in borsteltjes ; maar het eene of ’t 
andere van deze borstelhaairtjes word in sommige 
byzondere Meezen meer gefnazeld. De Zwarte Mees 
heft ¢én enkel borstelhaairtje op elken rand der 
geknotte tongpunt, welke rand halver weg omtrent 
rechtsstandig [verticalis] en gaaf is. 


37. STAARTMEES, in’ t Latyn Orites. 
De Langstaart-Mees der Schryveren. 
[Then follows description.] 


IL—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 


3. At the time of Dr. Jordan’s investigation into Nozeman 
& Vosmaer’s Geslachten der Vogelen, the issue raised by that 
work had assumed an immediate practical importance in the current 
work of the Commission, for at that time the Secretary was engaged 
in a review of the older Opinions of the Commission for the 
purpose of extracting therefrom the particulars which would be 
needed for the publication of the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology and in two of these this issue had arisen in the most direct 
form. For in the Opinions concerned—Opinions 67 and 103— 
the International Commission had placed on the Official List 


OPINION 241 19 


names—in the former case, the name Coturnix Bonnaterre, 1790, 
and, in the latter case, Grus Pallas, 1766—which would be invalid 
junior homonyms of names consisting of the same words, if the 
Geslachten der Vogelen of 1758 were to be found an acceptable 
work for the purposes of zoological nomenclature. The immediate 
anxieties regarding the correctness of the action taken by the 
Commission in the foregoing Opinions were set at rest by the 
evidence adduced by Dr. Jordan that the names published in the 
Geslachten der Vogelen had been carried over by Nozeman & 
Vosmaer from the pre-1758 Avium Genera of Moehring without 
having been re-inforced by adoption or acceptance as required 
under the Commission’s Opinion 5. At that time a re-issue was 
being prepared of the last-named Opinion and it was judged that 
it would be convenient in that re-issue to cite the Geslachten der 
Vogelen of Nozeman & Vosmaer as an example of a work, the 
names in which failed to satisfy the tests laid down in that Opinion 
and accordingly possessed no status of availability by reason of 
having been so republished after Ist January 1758, the date pre- 
scribed in Article 26 of the Rég/es as the starting point of zoological 
nomenclature. A discussion of this work, together with Dr. 
Jordan’s two Reports, was accordingly included in the notes 
attached to the re-issue of Opinion 5 published in 1944 (Ops. Decls. 
int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 120—122). 


4. In the summer of 1948 the documents relating to this case, 
which at that time bore the Registered Number Z.N.(G.) 24 
(re-issue of Opinions adopted prior to Lisbon, 1935) but which 
were later re-registered under the Number Z.N.(S.) 367, were 
prepared by the Secretary for consideration by the International 
Commission during its then forthcoming Session at Paris. At the 
same time (10th June 1948) Mr. Hemming added the following 
note to the file :— 


It seems to me that Dr. Jordan’s Reports on Nozeman & Vosmaer’s 
Geslachten der Vogelen provide conclusive evidence in favour of the 
rejection of that work, and that as the new generic names in it are not 
currently used by ornithologists—indeed, Dr. Peters has said that the 
adoption of these names would give rise to the wildest confusion—no 
question of the use of the Plenary Powers to validate these names calls 
for consideration. Accordingly, my recommendation is that the 
International Commission should render an Opinion that the new 
names in Nozeman & Vosmaer’s Geslachten der Vogelen, being names 
carried over from the pre-Linnean period into the period of zoological 


20 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


nomenclature without being reinforced by adoption or acceptance, as 
required by Opinion 5, possess no status of availability in virtue of 
having been so published. 


Ill.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


5. The present application was considered by the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Fourteenth 
Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi- 
théatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 2030 hours. 
The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Pro- 
ceedings of the International Commission, setting out the decision 
reached by it in this case at the foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 
14th Meeting, Conclusion 50) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 566— 
568) :— 


THE COMMISSION agreed :— 


(1) that the work published in 1758 under the title Geslachten 
der Vogelen, consisting of a translation into Dutch 
by Nozeman & Vosmaer of the work by Moehring 
(P.H.G.) originally published in 1752 (i.e. before the 
starting-point of zoological nomenclature, as pre- 
scribed by Article 26) was not available under the 
Reégles, Nozeman & Vosmaer not having reinforced 
the names contained therein by adoption or acceptance 
in the manner prescribed in Opinion 5, and therefore 
that those names possessed no status in zoological 
nomenclature as from the date of being so published ; 


(2) to render an Opinion recording the decision specified in 
(1) above. 


6. The decision in this case was reported to, and approved by, 
the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International 


OPINION 241 DAL 


Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Sixth Meeting held on 
26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 120). 


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 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 Nozeman & 
Vosmaer’s Geslachten der Vogelen of 1758. 


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 Com- 
mission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the 


D2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


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 Forty-One (241) of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature. 


Done in London this Twelfth day of December, Nineteen 
Hundred and Fifty-Three. 


Secretary to the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 


FRANCIS HEMMING 


Printed in England by Mretcatre & Cooper LimiTeED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 


OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 
RENDERED BY THE INTER- 
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


Edited by 
FRANCIS HEMMING, c.™.c., C.B.E. 


Secretary to the Commission 


VOLUME 5. Part 3. Pp. 23—44 


OPINION 242 


Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a type species 

for Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pisces) in harmony 

with accustomed nomenclatorial usage (correction of an 
error in Opinion 92) 


ENN HSON/4y 
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 Eight 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 242 


A. The Officers of the Commission 


President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural History), 
Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England). 

Vice-President: Dr. James L. Peters (Museum of Comparative Zoology, 
Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.). 

Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London, England). 


B. The Members of the Commission 


Class 1949 
Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina). 
Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary to the Commission). 
Dr. Karl JORDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, 
Tring, Herts, England) (President of the Commission). 
Dr. Th. MorrTensEN (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). 
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia). 


Class 1952 

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil). 

Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.). 

Professor Lodovico di 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 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). 

Professor Robert L. UsINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California, 
U.S.A.). 


OPINION 242 


DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF A 
TYPE SPECIES FOR ‘‘ ECHENEIS ”? LINNAEUS, 1758 
(CLASS PISCES) INHARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED 

NOMENCLATORIAL USAGE (CORRECTION OF 
AN ERROR IN ‘‘ OPINION ”’ 92) | 


RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers the original 
indication, by Linnaean tautonymy (as prescribed by 
Opinion 16), of Echeneis remora Linnaeus, 1758, as the 
type species of Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby set 
aside and Echeneis neucrates Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby 
designated as the type species of the foregoing genus. 


(2) Neither Gouan (1770) nor Forster (1771), when 
using the word “ Remora’’, used it as a generic name, 
and accordingly the reputed generic names Remora 
Gouan, 1770, and Remora Forster, 1771, are to be 
rejected as possessing no status in zoological nomen- 
clature. 


(3) The decision given implicitly in Opinion 92 (when 
the generic name Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758, was placed 
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology) that 
the spelling of the specific name neucrates Linnaeus, 1758, 
as published in the combination Echeneis neucrates, was 
incorrect and should be emended to “ naucrates’’ 1s 
hereby expressly confirmed. 


(4) The position on the Official List of Generic Names 
in Zoology of the generic name Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758, 
is hereby confirmed, subject to the insertion of a note 
that Echeneis naucrates (emend. of neucrates) Linnaeus, 
1758, is the type species of this genus by designation 
under the Plenary Powers under (1) above (decision 
confirming action taken in Opinion 92). 


(5) The generic name Remora (gender of name: 
feminine) Gill, 1862 (type species, by absolute tautonymy : 
Echeneis remora Linnaeus, 1758) is hereby placed on the 


26 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 
668. | 


(6) The under-mentioned reputed but non-existent 
generic names, rejected under (2) above, are hereby 
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic 
Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 62 and 63 :—(a) 
Remora Gouan, 1770; (b) Remora Forster, 1771. 


(7) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 
as Names Nos. 60 and 61 :—(a) naucrates (emend. of 
neucrates) Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combina- 
tion Echeneis neucrates; (b) remora Linnaeus, 1758, 
as published in the combination Echeneis remora. 


(8) The specific name neucrates (an Invalid Original 
Spelling for naucrates) Linnaeus, 1758, as published in 
the combination Echeneis neucrates, 1s hereby placed on 
the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names 
in Zoology as Name No. 17. 


I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE 


When in 1943 Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Inter- 
national Commission, was engaged in an examination of the 
older of the Opinions rendered by the Commission for the purpose 
of extracting therefrom the particulars which would be needed 
for inclusion in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology 
when published in book form, he found that the entry on that 
List in respect of the type species of the genus Echeneis Linnaeus, 
1758, made in Opinion 92 (1926, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 4) 
: 3—4) was incorrect. For in that Opinion it was stated that the 
type species of this genus was Echeneis naucrates [emend. of 
neucrates| Linnaeus, 1758, notwithstanding the fact that as far 
back as 1910 the Commission had itself pointed out in Opinion 16 
(Smithson. Publ. 1938 : 34) that under the doctrine of Linnaean 
tautonymy propounded in that Opinion the type species of the 


OPINION 242 27 


genus Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758, was Echeneis remora Linnaeus, 
1758. On the discovery of the foregoing mistake in Opinion 92, 
it became evident that it would be necessary for the International 
Commission either (1) to use its Plenary Powers to validate the 
entry on the Official List of Echeneis naucrates Linnaeus as the 
type species or (2) to correct the entry on the List relating to this 
generic name by substituting the name of Echeneis remora 
Linnaeus for that of Echeneis naucrates Linnaeus as the name of 
the type species of the genus Echeneis Linnaeus. As the relative 
merits of these two courses was a matter for specialists in the 
group to advise upon, Mr. Hemming in 1944 sought advice on 
the question from a number of ichthyologists. Replies were 
received from :—(a) Dr. Ethelwynn Trewavas (British Museum 
(Natural History), London) ; (b) Dr. C. M. Breeder, Jr. (American 
Museum of Natural History, Department of Fishes, New York, 
N.Y., U.S.A.) ; (c) Dr. Leonard P. Schultz (United States National 
Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) and Dr. Samuel F. Hildebrand 
and Dr. Robert R. Miller of the same Institution. Ali the fore- 
going specialists were opposed to the acceptance of Echeneis 
remora Linnaeus as the type species of the genus Echeneis 
Linnaeus and, therefore, favoured the use of the Plenary Powers 
in this case. In view of the unanimous advice so received, Mr. 
Hemming decided in 1945 to prepare an application, for sub- 
mission to the International Commission, drawing attention to 
the error committed in Opinion 92, setting out the advice received 
from specialists and submitting a recommendation that the 
Commission should use its Plenary Powers to validate the erron- 
eous entry regarding the type species of the genus Echeneis 
Linnaeus made in the Official List in the foregoing Opinion. The 
application so submitted by Mr. Hemming was as follows :— 


On an error, due to the non-observance of the provisions of ‘‘ Opinion ”’ 
16, contained in the portion of ‘‘ Opinion ’’ 92, in which the name 
** Echeneis ’’ Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pisces), was placed on the 
ss veel List of Generic Names in Zoology ’’, and on 
the remedial action proposed 


By FRANCIS HEMMING 
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 


In Opinion 16, the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature laid it down that, where an author, in publishing a 


28 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


new generic name,* cites in the synonymy of one of the included 
species a name published prior to 1758 which is clearly a uninomial 
(i.e. univerbal) specific name and which consists of the same word 
as the new generic name, the species for which such pre-1758 name is 
cited as a synonym is to be treated as being automatically the type 
species of the new genus by absolute tautonymy under the provisions 
of rule (d) in Article 30+ of the Régles Internationales. 


2. In paragraph 2 of Opinion 16, the International Commission 
gave a list of 63 generic names, the type species of each of which 
appeared to have been fixed in the manner described above at the 
time when the names in question were severally published. One of 
the names included in the list given in paragraph 2 of Opinion 16 
was Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 260. 


3. When the genus Echeneis was established in 1758, Linnaeus 
placed in it two species only, namely : (1) Echeneis remora Linnaeus, 
1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 260 ; and (2) Echeneis naucrates (emenda- 
tion of neucratest) Linnaeus, 1758, ibid. 1 : 261. 


4. Linnaeus made four entries in the synonymy of the species 
Echeneis remora Linnaeus, 1758, the third of which was: “ Gron. 
mus. 1. n. 33. Echeneis.”’ In this way Linnaeus signified that the 
species to which he applied the name Echeneis remora was the same 
species as that to which in 1754 Laurentius Theodorus Gronovius 
had referred under the name “ Echeneis”’ in the first volume of his 
Museum Ichthyologicum. In these circumstances, the type species 
of the genus Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758, is fixed automatically by Opinion 
16, as Echeneis remora Linnaeus, 1758, since all the conditions laid 
down in that Opinion for the citation in synonymy of a tautonymous 
pre-1758 uninomial specific name are satisfied in this case. The position 
is, therefore, that Echeneis remora Linnaeus, 1758, is the type species 
of the genus Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758, by absolute tautonymy under 
rule (d) in Article 30, as interpreted by Opinion 16. 


* A limitation was imposed upon Opinion 16 by the amendment to Article 25 
of the Régles Internationales adopted by the Tenth International Congress of 
Zoology at Budapest in 1927. In consequence, the provisions of Opinion 16 
now.apply only to names published on, or before, 31st December 1930, the last 


day prior to the coming into operation of the Budapest amendment to 
Article 25. 


t It should be recalled that the rules in Article 30 operate only in succession to 
one another. Accordingly, rule (d) is only operative, where the type of a genus 
has not already been fixed either under rule (a) or under rule (b) or under rule (c). 
Thus, Opinion 16 has no bearing upon the type species of genera, where those 
ee spas have been designated or indicated under rules (a), (b) or (©) of 

rticle 30. 


t The specific name of this species was printed as ‘“‘ neucrates”’ in 1758 in the 
10th edition of the Systema Naturae of Linnaeus. The spelling of this name has 
been emended to “‘ naucrates’’ by subsequent authors. 


OPINION 242 29 


5. In August 1924 Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the International 
Commission, issued a circular letter (C.L. 86) to all members of the 
Commission, in which, after referring to the proposals for the addition 
of a large number of names to the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology submitted by Commissioner Karl Apstein in 1915,* he gave 
particulars of the names of certain genera belonging to the Classes 
Amphibia, Reptilia, and Pisces, which had been included in the Apstein 
List and recently been re-studied by various specialists, who had 
reported that the names in question were valid,+ that the type species 
had been correctly fixed in accordance with the provisions of the 
Régles Internationales and, therefore, that these names could properly 
be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, without the 
use by the International Commission of their Plenary Powers. The 
specialist by whom the names of genera belonging to the Class Pisces 
included in Dr. Stiles’s list were stated to have been restudied was 
Dr. David Starr Jordan, who was himself at that time a member of 
the International Commission. Dr. Stiles added that, in view of the 
favourable reports received from the specialists consulted, he recom- 
mended that the generic names in question should be added to the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the type species indicated 
in his Circular Letter. In due course, nine members of the International 
Commission signified their concurrence in Dr. Stiles’s proposals, 
which were thereupon adopted (by 10 votes to nil, with 7 abstentions) 
as Opinion 92 of the International Commission. This Opinion was 
published in October 1926.t 


6. One of the names placed on the Official List of Generic Names 
in Zoology by Opinion 92 was Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758. The entry 
relating to this generic name in Opinion 92 reads as follows : ‘‘ Echeneis 
Linn., 1758a, 260, type E. naucrates Linn. 1758a, 261 ”’. 


7. No particulars were given in Opinion 92 regarding the manner 
in which the type species of the genera there enumerated had been 
determined (i.e. whether by original designation, monotypy, absolute 
tautonymy, or subsequent selection). In the case of the names of 
genera belonging to the Class Pisces, there is, however, the following 
note in the circular letter referred to in paragraph 5 above: “ For 
data by Dr. Jordan see THE GENERA OF FISHES, Jordan and Evermann, 


* The list submitted by Commissioner Karl Apstein formed the subject of dis- 
cussion in the Commission’s Opinion 74 (published in 1922 in Smithson. 
misc. Coll. 73 (No. 1) : 32—34), the ‘“‘ summary ”’ of which reads as follows :— 
‘“ The Commission has no power to adopt en bloc Apstein’s list of proposed 
Nomina Conservanda, but is prepared to consider names separately upon 
presentation of reasonably complete evidence.” 

+ The use of the expression “ valid ’ in this connection is incorrect. A name is 
either “ available’ or ‘“‘ unavailable’ under the Régles Internationales. The 
question whether an “‘ available name ”’ is also a “‘ valid name ”’ is a taxonomic, 
and not a nomenclatorial, question. 


t Opinion 92 was published in 1926, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 4) : 3—4. 


30 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


1917a’’. Reference to the above work (Jordan & Evermann, 1917, 
Genera Fishes (1) : 12) shows that the name Echeneis Linnaeus was 
there dealt with as follows :— 


Echeneis Linnaeus, 260, after Artedi; type ECHENEIS 
NAUCRATES L. (misprinted NEUCRATES). 


First restriction by Gill, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1862, 
239. In 1864, loc. cit. 60, Gill proposed to adopt as type 
ECHENEIS REMORA, this being the only species noted by 
Artedi, and in Linnaeus’s earlier writings. But as Linnaeus 
referred both species to ECHENEIS, this change seems not 
warranted. 


8. The points which it is important to note are the following :— 


(i) In 1917, Jordan and Evermann :— 


(a) gave no consideration to the question of the applicability 
of Opinion 16 to the generic name Echeneis Linnaeus, 
1758, notwithstanding the fact that in Opinion 16 the 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
had indicated that there were prima facie grounds for 
considering that Echeneis remora Linnaeus, 1758, was 
the type species of that genus by absolute tautonymy ; 


(b) disregarded the action of Gill (1864) in selecting Echeneis 
remora Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of Echeneis 
Linnaeus, 1758 ; and 


(c) adopted Echeneis naucrates Linnaeus, 1758, as the type 
species of Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758. 


(ii) When in the period 1924—1926 the question of placing the 
name Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758, upon the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology was under consideration, the conclusions 
reached by Jordan and Evermann in 1917 were not re-examined 
by the International Commission. In consequence, no con- 
sideration was given to the question whether the provisions 
of Opinion 16 applied to the generic name Echeneis Linnaeus, 
1758, and, therefore, whether under the Régles Internationales 
the type species of this genus was Echeneis remora Linnaeus, 
1758, and not Echeneis naucrates Linnaeus, 1758, as concluded 
by Jordan and Evermann in 1917. 


9. It is most unfortunate that the question of the applicability of 
Opinion 16 to Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758, was not considered by the 
International Commission at the time when Opinion 92 was in prepara- 
tion, since the failure to do so has had the result that in that Opinion 
the International Commission, when placing the name Echeneis 
Linnaeus, 1758, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, 
erroneously stated that the type species of that genus was Echeneis 


OPINION 242 3] 


naucrates Linnaeus, 1758, whereas, in fact (as shown in paragraph 4 
above), Echeneis remora Linnaeus, 1758, is the type species of that 
genus by absolute tautonymy under rule (d) in Article 30 as interpreted 
by Opinion 16. 


10. The decisions embodied in Opinion 92 were not taken by the 
International Commission under their Plenary Powers, and in con- 
sequence nothing in that Opinion can have the effect of inserting in the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology an entry which is contrary 
to the provisions of the Régles Internationales. Accordingly, the 
portion of Opinion 92 which states that Echeneis naucrates Linnaeus, 
1758, is the type species of Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758, is ultra vires 
and therefore invalid. 


11. It is clearly essential that, when, as on the present occasion, 
an error on a question of fact is detected in an Opinion rendered 
by the International Commission, the earliest possible opportunity 
should be taken to rectify the error so detected. In the present case 
there are two courses of action, either of which it is open to the 
International Commission to take, namely :— 


(1) to render an Opinion cancelling the entry in Opinion 92 relating 
to the generic name Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758, and substituting 
therefore an amended entry placing that name on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology with Echeneis remora 
Linnaeus, 1758, as type species by absolute tautonymy under 
rule (d) in Article 30 of the Régles Internationales, as interpreted 
by Opinion 16 ; 

OR 


(2) to render an Opinion under the Commission’s Plenary Powers 
(a) cancelling the designation of Echeneis remora Linnaeus, 
1758, as the type species of Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758, and (b) 
specifying Echeneis naucrates Linnaeus, 1758, as the type 
species of that genus. 


12. Course (1) above is clearly the proper course to adopt, unless 
it can be shown that the strict application of the Régles Internationales 
in the case of the name Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758, will clearly result 
in greater confusion than uniformity, in which event Course (2) would 
be the proper course to follow. Only specialists in the Class Pisces 
are in a position to furnish the International Commission with the 
material necessary to enable them to form a conclusion on the question 
whether confusion rather than uniformity would clearly result from 
the strict application of the Rég/es in this case through the acceptance 
of Echeneis remora Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of the genus 
Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758, and therefore whether or not the Régles 
should be suspended in this case in order to validate existing practice 
by specifying Echeneis naucrates Linnaeus, 1758, as type species of 
this genus, 


32 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


13. It was in 1944 that I first discovered the mistake in Opinion 92 
in regard to the type species of the genus Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758, 
while I was engaged in an examination of the subsequent history 
of the numerous generic names, of which the status is discussed in 
Opinion 16 but on which no decision was taken in that Opinion. On 
making this discovery, I thought it well to obtain preliminary advice 
from leading ichthyologists on the question whether this was a case 
in which the Régles should be allowed to take their course and existing 
practice should be set aside through the recognition of Echeneis 
remora Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of the genus Echeneis 
Linnaeus, 1758, or whether, in the view of the specialists consulted, 
the prospect of confusion arising from the adoption of that course 
was such as to justify the use by the International Commission of their 
Plenary Powers for the purpose of designating Echeneis naucrates 
Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of the genus Echeneis Linnaeus, 
1758. In putting the case before the specialists concerned, I drew 
attention also to the fact that, according to the latest Nomenclator (Neave, 
1940, Nomencl. zool. 4 : 21), the name Remora Gill, 1862, Proc. Acad. 
nat. sci. Philad. 1862 : 239 (the name of the genus to which the species 
Echeneis remora Linnaeus, 1758, is commonly referred) is a homonym 
(1) of Remora Gouan, 1770, Hist. Pisc. 10, 183, and (2) of Remora 
Forster, 1771, Cat. Anim. N. Amer. : 20. I accordingly asked the 
specialists concerned, when replying to the main question which I had 
put to them, to indicate also their views on the question whether the 
name Remora Gill, 1862, was an available name or whether it was, 
as then appeared probable, an invalid homonym under Article 34 
of the Régles Internationales. 


14. The following are the replies received from the specialists 
consulted :— 


(a) Views of Dr. Ethelwynn Trewavas, Department of Zoology, British 
Museum (Natural History), London 


(letter dated 24th October 1944) 


Unfortunately, the library being evacuated, I cannot go into 
the Echeneis—Remora question as I should. But I think it is 
right to say that the use now of Echeneis remora Linnaeus, 1758, 
as the type of Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758, would cause confusion. 


Remora Gill, 1862,* is not a homonym, as, according to the 
writers whom I have consulted, the first two authors listed by 


* The volume of the Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. in which the name Remora Gill 
was published has no volume number. It is the volume for the year 1862 and 
should therefore be cited as Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1862. It was published 
in Parts, like similar journals, and the dates of publication of the several Parts 
are given at the foot of the page on each signature. The signature in which the 
name Remora Gill appears is dated “‘ April 1862”. The title page of the volume 
was published after the close of 1862 and is dated “1863 ”’. This is no doubt 
the reason why the name Remora Gill is inadvertently treated in the latest 
omen (Neave 1940, Nomencl. zool. 4 : 21) as having been published 
in : 


OPINION 242 33 


Neave in his Nomenclator zoologicus (Gouan, 1770, and Forster, 
1771) used it in the same sense as have later authors, i.e. with 
Echeneis remora Linnaeus as type by absolute tautonymy. If 
it is possible, I hope that a decision may be postponed until the 
library is available again, as I have not been able to consult either 
Gouan or Forster. 


(b) Views of Dr. C. M. Breder, Jr., Department of Fishes, American 
Museum of Natural History, New York 


(letter dated 29th November 1944) 


I have studied your statement concerning the status of the type 
of the genus Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758. In cases of this sort which 
involve the inversion of established generic names I believe that 
true “confusion”? as opposed to mere “ inconvenience’”’ is the 
inevitable resultant effect. Consequently I recommend that the 
appropriate action be taken to firmly establish Echeneis naucrates 
Linnaeus, 1758, as the type of Echeneis Linnaeus. 


Due to the press of other matters I have not been able to look 
up Gill, 1862, but I do not believe that any treatment of his would 
change my view concerning the inadvisability of permitting 
Echeneis remora Linnaeus, 1758, to become properly established 
as the type of Echeneis. 


(c) Views of Dr. Leonard P. Schultz, Dr. Samuel F. Hildebrand and 
Dr. Robert R. Miller, United States National Museum, Washington, 


(letter from Dr. Leonard P. Schultz dated Ist December 1944) 


Your letter of November 16th concerning the genera Echeneis 
and Remora arrived on the 29th, and, after considerable inves- 
tigation, I have come to certain conclusions which are explained 
below. 


Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758, has two species listed in the following 
order : (1) E. remora, and (2) E. neucrates. After, 1758, E. remora 
was listed by very numerous authors and the vernacular name— 
Remora—was used many times both for E. remora and E. neucrates 
and, no doubt, for other species of this group of fishes. 


The next question is when was the genus Remora established 
and the genus Echeneis first restricted ? 


34 


OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


Neave (Nomenclator Zoologicus, vol. 4, p. 21, 1940) cites 
Remora Gouan, 1770 (Hist. Pisc., p. 10, [107], 183) but, in looking 
this up, I find that the left-hand page 183 is in Latin and the 
generic name Echeneis is used, whereas the right-hand page 
(also numbered 183) is the French translation of the opposite 
page 183 and the name used is “Le Remora’. No species is 
cited anywhere. Thus, in my opinion, ““ Remora”’ was not used 
generically in 1770. 


Forster, 1771, A Catalogue of the Animals of North America... 
(reprint of 1882 examined by me) has three columns throughout. 
The column on the left-hand side of each page gives a common 
name preceded by a Roman number and on page 6 this series of 
numbers has over it the name “Genus”. The second column 
also contains common or vernacular names, breaking down further 
the common name in the left-hand column. The third column 
usually (but not always) contains a Latin binomial name, as 
for example :— 


XIV Cod ES Jugular 
Common ib. 
Frost Gadus callarias Mus. Bi. 
Tau Gadus Tau 

XVIII. Remora *** Thoracic 


Remora Ech. neucrates C.II.26 


Thus, I conclude that Remora is not used in the binomial sense 
but only as a common name by Forster, 1771 and 1882. 


I have searched the literature and can find no generic use of 
Remora previous to that of Gill (April 1862, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. 


Philadelphia, p. 239). Gill revised the ‘‘ family of Echeneidoidae ”’, 


* (a) Gill’s action here described fulfils all the conditions laid down in Opinion 
6. Accordingly, if no type species had previously been designated, indicated 
or selected for the genus Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758, Gill’s action on this occasion 
would constitute a valid selection Echeneis naucrates (emend. of neucrates) 
Linnaeus, 1758, as the type of the genus Echeneis Linnaeus. 


(b) Although the name Remora was published by Gill in 1862 without a 


description or definition, it is a nomenclatorially available name, since the . 
genus is monotypical and the name Remora Gill, 1862, was, therefore, pub- 
lished with an “ indication ’’ (as defined by Opinion 1) and accordingly satisfies 
the requirements of Article 25 of the Régles Internationales. 


+ As Gill designated Echeneis remora Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of the 
genus Remora Gill, 1862, that species is automatically the type species of that 
genus under rule (a) in Article 30 of the Régles Internationales. The specific 


OPINION 242 35 


giving a key to the various genera, some new, citing the genotype 
for each, as, for example, in my reprint of his article :— 


Echeneis* (E. naucrates L.) 
Remorat (E. remora L.) 


Thus Gill 1862, not only established the genus Remora, but 
also restricted the genus Echeneis L. to the species E. naucrates L. 
Further, he was the first reviser and, in addition, his genus Remora 
has but a single species cited,* that is, E. remora L., which is 
tautotypic for Remora. 


The next binomial use of Remora appears to be that of Bleeker 
(September 1863, Onziéme Notice sur la Faune Ichthyologique de 
Pile de Ternate). On page 9 of my reprint the name is used as 
“279. Remora albescens Gill=Echeneis albescens Schl. ”’ 


Gill (March 1864,t Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, pp. 
59—60) reversed himself in regard to the genotypes of both 
Echeneis and Remora when he published the following :— 


Elevating these types with others to independent generic rank, 
I have restricted Echeneis to the genus typified by E. naucrates 
and called that one typified by E. remora, Remora, which name 
Dr. Bleeker has since accepted. On examining the works of 
Linnaeus and Artedi, I find, however, that E. remora was the 
only species referred to that genus by Linnaeus in the earlier 
editions of the Systema Naturae, and by Artedi; and that in the 
later editions, Linnaeus placed that species at the head of the 
genus. The E. remora must consequently be regarded as the type 
of the genus, and a new name (Leptecheneis) conferred on E. 
naucrates. The genera of Echeneidoidae will then be known by 
the following names : 


name (remora) is the same word as that which constitutes the name of the 
genus (Remora), and this fact would make that species the type species of 
Remora Gill by absolute tautonymy under Rule (d) of Article 30, if the type 
species of that genus had not previously been fixed in some other manner. 
In this connection, it must be recalled that the Rules set out in Article 30 are 
not Rules which operate independently of one another but on the contrary 
are Rules which operate only in succession to one another in a diminishing 
order of priority. Accordingly, in the present case, the type species of the genus 
Remora Gill, 1862, is Echeneis remora Linnaeus, 1758, through the operation 
of Rule (a) in Article 30 (type by original designation). In these circumstances, 
the later Rule (d) in the same Article has no applicability to the generic name 
Remora Gill, 1862. 

t This volume of the Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. was issued without a volume 
number and with the dates of publication of the several Parts printed at the 
foot of each signature in the same way as the volume for 1862. 


36 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


REMORAE 


Echeneis remora L. 
Echeneis L., Art. Type, Echeneis remora L.* 
Remoropsis Gill. Type, Echeneis brachyptera Lowe. 
Rhombochirus Gill. Type, Echeneis osteochir Cuy. 


Remilegia Gill. Type, Echeneis australis Bennett=Echeneis 
scutata Giinther. 


oe ee 


LEPTECHENEIDES 


5. Leptecheneis Gil/. Type, Echeneis neucrates L. 
6. Phtheirichthys Gil/. Type, Echeneis lineatus Menzies. 


The current use of the two genera is almost universal among 
present-day ichthyologists, most of whom have completely 
ignored Opinion 16 and have followed Gill and Opinion 92. Listed 
below are a few works of importance that recognise both genera 
(Echeneis and Remora) with the genotypes as given : 


Jordan, Evermann, and Clark, Check List of Fishes—North 
America—,Rept. U.S. Comm. Fish., 1928, Pt. 2, p. 448, 1930 
(Echeneis L., type E. naucrates L.) ; (Remora Forster, type E. 
remora L.) 


Meek and Hildebrand, Marine Fishes of Panama, vol. 3, p. 896, 
1928 (Echeneis L., type E. Naucrates L.) ; (Remora Forster, type 
E. remora L.) 


Fowler, Marine Fishes of West Africa, vol. 2, pp. 1018, 1021, 
1936 (Remora Forster, type E. remora L.) ; (Echeneis L. type E. 
neucrates L.) 


Schultz, U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 180, pp. 259, 260, 1943 (Echeneis L., 
type E. naucrates L.) ; (Remora Forster, type E. remora L.) 


* Gill’s action in 1862 would have constituted a valid selection of Echeneis 
naucrates Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of the genus Echeneis Linnaeus, 
1758, if it had not been for the fact that Echeneis remora Linnaeus, 1758, had 
been the type species of that genus from the date of its original publication 
(1758) by absolute tautonymy under Rule (d) in Article 30 as interpreted by 
Opinion 16. In no circumstances, therefore, could Gill’s action in 1864 in 
selecting Echeneis remora Linnaeus as the type species of Echeneis Linnaeus 
have had any power to reverse or set aside the selection by the same author in 
1862 of Echeneis naucrates Linnaeus as the type species of this genus. For the 
reasons explained above, Gill’s action in 1862 was invalid, because through 
the operation of Rule (d) in Article 30 and Opinion 16 the type species of the 
genus Echeneis Linnaeus had always been Echeneis remora Linnaeus. By a pure 
accident, therefore, the statement by Gill in 1864 that Echeneis remora Linnaeus 
is the type species of this genus happens to correspond correctly with the 
actual position under the Régles Internationales but this is not due in any way 
to the action then taken by Gill. 


OPINION 242 — 37 


L. S. Berg (Classification of Fishes both Recent and Fossil, 
Travaux Inst. Zool. Acad. Sci. URSS, vol. 5, Pt. 2, p. 495, 1940) 
recognised both genera, Echeneis and Remora. 


My conclusions are that both genera should be recognised and 
that Remora dates from Gill 1862, and not from Forster 1771, 
or Gouan 1770. It is clear that the genotypes are those named 
by Gill 1862, who, as stated heretofore, was the first reviser and 
the first to restrict the genus Echeneis L. To change the genotypes 
from those designated by Gill, 1862, would result in actual confusion. 
They should stand as currently used by ichthyologists—Remora 
Gill, 1862 (type E. remora L.) and Echeneis L. (type E. neucrates L.). 


Dr. Samuel F. Hildebrand and Dr. Robert R. Miller, both 
actively engaged in systematic ichthyology here at the United 
States National Museum, concur in the opinions stated above. 


15. In view of the unanimous nature of the advice received from 
the specialists consulted, a clear prima facie case has been established 
in support of the view that the strict application of the Rég/es in the 
case of the name Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758 (i.e. the acceptance of 
Echeneis remora Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of FEcheneis 
Linnaeus, 1758, by absolute tautonymy under Rule (d) in Article 30 
of the Régles Internationales, as interpreted by Opinion 16) would 
clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. It follows, therefore, 
that the course best calculated to promote stability in the nomenclature 
of the Order Discocephali in the Class Pisces would be for the Inter- 
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use their Plenary 
Powers in order to validate the (at present) erroneous entry in Opinion 
92 in regard to the type species of Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758, thereby 
validating also the current practice of specialists in the group concerned. 
For this purpose, it would be necessary for the International Commis- 
sion (i) to set aside the designation of Echeneis remora Linnaeus, 1758, 
as the type species of Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758, by absolute tautonymy 
and (ii) to designate Echeneis naucrates (emend. of neucrates) Linnaeus, 
1758, as the type species of this genus. 


16. Further, I agree with the view expressed by Drs. Schultz, 
Hildebrand and Miller that, if the foregoing action is to be taken in 
regard to the name Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758, it is desirable that at the 
same time action should be taken by the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature to dispose of the outstanding points in 
regard to the name Remora. In view of the evidence brought forward, 
it seems to me that the most satisfactory course would be for the 
International Commission to suppress under their Plenary Powers 
all uses of the name Remora as a generic name prior to the publication 
of the generic name Remora Gill, 1862, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 
1862 : 239. The name Remora Gill, 1862 (type species by original 


38 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


designation ; Echeneis remora Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 
1 : 260) could then be added to the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology. 


17. The proposal which will, therefore, be submitted to the Inter- 
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is that they should 
render an Opinion under their Plenary Powers in the following terms:— 


(a) Under suspension of the Rég/es, it is hereby declared as follows:— 
(i) All type designations for Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758, made 

prior to the date of this Opinion are set aside : 
(ii) Echeneis naucrates (emendation of neucrates) Linnaeus, 
1758, is designated as the type species of Echeneis 

Linnaeus, 1758. 

(iii) The name Remora as used by A. Gouan, 1770, by J. R. 
Forster, 1771, and by any other author prior to the 
publication of the name Remora Gill, 1862, is suppressed. 


(iv) The name Remora Gill, 1862 (type species, by original 
designation: Echeneis remora Linnaeus, 1758) is 
validated. 


(b) The entry in Opinion 92 relating to the name Echeneis Linnaeus, 
1758, is accordingly confirmed and the name Remora Gill, 
1862 (Class Pisces, Order Discocephali), with the type species 
specified above, is hereby added to the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology. 


II.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 


2. The mistake in Opinion 92 regarding the type species of 
Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758, was discovered at the same time that 
the Commission’s Opinion 16 was being examined in connection 
with a re-issue which was then in preparation. In consequence, 
the documents relating to the present case were in the first instance 
registered under the Number Z.N.(G.) 24, the File concerned 
with the arrangements for the re-issue of the older Opinions 
which were out of print and had become unobtainable. When 
however in 1944 it became evident that a special application would 
need to be submitted to the International Commission in regard 
to the present case, the documents relating to it were re-registered 
under the Number Z.N.(S.) 156. On the receipt of Mr. Hemming’s 
application, it was considered that the most convenient course 


OPINION 242 39 


would be to include it as one of the Notes which it had been 
decided to annex to Opinion 16 when re-issued. The revised 
edition of that Opinion was sent to the printer on 11th September 
1945, 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 
(Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 255—304). 


3. Issue of Public Notices: On 20th 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. The pub- 
lication 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. 
The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Pro- 
ceedings of the International Commission, giving a summary 
of the discussion which took place on this case (1950, Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 4 : 538) :— 


IT WAS GENERALLY AGREED that in view of the confusion 
which would result from the strict application of the Rég/es in the 
present case, the desirability of avoiding (wherever possible) the making 
of changes in entries previously made in the Official List, the wide and 
representative support for the present proposals received from leading 
ichthyologists and the complete lack of opposition of any kind, a case 
for the use of the Plenary Powers in the present instance had been 
established and that the application should be granted. 


5. At the close of the discussion summarised in the preceding 
paragraph, the Commission took its decision in the present case. 
That decision is set out as follows in the Official Record of the 


40 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


Proceedings of the International Commission (Paris Session, 
14th Meeting, Conclusion 38) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
4 : 536—539) :— 


THE COMMISSION agreed :— 


(1) to use their Plenary Powers to set aside the original 
indication of Echeneis remora Linnaeus, 1758, as the 
type species of the genus Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758 
(Class Pisces, Order Discocephali) by absolute tauton- 
ymy (Article 30, Rule (d), as interpreted by Opinion 16) 
and in the place of that species to designate Echeneis 
neucrates Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of this 
genus ; 


(2) that neither Gouan (1770) nor Forster (1771) when 
using the word “ Remora”, had used it as a generic 
name and therefore that the reputed generic names 
Remora Gouan, 1770, and Remora Forster, 1771, were 
to be rejected as having no existence under the Rég/es ; 

(3) to confirm explicitly the decision given implicitly in Opinion 
92 (when the generic name Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758, 
had been placed on the Official List of Generic Names 
in Zoology) that a faute d’orthographe was evident in 
the spelling of the trivial name neucrates Linnaeus, 
1758 (as published in the binominal combination 
Echeneis neucrates) and therefore that the spelling 
of that trivial name is, under Article 19, to be emended 
to naucrates ; 


(4) to confirm the position on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology of the generic name Echeneis Linnaeus 
1758 (type species, by designation under the Plenary 
Powers under (1) above: Echeneis naucrates (emend. 
neucrates) Linnaeus, 1758) (decision confirming action 
taken in Opinion 92) ; 


(5) to place the generic name Remora Gill, 1862 (type species, 
by absolute tautonymy: Echeneis remora Linnaeus, 
1758) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; 


OPINION 242 41 


(6) to place the under-mentioned reputed but non-existent 
generic names, rejected under (2) above, on the Official 
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology :— 


(i) Remora Gouan, 1770 ; 
(11) Remora Forster, 1771 ; 


(7) to place the under-mentioned trivial names on the 
Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— 


naucrates Linnaeus, 1758 (emendation, under (3) 
above, of neucrates, as published in the binominal 
combination Echeneis neucrates) 

remora Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal 
combination Echeneis remora) ; 


(8) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in 
(1) to (7) above. 


6. 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 : 117). 


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. 


42 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


8. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was dissented from 
by no Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the 
Paris Session. 


9. Under the regulations governing the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology and of the corres- 
ponding Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology, the International Commission is required to place on 
these Indexes every generic name or, as the case may be, every 
specific name which it either rejects under its Plenary Powers or 
declares to be invalid. In the present instance, the required 
entries in the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names 
in Zoology were duly specified in the Official Record of the Pro- 
ceedings of the International Commission, but by some inadver- 
tence no similar entry on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Specific Names in Zoology was made in the Official Record of 
the specific name neucrates Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the 
combination Echeneis neucrates, then (Point (3) of the Conclusion 
quoted in paragraph 5 of the present Opinion) rejected as an 
Invalid Original Spelling. This omission has been rectified in the 
Ruling given in the present Opinion. 


10. The following are the original references for the names 
which appear in the decision set out in paragraph 5 above :— 


Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 260 

naucrates (emend. of neucrates), Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. 
Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 261 

neucrates, Echeneis, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 261 

Remora Gouan, 1770, Hist. Pisc. : 10, [107], 183 

Remora Forster, 1771, Cat. Anim. N. Amer. : 20 

Remora Gill, 1863, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1862 : 239 

remora, Echeneis, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 260. 


11. The gender of the generic name Remora Gill, 1862, referred 
to in the decision quoted in paragraph 5 above, is feminine. 


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 


OPINION 242 43 


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 accordingly 
hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission 
by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Inter- 
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all 
and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 


14. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two 
Hundred and Forty-Two (242) of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature. 


Done in London this Thirteenth 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, cCM.G., C.B.E. 


Secretary to the Commission 


VOLUME 5. Part 4. Pp. 45—56 


OPINION 243 


Designation, under the Plenary Powers, for the nominal 
genus Carabus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order 
Coleoptera) of a type species in harmony with current 

nomenclatorial 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 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 243 


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. Perers (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, 
Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). : 
Dr. Harold E. VoKEs (United States Seale Survey, Washington, IDK en. 
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 HANKG (University of Debrecen, Hungary). 

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Polish Zoological Museum, Warsaw, Poland). 

Dr. Norman R. SToit (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Princeton, 
New Jersey, U.S.A.). 


C. Alternate Members of the Commission at the Session held in Paris 
in 1948 

Professor Enrique BELTRAN (Instituto Mexicano de Recursos Naturales 
Renovables A.C., Mexico City, Mexico). 

Dr. Edward HINDLE (Zoological Society of London, London, England). 

Dr. Arturo Ricardo JorGE (Museu Bocage, Lisbon, Portugal). 

Professor Harold Kirsy (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). 

Dr. Henning LEMcHE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohojskole, Zoologisk Labora- 
torium, Copenhagen, Denmark). 

Professor Kamel MANSouR (King Fouad University, Cairo, Egypt). 

‘Professor Z. P. METCALF (North Carolina State College of Agriculture and 
Engineering, University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.). 

Mr. N. D. 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.). 


OPINION 243 


DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, FOR 
THE NOMINAL GENUS ‘ CARABUS ” LINNAEUS, 
1758 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA) 
OF A TYPE SPECIES IN HARMONY WITH 
CURRENT NOMENCLATORIAL USAGE 


RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers, all type 
selections for the nominal genus Carabus Linnaeus, 1758 
(Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) made prior to the pres- 
ent Ruling are hereby set aside and Carabus granulatus 
Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated as the type species 
of this genus. 


(2) The generic name Carabus Linnaeus, 1758 (gender 
of name : masculine) with the type species designated in 
(1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology as Name No. 669. 


(3) The specific name granulatus Linnaeus, 1758, as 
published in the combination Carabus granulatus, is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology as Name No. 62. 


48 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE 


On 15th December 1939 the Royal Entomological Society of 
London published Part 6 of the work entitled The Generic Names 
of British Insects. This Part contained the Sixth Report of the 
Society’s Committee on Generic Nomenclature! covering the 
First Report of its Coleoptera Sub-Committee. This Report 
was concerned exclusively with the names of genera belonging 
to the Family CARABIDAE, species of which occur in the United 
Kingdom. Attached to the Sub-Committee’s Report was a 
statement in which it had formulated recommendations for the 
use, by the International Commission, of its Plenary Powers in 
the case of the names of seven genera belonging to the foregoing 
Family. The Sub-Committee submitted at the same time a more 
detailed statement regarding the names of the genera of this 
Family represented in the British Fauna which had been prepared 
for it by Mr. H. E. Andrewes, one of its members. The present 
Opinion is concerned only with the first of the applications so 
submitted. This relates to the generic name Carabus Linnaeus, 
1758. At the time of the publication of the foregoing Part of 
the Generic Names of British Insects, the hour was not opportune 
for the submission to the International Commission by the 
Society of recommendations relating to problems of zoological 
nomenclature, for at the outbreak of war in Europe in September 
1939 the records of the International Commission had been 
evacuated from London to the country as a precaution against the 
risk of destruction through air raids and the London Secretariat 
of the Commission had been temporarily closed, while, for its 
part, the Society, like other learned institutions with headquarters 
in London, was pre-occupied with pressing administrative pro- 
blems. Accordingly, at that time no steps were taken by the 
Society to submit to the International Commission the recom- 
mendations formulated by the Coleoptera Sub-Committee. In 


- 


At the time of the publication of this Report the Composition of the Committee 
on Generic Nomenclature was as follows :—Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. 
(Chairman); K. G. Blair, D.Sc.; F. W. Edwards, M.A., Sc.D., F.R.S. ; 
O. W. Richards, M.A., D.Sc.; N. D. Riley; W. A. F. Balfour-Browne 
(Secretary). 


The composition of the Coleoptera Sub-Committee at this time was as 
follows :—H. E. Andrewes ; W. A. F. Balfour-Browne ; K. G. Blair, D.Sc. ; 
M. Cameron ; Sir Guy Marshall, C.M.G., D.Sc., F.R.S. 


te 


OPINION 243 49 


August 1943, however, Mr. Hemming notified Mr. N. D. Riley, 
who by this time had become Secretary to the Royal Entomological 
Society of London that the Commission would be glad to receive 
these recommendations. Thereupon these were submitted to 
the Commission by Mr. Riley on behalf of the Society on 23rd 
August 1943. For the purposes of the Commission the present 
application was treated as consisting of two documents, each an 
extract from Part 6 of the Generic Names of British Insects, the 
first from the paper written by Mr. H. E. Andrewes, the second, 
from the covering Report of the Coleoptera Sub-Committee. The 
application so constituted, was as follows :— 


(a) On the type of the genus ‘‘ Carabus ’’ Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, 
Order Coleoptera) 


By H. E. ANDREWES 
(Leicester) 


Carabus Linnaeus, 1758. 


Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 413. 

Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 426. 
Curtis, 1833, Brit. Ent. 10 : pl. 446. 

Hope, 1838, Col. Man. 2 : 47. 

Solier, 1848, in Truqui and Baudi. Studi Ent. 1 : 58. 

C. G. Thomson, 1875, Opusc. Ent. 7 : 640. 

Andrewes, 1935, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10) 16 : 14. 
Breuning, 1932—1937, Best.-Tab. Europ. Col. 104—110. 


Latreille cited as type Carabus auratus Fab., 1801 (=Linn., 1761), 
a species not originally mentioned by Linnaeus, so that the citation is 
invalid. Curtis, 1833, and Westwood, 1838, made Carabus violaceus 
Linn. the type. C. G. Thomson divided the genus into a number of 
subgenera, and, following Hope, made C. granulatus Linn. the type of 
his subgenus Carabus s.s. Most recent writers, including Breuning 
in his revision quoted above, also treat C. granulatus Linn. as the 
genotype. For the reasons given in my recent paper, it is very desirable 
that the International Commission should express an Opinion con- 
firming Hope’s citation and overruling that of Curtis.? 


8 The above is an extract from the paper entitled “‘ The Generic names of the 
British CARABIDAE”’ prepared by Mr. H. E. Andrewes for the Coleoptera 
Sub-Committee of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature of the Royal 
Entomological Society of London. At the date in question the composition 
of the above Sub-Committee and of the above Committee was as shown in 
footnotes 1 and 2 above, 


50 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


(b) Proposed suspension of the ‘‘ Régles ’’ for ‘‘ Carabus ’’ Linnaeus, 
1758 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) 


By SIR GUY A. K. MARSHALL, K.C.M.G., D.Sc., F.R.S. 
(formerly Director, Imperial Institute of Entomology, London), 


H. E. ANDREWES 
(Leicester), 


W. A. F. BALFOUR-BROWNE 
(formerly Professor of Entomology, Imperial College of Science and 
Technology, London), 


K. G. BLAIR, D.Sc. 
(formerly Deputy Keeper of the Department of Entomology, British 
Museum (Natural History)), 


and 


M. CAMERON 
(British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring) 


In the case of the following generic name the strict application of the 
rules embodied in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 
would cause a serious, and quite unnecessary, disturbance in existing 
practice and would, in our view, cause greater confusion than uniformity. 
For this name we are in favour of a partial suspension of the Rules. 
The object we have in view can be effected by a very slight departure 
from the strict application of the Code. 


The portion of Mr. Andrewes’ paper relating to this name was written 
by him in consultation with us, and we are in full agreement both 
with his conclusions and with his recommendations, which we summarise 
as follows :— 


The Generic Name ‘‘ Carabus ”’ Linnaeus, 1758 


The first valid type-citation is that of Carabus violaceus Linnaeus, 
1758, by Curtis, 1833. Hope, 1838, cited Carabus granulatus Linnaeus, 
1758, and C. G. Thomson, 1875, in his revision of the genus, made this 
the type of the subgenus Carabus s.s. ; in this action he has been followed 
by all subsequent writers. To maintain Curtis’ citation would cause 
considerable confusion in the subgenera of this genus, with a profuse 
literature, so that it is very desirable that this citation should be set 
aside in favour of that of Hope. 


We are therefore of the opinion that in the exercise of the Plenary 
Power conferred upon them by the International Zoological Congress 
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should 


OPINION 243 51 


as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the 
promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect :— 


The name Carabus Linnaeus, 1758 (type Carabus granulatus 
Linnaeus), is added to the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology. The designation by Curtis, 1833, of Carabus violaceus 
Linnaeus as the type is therefore to be set aside, and that by 
Hope, 1838, of Carabus granulatus Linnaeus is to be accepted.* 


Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 


2. As soon as possible after the receipt of this application, to 
which the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 158 was given, steps were 
taken to prepare the two papers in question for publication 
in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature which had recently 
been established as a means for bringing to the attention of 
zoologists applications submitted to the International Com- 
mission for decision. The papers in this case 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 (Andrewes, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl.1 : 247 ; 
Marshall, Andrewes, Balfour-Browne, Blair & Cameron, 1947, 
ibid. 1 : 248). 


3. The publication of this application in the Bulletin elicited a 
letter of support from Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets Zoologiske 


4 The above is an extract from the First Report of the Coleoptera Sub-Committee 
of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature of the Royal Entomological 
Society of London. At the time of the submission of the above Report, the 
Coleoptera Sub-Committee was composed as in footnote 2. At the same 
period the Committee on Generic Nomenclature was composed as given in 
footnote 1. On receiving the Sub-Committee’s Report, the Committee on 
Generic Nomenclature, in their Sixth Report, recommend the Council of the 
Royal Entomological Society of London to transmit the Coleoptera Sub- 
Committee’s recommendations to the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature for favourable consideration. This recommendation was 
approved by the Council and, on the publication of the Committee’s Sixth 
Report by. the Society on 15th December 1939, the Sub-Committee’s recom- 
mendations were forwarded to the International Commission by the Council 
of the Society. 


ay OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


Museum, Copenhagen) who in a letter dated 8th April 1947 
indicated his approval of the action proposed by writing the 
word “ Yes”’. 


4. 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 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 so far as concerned the merits 
of the action proposed, but a letter dated 19th March 1948 was 
received from Dr. Richard E. Blackwelder (United States National 
Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) expressing the view that the 
material furnished by the applicants was insufficient. 


III—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


5. The present application was considered by the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Fourteenth 
Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi- 
théatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 2030 hours. 
The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Pro- 
ceedings of the International Commission giving a summary of 
the remarks made by the Acting President (Mr. Francis Hemming) 
in introducing this case and of the subsequent discussion (1950, 
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 445) :— 


THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) 
said that the only objection which had been lodged against the 
action proposed in this case was similar to, and came from the 
same source® as, the objection which the Commission had just 
considered in the case of the name Bradycellus Erichson, 1837. 
The Commission would no doubt give due weight to the objection 
so advanced. In his (the Acting President’s) opinion, it was 
necessary, however, to bear in mind that the genus Carabus 


> See paragraph 4. 


OPINION 243 53 


Linnaeus was one of the best known of all the genera in the Class 
Insecta ; in consequence this generic name fell in the class of 
names, to applications regarding which the Commission should 
give special consideration with a view to securing, inter alia, 
that long-forgotten or long-ignored type selections should not be 
permitted to introduce instability by disturbing current nomen- 
clatorial practice. In this case, therefore, his recommendation 
was that the Commission should use their Plenary Powers to 
grant the desired relief. 


GENERAL AGREEMENT was expressed with the views 
outlined by the Acting President. 


6. The decision of the Commission in this case is set out as 
follows in the Official Record of its Proceedings (Paris Session, 
14th Meeting, Conclusion 11) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 445— 
446) :-— 


THE COMMISSION agreed :— 


(1) to use their Plenary Powers :— 


(a) to set aside all selections of the type species of the 
genus Carabus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, 
Order Coleoptera) made previous to the present 
decision ; 

(b) to designate Carabus granulatus Linnaeus, 1758, 
to be the type species of the foregoing genus ; 


(2) to place the generic name Carabus Linnaeus, 1758, with 
the type species specified in (1) (b) above, on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; 

(3) to place, the trivial name granulatus Linnaeus, 1758 (as © 
published in the binominal combination Carabus 
granulatus) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names 
in Zoology ; 


(4) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified 
in (1) to (3) above. 


54 OPINIONS AND. DECLARATIONS 


7. The following are the original references for the names which 
appear in the decision set out in the immediately preceding 
paragraph :— 


Carabus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 413 
granulatus, Carabus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 413. 


8. The gender of the generic name Carabus Linnaeus, 1758, 
referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 6 above, is 
masculine. 


9. The decision taken in the present case was reported to, 
and approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth 
International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Sixth 
Meeting held on 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
> 2h 3), 


10. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was concurred in 
by the sixteen (16) Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners 
present at the Paris Session of the International Commission, 
namely :— 


Beltran vice Cabrera ; Boschma ; Bradley ; di Caporiacco ; 
Hemming; Hindle vice Jordan; Jorge vice do Amaral ; 
Kirby vice Stoll; Lemche vice Dymond; Mansour vice 
Hanko ; Metcalf vice Peters; Riley vice Calman; Rode; 
Sparck vice Mortensen ; van Straelen vice Richter ; Usinger 
vice Vokes. 


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 


a 


OPINION 243 5 


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 accordingly 
hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission 
by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Inter- 
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue 
of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 


14. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two 
Hundred and Forty-Three (243) of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature. 


Done in London this Fourteenth 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 5. Part 5. Pp. 57—70 


OPINION 244 


Suppression, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic 

name Coriscus Schrank, 1796, for the purpose of 

validating the generic name Alydus Fabricius, 1803 
(Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) 


AN! HSON/, Wy 
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 Five 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 244 


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. PeTERSs (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 JonGE (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 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 244 


SUPPRESSION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE 
GENERIC NAME ‘‘ CORISCUS ” SCHRANK, 1796, FOR 
THE PURPOSE OF VALIDATING THE GENERIC 
NAME ‘*‘ ALYDUS ” FABRICIUS, 1803 (CLASS 
INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA) 


RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers, the generic 
name Coriscus Schrank, 1796 (Class Insecta, Order 
Hemiptera), is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the 
Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homo- 
nymy, thereby providing a status of priority for Alydus 
Fabricius, 1803. 


(2) The generic name Alydus Fabricius, 1803 (gender 
of name : masculine) (type species, by selection by Curtis, 
1831: Cimex calcaratus Linnaeus, 1758), is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology 
as Name No. 670. 


(3) The name Coriscus Schrank, 1796, as suppressed 
under (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index 
of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as 
Name No. 64. 


(4) The entry on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology of the name Nabis Latreille, [1802—1803], made 
under the directions given in Opinion 104, is hereby 
confirmed. 


(5) The specific name calcaratus Linnaeus, 1758, as 
published in the combination Cimex calcaratus, is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 
as Name No. 63. 


60 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE 


On 30th June 1943 the Royal Entomological Society of London 
published Part 8 of the work entitled The Generic Names of British 
Insects. This Part contained the Eighth Report of the Society’s 
Committee on Generic Nomenclature! covering the First Report 
of its Hemiptera Sub-Committee.2_ This Report dealt exclusively 
with the generic names of the British Hemiptera-Heteroptera. 
In the first of two Appendices annexed to the Sub-Committee’s 
Report were two proposals for the use, by the International 
Commission, of its Plenary Powers. The first of these proposals 
was concerned with the generic name Alydus Fabricius, 1803, 
and it is this name which forms the subject of the present Opinion. 
The recommendations contained in the Hemiptera Sub-Commit- 
tee’s Report were formally submitted to the International Com- 
mission by Mr. D. N. Riley, Secretary to the Royal Entomological 
Society of London, on 23rd August 1943. The case of the name 
Alydus Fabricius was dealt with twice in the foregoing work, 
first, in the paper written by Dr. W. E. China (: 231—233) 
annexed to Sub-Committee’s Report, and, second, by the Sub- 
Committee itself (: 214215). These two passages are reproduced 
below. It must be noted however that, as explained in paragraph 
2 below, the actual terms of the proposal prepared by the Sub- 
Committee for the consideration of the International Commission 
(i.e. the proposal set out in the last paragraph of the second of the 
two documents given below) were revised by the Sub-Committee 
in 1944 before the Sub-Committee’s application was printed in 
the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. It was accordingly 
this revised proposal, the text of which is given in paragraph 2 
of the present Opinion which was submitted to the International 


- 


The composition of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature at the time of the 
submission of this Report was the same as it had been at the time of the com- 
pletion of its Sixth Report. Its composition at the latter date has been given 
in footnote 1 to Opinion 243 (: 48). 


to 


The Hemiptera Sub-Committee at the time of the submission of this Report 
was composed of : Dr. W. E. China; Mr. E. E. Green. 


ee eS 


OPINION 244 61 


Commission, and not the original proposal published in The 
Generic Names of British Insects, as set out below :— 


(a) On the status of the name ‘‘ Alydus ’’ Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta, 
Order Hemiptera) 


By W. E. CHINA, M.A. 
(Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum 
(Natural History) ) 


Alydus Fabricius, 1803 


Fabricius, 1803, Syst. Rhyng. : 251. 
Curtis, 1831, Brit. Ent. : 369. 


Type (fixed by Curtis)=Cimex calcaratus Linnaeus, 1758. 


It is necessary to discuss here the status of the genus Coriscus Schrank, 
1796 (Sammi. nat. phys. Aufsdze 1 : 121), which Kirkcaldy and Stichel 
used in place of A/ydus Fabricius. This genus was originally based on 
a single species represented by figures 2 & 3 of Tab. 123 in Schaeffer, 
(1776—1779), Icon. Insect. Ratisbon. Schrank declared, however, that 
these figures did not represent Cimex calcaratus Linnaeus as had 
been stated by Fabricius and De Geer but an insect which he proceeded 
to describe (under the new generic name Coriscus) as ‘‘ Moéhren- 
sichelwanze’’. His description of the new genus and species differed 
from Cimex calcaratus Linnaeus in several important structural 
points, notably in the sickle-shaped curve of the rostrum, in the tri- 
instead of quadri-segmentation of the rostrum, in the unarmed femora, 
and in the smaller size. One of Schaeffer’s figures certainly does show 
a strongly curved rostrum quite different from that of Alydus calcaratus, 
but in colour the figure is quite a reasonable representation of the 
Linnaean species. Schrank’s colour description of the species also 
agrees well with A/lydus calcaratus Linnaeus. In 1801 Schrank (Fauna 
Boica 2 (1) : 99) applied the Latin name Coriscus dauci to his ‘““ Moéhren- 
sichelwanze ’’ which automatically became the genotype of Coriscus 
in spite of the fact that Schrank at the same time included a new species 
Coriscus crassipes and suggested that Cimex subapterus De Geer 
also belonged to this genus. In 1888 Reuter (Act. Soc. Sci. Fenn. 
15 : 759) fixed the type of Coriscus as C. dauci Schrank 1801, thereby 
ending any argument as to the validity of the above automatic citation. 
Reuter, however, although he admitted important structural differences, 
sank Coriscus dauci Schrank, 1801 as a synonym of Alydus calcaratus 
Linnaeus. At the same time he retained the name A/ydus Fabricius, 
1803, although Coriscus, 1796, and, 1801, had priority. Kirkaldy 
1900 (Entomologist 33 : 263) also asserted that ‘‘ dauci=calcaratus ” 
and that consequently A/ydus Fabricius, 1803, was homotypical with 
Coriscus Schrank, 1796. In this he was followed by Stichel, 1925 
(ill. Bestimm. Deuts. Wanzen 2 ; 46). Nevertheless, I do not see how 


62 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


it is possible to synonymise Coriscus dauci Schrank with Cimex cal- 
caratus Linnaeus in the face of such distinct structural differences and 
having regard to the author’s definite statement to the effect that his 
‘“* Mohrensichelwanze ”’ was not Cimex calcaratus Linnaeus. I consider 
that it is better to ignore his colour description of Coriscus dauci, 
especially as in 1801 he associated with it a new species Coriscus 
crassipes which has since been synonymised with Nabis ferus (Linnaeus, 
1758) by Reuter. This brings us to the school of thought which would 
associate Coriscus Schrank with the NABIDAE.  Latreille in [1802— 
1803]® (Hist. nat. Crust. Ins. 3: 249), by stating “ Voyez le genre 
Coriscus de Schr., ’’ suggested that his new genus Nabis was identifiable 
with Schrank’s genus. Stal 1873 (Enum. Hemipt. 3 : 112) followed up 
this suggestion and replaced Nabis Latreille, [1802—1803]8, by Coriscus 
Schrank, 1796, placing Cimex ferus and its allies in the typical subgenus 
Coriscus. This in effect made Cimex ferus Linnaeus (=Cimex vagans 
Fabricius, 1787=Miris vagans Fabricius, 1794) the genotype, since 
Stal was the first real reviser of Coriscus, and Miris vagans Fabr. was 
the only recognisable original species in the group of species which he 
associated under the typical subgenus. The fact that Latreille in 1807 
(Gen. Crust. Ins. 3 : 117) placed Coriscus in his omnibus genus Coreus 
(with Alydus) need not affect the case. 


_ The generic description of Coriscus certainly agrees better with 
Nabis than with the Coreid genus A/ydus, but unfortunately no known 
German Nabid agrees with Schrank’s colour description of Coriscus 
dauci. 


Summarising, there are thus three alternatives :— 


1. To synonymise Coriscus dauci Schrank, 1801, with Cimex 
calcaratus Linnaeus, 1758, and thereby sink A/ydus Fabricius, 1803, 
as a synonym of Coriscus Schrank, 1796 (as done by Reuter, Kirkaldy, 
Stichel) ; | 


2. To reject Coriscus dauci Schrank, 1801, as genotype of Coriscus 
Schrank, 1796, on the ground of being unidentifiable and to select 
Coriscus crassipes Schrank, 1801 (=Cimex ferus Linnaeus, 1758) as 
the genotype, at the same time sinking Schrank’s genus as a synonym 
of Nabis Latreille, [1802—1803]8, which has been placed on the Official 
List of Generic Names (Opinion 104, 1928) ; 


3. To set aside the genus Coriscus Schrank, 1796, and, 1801, until 
the genotype Coriscus dauci Schrank, 1801, can be recognised. Unless 


3 Griffin (1938, J. Soc. Bibl. nat. Hist. 1 : 157) has shown that notwithstanding 
the fact that the title-page of the volume in which the name Harpalus Latreille 
was published bears the date ‘““ An X ”’ of the French Revolutionary Calendar 
(i.e. Sept. 1801—Sept. 1802), that volume was not in fact published until some 
time in “ An XI” (i.e. Sept. 1802—Sept. 1803). 


| 


OPINION 244 63 


a type specimen of Coriscus dauci Schrank exists, this would be tanta- 
mount to invalidating Coriscus since as a member of the very well- 
known German fauna, dauci would, if possible, have been identified 
long ago. 


-(b) Proposed suspension of the ‘* Régles ’’: for ‘‘ Alydus ’’ Fabricius, 
1803, and ‘‘ Coriscus’’ Schrank, 1796 (Class Insecta, Order 
Hemiptera) 


By E. E. GREEN 
(Camberley) 


and 


W. E. CHINA, M.A. 
(Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum 
(Natural History) ) 


We are of the opinion that greater confusion than uniformity would 
result if Alydus Fabricius, 1803 (type Cimex calcaratus Linnaeus, 1758, 
fixed by Curtis, 1831, British Entomology : 369) were replaced by the 
earlier name Coriscus Schrank, 1796. Apart from the fact that Alydus 
Fabricius had been in continuous use prior to 1925 when Stichel 
(lust. Bestimm. Deutsch. Wanzen 2 : 46), following Kirkaldy 1900 
(Entomologist 33 : 263), replaced it by Coriscus Schrank, 1796, the 
genus Coriscus is doubtfully identical with Alydus Fabricius. Coriscus 
Schrank, 1796 (Sammi. nat. phys. Aufsdze 1 : 121) is monobasic, since 
the only species originally included in the genus was the Mohren- 
sichelwanze, later named by Schrank, 1801 (Fauna Boica 2 (1) : 99) 
as Coriscus dauci. The genotype of Coriscus must therefore be Coriscus 
dauci. Schrank’s Mohrensichelwanze was based on figures 2 and 3 
of Tab. 123 in Schaeffer, [1776—1779], Icon. Ins. Ratisbon. Schrank 
actually declared that these figures did not represent Cimex calcaratus 
Linnaeus (the genotype of A/ydus) and his description of the new genus 
and species differed from Cimex calcaratus Linnaeus in several impor- 
tant structural points. Infact, Coriscus Schrank was referred by Latreille, 
1802, and Stal, 1873, to the family NABIDAE, the latter using it 
instead of Nabis Latreille, [1802—1803].4. The genus Nabis Latreille, 
however, has been placed by the International Commission on the 
Official List of Generic Names. Coriscus Schrank therefore must 
either replace A/ydus Fabricius, 1803 ; or be sunk as a synonym of 
Nabis Latreille, [1802—1803] ; or be set aside as based on an unidenti- 
fiable species. 


We are of the opinion that it is highly desirable that in the exercise 
of the Plenary Power conferred on them by the International Zoological 


4 For a note on the date here assigned to the name Nabis Latreille, see footnote 3. 


64 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


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 :— 


Under suspension of the Rules (i) the name Coriscus Schrank, 
1796, is hereby suppressed and (ii) Alydus Fabricius, 1803 (type : 
Cimex calcaratus Linnaeus, 1758, designated by Curtis, 1831) 
is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 


IlL—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 


2. On receipt, the papers relating to the present case were given 
the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 160, and as soon as possible 
steps were taken to prepare this application for publication in the 
then newly established Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. In 
so preparing this application, Mr. Hemming noted that the 
applicants had realised the connection between the name Coriscus 
Schrank, 1796 (which it was their object to prevent from supersed- 
ing Alydus Fabricius) and the name Nabis Latreille, but had 
been under the erroneous impression that, because this name had 
been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (by 
Opinion 104), it could not in any circumstances be replaced by 
a senior synonym. In order to clear up this misconception, 
Mr. Hemming (on 15th September 1944) wrote to Dr. China, 
explaining that, when a name was placed on the Official List, 
it possessed absolute protection from senior synonyms only if it 
had been expressly validated by the Commission under its Plenary 
Powers and that, as Nabis Latreille had been placed on that List 
on the assumption that it was the oldest available name for the 
genus concerned and without resort to the Plenary Powers, it did 
not enjoy absolute protection but could be called in question if 
an available senior synonym were found to exist. In subsequent 
correspondence it was agreed between Mr. Hemming on the one 
hand and Dr. China and Mr. Green on the other hand that the 
only certain way of securing complete protection both for the 
name Alydus Fabricius and for the name Nabis Latreille would 
be to obtain from the International Commission a decision sup- 
pressing the name Coriscus Schrank under its Plenary Powers. 
Accordingly, Dr. China and Mr. Green decided to amend their 


OPINION 244 65 


recommendation in this sense, and on 17th November 1944 they 
submitted the revised proposal set out in the last paragraph of 
the second of the two documents quoted in the first paragraph 
of the present Opinion. 


3. The present application, amended as shown in the foregoing 
paragraph, was sent to the printer at the close of 1944, but, owing 
to difficulties arising from paper rationing, shortage of labour at 
the printing works and similar causes, publication did not actually 
take place until 31st March 1947 (China, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
1 : 273—274; Green & China, 1947, ibid. 1 : 275). 


4. Comment received from Dr. R. I. Sailer (United States 
Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant 
Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) : After the present applica- 
tion had been sent to the printer for publication in the Bulletin 
but long before it was published, Dr. R. I. Sailer (United States 
Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant 
Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) wrote a letter on 12th 
January 1945 criticising the proposal submitted by Mr. Green 
and Dr. China in 1944 in Part 8 of The Generic Names of British 
Insects for the use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of 
preserving the name Alydus Fabricius as against the name Coriscus 
Schrank. In the same letter Dr. Sailer referred to the connection 
with the present case of the name Nabis Latreille which (as noted 
by Dr. China) had been placed on the Official List of Generic Names 
in Zoology by the Commission’s Opinion 104. Dr. Sailer’s letter 
was as follows :—® 


Another matter which I should like to discuss is the proposed 
suspension of the Rules in the case presented by Green and China 
(Generic Names of British Insects, 1943, pt. 8, pp. 214—215) pertaining 


5 As Dr. Sailer’s letter was written before the publication in the Bulletin of 
Zoological Nomenclature of the Green/China proposal in its definitive form, 
he was inevitably unaware that the applicants had revised their application in 
such a way that the position of the name Nabis Latreille on the Official List 
was fully protected. Accordingly, in order that Dr. Sailer might be fully 
informed of the latest stage of the present proposal, Mr. Hemming, in replying 
on 16th February 1945 to his letter of 12th January, wrote :— When I 
recently re-examined this case for the purpose of preparing it for publication 
in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 1 observed that the case of Nabis 
was not adequately dealt with in the case as presented. I had some corres- 
pondence on this subject with Mr. China, with the result that he and Mr. Green 
agreed to a re-wording of the recommendation in this case to cover this aspect 
of the question and to ensure that the validity of Nabis shall not be impaired ”’. 


66 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


to Alydus Fabricius, 1803. While Coriscus Schrank, 1796, has not been 
fixed in economic literature to any great extent it has been used con- 
sistently in taxonomic treatments since 1925, and some confusion will 
inevitably result from a return to Alydus. It is proposed by Green 
and China that the present type of Coriscus, C. dauci Schrank, 1801, 
be rejected on grounds of being based on an unidentifiable type, and 
that Coriscus crassipes Schrank, 1801, be accepted in its place. I trust 
that in taking such action the Commission would be aware that Nabis 
Latreille, 1802, is on the Official List of Generic Names (Opinion 104) 
because, as Stiles states, “‘ The Secretary has personally checked these 
names and believes they are all nomenclatorially available and valid, 
and that, therefore, they can be adopted in harmony with the Rules 
instead of as Nomina Conservanda”’. From this it is clear that further 
action with regard to Nabis will be necessary in event of favorable 
action on the case concerning Alydus as proposed by Green and China. 


As for the rejection of dauci Schrank, 1801, as genotype of Coriscus, 
I should like to point out that at least two important references pertain- 
ing to this problem are not cited by Green and China. Reuter, 1888 
(Revisio Synonymica Heteropterorum Palaearcticorum Wl, page 534 of 
Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicae, Tomus 15, Helsingfors), sank 
C. dauci as a synonym of Alydus calcaratus (L.). It is true that Reuter 
admitted that certain discrepancies existed. Kirkaldy, 1900, seems to 
have followed this action rather than to have initiated the synonymy 
directly as suggested by Green and China. The second reference 
is that by Horvath, 1917 (Ann. Mus. Nat. Hung. 15 : 378). Horvath’s 
action in synonymising dauci and calcaratus here appears to have been 
independent of either that of Reuter or Kirkaldy. His only qualifying 
remark is that Schrank’s description was based on a mutilated specimen. 


By way of summary, it is my opinion that since Coriscus has in the 
last twenty-five years become well established in the literature of Europe 
and the United States; that since its suppression, as proposed by 
Green and China, will endanger Nabis, a large and important genus in 
a different family ; and that since the identity of the genotype in 
question has been established by two of our most noted authorities 
in the Hemiptera, definite disservice to the stability of hemipterous 
nomenclature will result should favorable action be taken by the 
Commission on the case concerning A/ydus proposed by Green and 
China. 


5. Comment received from Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets 
Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen) : The publication of the present 
application in the Bulletin elicited a letter of support from Dr. Th. 
Mortensen (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen) who 
on 8th April 1947 wrote :—‘‘ Coriscus Schrank to be suppressed : 
Yes 


PS 


OPINION 244 67 


6. Issue of Public Notices: On 14th September 1947 a notice of 
the possible use, by the International Commissicn 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. 


I11—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 Pro- 
ceedings of the International Commission, setting out the decision 
reached by it in this case at the foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 
14th Meeting, Conclusion 19) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 464— 
467) :— 


THE COMMISSION agreed :— 


(1) to use their Plenary Powers :— 


(a) to suppress the name Coriscus Schrank, 1796 (Class 
Insecta, Order Hemiptera) for the purposes of 
Article 25, though not for those of Article 34 ; 

(b) to validate the generic name A/ydus Fabricius, 1803 
(Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) ; 

(2) to place the generic name Alydus Fabricius, 1803 (type 
species, selected by Curtis, 1831: Cimex calcaratus 
Linnaeus, 1758) on the Official List of Generic Names 
in Zoology ; 

(3) to place the name Coriscus Schrank, 1796, on the Official 
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; 


68 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


(4) to confirm the entry on the Official List of Generic Names 
in Zoology of the name Nabis Latreille [1802—1803] ; 


(5) to place the trivial name calcaratus Linnaeus, 1758 (as 
published in the binominal combination Cimex cal- 
caratus) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names 
in Zoology ; 


(6) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified 
in (1) to (5) above. 


8. The original references for the names which appear in the 
decision set out in the immediately preceding paragraph are as 
follows :— 


Alydus Fabricius, 1803, Syst. Rhyng. : 251 
calcaratus, Cimex, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 450 
Coriscus Schrank, 1796, Sammi. nat. phys. Aufsdze : 121. 


The reference to the type-selection by Curtis for Alydus Fabricius, 
1803, is :—Curtis, 1831, Brit. Ent. : pl. 369. 


9. The gender of the generic name Alydus Fabricius, 1803, 
referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 7 above, is 
masculine. 


10. 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 : 114). 


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. 


OPINION 244 69 


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. 


15. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two 
Hundred and Forty-Four (244) of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature. 


Done in London this Fourteenth day of December, Nineteen 
Hundred and Fifty-Three. 


Secertary 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, CM.G., C.B.E. 


Secretary to the Commission 


VOLUME 5. Part 6. Pp. 71—80 


OPINION 245 


Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a type species 

for the nominal genus Salda Fabricius, 1803 (Class 

Insecta, Order Hemiptera) in harmony with accustomed 
nomenclatorial usage 


ENN HSONi4 
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 11th June, 1954 


INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 245 


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 JoRDA™m (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. aan 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 KirsBy (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. RILeEy (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 int L. USsINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California, 


OPINION 245 


DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF A 
TYPE SPECIES FOR THE NOMINAL GENUS “‘SALDA’’ 
FABRICIUS, 1803 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER 
HEMIPTERA) IN HARMONY WITH 
ACCUSTOMED NOMENCLATORIAL 
USAGE 


RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers all type- 
selections for Salda Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta, 
Order Hemiptera) made prior to the present Ruling are 
hereby set aside and Cimex littoralis Linnaeus, 1758, is 
hereby designated as the type species of this genus. 


(2) The generic name Salda Fabricius, 1803 (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. 671. 


(3) The specific name /Jittoralis Linnaeus, 1758, as 
published in the combination Cimex littoralis, is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 
as Name No. 64. 


I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE 


On 30th June 1943 the Royal Entomological Society of London 
published Part 8 of the work entitled The Generic Names of 
British Insects. This Report contained the Eighth Report of 
the Society’s Committee on Generic Nomenclature! covering 
the First Report of its Hemiptera Sub-Committee.2. This Report 


- 


The composition of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature at the time of 
the submission of this Report was the same as it had been at the completion of 
its Sixth Report. Its composition at the latter date has been given in footnote 
1 to Opinion 243 (: 48). 

The Hemiptera Sub-Committee at the time of the submission of this Report 
was composed of : Dr. W. E. China; Mr. E. E. Green. 


nr 


74 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


dealt exclusively with the generic names of the British Hemiptera- 
Heteroptera. In the first of two Appendices annexed to the 
Sub-Committee’s Report were two proposals for the use, by the 
International Commission, of its Plenary Powers. ‘The first of 
these proposals was concerned with the name Alydus Fabricius, 
1803, the Commission’s decision on which has been given in 
Opinion 244, the second, with the name Salda Fabricius, 1803, 
which forms the subject of the present Opinion. The recommenda- 
tions contained in the Hemiptera Sub-Committee’s Report were 
formally submitted to the International Commission by Mr. N. D. 
Riley, Secretary to the Royal Entomological Society of London, 
on 23rd August 1943. The case of the name Salda Fabricius 
was dealt with twice in the foregoing work, first, in the paper 
written by Dr. W. E. China (: 277—278) annexed to the Sub- 
Committee’s Report, and, second, by the Sub-Committee itself 
(: 215). By agreement with the applicants, the two passages 
referred to above were treated by the International Commission 
as together constituting the application submitted in regard to 
the present case. These documents are reproduced below :— 


On the status of the name ‘‘ Salda ’’ Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta, 
Order Hemiptera) 


By W. E. CHINA, M.A. 
(Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum 
(Natural History)) 


Salda Fabricius, 1803 


Fabricius, 1803, Syst. Rhyng. : 113. 
Blanchard, [1838], in Cuvier, Régne anim. (Disciples’ ed.) Atlas : pl. 90. 


Unfortunately the first valid genotype fixation of the genus Salda 
Fabricius, 1803, appears to be that of Blanchard 1838, in the Disciples’ 
edition of Cuvier’s Régne animal, Atlas plate 90. On the title-page 
of this work it is stated, ‘“ Edition accompagnée de Planches gravées 
représentant les types de tous les genres ’’. Since under Salda only a 
single species, Salda grylloides Linnaeus (= Cimex grylloides Linnaeus, 
1761), is figured, this species becomes the genotype of Salda Fabricius, 
1803, which is hereby transferred to the family LYGAEIDAE and 
replaces Geocoris Fallén, 1814, a non-British genus. The dates of the 
Disciples’ edition of Cuvier were published by Sherborn in 1922 (Ann. — 
Mag. nat. Hist. (9) 10 : 555—556) and the date for the Heteroptera 
is 1838. In 1848 Blanchard (in Orbigny, Dict. univ. Hist. nat. 11 : 311 © 


OPINION 245 15) 


and 312) revised his earlier type fixation and cited Salda littoralis 
Fabricius, 1803=Cimex littoralis Linnaeus, 1758. The dates of this 
work have been verified by Sherborn and Palmer, 1899 (Ann. Mag. 
nat. Hist. (8) 3 : 350) and unfortunately for the familiar name Salda, 
the date of volume 11 is shown to be 1848: that is, ten years after 
Blanchard’s original type fixation. Unless, therefore, the International 
Commission agree to invalidate Blanchard’s first type citation in the 
Disciples’ edition of Cuvier, the name Salda goes to the LYGAEIDAE 
and replaces the well-known name Geocoris Fallén. 


Proposed suspension of the ‘‘ Régles ’’ for ‘‘ Salda ’’ Fabricius, 1803 
(Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) 


By E. E. GREEN 
(Camberley) 


and 


W. E. CHINA, M.A. 
(Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum 
(Natural History)) 


We are of the opinion that it is highly undesirable to accept the first 
valid type citation for the genus Sa/da Fabricius, 1803, viz. that of 
Blanchard, 1838 (Cuvier, Le Régne animal, Disciples’ edition : pl. 90) 
whereby the type is fixed as Salda grylloides Linnaeus= Cimex grylloides 
Linnaeus, 1761. This would mean that the well-known name Salda 
would need to be transferred to another family (LYGAEIDAE) and 
the family SALIDAE left without an available family name. In addi- 
tion the well-known Lygaeid name Geocoris Fallén would sink. as a 
synonym of Salda Fabricius, 1803. 


We are emphatically of the opinion that the foregoing change would 
lead to greater confusion than uniformity. Accordingly we recommend 
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 :— 


Blanchard’s original 1838 (in Cuvier, Le Régne animal, Disciples’ 
edition : pl. 90) citation of Cimex grylloides Linnaeus, 1758, as 
type of Salda Fabricius, 1803, Syst. Rhyng. : 113 is to be rejected 
and replaced by Blanchard’s 1848 (in Orbigny, Dict. univ. Hist. 
nat. 11 : 311 and 312) citation of Cimex littoralis Linnaeus, 1758, 
The name Salda Fabricius, 1803 (type Cimex littoralis Linnaeus. 
1758) is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology and is not to be transferred from the SALIDAE to the 
LYGAEIDAE to replace Geocoris Fallén. 


76 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


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.) 161, and as soon as possible 
steps were taken to prepare this application for publication in 
the then newly established Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 
The present application was sent to the printer in September 1944, 
but owing to difficulties arising from paper rationing, shortage 
of labour at the printing works and similar causes, publication 
did not actually take place until 31st March 1947 (China, 1947, 
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1:276; Green & China, 1947, ibid. 
1 : 276—277). 


3. After the present application had been sent to the printer 
for publication in the Bulletin but long before it was published, 
Dr. R. I. Sailor (United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau 
of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) 
wrote a letter on 12th January 1945 commenting on the proposals 
submitted by the Hemiptera Sub-Committee as published by the 
Royal Entomological Society of London in Part 8 of The Generic 
Names of British Insects. After criticising the application sub- 
mitted in the case of the name Alydus Fabricius, Dr. Sailor 
intimated as follows his support for the proposal dealt with in 
the present Opinion :—“‘ I should like to add that in my opinion 
all other cases presented in Part 8 of The Generic Names of 
British Insects merit favorable action by the Commission ”’. 


4. The publication of the present application in the Bulletin 
elicited a letter of support from Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets 
Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen) who on 8th April 1947 wrote : 
** Salda littoralis (Linn.): Yes”’. 


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 Inter- 
national Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913. The publication 
of this notice elicited no objection, so far as concerned the merits 
of the action proposed, but a letter dated 19th March 1948 was 
received from Dr. Richard E. Blackwelder (United States National 
Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) expressing the view that the 
material furnished by the applicants was insufficient. 


OPINION 245 Ti 


III.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


6. The present application was considered by the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Fourteenth 
Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi- 
theatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 2030 hours. 
The following is an extract from the Official Record of the 
Proceedings of the International Commission, giving a summary 
of the introductory remarks by the Acting President (Mr. Francis 
Hemming) and of the ensuing discussion (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
4 : 468) :— 


THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) 
said that the present application, like that relating to the name 
Alydus Fabricius, which the Commission had just considered, 
had been submitted to the Commission by the Royal Entomo- 
logical Society of London, on the recommendation of their 
Committee on Generic Nomenclature, acting on the advice of 
the Hemiptera Sub-Committee, the members of which were 
Dr. China and Mr. Green. The application had been advertised 
subsequent to publication in the Bulletin. The only objection 
received had come from Dr. Richard Blackwelder (United States 
National Museum, Washington, D.C.) who considered that the 
grounds advanced in the application were insufficient to justify 
the use by the Commission of their Plenary Powers. 


IN DISCUSSION the view was expressed that the application 
submitted contained sufficient evidence as to the likelihood 
of confusion arising if the Régles were strictly applied in this case 
and that the application should therefore be granted. 


7. The decision of the International Commission in this case 
is set out as follows in the Official Record of its Proceedings 
(Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 20) (1950, Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 4 : 467—469) :— 


78 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


THE COMMISSION agreed :— 
(1) to use their Plenary Powers :— 


(a) to set aside all selections of a type species for the 
genus Salda Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order 
Hemiptera) made prior to the present decision ; 


(b) to designate Cimex littoralis Linnaeus, 1758, to be 
the type species of the foregoing genus ; 


(2) to place the generic name Salda Fabricius, 1803, with the 
type species designated in (1)(b) above, on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology ; 


(3) to place the trivial name Jittoralis Linnaeus, 1758 (as 
published in the binominal combination Cimex littoralis) 
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 :— 


littoralis, Cimex, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 442 
Salda Fabricius, 1803, Syst. Rhyng. : 113. 


9. The gender of the generic name Salda Fabricius, 1803, 
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 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
5: 114). 


11. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was concurred 
in by the sixteen (16) Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners 


OPINION 245 719 


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 
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. 


80 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


15. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two 
Hundred and Forty-Five (245) of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature. 


Done in London this Fifteenth day of December, Nineteen 
Hundred and Fifty-Three. 


Secretary to the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 


' FRANCIS HEMMING 


Printed in England by MretcaLre & Cooprer Limitrp, 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 5. Part 7. Pp. 81—90 


OPINION 246 


Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a type species 

for the nominal genus Gastrodes Westwood, 1840 (Class 

Insecta, Order Hemiptera), in harmony with accustomed 
nomenclatorial usage 


ENN HSON/,4 YW 


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 11th June, 1954 


INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 246 


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. PrErErRS (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, 
Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). 

Dr. oes 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 im 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 LemMcHE (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). 

po cares L. Usincer (University of California, Berkeley, California, 

.S.A.). 


“= 


OPINION 246 


DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF A 
TYPE SPECIES FOR THE NOMINAL GENUS 
‘““GASTRODES”” WESTWOOD, 1840 (CLASS 
INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA), IN 
HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED 
NOMENCLATORIAL USAGE 


RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers all type- 
selections for the nominal genus Gastrodes Westwood, 
1840 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), made prior to 
the present Ruling are hereby set aside and Gastrodes 
abietum Bergroth, 1914, is hereby designated as the type 
species of this genus. 


(2) The generic name Gastrodes Westwood, 1840 
(gender of name: masculine), with the type species 
designated in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 672. 


(3) The specific name abietum Bergroth, 1914, as 
published in the combination Gastrodes abietum, is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology as Name No. 65. 


I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE 


On 30th June 1943 the Royal Entomological Society of London 
published Part 8 of the work entitled The Generic Names of 
British Insects. This Part contained the Eighth Report of the 
Society’s Committee on Generic Nomenclature! covering the 
First Report of its Hemiptera Sub-Committee.2 This Report 


» 


The composition of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature at the time of 
the submission of this Report was the same as it had been at the completion of 
its Sixth Report. Its composition at the latter date has been given in footnote 
1 to Opinion 243 (: 48). 

The Hemiptera Sub-Committee at the time of the submission of this Report 
was composed of: Dr. W. E. China; Mr. E. E. Green. 


LS) 


84 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


dealt exclusively with the generic names of the British Hemiptera- 
Heteroptera. Annexed to the Sub-Committee’s Report as 
Annex II was a paper by Dr. W. E. China (British Museum 
(Natural History), London), one of the members of the Sub- 
Committee, giving particulars of ten nominal genera, each based 
upon a misidentified type species, and asking that in each case the 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should 
use its Plenary Powers in such a way as to secure that the type 
species should be not the species to which the cited name is 
applicable but the species intended by the author of the generic 
name when he cited the name of the nominal species concerned. 
The fourth of the names in question was Gastrodes Westwood, 
1840, with which the present Opinion is concerned. The recom- 
mendations in regard to this and the nine other cases referred to 
above prepared by Dr. China and endorsed by the Committee 
on Generic Nomenclature were formally submitted to the Inter- 
national Commission by Mr. N. D. Riley, Secretary to the Royal 
Entomological Society of London, on 23rd August 1943. The 
application relating to the present case was as follows :— 


Proposed suspension of the ‘‘ Régles ’’ for ‘‘ Gastrodes ’’ Westwood, 
1840 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), a genus based upon an 
erroneously determined species 


By W. E. CHINA, M.A. 
(Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum 
(Natural History)) 


Gastrodes Westwood, 1804 


Original reference :—Westwood, 1840, Introd. mod. Class. Ins. 2 
(Syn. Gen. Brit. Ins.) : 122. 


Author by whom the type in question was designated and reference:— 
The genus is monobasic. 


Name of species so designated as type :—Monobasic type is Cimex 
abietis Linnaeus, 1758. 


Species intended by the original author of the genus when employing 
the specific name in question :—Cimex abietis (Linnaeus) Westwood, 
1840, nec Linnaeus, 1758, i.e., the species the valid name for which is 
Cimex abietum Bergroth, 1914, Wien. ent. Ztg. 33 : 183. 


Discussion of the case :—Westwood based his genus on a single 
species which he (in common with all authors up to 1898) assumed to 


: 
; 
. 


OPINION 246 85 


be Cimex abietis Linnaeus, 1758. Horvath, however, in 1898, Rev. 
Ent., Caen, 17 : 277, showed conclusively that the true Cimex abietis 
Linnaeus is identical with Lygaeus erraticus Fabricius, 1794, a species 
at that time referred to the genus Eremocoris Fieber, 1860, and since 
fixed as the type of that genus by Distant, 1903, Faun. Brit. Ind. Rhyn. 
2:92. In consequence the species Cimex abietis Westwood et auct. 
remained without a name and was re-named Cimex abietum by 
Bergroth, 1914, Wien. ent. Ztg. 33: 183. The type of Gastrodes 
Westwood therefore is not the wrongly identified Cimex abietis Linnaeus, 
1758, but Cimex abietum Bergroth, 1914. 


If it were necessary under the Code to assume that Westwood’s 
determination of this species was correct, Westwood’s designation of 
Cimex abietis Linnaeus as the type of Gastrodes Westwood would 
involve the transfer of that name to the genus at present known as 
Eremocoris Fieber, 1860, while the genus at present known as Gastrodes 
would become Oimoctes Gistel, 1848. Such action would not only 
cause confusion in the nomenclature of these genera but would run 
directly counter to Westwood’s intentions and would be open to the 
strongest objection in that it would involve the designation as type of 
Gastrodes of a species disagreeing completely with the generic descrip- 
tion. It is for this reason that I have disregarded Westwood’s citation 
on Cimex abietis Linnaeus as the type of the genus, accepted Cimex 
abietum Bergroth, and treated Cimex abietis Linnaeus as an Eremocoris. 


Action by the International Commission desired :—A declaration 
that the action of Westwood in citing Cimex abietis Linnaeus, 1758, 
as the type Gastrodes Westwood, 1840, is invalid, since that species 
was not included in the genus, the species which he there designated 
under that name being in fact another species generically distinct 
from Cimex abietis Linnaeus and since named Cimex abietum Bergroth, 
1914. In consequence the type of the genus Gastrodes Westwood, 
1840, is Cimex abietum Bergroth, 1914, the sole species originally 
included by Westwood in the genus. 


Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 


2. On receipt, all ten of the applications discussed in the 
preceding paragraph were registered together under the Number 
Z.N.(S.) 144. As soon as possible thereafter, these applications 
were prepared for publication in the then newly established 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 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 


86 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


works and similar causes, publication did not actually take place 
until 31st March 1947 (China, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 283). 


3. After the present application had been sent to the printer 
for publication in the Bulletin but long before it was published, 
Dr. R. I. Sailor (United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau 
of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) 
wrote a letter on 12th January 1945, commenting upon the 
proposals submitted by the Committee on Generic Nomenclature 
when transmitting the First Report of its Hemiptera Sub-Com- 
mittee to the Council of the Royal Entomological Society of 
London. After criticising the application submitted in the case 
of the name Alydus Fabricius, Dr. Sailor intimated as follows 
his support for the proposal dealt with in the present Opinion :— 
** T should like to add that, in my opinion, all other cases presented 
in Part 8 of The Generic Names of British Insects merit favorable 
action by the Commission ”’. 


4. 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 these 
notices elicited no objection to the action proposed. 


Ill.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


5. At an early stage of its work during its Paris Session in 1948 
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
submitted to the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology 
a recommendation for the insertion in the Régles of a compre- 
hensive provision dealing with the problem presented by nominal 
genera based upon misidentified type species. The gist of this 
provision was that, where it could be shown that an error of 
identification of this kind had occurred, it should be the duty of 
the International Commission, on the facts being laid before it 
by specialists, to use its Plenary Powers to vary the type species 


OPINION 246 87 


of the genus concerned in such a way as to harmonise with current 
nomenclatorial usage, the Commission being left free, however, 
to withhold action under its Plenary Powers, in any case where the 
nominal species cited by the author of a generic name and not the 
species to which he had intended to refer had become generally 
accepted by workers in the group concerned and where, in con- 
sequence, the correction of the original author’s error would be 
likely to lead to confusion and name-changing (Paris Session, 
6th Meeting, Conclusion 38) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
4: 158—159). It was in the light of the foregoing provision that 
the present application was considered by the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Fourteenth 
Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi- 
theatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 2030 hours. 
The following is an extract from the Official Record of the 
Proceedings of the International Commission, summarising the 
introductory statement made by the Acting President (Mr. Francis 
Hemming) and the ensuing discussion which took place on the 
present case (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 472) :— 


THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) 
said that unfortunately through some oversight the Commission 
File (file Z.N.(S.) 144), dealing with the present series of applica- 
tions had not been included among those which he had brought 
with him to Paris to assist the Commission in the consideration 
of problems calling for decision. So far as he could recall, no 
objections to the action proposed in these cases had been received 
from any source. These cases appeared to be exactly of the kind 
envisaged in Opinion 168. They all related to genera based upon 
misidentified species, where the acceptance of the type species 
actually cited (as contrasted with that intended) by the original 
author would certainly cause great confusion. In such cases the 
Commission were now under an obligation to use their Plenary 
Powers to avoid disturbance in accepted nomenclature. 


ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER ROBERT L. USINGER 
(U.S.A.) said that, as a hemipterist, he was familiar with the 
problem presented by the name Gastrodes Westwood and was in 
full agreement with the conclusions reached by Dr. China. He 


88 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


accordingly supported the proposal that the Plenary Powers 
should be used to designate Cimex abietum Bergroth, 1914, as 
the type species of this genus. 


6. The decision taken by the International Commission in the 
present case is set out as follows in the Official Record of its 
Proceedings (Paris Session, i4th Meeting, Conclusion 21) (1950, 
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 469—473) :— 


THE COMMISSION agreed :— 


(1) to use their Plenary Powers :— 


(a) to set aside the designation by Westwood of Cimex 
abietis Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of the 
monotypical genus Gastrodes Westwood, 1840 
(Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) ; 

(b) to designate Gastrodes abietum Bergroth, 1914, to 
be the type species of the foregoing genus ; 

(2) to place the generic name Gastrodes Westwood, 1840, 
with the type species specified in (1)(b) above, on the 

Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; 


(3) to place the trivial name abietum Bergroth, 1914 (as 
published in the combination Gastrodes abietum), on 
the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; 

(4) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified 
in (1) to (3) above ; 


OPINION 246 89 


7. The following are the original references for the names which 
appear in the decision set out in the immediately preceding 
paragraph :— 


abietum, Gastrodes, Bergroth, 1914, Wien. ent. Ztg. 33 : 183 
Gastrodes Westwood, 1840, Introd. mod. Class. Ins. 2 (Syn. Gen. 
neit.hins.) = 122. 


8. The gender of the generic name Gastrodes Westwood, 1840, 
referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 6 above, is 
masculine. 


9. The decision taken in the present case was reported to, and 
approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth 
International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Sixth 
Meeting held on 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
aye 115). 


10. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was concurred 
in by the sixteen (16) Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners 
present at the Paris Session of the International Commission, 
namely :— 


Beltran vice Cabrera ; Boschma ; Bradley ; di Caporiacco ; 
Hemming; Hindle vice Jordan; Jorge vice do Amaral ; 
Kirby vice Stoll; Lemche vice Dymond; Mansour vice 
Hanko ; Metcalf vice Peters; Riley vice Calman; Rode; 
Sparck vice Mortensen ; van Straelen vice Richter ; Usinger 
vice Vokes. 


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 


90 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by 
the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 
1953, the expression “specific name” was substituted for the 
expression “trivial name” and corresponding changes were 
made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such 
names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The 
changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in 
the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 


13. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by 
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in 
dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accord- 
ingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International 
Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary 
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 
in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in 
that behalf. 


14. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two 
Hundred and Forty-Six (246) of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature. 


Done in London this Sixteenth day of December, Nineteen 
Hundred and Fifty-Three. 


Secretary to the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 


FRANCIS HEMMING 


Printed in England by MercaLre & CoopEerR LimiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 


OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 
RENDERED BY THE INTER- 
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


Edited by 
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. 


Secretary to the Commission 


VOLUME 5. Part 8. Pp. 91—102 


OPINION 247 


Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a type species 

for the nominal genus Aquarius Schellenberg, 1800 (Class 

Insecta, Order Hemiptera), in harmony with accustomed 
nomenclatorial usage 


SUL 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 11th June, 1954 


INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 247 


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. i E. VoKEs (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., 
USS. 


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 SpArRcK (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, 
Denmark). 

Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de 
Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). 

Professor a L. Ustncer (University of California, Berkeley, California, 

..A.). 


OPINION 247 


DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF A 
TYPE SPECIES FOR THE NOMINAL GENUS 
** AQUARIUS ” SCHELLENBERG, 1800 (CLASS 
INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA), IN 
HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED 
NOMENCLATORIAL USAGE 


RULING :—_(1) Under the Plenary Powers all type- 
selections for the nominal genus Aquarius Schellenberg, 
1800 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), made prior to the 
present Ruling are hereby set aside and Cimex najas 
De Geer, 1773, is hereby designated as the type species of 
this genus. 


(2) The generic name Aquarius Schellenberg, 1800 
(gender of name: masculine), with the type species 
designated in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 673. 


_ (3) The specific name najas De Geer, 1773, as published 
in the combination Cimex najas, is hereby placed on the 
poe List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 


I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE 


On 30th June 1943 the Royal Entomological Society of London 
published Part 8 of the work entitled The Generic Names of 
British Insects. This Part contained the Eighth Report of the 
Society’s Committee on Generic Nomenclature! covering the 
First Report of its Hemiptera Sub-Committee.2 This Report 


The composition of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature at the time of 
the submission of this Report was the same as it had been at the completion of 
its Sixth Report. Its composition at the latter date has been given in footnote 
1 to Opinion 243 (: 48). 

The Hemiptera Sub-Committee at the time of the submission of this Report 
was composed of: Dr, W, E. China; Mr. E. E. Green. 


w 


94 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


dealt exclusively with the generic names of the British Hemiptera - 
Heteroptera. Annexed to the Sub-Committee’s Report as 
Annexe II was a paper by Dr. W. E. China (British Museum 
(Natural History), London), one of the members of the Sub- 
Committee, giving particulars of ten nominal genera, each based 
upon a misidentified type species, and asking that in each case 
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
should use its Plenary Powers in such a way as to secure that the 
type species should be not the species to which the cited name is 
applicable but the species intended by the author of the generic 
name when he cited the name of the nominal species concerned. 
The tenth of the names in question was Aquarius Schellenberg, 
1800, with which the present Opinion is concerned. The 
recommendations in regard to this and the nine other cases 
referred to above prepared by Dr. China and endorsed by the 
Committee on Generic Nomenclature were formally submitted 
to the International Commission by Mr. N. D. Riley, Secretary 
to the Royal Entomological Society of London, on 23rd August 
1943. The application relating to the present case was as 
follows :— 


Proposed suspension of the ‘* Regles ’’ for ‘‘ Aquarius ’’ Schellenberg, 
1800 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), a genus based upon an 
erroneously determined species 


By W. E. CHINA, M.A. 
(Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum 
(Natural History)) 


Aquarius Schellenberg, 1800 


Original reference :—Schellenberg, 1800, Geschl. Land. u. Wass. 
Wanz. Schweiz. : 25. 


Author by whom the type in question was designated and reference:— 
Kirkaldy, 1906, Trans. amer. ent. Soc. 32 : 155. 


Name of species so designated as type :—Gerris paludum Schellenberg, 


Species intended by the original author of the genus when employing 
the specific name in question :—Gerris paludum (Fabricius) Schellen- 
berg, 1800, nec Fabricius, 1794, i.e., the species the valid name for 
which is Cimex najas De Geer, 1773, Mém. Hist. Ins. 3 : 313. 


Discussion of the case :—Schellenberg included (figured) two species 
in his genus Aquarius, Gerris paludum Fabricius, 1794, and Gerris 
stagnorum_ Fabricius, 1794 (i.e., Cimex stagnorum Linnaeus, 1758). 


OPINION 247 95 


Kirkaldy, 1906, fixed Aguarius paludum Schellenberg, 1800, as the 
type, indicating at the same time that it was actually Gerris canalium 
Dufour, 1833, i.e., Cimex najas De Geer, 1773. Schellenberg’s figure 
indicated an apterous species, whereas Gerris paludum is normally 
macropterous, so that it would appear to represent Cimex najas De 
Geer and not Gerris paludum Fabricius. If it were necessary under the 
Code to assume that Schellenberg’s determination of this species was 
correct, no change would be necessary in the generic nomenclature 
since both Cimex najas De Geer and Gerris paludum Fabricius belong 
to the same genus. A declaration in this case is, however, desirable, since 
at any time the discovery of further species might warrant the splitting of 
Aquarius into two genera, in which case it is essential that the type of 
the original genus should be correctly fixed. 


Action by the International Commission desired :—A declaration 
that the type of Aquarius Schellenberg, 1800, is Cimex najas De Geer, 
1773, Mém. Hist. Ins. 3 : 313, and not Gerris paludum Fabricius, 1794, 
Ent. Syst. 4 : 188, the included species, since the latter does not agree 
with Schellenberg’s figure and was clearly misidentified by him. 


Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 


2. On receipt, all ten of the applications discussed in the 
preceding paragraph were registered together under the Number 
Z.N.(S.) 144. As soon as possible thereafter, these applications 
Were prepared for publication in the then newly established 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The present application 
was sent to the printer in September 1944, but, owing to difficulties 
arising from paper rationing, shortage of labour at the printing 
works and similar causes, publication did not actually take place 
until 31st March 1947 (China, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
1 : 277—278). 


3. After the present application had been sent to the printer 
for publication in the Bulletin but long before it was published, 
Dr. R. I. Sailor (United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau 
of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) 
wrote a letter on 12th January 1945, commenting upon the 
proposals submitted by the Committee on Generic Nomenclature 
when transmitting the First Report of its Hemiptera Sub-Com- 
mittee to the Council of the Royal Entomological Society of 


96 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


London. After criticising the application submitted in the case 
of the name Alydus Fabricius, Dr. Sailor intimated as follows 
his support for the proposal dealt with in the present Opinion :— 
** T should like to add that, in my opinion, all other cases presented 
in Part 8 of The Generic Names of British Insects merit favorable 
action by the Commission ”’. 


4. 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 publica-_ 


tion of these notices elicited no objection to the action proposed. 


Il—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


5. At an early stage of its work during its Paris Session in 
1948 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
submitted to the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology 
a recommendation for the insertion in the Réegles of a compre- 
hensive provision dealing with the problem presented by nominal 
genera based upon misidentified type species. The gist of this 
provision was that, where it could be shown that an error of 
identification of this kind had occurred, it should be the duty of 
the International Commission, on the facts being laid before it 
by specialists, to use its Plenary Powers to vary the type species 
of the genus concerned in such a way as to harmonise with 
current nomenclatorial usage, the Commission being left free, 
however, to withhold action under its Plenary Powers in any 
case where the nominal species cited by the author of a generic 
name and not the species to which he had intended to refer had 
become generally accepted by workers in the group concerned 
and where, in consequence, the correction of the original author’s 
error would be likely to lead to confusion and name-changing 
(Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 38) (1950, Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 4 : 158—159). It was in the light of the foregoing 


- 
é 
' 


OPINION 247 97 


provision that 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 Amphithédtre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 
2030 hours. The following is an extract from the Official Record 
of the Proceedings of the International Commission, summarising 
the introductory statement made by the Acting President (Mr. 
Francis Hemming) and the ensuing discussion, other than that 
portion which relates to the application submitted in regard to 
the name Gastrodes Westwood, 1840, which has been quoted 
in Opinion 246 (the Opinion dealing with that name) (1950, 
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 472) :— 


THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) 
said that unfortunately through some oversight the Commission 
File (file Z.N.(S.) 144) dealing with the present series of applica- 
tions had not been included among those which he had brought 
with him to Paris to assist the Commission in the consideration 
of problems calling for decision. So far as he could recall, no 
objections to the action proposed in these cases had been received 
from any source. These cases appeared to be exactly of the kind 
envisaged in Opinion 168. They all related to genera based upon 
misidentified species, where the acceptance of the type species 
actually cited (as contrasted with that intended) by the original 
author would certainly cause great confusion. In such cases the 
Commission were now under an obligation to use their Plenary 
Powers to avoid disturbance in accepted nomenclature. 


IN THE ENSUING DISCUSSION the view was generally 
expressed that all the necessary data had been submitted by 
Dr. China in support of the remaining applications and that those 
applications were well founded. It was felt, however, that, 
before a final decision was taken on these cases, it was desirable 
to make sure, by reference to the Commission’s File, that no 
adverse comment of any kind had been received from any 
specialist in the groups concerned. If any such adverse comments 
were found to have been received, the application concerned 
should be submitted to the Commission, but if no such adverse 


98 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


comments had been received, the Secretary to the Commission 
should prepare Opinions in the sense proposed. 


6. The decision taken by the International Commission in the 
present case is set out as follows in the Official Record of its 
Proceedings (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 21) (1950, 
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 469—474) :— 


THE COMMISSION agreed :— 


e e© © © © © © © © © © © ew ee ew ee ew ee 8 


(5) as regards the names of the nine genera in the Order 
Hemiptera (Class Insecta) specified below :— 


(a) that, if an examination of the Commission’s file 
Z.N.(S.) 144 showed that no objection to the 
action proposed had been received from any 
source, the Plenary Powers should be used to 
designate as the type species of the genera 
concerned the species severally specified below, 
but that, if in any case it were to be found that 
such an objection had been received, the applica- 
tion concerned should be resubmitted to the 
Commission for further consideration :— 

Name of species pro- 
posed to be designated 
under the Plenary 
Name of genus Powers as the type 
species of the genus 
specified in Col. (1) 


(1) (2) 
Aquarius Schellenberg, Cimex najas De Geer, 
1800 EET) 


Ce} 


OPINION 247 99 


(b) that, where under Sub-Conclusion (5)(a) above, the 
Plenary Powers were used to designate as the 
type species of the genus concerned the species 
specified in Col. (2) of the table annexed to the 
said Sub-Conclusion, the generic name specified 
in Col. (1) should be placed on the Official List 
of Generic Names in Zoology and the trivial 
name specified in Col. (2) as the name of the 
type species of the genus concerned should be 
placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial 
Names in Zoology ; 


(c) that in every case where, under (5)(a) above, the 
Plenary Powers were used to designate as the type 
species of a genus the species specified against 
the name of that genus in Col. (2) of the table 
annexed to that Conclusion, an Opinion should 
be rendered recording the decision so taken. 


7. In accordance with the directions given in Conclusion (5)(a) 
(quoted above) taken by the International Commission in regard 
to this and the other applications there specified, the Secretary 
to the International Commission on his return from Paris to 
London examined the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 144, relating to 
the foregoing cases. This examination showed that in no case 
had an objection been lodged against the use of the Plenary 
Powers in the manner recommended by the applicant. The 
decision taken conditionally in favour of granting the request 
contained in the present application, as set out in the extract 
from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International 
Commission quoted in the immediately preceding paragraph, 
thereupon became definitive. The following is the note on this 
subject which for purposes of record Mr. Hemming then annexed 
to this portion of the Official Record (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
4 : 474) :— 


Note by the Secretary to the Commission.— 


I have examined the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 144, and find (i) 
that Dr. R. I. Sailor (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.) 
has registered his support for each of the proposals specified above, 
and (ii) that no adverse comment on the action proposed has been 
received from any source. (Signed) Francis Hemming, Secretariat 
of the Commission, London, N.W.1. 15th September 1948. 


100 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


8. The following are the original references for the names 
which appear in the decision set out in paragraph 6 above :— 


Aquarius Schellenberg, 1800, Geschl. Land. u. Wass. Wanz. 
Schweiz. : 25 
najas, Cimex, De Geer, 1773, Mém. Hist. Ins. 3 : 313 


9. The gender of the generic name Aquarius Schellenberg, 1800, 
referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 6 above, is 
masculine. 


10. The foregoing 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 ie 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 5 : 114). 


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 


ee ee ee eee 


OPINION 247 101 


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 Forty-Seven (247) of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature. 


Done in London this Sixteenth 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, CM.G., CBE. 


Secretary to the Commission 
VOLUME 5. Part 9. Pp. 103—114 


OPINION 248 


Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a type species 

for the nominal genus Bellocoris Hahn, 1834 (Class 

Insecta, Order Hemiptera), in harmony with accustomed 
nomenclatorial usage 


ENN HSONigy 
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) 


Tssued 11th June, 1954 


INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 248 


A. The Officers of the Commission 


President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural History), 
Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England). 

Vice-President: Dr. James L. Peters (Museum of Comparative Zoology, 
Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.). 

Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London, England). 


B. The Members of the Commission 


Class 1949 


Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina). 

Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary to the Commission). 

Dr. Karl JoRDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, 
Tring, Herts, England) (President of the Commission). 

Dr. Th. MorRTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). 

Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia). 


Class 1952 
Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil). 
Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.). 
Professor Lodovico di 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. Harel E. Vokes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., 
.S.A.). 


Class 1955 

Professor Dr. Hilbrand BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, 
Leiden, The Netherlands). 

Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Tayport, Fife, Scotland). 

Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan). 

Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary). 

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Polish Zoological Museum, Warsaw, Poland). 

Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Princeton, 
New Jersey, U.S.A.). 


C. Alternate Members of the Commission at the Session held in Paris 
in 1948 

Professor Enrique BELTRAN (Instituto Mexicano de Recursos Naturales 
Renovables A.C., Mexico City, Mexico). 

Dr. Edward HINDLE (Zoological Society of London, London, England). 

Dr. Arturo Ricardo JORGE (Museu Bocage, Lisbon, Portugal). 

Professor Harold 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. 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). 

Erol seet Robert L. UstINGer (University of California, Berkeley, California, 

.S.A.). 


OPINION 248 


DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF A 
TYPE SPECIES FOR THE NOMINAL GENUS 
** BELLOCORIS ” HAHN, 1834 (CLASS 
INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA), IN 
HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED 
NOMENCLATORIAL USAGE 


RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers all type- 
selections for the nominal genus Bellocoris Hahn, 1834 
(Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), made prior to the 
present Ruling are hereby set aside and Cimex austriacus 
Schrank, 1776, is hereby designated as the type species 
of this genus. 


(2) The generic name Bellocoris Hahn, 1834 (gender 
of name: masculine), with the type species designated 
in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 674. 


(3) The specific name austriacus Schrank, 1776, as 
published in the combination Cimex austriacus, is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 
as Name No. 67. 


IL—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE 


On 30th June 1943 the Royal Entomological Society of London 
published Part 8 of the work entitled The Generic Names of 
British Insects. This Part contained the Eighth Report of the 
Society’s Committee on Generic Nomenclature! covering the 
First Report of its Hemiptera Sub-Committee. This Report 


rs 


The composition of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature at the time of 
the submission of this Report was the same as it had been at the completion of 
its Sixth Report. Its composition at the latter date has been given in footnote 
1 to Opinion 243 (: 48). 


The Hemiptera Sub-Committee at the time of the submission of this Report 
was composed of ; Dr, W. E. China; Mr. E. E. Green. 


we 


106 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


dealt exclusively with the generic names of the British Hemiptera- 
Heteroptera. Annexed to the Sub-Committee’s Report as 
Annexe II was a paper by Dr. W. E. China (British Museum 
(Natural History), London), one of the members of the Sub- 
Committee, giving particulars of ten nominal genera, each based 
upon a misidentified type species, and asking that in each case 
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
should use its Plenary Powers in such a way as to secure that the 
type species should be not the species to which the cited name is 
applicable but the species intended by the author of the generic 
name when he cited the name of the nominal species concerned. 
The second of the names in question was Bellocoris Hahn, 
1834, with which the present Opinion is concerned. The 
recommendations in regard to this and the nine other cases 
referred to above prepared by Dr. China and endorsed by the 
Committee on Generic Nomenclature were formally submitted 
to the International Commission by Mr. N. D. Riley, Secretary 
to the Royal Entomological Society of London, on 23rd August 
1943. The application relating to the present case was as 
follows :— 


Proposed suspension of the ‘‘ Régles ’’ for ‘‘ Bellocoris ’’ Hahn, 1834 
(Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), a genus based upon an erroneously 
determined species 


By W. E. CHINA, M.A. 
(Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum 
(Natural History)) 


Bellocoris Hahn, 1834 
Original reference :—Hahn, 1834, Wanzen. Ins. 2 : 42 


Author by whom the type in question was designated and reference:— 
Westwood, 1840, Introd. Mod. Class Ins. 2 (Syn. Gen. Brit. Ins.) : 124. 


Name of species so designated as type :—Cimex maurus Linnaeus, 
8. 


Species intended by the original author of the genus when employing 
the specific name in question :—Cimex maurus (Linnaeus) Hahn, 
1834, nec Linnaeus, 1758, i.e., the species the valid name for which is 
Cimex austriacus Schrank, 1776, Beitr. z. Naturges. Leipzig : 78. 


Discussion of the case :—Hahn established the genus Bellocoris 
for three species, Cimex purpureolineatus Rossi, 1790, Tetyra maura 
Fabricius, 1803 (Cimex maurus Linnaeus, 1758) and Tetyra picta 


| 


OPINION 248 107 


Fabricius, 1803. The first designation of type in correct form is by 
Westwood, 1840, who cited Cimex maurus Linnaeus. Kirkaldy, 
however, rightly contends that, as in the case of Tetyra Fabricius, 1803, 
Cimex maurus Linnaeus was wrongly identified by Hahn, since Hahn’s 
description disagrees with C. maurus Linnaeus in the size—54 lines— 
(even females of C. maurus L. do not exceed 44 lines), and in the 
presence of a distinct longitudinal keel on the scutellum (‘‘in der 
Mitte desselben ein erhdhter Langskiel’’). Hahn’s species is in fact 
Cimex austriacus Schrank, 1776. In effect, therefore, Cimex maurus 
Linnaeus, 1758, was not one of the species originally included in 
Bellocoris, and Westwood’s designation was consequently invalid, 
being based on a misidentification of Tetyra maura Fabricius, 1803, 
with Cimex maurus Linnaeus, 1758. If, however, it were necessary 
under the Code to assume that Hahn’s determination was correct, 
Westwood’s designation of Cimex maurus Linnaeus as the genotype 
of Bellocoris would be validated. In this case no great nomenclatorial 
confusion would be caused since Bellocoris Hahn, 1834, would merely 
become a synonym of Eurygaster Laporte, 1832, instead of a synonym 
of Odontotarsus Laporte, 1832. Such a course, however, would 
involve the fixing as genotype of Bellocoris Hahn of a species not 
originally included in that genus, a principle which, if invalidated in the 
case of Tetyra Fabricius, can scarcely be accepted here. It is for this 
reason that I have disregarded Westwood’s selection of C. maurus 
Linnaeus as the type of Bellocoris, placed that species in the genus 
Eurygaster Laporte, 1832, with the type of which (Cimex hottenttotus 
Fabricius, 1775) it is congeneric, and have consequently refrained 
from placing Bellocoris Hahn, 1834, as a synonym of Eurygaster 
Laporte, 1832. 


Reuter (1888, Act. Soc. Sci. Fenn. 15 : 758) again designated Cimex 
maurus Linnaeus, 1758, as the type of Bellocoris (Hahn) Westwood. 
This too has been rejected on the same above-mentioned grounds and 
the first valid fixation by Kirkaldy of Cimex purpureolineatus Rossi, 
1790, accepted. Thereby Bellocoris Hahn, 1834, becomes a synonym 
of Odontotarsus Laporte, 1832. 


Action by the International Commission desired :—A declaration 
that the action of Westwood (1840) in designating Cimex maurus 
Linnaeus, 1758, as the type of Bel/ocoris Hahn, 1834, is invalid, since 
that species was not included in the genus by Hahn, the species cited 
under that name being Cimex austriacus Schrank, 1776, Beitr. z. 
Naturges. Leipzig : 78 (= C. nigrocucullatus Goeze, 1778, Ent. Beytr. 
2 : 235) and that the type of the genus Bellocoris Hahn is the next 
species to be designated as such by an author complying with the 
provisions of Article 30 of the International Code; and that, in 
consequence, the type of that genus is Cimex purpureolineatus Rossi, 
1790 (Faun. Etr. 2 : 228) which is one of the species originally included 
in the genus by Hahn, and was designated as the type by Kirkaldy 
in 1909, Cat. Hemipt. 1 : 270. 


108 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 


2. On receipt, all ten of the applications discussed in the 
preceding paragraph were registered together under the Number 
Z.N.(S.) 144. As soon as possible thereafter, these applications 
were prepared for publication in the then newly established 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The present application 
was sent to the printer in September 1944, but, owing to difficulties 
arising from paper rationing, shortage of labour at the printing 
works and similar causes, publication did not actually take place 
until 31st March 1947 (China, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
1 : 278—279). 


3. After the present application had been sent to the printer 
for publication in the Bulletin but long before it was published, 
Dr. R. I. Sailor (United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau 
of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) 
wrote a letter on 12th January 1945, commenting upon the 
proposals submitted by the Committee on Generic Nomenclature 
when transmitting the First Report of its Hemiptera Sub-Com- 
mittee to the Council of the Royal Entomological Society of 
London. After criticising the application submitted in the case 
of the name Alydus Fabricius, Dr. Sailor intimated as follows 
his support for the proposal dealt with in the present Opinion :— 
** T should like to add that, in my opinion, all other cases presented 
in Part 8 of The Generic Names of British Insects merit favorable 
action by the Commission ”’. 


4. 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 publica- 
tion of these notices elicited no objection to the action proposed. 


IIl— THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


5. At an early stage of its work during its Paris Session in © 
1948 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature | 


OPINION 248 109 


submitted to the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology 
a recommendation for the insertion in the Régles of a compre- 
hensive provision dealing with the problem presented by nominal 
genera based upon misidentified type species. The gist of this 
provision was that, where it could be shown that an error of 
identification of this kind had occurred, it should be the duty of 
the International Commission, on the facts being laid before it 
by specialists, to use its Plenary Powers to vary the type species 
of the genus concerned in such a way as to harmonise with 
current nomenclatorial usage, the Commission being left free, 
however, to withhold action under its Plenary Powers in any 
case where the nominal species cited by the author of a generic 
name and not the species to which he had intended to refer had 
become generally accepted by workers in the group concerned 
and where, in consequence, the correction of the original author’s 
error would be likely to lead to confusion and name-changing 
(Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 38) (1950, Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 4 : 158—159). It was in the light of the foregoing 
provision that 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, summarising 
the introductory statement made by the Acting President (Mr. 
Francis Hemming) and the ensuing discussion, other than that 
portion which relates to the application submitted in regard to 
the name Gastrodes Westwood, 1840, which has been quoted 
in Opinion 246 (the Opinion dealing with that name) (1950, 
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 472) :— 


THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) 
said that unfortunately through some oversight the Commission 
File (file Z.N.(S.) 144) dealing with the present series of applica- 
tions had not been included among those which he had brought 
with him to Paris to assist the Commission in the consideration 
of problems calling for decision. So far as he could recall, no 
objections to the action proposed in these cases had been received 
from any source. These cases appeared to be exactly of the kind 
envisaged in Opinion 168. They all related to genera based upon 


110 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


misidentified species, where the acceptance of the type species 
actually cited (as contrasted with that intended) by the original 
author would certainly cause great confusion. In such cases the 
Commission were now under an obligation to use their Plenary 
Powers to avoid disturbance in accepted nomenclature. 


IN THE ENSUING DISCUSSION the view was generally 
expressed that all the necessary data had been submitted by 
Dr. China in support of the remaining applications and that those 
applications were well founded. It was felt, however, that, 
before a final decision was taken on these cases, it was desirable 
to make sure, by reference to the Commission’s File, that no 
adverse comment of any kind had been received from any 
specialist in the groups concerned. If any adverse comments 
were found to have been received, the application concerned 
should be submitted to the Commission, but if no such adverse 
comments had been received, the Secretary to the Commission 
should prepare Opinions in the sense proposed. 


6. The decision taken by the International Commission in the 
present case is set out as follows in the Official Record of its 
Proceedings (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 21) (1950, 
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 469—474) :— 


THE COMMISSION agreed :— 


Ce 2 


(5) as regards the names of the nine genera in the Order 
Hemiptera (Class Insecta) specified below :— 


(a) that, if an examination of the Commission’s File 
Z.N.(S.) 144 showed that no objection to the 
action proposed had been received from any 
source, the Plenary Powers should be used to 
designate as the type species of the genera 
concerned the species severally specified below, 
but that, if in any case it were to be found that 


OPINION 248 111 


such an objection had been received, the applica- 
tion concerned should be resubmitted to the 
Commission for further consideration :— 


Name of species pro- 
posed to be designated 
under the Plenary 
Name of genus Powers as the type 
species of the genus 
specified in Col. (1) 


(1) (2) 
Bellocoris Hahn, Cimex austriacus 
1834 Schrank, 1776 


Ce | 


(b) that, where under Sub-Conclusion (5)(a) above, the 
Plenary Powers were used to designate as the 
type species of the genus concerned the species 
specified in Col. (2) of the table annexed to the 
said Sub-Conclusion, the generic name specified 
in Col. (1) should be placed on the Official List 
of Generic Names in Zoology and the trivial 
name specified in Col. (2) as the name of the 
type species of the genus concerned should be 
placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial 
Names in Zoology ; 


(c) that in every case where, under (5)(a) above, the 
Plenary Powers were used to designate as the type 
species of a genus the species specified against 
the name of that genus in Col. (2) of the table 
annexed to that Conclusion, an Opinion should 
be rendered recording the decision so taken. 


7. In accordance with the directions given in Conclusion (5)(a) 
(quoted above) taken by the International Commission in regard 


112 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


to this and the other applications there specified, the Secretary 
to the International Commission on his return from Paris to 
London examined the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 144, relating to 
the foregoing cases. This examination showed that in no case 
had an objection been lodged against the use of the Plenary 
Powers in the manner recommended by the applicant. The 
decision taken conditionally in favour of granting the request 
contained in the present application, as set out in the extract 
from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International 
Commission quoted in the immediately preceding paragraph, 
thereupon became definitive. The following is the note on this 
subject which for purposes of record Mr. Hemming then annexed 
to this portion of the Official Record (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
4: 474) :— 


Note by the Secretary to the Commission.— 


I have examined the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 144, and find (1) 
that Dr. R. I. Sailor (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.) 
has registered his support for each of the proposals specified above, 
and (ii) that no adverse comment on the action proposed has been 
received from any source. (Signed) Francis Hemming, Secretariat 
of the Commission, London, N.W.1. 15th September 1948. 


8. The following are the original references for the names 
which appear in the decision set out in paragraph 6 above :— 


austriacus, Cimex, Schrank, 1776, Beitr. z. Naturges. Leipzig : 78 
Bellocoris Hahn, 1834, Wanzen. Ins. 2 : 42 


9. The gender of the generic name Bellocoris Hahn, 1834, 
referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 6 above, is 
masculine. 


10. The foregoing 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). 


11. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was concurred 
in by the sixteen (16) Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners 


a 


OPINION 248 113 


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 
Hanko6 ; 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 
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. 


114 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


15. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two 
Hundred and Forty-Eight (248) of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature. 


Done in London this Sixteenth day of December, Nineteen 
Hundred and Fifty-Three. 


Secretary to the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 


FRANCIS HEMMING 


Printed in England by MercatFe & 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..G., C.B.E. 


Secretary to the Commission 


VOLUME 5. Part 10. Pp. 115—126 


OPINION 249 


Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a type species 

for the nominal genus Beosus Amyot & Serville, 1843 

(Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), in harmony with 
accustomed nomenclatorial usage 


ANY HSON/4 W 
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 11th June, 1954 


INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 249 


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. PETERS (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, 
Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). 
Dr. Baek E. VoKEs (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., 
S.A.). 


Class 1955 

Professor Dr. Hilbrand BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, 
Leiden, The Netherlands). 

Dr. William Thomas CaLMAN (Tayport, Fife, Scotland). 

Professor Teiso ESAKI (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan). 

Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary). 

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEwskKI (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 KirsBy (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. MeTCcALF (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). 

ee eee L. UsINGerR (University of California, Berkeley, California, 


OPINION 249 


DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF A 
TYPE SPECIES FOR THE NOMINAL GENUS 
**BEOSUS ’”’’? AMYOT & SERVILLE, 1843 
(CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA), 

IN HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED 
NOMENCLATORIAL USAGE 


RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers all type- 
selections for the nominal genus Beosus Amyot & Serville, 
1843 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), made prior to the 
present Ruling, are hereby set aside and Cimex maritimus 
Scopoli, 1763, is hereby designated as the type species 
of this genus. 


(2) The generic name Beosus Amyot & Serville, 1843 
(gender of name: masculine), with the type species 
designated in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 675. 


(3) The specific name maritimus Scopoli, 1763, as 
published in the combination Cimex maritimus, is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 
as Name No. 68. 


I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE 


On 30th June 1943 the Royal Entomological Society of London 
published Part 8 of the work entitled The Generic Names of 
British Insects. This Part contained the Eighth Report of the 
Society’s Committee on Generic Nomenclature! covering the 
First Report of its Hemiptera Sub-Committee.2 This Report 


The composition of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature at the time of 
the submission of this Report was the same as it had been at the completion of 
its Sixth Report. Its composition at the latter date has been given in footnote 
1 to Opinion 243 (: 48). 


The Hemiptera Sub-Committee at the time of the submission of this Report 
was composed of; Dr, W, E. China; Mr. E. E, Green. 


tw 


118 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


dealt exclusively with the generic names of the British Hemiptera- 
Heteroptera. Annexed to the Sub-Committee’s Report as 
Annexe II was a paper by Dr. W. E. China (British Museum 
(Natural History), London), one of the members of the Sub- 
Committee, giving particulars of ten nominal genera, each based 
upon a misidentified type species, and asking that in each case 
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
should use its Plenary Powers in such a way as to secure that the 
type species should be not the species to which the cited name is 
applicable but the species intended by the author of the generic 
name when he cited the name of the nominal species concerned. 
The third of the names in question was Beosus Amyot & Serville, 
1843, with which the present Opinion is concerned. The 
recommendations in regard to this and the nine other cases 
referred to above prepared by Dr. China and endorsed by the 
Committee on Generic Nomenclature were formally submitted 
to the International Commission by Mr. N. D. Riley, Secretary 
to the Royal Entomological Society of London, on 23rd August 
1943. The application relating to the present case was as 
follows :— 


Proposed suspension of the ‘‘ Régles ’’ for ‘‘ Beosus ’’ Amyot & Serville, 
1843 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), a genus based upon an 
erroneously determined species 


By W. E. CHINA, M.A. 
(Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum 
(Natural History)) 


Beosus Amyot & Serville, 1843 


Original reference :—Amyot and Serville, 1843 (Roret’s Suite 4 
Buffon), Hist. nat. Ins. Hémipt. : 254 


Author by whom type in question was designated and reference :— 
The genus is monobasic. 


Monobasic type is Lygaeus quadratus Fabricius, 1803. 


Species intended by the original author of the genus when employing 
the specific name in question :—Lygaeus quadratus (Fabricius) Amyot 
& Serville, 1843, nec Fabricius, 1803, 7.e., the species the valid name for 
which is Cimex maritimus Scopoli, 1763, Ent. Carn. : 129. 


Discussion of the case :—Amyot and Serville based their genus 
Beosus on a single species which they assumed to be Lygaeus quadratus 
Fabricius, 1803. Fabricius’s species, however, was wrongly identified 
by them. They gave the length of the species as 7 mm., whereas 


OPINION 249 119 


Lygaeus quadratus Fabricius does not exceed 5mm. They also stated 
“legs pale, the extremity of the femora black’, whereas in Lygaeus 
quadratus Fabricius the femora are black with the extreme apices pale. 
In their generic synopsis of Beosus they stated “‘ anterior lateral angles 
of pronotum not extending beyond the line of the eyes (anterior 
margin of pronotum) on each side”, a character possessed by Cimex 
maritimus Scopoli and not by Lygaeus quadratus Fabricius, 1803. It 
has been generally agreed by Hemipterists that the species Amyot and 
Serville had before them was Cimex maritimus Scopoli, 1763 (= Lygaeus 
luscus Fabricius, 1794), which should therefore be the type of Beosus 
Amyot & Serville, 1843. If it were necessary under the Code to assume 
that Amyot and Serville’s determination of Lygaeus quadratus Fabricius 
was correct, Beosus auct. would be without a name and Xanthochilus 
Stal, 1872, would become a synonym of Beosus Amyot & Serville, 
1843. Such action would run directly counter to Amyot and Serville’s 
intentions and would be open to the strongest objection in that it 
would involve the acceptance as type of this genus of a species agreeing 
neither with the original generic description nor with Amyot and Ser- 
ville’s description of the sole species of the genus. It is for this reason 
that I have accepted Cimex maritimus Scopoli, 1763, as the type of 
Beosus Amyot & Serville, 1843. 


Action by the International Commission desired :—A declaration 
that the type of Beosus Amyot & Serville, 1843, is Cimex maritimus 
Scopoli, 1763, Ent. Carn. : 129, and not Lygaeus quadratus Fabricius, 
1803, Syst. Rhyng. : 232, the single species described in the genus by 
Amyot and Serville, since the latter species does not agree with the 
generic description nor with the description of the type species given 
by Amyot and Serville, which was clearly misidentified as Lygaeus 
quadratus Fabricius. 


Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 


2. On receipt, all ten of the applications discussed in the 
preceding paragraph were registered together under the Number 
Z.N.(S.) 144. As soon as possible thereafter, these applications 
were prepared for publication in the then newly established 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The present application 
was sent to the printer in September 1944, but, owing to difficulties 
arising from paper rationing, shortage of labour at the printing 
works and similar causes, publication did not actually take place 
until 31st March 1947 (China, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
1 : 279—280). . 


120 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


3. After the present application had been sent to the printer 
for publication in the Bulletin but long before it was published, 
Dr. R. I. Sailor (United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau 
of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) 
wrote a letter on 12th January 1945, commenting upon the 
proposals submitted by the Committee on Generic Nomenclature 
when transmitting the First Report of its Hemiptera Sub-Com- 
mittee to the Council of the Royal Entomological Society of 
London. After criticising the application submitted in the case 
of the name Alydus Fabricius, Dr. Sailor intimated as follows 
his support for the proposal dealt with in the present Opinion :— 
** T should like to add that, in my opinion, all other cases presented 
in Part 8 of The Generic Names of British Insects merit favorable 
action by the Commission ”’. 


4. 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 publica- 
tion of these notices elicited no objection to the action proposed. 


III.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


5. At an early stage of its work during its Paris Session in 
1948 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
submitted to the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology 
a recommendation for the insertion in the Rég/es of a compre- 
hensive provision dealing with the problem presented by nominal 
genera based upon misidentified type species. The gist of this 
provision was that, where it could be shown that an error of 
identification of this kind had occurred, it should be the duty of 
the International Commission, on the facts being laid before it 
by specialists, to use its Plenary Powers to vary the type species 
of the genus concerned in such a way as to harmonise with 
current nomenclatorial usage, the Commission being left free, 
however, to withhold action under its Plenary Powers in any 
case where the nominal species cited by the author of a generic 


—— 


OPINION 249 121 


name and not the species to which he had intended to refer had 
become generally accepted by workers in the group concerned 
and where, in consequence, the correction of the original author’s 
error would be likely to lead to confusion and name-changing 
(Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 38) (1950, Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 4 : 158—159). It was in the light of the foregoing 
provision that 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, summarising 
the introductory statement made by the Acting President (Mr. 
Francis Hemming) and the ensuing discussion, other than that 
portion which relates to the application submitted in regard to 
the name Gastrodes Westwood, 1840, which has been quoted 
in Opinion 246 (the Opinion dealing with that name) (1950, 
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 472) :— 


THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) 
said that unfortunately through some oversight the Commission 
File (file Z.N.(S.) 144) dealing with the present series of applica- 
tions had not been included among those which he had brought 
with him to Paris to assist the Commission in the consideration 
of problems calling for decision. So far as he could recall, no 
objections to the action proposed in these cases had been received 
from any source. These cases appeared to be exactly of the kind 
envisaged in Opinion 168. They all related to genera based upon 
misidentified species, where the acceptance of the type species 
actually cited (as contrasted with that intended) by the original 
author would certainly cause great confusion. In such cases the 
Commission were now under an obligation to use their Plenary 
Powers to avoid disturbance in accepted nomenclature. 


IN THE ENSUING DISCUSSION the view was generally 
expressed that all the necessary data had been submitted by 
Dr. China in support of the remaining applications and that those 
applications were well founded. It was felt, however, that, 


122 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


before a final decision was taken on these cases, it was desirable 
to make sure, by reference to the Commission’s File, that no 
adverse comment of any kind had been received from any 
specialist in the groups concerned. If any adverse comments 
were found to have been received, the application concerned 
should be submitted to the Commission, but if no such adverse 
comments had been received, the Secretary to the Commission 
should prepare Opinions in the sense proposed. 


6. The decision taken by the International Commission in the 
present case is set out as follows in the Official Record of its 
Proceedings (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 21) (1950, 
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 469—474) :— 


THE COMMISSION agreed :— 


ecco ee eco ee ee ee ee ee ee we 


(5) as regards the names of the nine genera in the Order 

Hemiptera (Class Insecta) specified below :— 

(a) that, if an examination of the Commission’s File 
Z.N.(S.) 144 showed that no objection to the 
action proposed had been received from any 
source, the Plenary Powers should be used to 
designate as the type species of the genera 
concerned the species severally specified below, 
but that, if in any case it were to be found that 
such an objection had been received, the applica- 
tion concerned should be resubmitted to the 
Commission for further consideration :— 

Name of species pro- 
posed to be designated 
under the Plenary 
Name of genus Powers as the type 
species of the genus 
specified in Col. (1) 
(2) 


(1) 
Beosus Amyot & Cimex maritimus Scopoli, 
Serville, 1843 1763 


eeceoee eee ee ee we ee lhmUmUmmUlUl Cl OCC HC OC HC OHM OC he he eee 


— 


OPINION 249 123 


(b) that, where under Sub-Conclusion (5)(a) above, the 
Plenary Powers were used to designate as the 
type species of the genus concerned the species 
specified in Col. (2) of the table annexed to the 
said Sub-Conclusion, the generic name specified 
in Col. (1) should be placed on the Official List 
of Generic Names in Zoology and the trivial 
name specified in Col. (2) as the name of the 
type species of the genus concerned should be 
placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial 
Names in Zoology ; 


(c) that in every case where, under (5)(a) above, the 
Plenary Powers were used to designate as the type 
species of a genus the species specified against 
the name of that genus in Col. (2) of the table 
annexed to that Conclusion, an Opinion should 
be rendered recording the decision so taken. 


7. In accordance with the directions given in Conclusion (5)(a) 
(quoted above) taken by the International Commission in regard 
to this and the other applications there specified, the Secretary 
to the International Commission on his return from Paris to 
London examined the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 144, relating to 
the foregoing cases. This examination showed that in no case 
had an objection been lodged against the use of the Plenary 
Powers in the manner recommended by the applicant. The 
decision taken conditionally in favour of granting the request 
contained in the present application, as set out in the extract 
from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International 
Commission quoted in the immediately preceding paragraph, 
thereupon became definitive. The following is the note on this 
subject which for purposes of record Mr. Hemming then annexed 
to this portion of the Official Record (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
4 : 474) :— 


Note by the Secretary to the Commission :— 

I have examined the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 144, and find (i) 
that Dr. R. I. Sailor (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.) 
has registered his support for each of the proposals specified above, 
and (ii) that no adverse comment on the action proposed has been 
received from any source. (Signed) Francis Hemming, Secretariat 
of the Commission, London, N.W.1. 15th September 1948. 


124 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


8. The following are the original references for the names 
‘which appear in the decision set out in paragraph 6 above :— 


Beosus Amyot & Serville, 1843, (Roret’s Suite 4 Buffon), Hist. nat. 
Ins. Hémipt. : 254 
maritimus, Cimex, Scopoli, 1763, Ent. carn. : 129 


9. The gender of the generic name Beosus Amyot & Serville, 
1843, referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 6 above, 
is masculine. 


10. The decision taken in the present case was reported 
to, and approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the 
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, 
at its Sixth Meeting held on 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 5 : 114). 


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 


OPINION 249 125 


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 Forty-Nine (249) of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature. 


DOonE in London this Sixteenth 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 5. Part 11. Pp. 127—138 


OPINION 250 


Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a type species 

for the nominal genus Catoplatus Spinola, 1837 (Class 

Insecta, Order Hemiptera) in harmony with accustomed 
nomenclatorial usage 


ANY HSON/g 
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 \\th June, 1954 


INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 250 


A. The Officers of the Commission 


President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural History), 
Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England). 

Vice-President: Dr. James L. Peters (Museum of Comparative Zoology, 
Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.). 

Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London, England). 


B. The Members of the Commission 
Class 1949 


‘Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina). 

Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary to the Commission). 

Dr. Karl JORDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, 
Tring, Herts, England) (President of the Commission). 

Dr. Th. MoRTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). _ 

Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia). 


Class 1952 

‘Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil). 

Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.). 

Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (University of Parma, Italy). 

Professor J. R. DYMOND (University of Toronto, Canada). 

Dr. James L. PETERS (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, 
Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). 

Dr. Harold E. Voxes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., 
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 LEMCcHE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologisk Labora- 
torium, Copenhagen, Denmark). 

Professor Kamel MANSouR (King Fouad University, Cairo, Egypt). 

‘Professor Z. P. METCALF (North Carolina State College of Agriculture and 
Engineering, University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.). 

Mr. N. D. RILeEy (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). 

Bhs cnice ence L. Ustncer (University of California, Berkeley, California, 


OPINION 250 


DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF A 
TYPE SPECIES FOR THE NOMINAL GENUS 
**CATOPLATUS ” SPINOLA, 1837 (CLASS 
INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA) IN 
HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED 
NOMENCLATORIAL USAGE 


RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers all type- 
selections for the nominal genus Catoplatus Spinola, 1837 
(Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) made prior to the 
present Ruling are hereby set aside and Tingis fabricii 
Stal, 1868, is hereby designated as the type species of 
this genus. 


(2) The generic name Catoplatus Spinola, 1837 (gender 
of name: masculine), with the type species designated 
in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology as Name No. 676. 


(3) The specific name fabricii Stal, 1868, as published 
in the combination Tingis fabricii, is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 
69. 


I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE 


On 30th June 1943 the Royal Entomological Society of London 
published Part 8 of the work entitled The Generic Names of 
British Insects. This Part contained the Eighth Report of the 
Society’s Committee on Generic Nomenclature! covering the 
First Report of its Hemiptera Sub-Committee.2 This Report 


a 


The composition of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature at the time of 
the submission of this Report was the same as it had been at the completion of 
its Sixth Report. Its composition at the latter date has been given in footnote 
1 to Opinion 243 (: 48). 


The Hemiptera Sub-Committee at the time of the submission of this Report 
was composed of: Dr. W, E, China; Mr, E, E. Green. 


wr 


130 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


dealt exclusively with the generic names of the British Hemiptera- 
Heteroptera. Annexed to the Sub-Committee’s Report as 
Annexe II was a paper by Dr. W. E. China (British Museum 
(Natural History), London), one of the members of the Sub- 
Committee, giving particulars of ten nominal genera, each based 
upon a misidentified type species, and asking that in each case 
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
should use its Plenary Powers in such a way as to secure that the 
type species should be not the species to which the cited name is 
applicable but the species intended by the author of the generic 
name when he cited the name of the nominal species concerned. 
The sixth of the names in question was Catoplatus Spinola, 
1837, with which the present Opinion is concerned. The 
recommendations in regard to this and the nine other cases 
referred to above prepared by Dr. China and endorsed by the 
Committee on Generic Nomenclature were formally submitted 
to the International Commission by Mr. N. D. Riley, Secretary 
to the Royal Entomological Society of London, on 23rd August 
1943. The application relating to the present case was as 
follows :— 


Proposed suspension of the ‘‘ Régles’’ for ‘‘ Catoplatus ’’ Spinola, 
1837 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), a genus based upon an 
erroneously determined species 


By W. E. CHINA, M.A. 
(Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum 
(Natural History)) 


Catoplatus Spinola, 1837 
Original reference :—Spinola, 1837, Essai Ins. Hémipt. : 167 


Author by whom the type in question was designated and reference:— 
The genus is monobasic. 


Name of species so designated as type :—The monobasic type is 
Acanthia costata Fabricius, 1794. 


Species intended by the original author of the genus when employing 
the specific name in question :—Acanthia costata (Fabricius) Spinola, 
1837, nec Fabricius, 1794, i.e., the species the valid name for which is 
Tingis fabricii Stal, 1868, Hémipt. Fabric. 1 (K. Svensk. Vet.-Ak. 
Handi. 4 (11)) : 93. 


Discussion of the case :—Spinola based his genus on a single species 
Acanthia costata Fabricius, 1794. Unfortunately he misidentified 


OPINION 250 131 


this species. Stal, 1868, Hémipt. Fabric. 1 : 93, who examined the 
Fabrician type, showed that Spinola’s species was distinct from that 
of Fabricius and consequently renamed it Tingis fabricii. The type of 
Catoplatus Spinola therefore is not the wrongly identified Acanthia 
costata Fabricius, 1794, but Tingis fabricii Stal, 1868. The identity 
of the true Acanthia costata Fabricius is in doubt. Fabricius recorded 
it from northern Europe. Stal, 1873, Enum. Hémipt. 3 : 129, refers 
it to Laporte’s genus Eurycera, but states “ Patria ignota’’. Horvath, 
1906, Ann. Mus. nat. Hung. 4 : 94, is of the opinion that this is an 
exotic African species of the genus Copium Thunberg, 1822, of which 
genus Eurycera Laporte, 1832, is a synonym. If therefore it were 
necessary under the Code to assume that Spinola’s determination of 
Acanthia costata Fabricius, 1794, was correct, Catoplatus Spinola, 
1837, would become a synonym of Copium Thunberg, 1822, and the 
well-known European genus Catoplatus auct. nec. Spinola would be 
left without a name. Such action would not only cause great confusion 
in the nomenclature of the genus Catoplatus but would run directly 
counter to Spinola’s intentions and would involve the designation as 
type of Catoplatus of a species disagreeing with the generic description. 
It is for this reason that I have accepted Tingis fabricii Stal, 1868, as 
the type of Catoplatus Spinola, 1837. 


Action by the International Commission desired :—A declaration 
that the type of Catoplatus Spinola, 1837, is Tingis fabricii Stal, 1868, 
Hémipt. Fabric. 1 (K, Svensk. Vet.-Ak. Handl. 4 (11)) : 93, and not 
Acanthia costata Fabricius, 1794, Ent. syst. 4: 77, the single species 
included in the genus by Spinola, since the Fabrician species agrees 
neither with Spinola’s generic description nor with the description 
of the type species given by Spinola, which was clearly misidentified 
as Acanthia costata Fabricius. 


Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 


2. On receipt, all ten of the applications discussed in the 
preceding paragraph were registered together under the Number 
Z.N.(S.) 144. As soon as possible thereafter, these applications 
were prepared for publication in the then newly established 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 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 (China, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
1 : 281). 


132 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


3. After the present application had been sent to the printer 
for publication in the Bulletin but long before it was published, 
Dr. R. I. Sailor (United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau 
of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) 
wrote a letter on 12th January 1945, commenting upon the 
proposals submitted by the Committee on Generic Nomenclature 
when transmitting the First Report of its Hemiptera Sub-Com- 
mittee to the Council of the Royal Entomological Society of 
London. After criticising the application submitted in the case 
of the name Alydus Fabricius, Dr. Sailor intimated as follows 
his support for the proposal dealt with in the present Opinion :— 
** T should like to add that, in my opinion, all other cases presented 
in Part 8 of The Generic Names of British Insects merit favorable 
action by the Commission ”’. 


4. 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 publica- 
tion of these notices elicited no objection to the action proposed. 


II.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


5. At an early stage of its work during its Paris Session in 
1948 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
submitted to the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology 
a recommendation for the insertion in the Rég/es of a compre- 
hensive provision dealing with the problem presented by nominal 
genera based upon misidentified type species. The gist of this 
provision was that, where it could be shown that an error of 
identification of this kind had occurred, it should be the duty of 
the International Commission, on the facts being laid before it 
by specialists, to use its Plenary Powers to vary the type species 
of the genus concerned in such a way as to harmonise with 
current nomenclatorial usage, the Commission being left free, 
however, to withhold action under its Plenary Powers in any 
case where the nominal species cited by the author of a generic 


OPINION 250 133 


name and not the species to which he had intended to refer had 
become generally accepted by workers in the group concerned 
and where, in consequence, the correction of the original author’s 
error would be likely to lead to confusion and name-changing 
(Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 38) (1950, Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 4 : 158—159). It was in the light of the foregoing 
provision that 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, summarising 
the introductory statement made by the Acting President (Mr. 
Francis Hemming) and the ensuing discussion, other than that 
portion which relates to the application submitted in regard to 
the name Gastrodes Westwood, 1840, which has been quoted 
in Opinion 246 (the Opinion dealing with that name) (1950, 
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 472) :— 


THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) 
said that unfortunately through some oversight the Commission 
File (file Z.N.(S.) 144) dealing with the present series of applica- 
tions had not been included among those which he had brought 
with him to Paris to assist the Commission in the consideration 
of problems calling for decision. So far as he could recall, no 
objections to the action proposed in these cases had been received 
from any source. These cases appeared to be exactly of the kind 
envisaged in Opinion 168. They all related to genera based upon 
misidentified species, where the acceptance of the type species 
actually cited (as contrasted with that intended) by the original 
author would certainly cause great confusion. In such cases the 
Commission were now under an obligation to use their Plenary 
Powers to avoid disturbance in accepted nomenclature. 


IN THE ENSUING DISCUSSION the view was generally 
expressed that all the necessary data had’ been submitted by 
Dr. China in support of the remaining applications and that those 
applications were well founded. It was felt, however, that, 
before a final decision was taken on these cases, it was desirable 


134 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


to make sure, by reference to the Commission’s File, that no 
adverse comment of any kind had been received from any 
specialist in the groups concerned. If any adverse comments 
were found to have been received, the application concerned 
should be submitted to the Commission, but if no such adverse 
comments had been received, the Secretary to the Commission 
should prepare Opinions in the sense proposed. 


6. The decision taken by the International Commission in the 
present case is set out as follows in the Official Record of its 
Proceedings (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 21) (1950, 
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 469—474) :— 


THE COMMISSION agreed :— 


(5) as regards the names of the nine genera in the Order 
Hemiptera (Class Insecta) specified below :— 


(a) that, if an examination of the Commission’s File 
Z.N.(S.) 144 showed that no objection to the 
action proposed had been received from any 
source, the Plenary Powers should be used to 
designate as the type species of the genera 
concerned the species severally specified below, 
but that, if in any case it were to be found that 
such an objection had been received, the applica- 
tion concerned should be resubmitted to the 
Commission for further consideration :— 

Name of species pro- 
posed to be designated 
under the Plenary 
Name of genus Powers as the type 
species of the genus 
specified in Col. (1) 
(2) 


Catoplatus Spinola, Tingis fabricii Stal, 
1837 1868 


eececscecevcereveeeevre eee i o-=eeeefeeteeteerereeeveeeee 


OPINION 250 135 


(b) that, where under Sub-Conclusion (5)(a) above, the 
Plenary Powers were used to designate as the 
type species of the genus concerned the species 
specified in Col. (2) of the table annexed to the 
said Sub-Conclusion, the generic name specified 
in Col. (1) should be placed on the Official List 
of Generic Names in Zoology and the trivial 
name specified in Col. (2) as the name of the 
type species of the genus concerned should be 
placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial 
Names in Zoology ; 


(c) that in every case where, under (5)(a) above, the 
Plenary Powers were used to designate as the type 
species of a genus the species specified against 
the name of that genus in Col. (2) of the table 
annexed to that Conclusion, an Opinion should 
be rendered recording the decision so taken. 


7. In accordance with the directions given in Conclusion (5)(a) 
(quoted above) taken by the International Commission in regard 
to this and the other applications there specified, the Secretary 
to the International Commission on his return from Paris to 
London examined the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 144, relating to 
the foregoing cases. This examination showed that in no case 
had an objection been lodged against the use of the Plenary 
Powers in the manner recommended by the applicant. The 
decision taken conditionally in favour of granting the request 
contained in the present application, as set out in the extract 
from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International 
Commission quoted in the immediately preceding paragraph, 
thereupon became definitive. The following is the note on this 
subject which for purposes of record Mr. Hemming then annexed 
to this portion of the Official Record (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
4 : 474) :— 


Note by the Secretary to the Commission.— 


I have examined the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 144, and find (i) 
that Dr. R. I. Sailor (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.) 


136 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


has registered his support for each of the proposals specifiedwabove, 
and (ii) that no adverse comment on the action proposed has been 
received from any source. (Signed) Francis Hemming, Secretariat 
of the Commission, London, N.W.1. 15th September 1948. 


8. The following are the original references for the names 
which appear in the decision set out in paragraph 6 above :— 


Catoplatus Spinola, 1837, Essai Ins. Hémipt. : 167 
fabricii, Tingis, Stal, 1868, K. svensk. Vet.-Ak. Handl., Stockholm 
7 (No. 11) : 93 (Hemipt. Fab. : 93) 


9. The gender of the generic name Catoplatus Spinola, 1837, 
referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 6 above, is 
masculine. 


10. The foregoing decision 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). 


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 


OPINION 250 N37 


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 
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 Fifty (250) of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature. 


Done in London this Sixteenth day of December, Nineteen 
Hundred and Fifty-Three. 


Secretary to the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 


FRANCIS HEMMING 


al 
} 


m 


Printed in England by Metcatre & Coorer LimiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., 


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 5. Part 12. Pp. 139—150 


OPINION 251 


Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a type species 

for the nominal genus Dictyonota Curtis, 1827 (Class 

Insecta, Order Hemiptera) in harmony with accustomed 
nomenclatorial usage 


AN) HSON/4 Wy 
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 11th June, 1954 


INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 251 


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. aa 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. SToLt (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 Lemcue (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologisk Labora- 
torium, Copenhagen, Denmark). 

Professor Kamel MANsourR (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 yan STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de 
Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). 

Role aaa L. UsINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California, 

S.A.). 


OPINION 251 


DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF A 
TYPE SPECIES FOR THE NOMINAL GENUS 
** DICTYONOTA ” CURTIS, 1827 (CLASS 
INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA) IN 
HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED 
NOMENCLATORIAL USAGE 


RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers all type- 
selections for the nominal genus Dictyonota Curtis, 1827 
(Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) made prior to the 
present Ruling are hereby set aside and Dictyonota 
strichnocera Fieber, 1844, is hereby designated as the 
type species of this genus. 


(2) The generic name Dictyonota Curtis, 1827 (gender 
of name: feminine), with the type species designated 
in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 677. 


(3) The specific name strichnocera Fieber, 144, as 
published in the combination Dictyonota strichnocera, is 
hereby placed on the Official Ei of Specific Names in 
Zoology as Name No. 70. 


I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE 


On 30th June 1943 the Royal Entomological Society of London 
published Part 8 of the work entitled The Generic Names of 
British Insects. This Part contained the Eighth Report of the 
Society’s Committee on Generic Nomenclature! covering the 
First Report of its Hemiptera Sub-Committee.2 This Report 


_ 


The composition of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature at the time of 
the submission of this Report was the same as it had been at the completion of 
its Sixth Report. Its composition at the latter date has been given in footnote 
1 to Opinion 243 (: 48). 


The Hemiptera Sub-Committee at the time of the submission of this Report 
was composed of ; Dr, W, E, China; Mr. E. E. Green. 


i) 


142 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


dealt exclusively with the generic names of the British Hemiptera- 
Heteroptera. Annexed to the Sub-Committee’s Report as 
Annexe II was a paper by Dr. W. E. China (British Museum 
(Natural History), London), one of the members of the Sub- 
Committee, giving particulars of ten nominal genera, each based 
upon a misidentified type species, and asking that in each case 
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
should use its Plenary Powers in such a way as to secure that the 
type species should be not the species to which the cited name was 
applicable but the species intended by the author of the generic 
name when he cited the name of the nominal species concerned. 
The fifth of the names in question was Dictyonota Curtis, 
1827, with which the present Opinion is concerned. The 
recommendations in regard to this and the nine other cases 
referred to above prepared by Dr. China and endorsed by the 
Committee on Generic Nomenclature were formally submitted 
to the International Commission by Mr. N. D. Riley, Secretary 
to the Royal Entomological Society of London, on 23rd August 
1943. The application relating to the present case was as 
follows :— 


Proposed suspension of the ‘‘ Régles ’’ for ‘‘ Dictyonota ’’ Curtis, 1827 
(Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), a genus based upon an erroneously 
determined species 


By W. E. CHINA, M.A. 
(Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum 
(Natural History)) 


Dictyonota Curtis, 1827 
Original reference :—Curtis, 1827, Brit. Ent. : 154 


Author by whom the type in question was designated and reference :— 
Curtis, 1827, Brit. Ent. 4 (154) : pl. 154. 


Name of species sO designated as type :+—Tingis eryngii Latreille, 
1804. 


Species intended by the original author of the genus when employing 
the specific name in question :—Tingis eryngii (Latreille) Curtis, 1827, 
nec Latreille, 1804, 7.e., the species the valid name for which 1s Dictyonota 
strichnocera Fieber, 1844, Ent. Monogr. : 95. 


Discussion of the case :—Curtis founded his genus Dictyonota for 
two British species, Tingis crassicornis Fallen, 1818, Mon. Cim. Suec. 
: 38 and Tingis eryngii Latreille, [1804], Hist. Nat. Crust. Ins. 12 : 253. 


OPINION 251 143 


Of these he designated Tingis eryngii Latreille as the type of the genus. 
Unfortunately Curtis, as is clear from his description and excellent 
figure, misidentified Latreille’s species (which does not occur in 
Britain) and the British species he actually described under Latreille’s 
name has since been redescribed and named Dictyonota strichnocera 
by Fieber, 1844. The true Tingis eryngii Latreille, [1804] is actually 
a synonym of Cimex carthusianus Goeze, 1778, Ent. Beytr. 2 : 268, 
and belongs to the genus Catoplatus Spinola, 1837, Essai Ins. Hemipt. 
: 167. This synonymy has been generally accepted by Hemipterists 
for many years. Dictyonota strichnocera Fieber must therefore be 
accepted as the type of Dictyonota. If it were necessary under the 
Code to assume that Curtis’s determination of Tingis eryngii Latreille 
was correct, the well-known genus Catoplatus Spinola, 1837, would be- 
come a synonym of Dictyonota Curtis, 1827, and the equally well-known 
genus Dictyonota auct. would take the name Scraulia Stal, 1874. Such 
action would run directly counter to Curtis’s intentions and would be 
open to the strongest objection in that it would involve the acceptance 
as type of this genus of a species agreeing neither with the original 
generic description nor with Curtis’s own description and figure of the 
type species. It is for this reason that I have accepted Dictyonota 
strichnocera Fieber, 1844, as the type of Dictyonota Curtis, 1827. 


Action by the International Commission desired :—A declaration 
that the type of Dictyonota Curtis, 1827, is Dictyonota strichnocera 
Fieber, 1844, Ent. Monogr. :95 and not Tingis eryngii Latreille, 
[1804], Hist. Nat. Crust. Ins. 12 : 253, since the latter species agrees 
neither with the generic description nor with the description and figure 
of the type species given by Curtis, which was clearly misidentified 
as Tingis eryngii Latreille. 


II.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 


2. On receipt, all ten of the applications discussed in the 
preceding paragraph were registered together under the Number 
Z.N.(S.) 144. As soon as possible thereafter, these applications 
were prepared for publication in the then newly established 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 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 (China, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
12282). 


144 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


3. After the present application had been sent to the printer 
for publication in the Bulletin but long before it was published, 
Dr. R. I. Sailor (United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau 
of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) 
wrote a letter on 12th January 1945, commenting upon the 
proposals submitted by the Committee on Generic Nomenclature 
when transmitting the First Report of its Hemiptera Sub-Com- 
mittee to the Council of the Royal Entomological Society of 
London. After criticising the application submitted in the case 
of the name A/ydus Fabricius, Dr. Sailor intimated as follows 
his support for the proposal dealt with in the present Opinion :— 
** | should like to add that, in my opinion, all other cases presented 
in Part 8 of The Generic Names of British Insects merit favorable 
action by the Commission ”’. 


4. 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 publica- 
tion of these notices elicited no objection to the action proposed. 


III—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


5. At an early stage of its work during its Paris Session in 
1948 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
submitted to the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology 
a recommendation for the insertion in the Régles of a compre- 
hensive provision dealing with the problem presented by nominal 
genera based upon misidentified type species. The gist of this 
provision was that, where it could be shown that an error of 
identification of this kind had occurred, it should be the duty of 
the International Commission, on the facts being laid before it 
by specialists, to use its Plenary Powers to vary the type species | 
of the genus concerned in such a way as to harmonise with 
current nomenclatorial usage, the Commission being left free, 
however, to withhold action under its Plenary Powers in any 
case where the nominal species cited by the author of a generic 


OPINION 251 145 


name and not the species to which he had intended to refer had 
become generally accepted by workers in the group concerned 
and where, in consequence, the correction of the original author’s 
error would be likely to lead to confusion and name-changing 
(Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 38) (1950, Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 4 : 158—159). It was in the light of the foregoing 
provision that 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, summarising 
the introductory statement made by the Acting President (Mr. 
Francis Hemming) and the ensuing discussion, other than that 
portion which relates to the application submitted in regard to 
the name Gastrodes Westwood, 1840, which has been quoted 
in Opinion 246 (the Opinion dealing with that name) (1950, 
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 472) :— 


THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) 
said that unfortunately through some oversight the Commission 
File (file Z.N.(S.) 144) dealing with the present series of applica- 
tions had not been included among those which he had brought 
with him to Paris to assist the Commission in the consideration 
of problems calling for decision. So far as he could recall, no 
objections to the action proposed in these cases had been received 
from any source. These cases appeared to be exactly of the kind 
envisaged in Opinion 168. They all related to genera based upon 
misidentified species, where the acceptance of the type species 
actually cited (as contrasted with that intended) by the original 
author would certainly cause great confusion. In such cases the 
Commission were now under an obligation to use their Plenary 
Powers to avoid disturbance in accepted nomenclature. 


IN THE ENSUING DISCUSSION the view was generally 
expressed that all the necessary data had been submitted by 
Dr. China in support of the remaining applications and that those 
applications were well founded. It was felt, however, that, 
before a final decision was taken on these cases, it was desirable 


146 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


to make sure, by reference to the Commission’s File, that no 
adverse comment of any kind had been received from any 
specialist in the groups concerned. If any such adverse comments 
were found to have been received, the application concerned 
should be submitted to the Commission, but if no such adverse 
comments had been received, the Secretary to the Commission 
should prepare Opinions in the sense proposed. 


6. The decision taken by the International Commission in the 
present case is set out as follows in the Official Record of its 
Proceedings (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 21) (1950, 
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 469—474) :— 


THE COMMISSION agreed :— 


(5) as regards the names of the nine genera in the Order 
Hemiptera (Class Insecta) specified below :— 


(a) that, if an examination of the Commission’s File 
Z.N.(S.) 144 showed that no objection to the 
action proposed had been received from any 
source, the Plenary Powers should be used to 
designate as the type species of the genera 
concerned the species severally specified below, 
but that, if in any case it were to be found that 
such an objection had been received, the applica- 
tion concerned should be resubmitted to the 
Commission for further consideration :— 

Name of species pro- 
posed to be designated 
under the Plenary 
Name of genus Powers as the type 
species of the genus 
specified in Col. (1) 
(2) 


Dictyonota Curtis, Dictyonota strichnocera 
1827 Fieber, 1844 


a 


OPINION 251 147 


(b) that, where under Sub-Conclusion (5)(a) above, the 
Plenary Powers were used to designate as the 
type species of the genus concerned the species 
specified in Col. (2) of the table annexed to the 
said Sub-Conclusion, the generic name specified 
in Col. (1) should be placed on the Official List 
of Generic Names in Zoology and the trivial 
name specified in Col. (2) as the name of the 
type species of the genus concerned should be 
placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial 
Names in Zoology ; 


(c) that in every case where, under (5)(a) above, the 
Plenary Powers were used to designate as the type 
species of a genus the species specified against 
the name of that genus in Col. (2) of the table 
annexed to that Conclusion, an Opinion should 
be rendered recording the decision so taken. 


7. In accordance with the directions given in Conclusion (5)(a) 
(quoted above) taken by the International Commission in regard 
to this and the other applications there specified, the Secretary 
to the International Commission on his return from Paris to 
London examined the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 144, relating to 
the foregoing cases. This examination showed that in no case 
had an objection been lodged against the use of the Plenary 
Powers in the manner recommended by the applicant. The 
decision taken conditionally in favour of granting the request 
contained in the present application, as set out in the extract 
from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International 
Commission quoted in the immediately preceding paragraph, 
thereupon became definitive. The following is the note on this 
subject which for purposes of record Mr. Hemming then annexed 
to this portion of the Official Record (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
4 : 474) :— 


Note by the Secretary to the Commission.— 


I have examined the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 144, and find (i) 
that Dr. R. I. Sailor (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.) 
has registered his support for each of the proposals specified above, 


148 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


and (ii) that no adverse comment on the action proposed has been 
received from any source. (Signed) Francis Hemming, Secretariat 
of the Commission, London, N.W.1. 15th September 1948. 


8. The following are the original references for the names 
which appear in the decision set out in paragraph 6 above :— 


Dictyonota Curtis, 1827, Brit. Ent. 4 (154) : pl. 154 
strichnocera, Dictyonota, Fieber, 1844, Ent. Monogr. : 95 


9. The gender of the generic name Dictyonota Curtis, 1827, 
referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 6 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 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 5 : 114). 


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 —— 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 


OPINION 251 149 


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 Fifty-One (251) of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature. 


Done in London this Sixteenth 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.c., C.B.E. 


Secretary to the Commission 


VOLUME 5. Part 13. Pp. 151—162 


OPINION 252 


Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a type species 

for the nominal genus Oncotylus Fieber, 1858 (Class 

Insecta, Order Hemiptera) in harmony with accustomed 
nomenclatorial usage 


°—+n 


eM HSON/47 
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 11th June, 1954 


INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 252 


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. 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 MANsourR (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 252 


DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF A 
TYPE SPECIES FOR THE NOMINAL GENUS 
** ONCOTYLUS ”’ FIEBER, 1858 (CLASS 
INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA) IN 
HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED 
NOMENCLATORIAL USAGE 


RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers all type- 
selections for the nominal genus Oncotylus Fieber, 1858 
(Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) made prior to the 
present Ruling are hereby set aside and Oncotylus 
punctipes Reuter, 1873, is hereby designated as the type 
species of this genus. 


(2) The generic name Oncotylus Fieber, 1858 (gender 
of name: masculine) with the type species designated 
in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 678. 


(3) The specific name punctipes Reuter, 1873, as 
published in the combination Oncotylus punctipes, is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology as Name No. 71. 


I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE 


On 30th June 1943 the Royal Entomological Society of London 
published Part 8 of the work entitled The Generic Names of 
British Insects. This Part contained the Eighth Report of the 
Society's Committee on Generic Nomenclature! covering the 
First Report of its Hemiptera Sub-Committee.2 This Report 


~ 


The composition of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature at the time of 
the submission of this Report was the same as it had been at the completion of 
its Sixth Report. Its composition at the latter date has been given in footnote 
1 to Opinion 243 (: 48). 

The Hemiptera Sub-Committee at the time of the submission of this Report 
was composed of: Dr, W, E, China; Mr, E, E, Green, 


154 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


dealt exclusively with the generic names of the British Hemiptera- 
Heteroptera. Annexed to the Sub-Committee’s Report as 
Annex II was a paper by Dr. W. E. China (British Museum 
(Natural History), London), one of the members of the Sub- 
Committee, giving particulars of ten nominal genera, each based 
upon a misidentified type species, and asking that in each case 
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
should use its Plenary Powers in such a way as to secure that the 
type species should be not the species to which the cited name is 
applicable but the species intended by the author of the generic 
name when he cited the name of the nominal species concerned. 
The ninth of the names in question was Oncotylus Fieber, 
1858, with which the present Opinion is concerned. The 
recommendations in regard to this and the nine other cases 
referred to above prepared by Dr. China and endorsed by the 
Committee on Generic Nomenclature were formally submitted 
to the International Commission by Mr. N. D. Riley, Secretary 
to the Royal Entomological Society of London, on 23rd August 
1943. The application relating to the present case was as 
follows :— 


Proposed suspension of the ‘‘ Régles ’’ for ‘‘ Oncotylus ”’ Fieber, 1858 
(Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), a genus based upon an erroneously 
determined species 


By W. E. CHINA, M.A. 
(Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum 
(Natural History)) 


Oncotylus Fieber, 1858 
Original reference :—Fieber, 1858, Wien. ent. Monatschr. 2 : 318. 


Author by whom the type in question was designated and reference:— 
Kirkaldy, 1906, Trans. amer. ent. Soc. 32 : 126. 


Name of species so designated as type :—Capsus tanaceti Fieber, 
1858, i.e., Capsus tanaceti (Fallén) Fieber, 1858, nec Fallén, 1807. 


Species intended by the original author of the genus when employing 
the specific name in question :—Capsus tanaceti Herrich-Schaeffer, 
1836, nec Capsus tanaceti Fallén, 1807, i.e., the species the valid name 
of which is Oncotylus punctipes Reuter, 1873, Bihang. K. Svensk. 
Vet.-Ak. Hand. 3 (i) : 42. 


Discussion of case :—Fieber based his genus Oncotylus on Capsus 
decolor Fallén, 1807, Capsus tanaceti Fallén, 1807, and Oncotylus 


OPINION 252 155 


fenestratus Fieber, 1858. Kirkaldy, 1906, fixed Oncotylus tanaceti 
Fieber, 1858, as the type, indicating that this species was not Capsus 
tanaceti Fallén, 1807, the species actually referred to by Fieber, but 
Oncotylus punctipes Reuter, 1873, as had been shown by Reuter, 1873, 
Bihang K. Svensk. Vet.-Akad. Hand. 3 (1) : 42 and 1879, Act. Soc. Sci. 
Fenn. 13 (2) : 279. Fieber apparently followed Herrich-Schaeffer, 
1836, Wanz. Ins. 3 : 85 and Kirschbaum, 1855, Rhyn. Wiesbaden 1 : 
(Jahrb. Ver. Naturk. Herz. Nassau 10 :) 80, no. 120, in his identification 
of Capsus tanaceti Fallén, 1807, but, as shown by Reuter, the species 
which they wrongly identified as such was a distinct species later 
described by Reuter as Oncotylus punctipes, which therefore becomes 
the type of Oncotylus Fieber. If it were necessary under the Code to 
assume that Fieber’s determination of Capsus tanaceti Fallén was 
correct, then Oncotylus Fieber, 1858, would replace Megalocoleus 
Reuter, 1890, which is a new name for Macrocoleus Fieber, 1858, 
nec Desvignes, 1849 (Hymenoptera) and Oncotylus auct. would be- 
come Anoterops Fieber, 1858. Such action would not only cause 
confusion in the nomenclature of these genera, but would also run 
directly counter to Fieber’s intention, which was to separate his genera 
Oncotylus and Macrocoleus (i.e., Megalocoleus Reuter n.n.) described 
within a few pages of one another in the same work. It would also 
be open to the strongest objection in that it would involve the designa- 
tion as type of Oncotylus of a species disagreeing with the generic 
description. It is for this reason that I have accepted Oncotylus 
punctipes Reuter instead of Capsus tanaceti Fallén as type of Oncotylus. 


Action by the International Commission desired :—A declaration 
that the type of Oncotylus Fieber, 1858, is Oncotylus punctipes Reuter, 
1873, Bihang K Svensk. Vet.-Akad. Handl. 3 (1) : 42 and not Capsus 
(Phytocoris) tanaceti Fallén, 1807, Hem. Suec. Cimic. : 83, the species 
included in the genus by Fieber, since Fallén’s species agrees neither 
with Fieber’s generic description nor with the description of the type 
species given by Fieber, which was clearly misidentified as Capsus 
(Phytocoris) tanaceti Fallén. 


Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 


2. On receipt, all ten of the applications discussed in the 
preceding paragraph were registered together under the Number 
Z.N.(S.) 144. As soon as possible thereafter, these applications 
were prepared for publication in the then newly established 


156 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. ‘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 (China, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
1 : 284). 


3. After the present application had been sent to the printer 
for publication in the Bulletin but long before it was published, 
Dr. R. I. Sailor (United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau 
of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) 
wrote a letter on 12th January 1945, commenting upon the 
proposals submitted by the Committee on Generic Nomenclature 
when transmitting the First Report of its Hemiptera Sub-Com- 
mittee to the Council of the Royal Entomological Society of 
London. After criticising the application submitted in the case 
of the name Alydus Fabricius, Dr. Sailor intimated as follows 
his support for the proposal dealt with in the present Opinion :— 
** T should like to add that, in my opinion, all other cases presented 
in Part 8 of The Generic Names of British Insects merit favorable 
action by the Commission ”’. 


4. 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 publica- 
tion of these notices elicited no objection to the action proposed. 


III—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


5. At an early stage of its work during its Paris Session in 
1948 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
submitted to the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology 
a recommendation for the insertion in the Régles of a compre- 
hensive provision dealing with the problem presented by nominal 


OPINION 252 (57 


genera based upon misidentified type species. The gist of this 
provision was that, where it could be shown that an error of 
identification of this kind had occurred, it should be the duty of 
the International Commission, on the facts being laid before it 
by specialists, to use its Plenary Powers to vary the type species 
of the genus concerned in such a way as to harmonise with 
current nomenclatorial usage, the Commission being left free, 
however, to withhold action under its Plenary Powers in any 
case where the nominal species cited by the author of a generic 
name and not the species to which he had intended to refer had 
become generally accepted by workers in the group concerned 
and where, in consequence, the correction of the original author’s 
error would be likely to lead to confusion and name-changing 
(Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 38) (1950, Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 4 : 158—159). It was in the light of the foregoing 
provision that 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, summarising 
the introductory statement made by the Acting President (Mr. 
Francis Hemming) and the ensuing discussion, other than that 
portion which relates to the application submitted in regard to 
the name Gastrodes Westwood, 1840, which has been quoted 
in Opinion 246 (the Opinion dealing with that name) (1950, 
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 472) :— 


THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) 
said that unfortunately through some oversight the Commission 
File (file Z.N.(S.) 144) dealing with the present series of applica- 
tions had not been included among those which he had brought 
with him to Paris to assist the Commission in the consideration 
of problems calling for decision. So far as he could recall, no 
objections to the action proposed in these cases had been received 
from any source. These cases appeared to be exactly of the kind 
envisaged in Opinion 168. They all related to genera based upon 
misidentified species, where the acceptance of the type species 
actually cited (as contrasted with that intended) by the original 
author would certainly cause great confusion. In such cases the 


158 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


Commission were now under an obligation to use their Plenary 
Powers to avoid disturbance in accepted nomenclature. 


IN THE ENSUING DISCUSSION the view was generally 
expressed that all the necessary data had been submitted by 
Dr. China in support of the remaining applications and that those 
applications were well founded. It was felt, however, that, 
before a final decision was taken on these cases, it was desirable 
to make sure, by reference to the Commission’s File, that no 
adverse comment of any kind had been received from any 
specialist in the groups concerned. If any such adverse comments 
were found to have been received, the application concerned 
should be submitted to the Commission, but if no such adverse 
comments had been received, the Secretary to the Commission 
should prepare Opinions in the sense proposed. 


6. The decision taken by the International Commission in the 
present case is set out as follows in the Official Record of its 
Proceedings (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 21) (1950, 
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 469—474) :— 


THE COMMISSION agreed :— 


(5) as regards the names of the nine genera in the Order 
Hemiptera (Class Insecta) specified below :— 


(a) that, if an examination of the Commission’s file 
Z.N.(S.) 144 showed that no objection to the 
action proposed had been received from any 
source, the Plenary Powers should be used to 
designate as the type species of the genera 
concerned the species severally specified below, 
but that, if in any case it were to be found that 


OPINION 252 159 


such an objection had been received, the applica- 
tion concerned should be resubmitted to the 
Commission for further consideration :— 
Name of species pro- 
posed to be designated 
under the Plenary 
Name of genus Powers as the type 
species of the genus 
specified in Col. (1) 


(1) (2) 
Oncotylus Fieber, Oncotylus punctipes 
1858 Reuter, 1873 


Co cS i i i i 


(b) that, where under Sub-Conclusion (5)(a) above, the 
Plenary Powers were used to designate as the 
type species of the genus concerned the species 
specified in Col. (2) of the table annexed to the 
said Sub-Conclusion, the generic name specified 
in Col. (1) should be placed on the Official List 
of Generic Names in Zoology and the trivial 
name specified in Col. (2) as the name of the 
type species of the genus concerned should be 
placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial 
Names in Zoology ; 


(c) that in every case where, under (5)(a) above, the 
Plenary Powers were used to designate as the type 
species of a genus the species specified against 
the name of that genus in Col. (2) of the table 
annexed to that Conclusion, an Opinion should 
be rendered recording the decision so taken. 


7. In accordance with the directions given in Conclusion (5)(a) 
(quoted above) taken by the International Commission in regard 
to this and the other applications there specified, the Secretary 
to the International Commission on his return from Paris to 
London examined the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 144, relating to 


160 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


the foregoing cases. This examination showed that in no case 
had an objection been lodged against the use of the Plenary 
Powers in the manner recommended by the applicant. The 
decision taken conditionally in favour of granting the request 
contained in the present application, as set out in the extract 
from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International 
Commission quoted in the immediately preceding paragraph, 
thereupon became definitive. The following is the note on this 
subject which for purposes of record Mr. Hemming then annexed 
to this portion of the Official Record (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
4: 474) :— 


Note by the Secretary to the Commission.— 


I have examined the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 144, and find (i) 
that Dr. R. I. Sailor (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.) 
has registered his support for each of the proposals specified above, 
and (ii) that no adverse comment on the action proposed has been 
received from any source. (Signed) Francis Hemming, Secretariat 
of the Commission, London, N.W.1. 15th September 1948. 


8. The following are the original references for the names 
which appear in the decision set out in paragraph 6 above :— 


Oncotylus Fieber, 1858, Wien. ent. Monats. 2 : 318 
punctipes, Oncotylus, Reuter, 1873, Bihang K. svensk. Vet.-Akad. 
Handl., Stockholm 3 (No. 1) : 42 


9. The gender of the generic name Oncotylus Fieber, 1858, 
referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 6 above, is 
masculine. 


10. The decision taken in the present case was reported 
to, and approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the 
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, 
at its Sixth Meeting held on 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 5 : 115). 


11. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was concurred 
in by the sixteen (16) Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners 


OPINION 252 16] 


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 present Opinion was dissented from by no Com- 
missioner 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 
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. 


162 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


15. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two 
Hundred and Fifty-Two (252) of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature. 


Done in London this Sixteenth day of December, Nineteen 
Hundred and Fifty-Three. 


Secretary to the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 


FRANCIS HEMMING 


Printed in England by Metcatre & Cooper LimiTEep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 


OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 
RENDERED BY THE INTER- 
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


Edited by 
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. 


Secretary to the Commission 


VOLUME 5. Part 14. Pp. 163—174 


OPINION 253 
Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a type species 
for the nominal genus Pachylops Fieber, 1858 (Class 
Insecta, Order Hemiptera) in harmony with accustomed | 


nomenclatorial usage 
vial, y> 
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 11th June, 1954 


INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 253 


A. The Officers of the Commission 


President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural History), 
Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England). 

Vice-President: Dr. James L. Peters (Museum of Comparative Zoology, 
Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.). 

Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London, England). 


B. The Members of the Commission 


Class 1949 
Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina). 
Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary to the Commission). 
Dr. Karl JoRDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, 
Tring, Herts, England) (President of the Commission). 
Dr. Th. MorRTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). 
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia). 


Class 1952 
Senhor Dr. Agiaeic 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. ans 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 Kirgy (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). 

Frofsct oe L. UsincER (University of California, Berkeley, California, 

.S.A.). 


OPINION 253 


DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF A 
TYPE SPECIES FOR THE NOMINAL GENUS 
‘* PACHYLOPS ” FIEBER, 1858 (CLASS 
INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA) IN 
HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED 
NOMENCLATORIAL USAGE 


RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers all type- 
selections for the nominal genus Pachylops Fieber, 1858 
(Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) made prior to the present 
Ruling are hereby set aside and Litosoma bicolor Douglas 
& Scott, 1868, is hereby designated as the type species 
of this genus. 


(2) The generic name Pachylops Fieber, 1858 (gender 
of name: masculine), with the type species designated 
in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 679. 


(3) The specific name bicolor Douglas & Scott, 1868, 
as published in the combination Litosoma bicolor, is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology as Name No. 72. 


I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE 


On 30th June 1943 the Royal Entomological Society of London 
published Part 8 of the work entitled The Generic Names of 
British Insects. This Part contained the Eighth Report of the 
Society’s Committee on Generic Nomenclature! covering the 
First Report of its Hemiptera Sub-Committee.2 This Report 


i 


The composition of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature at the time of 
the submission of this Report was the same as it had been at the completion of 
its Sixth Report. Its composition at the latter date has been given in footnote 
1 to Opinion 243 (: 48). 

The Hemiptera Sub-Committee at the time of the submission of this Report 
was composed of : Dr. W. E, China; Mr, E, E, Green, 


w 


166 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


dealt exclusively with the generic names of the British Hemiptera- 
Heteroptera. Annexed to the Sub-Committee’s Report as 
Annex II was a paper by Dr. W. E. China (British Museum 
(Natural History), London), one of the members of the Sub- 
Committee, giving particulars of ten nominal genera, each based 
upon a misidentified type species, and asking that in each case 
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
should use its Plenary Powers in such a way as to secure that the 
type species should be not the species to which the cited name is 
applicable but the species intended by the author of the generic 
name when he cited the name of the nominal species concerned. 
The eighth of the names in question was Pachylops Fieber, 
1858, with which the present Opinion is concerned. The 
recommendations in regard to this and the nine other cases 
referred to above prepared by Dr. China and endorsed by the 
Committee on Generic Nomenclature were formally submitted 
to the International Commission by Mr. N. D. Riley, Secretary 
to the Royal Entomological Society of London, on 23rd August 
1943. The application relating to the present case was as 
follows :— 


Proposed suspension of the ‘‘ Régles ’’ for ‘‘ Pachylops ”’ Fieber, 1858 
(Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), a genus based upon an erroneously 
determined species 


By W. E. CHINA, M.A. 
(Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum 
(Natural History)) 


Pachylops Fieber, 1858 
Original reference :—Fieber, 1858, Wien. ent. Monatsch. 2 : 314. 


Author by whom the type in question was designated and reference:— 
The genus is monobasic. 


Name of species so designated as type :—The monobasic type is 
Capsus chloropterus Kirschbaum, 1855. 


Species intended by the original author of the genus when employing 
the specific name in question :—Capsus chloropterus (Kirschbaum) 
Fieber, 1858, nec Kirschbaum, 1855, i.e., the species the valid name 
for which is Litosoma bicolor Douglas & Scott, 1868, Ent. mon. Mag. 
4 : 267. 


Discussion of the case :—Fieber based his genus on a single species 
which he assumed to be Capsus chloropterus Kirschbaum, 1855, Rhyn. 
Wiesbaden 1 : (Jahr. Ver. Naturk. Herz. Nassau 10 : 249). Reuter, 


OPINION 253 167 


1877 (Ent. mon. Mag. 14: 129), showed that Fieber misidentified 
Kirschbaum’s species (possibly because he received a wrongly identified 
specimen from Kirschbaum himself), and that the species Fieber 
(followed by Douglas and Scott, and Saunders) determined as Capsus 
chloropterus Kirschbaum is a distinct species which was later described 
by Douglas and Scott under the name Litosoma bicolor. The type of 
Pachylops is therefore Litosoma bicolor Douglas & Scott, 1868, and 
not the wrongly identified Capsus chloropterus Kirschbaum, 1855. 
If it is necessary under the Code to assume that Fieber’s determination 
of this species was correct, then Pachylops Fieber would replace the 
well-known Orthotylus Fieber, 1858, and Pachylops auct. nec Fieber 
would become Hypsitylus Fieber, [1860]. Such action would not only 
cause confusion in the nomenclature of these genera, but would run 
directly counter to Fieber’s intention, which was to separate distinctly 
his two new genera Pachylops and Orthotylus described on consecutive 
pages of the same work. It would also be open to the strongest 
objection in that it would involve the designation as type of Pachylops 
of a species disagreeing completely with the generic description. It is 
for these reasons that I have accepted Litosoma bicolor Douglas & 
Scott, 1868, instead of Capsus chloropterus Kirschbaum, 1855, as the 
type of Pachylops. Since Capsus chloropterus Kirschbaum, 1855, is 
a primary homonym of Capsus chloropterus Herrich-Schaeffer, 1853, 
the next available name, which is Litosoma virescens Douglas & Scott, 
1865, must be used if Capsus chloropterus is accepted as type. 


Action by the International Commission desired :—A declaration 
that the type of Pachylops Fieber, 1858, is Litosoma bicolor Douglas 
& Scott, 1868, Ent. mon. Mag. 4 : 267 and not Capsus chloropterus 
Kirschbaum, 1855, Rhyn. Wiesbaden 1: (Jahrb. Ver. Naturk. Herz. 
Nassau 10 : 249), the single species included in the genus by Fieber, 
since the Kirschbaum species agrees neither with Fieber’s generic 
description nor with the description of the type species given by Fieber, 
which was clearly misidentified as Capsus chloropterus Kirschbaum. 


II—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 


2. On receipt, all ten of the applications discussed in the 
preceding paragraph were registered together under the Number 
Z.N.(S.) 144. As soon as possible thereafter, these applications 
were prepared for publication in the then newly established 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The present application 
was sent to the printer in September 1944, but, owing to difficulties 


168 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


arising from paper rationing, shortage of labour at the printing 
works and similar causes, publication did not actually take place 
until 31st March 1947 (China, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
£52285): 


3. After the present application had been sent to the printer 
for publication in the Bulletin but long before it was published, 
Dr. R. I. Sailor (United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau 
of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) 
wrote a letter on 12th January 1945, commenting upon the 
proposals submitted by the Committee on Generic Nomenclature 
when transmitting the First Report of its Hemiptera Sub-Com- 
mittee to the Council of the Royal Entomological Society of 
London. After criticising the application submitted in the case 
- of the name Alydus Fabricius, Dr. Sailor intimated as follows 
his support for the proposal dealt with in the present Opinion :— 
“* T should like to add that, in my opinion, all other cases presented 
in Part 8 of The Generic Names of British Insects merit favorable 
action by the Commission ”’. 


4. 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 publica- 
tion of these notices elicited no objection to the action proposed. 


III.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


5. At an early stage of its work during its Paris Session in 
1948 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
submitted to the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology 
a recommendation for the insertion in the Régles of a compre- 
hensive provision dealing with the problem presented by nominal 
genera based upon misidentified type species. The gist of this 


OPINION 253 169 


provision was that, where it could be shown that an error of 
identification of this kind had occurred, it should be the duty of 
the International Commission, on the facts being laid before it 
by specialists, to use its Plenary Powers to vary the type species 
of the genus concerned in such a way as to harmonise with 
current nomenclatorial usage, the Commission being left free, 
however, to withhold action under its Plenary Powers in any 
case where the nominal species cited by the author of a generic 
name and not the species to which he had intended to refer had 
become generally accepted by workers in the group concerned 
and where, in consequence, the correction of the original author’s 
error would be likely to lead to confusion and name-changing 
(Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 38) (1950, Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 4 : 158—159). It was in the light of the foregoing 
provision that 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, summarising 
the introductory statement made by the Acting President (Mr. 
Francis Hemming) and the ensuing discussion which took place, 
other than that portion which relates to the application submitted 
in regard to the name Gastrodes Westwood, 1840, which has 
been quoted in Opinion 246 (the Opinion dealing with that 
name) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 472) :— 


THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) 
said that unfortunately through some oversight the Commission 
File (file Z.N.(S.) 144) dealing with the present series of applica- 
tions had not been included among those which he had brought 
with him to Paris to assist the Commission in the consideration 
of problems calling for decision. So far as he could recall, no 
objections to the action proposed in these cases had been received 
from any source. These cases appeared to be exactly of the kind 
envisaged in Opinion 168. They all related to genera based upon 
misidentified species, where the acceptance of the type species 
actually cited (as contrasted with that intended) by the original 
author would certainly cause great confusion. In such cases the 


170 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


Commission were now under an obligation to use their Plenary 
Powers to avoid disturbance in accepted nomenclature. 


IN THE ENSUING DISCUSSION the view was generally 
expressed that all the necessary data had been submitted by 
Dr. China in support of the remaining applications and that those 
applications were well founded. It was felt, however, that, 
before a final decision was taken on these cases, it was desirable 
to make sure, by reference to the Commission’s File, that no 
adverse comment of any kind: had been received from any 
specialist in the groups concerned. If any adverse comments 
were found to have been received, the application concerned 
should be submitted to the Commission, but if no such adverse 
comments had been received, the Secretary to the Commission 
should prepare Opinions in the sense proposed. 


6. The decision taken by the International Commission in the 
present case is set out as follows in the Official Record of its 
Proceedings (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 21) (1950, 
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 469—474) :— 


THE COMMISSION agreed :— 


(5) as regards the names of the nine genera in the Order 
Hemiptera (Class Insecta) specified below :— 


(a) that, if an examination of the Commission’s file 
Z.N.(S.) 144 showed that no objection to the 
action proposed had been received from any — 
source, the Plenary Powers should be used to 
designate as the type species of the genera 
concerned the species severally specified below, 
but that, if in any case it were to be found that 


OPINION 253 I 


such an objection had been received, the applica- 
tion concerned should be resubmitted to the 
Commission for further consideration :— 
Name of species pro- 
posed to be designated 
under the Plenary 
Name of genus Powers as the type 
species of the genus 
specified in Col. (1) 


(1) (2) 
Pachylops Fieber, Litosoma bicolor Douglas 
1858 & Scott, 1868 


(b) that, where under Sub-Conclusion (5)(a) above, the 
Plenary Powers were used to designate as the 
type species of the genus concerned the species 
specified in Col. (2) of the table annexed to the 
said Sub-Conclusion, the generic name specified 
in Col. (1) should be placed on the Official List 
of Generic Names in Zoology and the trivial 
name specified in Col. (2) as the name of the 
type species of the genus concerned should be 
placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial 
Names in Zoology ; 


(c) that in every case where, under (5)(a) above, the 
Plenary Powers were used to designate as the type 
species of a genus the species specified against 
the name of that genus in Col. (2) of the table 
annexed to that Conclusion, an Opinion should 
be rendered recording the decision so taken. 


7. In accordance with the directions given in Conclusion (5)(a) 
(quoted above) taken by the International Commission in regard 
to this and the other applications there specified, the Secretary 
to the International Commission on his return from Paris to 


172 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


London examined the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 144, relating to 
the foregoing cases. This examination showed that in no case 
had an objection been lodged against the use of the Plenary 
Powers in the manner recommended by the applicant. The 
decision taken conditionally in favour of granting the request 
contained in the present application, as set out in the extract 
from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International 
Commission quoted in the immediately preceding paragraph, 
thereupon became definitive. The following is the note on this 
subject which for purposes of record Mr. Hemming then annexed 
to this portion of the Official Record (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
4 : 474) :— 


Note by the Secretary to the Commission.— 


I have examined the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 144, and find (1) 
that Dr. R. I. Sailor (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.) 
has registered his support for each of the proposals specified above, 
and (ii) that no adverse comment on the action proposed has been 
received from any source. (Signed) Francis Hemming, Secretariat 
of the Commission, London, N.W.1. 15th September 1948. 


8. The following are the original references for the names 
which appear in the decision set out in paragraph 6 above :— 


bicolor, Litosoma, Douglas & Scott, 1868, Ent. mon. Mag. 4 : 267 
Pachylops Fieber, 1858, Wien. ent. Monats. 2 : 314. 


9. The gender of the generic name Pachylops Fieber, 1858, 
referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 6 above, is 
masculine. 


10. The decision taken in the present case was reported 
to, and approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the 
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, 
at its Sixth Meeting held on 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 5 : 115). 


11. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was concurred 
in by the sixteen (16) Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners 


OPINION 253 173 


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 
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. 


174 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


15. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two 
Hundred and Fifty-Three (253) of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature. 


Done in London this Sixteenth day of December, Nineteen 
Hundred and Fifty-Three. 


Secretary to the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 


FRANCIS HEMMING 


ee al 


Printed in England by Mrercatre & Cooper Limirep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C2 


OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 
RENDERED BY THE INTER. 
NATIONAL COMMISSION -ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


Edited by 
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.™.G., C.B.E. 


Secretary to the Commission 
VOLUME 5. Part 15. Pp. 175—186 


OPINION 254 


Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a type species 

for the nominal genus Pilophorus Hahn, 1826 (Class 

Insecta, Order Hemiptera) in harmony with accustomed 
nomenclatorial usage 


oN HSON/a 
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) 


Ussued Vth June, 1954 y 


INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 254 


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, Massachusetis, U.S.A.). 

Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London, England). 


B. The Members of the Commission 


Class 1949 
Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina). 
Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary to the Commission). 
Dr. Karl JoRDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, 
Tring, Herts, England) (President of the Commission). 
Dr. Th. MORTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). 
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia). 


Class 1952 

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil). 

Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.). 

Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (University of Parma, Italy). 

Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Canada). 

Dr. James L. Peters (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, 
Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). 

Dr. Harold E. Voxes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., 
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 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. Ribey (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). 

protesee Robert L. UsinGer (University of California, Berkeley, California, 

.5.A.). 


OPINION 254 


DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF A 
TYPE SPECIES FOR THE NOMINAL GENUS 
‘* PILOPHORUS ”? HAHN, 1826 (CLASS 
INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA) IN 
HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED 
NOMENCLATORIAL USAGE 


RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers all type- 
selections for the nominal genus Pilophorus Hahn, 1826 
(Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) made prior to the 
present Ruling are hereby set aside and Cimex clavatus 
Linnaeus, 1767, is hereby designated as the type species 
of this genus. 


(2) The generic name Pilophorus Hahn, 1826 (gender 
of name: masculine), with the type species designated 
in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 680. 


(3) The specific name clavatus Linnaeus, 1767, as 
published in the combination Cimex clavatus, is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 
as Name No. 73. 


I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE 


On 30th June 1943 the Royal Entomological Society of London 
published Part 8 of the work entitled The Generic Names of 
British Insects. This Part contained the Eighth Report of the 
Society’s Committee on Generic Nomenclature! covering the 
First Report of its Hemiptera Sub-Committee.2_ This Report 


f= 


The composition of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature at the time of 
the submission of this Report was the same as it had been at the completion of 
its Sixth Report. Its composition at the latter date has been given in footnote 
1 to Opinion 243 (: 48). 

The Hemiptera Sub-Committee at the time of the submission of this Report 
was composed of: Dr. W. E. China; Mr. E. E. Green. 


is) 


178 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


dealt exclusively with the generic names of the British Hemiptera- 
Heteroptera. Annexed to the Sub-Committee’s Report as 
Annex II was a paper by Dr. W. E. China (British Museum 
(Natural History), London), one of the members of the Sub- 
Committee, giving particulars of ten nominal genera, each based 
upon a misidentified type species, and asking that in each case 
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
should use its Plenary Powers in such a way as to secure that the 
type species should be not the species to which the cited name is 
applicable but the species intended by the author of the generic 
name when he cited the name of the nominal species concerned. 
The seventh of the names in question was Pilophorus Hahn, 
1826, with which the present Opinion is concerned. The 
recommendations in regard to this and the nine other cases 
referred to above prepared by Dr. China and endorsed by the 
Committee on Generic Nomenclature were formally submitted 
to the International Commission by Mr. N. D. Riley, Secretary 
to the Royal Entomological Society of London, on 23rd August 
1943. The application relating to the present case was as 
follows :— 


Proposed suspension of the ‘‘ Régles ’’ for ‘‘ Philophorus ’’ Hahn, 1826 
(Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), a genus based upon an erroneously 
determined species 


By W. E. CHINA, M.A. 
(Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum 
(Natural History)) 


Pilophorus Hahn, 1826 


Original reference :—Hahn, 1826, Icon. Cimic. 1 : 22 


Author by whom the type in question was designated and reference:— 
The genus is monobasic. 


Name of species so designated as type :—The monobasic type is 
Cimex bifasciatus Fabricius, 1775. 


Species intended by the original author of the genus when employing 
the specific name in question :—Cimex bifasciatus (Fabricius) Hahn, 
1826, nec Fabricius, 1775, i.e., the species the valid name for which is 
Cimex clavatus Linnaeus, 1767. 


Discussion of the case :—Hahn based his genus on a single species 
which he assumed to be Cimex bifasciatus Fabricius. His figure clearly 
shows that he had before him Cimex clavatus Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. 


OPINION 254 179 


Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 729. It has been generally agreed by hemipterists 
that the type of Pilophorus is therefore Cimex clavatus Linnaeus 
and not Cimex bifasciatus Fabricius. However, even if it were necessary 
under the Code to assume that Hahn’s determination of Cimex 
bifasciatus Fabricius was correct, no change in the nomenclature of 
the genus would be necessary since Cimex bifasciatus Fabricius, 1775, 
also belongs to the genus Pilophorus, although since it is a primary 
homonym of Cimex bifasciatus Miiller, 1764, Faun. Ins. Fridrichsdal. 
: 29, it must take the next available name, which is Capsus cinnamop- 
terus Kirschbaum, 1855, Rhyn. Wiesbaden (Jahrb. Ver. Naturk. Herz. 
Nassau 10 : 232). At first sight it seems unnecessary for the Commission 
to make a declaration in this case, but for the sake of the principle 
involved, it is probably better to ask for such a declaration. In any 
case it is not impossible that at some future date the genus Pilophorus 
might be split up into two or more genera, in which case it is essential 
that the type of the original genus should be correctly fixed. 


Action by the Commission desired :—A declaration that the type 
of Pilophorus Hahn, 1826, is Cimex clavatus Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. 
Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 729, and not Cimex bifasciatus Fabricius, 1775, 
Syst. Ent. : 725, the sole species included in the genus by Hahn, 
since the latter species does not agree with Hahn’s figure and was 
clearly misidentified by Hahn, whereas the figure agrees well with 
Cimex clavatus Linnaeus, 1767. 


Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 


2. On receipt, all ten of the applications discussed in the 
preceding paragraph were registered together under the Number 
Z.N.(S.) 144. As soon as possible thereafter, these applications 
were prepared for publication in the then newly established 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The present application 
was sent to the printer in September 1944, but, owing to difficulties 
arising from paper rationing, shortage of labour at the printing 
works and similar causes, publication did not actually take place 
until 31st March 1947 (China, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
1 : 286). . 


3. After the present application had been sent to the printer 
for publication in the Bulletin but long before it was published, 
Dr. R. I. Sailor (United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau 
of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) 


180 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


wrote a letter on 12th January 1945, commenting upon the 
proposals submitted by the Committee on Generic Nomenclature 
when transmitting the First Report of its Hemiptera Sub-Com- 
mittee to the Council of the Royal Entomological Society of 
London. After criticising the application submitted in the case 
of the name Alydus Fabricius, Dr. Sailor intimated as follows 
his support for the proposal dealt with in the present Opinion :— 
** T should like to add that, in my opinion, all other cases presented 
in Part 8 of The Generic Names of British Insects merit favorable 
action by the Commission ”’. 


4. 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 publica- 
tion of these notices elicited no objection to the action proposed. 


II—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


5. At an early stage of its work during its Paris Session in 
1948 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
submitted to the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology 
a recommendation for the insertion in the Rég/es of a compre- 
hensive provision dealing with the problem presented by nominal 
genera based upon misidentified type species. The gist of this 
provision was that, where it could be shown that an error of 
identification of this kind had occurred, it should be the duty of 
the International Commission, on the facts being laid before it 
by specialists, to use its Plenary Powers to vary the type species 
of the genus concerned in such a way as to harmonise with 
current nomenclatorial usage, the Commission being left free, — 
however, to withhold action under its Plenary Powers in any 
case where the nominal species cited by the author of a generic 
name and not the species to which he had intended to refer had 
become generally accepted by workers in the group concerned 
and where, in consequence, the correction of the original author’s 
error would be likely to lead to confusion and name-changing 


OPINION 254 181. 


(Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 38) (1950, Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 4 : 158—159). It was in the light of the foregoing 
provision that 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, summarising 
the introductory statement made by the Acting President (Mr. 
Francis Hemming) and the ensuing discussion which took place, 
other than that portion which relates to the application submitted 
in regard to the name Gastrodes Westwood, 1840, which has 
been quoted in Opinion 246 (the Opinion dealing with that 
name) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 472) :— 


THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) 
said that unfortunately through some oversight the Commission 
File (file Z.N.(S.) 144) dealing with the present series of applica- 
tions had not been included among those which he had brought 
with him to Paris to assist the Commission in the consideration 
of problems calling for decision. So far as he could recall, no 
objections to the action proposed in these cases had been received 
from any source. These cases appeared to be exactly of the kind 
envisaged in Opinion 168. They all related to genera based upon 
misidentified species, where the acceptance of the type species 
actually cited (as contrasted with that intended) by the original 
author would certainly cause great confusion. In such cases the 
Commission were now under an obligation to use their Plenary 
Powers to avoid disturbance in accepted nomenclature. 


IN THE ENSUING DISCUSSION the view was generally 
expressed that all the necessary data had been submitted by 
Dr. China in support of the remaining applications and that those 
applications were well founded. It was felt, however, that, 
before a final decision was taken on these cases, it was desirable 
to make sure, by reference to the Commission’s File, that no 
adverse comment of any kind had been received from any 


182 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


specialist in the groups concerned. If any such adverse comments 
were found to have been received, the application concerned 
should be submitted to the Commission, but if no such adverse 
comments had been received, the Secretary to the Commission 
should prepare Opinions in the sense proposed. 


6. The decision taken by the International Commission in the 
present case is set out as follows in the Official Record of its 
Proceedings (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 21) (1950, 
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 469—474) :— 


THE COMMISSION agreed :— 


(5) as regards the names of the nine genera in the Order 
Hemiptera (Class Insecta) specified below :— 


(a) that, if an examination of the Commission’s file 
Z.N.(S.) 144 showed that no objection to the 
action proposed had been received from any 
source, the Plenary Powers should be used to 
designate as the type species of the genera 
concerned the species severally specified below, 
but that, if in any case it were to be found that 
such an objection had been received, the applica- 
tion concerned should be resubmitted to the 
Commission for further consideration :— 

Name of species pro- 
posed to be designated 
under the Plenary 
Name of genus Powers as the type 
species of the genus 
specified in Col. (1) 


(1) (2) 


Ce eC 


Pilophorus Hahn, Cimex clavatus 
1826 Linnaeus, 1767 


Ce 


OPINION 254 183 


(b) that, where under Sub-Conclusion (5)(a) above, the 
Plenary Powers were used to designate as the 
type species of the genus concerned the species 
specified in Col. (2) of the table annexed to the 
said Sub-Conclusion, the generic name specified 
in Col. (1) should be placed on the Official List 
of Generic Names in Zoology and the trivial 
name specified in Col. (2) as the name of the 
type species of the genus concerned should be 
placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial 
Names in Zoology ; 


(c) that in every case where, under (5)(a) above, the 
Plenary Powers were used to designate as the type 
species of a genus the species specified against 
the name of that genus in Col. (2) of the table 
annexed to that Conclusion, an Opinion should 
be rendered recording the decision so taken. 


7. In accordance with the directions given in Conclusion (5)(a) 
(quoted above) taken by the International Commission in regard 
to this and the other applications there specified, the Secretary 
to the International Commission on his return from Paris to 
London examined the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 144, relating to 
the foregoing cases. This examination showed that in no case 
had an objection been lodged against the use of the Plenary 
Powers in the manner recommended by the applicant. The 
decision taken conditionally in favour of granting the request 
contained in the present application, as set out in the extract 
from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International 
Commission quoted in the immediately preceding paragraph, 
thereupon became definitive. The following is the note on this 
subject which for purposes of record Mr. Hemming then annexed 
to this portion of the Official Record (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
4 : 474) :— 


Note by the Secretary to the Commission.— 


I have examined the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 144, and find (i) 
that Dr. R. I. Sailor (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.) 


184 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


has registered his support for each of the proposals specified above, 
and (ii) that no adverse comment on the action proposed has been 
received from any source. (Signed) Francis Hemming, Secretariat 
of the Commission, London, N.W.1. 15th September 1948. 


8. The following are the original references for the names 
which appear in the decision set out in paragraph 6 above :— 


clavatus, Cimex, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 729 
Pilophorus Hahn, 1826, Icon. Cimic. 1 : 22. 


9. The gender of the generic name Pilophorus Hahn, 1826, 
referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 6 above, is 
masculine. 


10. The decision taken in the present case was reported 
to, and approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the 
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, 
at its Sixth Meeting held on 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 5 : 115). 


11. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was concurred 
in by the sixteen (16) Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners 
present at the Paris Session of the International Commission, 
namely :— 


Beltran vice Cabrera ; Boschma ; Bradley ; di Caporiacco ; 
Hemming ; Hindle vice Jordan; Jorge vice 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 


OPINION 254 185 


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 
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 Fifty-Four (254) of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature. 


Done in London this Sixteenth 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, CM.G., C.B.E. 


Secretary to the Commission 


VOLUME 5. Part 16. Pp. 187—198 


OPINION 255 


Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a type species 

for the nominal genus Tetyra Fabricius, 1803 (Class 

Insecta, Order Hemiptera) in harmony with accustomed 
nomenclatorial usage 


ENN HSON/a 
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 11th June, 1954 


INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 255 


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. 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. SToLt (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 Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, 
Denmark). 

Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de 
Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). 

Tee aera L. UsiINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California, 
(U.S.A). 


OPINION 255 


DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF A 
TYPE SPECIES FOR THE NOMINAL GENUS 
‘* TETYRA ” FABRICIUS, 1803 (CLASS 
INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA) IN 
HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED 
NOMENCLATORIAL USAGE 


RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers all type- 
selections for the nominal genus Jetyra Fabricius, 1803 
(Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) made prior to the 
present Ruling are hereby set aside and Cimex antillarum 
Kirkaldy, 1909, is hereby designated as the type species 
of this genus. 


(2) The generic name Tetyra Fabricius, 1803 (gender of 
name: feminine), with the type species designated in (1) 
above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology as Name No. 681. 


(3) The specific name antillarum Kirkaldy, 1909, as 
published in the combination Cimex antillarum, is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 
as Name No. 74. 


I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE 


On 30th June 1943 the Royal Entomological Society of London 
published Part 8 of the work entitled The Generic Names of 
British Insects. This Part contained the Eighth Report of the 
Society’s Committee on Generic Nomenclature! covering the 
First Report of its Hemiptera Sub-Committee.2 This Report 


i 


The composition of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature at the time of 
the submission of this Report was the same as it had been at the completion of 
its Sixth Report. Its composition at the latter date has been given in footnote 
1 to Opinion 243 (: 48). 


The Hemiptera Sub-Committee at the time of the submission of this Report 
was composed of: Dr. W. E. China; Mr, E. E. Green. 


rn 


190 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


dealt exclusively with the generic names of the British Hemiptera- 
Heteroptera. Annexed to the Sub-Committee’s Report as 
Annex II was a paper by Dr. W. E. China (British Museum 
(Natural History), London), one of the members of the Sub- 
Committee, giving particulars of ten nominal genera, each based 
upon a misidentified type species, and asking that in each case 
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
should use its Plenary Powers in such a way as to secure that the 
type species should be not the species to which the cited name is 
applicable but the species intended by the author of the generic 
name when he cited the name of the nominal species concerned. 
The first of the names in question was Tetyra Fabricius, 
1803, with which the present Opinion is concerned. The 
recommendations in regard to this and the nine other cases 
referred to above prepared by Dr. China and endorsed by the 
Committee on Generic Nomenclature were formally submitted 
to the International Commission by Mr. N. D. Riley, Secretary 
to the Royal Entomological Society of London, on 23rd August 
1943. The application relating to the present case was as 
follows :— 


Proposed suspension of the ‘‘ Régles ’’ for ‘‘ Tetyra ’’ Fabricius, 1803 
(Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), a genus based upon an erroneously 
determined species 


By W. E. CHINA, M.A. 
(Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum 
(Natural History)) 


Tetyra Fabricius, 1803 
Original reference :—Fabricius, 1803, Syst. Rhyng. : 128 


Author by whom the type in question was designated and reference:— 
Curtis, 1838, Brit. Ent. 15 (685): pl. 685. 


Name of species so designated as type :—Cimex maurus Linnaeus, 
58. 


Species intended by the original author of the genus when employing 
the specific name in question :—Cimex maurus (Linnaeus) Fabricius, 
1803, nec Linnaeus, 1758, i.e., the species the valid name for which 
is Cimex austriacus Schrank, 1776, Beitr. z. Naturges. Leipzig : 78. 


Discussion of the case :—Fabricius established his genus Tetyra 
to hold 79 species. Reuter, Kirkaldy, Van Duzee and other well- 
known hemipterists maintained that Fabricius himself fixed the type 


OPINION 255 191 


of his genera by repetition of the generic characters immediately 
after the description of the type species. In the case of Tetrya these 
workers for this reason accepted the American Cimex arcuatus 
Fabricius, 1794 (Ent. Syst. 4:83, 12) as the genotype of Tetyra, 
thereby making Jetyra an American genus. This method of type 
fixation, however, has been rejected by the International Commission 
under Article 30 (g), in Opinion 81, since the 1803 Fabrician type 
fixation for Cimex Linnaeus, viz., C. bidens, is not accepted in section F 
of the above Opinion.* The first citation in valid form is that by Curtis, 
1838, who designated Cimex maurus Linnaeus, a well-known British 
and European species. 


Reuter (1888, Act. Soc. Sci. Fenn. 15 : 451) has demonstrated that 
the Cimex maurus included in Tetyra by Fabricius, 1803, is not the 
Cimex maurus of Linnaeus, 1758, and was wrongly identified as such 
by Fabricius, since Linnaeus wrote “‘ Habitat in Mauritania, in Svecia 
paullo minor’? whereas Fabricius stated “‘ Habitat in Oriente, apud 
nos quadruplo minor’. In effect Cimex maurus Linnaeus, 1758, was 
not one of the species originally included in Tetyra and Curtis’s 
designation is consequently invalid. 


If, however, it were necessary under the Code to assume that 
Fabricius’s determination of this species was correct, Curtis’s designa- 
tion of Cimex maurus Linnaeus as the genotype of Tetya would be 
validated and would involve the use of a new name for the American 
genus and the extension of Tetyra to the European list in place of the 
well-used name Eurygaster Laporte, 1832, a name of some importance 
in economic entomology as including pests of wheat. Such action 
would also run directly counter to Fabricius’s intentions in view of his 
afore-mentioned method of type indication, and would be open to the 
strongest objection in that it would involve the designation as the 
type of this genus of a species not included in it by Fabricius, the 
original author of the name. 


Action by the International Commission desired :—A declaration 
that the action of Curtis (1838) in designating Cimex maurus Linnaeus, 
1758, as the type of Tetyra Fabricius, 1803, is invalid, since that 
species was not included by Fabricius in the genus, the species which 
he there cited under that name being Cimex austriacus Schrank, 
1776, Beitr. z. Naturges, Leipzig : 78, and that the type of the genus 
Tetya Fabricius is the next species to be designated as such by an author 
complying with the provisions of Article 30 of the International Code ; 
and that in consequence the type of that genus is Cimex arcuata 
Fabricius, 1794, Ent. Syst. 4 : 83 nec Cimex arcuatus Gmelin, 1789 
(=Cimex antillarum Kirkaldy, 1909, nom. n.) which is one of the 
species originally included in the genus by Fabricius and was designated 
as the type by Kirkaldy, 1900, in Entomologist 33 : 263. 


3 See 1924, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (2) : 28 


192 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 


2. On receipt, all ten of the applications discussed in the 
preceding paragraph were registered together under the Number 
Z.N.(S.) 144. As soon as possible thereafter, these applications 
were prepared for publication in the then newly established 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The present application 
was sent to the printer in September 1944, but, owing to difficulties 
arising from paper rationing, shortage of labour at the printing 
works and similar causes, publication did not actually take place 
until 31st March 1947 (China, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
1 : 287—288). 


3. After the present application had been sent to the printer 
for publication in the Bulletin but long before it was published, 
Dr. R. I. Sailor (United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau 
of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) 
wrote a letter on 12th January 1945, commenting upon the 
proposals submitted by the Committee on Generic Nomenclature 
when transmitting the First Report of its Hemiptera Sub-Com- 
mittee to the Council of the Royal Entomological Society of 
London. After criticising the application submitted in the case 
of the name Alydus Fabricius, Dr. Sailor intimated as follows 
his support for the proposal dealt with in the present Opinion :— 
‘* T should like to add that, in my opinion, all other cases presented 
in Part 8 of The Generic Names of British Insects merit favorable 
action by the Commission ”’. 


4. 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 publica- 
tion of these notices elicited no objection to the action proposed. 


Ii1—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


5. At an early stage of its work during its Paris Session in 
1948 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 


OPINION 255 193 


submitted to the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology 
a recommendation for the insertion in the Régles of a compre- 
hensive provision dealing with the problem presented by nominal 
genera based upon misidentified type species. The gist of this 
provision was that, where it could be shown that an error of 
identification of this kind had occurred, it should be the duty of 
the International Commission, on the facts being laid before it 
by specialists, to use its Plenary Powers to vary the type species 
of the genus concerned in such a way as to harmonise with 
current nomenclatorial usage, the Commission being left free, 
however, to withhold action under its Plenary Powers in any 
case where the nominal species cited by the author of a generic 
name and not the species to which he had intended to refer had 
become generally accepted by workers in the group concerned 
and where, in consequence, the correction of the original author’s 
error would be likely to lead to confusion and name-changing 
(Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 38) (1950, Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 4 : 158—159). It was in the light of the foregoing 
provision that 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 Amphitheatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 
2030 hours. The following is an extract from the Official Record 
of the Proceedings of the International Commission, summarising 
the introductory statement made by the Acting President (Mr. 
Francis Hemming) and the ensuing discussion which took place, 
other than that portion which relates to the application submitted 
in regard to the name Gastrodes Westwood, 1840, which has 
been quoted in Opinion 246 (the Opinion dealing with that 
name) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 472) :— 


THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) 
said that unfortunately through some oversight the Commission 
File (file Z.N.(S.) 144) dealing with the present series of applica- 
tions had not been included among those which he had brought 
with him to Paris to assist the Commission in the consideration 
of problems calling for decision. So far as he could recall, no 
objections to the action proposed in these cases had been received 
from any source. These cases appeared to be exactly of the kind 
envisaged in Opinion 168. They all related to genera based upon 


194 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


misidentified species, where the acceptance of the type species 
actually cited (as contrasted with that intended) by the original 
author would certainly cause great confusion. In such cases the 
Commission were now under an obligation to use their Plenary 
Powers to avoid disturbance in accepted nomenclature. 


IN THE ENSUING DISCUSSION the view was generally 
expressed that all the necessary data had been submitted by 
Dr. China in support of the remaining applications and that those 
applications were well founded. It was felt, however, that, 
before a final decision was taken on these cases, it was desirable 
to make sure, by reference to the Commission’s File, that no 
adverse comment of any kind had been received from any 
specialist in the groups concerned. If any adverse comments 
were found to have been received, the application concerned 
should be submitted to the Commission, but if no such adverse 
comments had been received, the Secretary to the Commission 
should prepare Opinions in the sense proposed. 


6. The decision taken by the International Commission in the 
present case is set out as follows in the Official Record of its 
Proceedings (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 21) Sie 
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 469—474) :— 


THE COMMISSION agreed :— 


(5) as regards the names of the nine genera in the Order 
Hemiptera (Class Insecta) specified below :— 


(a) that, if an examination of the Commission’s File 
Z.N.(S.) 144 showed that no objection to the 
action proposed had been received from any 
source, the Plenary Powers should be used to 
designate as the type species of the genera 


L 


OPINION 255 195 


concerned the species severally specified below, 
but that, if in any case it were to be found that 
such an objection had been received, the applica- 
tion concerned should be resubmitted to the 
Commission for further consideration :— 
Name of species pro- 
posed to be designated 
under the Plenary 
Name of genus Powers as the type 
species of the genus 
specified in Col. (1) 


) (2) 
Tetyra Fabricius, Cimex antillarum 
1803 Kirkaldy, 1909 ; 


(b) that, where under Sub-Conclusion (5)(a) above, the 
Plenary Powers were used to designate as the 
type species of the genus concerned the species 
specified in Col. (2) of the table annexed to the 
said Sub-Conclusion, the generic name specified 
in Col. (1) should be placed on the Official List 
of Generic Names in Zoology and the trivial 
name. specified in Col. (2) as the name of the 
type species of the genus concerned should be 
placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial 
Names in Zoology ; 


(c) that in every case where, under (5)(a) above, the 
Plenary Powers were used to designate as the type 
species of a genus the species specified against 
the name of that genus in Col. (2) of the table 
annexed to that Conclusion, an Opinion should 
be rendered recording the decision so taken. 


7. In accordance with the directions given in Conclusion (5)(a) 
(quoted above) taken by the International Commission in regard 
to this and the other applications there specified, the Secretary 


196 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


to the International Commission on his return from Paris to 
London examined the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 144, relating to 
the foregoing cases. This examination showed that in no case 
had an objection been lodged against the use of the Plenary 
Powers in the manner recommended by the applicant. The 
decision taken conditionally in favour of granting the request 
contained in the present application, as set out in the extract 
from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International 
Commission quoted in the immediately preceding paragraph, 
thereupon became definitive. The following is the note on this 
subject which for purposes of record Mr. Hemming then annexed 
to this portion of the Official Record (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
4 : 474) :— 


Note by the Secretary to the Commission.— 


I have examined the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 144, and find (i) 
that Dr. R. I. Sailor (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.) 
has registered his support for each of the proposals specified above, 
and (ii) that no adverse comment on the action proposed has been 
received from any source. (Signed) Francis Hemming, Secretariat 
of the Commission, London, N.W.1. 15th September 1948. 


8. The following are the original references for the names 
which appear in the decision set out in paragraph 6 above :— 


antillarum, Cimex, Kirkaldy, 1909, Cat. Hemipt. (Heteropt.) 


1 (Cimicidae) : 284 
Tetyra Fabricius, 1803, Syst. Rhyng. : 128. 


9. The gender of the generic name TJetyra Fabricius, 1803, 
referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 6 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 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 5 : 115). 


11. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was concurred 
in by the sixteen (16) Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners 


—— ee ee 


OPINION 255 197 


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 
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. 


198 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


15. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two 
Hundred and Fifty-Five (255) of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature. 


Done in London this Sixteenth day of December, Nineteen 
Hundred and Fifty-Three. 


Secretary to the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 


FRANCIS HEMMING 


IE SR re IPN Ce i ee ee eee 
Printed in England by MetcaLFe & CoorerR 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.G., C.B.E. 


Secretary to the Commission 
VOLUME 5. Part 17. Pp. 199-230 


OPINION 256 


Emendation to Phlebotomus of the generic name 
Flebotomus Rondani, 1840 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) 
under the Plenary Powers 


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 Twelve Shillings 
(All rights reserved) 


Issued 10th August, 1954 


INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 256 


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. ae 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. Rizey (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). 

Feo se re L. USINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California, 

.S.A.). 


OPINION 256 


EMENDATION TO ‘*“* PHLEBOTOMUS ” OF THE 
GENERIC NAME ‘“ FLEBOTOMUS ”’ RONDANT, 
1840 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) 
UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS 


RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers the spelling 
of the generic name Flebotomus Rondani, 1840, is hereby 
emended to Phlebotomus. 


(2) The generic name Phlebotomus (emend. of Fleboto- 
mus) Rondani, 1840 (gender of name: masculine) (type 
species, by monotypy: Bibio papatasi Scopoli, 1786) 
(Class Insecta, Order Diptera) is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 
682. 


(3) The specific name papatasi Scopoli, 1786, as 
published in the combination Bibio papatasi, is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 
as Name No. 75. - 


(4) The name Flebotomus (Invalid Original Spelling 
of Phlebotomus) Rondani, 1840, is hereby placed on the 
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names 
in Zoology as Name No. 65. 


I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE 


In the summer of 1944 the attention of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was drawn to a 
suggestion by Mr. William F. Rapp, Jr. (University of Illinois, 
Department of Entomology, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) in a paper 
entitled “‘ The correct Generic Name of the Sand Fly ” published 
in April 1944 (Science (n.s.) 99 : 345) that the emended spelling 


202 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


Phlebotomus for the generic name Flebotomus Rondani, 1840 
(Class Insecta, Order Diptera) should be abandoned and a return 
made to the original spelling. The Executive Committee of 
the International Commission took the view that, having regard 
to the large literature associated with the name Phlebotomus 
and the importance of that name to workers in the medical field, 
a change in the spelling of this name should not be made without 
prior reference to the International Commission. Accordingly, 
on 22nd September 1944 Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the 
International Commission, addressed to the editor of Science 
a note drawing attention to the foregoing considerations and 
appealing to interested workers to furnish their views to the 
Commission. This communication, which was published in 
Science (n.s.) 100 : 385 on 27th October 1944, was as follows :— 


The generic name of the Sand Fly 


By FRANCIS HEMMING 
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 


The attention of the Executive Committee of the International 
Commission has been drawn to the communications regarding the 
generic name of the Sand Fly by Dr. William F. Rapp, Jr., which 
appeared in the issues of Science for April 28 and August 11, last, and 
by Dr. Charles T. Brues in the issue for May 26, last. 


The proposed abandonment of the emended spelling Phlebotomus 
Agassiz, 1842, in favour of the original spelling Flebotomus used by 
Rondani when he first published this name in 1840, affects not only 
workers in systematic zoology but also—and perhaps especially— 
workers in the medical field in view of the enormous literature regarding 
the role played by this fly in the spread of disease. It is clearly of 
great importance that, in order to prevent confusion from arising, the 
correct spelling of this generic name should be settled as soon as 
possible. In view of the fact that the issue involved turns upon the 
interpretation of Article 19 of the International Code of Zoological 
Nomenclature, it appears to the Executive Committee that this is a 
matter which should be referred for decision to the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, as the authority officially 
charged with the duty of interpreting the application of the International 
Code in cases of difficulty. Communications in regard to this matter 
should be addressed to the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, 
S.W.7. 


OPINION 256 203 


2. In response to the appeal for comments on this case 
contained in the short paper by Mr. Hemming reproduced in the 
preceding paragraph, Dr. C. T. Brues (The Biological Laboratories, 
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) submitted 
to the International Commission the following request for an 
authoritative ruling as to the spelling to be adopted for this 
generic name :— 


** Phlebotomus ”’ vs. ‘* Flebotomus ”’ 


By C. T. BRUES 
(The Biological Laboratories, Harvard University, 
Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) 


In 1840, the Italian Entomologist Rondani described as Flebotomus, 
a genus of phlebotomic Diptera belonging to the family 
PSYCHODIDAE. In his Nomenclator Zoologicus, Agassiz changed 
the spelling to Phlebotomus as the derivation clearly intended was from 
the Greek ¢Ac Bos (vein) and rouy (cutting). It seems clear that the 
spelling Flebotomus by Rondani was a natural error for an Italian to 
make, but it is nevertheless completely at variance with the usual 
procedure in transliterating Greek into Latin, and should be regarded 
as a lapsus calami for Phlebotomus. At present there is a sad lack of 
uniformity in spelling the name of this genus which is an extremely 
important one in the field of medicine and public health. As these 
flies act as vectors of at least two important human diseases, they are 
consequently very commonly referred to in many publications. 

I wish to urge upon the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature that it consider this matter, so that its decision may be 
made available to workers in the several fields of science that are 
concerned with these flies. 


Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 


3. Registration of the present application: Ymmediately upon 
the issue by the Secretary of the appeal to specialists for advice 
reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion, the 


204 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


problem represented by the rival spellings Phlebotomus and 
Flebotomus was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 169. 


4. View submitted by Mr. William F. Rapp, Jr. (University 
of Illinois, Department of Entomology, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) : 
At the time of the issue of the appeal reproduced in the first 
paragraph of the present Opinion, the Secretary wrote to Mr. 
William F. Rapp, Jr., as the author by whom the abandonment 
of the emendation Phlebotomus had been proposed, inviting him 
to furnish a statement of his views for the consideration of the 
Commission. In response to this invitation, Mr. Rapp submitted 
the following paper on 20th October 1944 :— 


The Generic Name of the Sand Fly 


By WILLIAM F. RAPP, Jr. 
(University of Illinois, Department of Entomology, Urbana, 
Illinois, U.S.A.) 


In the issue of Science for May 26, 1944, I published a note stating 
that the correct spelling. of the generic name of the Sand Fly is 
Flebotomus and not Phlebotomus as commonly spelled by parasitolo- 
gists. The basis for this statement is the fact that Camillo Rondani 
in Sopra una specie di Insetto Dittero ; Memoria prima per servere alla 
Ditterologia Italia, page 12 erected the genus Flebotomus. 


Prof. Charles T. Brues of Harvard College, in the issue of Science 
for May 26, 1944, claimed that the correct generic name is Phlebotomus 
because the name was derived from the Greek words (¢Ae4) vein and 
(rouwos) cutting. According to him and certain other entomologists, 
Rondani’s name contained an “evident typographical error’”’ since 
the name was obviously derived from the Greek (¢Ae¥) vein and 
(ropes) cutting. 


It is true that Agassiz in 1846, in his Index Universalis, changed the 
spelling to. Phlebotomus and gave the Greek derivation as quoted by 
Brues, although he recognized that Rondani had spelled it with an 
“f°? in his description. In the Praefatio to the Index Universalis, 
Agassiz explained that he improved names wherever he thought it 
necessary. 


Discussing the derivation of the word first, the question arises as 
to whether ¢dAéy and rods would be translated with an “f” or a 


OPINION 256 205 


“ph”. Agassiz did not use the classical form of Latin commonly 
taught in schools today. Furthermore, Italians often translate the 
Greek “ ph” as “f’’. However, this is a problem for students of 
classical languages rather than for those of zoological nomenclature. 


The main problem is whether the original spelling of the word 
Flebotomus can be changed. According to Article 19 of the Inter- 
national Code of Zoological Nomenclature, names cannot be 
re-described with a better spelling as suggested by Agassiz, for the 
article states : 


The original orthography of a name is to be preserved unless an 
error of transcription, a /apsus calami or a typographical error 
is evident. 


Then has a typographical error occurred as suggested by Brues ? 
Since Rondani himself used the name Flebotomus many times after 
publishing the original description, there is no evidence that he thought 
that a typographical error had been made. Brues bases his argument 
on a typographical error on the derivation of a word. It is very 
likely that Rondani may not have had any such derivation as ¢Ae¥¢ 
and rouos in mind when he described the species. The International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has already established a 
precedence for such cases in Opinion 34 on Article 19 : 


Since evidence of the derivation of the word is not contained 
in the original publication, the original spelling shall be preserved. 


From the Rules of the Code, therefore, a name cannot be changed 
simply to obtain a better spelling either to satisfy what others believe 
the correct derivation of the word to be or to agree with a series of 
medical terms as Professor Brues, in his article, suggests. If we are 
not to follow these rules, for what purpose do they exist ? 


In my opinion, no error of transcription, /apsus calami or typo- 
graphical error has occurred and following the International Code, 
the generic name of the Sand Fly should remain as in the original 
description—Flebotomus. 


5. View submitted by Dr. Franklin C. MacKnight (New Orleans, 
Louisiana, U.S.A.) : On 7th October 1945, Dr. Franklin C. 
MacKnight (New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) furnished the 
following statement commenting on the views on the present 
case expressed (1) by Professor Harold Kirby (University of 
California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) and (2) Professor 


206 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


Charles H. Blake (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cam- 
bridge, Mass., U.S.A.) in notes published earlier that year in the 
serial publication Science :— 


On the Correction of Orthographic Errors in Taxonomy 


By FRANKLIN C. MAcKNIGHT 
(New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) 


Intermittently during the past fifteen months there has appeared in 
these columns a discussion concerning the interpretation of Article 19 
of the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature as concerns 
the corrections of fautes d’orthographe, a matter of much practical 
importance to the systematic taxonomist. 


It started over the Sand Flea. In the issue of April 25, 1944 there 
appeared a note by W. F. Rapp, pointing out that the synonym or 
variant Phlebotomus should be abandoned for the original Flebotomus 
Rondani. On May 22 came a reply from Prof. Charles T. Brues who 
stated that Flebotomus had been emended to Phlebotomus as a “ very 
evident typographical error’. Rapp’s reply of August 11 pointed 
out that since the original transliteration from the Greek was 
demonstrably deliberate and phonetic, though unorthodox, it could 
not be considered a typographical error. 


In the issue of November 10, 19441, Prof. Harold Kirby discussed 
the matter thoroughly and drew the following conclusions: (1) that 
the /apsus calami or “‘ slip of the pen ”’ of Article 19* of the International 
Rules of Zoological Nomenclature is a mistranslation of the French 
faute dorthographe, and (2) that therefore “‘if in transcribing or in 
transliterating a word of Greek derivation an error is made, restoration 
of the correctly derived word is appropriated to the most rigid 
insistence on priority ” 


The only further correspondence in the controversy has been a note 
on February 16, 1945 by Prof. Charles H. Blake recording agreement 
with Kirby and requesting the enforcement of emendation of such 
*“ barbarous forms as Flebotomus ”’ 


The absence in the meantime of comments adverse to Kirby’s 
stand is puzzling, since he goes further than a strict reading of the 


* Article 19 states ““ The original orthography of a name is to be preserved unless 
an error of transcription, a /Japsus calami, or typographical error is evident ”’. 
(F.C.M.) 


1 Kirby (H.) 1944 “‘ Une faute de transcription, d’orthographe, ou d’impression ”’, 
Science 100 : 47 5—427. 


EE ————e ee lone 


OPINION 256 207 


_Tules permit, and it seems necessary for someone to present the other 
_ side of the case. 


By his examples Kirby seems to infer that all deviations from the 
orthodox method of transliteration from the Greek be considered as 
errors. This extreme position cannot be maintained in the light of 
the Opinions of the Commissioners acting on their interpretation of 
Article 19; and Kirby admits that these Opinions “constitute a 
valuable commentary”’. It is true that Article 8, Recommendation 
(a), may seem to apply to Article 13 in stating that the rules of Latin 
transliteration (as given in appendix F of the Rules) should be followed 
when a Greek substantive is used ; but nowhere is it expressed that 
these rules are to be considered compulsorily retroactive. Hence it 
seems evident that they are to be considered only as recommendations 
of proper form for future work, as in the Botanical Rules. 


It must be realised that these transcription rules, in addition to 
calling for certain normal equivalents of most Greek letters and the 
recognition of the operation of a few special phonetic changes (yy to 
ng, yx to nch, yx to nc), also require latinization of « to c (not k), 
aw to ae (not ai), <u to i (not ei), ov to oe (not oi), ov to u (not ou), 
final 7 to a (not e), final ov to um (not on), and final os to us (not os). It 
is probably going too far to accuse Prof. Kirby of wishing to alter 
Rhinoceros to Rhinocerus, yet he does mention Strombodium as a 
preferred correction of Strombodion. Presumably he also objects to 
such well established paleontological names as Ankylosaurus, 
Machairodus, Deinodon, Oulodus, Hipparion, and Gladoselache. There 
may be hundreds of names of undisputed validity which violate one 
or more of these minor requisites. Scores of such names have been 
approved by the zoological Commissioners in their Opinions. For 
example, in Opinion 23,* Cheilodipterus is accepted with no mention of 
an alteration to Chilodipterus. For further examples of such con- 
donments see Opinions 12, 66, 67, 73, 75, 77, 85, 88, 91, 92, 117, 119, 
125, and 133. 


Particularly relevant to this matter is Opinion 125+ where Borus 
Albers, 1850 is judged a dead homonym because of Borus Agassiz, 
1846, an emendment and “absolute synonym”’ of Boros Herbst, 1797. 
In this case judgment was not passed on Borus Agassiz, evidently 
because it was the genus in question. Bather, however, wrote : 


By Article 19, the name Boros Herbst should be preserved 
unless an error of transcription, a /apsus calami or a typographical 
error is evident. Since the name is obviously the Greek Bopds 
none of these is evident. 


* Special Publication of the Smithsonian Institute 1938, July 1910. 
{ Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection, Vol. 73, 1941. 


208 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


But Article 8, Recommendation (a), and Appendix F Herbst 
“should” have written Borus. Since this recommendation is 
based on the previous usage of both classical scholars and the 
early systematists (who were for the most part scholars), Agassiz 
was within his rights in emending to Borus. If his right be 
disputed, then, since there is no possible question of an error of 
transcription, Borus Agassiz is a synonym of Borus Herbst. 


Thus Bather steered around the question of the validity of Agassiz’ 
emendment, since the judgment was on Borus Albers. However, 
Richter, another Commissioner, directly stated that Agassiz had no 
right to make the change. 


There are also examples of condonments of more serious errors. 
Opinion 117 condones Lithostrotion Fleming 1828, taken directly from 
Lhwyd’s Latin appellation in Lithophylacii Britannici Ichnographia 
(1699). Lithostrotion is either an error for lithostrotus or lithostrotum, 
or a deliberately coined variation. The meaning is “ mosaic (paving) 
stone’’, from the Greek AvOos + orpwrés (adjective), or orp@ois 
(noun). Either way, a purist would object to it, for it would be 
lithostrotus or lithostrosis if the direct Greek instead of the Latin is 
desired. 


Another serious error is condoned in Opinion 67*, where Apaloderma 
is placed on the Official List of Generic Names. This disregard of the 
aspirate can hardly be considered as anything but an error of 
transcription. 


6 


Besides about a score of condonments of “ illegally ’’ constructed 
names, the Opinions also offer examples of the rejection of several, 
but, pointedly, for reasons other than construction. Klinophilos 
(Opinion 81+) and Carcharodon (Opinion 47{) are rejected as later 
synonyms, for instance. 


On the other hand there are few cases of actual corrections of 
orthographic errors (not true typographical errors as in Opinions 26, 
27, 41, etc.). Opinion 36§ changes the x in Dioxocera, Trioxocera, and 
Pentoxocera to z. In this case it is significant that there was no 
question of the mis-construction of the original names since the 
author of the species admitted the error and requested official emenda- — 
tion. Opinion 66|| includes Ancylostoma among a number of names to 


* Special Publication of the Smithsonian Institute, 2409, April ’16. 

+ Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection, Vol. 73, 1941. 

t Special Publication of the Smithsonian Institute, 2060, Feb. °12. 
§ Special Publication of the Smithsonian Institution, 2013, Dec. 711. 
|| Special Publication of the Smithsonian Institution, 2359, Feb. 715. 


OPINION 256 209 


be added to the Official List of Generic Names. Fide Kirby, this name 
was originally Agchylostoma. Unfortunately the Opinion merely 
states that the various names in question and data upon them were 
circulated among the Commissioners and were approved. The 
historical data and reason for the necessity for special treatment 
are omitted, but the inference is strong that the Commissioners consider 
gch for yx a worse error than omission of the H in (H) Apaloderma. 
Kirby also states that the Commissioners favor Trichomonas over 
an original Tricomonas, but I am unable to find this example. It is 
also possible that a complete knowledge of the histories of the various 
names placed on the Official List would reveal some more cases of 
correction of an original error, but certainly not many. 


One must conclude, then, that the past practice of the Commission 
indicates that it is not disposed to make any alterations of original 
spellings for orthographical reasons save where there is no excuse 
whatever for the original spelling. 


So how about Flebotomus ? How great an error is the transliteration 
of ¢ as f? 


It is true that the Greek ¢ was not pronounced exactly like the 
Latin f, or it would have been so rendered by the Romans, as they 
changed £ to b, y to g, ¢ to z, etc. Instead they chose to join p and h 
to mimic this Greek consonant. Nevertheless there has been no 
phonetic distinction between ph and f in Latin tongues for some time. 
The only good reason for writing ph instead of fin a word is to denote 
its Greek ancestry. As this often gives a clear indication of meaning 
which might be obscured with the use of an f, the distinction is valuable. 
It may therefore be considered unfortunate that this was disregarded 
by the author of Flebotomus, but his usage may not be classed as a 
self-evident error. 


Such “ phonetic” transliterations of Greek are certainly not to 
be encouraged. Under certain circumstances, for instance, ¢ may be 
the equivalent of b; 9of f,b, ord; éofj; xofp; doft; Bofg; 
x of h or hard g. When such cases arise such transliterations probably 
ought to be made just as yy is transliterated ng, but no one but an expert 
in classical languages could do it. There are also the various 
possibilities of phonetic translations into other languages. A Spanish 
scientist might, for example, tend to transliterate 9 to z, and x to x. 
Admittedly, then, disregard for Article 8 tends to chaotic confusion ; 
nevertheless, if such semi-valid transliterations are made, or have 
been made, it seems as though they must stand—at least till brought 
officially before the Commission. 


This controversy, the arguments of Kirby and the statement by 
Bather, quoted above, indicate that the Zoological Rules are not 


210 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


clear on the relationship of Article 8 to Article 19, and on the status 
of Recommendations in general. This sort of argument can hardly 
come up under the Botanical Rules* where it is expressly stated in 
Article 2 that: “The precepts on which this precise system of 
botanical nomenclature is based are divided into principles, rules and 
recommendations . . . They [the Rules] are always retroactive. Names 

. contrary to a Rule cannot be maintained . . . names or forms 
contrary to a Recommendation cannot on that account be rejected but 
they are not examples to be followed’. (Italics mine.) 


Article 70 states : 


“ The original spelling of a name or epithet must be retained except 
in the case of a typographical error or of a clearly unintentional 
orthographic error’. Here notes are appended to illustrate that 
merely because Amaranthus and Phoradendron should have been 
Amarantus and Phoradendrum respectively, they are not therefore 
correctable. 


Despite the lack of precision in statement of the Zoological Rules, 
the spirit behind them and their interpretation by the Commissioners 
seems to conform to the more exact Botanical Rules, in this matter, 
at least. 


This pernicious habit of changing the spelling of names has been 
nearly as troublesome as changing the names themselves, and nothing 
but confusion derives from it. A good example of this may be 
appended. 


In 1825 Sternberg} described Lepidofioyos, a genus of Pennsylvanian 
Lepidophytes. In 1850 Ungert changed it to Lepidophloyos. In 
1853 Newberry§ altered it to Lepidophloios, and in 1877 Claypole|| 
pointed out that the spelling was still not quite “ orthographic ”’, 
and wrote it Lepidophloeus. Of these names, or variations, that of 
Newberry (mis-attributed to Sternberg) has persisted. Though made 
in an authoritative publication, Claypole’s variation did not survive, 
probably because most paleobotanists considered it an illegal change, 
not knowing that Lepidiphloios itself was an illegal change. 
Lepidofloyos is the correct name and should be reinstated to general 
use. 


* International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, Jena, 1935 
+ Flora der Vorwelt, Vol. 1, Tentamen, p. xiii. 
{ Genera et Species Plantarum Fossilium. p. 278. 


§ Annals of Science (Cleveland) Vol. 1, p. 96. Newberry was the first of several 
who may have independently adopted this ‘‘ reformed ”’ spelling. 


|| In Miller. North American Paleozoic Fossils, p. xiii. 


OPINION 256 pA 


The same applied to Flebotomus unless and until the Commission 
rules otherwise. 


6. View submitted jointly by Dr. G. B. Fairchild and Dr. 
Marshall Hertig (Gorgas Memorial Institute of Tropical and 
Preventive Medicine, Panama City, Republic of Panama): On 
21st November 1946, Dr. G. B. Fairchild and Dr. Marshall 
Hertig (Gorgas Memorial Institute of Tropical and Preventive 
Medicine, Panama City, Republic of Panama) wrote a letter to the 
Commission giving particulars of the modern usage of the 
spellings Flebotomus and Phlebotomus respectively and urging that 
official approval should be given to the emendation Phlebotomus 
in the interests of nomenclatorial stability :— 


Flebotomus and Phiebotomus 


The undersigned have in progress a taxonomic paper on the sand- 
flies of Panama, and the question has arisen of the proper spelling of 
the generic name of these flies. Opinion among taxonomists seems to 
be divided. Costa Lima (1932, Mem. Inst. Osw. Cruz, 26, p. 15), 
Coquillett (1907, Ent. News, 18, pp. 101—102; 1910, Proc. U.S. 
Nat. Mus., 37, p. 545) and most recently Rapp (1944, Science (N.S.), 
99, p. 345 and 100, p. 124) maintain that Flebotomus is the original 
spelling and that the emendation to Phlebotomus made by Agassiz 
in 1842 and since very largely followed is untenable. On the other 
hand Dampf (1944, Rev. Soc. Mexicana Hist. Nat.,5, p. 250) and Brues 
(1944, Science (N.S.), 99, p. 427) take a somewhat more liberal view, 
maintaining that the emendation was justified, either on the basis of 
orthography (Dampf) or that Flebotomus was an obvious typographical 
error (Brues). Since in addition Sabrosky (1946, Proc. Ent. Soc. 
Washington, 48, p. 164) has raised the question of the possible use of 
this name as a family name in place of PSYCHODIDAE, it seems more than 
ever necessary to have the question settled one way or another. 


We feel that under a strict interpretation of the rules, ignoring 
the obvious derivation of the word and Rondani’s own later acceptance 
of the emendation, Flebotomus is the correct spelling. There are, 
however, several good reasons for retaining the emendation, and we 
are in favor of suspending the rules, should it be decided that the 
emendation is unwarranted, and placing Phlebotomus on the Official 
List of Generic Names. 


In the first place, there is a vast medical literature dealing with the 
role of these flies in disease transmission and so far as we have been 
able to determine, the emended spelling Phlebotomus has been used 


DVD OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


exclusively. It is very unlikely that medical and public health workers 
would readily accept any change in the spelling at this late date. In 
the second place, the great majority of entomologists have also 
employed the emended spelling. All the Old World and all but a 
few of the New World species have been described under Phlebotomus. 


We have made a partial search through the literature available to 
us, 229 papers by 77 different authors, and have listed our findings on 
the attached sheets. We are not in a position to make a more thorough 
search, but feel that a complete survey would show very few additional 
uses of Flebotomus. 


To sum up, we hereby petition the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature to suspend the Rules in the case of 
Flebotomus Rondani 1840 and place the emended form Phlebotomus 


on the Official List of Generic Names. Our reasons for this petition 
are as follows: 


1. The original spelling of Flebotomus does not conform to the rules 
for transliteration from the Greek to Latin alphabets. The original 
spelling was emended very shortly afterwards (1842) and this emenda- 
tion was later accepted by the original author, indicating rather 
ignorance of the rules for transliteration than deliberate intent. 


2. The emended spelling Phlebotomus has been accepted by the vast 
majority of entomologists for over a century, and a return to the 


original spelling at this late date would cause confusion and 
inconvenience. 


3. Due to the medical importance of these insects, there is a large 
and growing non-entomological literature using Sse MSE the 
emended form Phlebotomus. 


4. Return to the use of Flebotomus by entomologists would probably 
not be followed by medical workers, thus leading to further confusion. 


Annexe to letter dated 21st November 1946 from Dr. G. B. Fairchild and 
Dr. Marshall Hertig 


Authors who have consistently used “* Flebotomus”’ 


Antunes, P. C. A. 1936—1 paper—biology. 
Antunes and Coutinho 1939—1 paper—desc. of 1 species 
Causey and Damasceno 1944—45—4 papers-desc. 17 species. 


OPINION 256 213 


Coquillett 1907, 1910—Only the 1910 list of Genotypes of N. 
American Dipt. seen. 

Fonseca 1935—39—3 papers-desc. 3 species. 

Mangabeira 1938—44—14 papers-desc. 36 species. 

Curran 1934—The families and genera of N. A. Diptera. 


Authors who have used “‘ Flebotomus’’ occasionally : 


Costa Lima—used Phlebotomus in 1932, in 4 subsequent papers 
published 1934—1941 used Flebotomus. 

Rozeboom—used Flebotomus in 1940, Phlebotomus in 1942 and 
1944. 

Galvao and Coutinho—used Flebotomus in 1939 and 1940, 


Phlebotomus in 1941. 


Coutinho—used Flebotomus in 1939 and once in 1940; 


Phlebotomus in 1940 and 1941. 


madise@, J... ... 3 papers 1945 
Adler, S., et al. Ds ease 1926—29 
Alexander, C. P. se Saas 1944 
Aragao,H.deB. .. pide baa 1922 
Barreto, M. P., et al. ‘tae [Es ran 1940—43 
Bayma, T. : Dee, ae 1923, 1926 
Bequaert, J. : | Naasioe 1938 
Bonne-Webster and Bonne fetes de 1919 
Brethes, J... Pius 1923 
Christophers, S. R., et al. [ee a 1926 
Cordero, E. H., et al. 2 1928—30 
Dampf, A. .. Di vee 1938—44 
de Meillon, B., et al. ere 1944 
Dyar, H. cn et al. eee ea 1926—29 
Floch, H., and Abonnenc, E. ae Lovey 1941—45 
Franca, C., et al. Oa aes 1919—21 
Galliard, H. Sy ie 1934 
Hall, D. G. lata 1936 
Hertig, M. Ala Ie 1938—43 
Hou e.. 1943 
Howlett, F. M. Deh ee 1913—16 
Johannsen, O. A. Led 1943 
Kirk, D., e¢ al. \ We we 1937 
Kirk, R., ” and Lewis, D. pl | Le Bo 1940 
Knab, F. Ne 228 i BE 1913 
Langeron, M., and Nitzulescu, Were pede: ) v3 1932 
Larrousse, F. ® A SEEN Hy os a 1920—22 
Lindquist, 3h | CaS ii as 1936 
Lloyd, R. B., et al. ben Shae 1930 
Lutz, A.., and Neiva, A... PP PAN 1912 
Magnitsky, W. J., and Gutsewitch.. 1 iy 1929 


Authors who have consistently used “‘ Phlebotomus”’ 


214 


OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


Manalang, C. 3 papers 1930 
Marett, P. S. i ere $ 1911 
Makerji, S. et gee 1930—31 
Napier, L. E. 3 pivibet 1930—31 
Nasonoy, N. perp: 1926 
Newstead, R. AI st 1911—22 
Nitzulescu, V. Dae eat 1930—31 
Ortiz, I. fe ae 1942 
Packchanian, A. ee 1946 
Parman, D. C. LA he 1919 
Parrot. ile ee a). tes 1921—29 
Patterson, G. C. Bi aes 1926 
Patton, W. S., and Hindle, E. Dea rate 1926—28 
Perfiljew, P. P. : DPE) 1928 
Pessoa, S. B., et al. a 1939—40 
Pinto, C. Bon ha 1926—39 
Di Premio, R. leah te 1932 
Popow, P. P. Die eet 1926 
Raynal, J. PLD 1935—37 
Ristorcelli, et al. ee 194] 
Root, F. M. .. oF ‘gure. 1934 
Roubard, E., et al. | eee, 1927 
Shannon, R. C. Ons 1913—27 
Shattuck, G. C. ‘ fee 1936 
Schurenkova, end Le et al. it Anes 1933 
Sinton, J. A. Se Dea ee 1925—28 
Smith, R. O. A. Det sah) 1926, 1934 
Summers, S. L. M. Die stu 1912—13 
Theodor, O. BV ods 1931—32 
Tonnoir, A. L. | 1935 
Townsend, CH. a Deine 1913—14 
Wanson, M. ; fe. 1942 
Waterson, J. bees) 1922 
Whittingham, nap E., and Rook, 

A. E. hetamn 1922—23 
YaoYo i; and Wu, Ce: Oo as 1938—41 
Young, T., et al. ‘ ke Pesiys 1927 


7. Supplementary information furnished by Dr. G. B. Fairchild : 
On 27th January 1947 Dr. Fairchild informed the Commission 
that he and Dr. Marshall Hertig had sent copies of their letter of 
21st November 1946 (reproduced in the immediately preceding 
paragraph of the present Opinion) (1) to Dr. Alan Stone (United 
States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and 
Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) and (2) to Professor 
A. Costa Lima (Oswalso Cruz Institute, Brazil). Dr. Fairchild 


OPINION 256 215 


enclosed (in original) the replies which he had received from these 
specialists. Extracts from these letters are given below :— 


(a) Extract from a letter dated 29th November 1946 from 
Dr. Alan Stone 


The copy of your letter to the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature arrived, and I am glad to see that you are 
doing something about Flebotomus. I do not know that anyone else 
has written the Commission on the subject, but Secretary Hemming 
suggested that it be done. I have a few comments to make on your 
letter, however. 


First, I think that your request to the Commission should be so 
worded as to require an answer to the question, “‘Is suspension 
necessary ?”’ If the emendation from Flebotomus to Phlebotomus is 
legitimate then we can go ahead using the latter without any suspension 
of the rules, but I should very much like to have the Commission’s 
opinion on this point. Unless very specifically asked I am afraid 
that they would slide over that point and we would get only another 
suspension with no clear principles laid down. 


You state that “ All the Old World . . . species have been described 
under Phlebotomus”’. This is not quite true, since papatasi was 
described under Bibio. 


\ 


Perhaps you should like to add some more references to your 
bibliography. Under “consistent use of Flebotomus’’ you might 
include: Mangabeira and Galindo, 1944, 1 paper, 1 new species ; 
Rapp, W. F., 1944—45, 3 papers; Rapp, W. F., and Cooper, J. L., 
3 papers; Damasceno and Causey, 1946, 2 new species; Causey 
and Damasceno, 1946, 4 new species ; Coquillett, 1907, 2 new species. 
Although the Rapp checklists and catalogues are very poor, he has, 
nevertheless, consistently used Flebotomus, and they will probably be 
used considerably and have some influence. You have the Coquillett 
reference but no statement as to the number of species. These were 
vexator and cruciatus. 


Under consistent use of Phlebotomus | presume that by Franga 
you mean Franca. You might also include Perfiliev’s important paper 
on the subfamily, 1937, Faune de l’URSS. 


I am not at all averse to using Phlebotomus, my only reason for 
using Flebotomus being that I think that this is necessary under the 


216 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


Rules. I fully expect that the Commission will sanction Phlebotomus, 
either by interpretation or suspension. 


(b) Extract from a letter dated 18th December 1946, from Professor 
A. Costa Lima 


I entirely agree with you when you say: ‘“‘ We feel that under a 
strict interpretation of the Rules, ignoring the obvious derivation of 
the word and Rondani’s own later acceptance of the emendation, 
Flebotomus is the correct spelling. There are, however, several good 
reasons for retaining the emendation, and we are in favor of 
suspending the Rules, should it be decided that the emendation is 
unwarranted, and placing Phlebotomus on the Official List of Generic 
Names’. 


8. Issue of Public Notices: In the early stages of the investi- 
gation of this problem it appeared that the principal question 
involved was whether or not the authoritative adoption at that 
date of the original spelling Flebotomus in place of the 
emendation Phlebotomus would be likely to give rise to confusion, 
but it gradually became apparent that a substantial doubt existed 
as to whether or not the original spelling Flebotomus represented 
an infraction of the provisions of Article 19 of the Régles. The 
possibility therefore emerged that the Commission might find 
that on a due construction of Article 19 no objection could be 
taken to the spelling Flebotomus but that it might take the view 
that in the interests of nomenclatorial stability it was desirable 
that it should use its Plenary Powers to validate the emendation 
Phlebotomus. In order that the Commission might be free to 
deal with this case in whatever manner it thought best, a notice 
of the possible use, by the International Commission, of its 
Plenary Powers in this case was issued on 20th November 1947 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 the manner suggested above. 


9. Report by Mr. Francis Hemming (Secretary to the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) : At the close of 1947, 
Mr. Hemming took the view, as Secretary to the Commission, 
that it was desirable that, before the Commission were asked 


OPINION 256 217 


to take a decision on the question whether or not the emendation 
to Phlebotomus of the name Flebotomus was justified under 
Article 19 of the Régles, a more comprehensive examination of 
the issues involved should be made than had hitherto been 
attempted. Mr. Hemming accordingly himself investigated this 
matter, and in February 1948 embodied his conclusions in this 
matter in the paper set out below. In this paper, it will be 
observed, Mr. Hemming, after marshalling such evidence as 
he was able to collect, reached the conclusion that the spelling 
Flebotomus was not subject to emendation under Article 19 
and that, if it were to be decided that the emended spelling 
Phlebotomus ought to be preserved, it would be necessary for the 
International Commission to use its Plenary Powers to secure 
this end. 


On the interpretation of Article 19 of the ‘‘ Régles ’’, with special 
reference to the spelling of the generic name “ Flebotomus ’’ Rondani, 
1840 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) 


By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. 
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 


In the issue of Science of 28th April 1944 (Science (n.s.) 99 : 345) 
Mr. William F. Rapp, Jr., drew attention to the fact that the generic 
name commonly spelt Phlebotomus had been spelt Flebotomus when 
first published by Rondani in 1840. At the same time Mr. Rapp 
expressed the view that, under the Régles, Flebotomus was the correct 
spelling and should therefore be used in place of the familiar 
Phlebotomus. 


2. In view of the wide use of the spelling Phlebotomus in medical 
and other literature, the Executive Committee of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, on having their attention 
drawn to this matter, asked me to publish in Science a short note 
expressing the view that the established spelling of this important 
generic name should not be changed until a decision on the issue 
involved had been obtained from the International Commission. The 
note prepared at the request of the Executive Committee appeared 
in the issue of Science of 27th October 1944?. 


3. Before this note was actually published, Dr. C. T. Brues invited 
the International Commission to give a ruling on the relative merits 
of the rival spellings Flebotomus and Phlebotomus®. Towards the close 
of 1946 Drs. G. B. Fairchild and Marshal Hertig submitted an 


2 See paragraph 1 of the present Opinion. 
3 See paragraph 2 of the present Opinion. 


218 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


application to the Commission in favour of the validation of the 
spelling Phlebotomus under the Commission’s plenary powers to 
suspend the Régles*. At the same time these applicants requested the 
Commission to place this generic name, so emended, on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology. 


4. In a letter dated 29th November 1946 communicated to the 
Commission by Dr. Fairchild, Dr. Alan Stone expressed the view® 
that it would be unfortunate if the Commission were to reach a decision 
in this case under its Plenary Powers without first giving proper 
consideration to the question whether in fact the use of those Powers 
was necessary to secure the end desired in the application by Drs. 
Fairchild and Hertig. 


5. I entirely agree with the opinion advanced by Dr. Stone, for 
clearly the application submitted in this case raises two entirely 
distinct issues, namely :— 


(1) Do the provisions of Article 19 of the Régles require that the 
generic name Flebotomus should be emended to Phlebotomus ? 


(2) If not, is there a case for the use by the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers to suspend 
the Régles for the purpose of giving valid force to the spelling 
Phlebotomus in preference to the original spelling Flebotomus ? 


6. Article 19 provides that the original spelling of a name is to be 
preserved unless either (1) a “‘ faute d’orthographe’’ or (2) a “ faute 
de transcription’? or (3) a “ faute d’impression”’ is “* évident”’*. There 
is nothing permissive about this Article. Its terms are mandatory 
and accordingly in certain circumstances the original spelling must be 
altered while in others it must be retained. 


7. The wording of this Article is, however, such that it is often 
extremely difficult in any given case to determine whether the original 
spelling of a particular name should be emended or not. This doubt 
may arise from a number of causes, e.g. : 


(1) In what circumstances is the existence of a “‘ faute d’orthographe ” 
** évident’’ within the meaning of Article 19? 


(2) What is the meaning that should be attached to the expression 
“* faute de transcription”? and in what circumstances is the 
existence of such an error “ évident’’ ? 


(3) When is it “‘ évident’’ that a “‘ faute d’impression’’’ has occurred ? 


4 See paragraph 6 of the present Opinion. 

®° See paragraph 7 of the present Opinion. 

6 It must be realised that the statement in this paragraph regarding the terms 
of Article 19 reflect the position as it existed at the time when this paper was 
written at the beginning of 1948. In 1953 Article 19 was completely rewritten 
by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen (see 1953, 
Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature : 43—46). 


OPINION 256 219 


8. At various times the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature has had under consideration applications in regard to 
the spelling of particular names, each of which raised some question 
of the interpretation of Article 19. Unfortunately, however, in the 
Opinions rendered on these cases, the Commission contented itself 
with giving a decision on the spelling to be used for the particular 
name in question and did not lay down any general principles which 
would be readily applicable to similar cases and thus obviate the need 
for submitting to the Commission applications which in fact raised 
no new nomenclatorial issues. Further, as has recently been pointed 
out by Blackwelder, Knight and Sabrosky (1947, Science (n.s.) 106 : 
315—316) it must be admitted that, if all the Opinions rendered on 
particular cases are compared with one another, it is impossible to 
deduce therefrom any general principles owing to inconsistencies in 
the arguments used in, and the conclusions reached on, the individual 
names dealt with in these Opinions. 


9. It is quite clear therefore that a thorough examination by the 
Commission of the ambiguities in Article 19 is long overdue and that 
what is required is a comprehensive Opinion giving rulings on all those 
points which are at present the subject of doubt, supplemented by 
recommendations for the insertion in Article 19 of words formally 
clarifying the issues in question. It is the intention of the Commission 
to undertake such an examination at an early date.’ 


10. In view, however, of the extensive literature relating to the 
Sand Fly, it would not be desirable to delay a decision on the relative 
merits of the spellings Flebotomus and Phlebotomus until the Com- 
mission has had time to reach conclusions on all the issues raised by 
Article 19. It is necessary therefore to examine the status of the 
spelling Flebotomus under Article 19 in the light of such evidence as is 
immediately available. 


11. In a case such as the present the first thing to do is to examine 
the work in which the name in question was first published. In the 
present instance this was a 16-page octavo pamphlet published by 
Camillo Rondani in 1840. This pamphlet was issued with two titles, 
the first on the wrapper, the second on the title-page. The legend on 
the wrapper reads: “* Memoria per servire alla Ditterologia italiana ”’ 
(the first and the two last words being printed in capitals, the 
remainder in lower case). The legend on the title reads: “‘ Sopra 
una specie di Insetto dittero. Memoria prima per servire alla 
Ditterologia italiana di Camillo Rondani’’. The first part of the 
title, i.e. the words “ Sopra una specie di Insetto dittero”’ are printed 
in small italic capitals, while the words ‘‘ Memoria prima ”’ (the two 
first words of the second title) are printed in large capitals in heavy 
black (clarendon-like) type ; the words “ Ditterologia italiana ”’ (the 
last two words of the second title) are printed in large italic capitals. In 


7 See footnote 6. 


220 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


view of the kinds of type used on the title-page for the two titles 
employed, I consider that the main title of the work in which the name 
Flebotomus was first published by Rondani is : “*‘ Memoria per servire 
alla Ditterologia italiana ”’ (the title printed in large capitals and in part 
in heavy type) and that the title ““ Sopra una Specie di insetto dittero” 
(the title printed in small italic capitals) should be regarded not as 
the title of the work in which the name Flebotomus was published by 
Rondani but as the title of the paper containing that name which 
appeared in Part I of the work entitled ‘“‘ Memoria per servire alla 
Ditterologia italiana’. As the description appears on page 12 of the 
pamphlet, the correct bibliographical reference for this name is 
Flebotomus Rondani, 1840, Mem. serv. Ditterolog. ital. 1:12. The 
genus Flebotomus Rondani is monotypical, the type being Bibio 
papasiti Scopoli, 1786, Deliciae Faun. Flor. insubr. 1:55. The 
pamphlet discussed above is extremely rare, the only copy known 
to me being the photostat example in the British Museum (Natural 
History). For permission to study this example and for advice as to 
points of interpretation relating to it, J am much indebted to my friend 
Mr. N. D. Riley, Keeper of the Department of Entomology. 


12. An examination of the pamphlet discussed above shows that 
Rondani’s use of the spelling “ Flebotomus ”’ (i.e. the spelling with 
the initial letter “F-’’), was deliberate, for in that pamphlet he used 
this word on a number of occasions and in a number of forms 
(Flebotomus, Flebotomi, Flebotomidae, Flebotominae, etc.), always 
with an initial ““F-”’. Accordingly, it cannot be argued that this 
spelling is due to a “ faute d’impression”’. (It should be noted that 
Hagen (1863, Biblioth. ent. 2 : 88) was incorrect in stating that the 
word “‘ Phloeobotomus ” (So spelt) formed part of the title of the paper 
in which Rondani published the name Flebotomus.) 


13. We have next to consider whether the spelling of this generic 
name with an initial “‘ F-”’ was due to a “ faute de transcription”’ on 
the part of Rondani. Here we are confronted with the difficulty that 
it is by no means clear what meaning should be attached to this 
expression as used in Article 19 of the Régles. Pending an authori- 
tative ruling on this subject by the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature, it is only possible to adopt whatever inter- 
pretation appears to one to be the most reasonable. My view is that 
in this context this expression should be regarded as meaning “ an 
error committed by the author of a scientific name when copying 
that name into his manuscript from some other source”. In the 
present case there is no evidence whatever that Rondani committed 
a “‘ faute de transcription”? when he wrote the word “ Flebotomus ” 
in his manuscript. Indeed, as we shall see when we come to assess 
the probability that Rondani committed a “ faute d’orthographe ” 
(paragraph 17 below) there are excellent reasons for concluding that 
he committed no ‘“faute de transcription”? when he entered the 
spelling “‘ Flebotomus ”’ in his manuscript. 


OPINION 256 221 


14. The ground on which it is claimed that the spelling “ Fle- 
botomus’”’ represents a “ faute d’orthographe’’ and should therefore 
be emended to ‘‘ Phlebotomus ”’ is that this word is a compound of 
two Greek words of which the first has the meaning “ vein”’ (being 
derived from the Greek word ¢Ac¥%, of which the root is dA« f-) and 
the second the meaning “cutting” (being derived from the Greek 
verb rewvw, “to cut’). Most of the authors who have discussed this 
question appear to have assumed that this word was a compound noun 
of Greek origin coined by Rondani. A few, however, have argued 
that there is no evidence to show that from Rondani’s standpoint 
the word “ Flebotomus”’ was anything but an arbitrary combination 
of letters (‘mot formé par un assemblage quelconque de lettres ’’) 
of the kind contemplated in Recommendation (k) in Article 8 of the 
Régles. Each of these possibilities is discussed in turn below. 


15. As a first step in the investigation of the first of these problems, I 
consulted my colleague Mr. R. Cleaver who kindly drew my attention 
to the fact that the word ‘‘ Phlebotomus ”’ (so spelt) had been used as 
meaning a “lancet” (i.e. an instrument for cutting veins) by Caelius 
Aurelianus (in a work entitled Acutae Passiones) as early as the 3rd 
Century A.D. and that it had been used also in the same sense by 
Theodorus Priscianus. On learning these particulars, I realised that 
it would be necessary carefully to study authoritative Latin and other 
dictionaries in order to interpret the adoption by Rondani of the word 
““ Flebotomus ”’ as the name for the new genus of Sand Flies. 


16. For help in this part of my task I wish to express my gratitude 
to Dr. Charles Singer, Professor Emeritus of the History of Science 
in the University of London and to Mrs. Dorothea Waley Singer who 
very kindly placed their extensive library at my disposal during a 
visit which my wife and I recently paid to them in Cornwall. The 
following extracts from the dictionaries so consulted show the 
evidence obtained through this investigation :— 


(1) Italian 


(extract from ‘‘ Dizionario della Lingua italiana’’, vol. 3, 
Padova, 1828) 

Flebotomia. L’atto del trar sangue dalla vena. Vol. Ras. Si 
si faccia flebotomia della venia del fegato. Red. Cons. 
1. 144. Per vincere dunque lV’inflammazione dell’occhio, 
opportunissime sono state le iterate e reiterate flebotomie. 


(2) Spanish 
(extract from “‘ Diccionario de la Lengua espanola’’, Decima 
sexta Edicion. Madrid, 1939. 


Flebotomia. (Del. gr. ¢AeBotouia, de dAcBotduos; de 
dre, vena, y Téwvw, cortar) f. Arte de sangrar, 1. acep.// 
2. Sangria 1 acep. 


222 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


(3) English 
(extracts from “‘A new English Dictionary on_ historical 
principles ”’, vol. 7, Pt. II. Oxford, 1909). 


Phlebotomy. Forms: 5 fleobotomie, -ye, (flo-, flabotomye), 
5-6 flebotomye, (9 -y), 6 fleubothomy (e, flebothomie, -y, 
phlebothomy, -tomye), 6-7 -tomie, (7 -thomie), 6 phlebotomy. 
[a. F. flebothomie, It. flebotomia, ad L. phlebotomia, a Gr. 
pre BoTrouia, the opening of a vein, f. dAeBotouos, that 
opens a vein, f. Ac Bo- PHLEBO- + zopos -cutting,-cutter. ] 


(4) Mediaeval Latin 


(extract from ‘‘ Glossarium mediae et infimae Latinitatis 
conditum a Carolo Dufresne Domine du Cange cum 
Supplentis integris Monachorum Ordinis S. Benedicti 
D.P.Carpenterii . . . digessit G.A.L.Henschel’’. Tomus 
Tertius Paristis 1844). 


Flebotomus, Venae sector. Vita S.Patriciae tom. 5, Aug. 
pag. 218. col. 1: Ipse Flebotomus ferro, cum quo sanguis 
excussus fuerrat, nervum ejus percussit. Vide Flebotomarius. 


(5) Classical Latin 
(extract from Lewis and Short, “ Latin Dictionary ”’) 


Phlebotomus (fleb-), i, m, = ¢AeBotopos a lancet, a fleam: 
phlebotomo uti, Cael. Aur. Acut. 2, 19, 121: adhibendus, 
Theod. Prisc. 2, 21: transverso phlebotomo percutere, 
Veos Vet ules toe ae 


17. The authorities quoted above establish a number of points 
which have either never been referred to in the discussion of the 
orthography of the name Flebotomus Rondani or to which in those 
discussions insufficient weight has been given. These points are :-— 


(1) The word Flebotomus is not a word coined by Rondani but 
either with an initial ““F-”’ or an initial “‘ Ph-”’ occurs in 
English, French, Italian (Rondani’s own language) and 
Spanish as a word having the meaning “lancet” (= 
instrument for cutting a vein). 


(2) This word occurs also in Mediaeval Latin and in Classical Latin 
with the same meaning. Though apparently in Latin, this 
word was spelt with an initial “‘ Ph-’’ for preference, it was 
also spelt with an initial “ F-”’. 


18. We now see therefore than an educated Italian writing in 
Rondani’s day (1840) would certainly have been aware of the existence 
of the Italian word ‘“‘ Flebotomia ”’, meaning a lancet. The fact that 


OPINION 256 p23 


in his own language this word was spelt with an initial “‘ F-’’ would 
naturally lead an Italian author, when using the word in a Latinised 
form, to spell it in this way and not with an initial ““ Ph-”’. Further, 
even if such an author had felt doubt as to the correctness of this 
way of spelling this word, when Latinised, and had accordingly 
consulted a Latin dictionary, before using this spelling for a new 
scientific name, he would have seen, as we now know, that that 
spelling had been used in Classical and Mediaeval Latin as well as the 
more acceptable spelling with an initial ““ Ph-’’. In these circumstances 
we may certainly conclude that, if Rondani deliberately used this word 
as the generic name of the Sand Fly to designate some lancet-like 
character of the structure of that fly, the spelling which he used for this 
name (Flebotomus) was no accident but was the spelling which he 
intended to employ. This spelling cannot therefore be dismissed either 
as a “ faute d’impression”’ (paragraph 12 above) or as a “‘ faute de 
transcription”? (paragraph 13 above). Nor in such circumstances 
could this spelling be rejected as a “ faute d’orthographe”’, for (as we 
have seen) the spelling with an initial “‘ F-’’ was used in Classical and 
Mediaeval Latin as well as the spelling with an initial “ Ph-”’. 


19. There remains the possibility (alluded to in paragraph 14 above) 
that Rondani’s use of the word “ Flebotomus ’’ as the name for his 
new genus was purely fortuitous and that from his standpoint this 
word was no more than an arbitrary combination of letters. For- 
tunately, this possibility need not detain us, for the following extract 
from Rondani’s original description of the genus Flebotomus clearly 
shows that he deliberately chose this word to draw attention to the 
lancet-like character of the structure of the Sand Fly :— 


(: 5)... Ci contenammo per allora di stabilire per esso un nuovo 
genere, che ponemmo in seguita alle Culicidi senza cercare piu 
in la, e gli abbiamo dato il nome di Flebotomus, che togliemmo dalla 
forme a lancetta delle lamine del succhiatojo, e dalla mala abitudine 
di estrarre il sangue dalle nostre vene. 


20. We can therefore conclude with certainty that Rondani used the 
word “ Flebotomus’”’ as a new generic name because he considered 
that the meaning of that word—a lancet—was appropriate for the 
purpose. We have seen also (paragraph 18 above) that the spelling 
with an initial ““ F-’’ used by Rondani cannot be discarded in favour 
of the spelling with an initial ‘“‘ Ph-”’ on the ground the former is a 
“ faute d’orthographe’’ for the latter. 


21. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I conclude that none 
of the three exceptions specified in Article 198 applies to the spelling 
“ Flebotomus ”’ and therefore that the spelling is the correct spelling 
of this generic name under the Régies. 


22. The only way by which valid force could be given to the spelling 
*Phlebotomus”’ would be for the International Commission on 


8 See footnote 6. 


224 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to suspend the 
Régles for the purpose of designating that as the correct spelling of 
the generic name proposed by Rondani. On this question, I think 
that it can be conclusively shown that, in view of the extensive use 
of the spelling “ Phlebotomus’’ (in preference to the spelling 
‘“* Flebotomus ”’) in medical and other technical literature as well as 
in that of systematic zoology, the strict application of the Régles in 
this case, involving, as it would, the transfer of this name from one 
part of the alphabet to another, would clearly result in greater 
confusion than uniformity. I conclude therefore that a case has been 
established for the use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers to validate 
the spelling ““ Phlebotomus ”’. 


23. I accordingly recommend the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature that it should render an Opinion (1) declaring 
under its Plenary Powers that the generic name originally published 
by Rondani in 1840 as Flebotomus is to be emended to Phlebotomus, 
and (2) placing the generic name Phlebotomus (emend. of Flebotomus) 
Rondani, 1840 (type by monotypy: Bibio papatasi Scopoli, 1786) 
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 


10. Preparations for the Meeting of the Commission in Paris 
in 1948 : In preparation for the consideration of this case by the 
International Commission at Paris in 1948 a brief synopsis of its 
principal features was included in Paper I.C.(48) 19 then submitted 
to it by the Secretary. The following is an extract of the relevant 
passage in Mr. Hemming’s paper (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
3 : 136—137) :— 


(5) Phlebotomus or Flebotomus (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) : 
This name was published by Rondani in 1840 with an “ F-”’ but was 
emended to “‘ Ph-”’ by Agassiz in 1846. This emendation is in general, 
though not universal, use and it is generally agreed by the authorities 
who have approached the Commission (C. T. Brues ; G. B. Fairchild ; 
Marshall Hertig) that it would cause confusion if (as suggested by 
William F. Rapp, Jr.) the original ““ F- ’’ spelling were to be re-adopted. 
It has been suggested by some of the Commission’s correspondents 
that the original spelling was a “ faute d’orthographe”’ or a “ faute de 
transcription”? or a “ faute d’impression”’. It is clear, however, from 
Rondani’s paper that his spelling was intentional. This would indeed 
have been the natural spelling for an Italian to adopt, having regard 
to the Italian word “‘ Flebotomia’’ (meaning “‘ lancet ’’). If, therefore, 
the “ Ph-”’ spelling is to be continued, the Commission will have to 
use its Plenary Powers to secure this end. In view of the very wide 
use of this spelling in medical works and also of the views of 
specialists who have approached the Commission, it is suggested that 
action in this sense should be taken. The case was advertised last 
November and no objection has been received against the adoption 


OPINION 256 225 


of this course. It is suggested that at the same time as the “ Ph-” 
spelling is validated, this generic name should be placed on the Official 
List (type Bibio papatasi Scopoli, 1786, by monotypy). 


IIlL—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 
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, summarising 
the discussion which took place at the foregoing meeting (1950, 
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 358—359) :— 


THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) 
recalled that, when in 1944 Mr. Rapp had first suggested in the 
journal Science that the original spelling of Flebotomus should 
be restored, it had appeared to him, as Secretary to the Com- 
mission, that this was exactly the type of change in a name of 
importance in applied biology which ought not to be made on 
technical nomenclatorial grounds until the issues involved had 
been submitted to, and considered by, the Commission, for such 
changes were incomprehensible to, and were resented by, workers 
in those fields and should certainly be avoided, if at all possible. 
He had accordingly published a note inviting specialists to respect 
the “ Ph-” spelling until the Commission had been able to 
consider the whole matter. When later he had himself looked 
into the origin of the word on which this generic name was based, 
he had found that no proper examination of this matter had ever 
been made. The technical problems involved were complex 
and he had had to appeal to expert linguists and lexicographers 
for advice. As the results of these studies he had reached the 
conclusion that, from the standpoint of an educated Italian of the 


226 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


mid-XIXth century, such as Rondani, the “ F-” spelling was 
correct and consequently that this was not a case which could 
properly be dealt with under Article 19 of the Régles. In view, 
however, of the importance of this name in medical literature 
it seemed to him that a reversion to the spelling originally used 
by Rondani would lead to confusion outside systematic circles 
and was the type of name change which brought discredit on 
zoological nomenclature among workers who were not concerned 
with, or interested in, the minutiae of the rules adopted by 
zoologists for their own work. He accordingly commended to 
the favourable consideration of the Commission the request that 
the “‘ Ph-’ spelling of this name should be preserved by the 
Commission by the use of the Plenary Powers. 


PROFESSOR L. DI CAPORIACCO (ITALY) said that, 
speaking both as a zoologist and as an Italian, he was strongly 
in favour of the maintenance of the “‘ Ph-”’ spelling of this well- 
known name. He was surprised that any other course should have 
been suggested. 


12. The decision taken by the International Commission in 
this case is set out as follows in the Official Record of its 
Proceedings (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 6) (1950, 
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 359) :— 


THE COMMISSION agreed :— 


(1) to use their Plenary Powers to emend to Phlebotomus 
the generic name originally published by Rondani in 
1840 as Flebotomus (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) ; 


(2) to place the generic name Phlebotomus Rondani, 1840 
(type species: Bibio papatasi Scopoli, 1786, by 
monotypy) on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology and the trivial name papatasi Scopoli, 1786 


OPINION 256 DT 


(as published in the binominal combination Bibio 
papatasi) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names 
in Zoology ; 


(3) to render an Opinion setting out the decisions recorded 
in (1) and (2) above. 


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 Fifth 
Meeting held on 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
5 : 104—105). 


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. The following are the original references for the names 
placed on the Official Lists and Official Indexes in the Ruling 
given in the present Opinion :— 


Flebotomus Rondani, 1840, Mem. serv. Ditterol. ital. 1 : 12 
(alternative title : Sopra una spec. Ins. ditt.) 

papatasi, Bibio, Scopoli, 1786, Delic. Faun.Flor. insubr. 1 : 55 

Phlebotomus (emend of Flebotomus) Rondani, 1840, Mem. serv. 
Ditterol. ital. 1:12 (alternative title: Sopra una spec. Ins. 
ditt.) 


228 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


17. The gender of the generic name Phlebotomus Rondani, 1840, 
is masculine. 


18. 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 its Plenary Powers or declares to be 
invalid. In the present instance, the entry on this Official Index, 
under the foregoing provisions, of the Invalid Original Spelling 
Flebotomus Rondani, 1840, was inadvertently omitted from the 
Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Com- 
mission. This omission has been rectified in the Ruling given 
in the present Opinion. 


19. 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 
change in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the 
Ruling given in the present Opinion. 


20. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in 
dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is 
accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International 
Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary 
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 
in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that 
behalf. 


OPINION 256 229 


21. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two 
Hundred and Fifty-Six (256) of the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature. 


Done in London, this Seventeenth 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 
ZLOOLOGICAL peed 


Edited by 
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. 


Secretary to the Commission Vie CO. 


VOLUME 5. Part 18. Pp. 231—244, 2 facsimiles 


OPINION 257 


Rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of the work by 
Zimmermann (A. E. W. von) published in 1777 under 
the title Specimen Zoologiae geographicae, Quadrupedum 
Domicilia et Migrationes sistens and acceptance for the 
same purposes of the work by the same author published 
in the period 1778—1783 under the title Geographische 
Geschichte des Menschen, und der allgemein verbreiteten 
vierftissigen Thiere 


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 Sixpence 


(All rights reserved) 


Issued 10th August, 1954 


INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 257 


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. oe 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. SToL~ (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 (Zoclogical 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 MANSOouR (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. RiILey (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 257 


REJECTION FOR NOMENCLATORIAL PURPOSES 
OF THE WORK BY ZIMMERMANN (A.E.W. VON) 
PUBLISHED IN 1777. UNDER’ THE TITLE 
“SPECIMEN ZOOLOGIAE GEOGRAPHICAE, 
QUADRUPEDUM DOMICILIA ET MIGRA- 
TIONES SISTENS” AND ACCEPTANCE 
FOR THE SAME PURPOSES OF THE 
WORK BY THE SAME_ AUTHOR 
PUBLISHED IN THE PERIOD 1778— 
1783 UNDER THE TITLE “GEO- 
GRAPHISCHE GESCHICHTE DES 
MENSCHEN, UND DER ALLGE- 
MEIN - VERBREITETEN — VIER- 
FUSSIGEN THIERE ” 


RULING :—(1) In the work entitled Specimen 
Zoologiae geographicae, Quadrupedum Domicilia et Migra- 
tiones sistens published in 1777 Zimmermann (A. E. W. 
von) did not apply the principles of binominal nomen- 
clature, as required by Proviso (b) to Article 25, and 
accordingly the above work is not available for nomen- 
clatorial purposes. 


(2) In the work entitled Geographische Geschichte 
des Menschen und der allgemein verbreiten vierfiissigen 
Thiere published in the period 1778—1783 Zimmermann 
did, however, apply the principles of binominal nomen- 
clature, and accordingly the above work is available for 
nomenclatorial purposes. 


(3) The work Zimmermann, 1777, Specimen Zoologiae 
geographicae is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature 
as Work No. 7. 


(4) The work Zimmermann, 1778—1783, Geographische 
Geschichte des Menschen, und der allgemein verbreiteten 
vierfiissigen Thiere is hereby placed on the Official List 
of Works Approved as Available in Zoloogical Nomen- 
c.ature as Work No. 5. 


234 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE 


The present application (Registered Number ZN.(S.) 182) 
arose out of correspondence in 1944 between Mr. Francis 
Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission and 
Dr. Wilfred H. Osgood (Chicago Natural History Museum, 
Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.). The relevant considerations were 
embodied by Mr. Hemming on 31st March 1948 in the following 
note which constitutes the application submitted in this case and 
in addition, gives particulars of the consultations held by Mr. 
Hemming up to that date :— 


The nomenclatorial status of the works by Zimmermann (A.E.W. von) 
entitled ‘‘ Specimen Zoologiae geographicae’’ of 1777 and 
** Geographische Geschichte des Menschen, und der allgemein 
verbreiteten vierfiissigen Thiere ’’ published in the period 

1778—1783 


Note by FRANCIS HEMMING 
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 


The purpose of the present note is to examine the question of the 
availability under the Régles of the following works by A. E. W. von 
Zimmermann : (1) the work entitled Specimen Zoologiae geographicae 
Quadrupedum, Domicilia et Migrationes sistens published in 1777 ; 
(2) the work entitled Geographische Geschichte des Menschen, und der 
allgemein verbreiteten vierftissigen Thiere published in the period 
1778—1783. These works are of considerable interest to mammalogists 
because of the new names published in them, and the lack of a clear 
ruling as to their availability for nomenclatorial purposes has already 
in One conspicuous case discussed below led to confusion and name- 
changing. Further examples of this type may be expected to arise unless 
the position is promptly clarified by the International Commission. 


2. So far as the International Commission is concerned, this 
problem was first brought to notice as long ago as 1915 when Dr. 
Marcus W. Lyon, Jr. (Howard University, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) 
asked for a ruling on the availability of the specific name virginiana 
Zimmermann, 1780, as published in the combination Dama virginiana. 
No action was taken on Dr. Lyon’s application, the papers relating 
to which were among those transferred to my custody in May 1939. 
This is one of the considerable number of cases with which ‘the 
Commission for years found itself unable to deal, owing to the fact 
that it was not prepared to address itself further to the question of the 
interpretation of the expression “nomenclature binaire”’ as used in 
Proviso (b) to Article 25. This long-standing obstacle will, it may 
be hoped, be removed by the forthcoming International Congress of 


OPINION 257 235 


Zoology at Paris, at which the Commission is under instructions from 
the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, Lisbon, 1935, to 
submit a comprehensive Report (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, 
Conclusion 3) (1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 45). In the draft Report! 
which I have in preparation on this subject for submission to the 
International Commission, I have shown conclusively (as it seems to 
me) that the expression “nomenclature binaire’’ as used in the 
foregoing portion of Article 25 can only have a meaning identical 
with that of the expression “‘ nomenclature binominale’’. I propose 
also to include a recommendation that the Congress should substitute 
the latter expression for the ambiguous and unsatisfactory expression 
“nomenclature binaire ’’ wherever that expression at present occurs in 
the Régles. It is on the basis of the foregoing conclusions that I 
examine below the question of the availability of the two books by 
Zimmermann which form the subject of the present note. 


3. I have examined the copies of both the foregoing works in the 
Library of the Zoological Society of London, and this examination 
shows :— 


(1) that Zimmermann’s Specimen Zoologiae geographicae (a work 
written in Latin), published in 1777 does not satisfy the 
requirements of Article 25, for in it Zimmermann did not 
apply the principles of binominal nomenclature ; 


(2) that the work by Zimmermann in the German language entitled 
Geographische Geschichte des Menschen, und der allgemein 
verbreiteten vierfiissigen Thiere, which was published in the 
period 1778—1783, is a work similar in general plan to the 
slightly earlier Specimen Zoologiae geographicae but is a quite 
distinct work differing from the Specimen in a number of 
respects, of which the most important from the present point 
of view is that in the Geographische Geschichte Zimmermann 
clearly applied the principles of binominal nomenclature, 


1 The Draft Report here referred to was submitted to the International Commis- 
sion at its Session held in Paris in 1948 under cover of a note numbered I.C.(48)5 
(1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 3 : 20—21). This draft was approved by the Com- 
mission at the Fourth Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the 
Amphithéatre Louis-Liard on Thursday, 22nd July 1948 at 0900 hours (1950, 
Bull. zool. Nomencl., 4 : 63—66) and was later approved, first, by the Section 
on Nomenclature, and, finally, by the Thirteenth International Congress of 
Zoology in Concilium Plenum. The Report, so approved and adopted 
(1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 5 : 152—167), completely removes all the doubts 
which formerly existed as to the interpretation of Proviso (b) to Article 25 
by providing for the substitution of the expression ‘“‘ nomenclature binominale ”’ 
for the ambiguous expression “‘ nomenclature binaire’’, the use of which 
had been the cause of all the difficulties which had previously been encountered 
in interpreting this provision in the Régles. 


236 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


thereby giving this work a status of availability under the 
Régles*. 


4. In addition to the question of the availability of the foregoing 
works, it will be necessary for the Commission to consider whether, 
having regard to the established nomenclatorial practice of mammalo- 
gists, the acceptance of either or both of these works would be 
acceptable or whether it would be better in the interests of nomen- 
clatorial stability for the Commission to use its Plenary Powers to 
suppress one or other or both of these works. This was the first aspect 
of the question to which, after the re-opening of the London 
Secretariat in the middle of the war, I addressed myself in the hope 
that I might thereby make some progress with the ancient application 
relating to the name Dama virginiana Zimmermann, 1780, referred 
to in paragraph 2 of the present note. 


5. With the foregoing object in view I wrote a letter on 6th August 
1944 to Dr. Wilfred H. Osgood (Chicago Natural History Museum, 
Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.), asking for his views on the question of 
the correct name for the Virginia Deer. In his reply dated 12th 
October 1944, given below, Dr. Osgood gave his grounds (a) for 
rejecting Zimmermann’s Specimen Zoologiae geographicae and (b) 
for accepting that author’s Geographische Geschichte :— 


Allen in 1902 (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 16, pp. 12—22) 
attempted to validate the names of Zimmermann’s Zoologiae 
Geographicae 1777, but he has had only a very small following. 
He says: “* Zimmermann’s two works are constructed on nearly 
the same general plan. ... The latter, however, is not merely a 


* By way of explanation of the conclusions here reached it may be noted that 
in the Latin work entitled Specimen Zoologiae geographicae of 1777, 
Zimmermann was quite inconsistent in the kind of nomenclature which he 
employed. For example, in the case of the alleged, but, as I consider non- 
existent, generic name Dama Zimmermann, 1777, what he did was to place a 
considerable number of species in the genus Cervus and to apply to those 
species names which were sometimes binominal and sometimes not. Where 
those names were binominal, this was often due to his using binominal names 
published by previous authors. If we look? at page 532, the page where the 
generic name Dama Zimmermann is alleged to have been published, we find 
that there Zimmermann dealt with Species Nos. 4 to 7 of the genus Cervus 
and that he applied to those species the following names :—(4) Dama ; (5) 
Cervus elaphus ; (6) Cervus Porcinus ; (7) Dama virginiana: It will be seen at 
once that in using these names Zimmermann was following no logical system 
at all and certainly was not employing the binominal system of Linnaeus. 

When we turn to the Geographische Geschichte, we find however that he was 
consistently binonimal. Each species was introduced under a vernacular 
name, which was followed by a binominal scientific name, accompanied 
either by a diagnosis or by a bibliographical reference*. Moreover, he 
gave at the end of this works checklists of the species of the different faunas 
of the world, the entries in these checklists consisting (i) of the number assigned 
by him to the species concerned, (1i) of the vernacular name of the species 
concerned, and (iii) of its scientific name in due binominal form. 


nw 


This page is reproduced in facsimile on page 238 of the present Opinion. 
See facsimile of page 129 of volume 2 of the Geographische Geschichte repro- 
duced on page 239 of the present Opinion. 


eo 


OPINION 257 OS 


German translation of the first, but an essentially different work ’’. 
Later on he says: “ while the Geographische Geschichte has been 
cited by many subsequent writers .. . the Zoologiae Geographicae 
has been uniformly neglected’’. To this he adds that “ careful 
scrutiny shows that both are equally entitled to recognition ”’. 
I cannot agree to this and believe the uniform neglect of the 
Zoologiae Geographicae was justified. At least two good 
authorities have expressed the opinion that this work is non- 
binomial, namely Sherborn (d/ndex Animalium, Sect. Prima, 
p. lvi, 1902) and Palmer (Index Gen. Mam., p. 400, under Marmota, 
1904). Allen went so far as to list all species of American deer 
under Dama, but so far as I am aware, no American mammalogist 
has followed him. It has been the practice to accept the 
Geographische Geschichte, but not the Zoologiae Geographicae . . . 


6. During my recent visit to the United States (December 1947), 
I discussed this matter, first, at Washington, with Dr. Remington 
Kellogg (United States National Museum) and later, at Chicago with 
Dr. Philip Hershkovitz (Chicago Natural History Museum), both of 
whom are in agreement with the view expressed by Dr. Osgood in the 
letter quoted in the immediately preceding paragraph. 


7. In the circumstances, it appears to me to be clear (1) that the 
Zimmermann’s Specimen Zoologiae geographicae of 1777 is not an 
available work for the purposes of zoological nomenclature, but that 
the same author’s Geographische Geschichte of 1778—1783, is an 
available work, (2) that, having regard to the practice of mammalogists, 
as now ascertained, the rejection of the Specimen Zoologiae geo- 
graphicae will not only not cause any undesirable name-changing, 
but will actively promote stability in the nomenclature of the mammals. 


8. I recommend that the International Commission should, first, 
take a decision on the question of principle involved, namely whether, 
in the case of each of the works discussed above, Zimmermann 
complied with the requirements of Proviso (b) to Article 25 of the 
Régles, and, having done so, should take a decision on the individual 
problem submitted to it by Dr. Lyon thirty-three years ago, namely 
whether the generic name Dama Zimmermann, 1780, is an available 
name and whether the trivial name virginiana Zimmermann, 1780 as 
published in the combination Dama virginiana, is an available name 
for the Virginia Deer*. 


4 When the Commission came to consider the case of the name virginiana 
Zimmermann, 1780, as published in the combination Dama virginiana (Paris 
Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 43) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 549— 
551), it decided (i) to seek further views from mammalogists before it took 
a decision, but (ii) to advise mammalogists, pending the outcome of the 
proposed consultations, not to transfer the name Dama from the Fallow Deer 
of Europe to the Virginia Deer of America. An application for a substantive 
decision in favour of the retention of the above name for the European species 
has since been received from Dr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (British Museum 
(Natural History), London) and will, it is proposed, be published in an early 
Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 


238 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


Facsimile of page 532 of Zimmermann, 1777, ‘‘ Specimen Zoologiae 
,. geographicae Quadrupedum, Domicilia et Migrationes sistens ”’ 


532 SPECIMEN ZOOLOGIAE 


tia Kalkaffenfi fab quinquagefimo circiter latitudinis gra- 
du, fub Oronis appellatione (x) reperiri. Quum re- 
giones iftae magis ad meridiem vergant, quam.quae in 
Europa macbles nutriant: hine meo quidem judicio 
fluit, illas major frigoris vi premi. Fines. itaque quos 
inter maebles vivunt, fi ab Aurepa numerandi initrum 
feceris, femper oblique magis meridiem verfus ad Ame- 
ricam decurrunt ejusque quadragefimum quintum circi- 
ter gradum attingunt. Quodfi America feptemtrionalis 
pluribus fucceflu temporis incolis frequentabitur; fines 
ifti Europam verfus magis afcendent. 


3.) Dama Linn. Num. 5. Vid. Cap. IL. 
6. Coratbus tcretibus. 


4.) Cervus Elaphus Lian. Num. 3. Vid. Cap. IL 

5.) Cervus Avis. ? Axis. Buffon. T. XI. Tab. XXXVUL 
& XXXIX, qui nomine cervi. maculati. Bengalen/is infig; 
niri poffet. Be eee enim (y),. Ceilonems Javamque in- 
habitat (2). Pennantus majorem hujus generis animan- 
rem fub great’ Axis nomine addidit.. Vide etiam. Cap. f. 
fub Cervo. 

6.) Cervus porcinus. Porcine Deer. Pennant, Syn. 
p. 52. Tab. VIII fig. 2. Cornubus tricuspidibus & 
corpore multo craffiore brevioribusqte cervo noftro pe- 
dibus praeditus eft. Clivius nobilis Angliae hunc ex India 
Orientali in Angham attulit, qui forfan fola noftrat:s 
varietas eft. 

7.) Dama Virginiana, Firginian Deer. ‘a. 

y- 


tn Pe en ee ee - ‘a 
(=) Allgem. Reif. T. VH. p, 21 , €~) Voyages des Hollaadois 
T. VIL (%) Pennant. lc. p. 52. 


a ey ee es 


OPINION 257 239 


Facsimile of page 129 of volume 2 of Zimmermann, 1780, ‘* Geo- 
graphische Geschichte des Menschen, und der allgemein 
verbreiteten vierfiissigen Thiere ”’ 


Der Hirfd. 129 


fo aro, als ber Hirfd. Sweyten Vheile swente A6- 
theif. 16ter Mbfdhnite. 

Su dem dort bengebrachten (ese id) noch Hirgu, daG 
in China, eine fleinere Warietae dee Dammbir(thes 
febt, welche nicht béber ift, als 2 Fug 4 Zoll, Das 
Geweihe itt breit und vielsacigt. Die Farbe braun 
ohne weife Sleden, aber mit etmas bellern Haar: 
gonfen. Die Beine find fury. Bmey Thiere diefer 
Are (ebten in dem Ghiergarten von Verjariles «). 


B. 
42) Dev Hiri. 


Sch. geftehe, daf ich immer gweifelbafter werbde, 
ob unjer Hirfd) fic auch) in Sud-Amerifa wirklich 
finde. €rft. Band. SG. 230. u. f. 


44) Der Virginifche Hir{ch. 


Dama Virginiana. Raji fynopf. quadr, p. 86. 

Fallow Deer, Lawfon Carolina p.123. Virginian 
Deer. Pennant Syn. p. 51. Tab. IX, fig.2, Die 
Horner. 

Die Hdrner find ftarf vorwarts, Halb sirfe!fire 
mig gebogen; babe feine Stirnginfen; obermarts mit 
vielen Enden befebe. Grogpe eines Dannbirfches. 
Sarde graulidt braun. (giemlid belle.) CEchwang 
{anger algam Reh. Cine vallig von unfern Oann- 
Hirfche ver(dhiedene Art.  Bewobne in grofen Heer- 
den Carolina v), Virginien, Souifiana w), und yebe 
vielleiht bis Panama x) Hinunter. 

45) Dee 


#) Buffon Supplem, IEI, p. 124. 

v) Lawfon a.a. ©. 

~) Du Mont Mem. fur la Louifiano T. 1. p. 75. fig. 
Meif, XVII. G. 87. & 

x) Alla Reif, XVL SG, 324. 


Zimmerm, 2.%, 


240 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


9. In considering the general question of the availability of the 
works by Zimmermann discussed in the present note, the Commission 
will, I think, find it helpful to have before it a facsimile reproduction 
of a representative page of each of these books. The pages which I 
have selected are page 532 of the Specimen Zoologiae geographicae 
and page 129 of volume 2 of the Geographische Geschichte, published 
in 1780, since, as these are the pages on which the name Dama appears 
in these two works, facsimiles of them will be useful when the 
Commission comes to consider this individual name. For these 
facsimiles the Commission is indebted to the Zoological Society of 
London from whose copies of these works were taken the photostats 
from which these facsimiles have been prepared. 


IL—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 


2. Issue of Public Notices: As has been explained in the pre- 
ceding paragraph, Mr. Hemming’s note of 31st March 1948, 
there quoted, not only constitutes the application submitted in 
this case, but contains also full particulars of the subsequent 
consultations up to that date. It is only necessary at this point 
to add that in the autumn of 1947 it was considered prudent to 
provide for the contingency that the International Commission 
might decide in favour of the availability, under the Régles, of 
Zimmermann’s Specimen Zoologiae geographicae of 1777, but 
might at the same time reach the conclusion that in the interests 
of stability in zoological nomenclature, that work ought to be 
suppressed under its Plenary Powers. Accordingly, on 20th 
November 1947 a notice of the possible use by the International 
Commission of its Plenary Powers in this case was issued to the 
serial publications prescribed by the Ninth International Congress 
of Zoology, Monaco, 1913. The publication of this notice 
elicited no objection to the use of the Commission’s Plenary 
Powers for the purpose of suppressing the Specimen Zoologiae 
geographicae for nomenclatorial purposes. 


III—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


3. The question of the interpretation of Proviso (b) to Article 
25 was the first of the problems connected with the wording of the 


OPINION 257 241 


Régles to be considered by the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature at its Paris Session in 1948. The 
Commission, after examining the draft Report submitted to 
it 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 question 
of the availability of Zimmermann’s Specimen Zoologiae geo- 
graphicae of 1777 and of the same author’s Geographische 
Geschichte of 1778—1783 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 41) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 545—548) :— 


THE COMMISSION agreed :— 


(1) that the book by Zimmermann (A.E.W. von) published 
in 1777 under the title Specimen Zoologiae geographicae, 
Quadrupedum Domicilia et Migrationes sistens was not 
available for nomenclatorial purposes under the 
Régles, Zimmermann not having applied therein the 
principles of binominal nomenclature as prescribed 
by Proviso (b) to Article 25, and therefore that the 
names attributed to Zimmermann as from the foregoing 
work possessed no nomenclatorial status therefrom ; 


(2) that in the book entitled Geographische Geschichte des 
Menschen, und der allgemein verbreiteten vierfiissigen 


242 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


Thiere, nebst einer hieher gehdrigen zoologischen Welt- 
charte, published in the period 1778—1783, Zimmer- 
mann (A.E.W. von) had complied with the requirements 
of Article 25, that, in consequence, the foregoing work 
was available for nomenclatorial purposes, and that any 
new name, accompanied by an indication, published 
in it, possessed status under the Régles as from the 
date of being so published ; 


(3) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified 
in (1) and (2) above. 


4. 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 : 118). 


5. 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. 


6. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was dissented from 
by no Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the 
Paris Session. 


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 Index” to 
be styled the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in 


OPINION 257 243 


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). The Congress decided also 
to insert in the Rég/es a provision establishing an “‘ Official List ”’ 
to be styled the Official List of Works Approved as Available 
in Zoological Nomenclature and directing the insertion therein 
of the title of any work which the International Commission might 
either validate under its Plenary Powers or declare to be an 
available work, together with any supplementary decisions which 
the International Commission might take in regard to any aspect 
of that work (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 24). 
Since the foregoing decisions apply to past, as well as to future, 
decisions by the International Commission in cases of this kind, 
the opportunity presented by the preparation of the present 
Opinion has been taken to record the insertion (a) in the foregoing 
Official Index of the title of Zimmermann’s Specimen Zoologiae 
geographicae of 1777, and (b) in the foregoing Official List of the 
same author’s Geographische Geschichte published in the period 
1778—1783. 


8. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in 
dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is 
accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International 
Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary 
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in 
virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that 
behalf. 


9. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two Hundred 
and Fifty-Seven (257) of the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature. 


Done in London, this Eighteenth 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, cM.G., CBE. ae 


Secretary to the Commission 


VOLUME 5. Part 19. Pp. 245—252 


OPINION 258 


Rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of the work by 
Frisch (J.L.) published in 1775 under the title Das Natur- 
System der vierftissigen Thiere 


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 10th August, 1954 


INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 258 


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. PETERS (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, 
Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). 

Dr. ae 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. RILeEy (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). 

ieee wae L. USINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California, 


OPINION 258 


“REJECTION FOR NOMENCLATORIAL PURPOSES OF 
THE WORK BY FRISCH (J.L.) PUBLISHED IN 1775 
UNDER THE TITLE ‘‘ DAS NATUR-SYSTEM DER 
VIERFUSSIGEN THIERE ”° 


RULING :—(1) In the work entitled Das Natur- 
System der vierfiissigen Thiere published in 1775 Frisch 
(J.L.) did not apply the principles of binominal nomen- 
clature, as required by Proviso (b) to Article 25, and 
accordingly the above work is not available for nomen- 
clatorial purposes. 


(2) The work Frisch, 1775, Das Natur-System der 
vierflissigen Thiere is hereby placed on the Official Index 
of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomen- 
clature as Work No. 8. 


IL—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE 


The present application (Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 254) 
arose incidentally out of correspondence in 1944 between Mr. 
Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, 
and Dr. Wilfred H. Osgood (Chicago Natural History Museum, 
Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) in regard to the question of the avail- 
ability of the generic name Dama as published by Zimmermann 


248 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


in 1777 in the work entitled Specimen Zoologiae geographicae, 
for, even it had been decided that this generic name was available 
as from Zimmermann, 1777, it would still have been necessary 
to determine whether the same name as published by Frisch 
in 1775 in his work Das Natur-System der vierfiissigen Thiere 
was an available name and therefore possessed priority over 
Dama Zimmermann. After completing the survey! of the con- 
siderations relevant to the determination of the acceptability, 
under Proviso (b) to Article 25, of Zimmermann’s Specimen 
Zoologiae geographicae which has been reproduced in Opinion 257, 
Mr. Hemming prepared a similar note in regard to Frisch’s 
Das Natur-System. This note, which was dated 2nd April 1948, 
was as follows :— 


The nomenclatorial status of the work by Frisch (J.L.) published in 1775 
under the title ‘‘ Das Natur-System der vierfiissigen Thiere ”’ 


Note by FRANCIS HEMMING 
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 


The purpose of the present note is to examine the question of the 
availability under the Régles of the work by Frisch (J.L.) published in 
1775 under the title Das Natur-System der vierftissigen Thiere. This 
work is of considerable importance to mammalogists in the sense 
that, if it were to be accepted, a number of generic names would date 
therefrom. In consequence, it is desirable that an authoritative ruling 
should be provided in regard to the availability of this book in order to 
put a stop to the opportunities for name-changing which it provides. 


2. So far as the International Commission is concerned, the problem 
presented by the Natur-System of Frisch arose incidentally in 1944 
in the course of correspondence between myself and Dr. Wilfred 
H. Osgood (Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) 
on the subject of the acceptability of the work by Zimmermann 
(A.E.W.von) published in 1777 under the title Specimen Zoologiae 
geographicae, a matter with which I was then concerned in an effort 
which I was making to advance the consideration of a long-outstanding 
application regarding the availability of the generic name Dama 
Zimmermann, 1780, the papers regarding which had been transferred 
to my custody in 1939 just before the outbreak of the recent war. 


3. In a letter dated 12th October 1944, Dr. Osgood, after expressing 
his views on the subject of the availability of Zimmermann’s Specimen 


1 See pages 234—240 of the present volume. 


OPINION 258 249 


Zoologiae geographicae, raised the question of the availability of the 
work entitled Das Natur-System by Frisch as follows :— 


The name Dama was used by Frisch in 1775, antedating any 
use by Zimmermann, but opinion seems fairly general that the 
names of Frisch should not be accepted. Since he was cited by 
Palmer (Index, 1904), however, his names are occasionally brought 
forward and a general ruling in regard to them also [i.e. in addition 
to the names in Zimmermann’s Specimen Zoologiae geographicae| 
would seem desirable. 


4. The status of Frisch’s Das Natur-System was considered by Dr. 
Charles Davies Sherborn, when compiling his Index Animalium, and 
he then rejected this work as non-binominal (Sherborn, 1902, Index 
Anim. Pars prim. : xxv). Not long afterwards Dr. Sherborn lent a 
copy of this very rare book to Oldfield Thomas for critical study. The 
results of this examination were embodied in a joint paper by Oldfield 
Thomas and Gerrit S. Miller, Jr. in a paper published in 1905 (Ann. 
Mag. nat. Hist. (7) 16 : 461—465). The evidence so brought forward 
demonstrates beyond possibility of question that in the Das Natur- 
System Frisch did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature. 
Thomas and Miller gave a specimen of the lay-out adopted by Frisch in 
this work; this was of a semi-tabular character, the information 
provided being arranged in three columns on each page, the first column 
headed “‘ Societas’’, the second, ““Genus’’, the third, “* Species’. 
Thomas and Miller pointed out that, unlike most of the early non- 
binominal but so-called “ binary’’ authors, Frisch did not even 
recognise consistently the need for employing a single word to denote 
the concept of the genus and they cited the following examples of cases 
where Frisch used two or more words for this purpose : Ovis communis; 


Ovis auribus pendentibus ; Tragus moschatus ; Mus araneus ; Phoca 
ursus. 


5. During my recent visit to the United States (December 1947), 
I discussed this case, first at Washington, with Dr. Remington Kellogg 
(United States National Museum) and later, at Chicago with Dr. 
Philip Herschkovitz (Chicago Natural History Museum), both of whom 
agree that Frisch’s Das Natur-System is not an available work and 
ought to be rejected. 


6. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I recommend that 
the International Commission should give a ruling that in the work 
entitled Das Natur-System der vierfiissigen Thiere Frisch did not comply 
with the requirements of Proviso (b) to Article 25 and therefore that 
names published in this work acquired no status of availability in 
virtue of having been so published. It is clear that a decision in this 
sense is calculated to promote stability in the nomenclature of the 
mammals, as Frisch’s names are not in general use. An authoritative 
ruling against the availability of his Natur-System should serve to 
put a stop to efforts to inject life into these names. 


250 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 


2. As has been explained in the preceding paragraph, the 
problem dealt with in the present Opinion emerged incidentally 
in the course of an investigation into another problem (that of 
the availability of names published in Zimmermann’s Specimen 
Zoologiae geographicae of 1777), with the result that no formal 
application of the ordinary type was submitted in this case. In 
its place there was the note dated 2nd April 1948 in which Mr. 
Hemming not only set out the issues involved but, in addition, 
gave particulars of the consultations which he had held before 
submitting the present case for decision. 


Il.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


3. 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 1948. The 
Commission, after examining the draft Report submitted to it 
by the Secretary, decided to approve and adopt the recom- 
mendations 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 question 
of the availability of Frisch’s Das Natur-System der vierfiissigen 
Thiere 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 Com- 
mission, setting out the decision reached by it in this case at the 


OPINION 258 251 


foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 42) 
(1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 548—549) :— 


THE COMMISSION agreed :— 


(1) that the book by Frisch (J.L.) published in 1775 under the 
title Das Natur-System der vierftissigen Thiere was not 
available for nomenclatorial purposes under the 
Régles, Frisch not having applied therein the principles 
of binominal nomenclature, as prescribed by Proviso 
(b) to Article 25, and therefore that the names 
attributed to Frisch as from the foregoing work 
possessed no nomenclatorial status therefrom ; 


(2) to render an Opinion recording the decision specified in 
(1) above. 


4. 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 : 118). 


5. 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 ; Metcalfe vice Peters ; Riley vice Calman ; Rode ; 
Sparck vice Mortensen ; van Straelen vice Richter ; Usinger 
vice Vokes. 


25) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


6. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was dissented from 
by no Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the 
Paris Session. 


7. 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 decision 
applies to past, as well as to future, decisions by the International 
Commission in cases of this kind, the opportunity presented by 
the preparation of the present Opinion has been taken to record 
the insertion in the foregoing Official Index of the title of Frisch’s 
Das Natur-System der vierftissigen Thiere of 1775. 


8. 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. 


9. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two 
Hundred and Fifty-Eight (258) of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature. 


Done in London, this Nineteenth day of December, Nineteen 
Hundred and Fifty-Three. 


Secretary to the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 


FRANCIS HEMMING 


pee eal Le enero eee Met SL tes EE 
Printed in England by Mercatre & Cooper LimiTeD, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 


OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 
RENDERED BY THE INTER- 
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
LOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


Edited by 
FRANCIS HEMMING, cCM.G., C.B.E. 


ys 


Secretary to the Commission Va 
/ ¥ a 
[) = 
VOLUME 5. Part 20. Pp. 253-264 | 
. \ ae { 
IN os 
OPINION 259 4 


Rejection of the names used by Mark Catesby in the 

Natural History of Carolina, as republished by Edwards 

in the edition of 1771, but acceptance of names formed 

in accordance with the Linnean system inserted by 
Edwards in that edition 


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 10th August, 1954 


INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 259 


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. PrTrers (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 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 259 


REJECTION OF THE NAMES USED BY MARK CATESBY 
IN THE ‘‘ NATURAL HISTORY OF CAROLINA ”’, AS 
REPUBLISHED BY EDWARDS IN THE EDITION 
OF 1771, BUT ACCEPTANCE OF NAMES 
FORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 
LINNEAN SYSTEM INSERTED BY 
EDWARDS IN THAT EDITION 


RULING :—(1) The decision taken in Opinion 89 
to use the Plenary Powers, in so far as that might be 
necessary, to suppress for nomenclatorial purposes the 
names which appear in the edition of Mark Catesby’s 
pre-1758 work The Natural History of Carolina edited 
by George Edwards and published in 1771 does not apply 
to the names employed in accordance with the Linnean 
system in the Concordance of the Linnean nomenclature 
of the species concerned with the nomenclature used 
therefor by Catesby in the original edition of the fore- 
going work, given by Edwards in volume 2 of the edition 
issued in 1771 under the title A Catalogue of the Animals 
and Plants represented in Catesby’s “‘ Natural History 
of Carolina”’’. With the Linnean Names. 


(2) In view of (1) above, the names employed by 
Edwards in accordance with the Linnean system in the 
Concordance referred to above but not the names used 
by Catesby in the original pre-1758 edition of The 
Natural History of Carolina given in the second column 
of the same Concordance, are available under the Régles 
as from 1771, the year in which the volume containing 
Edwards’ Concordance was published. 


(3) The Edwards (1771) edition of Catesby (M.), 
TheNatural History of Carolina, exclusive of the portion 
of the Concordance referred to in (2) above containing 
the names employed by Edwards in accordance with the 
Linnean system, is hereby placed on the Official Index 
of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature 
as Work No. 9. 


(4) The Catalogue of the Animals and Plants in Catesby’s 
** Natural History of Carolina” inserted by Edwards 


256 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


in volume 2 of his (1771) edition of Catesby’s work is 
hereby placed, to the extent indicated in (2) above, on 
the Official List of Works Approved as Available in 
Zoological Nomenclature as Work No. 6. 


I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE 


The problem dealt with in the present Opinion came to light 
in the course of an examination, by Mr. Francis Hemming, 
Secretary to the International Commission, of the Commission’s 
Opinion 13 (“ The Specific Name of the Sand Crab’) (1910, 
Smithson. Publ. 1938 : 22—24) carried out in 1944 in connection 
with the re-issue of that Opinion then in preparation. This 
examination showed a partial inconsistency between this Opinion 
and the Commission’s later Opinion 89 (1925, Smithson. misc. 
Coll. 73 (No. 3) : 27—23) which called for clarification. Mr. 
Hemming’s Report on this subject was embodied in Note 3 
attached to the re-issue of Opinion 13. Up to this point this 
question had been dealt with on the Commission’s Registered 
File Z.N.(G.) 24 (re-issue of old Opinions), but at this stage it was 
judged desirable to open a separate File for the present case 
which was thereupon given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 269. 
The Report submitted by Mr. Hemming, which bore the date 
29th April 1945, was as follows :—- 


On the relation of ‘‘ Opinion ’’ 89 to ‘‘ Opinion ’’ 13 as respects the 
edition of Catesby (M.), ‘‘ Natural History of Carolina ”’, published by 
Edwards (G.) in 1771 


By FRANCIS HEMMING 
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 


The status of names originally published in or before 1757 and 
republished in or after 1758 is discussed in Opinion 5, where it is 
pointed out that, in order “‘ to become eligible under the Code, such 
names must be reinforced by adoption or acceptance by the author 
publishing ” the reprint or other later work containing the names in 
question. 


2. In considering the status of the name Cancer arenarius as used 
in the edition of Catesby’s Natural History of Carolina, etc., published 


OPINION 259 DoT 


by George Edwards in 1771, the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature accordingly applied (in Opinion 13) the 
criteria laid down in Opinion 5. As the result of this consideration, 
the Commission reached the conclusion (paragraph 5) that the names 
in the Edwards edition of Catesby did not comply with the conditions 
ae down in Opinion 5 and in consequence were not available under 
the Code. 


3. It should be noted that the question of the status of names 
published in 1771 by Edwards in his edition of Catesby’s Natural 
History of Carolina was again brought before the International 
Commission in 1922,* when Commissioner David Starr Jordan 
included it in a list of zoological works, which he suggested should 
be suppressed by the Commission under its Plenary Powers, on 
the ground that the strict application of the rules in their case would 
clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. This proposal 
was adopted by the Commission as regards the Edwards edition of 
Catesby, except for the Concordance of the names used by Catesby 
with those applicable to the species concerned according to the 
Linnean system given by Edwards in volume 2 under the title: ““A 
Catalogue of the Animals and Plants represented in Catesby’s Natural 
History of Carolina : With the Linnean Names.” This decision was 
embodied in Opinion 89 published on 16th December 1925.+ 


4. The Concordance of names referred to above is the document 
from which an extract relating to the Class Crustacea was quoted by 
Miss Rathbun in her petition to the Commission in regard to the case 
dealt with in Opinion 13. 


5. So far as concerns the Edwards edition of Catesby, the effect of 
Opinion 89 is :— 

(i) to suppress nomenclatorially all new names included in the 

Edwards edition, in so far as such names were used by Catesby 


in the original (pre-1758) edition of his Natural History of 
Carolina ; and 


(ii) to leave unaffected the status of names formed in accordance 
with the Linnean system and used by Edwards in the Con- 
cordance given by him in volume 2 of his edition of Catesby. 


6. Reference to the extract from Edwards’ Concordance quoted 
by Miss Rathbunt shows that the name formed in accordance with 
the Linnean system which Edwards applied to the “Sand Crab” 
was Cancer vocans Linnaeus, 1758. In the opposite column, he cited 


* The original of Commissioner D. S. Jordan’s application is dated 7th July 
1922. It is included among the papers relating to Opinion 89 in Volume 3 
of bound correspondence relating to Opinions preserved in the archives of 
the International Commission. 

+ See 1925, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 3) : 27—33. 


t See paragraph 1 of Opinion 13. 


258 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


the name Cancer arenarius but he did this merely to show that this was 
the name applied to that species by Catesby. Accordingly, the name 
Cancer arenarius of Catesby, as reprinted by Edwards in 1771, is 
suppressed for nomenclatorial purposes by Opinion 89. 


7. To sum up: The Commission in Opinion 13 declared that new 
names published by Edwards in 1771 in his edition of Catesby’s 
Natural History of Carolina were ineligible for consideration under the 
Code because those names did not satisfy the requirements of Article 25 
as defined by Opinion 5; later in Opinion 89, the Commission went 
further and under its Plenary Powers suppressed for nomenclatorial 
purposes the whole of the Edwards edition of Catesby, with the 
exception of the names formed in accordance with the Linnean system 
added by Edwards in the Concordance. In view of Opinion 13, 
Opinion 89 was unnecessary so far as concerns the Edwards edition 
of Catesby, and, if the petition on which the last-named Opinion was 
based had been solely concerned with the Edwards edition, the 
Commission would no doubt have thought it sufficient, in Opinion 89, 
to refer the petitioner to Opinion 13. In fact, however, the Edwards 
edition of Catesby was only one of a number of works which the 
Commission was then asked to suppress under its Plenary Powers 
and it accordingly took the line that the simplest course was to accept 
the proposal submitted to it in regard to this work, since in effect it did 
no more than reaffirm the decision which it had already taken in 
Opinion 13. 


2. In Note 8 attached to the foregoing re-issue of Opinion 13 
Mr. Hemming summarised his conclusions in paragraphs 2 and 
6(1), and in paragraph 9(2) he submitted the following recom- 
mendation as to the action to be taken to rectify the inconsistency 
between Opinions 13 and 89, namely (a) that Opinion 13 should 
be cancelled and (b) that, so far as concerns the availability of 
names used by Edwards in his edition of Catesby’s Natural 
History of Carolina published in 1771, that Opinion should be 
replaced by an Opinion in the following terms :— 


eS 


2. The preliminary decision referred to in paragraph 1(1) above 
is important, since it provides an authoritative guide to the nomen- 
clatorial status of names first published in 1771 in Edwards’ edition of 
Catesby’s Natural History of Carolina, but this decision is irrelevant 
to the problem of the name of the Sand Crab, since, even if the names 
first published by Edwards in Catesby, 1771, were available nomen- 
clatorially, the name Cancer arenarius Edwards, 1771 (the only one of 
those names which is involved in the problem of the name of the Sand 
Crab) would nevertheless be unavailable for the Sand Crab, for (as 


GeRTGRi 259 259 


shown in NOTE 6 above) the name Cancer arenarius Edwards, 1771, 
would have been a homonym of the name Cancer arenarius Toreen, 
1765, previously given to an entirely different species.! 


CO 


6. In the light of the evidence summarised above, the position as 
regards the conclusions embodied in Opinion 13 is seen to be as 
follows :— 


(1) The first sentence in the “summary” (‘“Catesby’s (1743) 
pre-Linnean name Cancer arenarius is not available under the 
Code, although ‘ reprinted’ in 1771 ;”’) contains an important 
ruling by the International Commission on the nomenclatorial 
status of the edition of Catesby, 1743, Natural History of 
Carolina, published by Edwards in 1771. This decision has no 
bearing, however, upon the question of the correct scientific 
name of the Sand Crab, since even if the Edwards edition of 
Catesby was a nomenclatorially available work, the name Cancer 
arenarius Edwards, 1771, would not be available as the name of 
the Sand Crab, since it would be a homonym of the older name 
Cancer arenarius Toreen, 1765 (see paragraph 2). 


i 


9. The action now proposed is, therefore, that the International 
Commission should :— 


Ce 


(2) render an Opinion confirming as follows the question of principle 
dealt with in the first sentence of Opinion 13 ; 


““ The names published by Mark Catesby in 1743 in his Natural 
History of Carolina possess no status under the Law of Priority 
as from that date, since it is prior to 1758, the starting point of 
zoological nomenclature and the Law of Priority (Article 25 
of the Régles Internationales) ; nor do those names acquire any 
rights under the Law of Priority as from 1771, the date on 
which they were republished by George Edwards in his edition 
of Catesby’s Natural History of Carolina, since Catesby’s names 
were not then ‘re-inforced by adoption or acceptance’ by 
Edwards and in consequence do not qualify for availability under 
the provisions of Opinion 5.” 


Il.L—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 
3. The re-issue of Opinion 13 and the accompanying notes 
were sent to printer in May 1945, but, owing to difficulties arising 


1 See Opinion 13 (re-issue), Note 6 (1947, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 
1 ; 218—219). 


260 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


from paper rationing, shortage of labour at the printing works 
and similar causes, publication did not actually take place until 
28th February 1947, (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 
1 : 207—234). Mr. Hemming’s Note 3 quoted in paragraph 1 
of the present Opinion appeared on pp. 213—215 of the re-issue 
of Opinion 13; the conclusions quoted in paragraph 2 above 
appeared on pp. 228 and 229 respectively ; the recommendation 
quoted in the same paragraph appeared on p. 231. 


4. The publication of the present application in the re-issue 
of Opinion 13 elicited no objection to the action proposed, and 
it was accordingly placed on the Agenda for the meeting of the 
International Commission arranged to be held in Paris in July 
1948. 


Il.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


5. The present application was considered by the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Fourteenth 
Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the 
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 Commission, giving a summary of the 
introductory statement made by the Acting President (Mr. 
Francis Hemming) and of the ensuing discussion (1950, Bull. 
zool. Nomencl. 4 : 570) :— 


THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS 
HEMMING) said that, since the time when, as Secretary 
to the Commission, he had prepared for the consideration of 
the Commission the “ Editorial Notes ’”’ now under examina- 
tion, he had come to the conclusion that, in view of the 
decision taken by the Commission in Opinion 89 to use its 
Plenary Powers to suppress for nomenclatorial purposes 
names used by Catesby in his pre-1758 Natural History of 
Carolina, as republished by Edwards in 1771, the position, 
as it had existed before that decision, had become a matter 


a 


OPINION 259 261 


of academic interest only, and therefore that there was no 
need now for the Commission to render an Opinion restating 
the decision on this subject given implicitly in Opinion 13. 
It was desirable, however, in his view, that the Commission 
should render an Opinion clarifying the decision in regard 
to Edwards (1771) edition of Catesby’s book given in 
Opinion 89, for it was misleading in the highest degree that 
there should be no express mention in that decision of the 
material limitation imposed thereon by the reservation 
attached to Commissioner Stejneger’s vote”. It was essential 
that by one means or another such a clarification should 
be made before the decision in that Opinion was recorded 
in the Schedule which was now to be added to the Régles 
recording decisions taken by the Commission under its 
Plenary Powers. 


IN DISCUSSION, it was generally agreed that it was 
necessary that the decision in Opinion 89 should be clarified 
in the manner proposed. 


6. 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 (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, 
Conclusion 51) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 568—571) :— 


nw 


THE COMMISSION agreed :— 


to render an Opinion supplementary to Opinion 89, making 
it clear :— 


(a) that the decision taken in Opinion 89 to use the Plenary 
Powers, in so far as that might be necessary, to 
suppress for nomenclatorial purposes the names 


At the time of the adoption of Opinion 89 involving, as it did, the use by the 


Commission of its Plenary Powers, absolute unanimity among the Members 
of the Commissioners voting was required in order to secure adoption. 
Dr. Stejneger qualified his vote by attaching a reservation in favour of any 
names in the ““ Concordance ’’ at the end of volume 2, used by Edwards in 
accordance with the Linnean system, and this involved a similar reservation 
in the decision of the Commission as a whole. 


262 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


which appeared in the edition of Mark Catesby’s 
pre-1758 work The Natural History of Carolina, 
edited by George Edwards and published in 1771, 
did not apply to the names employed in accordance 
with the Linnean system in the Concordance of the 
Linnean nomenclature of the species concerned with 
the nomenclature used therefor by Catesby in the 
original edition of the foregoing work, given by 
Edwards in Volume 2 of the edition issued in 1771 
under the title “ A Catalogue of the Animals and 
Plants represented in Catesby’s Natural History of 
Carolina : With the Linnean Names ”’. 


(b) that, in view of (a) above, the names employed by 
Edwards in accordance with the Linnean system in 
the Concordance referred to above, but not the 
names used by Catesby in the original pre-1758 
edition of The Natural History of Carolina given in 
a second column in the same Concordance, were 
available under the Régles as from 1771, the year 
in which the volume containing Edwards’ Con- 
cordance was published. 


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 Sixth 
Meeting held on Monday, 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 5: 120). 


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. 


OPINION 259 263 


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 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). The Congress decided also 
to insert in the Rég/es a provision establishing an “ Official List ”’ 
to be styled the Official List of Works Approved as Available in 
Zoological Nomenclature and directing the insertion therein of 
the title of any work which the International Commission might 
either validate under its Plenary Powers or declare to be an avail- 
able work, together with any supplementary decisions which 
the International Commission might take in regard to any 
aspect of that work (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. 
: 24). Since the foregoing decisions apply to past, as well as 
to future, decisions by the International Commission in cases of 
this kind, the opportunity presented by the preparation of the 
present Opinion has been taken to record the insertion (a) in the 
foregoing Official Index of the title of the Edwards (1771) edition 
of the work by Catesby (M.) entitled The Natural History of 
Carolina originally published before the starting point of 
zoological nomenclature (1758), subject to the qualification 
specified in Section (1) of the Ruling given in the present Opinion, 
and (b) in the foregoing Official List of the title of the Concordance 
by Edwards entitled A Catalogue of the Animals and Plants in 
Catesby’s “* Natural History of Carolina” published in volume 2 
of the edition of Catesby’s book edited by Edwards and published 
in 1771, subject to the qualification specified in Section (2) of 
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 


264 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International 
Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary 
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 
in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that 
behalf. 


12. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two 
Hundred and Fifty-Nine (259) of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature. 


Done in London, this Twenty-First day of December, Nineteen 
Hundred and Fifty-Three. 


Secretary to the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 


FRANCIS HEMMING 


Printed in England by METCALFE & 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, cmc, cBE. 4 “| 


Secretary to the Commission I= 


f 
ite | 
VOLUME 5. Part. 21. Pp. 265—280, 2 pls. \e oO 


Laud 
No CD 


OPINION 260 


Rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of the work by 
Meuschen (F.C.) issued in 1778 under the title Museum 
Gronovianum 


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 10th August, 1954 


INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 260 


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. Tee E. VoKkes (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. RILeEy (British Museum (Natural History), London, Engiand). 

Professor Ragnar SpPARCK (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, 
Denmark). 

Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de 
Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). 

ee Aca L. UsincER (University of Galiternia: Berkeley, California, 

S.A.). 


OPINION 260 


REJECTION FOR NOMENCLATORIAL PURPOSES OF 
THE WORK BY MEUSCHEN (F.C.) ISSUED IN 1778 
UNDER THE TITLE ‘“ MUSEUM GRONOVIANUM ” 


RULING :—(1) The work by Meuschen (F.C.) issued 
in 1778 under the title Museum Gronovianum is not 
available for nomenclatorial purposes (a) because it was 
not “ published ” within the meaning of Article 25 of the 
Régles and (b) because in it Meuschen did not apply the 
principles of binominal nomenclature as prescribed in 
Proviso (b) to the foregoing Article. 


(2) The above work is hereby placed on the Official 
Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological 
Nomenclature as Work No. 10. 


I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE | 


The problem dealt with in the present Opinion came to light 
in the course of an examination, by Mr. Francis Hemming, 
Secretary to the International Commission, of the Commission’s 
Opinion 13 (“ The Specific Name of the Sand Crab’’) (1910, 
Smithson. Publ. 1938 : 22—24) carried out in 1944 in connection 
with the re-issue of that Opinion then in preparation. This 
examination showed that one of the assumptions adopted 


268 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


implicitly in the conclusion reached regarding the specific name 
of the Sand Crab was that the name Cancer quadratus Fabricius, 
1793, is invalid by reason of being a junior homonym of Cancer 
quadrata Meuschen, 1778. The status of Meuschen’s Museum 
Gronovianum, the book in which the foregoing name was first 
published, appeared so questionable that Mr. Hemming took 
the view that it was a matter on which it was essential that an 
authoritative ruling should be obtained from the International 
Commission. Mr. Hemming accordingly prepared a Report on 
this subject which was thereupon annexed to the re-issue of 
Opinion 13, as Note 7. Up to this point this question had been 
dealt with on the Commission’s Registered File Z.N.(G.) 24 
(re-issue of old Opinions), but at this stage it was judged desirable 
to open a separate File for the present case which was thereupon 
given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 270. The Report sub- 
mitted by Mr. Hemming, which bore the date 29th April 1945, 
was as follows :— 


On the nomenclatorial status of scientific names first appearing in 
print in Meuschen (F.C.), 1778, ‘‘ Museum Gronovianum ”’ 


By FRANCIS HEMMING 
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 


One of the assumptions made in the statement of the case on which 
Opinion 13 was based was the assumption that Cancer quadratus 
Fabricius, 1793, was invalid because it was pre-occupied, 7.e. because 
it was invalid as a homonym under Article 35 of the Régles Inter- 
nationales. The petitioner did not specify the name of the author 
by whom, it was alleged, the binominal combination “ Cancer 
quadratus’’ had been published as a new specific name for some 
species of the Class Crustacea prior to its being published in 1793 
as the specific name for the Sand Crab. Leaving aside the fact that 
both the “‘ statement of the case’ and Opinion 13 itself were in error 
in attributing the name Cancer quadratus to Fabricius as from 1793, 
since that name was in fact first published by Fabricius as the name 
of the Sand Crab in 1787, the position, as disclosed by Sherborn, 
1902, Index Anim. Pars Prima : 805 (published eight years before 
Opinion 13), is that the binominal combination Cancer quadrata 
appeared in print on one occasion prior to 1787 (the date on which 
Fabricius first published the name Cancer quadratus as the specific 
name of the Sand Crab). The author by whom the name Cancer 
quadrata was so used was Friedrich Christian Meuschen, by whom it 
was introduced in 1778 on page 84 of a booklet usually known by the 
abbreviated title ““ Museum Gronovianum ”’. 


OPINION 260 269 


2. Meuschen’s Museum Gronovianum is an extremely scarce work, 
the only copy of which that is known to me being that in the library 
of the British Museum (Bloomsbury). Through the courtesy of the 
Trustees of the Museum, it is possible to give on plates 1 and 2 of the 
present edition of Opinion 13 facsimiles of pages 84 and 94 of this 
rare booklet. Page 84 is the page on which the name Cancer quadrata 
appears and the two pages taken together illustrate very well the 
character of Meuschen’s Museum Gronovianum and the system of 
nomenclature used in it. 


3. The full title of Meuschen’s Museum Gronovianum is as follows :— 


MUSEUM GRONOVIANUM. //SIVE // INDEX // RERUM 
NATURALIUM // TAM // MAMMALIUM AMPHIBIORVM 
PISCIVM INSEC-//TORUM CONCHYLIORVM ZOOPHYTORVM 
// PLANTARVM ET MINERALIVM // EXQVISITISSIMORYVM // 
QUAM // ARTE FACTARVM NONNVLLARUM. // INTER 
QVAE EMINET // HERBARIVS SICCVS PLANTARVM //A 
TOVRNEFORTIO CLAITONIO LINNAEO // ALITSQVE 
BOTANICIS COLLECTARYM. // QVAE OMNIA MVLTA CVRA 
ET MAGNIS //SVMPTIBUS SIBI COMPARAVIT // VIR AM- 
PLISSIMVS & CELEBERRIMVS // LAVR. THEOD. GRONOVIVS 
//J. V. D.//CIVITATIS LUGDUNO BATAVAE SENATOR 
ET //SCABINVS SOCIETATIS REGIAE LONDINENSIS // 
BASILAEENSIS ET HOLLANDIAE QVAE//HARLEMI EST 
ALIORVMGVE //SOCIVS &c. &c.//Quae publice subhasta 
dictrahentur in aedibus // Defuncti // Ad diem Mercurii 7. Octobris 
& seqq. 1778. //Diebus 1. & 2. Octobris Museum patebit. // 
LUGDVNI BATAVORYVM // Apud TH. HAAK & SOCIOS, 
nec non//J. MEERBVRG, Bibliopolas. 1778. // Vbi Catalogi 
distribuuntur pro 6. Stuferis. 


4. Meuschen’s Museum Gronovianum is a small quarto volume, 
the collation of which is as follows :— 


I-VI, 1-231-[232]-1 unnumbered page (recto advertisements, 
verso blank). 


5. As the title shows, Meuschen’s Museum Gronovianum is a 
Catalogue of the zoological, botanical and mineral collections formed 
by Laurentius Theodorus Gronovius prepared for sale by auction 
(subhasta) in October 1778, the year following Gronovius’s death. 


6. In Meuschen’s Catalogue the Gronovius collection is arranged 
in 2861 lots. These lots are arranged in a rough systematic order, 
the first lots consisting of specimens of the Class Mammalia 
(““ Quadrupedia’’). At the end of the description of each lot, the 
number of specimens comprised in the lot is indicated. This is done 


270 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


by means of such expressions as “2 stuks ” (as in lots 786 and 787*), 


‘Een doublet ’’ (as in lot 867+) and *‘ Twee doubletten ” (as in lots 
874 and 8777). 


7. In some cases the first word in the description of the lot is the 
generic name (in small capitals) (for example, the name ““ CANCER ” 
in lots 786 to 791*) of the one or more species included in that lot. 
In other cases, the first word in the description of the lot is the specific 
trivial name (not necessarily binominal in form) of the species (one or 
more in number) included in the lot. In the latter class of case the 
name of the genus to which the species concerned were attributed is 
ascertainable only from the generic names—cited in the nominative 
plural—placed as a cross-heading above the description of the first lot 
comprising species attributed to that genus. For example, lots 868 
to 874+ comprise species attributed to the genus Solen, as is indicated 
by the word “SOLENES ” (in capitals) which appears as a cross- 
heading above the description of lot 868,+ the first of the lots concerned. 


8. Certain of the lots contained specimens of only one species, as 
[Solen] Siliqua (lot 869+) and [Solen] Anatinus (lot 873). In other 
cases, specimens of the same species were included in two successive 
lots. For example, both lot 870 and lot 871 contained only specimens 


of the species referred to under the (non-binominal) name [So/en] 
Radiatus violaceus.+ 


9. In a considerable number of cases specimens of several distinct 
species were included in a single lot. For example, in the portion of 
the Catalogue containing specimens of the Order Lepidoptera (Class 
Insecta) lot 699 contained specimens of four common and very distinct 
species of the Family PIERIDAE, namely :—Papilio rapae Linnaeus, 
1758 (Pieris rapae (Linnaeus, 1758) ), (ii) Papilio crataegi Linnaeus, 
1758 (Aporia crataegi (Linnaeus, 1758) ), (iii) Papilio brassicae 
Linnaeus, 1758 (Pieris brassicae (Linnaeus, 1758) ), and (iv) Papilio 
napi Linnaeus, 1758 (Pieris napi (Linnaeus, 1758) ). The method 
adopted by Meuschen in lot 699 for enumerating the specimens of 
these four species in the Gronovius collection was as follows :— 


699 Rapae, Crataegi, Brassicae, Napi; Geédert groot Witje, 
gepuncteert Witje, groot Witje, geddert klein Witje. Gr. Z. 
Il. n. 746—749. 751, L. sp. 72, 75, 76, 77. E. 6 stuks. 


10. The lot in which the specific trivial name “ quadrata” was 
applied to a species of the genus “Cancer” is lot 789, which is 
described on page 84 of Meuschen’s Museum Gronovianum.* The 


* See plate 1. 
+ See plate}2. 


OPINION 260 av 


first name cited is “CANCER granulatus”’’ and this is followed by 
three other names, separated from one another by commas. These 
names are (i) ‘‘ Arenaria,”’ (ii) ‘‘ minutus ? Quadrata ”’, (iti) ““ Variolata’’. 
Next come four vernacular names, referring (presumably) to the four 
species for which Latin names had just been given. These are followed 
by short Latin diagnoses for the species already referred to as 
** Arenaria’”’ and “‘ Quadrata’’ respectively. Each of these diagnoses 
is preceded by a number (in the first case ‘960’ and in the second 
“963 ’), which refer to the non-binominal work published by 
Gronovius under the title Zoophylacium Gronovianum, a work which 
has been suppressed for all nomenclatorial purposes by the Inter- 
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature acting under its 
plenary powers (Opinion 89, published in 1925). The entry for lot 789 
concludes with further references to the Zoophylacium Gronovianum 
and an indication of the number of specimens to be sold as “‘ 6 stuks ”’. 


11. The examples cited in the preceding paragraphs show that 
Meuschen’s Museum Gronovianum displays a complete lack of con- 
sistency in the presentation of the names of the species enumerated in 
that Catalogue. In some cases the trivial names of species are 
preceded by a generic name in the nominative singular ; in others no 
generic name is cited for the species concerned, the only indication 
of the name of the group or genus to which the species are referred 
being given by occasional cross-headings consisting either of a single 
word in the nominative plural (as Quadrupedia, Solenes, etc.) or of 
two words also in the nominative plural (as “ Cancri Monoculi”’ on 
page 83). Again, some lots are confined to a single species, while 
others include two or more specific trivial names, no indication being 
given to show whether Meuschen regarded each name cited as being 
the name of one of the species comprised in the lot (as he certainly 
did in the case of lot 699) or whether he considered some of these 
names as synonyms of other names previously enumerated in the 
. description of the contents of the lot concerned. 


12. The system of nomenclature followed by Meuschen in the 
- Museum Gronovianum is naturally the system of nomenclature 
employed by Gronovius, since Meuschen’s booklet is no more than a 
sale Catalogue of the Gronovius collection. It is probable indeed that 
the names, diagnoses, and references given by Meuschen in his 
Catalogue represent no more than the transcription of the labels 
written by Gronovius himself for the explanation and display of his 
collection. Accordingly, as was to be expected, the system of nomen- 
clature employed by Meuschen in his Museum Gronovianum is identical 
with that employed fifteen years earlier by Gronovius in his Zoo- 
phylacium Gronovianum, that is to say : Meuschen, like Gronovius, 
recognised the concept of the genus (for example, Cancer, Papilio, 
etc.) and grouped in each genus those species which he regarded as 
falling within the generic definition. Within each genus Meuschen 
(like Gronovius) cited species sometimes under a single specific trivial 


DTD OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


name (in most cases specific trivial names given by Linnaeus in the 
Syst. Nat)., sometimes under polyverbal specific trivial names of the 
type habitually used in zoological works prior to the introduction of 
the binominal system of nomenclature by Linnaeus in 1758. 


13. In the period 1907—10 the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature gave express consideration to the status 
of new names published by Gronovius in 1763 in his Zoophylacium 
Gronovianum. In the Opinion (Opinion 20), in which the Commission 
delivered its conclusions in this matter, it stated that new generic 
names published by Gronovius in the Zoophylacium Gronovianum 
were available under the International Code, because the following 
two conditions were satisfied in that work :—(i) Gronovius applied 
the principles of binary nomenclature! as required by proviso (b) to 
Article 25, because in the Zoophylacium Gronovianum Gronovius 
named “two units or things, genera and species ”’ ; (ii) Gronovius 
used a uninominal (i.e. univerbal) system of nomenclature for genera 
as required by Article 2 of the International Code. Nothing was 
said in Opinion 20 regarding the status of new specific trivial names 
published by Gronovius in the Zoophylacium Gronovianum, but the 
criteria applied by the Commission in that Opinion in determining the 
question whether the generic names first published in that work are 
available under the Régles Internationales must apply also to the 
question whether new specific trivial names first published on that 
occasion are so available. In the case of generic names, the Commis- 
sion guided itself by Article 25 (as regards the nature of the system 
of nomenclature employed) and Article 2 (as regards the application 
by Gronovius of that system to a particular class of name, i.e. to 
generic names). Accordingly, these two criteria apply also to the new 
specific trivial names published by Gronovius in the Zoophylacium 
Gronovianum. Gronovius’s specific trivial names clearly satisfy 
proviso (b) to Article 25 to precisely the same extent as do his generic 
names. When, however, his specific trivial names are examined in 
relation to Article, 2 it is found that some are binominal combinations 
as required by that Article, while others are of the polyverbal type 
prevalent prior to 1758. Both types of name were regarded by 
Gronovius as equally proper. While, therefore, Gronovius applied 
the principles of binary nomenclature as defined by Opinion 20, he did 


1 The discussion in the foregoing passage of the ruling given in Opinion 20 in 
relation to the meaning of the expression ‘‘ nomenclature binaire”’ (binary 
nomenclature), as used in Proviso (b) to Article 25 of the Régles has been 
rendered irrelevant by the decision of the Thirteenth International Congress 
of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (a) that the expression “‘ nomenclature binaire”’ 
possesses the same meaning as the expression “‘ nomenclature binominale ”’ 
and (b) to substitute the latter expression for the ambiguous expression 
“nomenclature binaire”’’, wherever that expression occurred in the Régles 
(1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 64—66). At the same time the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature cancelled Opinion 20 for all except 
historical purposes. 


OPINION 260 273 


not follow for species a binominal system of nomenclature as required 
by Article 2. Accordingly, new specific trivial names published by 
Gronovius in the Zoophylacium Gronovianum, unlike new generic 
names published in that work, are not available under the Régles 
Internationales and have, therefore, no status under the Law of Priority 
as from the date of being so published. Since, as already pointed out, 
the system of nomenclature employed by Meuschen in 1778 in the 
Museum Gronovianum is identical with that employed by Gronovius 
himself in 1763 in his Zoophylacium Gronovianum, no new specific 
trivial name used by Meuschen in the first-named work has any status 
under the Law of Priority as from the date (1778), on which it was so 
used. 


14. Quite apart from the question whether in the Museum 
Gronovianum Meuschen applied the principles of binary nomenclature, 
it is necessary to consider whether that work was ever published 
(“ divulgué dans une publication ’?) within the meaning of Article 25 
of the Régles Internationales. The exact meaning to be attached to 
the expression “ divulgué dans une publication ’’ as used in Article 25 
has never been clearly defined, although the question has been under 
consideration by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- 
clature for some years and clearly should be taken up again by the 
Commission after the end of the war®. In the meanwhile, it must be 
noted that a start was made in the clarification of this problem in 
Opinion 15 of the Commission, published in 1910. In that Opinion the 
Commission laid it down that ‘‘ Publication, in the sense of the Code, 
consists in the public issue of printed matter”. This decision was 
re-affirmed in Opinion 51 (published in 1912), when the Commission 
added the explanation that “the qualifying word ‘ public’ in this 
definition [i.e. in the definition given in Opinion 15] indicates that the 
printed matter in question is not intended for special persons only or 
for a limited time, but that it is given to the world, or used in the nature 
of a permanent scientific record ”’. 


15. On the basis of the foregoing definition of the meaning to be 
applied to the expression “divulgué dans une publication’”’, the 
International Commission decided (in Opinion 51) that the sale 
catalogue of the collection of shells made by de Calonne, usually 
known as the Museum Calonnianum, was not published within the 
meaning of Article 25 of the Régles Internationales and therefore 
that new names included in it possessed no rights under the Law 
of Priority. Meuschen’s Museum Gronovianum resembles the Museum 


2 At the time when the above paper was written, the only substantive text of the 
Régles Internationales (the International Code) was the French text, the English, 
German and Italian texts being no more than translations of the substantive 
(French) text. The expression here quoted is the expression used in the French 
text of Article 25. : 

3 A full definition of the expression “‘ divulgué dans une publication’? was 
inserted in the Régles by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, 
Paris, 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 215—221). 


274 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


Calonnianum in all relevant respects: it is a sale catalogue of the 
collection of the deceased collector ; the nomenclature used in it is 
based upon the nomenclature used by the deceased collector ; it was 
intended for special persons only (i.e. prospective purchasers of portions 
of the collection) ; it was intended for use only during a limited time 
(i.e. during the period immediately preceding the sale of the collection 
and during the actual period of the sale) ; it was not “ given to the 
world as a permanent scientific record”. In view, therefore, of 
Opinion 51, it is clear that Meuschen’s Museum Gronovianum (like 
the Museum Calonnianum) was not “ divulgué dans une publication ” 
in the sense in which that expression is used in Article 25 of the Régles 
Internationales. \t follows that no new name (whether a generic name 
or a specific trivial name), which first appeared in the Museum 
Gronovianum possesses any rights under the Law of Priority as from 
the date (1778) of such appearance. 


16. The position as regards Meuschen’s Museum Gronovianum may 
be summarised as follows :— 


(1) Whichever may ultimately be found to be the correct meaning 
of the expression “ nomenclature binaire ’* as used in proviso 
(b) to Article 25 of the Régles Internationales, no specific 
trivial name which first appeared in Meuschen’s Museum 
Gronovianum possesses any rights under the Law of Priority 
as from the date (1778) of such appearance, since even under 
the wider of the two possible interpretations of the above 
expression (i.e. the interpretation embodied in Opinion 20), 
those names do not satisfy the requirements of Articles 2 and 
25 of the Régles Internationales, when read together as required 
by Opinion 20. 


(2) Even if the specific trivial names used by Meuschen in the 
Museum Gronovianum had throughout been formed in the 
strictest binominal form, they would nevertheless have 
possessed no rights under the Law of Priority, since 
Meuschen’s Museum Gronovianum was not published 
(‘‘ divulgué dans une publication”’) in the manner required 
by Article 25 of the Régles Internationales. 


2. Recommendation submitted to the Commission: At the same 
time Mr. Hemming submitted in a note annexed to the re-issue 
of Opinion 13 as Note 8 (paragraph 9(3)), the following 


4 At the time when the above paper was written, the only substantive text of the 
Régles Internationales (the International Code) was the French text, the 
English, German and Italian texts being no more than translations of the 
substantive (French) text. The expression here quoted is the expression 
used in the French text of Article 25. 


OPINION 260 275 


recommendation for consideration by the International Com- 
mission, namely that it should :— 


ey 


(3) render an Opinion as follows on the nomenclatorial status 
of Meuschen, 1778, Museum Gronovianum :— 


The Museum Gronovianum by Friedrich Christian Meuschen 
issued in 1778 is a sale catalogue of the zoological, botanical 
and mineral collections formed by Laurentius Theodorus 
Gronovius, who died in 1777. It was intended for special 
persons only (i.e. prospective purchasers) and was intended 
for use for only a limited time (i.e. during the period 
immediately preceding and during the sale) ; it was not given 
to the world as, or used in the nature of, a permanent scientific 
record. None of the tests laid down in Opinion 51 as the 
criteria for determining whether a zoological work has been 
published within the meaning of Article 25 of the Régles 
Internationales is, therefore, satisfied by Meuschen’s Museum 
Gronovianum. Accordingly, no name which first appeared in 
Meuschen’s Museum Gronovianum possesses any rights under 
the Law of Priority as from the date of such appearance. 


eee ee ee ce ee ee eo eee we ew eC OOOO 


Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 


3. The re-issue of Opinion 13 and the accompanying notes 
were sent to the printer in May 1945, but, owing to difficulties 
arising from paper rationing, shortage of labour at the printing 
works and similar causes publication did not actually taken place 
until 28th February 1947 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 
1 : 207—234). Mr. Hemming’s Note 7, quoted in paragraph 1 
of the present Opinion, which was accompanied by two plates 
giving facsimiles of pages of Meuschen’s Museum Gronovianum, 
appeared on pp. 219—227 of the re-issue of Opinion 13; the 
recommendation quoted in paragraph 2 above appeared on 
page 231. 


276 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


4. On 27th February 1948, Dr. Fenner A. Chace, Jr. (Curator, 
Division of Marine Invertebrates, United States National Museum, 
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) in a letter mainly concerned with the 
question of the availability of the name Cancer quadratus Fabricius, 
1787, referred as follows to the application by Mr. Hemming 
for a ruling that Meuschen’s Museum Gronovianum is not an 
available work for the purposes of zoological nomenclature :— 
““T am in complete agreement with you that this publication has 
no nomenclatorial standing ”’. 


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 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, summarising 
the introductory statement made by the Acting President (Mr. 
Francis Hemming) and the discussion which then ensued :— 


THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) 
said that, in view of the decision taken during the present Session 
that the expression “‘ nomenclature binaire”’ used up till then in 
the Régles had a meaning identical with the expression “ nomen- 
clature binominale’”’ (by which it was now to be replaced), it 
was evident from this point of view also that the Museum 
Gronovianum of Meuschen failed to satisfy the requirements of 
the Régles and must therefore be rejected for nomenclatorial 
purposes. 


IT WAS GENERALLY AGREED in discussion that the 
reproduction in facsimile of pages of the Museum Gronovianum 
contained in Secretary Hemming’s paper on this subject made it 


OPINION 260 DT 


absolutely clear that in that work Meuschen had not applied the 
principles of binominal nomenclature (as required by Proviso (b) 
to Article 25) and therefore that the above work was not 
available under the Rég/es. It was evident also that it had never 
been published in the sense of Article 25 and that for this reason 
also the Museum Gronovianum was not an available work, and 
that names, as appearing in it, possessed no status in zoological 
nomenclature. 


6. 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 (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, 
Conclusion 52) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 571—573) :— 


THE COMMISSION agreed :— 


(1) that the work by Meuschen (F.C.) issued in 1778 under the 
title Museum Gronovianum, was not available for 
nomenclatorial purposes under the Régles (a) because 
(by having been printed for special persons only and 
for a special occasion only, and not having been issued 
as a document to be used in the nature of a permanent 
scientific record) it could not be regarded as having 
been duly published within the meaning of Article 25, 
and (b) because in this work Meuschen had not applied 
the principles of binominal nomenclature, as prescribed 
in Proviso (b) to the aforesaid Article, and therefore 
that no name acquired any rights under the Régles 
by reason of having appeared in the above work ; 


(2) to render an Opinion recording the decision specified 
in (1) above. 


7. The decision taken in the present case was reported to, 
and approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth 


278 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Sixth 
Meeting held on Monday, 26th July 1948 Lae Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 5 : 120). 


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 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 decision 
applies to past, as well as to future, decisions by the International 
Commission in cases of this kind, the opportunity presented by 
the preparation of the present Opinion has been taken to record 
the insertion in the foregoing Official Index of the title of 
Meuschen’s Museum Gronovianum of 1778. 


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 
accordingly hereby rendered in the name ‘of the said International 
Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary 


Opinions Decl. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 5. 


Facsimile of page 84 of Meuschen, 1778, ‘‘ Museum Gronovianum 


84 


' 786 


. Infe&a. 


Gr. Z. II. n. 098, LZ. g. 278. fp. 1, 2. 95%. | 
Loe. 270-/P- 23. l.en E. 5 a ee 
cancer Maenas, Pelagicus; Jur. Strandkrab , 
Steekelkrab. Gr. Z. Ile. 955. 956, L. /p. 222 
19. Ié. 2 ftuks. 


787 CANCER Pelagicus, Pagurus ; Strand-krab, Zee- 


788 


Krab. Gr. 2. It n. 950.907, Lf. 19.27. FO 
2 ftuks. 

CANCER Articulatus , Porcellina , Orbicularis; Rug. 
geleede Krab, genecpe Krab, gewelvde Krab ; 
(957. Orbicularis: tborace laewt latiu/culo fabeon-| 
vexo, marginibus anticis utringue ferratis: pedibus 
natatorio- cufortis. ( Articulatus: tbherace lateribus 

Jpinofis , cbelis fupra muricatis , /pinis fex apice nigris. 

Gr. Z. il. n. 958. 957, L. jp. 23? Sc. 5 ftuks. - 


789 cancer granulatus, Arefaria, minutus? Qua- 


790 


791 


drata, Variolata; Korrelige Krab, Zandkorrelige 
Krab , Vierkande Krab, Pokkige Krab. (060, 
Arenaria: tborace latiusculo convexo laevi , undi« 
que emarginato, pojlice contra@liore pedes non con. 
tegente: manibus crijlatis. (963. Quadrata: tbo- 
yace quadrato , iMlegerrimo, margine acutiusculo: 
manibus aequalibus minimis ; pedibus comprejfts cur- 
fortis. Gr. Z. Ul. n. o§9. 960. 962. 963, L. /p. 
26? 8? &c. I. 6 ftuks. 
canceR Rhombus, Vocans, Grapfus; Vierhoekige 
Krab, Zand- Krab, Stompneus- Krab, ( 964. Rbom- 
bus: tborace lato quadrato lasvt integerrimo : manibus | 
inaegnalibus , minimis : pedibus curfortis compre fis. 
eee Il. n. 964-966, L. fp. 14. $3. &e. 1. en E | 
7 {tuks. , 
CANCER Longicornus , rubefcens , fpinofa, macu- 
lata, Corona Imperialis; Langfpriet- Krab, rood- 
agtig Krabbetje,; Hairig Krabbetje, roodgevlakce 
Krab, Keyzerskroon Krab. (970. Spinoja: bir/u 
tus, tborace brevt, lato, mutico: manu aliera majo- 
re, tborace angufliore , pedibus cus/oriis longiore. 
(972. Corona dimperialis: therace latiusculo rugofo , 
antice utringque obfolete tribulo : manibus. pedtbusque 
aequalibus rugofs jupre carinato + compreffs, Seba 3 1 i 
: abd. 


Plate |. 


99 


Opinions Decl. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 5. Plate: 


Facsimile of page 94 of Meuschen, 1778, ‘‘ Museum Gronovianum ”’ 


a 
1 


04 Teftacea. 


865 Anatinus, Eenden-Moffel; Pittorum, Verfhou- 
der. G. Z. Il. 2. 1090. 1004, L. fp. 28. 258. Drie 

doubletren. 
866 Anatinus, Eenden-Moflel, /peciei varietas n. 864. 
| Twee doubletten; vry grooc. | 
867 Vulfella, Baardkoyper. Gr. Z. 111. ». 1095, L. fo. 
31. Een doubler. a 


SOLEN ES. 


($68 Vagina rubra , Indifche roode Goot. Gr. Z. Ill. 
nm. 1096, vee 33- Een doublet. 
869 Siliqua, Meflehecht; Enfis? Suiker-Peultje. Gr. 
Z. lll. m. 1097. 1098, L. /p. 94. 35. Twee dou- | 
bletten. : = 
$70 Radiatus violaceus, Blaauwe Zonneftraal. Gr. Z. III. 
| n. 10990, L. /p. 98. Een doublet, vry groot. 
$71 Radiatus violaceus, Blasuwe Zonneftraal. Gr. & 
L. ut fupra. wee doublecten, iets kleinder, | 
(872 Strigilatus rofeo fufcus ,roodachtige Bruine Zonne- — 
| ftraal. Gr. Z. lli.n. 1100, L./p.39. Een doubler, 
wry groot en {choon. : 
873 Anatinus, altoos ligeende Lantern. Cr. Z. Ill. x. 
| 1101, L. /p. go. Ken doubler. - 
$74 Vefpertina, Daalende Zonneftraal ; Strigilatus,Gaa- 
| pende Zonneftraal. Gr. Z.III. n. 1100. &c, L fp. 
9, Lift. T.417. fig. 261, d@ Argenuille T. 22. fig. 1. 
wee doubleccen. 


2 L LN ae. 


875 Lingua Felis, Kacce- Tong. Gr. 2 IIL nm. 1002, ~ 
- L, fp.45. Een doublet. 

876 Scobinata, Robbe - Tong , of Sagryne Tyger-Tong.. 

L. fp. 64. Ken doubler. see 

877 Virgata, Roode Zonneftraal , gevoorend; Gla- — 

bra, giadde Tong. Gr. Z. lil. n. 1103. 1104, LL 

‘fp. 46. &¢. Twee doublecren. 
878 Fragilis, Kraakende; Fucata, Geblankette; Gla- 

"bra, Gladde Tong. G. Z, if. n. 1105. 1106. ee a 
fp. 


OPINION 260 279 


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 Sixty (260) of the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature. 


Done in London, this Twenty-Second 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.c, CBE. /~ =: 

Secretary to the Commission {/ is or 
oe : f 

=, oc 
VOLUME 5. Part 22. Pp. 281—296, 1 facsimile \2 Luis 
QZ 
OPINION 261 


Rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of the Index to 
the Zoophylacium Gronovianum of Gronovius prepared 
by Meuschen (F.C.) and published in 1781 


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 10th August, 1954 


INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 261 


A. The Officers of the Commission 


President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural History), 
Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England). 

Vice-President: Dr. James L. Peters (Museum of Comparative Zoology 
Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.). 

Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London, England). 


B. The Members of the Commission 


Class 1949 
Senor Dr. Angel CaBrerA (La Plata, Argentina). 
Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary to the Commission). 
Dr. Karl JorDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, 
Tring, Herts, England) (President of the Commission). 
Dr. Th. MorTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). 
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia). 


Class 1952 

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil). 

Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.). 

Professor Lodovico di CAPorIACCcO (University of Parma, Italy). 

Professor J. R. DyMonpb (University of Toronto, Canada). 

Dr. James L. Peters (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, 
Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). 

Dr. ay 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. 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). 

Protest ere L. UsiInGer (University of California, Berkeley, California, 


OPINION 261 


REJECTION FOR NOMENCLATORIAL PURPOSES OF 
THE INDEX TO THE ‘* ZOOPHYLACIUM GRO- 
NOVIANUM” OF GRONOVIUS PREPARED 
BY MEUSCHEN (F.C.) AND PUBLISHED IN 
1781 


RULING :—(1) In the Index, published in 1781, to 
Gronovius, 1763—1781, Zoophylacium Gronovianum of 
Gronovius, Meuschen (F. C.) did not consistently apply 
the principles of binominal nomenclature, as required 
by Proviso (b) to Article 25, and this Index is therefore 
to be rejected for nomenclatorial purposes as well as 
the main text of the Zoophylacium itself. 


(2) The following works or parts of works are hereby 
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Works in Zoological Nomenclature as Works Nos. 11 
and 12 respectively: (a) Gronovius 1763—1781, Zoo- 
phylacium Gronovianum ; (b) the Index to Gronovius, 
1763—1781, Zoophylacium Gronovianum prepared by 
Meuschen and published in 1781. 


I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE 


On 28th July 1937, Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the 
International Commission, prepared a paper drawing attention 
to the ambiguity in the wording of the Commission’s Opinion 89, 
as to the extent to which the Plenary Powers were then used to 
suppress the Zoophylacium Gronovianum for nomenclatorial 
purposes, and raising the question of the availability of names 
published in the Index to the Zoophylacium prepared by 
Meuschen (F.C.) and published in 1781. Mr. Hemming did not 
at that time submit his paper to the Commission as an application 
for a decision, taking the view that it would be premature to do 
so, having regard to the fact that the question involved could not 
be settled until after a decision had been reached by the next 


284 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


International Congress of Zoology on the question whether 
names published by authors who did not apply the principles of 
binominal nomenclature but who did recognise that the name of 
a species must be so constructed as to recognise the twofold 
concept represented (i) by the species itself and (ii) by the next 
higher category (i.e. the genus) were acceptable under Proviso 
(b) to Article 25. At that time the International Commission was 
under instructions from the last previous Congress—the Twelfth 
International Congress of Zoology, Lisbon, 1935—to prepare 
a considered report on the availability of names published by 
so-called “ binary ” but non-binominal authors (Lisbon Session, 
5th Meeting, Conclusion 3) (1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 45). 
In 1948 a question arose in connection with another case—that 
of the specific name of the Sand Crab—the answer to be given 
to which depended, in part, on the availability of names published 
in Meuschen’s Index to Gronovius’ Zoophylacium Gronovianum. 
As it was desired to obtain a decision on this latter question from the 
International Commission at the Session which was then shortly 
to be held in Paris, Mr. Hemming decided to include the question 
of the availability of Meuschen’s Index to the Zoophylacium in 
the Agenda to be presented to the Commission at that Session, 
and for this purpose submitted, as the application in this case, the 
paper which he had prepared in July 1937. That paper, to which 
the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 311 had been given, was as 
follows :— 


Meuschen’s Index to the ‘‘ Zoophylacium Gronovianum ”’ of Gronovius 
published in the period 1763—1781 


By FRANCIS HEMMING 
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 


In the course of my study of the old literature for the purpose of 
compiling the completest possible Catalogue of the butterflies of the 
Holarctic Region, I have recently had occasion to study carefully the 
Zoophylacium Gronovianum of Gronovius published in the period 
1763—1781. This book and its index—the latter compiled by F. C. 
Meuschen—are of importance, for there are new names in the latter, 
which have been completely neglected. In consequence, the acceptance 
of these names would lead to most undesirable and quite pointless 


Figure on opposite page 

The figure given on the opposite page is a faseimile reproduction on a reduced 
scale of a page of the Index to the Zoophylacium gronovianum of Gronovius 
prepared by Meuschen (F.C.) and published in 1781. 


INDEX ZOOPHYTORUM. 


fees Jpongiofa, 2 . 0.1745 
A'troites? ° - 1.1739 
Aitroites. . . n. 1740 
Aftroites ceratifurmis, . . n.1744 
Ajtroites glbefus, .  . 1.1738 
Aftroites irrezularis. e + 1.1750 
Afirntes major, . . . 1.1739 
Ajiroites oblungus, . .M.1740 
Ajironcs Witfionienfis, . n.1740 
Auris Elephentis. . . Me1735 
Awis klepbantis . . 0.1747 
Bafta. : ° . M1766 
Bajta laut. . - ni76t 
Bajta marina, = , . M.1761 
Batu-parudan, . » 1.1730 
Batuswingit, . . . 2.1752 
Bau - mautu, ° SPD h ALE 
Blaauw Pyp-Coraal. . . n.1722 
Biad Spons- Gewas. . . 0.1706 
Bloed Coraal. : » n.1713 
Buletus marinus. . . n.1756 
Bonnet de Neptune... . n.¥728 
Bottlebrush- Coralline, . . n.1€$2 
Brain{tone. - - 1.1730 
Braffica Pompejaza. . . 1.1730 


Breed geblaadert Hoornwier.n, 1665 
Broad leaved Hornwrek. n. 1665 


Brood - fpons. - - 1.1770 
Cadix~- Coraal. 5 oh D5 
Caefpitofa, ‘ . n. £748 


Calbubaar puti parampuam. n.1736 
Calamaris. . . . « n.1671 
€alcarea. n. 1724 


Callopilophorum Mathioli. n. 178E 
Calycularis. . 2 . . 0.1745 
Canang-Kede. » +» » 1.1718 
Carangiulat. e . n 1727 
Carang- Mera. . «© « M1715 
Carangrede. A - 0.1718 
Cariophyllitcs, . . . m.1740 
Cariophyllum faxeum. . . n.174/ 
Catoneum. - - 1.1753 
Cellepra,  . « «+ M1721 
CELLULAKIA. - - Pp. 355 
Cellulofa. ed) 6 RGR 
Ceratophyta. - n. 1700 
Coratophytum flasellum, n. 1698 
Cervicornis. . - n.1720 
Champignon de Mer, . . 1.1727 
—Chirotheca marina 5. 1.1771 


Chuana faxea. : o N.1747 


Chiubraa. n.1712 
Coat of Mail Coraline. n. 1670 
Cobubaar- Puti. . . . 1.1716 
Coerulea. avai) vanelle Lee 
Coraal Mos. . Sell 775 
ConaLLina. ° - p. 378 
Corallina. . n. 1664 
‘Corallina Anglica cole. n. 1775 
Corollina articulata, . . n.166$ 


Corallina articulata... . 
Corallina aftaci cerniculor. 


Nn. 1780 


aeinula. a4 « “ww DL LOSS 
Corallina brashiata. . . .. M.1777 
Corultina brachiata. . . . m. 1780 
Corallina caniidiffina,.. n.1776 
Corallina caniiliris, at 770 
Coraliina ce'lifera, . . n.1670 
Corallina crijlata, .» . D.1776 


Corallina caule angulato 
- 1.1632 


rigido, + «6 


Corallina dichotoma. . .. n.1776 
Corallina dichotoma. ... n.t780 
Corallina erecta. . . n.1673 
Corallina falcata, . . n.1688 
Corallina falciformis, . . n. 1687 
Corallina fijiulofa. . n. 1668 
Corallina fiytulfa. . . n.169 
Corallina fijtulofa. 5 fats rey) 
Corallina frayiliffima? . n.17$0 
Corallina fructicofa. - » 1.1688 
Corallina fructicofa. Ais. wh Meee 
Corallina fructicofa. «© . 0. 1699 
Corallina fructicofa, . . n.1700 
Corallina fructicufa. . . n.37ot 
Corallina genicuiata. . . n.1670 


Corallina geniculcta, . . 
Corallina latifolia. . . 
Corallina lignofa. . . 
Corallina Metitenfis. . . 
Corallina muscofa. . 
Corallina muscufa. . . 
Curallina muscofa pennata. 
Corailina nigra. . . . 
Corallina nodsfa.  « 

Corallina cpzutioides. . 


CLO Ree 2. 


Sarees 


1678 
1774 
1698 
1672 
1676 
1633 
n. 16 t 
171 
WZ at 
177+ 


Corallina peinata. . 5 fy ® 
Corallina pennaia. . . 1687 
Corallina pennata. 1775 
Corallina pumila... -1077 
Coralliia rubens. . . . N. 1700 
Corallina rubens. » . . n.1779 
Corallina fquamata, . . 0.1775 
Corallina {psrmophora. . n.1776 
Corallina fubbipinnata. . 1.1775 
Corallina trichotoma, « . 0.1755 
Coral’ina tubularia, « «» M.1676 
Corallina tubulofa, . . 1.1779 
Corallina tubulrfa, . . 1.178% 
Corallina veficulata,. . . 0.1676 
Coralline , white Wormfeed.n. 1775 
Coralliolum. 4 . 1.1719 
Corallium album. . . M.:!749 
Corallium artisulatum. . . n.17106 
Corallium afperum, . . 0.1720 
Corallium afperum, . . M1723 
Corallinin brachiatum.. . N.1723 
Corallium brachiatum. =. n. 1730 
Corallium candicans. . . 1.1723 
Coralliuin capiilaceum. . . D.1780 
Coralliun cerebri. . . 061730 
Coralltum Corns Cervi. . 0.1749 
Corallium cretaceum. . . Ne 1724 
Corallina dichotoma. . . n.1776 
Corallium digitatum, . . 1.1723 

Corallium cxtremitate ra- 
mofum. - n. 1723 
Corallinm fillulofan. . . M1746 
Corallium flavefcens. . . 0.1736 
Corallium foliatum, . . . 1.1693 
Corallium fungoides ovale. n. 1731 
Corallium geniculatum. . n.1715 
Corallium glabrum, . . n.1724 
Coralliu:n lapideum. .  . 0.1719 
Coralliam Littoreum. . . n.1716 
Coraliium muricazum. . . 1.1749 
Corallium nigrum. . . 0.1706 
- 0.1756 


Curallium nodofum. . 
Hhh hh 2 


Corallium nodulofum, . . 0.1724 
Corallium poiyfchides, .. 0.1723 
Corallium porofum. . «1.1749 
Corallium porofum planum, n.1723 
Corallium pumilum... . n,1724 
Curallium punclatum, . . n.i744 
Corailium raubicundiffimum, n. 1713 
Corallium rubrum. . . 0.1713 
Corallium rubrum. . nevis 
Coralliuin ficllatum, . . n.1746 
Corathum fiellatum, . . n.i75t 
Corailium truncatum. . . 1.1736 
Corailium tuberofam, . . n.1749 
Corallium tubulatum, .. 0.1752 
Corallium verrucofum., . . 0.1744 
Corallium verrucofam. . . 1.17.46 
Corallulenirin =. . . n.1600 
Coraliolendron. 3 BUA GS 
Corallo.Jendron na Ran florar: n.i7is 
Coralloides. . - n.1736 
Curallides epifponciofa. . n.1760 
Coralioides ar.mulofa. . . 1708 
Coraltonies Phlippenfis... nN. 1722 
Coralli:m verrucofam. . . M17 }4 
Corallizm verrucofum. . . n.1748 
Criftata. 5 ‘ e n.1776 
Cruttucea. F o WI72L 
Crujia marina, 2. 6 0.1718 
Crattulenta, n. 1060 
Cruttule sntaria £. Lapidofa, n. 1666 
Cuprefina. 2. 2. . n.1683 
Cupreffis marina, .  . n.1710 
Cutogna@a marina. - N.1753 
Cotyledon foliofum. . . ne178E 
Coxcomb -Corallina, . . n.1776 
Cydunium, 6g . w 21753 
Dimicornis. « .  . m1744 
Dead man’s toe. 4 » N.1757 
Dentalium arcuatum, . . n.1763 
ichotoma. - NI7T4 
Dicp gekerfé SterreeCoraal n. 1742 
Digiiata. c *  & Natza7 
D:zitatum. - - N.1757 
Difcoides. 3 - M1734 
Doude Mans-Duim. . . n.1757 
Dreadagtig Corallyn, . . n. 1669 
E:ckboornftaarts Corallyn, nv 1683 
Elandshoorn. é - nei71¢ 
E'ephantotus. * te Dros 
Er ca marina. . e NLI70T 
WICO ess at he el a DG 
Epatica del Pavone. . . 0.1773 
enantio muricatum.  n. 1702 
Epicorallam reticulatum., n. 1698 
Eninge Plate. c - 1.1768 
Kescuana. A = (ps 3 

Efchara abrotunvides. . . f ui 
Efchara divaricata? .. n.1780 
Efchara fifkulofa. . . 0.1668 
Efchara foliacea, . , N. 1663 
Ejchara foliacea. .» . on. 1667 
Efchara frondefcens? . . n. 1664. 
Efchara iapidefcens. . . 0.1660 
Efchara porofa. . . . m172K 
Efchara ramea, . =, 1.1668 
Efchara retiformis. . . nit 718 
Falcata. 3 © 66 1.1684 
Fafcialis. . . - 1.1663 
Fafcicuiaris, . . . mazar 


Faz 


286 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


name-changing, which it would be desirable to prevent by asking the 
International Commission to intervene with its Plenary Powers. 


2. The Zoophylacium Gronovianum has twice been considered by the 
International Commission. but in spite of this—and, to some extent, 
because of this—the status of this work is by no means clear. The 
first occasion on which the Commission considered this book was 
on an application submitted in the period 1907—1910 by Dr. David 
Starr Jordan. The Commission’s decision on this application was 
embodied in its Opinion 20, published in 1910 (Smithson. Publ. 1938 ; 
48—50). This was the famous Opinion in which the Commission 
propounded, and gave official recognition to, the view that two 
classes of author are to be recognised as having published available 
works for the purposes of Proviso (b) to Article 25, namely (i) 
binominal authors ; (ii) authors, who, though not binominal, never- 
theless recognised that the name of a species should be so constructed 
as to give clear recognition of the principle that such a name should 
express two concepts, namely that of the species itself and that 
of the next higher grouping (i.e. the genus). This latter class was made 
up of the so-called “‘ binary ” authors. Under this decision it followed 
that the generic names in the Zoophylacium were available names. 
It did not follow—but it has sometimes been claimed—that, where 
Gronovius applied to any given species a name which happened to 
consist of a binominal combination, the specific trivial name so used 
as well as the generic name was also available for nomenclatorial 
purposes. 


3. The second occasion on which the Commission considered the 
Zoophylacium was.on a further application by Dr, David Starr Jordan, 
who, appalled by what he called the ** stumbling blocks ” represented 
by the so-called “‘ binary’? but non-binominal authors, now sought to 
cut the knot, so far as the literature of ichthyology was concerned, by 
appealing to the International Commission to use its Plenary Powers 
to suppress the works in question. One of the works included in this 
application was the Zoophylacium of Gronovius. In Dr. Jordan’s 
application this work was incorrectly cited as ““ Gronow, 1763, Museum 
Ichthyologicum, 1763”, but this was later corrected (apparently by 
Dr. Stiles, as Secretary to the Commission) by the substitution of the 
word “ Zoophylacium’”’ for the word “ Ichthyologicum’’. So far 
as the foregoing work was concerned, Dr. Jordan’s request was 
granted by the Commission in its Opinion 89, published in 1925 
(Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 3) : 27—33), under which the 
Zoophylacium was suppressed for nomenclatorial purposes by the use 
of the Plenary Powers. 


4. The question which has next to be considered is the scope of the 
decision taken by the Commission in regard to the Zoophylacium 
in the foregoing Opinion. Did that decision cover only the portion 
of the above work published in 1763 (the date cited in Dr. Jordan’s 
application) ? Or did it cover the whole work ? If so, did it cover also 


OPINION 261 287 


the index to the Zoophylacium prepared after the death of Gronovius by 
F. C. Meuschen? The whole of the Zoophylacium prepared by 
Gronovius himself is on the same plan, and it would be difficult to 
make out an argument in favour of the view that the decision by the 
Commission covered only the first of the volumes of this work, though 
it is no doubt true that, in submitting his application, Dr. Jordan, as 
an ichthyologist, was interested personally only in securing the 
suppression of the portion relating to the Class Pisces. The ambiguity 
on this point in the wording of the Commission’s Opinion 89 is an 
unfortunate defect and one which at some convenient time the 
Commission should be asked to remedy. 


5. In view of the fact that, as explained above, the lack of clarity 
in the decision given in Opinion 89 leaves it open to argument whether 
in that Opinion the whole, or only the 1763 portion, of the 
Zoophylacium was then suppressed under the Commission’s Plenary 
Powers means also that it is a matter of doubt whether the Index 
to the Zoophylacium prepared by Meuschen was covered by that 
decision. This is the more arguable, having regard to the fact that 
at first sight Meuschen’s Index appears to have been prepared on a 
plan differing from that adopted by Gronovius in the main text, and 
one more closely resembling the binominal method. A careful 
inspection of Meuschen’s index shows, however, that this appearance 
is deceptive and that, in fact he used, in compiling this Index, a system 
of nomenclature which was indistinguishable from that used by 
Gronovius and many other authors of that period, that is, that he 
used a system of nomenclature which was not binominal, though it 
was of the so-called “ binary’ type. This is brought out particularly 
clearly in that part of the Index which bears the title Index 
Zoophytorum, where species are listed under such non-binominal 
names as the following :—Corallina Angelica erecta ; Corallina caule 
angulato rigido. 


6. It is not possible at the present time to form any definite conclusion 
on the availability either (a) of such portion, if any, of the main text 
of the Zoophylacium which may remain unsuppressed under the 
decision given in Opinion 89, or (b) of Meuschen’s Index to that work, 
since this must depend upon the decision to be taken by the next 
International Congress of Zoology on the question of the acceptability 
or otherwise, under Proviso (b) to Article 25, of names published by 
authors who used the so-called “* binary’ but non-binominal type of 
nomenclature, as to which the International Commission were 
instructed at Lisbon in 1935 to prepare a special report!. If the 


1 The Report on the question of the meaning of the expression “‘ nomenclature 
binaire ’’ as used in Proviso (b) to Article 25 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
5 : 152—167) submitted by the Commission in July 1948 was approved by the 
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948. The decision 
‘so taken completely removed all the former doubts regarding the meaning to 
be attached to the foregoing expression and led to the decision by the Paris 
Congress to substitute for that ambiguous expression the perfectly clear 
expression ““ nomenclature binominale ” (1950, Bu//. zool. Nomencl. 4 ; 63—66.) 


288 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


next Congress decides against the acceptance of these “ binary ” 
authors, then the whole of the text of the Zoophylacium, together with 
Meuschen’s Index to that work, will be automatically rejected. If, 
however, the Congress were to decide to uphold the availability of 
names published by “binary” but non-binominal authors—a 
contingency which I regard as unlikely in view of the extreme hostility 
to such a decision displayed in 1930 by the majority of the members 
of the Section on Nomenclature at the Eleventh (Padua) Congress of 
Zoology—it will be necessary to consider the submission to the 
Commission of an application both (i) for a declaration that the decision 
in Opinion 89 is to be read as meaning that the whole of the Zoophyla- 
cium was then suppressed (or, alternatively, if that was not the 
intention of that Opinion, to apply for the use of the Plenary Powers 
to suppress the portion not suppressed under that Opinion), and also 
(ii) for the suppression of Meuschen’s Index. 


Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 


2. In the period 19441945, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary to 
the International Commission, carried out a detailed examination 
of the Commission’s Opinion 13 (1910, Smithson. Publ. 1938 : 
22—24), an annotated re-issue of which was then in preparation. 
In the course of this examination, Mr. Hemming took the view 
that the assumption adopted in the foregoing Opinion that the 
name Cancer quadratus Fabricius, 1793, was invalid as a junior 
homonym was extremely questionable. The applicant in the 
case dealt with in Opinion 13 did not cite any reference in support 
of the foregoing contention, but an examination of the available 
literature suggested to Mr. Hemming that the earlier name which 
the applicant must have had in mind was Cancer quadrata 
Meuschen, 1778, Mus. gronov. : 84, which ante-dated by nine 
years the first publication of the name Cancer quadratus 
Fabricius, which, contrary to the statement in Opinion 13, occurred 
not in 1793 (Ent. syst.) but in 1787 (Mantissa 1 : 315). There 
followed an examination by Mr. Hemming of Meuschen’s 
Museum Gronovianum, which led to the conclusion that that work 
had not been duly published within the meaning of Article 25 and 
further that in it Meuschen had applied a system of nomenclature 
which was not only not binominal but was not even consistently 


OPINION 261 289 


“binary ” in the sense in which that expression was used at that 
time. Mr. Hemming accordingly decided to ask the International 
Commission, inter alia, to render an Opinion rejecting Meuschen’s 
Museum Gronovianum for nomenclatorial purposes. At the same 
time he concluded that for the reasons explained above, the oldest 
available name for the Sand Crab was Cancer quadratus 
Fabricius, 1787. This conclusion, together with the recommenda- 
tion regarding Meuschen’s Museum Gronovianum, was embodied 
in Notes annexed by Mr. Hemming to the re-issue of Opinion 13. 
That re-issue was sent to the printer in May 1945, 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 (Ops. Decls, int. 
Comm. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 207—234). 


3. View expressed by Dr. Fenner A. Chace, Jr. (United States 
National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) : On 27th February 
1948, Dr. Fenner A. Chace, Jr. (Curator, Division of Marine 
Invertebrates, United States National Museum, Washington, 
D.C., U.S.A.) wrote the following letter, in which he suggested 
that consideration should be given to the status of the name 
Cancer quadratus Meuschen, 1781, as published in the Index 
to the Zoophylacium gronovianum of Gronovius, a name which, if 
found to be available, would have priority over Cancer quadratus 
Fabricius, 1787 :— 


It has recently come to my attention that certain workers in the 
United States are following the recommendations outlined in your 
revised version of Opinion 13 (Opinions and Declarations Rendered 
by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, vol. 1, 
pt. 22, February 28 1947, pp. 207—234). 


With the assistance of Dr. L. B. Holthuis of the Leiden Museum 
who is visiting us at present, I have gone over this question in some 
detail. As you state, there is no indication in the original version 
of this Opinion where Cancer quadratus was used prior to Fabricius’ 
use of the name in 1787. You apparently base your argument 
for the validation of Ocypode quadrata on the assumption that this 
name appeared prior to 1787 only in Meuschen’s Museum Gronovianum 
of 1778. I am in complete agreement with you that this publication 
has no nomenclatural standing. You will notice, however, that Miss 
Rathbun in her monograph on the Grapsoid Crabs of America 
(Bulletin 97, U.S. National Museum, 1918, p. 367) mentions C. 


290 - OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


quadratus Meuschen, 1781, as the earliest post-Linnaean valid use of 
this name. 


I have been unable to find the original correspondence relating to 
this case, but I feel reasonably certain that Miss Rathbun refers to 
Meuschen’s index to Gronovius’ Zoophylacium Gronovianum. Although 
this work as a whole, which appeared in 1763, cannot be considered 
binominal, Meuschen’s index, which came out in 1781, is based on 
Linnean principles according to the preface (cf. W. H. Dall, 1923, 
*“F. C. Meuschen in the Zoophylacium Gronovianum. Explanatory 
Note’, Nautilus, vol. 37, pp. 44—52). This index is apparently a 
rare publication, but I have been able to examine a microfilm copy of 
it and find that the name quadratus is there employed. If we accept 
Dall’s conclusion that Meuschen’s index is acceptable nomenclaturally, 
this must be considered a valid use of the name quadratus, and it 
follows that Fabricius’ Cancer quadratus of 1787 is preoccupied. 


It has not been possible for me to cover this question as thoroughly 
as should be done because of the lack of some of these rare publications, 
but I thought that you should be advised about the use of the name in 
this publication before your amended opinion is finally acted upon by 
the Commission. 


1 would appreciate it if you would let me know what further action 
is contemplated. 


4. Statement furnished by Mr. N. D. Riley (British Museum 
(Natural History)), London: On receipt of Dr. Fenner Chace’s 
letter of 27th February 1948, Mr. Hemming invited Mr. N. D. 
Riley (Keeper, Department of Entomology, British Museum 
(Natural History), London), with whom he had discussed the 
problem of Gronovius’ Zoophylacium Gronovianum before the 
war, to re-examine that work and Meuschen’s Index to it, and to 
furnish a report for the consideration of the Commission. Mr. 
Riley kindly consented to undertake this investigation, and on 
15th July 1948 he furnished the following Report :— 


Note on the Nomenclature used by Gronovius in ‘* Zoophylacium 
Gronovianum ”’, in 1763—1781 


By N. D. RILEY 
(British Museum (Natural History), London) 


The Text is completely consistent throughout. Genera are set out 
and given single names (e.g. Papilio, Patella, Murex, etc.) and defined 
either by reference to a previous description, or by the author’s own 
description. 


OPINION 261 291 


Species are consistently defined by the pre-Linnean system, that is, 
by a descriptive phrase or diagnosis (e.g. Serpula tests irregulariter 
contorta, striata, intus concamerata). 


References are consistently given to the work of previous authors. 


The author is consistently binary in taxonomic concept. If the 
uninominal generic names on the one hand, and the descriptive specific 
phrases on the other, be taken as two terms of a single nomenclatorial 
concept, then the author is also binary in respect of his nomenclature. 
Nowhere in the text does the author use a binominal specific name ; 
such names do occur, but only as cited synonyms. 


The Index (1781) contains alphabetically (i) the generic names 
given in the text (ii) other names which, on analysis, prove to be for 
the most part the trivial names given by Linné (Syst, Nat. Eds. 10 
and 12) and some other authors to the species (referred to by number) 
in the text. The great majority of the latter names occur only in the 
Index and not at all in the Text, or, if they are in the text they appear 
there only as synonyms and are italicised in the Jndex to indicate that 
fact. However, there also occur other trivial names which clearly 
are introduced by Gronovius himself and are new as of that date 
(1781), e.g. Abrotonites and Thamiras in Lepidoptera. The application 
of these names is not open to doubt either as to genus or species as they 
refer to the numbered descriptions in the text. Nowhere, however, are 
these generic and trivial names directly associated as binominals. 


Also in the Index, but especially in the section headed Zoophyta, 
there occur many apparent binominals. These are with very few 
exceptions (which appear to be misprints) printed in italics thus 
indicating that the author regarded them as synonyms. On analysis 
these names prove to be (i) real binominals of other authors, quoted 
as synonyms (ii) two words taken out of the descriptive definitions 
used by Gronovius (and other quoted authors) to define the species 
(iii) combinations which may be new or traceable to some source not 
at the moment identifiable. | Very frequently the name which in these 
apparent binominals would seem to be generic in character, appears 
nowhere else in Text or Index as a generic name, but only as some part 
of a descriptive diagnosis. 


It is abundantly clear that the apparent binominals found in the 
Index to Gronovius are not true binominals, but only incidental to 
the compiler’s system of indexing. 


5, At the same time Mr. Riley supplied photostat copies of a 
number of pages from Meuschen’s Index to the Zoophylacium. 
One of these—the page relating to the names of zoophytes, to 


292 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


which Mr. Hemming had referred in paragraph 5 of his paper 
of 28th July 1937—1is annexed to the present Opinion in facsimile 
in order to illustrate the type of nomenclature used by Meuschen 
in this Index. 


6. On receipt of Mr. Riley’s Report and the accompanying 
photostat copies of pages of Meuschen’s Index to the Zoo- 
phylacium, Mr. Hemming placed the following note on the File 
(Z.N.(S.) 311) relating to this case :— 


"Meuschen’ s. Index to the ‘ Zoophylacium Gronovianum ’’ of 
Gronovius, 1763—1781 


By FRANCIS HEMMING 
(Seca to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 


It is clearly desirable that the opportunity presented by the forth- 
coming Session of the International Commission should be taken to 
obtain decisions on the various questions raised in the Notes annexed 
to the re-issues of the older Opinions so far published. If the Com- 
mission is to take the decisions necessary to correct the erroneous 
portions of Opinion 13 (‘‘ The Specific Name of the Sand Crab ”’) 
and to clarify those parts which are at present obscure, it will be 
necessary, in view of Dr. Fenner A. Chace’s letter of 27th February 
1948, to obtain, first, a decision on the question of the availability of 
names published in Meuschen’s Index to the Zoophylacium Gro- 
novianum, a preliminary which I had not realised would be necessary 
when in 19441945 I studied the issues raised in Opinion 13. 


2. In the circumstances I propose to treat my note of 28th July 
1936 as constituting the “‘ statement of the case ’’ and to bring forward 
with it Mr. Riley’s report of 15th July 1948 and the photostat copies 
of pages of Meuschen’s Index furnished by Mr. Riley at the same 
time. 


-3. The proposal that I intend to put to .the Commission is that it 
should reject as not available for nomenclatorial purposes Meuschen’s 
Index to the Zoophylacium, provided that by the time that the 
Commission reaches this item on its Agenda, it has already approved 
and adopted the recommendation that I am submitting in Paper 
LC. (48)2 that it should advise the Paris Congress that the expression 

“nomenclature binaire ” , as used in the Regles, has the same meaning 
as the expression ‘ ‘nomenclature binominale ” and should recommend 


OPINION 261 293 


the Congress to put an end to argument on this subject by substituting 
the latter expression for the expression “ nomenclature binaire”’, 
wherever the latter expression appears in the Régles (i.e. in Articles 25 
and 26). 


4. The adoption of a decision in the foregoing sense in regard to the 
status of names in the Index to the Zoophylacium prepared by Meuschen 
will serve the further useful purpose of making it clear that the whole of 
the text of the Zoophylacium so indexed by Meuschen is unavailable for 
nomenclatorial purposes, since as the Commission made clear in its 
Opinion 20 in 1910 Gronovius did not apply the principles of binominal 
nomenclature in that work. Thus, a decision in the sense suggested 
would clear the air completely by rejecting in toto both the Zoo- 
phylacium of Gronovius published in the period 1763—1781, and also 
the Index of that work prepared by Meuschen and published in 
1781. (it will be noted that, if the Paris Congress takes the line 
recommended as regards the interpretation of the expression 
*“nomenclature binaire’’, one of the effects of its decision will be to 
render unnecessary the action taken by the Commission under the 
Plenary Powers in Opinion 89, for all the works there suppressed are 
non-binominal works which would automatically be invalid under the 
interpretation of the foregoing expression referred to above. In 
such circumstances, it would be a waste of time to investigate the 
extent to which the Plenary Powers were used to suppress Gronovius’ 
Zoophylacium, since that would be a matter of historical interest only, 
without any practical significance). 


IIl.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


7. 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 1948. The 
Commission, after examining the draft Report submitted to it 
by the Secretary, decided to approve and adopt the recommenda- 
tions 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 ”’, 


294 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


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 question of the avail- 
ability for nomenclatorial purposes of the Index to the work 
by Gronovius published in the period 1763—1781 under the. 
title Zoophylacium Gronovianum prepared by Meuschen and 
published in 1781, 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 
29) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 502—504) :— 


THE COMMISSION agreed :— 


(1) that in his Index to Gronovius, 1763—1781, Zoo- 
phylacium Gronovianum, Meuschen (F.C.) had not 
consistently applied the principles of binominal 
nomenclature, as required by Proviso (b) to Article 25 ; 


(2) that, in view of (1) above, no new name published in the 
foregoing Index prepared by Meuschen possessed any 
availability under the Reég/es in virtue of having been 
so published ; 


(3) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified 
in (1) and (2) above. 


8. The decision taken in the present case was reported to, and 
approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth 


OPINION 261 295 


International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Sixth 
Meeting held on Monday, 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 5 : 116). 


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 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 decision 
applies to past, as well as to future, decisions by the International 
Commission in cases of this kind, the opportunity presented by the 
preparation of the present Opinion has been taken to record the 
insertion in the foregoing Official Index of the title of Gronovius’ 
Zoophylacium Gronovianum, 1763—1781, and of the Index to 
that work prepared by Meuschen and published in 1781. 


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 


296 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Inter- 
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of 
all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 


13. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two 
Hundred and Sixty-One (261) of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature. 


Done in London, this Twenty-Third day of December, Nineteen 
Hundred and Fifty-Three. 


_ Secretary to the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 


FRANCIS HEMMING 


I eC ee es 
Printed in England by Mrtcatre & Cooper Limitep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E 2 


OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 
RENDERED BY THE INTER- 
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


Edited by 
FRANCIS HEMMING, cmc, CBE. | 


Secretary to the Commission 


VOLUME 5. Part 23. Pp. 297—328 


OPINION 262 


Determination of the specific name of the Sand Crab — 
(Opinion in replacement of Opinion 13) 


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 Twelve Shillings 
(All rights reserved) 


Issued 10th August, 1954 


INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 262 


A. The Officers of the Commission 


President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural History), 
Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England). 

Vice-President: Dr. James L. Peters (Museum of Comparative Zoology, 
Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.). 

Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London, England). 


B. The Members of the Commission 
Class 1949 

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina). 

Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary to the Commission). 

Dr. Karl JoRDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, 

Tring, Herts, England) (President of the Commission). 

Dr. Th. MORTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). 
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia). 


Class 1952 
Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil). 
Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.). 
Professor Lodovico di CAPoRIACCcO (University of Parma, Italy). 
Professor J. R. DYMOND (University of Toronto, Canada). 
Dr. James L. - PETERS (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, 
Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). 
Dr. oA) E. Voxes (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 MANsSouR (King Fouad University, Cairo, Egypt). 

Professor Z. P. METCALF (North Carolina State College of Agriculture and 
Engineering, University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.). 

Mr. N. D. RiLeEy (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). 

Biot esor Robe L. UsINGerR (University of California, Berkeley, California, 


OPINION 262 


DETERMINATION OF THE SPECIFIC NAME OF THE 
SAND CRAB (‘‘ OPINION ” IN REPLACEMENT OF 
**OPINION ” 13) 


RULING :—(1) The Ruling in regard to the Specific 
Name of the Sand Crab (Class Crustacea, Order Deca- 
poda) given conditionally in Opinion 13 was incomplete 
and, in part, incorrect; accordingly that Opinion is 
hereby cancelled and the Ruling given in it is hereby 
replaced by that set out in (2) to (5) below. 


(2) Contrary to the statement made in Opinion 13, the 
specific name arenarius Catesby in Edwards, 1771, as 
published in the combination Cancer arenarius, would 
not have been the oldest available name for the Sand 
Crab, even if the names in Catesby’s pre-1758 work The 
Natural History of Carolina, as republished in 1771 by 
George Edwards had not been rejected for nomenclatorial 
purposes (by Opinion 259, re-enacting the relevant portion 
of Opinion 13), for the above name would have been 
invalid as a junior homonym of the same specific name 
arenarius Toreen, 1765, as published in the combination 
Cancer arenarius, a name applied to an entirely different 
species found at Queda in the Straits of Malacca, an area 
far removed from that in which the Sand Crab occurs. 


(3) The oldest name for the Sand Crab duly published 
in accordance with the provisions of Article 25 is the name 
quadratus Fabricius, 1781, as published in the combina- 
tion Cancer quadratus. 


300 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


(4) The foregoing binomen had been published twice 
prior to its publication by Fabricius in 1781: first, by 
Meuschen in 1778 in the Museum Gronovianum, second, 
also by Meuschen, in 1781 in the Index to the work by 
Gronovius published in the period 1763—1781 under the 
title Zoophylacium Gronovianum, but both these works 
have been rejected as not being available for nomen- 
clatorial purposes, the Museum Gronovianum in Opinion 
260, the Index to the Zoophylacium Gronovianum in 
Opinion 261. 


(5) In view of (4) above, the specific name quadratus 
Fabricius, 1781, as published in the combination 
Cancer quadratus, is the oldest available name for the 
Sand Crab, and is accordingly hereby placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 76. 


(6) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby 
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Specific Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 18 to 20 
respectively : (a) arenarius Edwards, 1771, as published 
in the combination Cancer arenarius (published in a 
work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes under Opinion 
259) ; (b) quadratus Meuschen, 1778, as published in 
the combination Cancer quadratus (published in a work 
rejected for nomenclatorial purposes under Opinion 
260) ; (c) quadratus Meuschen, 1781, as published in the 
combination Cancer quadratus (published in a work 
rejected for nomenclatorial purposes under Opinion 261). 


I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE 


The problems relating to the specific name of the Sand Crab 
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) dealt with in the present 


OPINION 262 301 


Opinion came to light in the course of an examination, by Mr. 
Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, 
of the Commission’s Opinion 13 (“ The Specific Name of the 
Sand Crab’) (1910, Smithson. Publ. 1938 : 22—24) carried out 
in 1944 in connection with the re-issue of that Opinion then in 
preparation. Mr. Hemming submitted his conclusions and 
recommendations on this case in the form of four Notes which 
were annexed to the re-issue of Opinion 13. These notes which 
were numbered 5, 6, 7, and 8, bore the following titles : (i) “ On 
the limited and, in part, conditional character of the decision 
given by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- 
clature in Opinion 13”? (title of Note 5); (a1) “ On the earliest 
use of the binominal combination Cancer arenarius as a specific 
name for a species belonging to the Class Crustacea ”’ (title of 
Note 6) ; (iii) ““ On the nomenclatorial status of scientific names 
first appearing in print in Meuschen (F.C.), 1778, Museum 
Gronovianum ” (title of Note 7); (iv) “ On certain errors in the 
conclusions embodied in Opinion 13, consequent upon the con- 
ditional acceptance for the purposes thereof of the premises 
submitted by the petitioner now found to be erroneous and 
incomplete ” (title of Note 8). Up to this point this question 
had been dealt with on the Commission’s Registered File 
Z.N.(G.) 24 (re-issue of Opinions) but at this stage it was judged 
desirable to open a separate File for the present case which was 
thereupon given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 271. Of the 
four Notes referred to above, the third (Note 7), which was 
concerned with the status of Meuschen’s work Museum 
Gronovianum of 1778, has been reproduced in extenso in Opinion 
260! ; the three remaining Notes, each of which bears the date 
29th April 1945, were as follows :— 


Note 5 


On the limited and, in part, conditional character of the decision 
given by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
in ‘* Opinion ”’ 13 


By FRANCIS HEMMING 
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 


Opinion 13 is only the second of the Opinions in which the Inter- 
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature gave a decision in 


1 See pp. 268—274 of the present volume. 


302 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


regard to the status of a particular name. This Opinion differs from 
Opinion 12, the only previous Opinion dealing with a particular name, 
by reason of the fact that, unlike the question discussed in Opinion 12 
(where only one issue was involved and only one of two answers 
could have been given), the problem dealt with in Opinion 13 is a 
complex of independent questions. Accordingly with the limited 
resources then at its disposal, the International Commission decided 
to deal expressly in Opinion 13 only with the one problem which had 
been specifically submitted to it for decision, namely: “Is the 
name Cancer arenarius Catesby, 1771, Natural History of Carolina 
(Edwards’ edition), a nomenclatorially available name?” After 
giving a definite answer to this question, the Commission did, however, 
add certain observations regarding the correct scientific name of the 
Sand Crab. These observations, the Commission expressly stated, 
were not based upon a first-hand examination of the facts of the case 
but were merely conclusions drawn from the premises submitted by 
the petitioner in this case. These observations by the Commission 
represent, therefore, no more than hypothetical conclusions, the 
validity of which rests entirely upon the accuracy of the premises which 
were submitted by the petitioner but which were not verified by the 
Commission. The conclusions embodied in this part of Opinion 13 
are, therefore, purely conditional in character. 


2. It must be noted, therefore, that in Opinion 13 the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature did no more, as regards 
the name of the Sand Crab, than :— 


(i) decide that the name Cancer arenarius as published in 1771 
in Edwards’ edition of Catesby’s Natural History of Carolina 
is not a nomenclatorially available name ; 


(ii) take note that, according to the premises submitted by the 
petitioner, the next name for the Sand Crab was Cancer 
quadratus, Fabricius, 1793 ;* 


(ili) take note that, according to the premises submitted by the 
petitioner, the name Cancer quadratus Fabricius, 1793,* 
was not available nomenclatorially, owing to the fact that 
the name Cancer quadratus had previously been published 
by some other author as the specific name of some other 
species ; 


(iv) take note that, according to the premises submitted by the 
petitioner, the next published scientific name for the Sand 
Crab after Cancer quadratus Fabricius, 1793,* was Ocypoda 
albicans Bosc, 1802 ;+ 


OPINION 262 303 


(v) draw the conclusion that, if the premises submitted by the 
petitioner as set out in (ii), (iti) and (iv) above were correct, 
the oldest available scientific name for the Sand Crab would 
be Ocypoda albicans Bosc, 1802.+ 


Note 6 


On the earliest use of the binominal combination ‘‘ Cancer arenarius ”’ 
as the specific name of a species belonging to the Class Crustacea 


The object of the petition dealt with in Opinion 13 was to obtain 
from the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
a ruling on the correct specific name of the Sand Crab. The problem 
in regard to the question on which the petitioner was in doubt (and 
on which a specific ruling was therefore asked for) was whether the 
name Cancer arenarius applied to this species by Mark Catesby in his 
Natural History of Carolina in 1743 (i.e. prior to the starting-point 
of zoological nomenclature and the coming into operation of the Law 
of Priority) acquired any rights under the Law of Priority when 
republished by George Edwards in 1771 in his edition of Catesby’s 
work. 


2. This method of approach to the problem led to an important 
decision by the International Commission in regard to the status 
of names originally published by Catesby in 1743, when those names 
were republished by Edwards in 1771. 


3. As a contribution to the problem of the correct name of the 
Sand Crab, the problem so submitted to, and answered by, the 
International Commission in Opinion 13 is wholly irrelevant, since 
even if the names originally published by Catesby in 1743 had acquired 
rights under the Law of Priority on being republished by Edwards in 
1771, the name Cancer arenarius Edwards in Catesby, 1771, would 
nevertheless have been invalid since it would have been a homonym 
of the prior name Cancer arenarius Toreen, 1765, in Osbeck (P.), Reise 
Ost-Ind. China : 469. 


* The name Cancer quadratus was first published by Fabricius in 1787 (in vol. 1 
of the Mantissa Ins.) and not in 1793 (the date assigned to this name in the 
petition in Opinion 13). 

+ The correct date for the name Ocypoda albicans Bosc is [1801—1802] and not 
1802 (the date assigned to this name in Opinion 13). 


304 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


4. Reference to Osbeck’s Reise shows that the matter printed on 
pp. 431—514 was not written by Osbeck but consists of an appendix 
containing the text of letters written by Olof Toreen to Linnaeus. 
The full title of this Appendix is: “ Eine ostindische Reise nach 
Suratte, China, etc. von 1750 den 1 April 1752 den 26 Jun. verrichtet 
von Olof Toreen Schiffsprediger der ostindischen Compagnie. In 
Briefen an den Herrn Archiater von Linné’’. Toreen, as these letters 
show, was a Strictly binominal author. This is as might be expected in 
view of the fact that his letters were actually addressed to Linnaeus. 


5. The following is the passage on page 479 in which Toreen 
introduced the name Cancer arenarius :— 


In dem Meere giebt es, ausser mancherley Fischen, auch 
verschiedene Krabbenarten. Wenn eine derselben, welche ihre 
Augen auf langen Stiften trug und besondere Fiisse hatte (Cancer 
arenarius), indem sie Ihnen von dem Herrn Commercienrathe 
Lagerstr6ém iibersendet worden, Schaden genommen hatte, 
wiirde ich es bedauern. In ihren Leben funkelten ihre Augen 
trotz einem Katzenauge. 


6. The heading of the page on which the above passage is printed 
is ‘“‘ Queda, 1751’. On a previous page the locality so indicated is 
given more fully as “‘ Queda in der Strasse von Malacca ”’. 


7. The locality cited by Toreen as the place where he obtained the 
specimens of the species to which he applied the name Cancer 
arenarius is important as proving conclusively (quite apart from the 
evidence supplied by the brief description) that the species Cancer 
arenarius Toreen is not the Sand Crab, since that species “ is restricted 
in its range to the Atlantic shores of the American Continent (from 
Rhode Island to Santa Catharina, Brazil)’ (Dr. I. Gordon, Assistant 
Keeper, Department of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History) 
in litt., dated 15th March 1945). 


8. The question whether the descriptive matter given by Toreen in 
respect of the species Cancer arenarius Toreen is sufficient to permit 
of the identification of that species is a systematic and not a nomen- 
clatorial problem. From the nomenclatorial point of view, it is a 
matter of complete indifference whether the species Cancer arenarius 
Toreen can be identified or not. In the latter case the name Cancer 
arenarius Toreen, 1765, becomes a nomen dubium, but in either case the 
name Cancer arenarius Toreen possesses rights under the Law of 
Priority as from 1765, the date on which it was published. Accordingly, 
any binominal combination consisting of the words ~~ Cancer 
arenarius ’’ published after 1765 as the name of any other species is 
automatically invalid, by reason of being a junior homonym, under 
Article 35 of the Régles Internationales. 


OPINION 262 305 
Note 8 


On certain errors in the conclusions embodied in ‘‘ Opinion’’ 13, 
consequent upon the conditional acceptance for the purposes thereof 
of the premises submitted by the petitioner now found to be 
erroneous and incomplete 


By FRANCIS HEMMING 
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 


As has been shown in Note 5 above,* the conclusion that the name 
Ocypoda albicans Bosc, {[1801—1802], is the oldest available name 
for the Sand Crab, which was conditionally accepted in the latter 
part of the “summary ” of (i.e. the decision in) Opinion 13 was based 
upon :— 


(1) the decision then taken by the International Commission that 
the name Cancer arenarius} as published in 1771 by Edwards 
in his edition of Catesby’s Natural History of Carolina is not 
a nomenclatorially available name ; 


(2) the unverified assumption that each of the following propositions 
contained in the petitioner’s “statement of the case’’ was 
correct and in accordance with the facts in all respects :— 


(a) that the next name bestowed upon the Sand Crab after the 
publication in 1771 of the name Cancer arenarius by Edwards 
in Catesby was Cancer quadratus Fabricius, 1793 ;t 


(b) that the name Cancer quadratus Fabricius, 1793, was not available 
for the Sand Crab, because that binominal combination 
had previously been published by some other (unspecified) 
author for some other species ; 


(c) that, if both the name Cancer arenarius Edwards, 1771, and the 
name Cancer quadratus Fabricius, 1793, were unavailable 
nomenclatorially, the first available name bestowed upon the 
Sand Crab was Ocypoda albicans Bosc, 1802.§ 


* See pp. 301—303 above. 


+ The component of the specific name Cancer arenarius consisting of the generic 
name Cancer was omitted from the summary when Opinion 13 was first 
published. 


{i The component of the specific name Cancer quadratus consisting of the generic 
name Cancer was omitted from the summary when Opinion 13 was first 
published. The correct date of this name is 1787. 


§ The component of the specific name Ocypoda albicans consisting of the 
generic name Ocypoda was omitted from the summary when Opinion 13 was 
first published. The correct date of this name is [1801—1802}. 


306 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


2. The preliminary decision referred to in paragraph 1(1) above is 
important, since it provides an authoritative guide to the nomen- 
clatorial status of names first published in 1771 in Edwards’ edition 
of Catesby’s Natural History of Carolina, but this decision is irrelevant 
to the problem of the name of the Sand Crab, since, even if the names 
first published by Edwards in Catesby, 1771, were available nomen- 
clatorially, the name Cancer arenarius Edwards, 1771 (the only one of 
those names which is involved in the problem of the name of the Sand 
Crab) would nevertheless be unavailable for the Sand Crab, for (as 
shown in Note 6 above*) the name Cancer arenarius Edwards, 1771, 
would have been a homonym of the name Cancer arenarius Toreen, 
1765, previously given to an entirely different species. 


3. Proposition (a) (enumerated in paragraph 1(2) above) is correct, 
except that it was in 1787 in volume I of the Mantissa Insectorum 
and not in 1793 in the Entomologia systematica that Fabricius first 
published the name Cancer quadratus as the specific name for the 
Sand Crab. 


4. Proposition (b) (enumerated in paragraph 1(2) above) is incorrect, 
since (as shown in Note 7+) Cancer quadrata Meuschen, 1778, 
the only known name consisting of this binominal combination which 
is of older date than Cancer quadratus Fabricius, 1787, is a name which 
possesses no rights under the Law of Priority and cannot, therefore, 
pre-occupy (and invalidate) the name Cancer quadratus Fabricius, 1787, 
as the name of the Sand Crab. The name given by Fabricius to the 
Sand Crab is, therefore, the oldest available name for that species. 


5. Proposition (c) (enumerated in paragraph 1(2) above) remains 
true, but, in view of the fact that, contrary to the statement in proposi- 
tion (b), the name Cancer quadratus Fabricius, 1787, is the oldest 
available name for the Sand Crab, proposition (c) is now seen to be 
completely irrelevant to the consideration of the name of that species. 


6. In the light of the evidence summarised above, the position as 
regards the conclusions embodied in Opinion 13 is seen to be as 
follows :— 


(1) The first sentence in the “summary ”’ (‘“‘ Catesby’s (1743) pre- 
Linnean name Cancer arenarius is not available under the Code, 
although ‘ reprinted’ in 1771 ;’’) contains an important ruling by the 
International Commission on the nomenclatorial status of the edition 
of Catesby, 1743, Natural History of Carolina, published by Edwards 


* See pp. 303—304 above. 
+ See Opinion 260 (pp. 265—280). 


OE 


OPINION 262 307 


in 1771. This decision has no bearing, however, upon the question 
of the correct scientific name of the Sand Crab, since even if the 
Edwards edition of Catesby was a nomenclatorially available work, the 
name Cancer arenarius Edwards, 1771, would not be available as the 
name of the Sand Crab, since it would be a homonym of the older 
name Cancer arenarius Toreen, 1765 (see paragraph 2). 


(2) The second sentence in the “summary” (“ Cancer quadratus 
Fabricius, 1793,* is stated to be pre-occupied ;”’) is based upon a 
statement in the premises submitted by the petitioner, which is now 
seen to be incorrect (see paragraphs 3 and 4). 


(3) The third sentence in the “ summary” (‘‘ Ocypoda albicans Bosc, 
1802,+ being the next specific name in the list, becomes valid, under the 
premises submitted.””) remains true as a deduction from the premises 
submitted by the petitioner, but, in view of the fact that (as shown in 
(2) above) these premises were fallacious, the statement in the third 
sentence of the “‘ summary ” is now seen to be completely misleading 
as a guide to the nomenclature of the Sand Crab. The name Ocypoda 
albicans Bosc {1801—1802], is not the oldest available name for the 
Sand Crab ; it is only a junior subjective synonym of the available 
name Cancer quadratus Fabricius, 1787 (see paragraphs 4 and 5). 


7. In view of the fact that the statements in the second and third 
sentences of the “‘ summary ”’ of Opinion 13 are completely misleading, 
based upon incorrect premises submitted by the petitioner, it is clearly 
impossible for the International Commission to leave matters where 
they now stand. The question dealt with in Opinion 13 is, therefore, 
at once being submitted to the International Commission for further 
consideration. 


8. The decision by the Commission in Opinion 13 regarding the 
nomenclatorial status of the edition of Catesby’s Natural History of 
Carolina has been shown (paragraphs 2 and 6(1) above) to be completely 
irrelevant to the problem of the name of the Sand Crab. It can, 
therefore, logically find no place in the revised Opinion regarding the 
name of the Sand Crab. It represents, however, a decision by the 
International Commission on an important question of principle and 
clearly should be retained on permanent record in some suitable form. 
In this connection, it should be recalled that at its Session held at 


* The date of this name is 1787 not 1793, the date cited in the “summary ” of 
Opinion 13 when originally published. 

+ This name was published in “‘ An X ” and should therefore be dated 1801—1802 
and cited in square brackets. The date was incorrectly given as 1802 in the 
“summary ” of Opinion 13 when originally published. 


308 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


Lisbon in 1935 the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- 
clature unanimously agreed that, ““ when the Commission reached a 
decision of interest to the general body of zoologists, it was of the 
greatest importance that that decision should be presented in such a way 
as to ensure that it was most readily available to all concerned ” 
(Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 15).* It is accordingly 
proposed that in the action now to be taken by the International 
Commission the problem of the status of the Edwards edition of 
Catesby’s Natural History of Carolina and the problem of the name 
of the Sand Crab should be dealt with in different Opinions. In 
order to deal with the question of the name of the Sand Crab, it 
will be necessary for the International Commission formally to 
deal with the status of Meuschen’s Museum Gronovianum of 1778 
discussed in Note 7 above. As this, like the status of Catesby’s 
names when republished by Edwards in 1771, raises a question of 
general interest and is not concerned only with the name of the 
Sand Crab, it is proposed that in accordance with the decision taken 
by the Commission at Lisbon as to the procedure to be followed in 
such cases, a separate Opinion should be rendered by the Commission 
in regard to the status of Meuschen’s Museum Gronovianum of 1778. 


9. The action now proposed is, therefore, that the International 
Commission should :— 


(1) cancel Opinion 13 ; 


(2) render an Opinion confirming as follows the question of principle 
dealt with in the first sentence of Opinion 13? ; 


“The names published by Mark Catesby in 1743 in his Natural History of 
Carolina possess no status under the Law of Priority as from that date, since 
it is prior to 1758, the starting point of zoological nomenclature and the Law of 
Priority (Article 25 of the Régles Internationales) ; nor do those names acquire 
any rights under the Law of Priority as from 1771, the date on which they were 
republished by George Edwards in his edition of Catesby’s Natural History of 
Carolina, since Catesby’s names were not then ‘ re-inforced by adoption or 
acceptance’ by Edwards and in consequence do not qualify for availability 
under the provisions of Opinion 5.” 


(3) render an Opinion as follows on the nomenclatorial status of 
Meuschen, 1778, Museum Gronovianum® — 


_ “The Museum Gronovianum by Friedrich Christian Meuschen issued in 1778 
is a sale catalogue of the zoological, botanical and mineral collections formed 


* See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 40. 


* For the decision taken on this proposal see Opinion 259 (pp. 253—264 of 
the present volume). ' 


° For the decision taken on this proposal see Opinion 260 (pp. 265—280 of the 
present volume). 


OPINION 262 309 


by Laurentius Theodorus Gronovius, who had died in 1777. It was drawn up 
for special persons only (i.e. prospective purchasers) and was intended for use 
for only a limited time (i.e. during the period immediately preceding and during 
the sale) ; it was not given to the world or used in the nature of a permanent 
scientific record. None of the tests laid down in Opinion 51 as the criteria for 
determining whether a zoological work has been published (‘ divulgué dans une 
publication ’) within the meaning of Article 25 of the Régles Internationales is, 
therefore, satisfied by Meuschen’s Museum Gronovianum. Accordingly, no 
name which first appeared in 1778 in Meuschen’s Museum Gronovianum possesses 
any rights under the Law of Priority as from the date of such appearance.” 


(4) render an Opinion as follows in regard to the name of the Sand 
Crab :— 


“The name Cancer arenarius Edwards, 1771, in Catesby, Natural History of 
Carolina, is not available for the Sand Crab as from that date, (i) because, as 
has been decided in Opinion —,* Catesby’s pre-1758 names acquired no rights 
under the Law of Priority on being re-published by Edwards in 1771, and (ii) 
because, even if Catesby’s names had been available as from 1771, the name 
Cancer arenarius Edwards, 1771, would have been a homonym of the name 
Cancer arenarius Toreen, 1765. The oldest available name for the Sand Crab 
is Cancer quadratus Fabricius, 1787, of which name Ocypoda albicans Bosc, 
[1801—1802)], is a synonym.” 


Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 


2. The re-issue of Opinion 13, with accompanying Notes, was 
sent to the printer in May 1945. When these notes were in proof 
Mr. Hemming sent copies to Dr. Isobel Gordon (British Museum 
(Natural History), London) for observations. In her reply dated 
15th May 1946 Dr. Gordon stated that she had nothing which 
she desired to add and that she was in agreement with the action 
proposed. 


3. Owing to difficulties arising from paper rationing, shortage 
of labour at the printing works and similar causes, Opinion 13 
was not actually published until 28th February 1947 (Ops. 


* The Opinion here referred to is the projected Opinion which it is suggested 
in paragraph 9(2) should be issued for the purpose of re-stating and confirming 
the decision embodied in the first sentence of the ‘“‘ summary ”’ of Opinion 13. 
(This Opinion has since been adopted as Opinion 259.]| 


310 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 207—234). Of the three 
Notes by Mr. Hemming quoted in paragraph 1 of the present 
Opinion, Note 5 appeared on pp. 216—217, Note 6 on pp. 218— 
219, and Note 8 on pp. 227—232. 


4. View expressed by Dr. Fenner A. Chace, Jr. (United States 
National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) : The publication 
of the present application in the Notes annexed to the re-issue of 
Opinion 13 elicited no opposition to the action proposed, but 
it brought to light a further problem, the existence of which 
had been unknown to Mr. Hemming when he prepared the present 
case for the consideration of the Commission. This problem was 
raised in a letter dated 27th February 1948 from Dr. Fenner A. 
Chace, Jr. (Curator, Division of Marine Invertebrates, United 
States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.), who, after 
drawing attention to the fact that certain workers in the United 
States had already adopted the conclusion reached by Mr. 
Hemming that Cancer quadratus Fabricius, 1781, was the oldest 
available name for the Sand Crab, drew attention to the fact 
that Meuschen had not only used the name Cancer quadrata in 
1778 in his Museum Gronovianum (a work which Dr. Fenner 
Chace agreed possessed no nomenclatorial standing), but, in 
addition had used the name Cancer quadratus in 1781 in the Index 
which he had prepared to the work by Gronovius published in 
the period 1763—1781 under the title Zoophylacium Gronovianum. 
Dr. Fenner Chace accordingly suggested that the status of 
Meuschen’s Index to the Zoophylacium should be studied as part 
of the problem involved in the determination of the oldest available 
specific name for the Sand Crab, since if the foregoing work were 
found to be available for nomenclatorial purposes, the name 
Cancer quadratus Fabricius, 1781, would fall as-an invalid junior 
homonym and the way would be cleared for the use, for the Sand 
Crab, of the name Ocypoda albicans Bosc, [1801—1802]. The 
text of Dr. Fenner Chace’s letter has been quoted in full in 
Opinion 261, relating to the nomenclatorial status of Meuschen’s 
Index to the Zoophylacium of Gronovius.* 


5. The receipt of Dr. Fenner Chace’s letter showed that, in 
addition to the questions raised by Mr. Hemming in the Notes 
attached to the re-issue of Opinion 13, it would be necessary to 


* See pp. 289—290 of the present volume. 


OPINION 262 311 


take into account also the question of the availability of names 
as published in 1781 in Meuschen’s Index to the Zoophylacium, 
before it reached a decision on the question of the name to be 
accepted as the oldest available name for the Sand Crab. For- 
tunately, a considerable amount of work had already been done 
in the Office of the Commission on Meuschen’s Index, and it 
was immediately decided to complete the work on this subject as 
quickly as possible, so that it might be brought before the 
International Commission for decision at its then forthcoming 
meeting in Paris as a preliminary to the consideration of the 
oldest available name for the Sand Crab. 


IIlL—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
_ COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


6. The first of the problems connected with the wording of the 
Régles to be considered by the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in 1948 was 
that involved in the interpretation of Proviso (b) to Article 25. 
On this subject the Commission decided to approve and adopt 
the recommendations which were then submitted to it by the 
Secretary. The Commission accordingly agreed (1) to report to 
the Paris Congress that, in its opinion, the expression “ nomen- 
clature 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). 
The settlement of this long-outstanding problem was an indis- 
pensable preliminary for the taking of decisions as to the nomen- 
clatorial status both of Meuschen’s Museum Gronovianum of 1778 
and of the Index prepared by the same author and published in 
1781 for the work by Gronovius published in the period 1763— 
1781 under the title Zoophylacium Gronovianum, each of which, as 
has already been shown, had an important bearing upon the 
question of the oldest available name for the Sand Crab. 


3 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


7. The question of the nomenclatorial status of Meuschen’s 
Index to the Zoophylacium of Gronovius was dealt with by the 
International Commission as the twenty-ninth item at the 
Fourteenth Meeting of its Paris Session and the decision then 
reached has been embodied in its Opinion 261. The parallel 
question of the nomenclatorial] availability of Meuschen’s Museum 
Gronovianum was dealt with as the fifty-second item at the same 
meeting, and the decision reached has been embodied in the 
Commission’s Opinion 260. Finally, the status of names published 
in 1771 in Edwards’ edition of Catesby’s pre-1757 work, The 
Natural History of Carolina, was dealt with by the Commission 
as the fifty-first item at the same meeting, and the conclusion 
reached has been embodied in Opinion 259. This last-named 
question had no direct bearing on the question of the oldest 
available name for the Sand Crab, but a decision on it was 
required as a preliminary to the cancellation of Opinion 13, a 
course which would be necessary as part of any decision on the 
question of the name to be used for the Sand Crab. 


8. The question of the specific name to be used for the Sand 
Crab 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, summarising the introductory state- 
ment by the Acting President (Mr. Francis Hemming) and the 
discussion which then ensued (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
4 : 575—578) :— 


THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) 
said that he had received two communications in regard to this 
application: the first, from Dr. I Gordon (British Museum 
(Natural History), London, the second, from Dr. Fenner A. 
Chace, Jr. (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.). 
Dr. Gordon had stated that she was in agreement both with the 
line of argument adopted in the application as set out in Notes 5 
and 8 of the “Editorial Notes” attached to the re-issue of 
Opinion 13, and with the action thefe recommended to the 
Commission for approval. Dr. Fenner Chace, while reporting 


OPINION 262 315 


- that some zoologists in America were already giving effect in 
their work to the recommendations now before the Commission, 
had suggested that, before those proposals were approved, the 
Commission should consider also the question of the availability 
of names published by Meuschen in the index to the Zoophylacium 
Gronovianum of Gronovius which had been published in 1781, 
for that index contained the trivial name quadratus (in connection 
with the generic name Cancer). If, therefore, the Index of the 
Zoophylacium were held to be an available work for nomen- 
clatorial purposes, the name Cancer quadratus Fabricius, 1787, 
for the Sand Crab would be a homonym of Cancer quadratus 
Meuschen, 1781, and in consequence the trivial name quadratus 
would not be available for the Sand Crab, unless it were found 
that it was to that species also that Meuschen had applied that 
name in 1781. In that case the name quadratus would still be the 
oldest available name for the Sand Crab, but would have to be 
attributed not to Fabricius, 1787, but to Meuschen, 1781. As 
he (the Acting President) had explained earlier during the present 
meeting, the question of the availability of the names published 
in the index to the Zoophylacium had been studied by himself 
before the war in connection with his review of the older 
literature relating to the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta). He 
had then formed the conclusion that the author of that index 
could not be regarded as a binominal author, though he was what 
was then called a “ binary author”; in consequence this was 
not a matter on which a decision could be taken until the present 
Congress had decided what meaning was properly to be attached 
to the expression ““ nomenclature binaire ” as used in Article 25 
of the Régles. That matter having now been settled, he had . 
accordingly (earlier during the present meeting) brought before 
the Commission the question of the availability of apparent new 
names in the index to the Zoophylacium, and the Commission, 
after examining the evidence, had decided that the above index 
was not available for nomenclatorial purposes and therefore that 
new names in it had no status under the Rég/es as from the date of 
being so published. 


Continuing the Acting President said that, although it was 
clearly necessary to correct the errors contained in Opinion 13, 
he now felt that the question of the decision to be taken in regard 
to the trivial name of the Sand Crab in place of that recorded in 


314 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


that Opinion should be governed, as in other cases of errors 
detected in earlier Opinions, by the principle of adopting whatever 
course would best promote stability and uniformity in the 
nomenclature of the group concerned. Where (as in the case of 
the name Schistosoma Weinland, 1858, erroneously placed on the 
Official List in Opinion 77), the name in question had passed into 
general use, the Commission had used its Plenary Powers to 
validate the erroneous decision made in the earlier Opinion, 
believing that it would be wrong to disturb existing practice for 
technical nomenclatorial reasons, particularly where (as in the 
case referred to) that practice owed its origin to an error made 
by the Commission itself>. On the other hand in another case 
(regarding the type species of the genus Mabuya Fitzinger, 1826, 
about which a mistake had been made in Opinion 92), specialists 
in the group concerned had realised that the decision given by the 
Commission was erroneous and had accordingly ignored that 
decision. In this case the Commission had considered it 
sufficient to correct the previous error®. In the present instance it 
was not so clear what was the best course to take. In the first place 
the Commission had not given in Opinion 13 an absolute ruling 
on the question of what was the oldest available trivial name for 
the Sand Crab; all that it had done was to state that on the 
basis of the premises submitted (which it had not itself verified) 
the oldest available trivial name for that species was albicans 
Bosc [1801—1802] (as published in the binominal combination 
Ocypoda albicans). This form of decision had been adopted 
in this and other early Opinions not because the Commission 
wished to impugn the accuracy of the premises submitted to it 
but because at that time (which was several years prior to the 
establishment of the first of the Official Lists) it did not regard 
it as part of its functions to give an absolute ruling in such 
a case. Nevertheless, this form of decision inevitably detracted 
from the authority of the ruling given and might therefore 
influence workers in deciding what name to apply to the 
species in question (in this case, the Sand Crab). So far, 
however, as he had been able to ascertain, this species, as the 
result, presumably, of Opinion 13, was now generally known by 
the trivial name albicans Bosc. If this was in fact the general 
practice, the consistent course for the Commission to adopt would 


5 See Opinion 226 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 177—200). 
6 See Opinion 240 (pp. 1—12 of the present volume). 


OPINION 262 315 


be to use its Plenary Powers to validate the name albicans Bosc 
by suppressing the earlier available trivial name quadratus 
Fabricius, 1787 (as published in the binominal combination 
Cancer quadratus). The species in question was, he understood, 
confined to the Atlantic shores of the American Continent 
from Rhode Island to Santa Catharina in Brazil. It was therefore 
desirable that the Commission should be in possession of the views 
of American specialists before they decided what action to take in 
this matter. In the circumstances, he (the Acting President) 
suggested that the Commission should now agree that its 
Plenary Powers should be used to validate the trivial name 
albicans Bosc as the trivial name of the Sand Crab, if after the 
close of the present Session specialists indicated that they 
considered that confusion would arise if, consequent upon the 
discovery of the error in the premises on which Opinion 13 had been 
based, it were necessary to replace the trivial name albicans Bosc 
by the trivial name quadratus Fabricius as the trivial name of the 
Sand Crab. This would not involve any delay in the publication 
of the Opinion recording the decisions taken on the present 
application, for some time would necessarily elapse before it 
would be possible to publish all the Opinions recording the 
decisions taken during the present Session, and the Opinions 
relating to the present matter could readily be left as one of the 
last to be so published. It would, however, be reasonable to fix 
some time limit, for the reception of comments. He suggested 
a period of six months from the date of the publication of the 
Minutes recording the present decision. At the same time he 
would take steps to bring the matter to the attention of specialists 
in the group concerned, particularly workers on the American 
Continent. 


IN THE SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSION, it was generally 
agreed that it was essential that the errors in Opinion 13 should 
be corrected. It was felt, however, that this question was quite 
independent of the question of whether or not the Plenary Powers 
should be used to validate the name albicans Bosc [1801—1802], as 
the trivial name of the Sand Crab. On this, the general view was 
that, as it was the Commission itself which was mainly responsible 
for the acceptance of the foregoing name as the trivial name of this 
species, through their action in adopting Opinion 13 thirty-eight 


316 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


years earlier, it should certainly agree now that its Plenary 
Powers should be used if on enquiry it were to be found that 
specialists considered that confusion would ensue if it were 
necessary to adopt the name quadratus Fabricius as the trivial 
name of the Sand Crab. 


9. The following extract from the Official Record of the 
Proceedings of the International Commission sets out the decision 
reached by it in the present case (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, 
Conclusion 53) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 573—580) :— 


THE COMMISSION agreed :— 


(1) to cancel Opinion 13, relating to the trivial name of the Sand 
Crab (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), the decision 
set forth in that Opinion being incomplete, in part 
incorrect, and the whole entirely misleading ; 


(2) that, even if the names published in 1771 by Edwards (G.) 
in his edition of Mark Catesby’s Natural History of 
Carolina, had been available under the Reég/es the 
trivial name arenarius as so published by Edwards in 
1771 in the binominal combination Cancer arenarius, 
though the first such name given to the Sand Crab 
subsequent to the starting point of zoological nomen- 
clature (1758), would have been invalid, since that 
name would in any case have been a homonym of the 
earlier trivial name arenarius Toreen, 1765 (as published 
in the binominal combination Cancer arenarius), a 
name bestowed by Toreen upon an entirely different 
species found at a place named Queda in the Straits 
of Malacca, an area far removed from that in which 
the Sand Crab occurred ; and that the trivial name 
arenarius as published by Edwards in 1771 should now 
be placed on the Official Index ; 


OPINION 262 317 


(3) that the first trivial name bestowed upon the Sand Crab 
after the name arenarius had been cited in connection 
therewith by Edwards in 1771 was the trivial name 
quadratus Fabricius, 1787 (as published in Vol. 1 of 
the Mantissa Insectorum in the binominal combination 
Cancer quadratus) ; 


(4) that the trivial name quadratus Fabricius, 1787, was an 
available name, not being invalidated by the prior 
use of the same trivial name in combination (or associa- 
tion) with the generic name Cancer (a) by Meuschen 
in 1781 in his index to the Zoophylacium Gronovianum 
of Gronovius, and (b) by Meuschen in 1778 in his own 
work, the Museum Gronovianum, both of which the 
Commission had ruled to have failed to comply with the 
requirements of the Régles, names published in these 
works, in consequence, possessing no status in 
zoological nomenclature ; 


(5) before deciding what action should be taken in regard to 
the trivial name of the Sand Crab, consequent upon the 
discovery of the error in regard thereto contained in the 
Commission’s Opinion 13, to ascertain from interested 
specialists whether, in their opinion, confusion and 
instability would ensue, if it were now necessary to 
rectify the erroneous decision published as far back as 
1910 in the Opinion referred to above, and if, in 
consequence, it were now necessary to use the trivial 
name quadratus Fabricius for the foregoing species ; 
and for this purpose to request the Secretary to the 
Commission to seek the views on this question held by 
interested specialists by the publication of a notice 
in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature or otherwise ; 


(6) that, on the expiry of a period of six months from the 
date of publication of the present decision in the 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, the following 
action should be taken in the light of the comments 
received from specialists in response to the consultation 
referred to in (5) above :— 


(a) if specialists were of the opinion that confusion and 
instability would result from the adoption of the 


318 


OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


trivial name quadratus Fabricius for the Sand 
Crab : to use the Commission’s Plenary Powers 
(i) to suppress the trivial name quadratus 
Fabricius, 1787 (as published in the binominal 
combination Cancer quadratus) and to validate 
the trivial name albicans Bosc [1801—1802] (as 
published in the binominal combination Ocypoda 
albicans), at the same time placing the first of 
these trivial names on the Official Index of 
Invalid and Rejected Specific Trivial Names in 
Zoology and the second on the Official List of 
Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; 


(b) if specialists were of the opinion that confusion and 


instability would not result from the adoption of 
the trivial name quadratus Fabricius for the Sand 
Crab: to place the trivial name quadratus 
Fabricius, 1787 (as published in the binominal 
combination Cancer quadratus) on the Official 
List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; 


(7) on a decision being taken either in the sense indicated in 
(6) (a) above or in that indicated in (6) (b) above, to 
render an Opinion recording the decisions specified 
in (1) to (4) above, and setting out, as the case may be, 
either the decision specified in (6) (a) above or that 
specified in (6) (b) above. 


10. 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 Sixth 
Meeting held on Monday, 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 5 : 120). 


11. The decision quoted in paragrdph 9 above was concurred 
in by the sixteen (16) Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners 


ee 


OPINION 262 319 


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 decision referred to above was dissented from by no 
Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the Paris 
Session. 


13. The Part (Triple-Part 19/21) of volume 4 of the Bulletin of 
Zoological Nomenclature containing the Official Record of the 
decision reached in the present case was published on 9th June 
1950, from which date therefore the six-month period referred 
to in Sub-Conclusion 6 quoted in paragraph 9 above began to 
run. At the close of that period no representations had been 
received as to the possibility of confusion arising if the specific 
name of the Sand Crab were to be changed from albicans Bosc, 
[1801—1802] to the older name quadratus Fabricius, 1787. 
In view, however, of the fact that in 1948 Dr. Fenner Chace 
had expressed doubts as to the desirability of making this change 
(paragraph 4 above), Mr. Hemming, as Secretary to the 
Commission, wrote to Dr. Chace on 9th December 1950, asking 
him to furnish a statement of his views on this question and, if 
possible, an indication of the views of other American carcinolo- 
gists. On 18th January 1951 Dr. Chace replied that it was 
unlikely that he would submit any recommendations on this 
matter. Somewhat later, however (on 21st March 1951), Dr. 
Fenner Chace wrote: “If it is the considered opinion of the 
Commission that the Meuschen index to the ‘ Zoophylacium 
Gronovianum’ is not available and that the name quadratus 
Fabricius then becomes the earliest available name for the Sand 
Crab, I favor the acceptance of that name ”’. 


320 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


14. On 17th April 1951 an attempt to obtain further views on 
this question from interested specialists was made by the issue 
to the serial publications Nature and Science (the two publications 
currently nominated as those to which notices regarding the 
possible use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers should be 
despatched) of a notice drawing attention to a note by the 
Secretary to the Commission regarding the options embodied in 
the decision taken in Paris and soliciting the views thereon of 
interested specialists, which was then on the point of being 
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This note 
by Mr. Hemming, which was published three days later, was as 
follows (Hemming, 20th April 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
2 : 105) :-— 


Request for views of specialists on the question whether the substitution, 
as required by the ‘‘ Régles’’, of the name ‘‘ quadratus ” 
Fabricius, 1787, for the name ‘‘ albicans ’’ Bosc [1801—1802], 
as the trivial name of the Sand Crab (Class Crustacea, 
Order Decapoda) would give rise to confusion or 
instability 


By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. 
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 


At its Session held in Paris in 1948, the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature, after reviewing the information 
available, decided to cancel its earlier Opinion 13 as being “‘ incomplete 
and, in part, incorrect’’. At the same time the Commission agreed 
upon the adoption of Opinions on all the issues raised in Opinion 13, 
except that regarding the trivial name to be used for the Sand Crab, 
which, as explained below, was reserved for further consideration. 


2. On this question the Commission gave a ruling that, under the 
Régles, the correct trivial name for this species was quadratus 
Fabricius, 1787 (as published in the binominal combination Cancer 
quadratus) and not the name albicans Bosc [1801—1802], (as published 
in the binominal combination Ocypoda albicans), as had incorrectly 
been stated in Opinion 13. The Commission decided, however, before 
finally rendering an Opinion in this sense,'to ascertain from interested 
specialists whether the substitution of the name quadratus Fabricius 
for the name albicans Bosc as the trivial name of the Sand Crab would 


OPINION 262 321 
be likely to give rise to “‘ confusion and instability’. The Commission 
placed on record that, if specialists were to consider that the adoption 
for this species of the trivial name guadratus Fabricius would lead to 
these results, it would forthwith use its Plenary Powers for the purpose 
of suppressing the foregoing name, thus validating the name albicans 
Bosc. 


3. A full account of the considerations which lead up to the fore- 
goimg decisions is given in the Official Record of Proceedings of the 
International Commission at its Paris Session, 14th Meeting, 
Conclusion 53 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 573—580). 


4. In accordance with the procedure described above, specialists 
in this group are particularly requested to send to the International 
Commission as soon as possible, statements describing current nomen- 
clatorial practice in this matter and setting out their views on the 
question of the possible use of the Plenary Powers in this case. Such 
statements should be addressed to the Secretary to the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Secretariat of the 
Commission (28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1, 
England). 


15. On 24th February 1952 the progress reached in dealing 
with the present case was reviewed by Mr. Hemming, as Secretary 
to the International Commission, who then placed the following 
Minute on the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 271 :— 


Option given to specialists in the decision taken by the International 
Commission in Paris in 1948 in the case of the specific trivial 
name of the Sand Crab 


By FRANCIS HEMMING 
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 


A period of about ten months has now elapsed since the publication 
(on 20th April 1951) in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (vol. 


322 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


2: 105) of my notice regarding the option contained in the decision 
taken by the International Commission in Paris in 1948 in the case 
of the specific trivial name of the Sand Crab, and during this period 
no specialist has submitted to the International Commission a request 
for the use of its Plenary Powers for the purpose of setting aside the 
Law of Priority in the case of the specific trivial name of the foregoing 
species by suppressing the name quadratus Fabricius, 1787, as 
published in the combination Cancer quadratus, in favour of the name 
ses Bosc [1801—1802], as published in the combination Ocypoda 
albicans. 


2. A period of over twenty months has now elapsed since the 
publication (on 9th June 1950) of the decision taken by the International 
Commission in Paris in 1948, and in view of this fact and of the non- 
receipt during the whole of that period of any request for action under 
the Plenary Powers, although the time-limit set by the Commission 
for the submission of such applications was a period of six months 
calculated from the publication of the Paris decision, it would be 
possible now to make a formal declaration that the option given in the 
Paris decision has expired and that the conditional decision set out 
in Sub-Conclusion (6) (b) in the group of decisions which together 
constitute the Fifty-Third Conclusion of the Fourteenth Meeting of the 
Paris Session of the International Commission has now come into 
full operation. 


3. In view, however, of the fact that the pressure of work connected 
with the preparations for the Session of the Commission to be held at 
Copenhagen in 1953 makes it impossible at present, and is likely to 
make it impossible for some time, to render a formal Opinion in the 
present case, I propose to include one further notice in regard to this 
case in the collection of notices in regard to individual cases left over 
at Paris for further consideration shortly to be published in the 
concluding Double-Part (Double-Part 7/8) of volume 7 of the Bulletin 
of Zoological Nomenclature. This notice has been sent to the printer 
today. 


16. The note by Mr. Hemming referred to in the concluding 
paragraph of his Minute of 24th February 1952 was published on 
15th April 1952 (Hemming, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 209— 
210), and at the same time a further notice on this subject was 


OPINION 262 323 


sent to the serial publications Nature and Science. The note so 
published in the Bulletin was as follows :— 


Case 17: Question of the trivial name to be accepted as the trivial 
name of the Sand Crab (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) 


(See 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 573—580) 


eoececeerer oe eee eee ee ee eee ec eee eee oer eo ses oe 


39. In Paris in 1948 the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature reviewed the subjects dealt with in its Opinion 13 (1910, 
Smithson. Publ. 1938 : 22—24), an Opinion in which (in accordance 
with the practice of that day) no definite decision was given, the 
decision reached being expressly recorded as being given “‘ under the 
premises submitted’. In the light of the information before it at the 
time of this review the International Commission cancelled Opinion 13 
and, so far as concerns the portion of that Opinion which related to the 
question of the trivial name of the Sand Crab, ruled (1) that the trivial 
name quadratus Fabricius, 1787 (as published in the binominal 
combination Cancer quadratus), a name given to the Sand Crab, was an 
available name, (2) that, before it decided whether or not to correct 
. the error in regard to this matter contained in Opinion 13, i.e., before 
deciding whether to render an Opinion ruling that the name quadratus 
Fabricius, 1787, was the oldest available such name and was therefore 
to be used in preference to the name albicans Bosc [1801—1802], (as 
published in the binominal combination Ocypoda albicans) (the name 
incorrectly stated in Opinion 13 to be the oldest trivial name for the Sand 
Crab), interested specialists should be consulted on the question whether 
instability and confusion would be likely to ensue if the decision taken 
in 1910 in the foregoing Opinion were now to be reversed by the 
adoption of the name quadratus Fabricius, 1787, as the name for the 
Sand Crab. The Commission further decided that, if specialists were 
of the opinion that the foregoing results would accrue, the Plenary 
Powers should be used to suppress the trivial name quadratus 
Fabricius and to validate the trivial name albicans Bosc, but that, if 
specialists were of the opinion that the foregoing adverse results 
were not to be expected, the trivial name quadratus Fabricius, 1787, 
should be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in 
Zoology. 


40. The views of interested carcinologists are particularly requested 
as to the relative advantages of the two courses set out above, in order 
that, this aspect of the question having been settled, an Opinion may 
be rendered in accordance with the decision taken by the International 
Commission at its Paris Session. 


324 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


17. The question as to which of the alternative decisions taken 
by the International Commission in regard to the name to be 
accepted as the specific name of the Sand Crab should become the 
substantive decision by the Commission in this matter was 
brought to a conclusion on 16th October 1952, when Mr. 
Hemming, as Secretary to the International Commission, signed 
the following Minute of Determination :— 


Decision by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
as to the Specific Trivial Name to be used for the species of the 
Order Decapoda (Class Crustacea) commonly known as 
the Sand Crab 


MINUTE dated 16th October 1952 by FRANCIS HEMMING 
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 


At the Fourteenth of its meetings held in Paris in 1948, the 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, after reaching 
the conclusion that, contrary to the statement contained in Opinion 13 
published in 1910, the oldest available specific trivial name for the 
Sand Crab was quadratus Fabricius, 1787, as published in the 
combination Cancer quadratus, decided to provide an opportunity for 
any zoologist who might so desire, to submit an application for the 
use, in the interests of nomenclatorial stability, of the Commission’s 
Plenary Powers, for the purpose of suppressing the foregoing trivial 
name, thus rendering the trivial name albicans Bosc [1801—1802], as 
published in the combination Ocypoda albicans, the oldest available 
name for the Sand Crab, as it was erroneously stated so to be in Opinion 
13. For this purpose the Commission (a) instructed me to seek out 
the views of interested specialists on the foregoing subject, and (b) 
set, as the time limit for the receipt of applications in the foregoing 
sense, a period of six months calculated from the date of the publication 
in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of the portion of the Official 
Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission at its 
Paris (1948) Session containing the decision referred to above (Paris 
Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 53). 


2. The portion of the Official Record of the Proceedings of the 
International Commission in Paris referred to above was published on 
9th June 1950, and in consequence the six-month period prescribed 
by the International Commission expired on 9th December 1950. No 
comments on the present case were received during that period, and, 
in an effort to obtain expressions of opinion on this case, two notes 


OPINION 262 BS 


on it have since been published in the Bulletin, the first, in volume 2 
on 20th April 1951 and the second, in volume 7, on 15th April 1952, the 
time limit having been extended to permit of the receipt of communica- 
tions in response to the appeals so made. In addition, attempts have 
been made to elicit the views of carcinologists, both by correspondence 
and by the issue of notices to the serial publications Nature and Science. 
These efforts have proved entirely fruitless, and it is evident that there 
is no desire—or no articulate desire—among carcinologists to conserve 
the trivial name albicans Bosc, [1801—1802], at the expense of the older 
name quadratus Fabricius, 1787, as the specific trivial name of the 
Sand Crab. 


3. Having regard to the fact that no application has been received 
for the conservation under the Plenary Powers of the trivial name 
albicans Bosc for the Sand Crab, notwithstanding the fact that, to 
permit of the submission of such applications, if such were desired, the 
time limit of six months set by the Commission in Paris has been 
extended on several occasions until a period of over twenty-eight 
months has been allowed for this purpose, I now, as Secretary to the 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, declare as 
follows : (1) The option set out in Points (a) and (b) of Sub-Conclusion 
(6) of the group of such Sub-Conclusions which, taken together, 
constitute the Fifty-Third Conclusion reached by the International 
Commission at the Fourteenth Meeting of its Session held in Paris 
in 1948, which provides for the use, on the application of interested 
specialists, of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of suppressing the 
trivial name quadratus Fabricius, 1787, as published in the combination 
Cancer quadratus, thus rendering the trivial name albicans Bosc, [1801— 
1802], as published in the combination Ocypoda albicans, has expired, 
no application in the foregoing sense having been received by the 
International Commission, notwithstanding the fact that the time limit 
for the receipt of any application in this sense has been extended from 
time to time, until now, instead of six months, the period prescribed 
in Paris, a period of over twenty-eight months has been provided for this 
purpose. (2) In the light of (1) above, the decision set out conditionally 
in the Sub-Conclusion numbered (6) (b) referred to in (1) above has 
now entered formally into force, and, in consequence, the following 
decisions have been taken by the International Commission, namely : 
(a) that the trivial name quadratus Fabricius, 1787, as published in the 
combination Cancer quadratus, is to be accepted as the oldest available 
trivial name of the Sand Crab ; (b) the foregoing trivial name is now 
to be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; 
(c) the following trivial names published in works which were rejected 
for nomenclatorial purposes by the Commission at its Session held in 
Paris in 1948 are now to be placed on the Official Index of Specific 
Trivial Names in Zoology :—(i) arenarius Catesby in Edwards, 1771, 
as published in the combination Cancer arenarius; (i) quadratus 
Meuschen, 1778, as published in the combination Cancer quadratus 
(published in the Museum gronovianum) ; (iti) quadratus Meuschen, 


326 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


1781, as published in the same combination (published in the Index to 
Gronovius’ Zoophylacium gronovianum). 


18. The following are the original references for the names 
placed on the Official Lists and Official Indexes in the Ruling 
given in the present Opinion :— 


arenarius, Cancer, Catesby, 1771, Natural History of Carolina 
(Edwards’ ed.) 2 : pl. 35; Linn. Index, no. 35 

quadratus, Cancer, Meuschen, 1778, Mus. gronov. : 84 

quadratus, Cancer, Meuschen, 1781, Index to Gronovius’ 
Zoophylac. gronov. 

quadratus, Cancer, Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa Ins. 1 : 315 


19. 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. 


20. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by 
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in 
dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is 
accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International 
Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary 
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in 
virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that 
behalf. 


OPINION 262 B27, 


21. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two 
Hundred and Sixty-Two (262) of the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature. 


Done in London, this Twenty-Fourth 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 4A << _, : 


| Cy : ai 

VOLUME 5. Part 24. Pp. 3298—342 ies suai 
HE gO. ee 
\Z | ~e 

OPINION 263 Ne 


Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a description 

to represent the lectotype of the nominal species Papilio 

podalirius Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order 
Lepidoptera) 


LONDON : 


Printed by Order of the International Trust for 
Zoological Nomenclature 
and 
Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 
1954 


Price Five Shillings and Threepence 


(All rights reserved) 


Issued 10th August, 1954 


INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 263 


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. ony. E. VOKES oa 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.). 


€. Alternate Members of the Commission at the Session held in Paris 
in 1948 Q 

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. 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). 

Set Sur ai L. UsinGer (University of California, Berkeley, California, 
U.S.A.). 


OPINION 263 


DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF 
A DESCRIPTION TO REPRESENT THE LECTOTYPE 
OF THE NOMINAL SPECIES ‘“ PAPILIO 
PODALIRIUS ” LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS 
INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) 


RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers, the first 
of the three references cited by Linnaeus when publishing 
the name Papilio podalirius (Class Insecta, Order Lepi- 
doptera), namely the reference cited as “ Raj. ins. iil. 
n.3” (.e. Ray (J.), 1710, Hist. Ins.: III, n. 3), is hereby 
designated to represent the lectotype of the foregoing 
nominal species. 


(2) In view of the fact that in the passage cited above 
Ray stated that the specimens there referred to were 
taken “prope Liburnum, portum in Etruria” (i.e. at 
the port of Livorno in Tuscany), this locality becomes, 
under (1) above, the restricted locality for the nominal 
species Papilio podalirius Linnaeus, 1758. 


(3) The undermentioned specific names are hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 
as Names Nos. 77 and 78 : (a) podalirius Linnaeus, 1758, 
as published in the combination Papilio podalirius and 
as defined in (1) and (2) above ; (b) feisthamelii Duponchel 
1832, as published in the combination Papilio feist- 
hamelii, this entry on the Official List to be without 
prejudice to the prior rights of the specific name 
podalirius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination 
Papilio podalirius, from the standpoint of those specialists 
who regard these as the names of subspecies of a single 
collective species. 


I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE 


On 18th March 1945, Dr. A. Steven Corbet (British Museum 
(Natural History), London) submitted to the International 


332 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


Commission the following preliminary note foreshadowing an 
application for a ruling as to which of two allied species is that to 
which the name Papilio podalirius Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, 
Order Lepidoptera) should be held to apply, i.e. whether it applied 
to the Common Central European species commonly known 
by that name or, alternatively, to the North African and Spanish 
species or subspecies universally known by the specific name 
feisthamelii Duponchel, 1832 :— 


Request for a Ruling on the question of the species to which the name 
** podalirius ’’ Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination 
‘* Papilio podalirius ’’ should be applied 


By A. STEVEN CORBET 
(British Museum (Natural History), London) 


Extract from a letter dated 18th March 1945 


I enclose a draft of some notes on Papilio podalirius L..... , which 
contains all the relevant information, although I feel sure that it 
could be put together in a more logical manner. .... Regarding P. 
podalirius, it looks as if the type selection by Aurivillius ought to be 
taken into consideration, although it should not be overlooked that 
Aurivilltus was concerned primarily with the Lepidoptera described 
in the Mus. Lud. Ulr. and not those in the Syst. Nat. ed. 10. 


Enclosure to Dr. A. Steven Corbet’s letter of 18th March 1945 
** Papilio podalirius ’’ Linnaeus, 1758 


This name was first introduced by Linnaeus in a footnote to Papilio 
protesilaus on page 463 of Edition 10 of the Systema Naturae (1758). No 
description was given but reference was made to descriptions by Ray, 
Roésel and Réaumur and there were added ‘“‘ Habitat in Europae 
australis & Africae Brassica”. Of the authors cited by Linnaeus, 
only Ray gave a locality: ‘‘ Prope Liburnum portum in Etruria 
invenimis, atque etiam, ni male memini, in Anglia”. There is a 
female specimen of the North African butterfly P. feisthamelii Dup.,* 
summer brood /otteri Aust. in the Linnean Collection which bears the 
name “ podalirius’’ in Linnaeus’ handwriting. Had this specimen 
been in the Linnean Collection at the time Edition 10 was written 


* Spelling checked : Verity incorrect. 


OPINION 263 333 


it would have been regarded as the type but, as Verity suggests, there 
are reasons for believing that this specimen reached Linnaeus after 
Edition 10 had been completed and that Linnaeus had no first-hand 
knowledge of the butterfly at the time that he wrote the description. 


Linnaeus published a detailed description of P. podalirius in Mus. 
Lud. Ulr. in 1764 (p. 208), citing further references but giving “‘ Habitat 
in Brassica Europae australioris’’. When he examined the Queen’s 
collection, Aurivillius found no specimen corresponding to podalirius, 
but he selected Résel’s figure as typical. 


In 1767, Edition 12 of Systema Naturae (p. 751), Linnaeus gave an 
abbreviated description of P. podalirius, adding three more citations 
and amending the provenance to ‘* Habitat in Brassica Europae 
australis Africaeque borealis ”’. 


2. The question as to which species,t P. podalirius auctt. or P. 
feisthamelii Dup., the name “ podalirius ’’ should be applied appears to 
turn on whether or not Linnaeus possessed the specimen of the African 
species (now in his collection) at the time he wrote Edition 10. 


3. Linnaeus received material from North Africa from Erik Brander, 
who was Swedish Consul at Algiers, 1753—-1765. Verity believes that 
the Linnean specimen of P. feisthamelii was obtained in this way. 
It is known that Brander sent specimens to Queen Ludovica Ulrica 
also (see letter from Brander to Linnaeus dated 23. viii. 1756) although, 
be it noted, there is no reference to Africa in the habitat given for 
P. podalirius in Mus. Lud. Ulr. In Linnaeus’ own marked copy of 
Edition 10, P. podalirius is not marked as being in his own collection, 
although it is so marked in the Linnaean copy of Edition 12. There 
is no mention of Brander in Edition 10, although he is mentioned 
several times in Edition 12 in the descriptions of Lepidoptera and some 
of the insects (but not all) attributed to Brander are marked in the 
Linnean copy of Edition 12 as being in Linnaeus’ collection, where, in 
fact, they have been found. There is, then, much justification for 
Verity’s view that neither P. podalirius auctt. nor P. feisthameli Dup. 
were known to Linnaeus at the time he wrote Edition 10, except from 
figures. 


4. If the type of P. podalirius Linnaeus, 1758, is not a specimen in 
the Linnean Collection it can only be one of the specimens on which 
the descriptions of Ray, Résel, or Réaumur were based. As only 
the first-named author gave localities, it may seem reasonable to take 
one of these and thus finally establish the identity of “ podalirius’’. If 
the choice lies between Etruria and England, the former is preferable 
because it accords with the Linnean habitat of South Europe and it 


+ According to Verity, P. podalirius and P. feisthamelii Dup. fly together in Spain 
and Portugal and even down to Tangiers in Morocco. 


334 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


is doubtful if the butterfly occurred in England within historic times. 
On the other hand, can Aurivillius’ selection (Rec. Crit. Lep. Mus. 
Lud. Ulr., p. 28) be lightly set aside ? 


Why Linnaeus added “ Africa ’’ to the habitat in Editions 10 and 12 
is not known but it must not be overlooked that this mention is a point 
in favour of the specimen of P. feisthamelii being in Linnaeus’ possession 
at the time he wrote Edition 10. 


5. The balance of the evidence suggests that there was no specimen 
before Linnaeus when he first introduced the name “‘ podalirius ”’ and 
so the type locality must be fixed from the data given by Ray, Résel or 
Réaumur. Aurivillius’ selection of Résel’s figures fixed ‘‘ podalirius ”’ 
as the European species (presumably the German form) and it is 
suggested that this should be followed. 


Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 


2. On the receipt of Dr. Corbet’s letter, the problem dealt 
with in the present Opinion was given the Registered Number 
Z.N.(S.) 183. As soon as practicable thereafter, discussions were 
started with Dr. Corbet, by Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary 
to the Commission, who, as a lepidopterist, was already familiar 
with the problem involved, the object of these discussions being 
to settle the precise nature of the request to be submitted to the 
International Commission and, generally, to finalise Dr. Corbet’s 
application which, as it will have been seen (paragraph 1) was 
submitted only in draft form. These discussions were completed 
in the summer of 1946, and on 15th August of that year, the 
outcome was formally placed on record by Mr. Hemming in the 
following paper which was then placed in the Commission’s File 
Z.N.(S.) 183 :— 


On the need for action by the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature to put an end to the confusion arising from the present 
doubts as to the identity of the species to which the name 
‘* Papilio podalirius ’’ Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, 
Order Lepidoptera) is applicable 


By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London) 


My old friend Dr. Roger Verity of Florence performed a valuable 
service when just before the First World War he carried out a critical 


OPINION 263 335 


examination of the butterflies preserved in the Linnean collection at 
Burlington House (“‘ Revision of the Linnaean Types of Palaearctic 
Rhopalocera’’. Verity, 1913, J. linn. Soc. Lond. (Zool.) 32 : 173—191), 
It was unfortunate, however, that this paper was published before the 
grant to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 
by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913, of 
Plenary Powers to suspend the application of the Régles in cases where 
strict application would lead to serious confusion, especially where 
under the Rég/es it is necessary to transfer some well-known name 
from one species to another. For some of the conclusions reached 
by Dr. Verity in the light of his study of the Linnean material led— 
or, if generally adopted, would have led—to the most serious confusion. 
The fact that in a number of cases these conclusions have not been 
widely adopted in no way detracts from the threat to nomenclatorial 
stability represented by them. It has long been evident that the 
restoration of stability in the nomenclature of the species concerned 
can be secured only by action by the International Commission under 
its Plenary Powers. No doubt, applications for the use of the Plenary 
Powers in those cases would have been submitted to the Commission 
long ago, had it not been for the marked reluctance which unfortunately 
the Commission for long showed in the use of those Powers. The much 
more liberal policy adopted by the Commission at Lisbon in 1935 
under pressure from the International Congress of Entomology which 
had just met at Madrid gives grounds for hoping that in future applica- 
tions of this type submitted by responsible specialists will receive more 
sympathetic treatment. 


2. Few, if any, of the conclusions reached by Dr. Verity were cal- 
culated to cause greater nomenclatorial confusion than that in regard 
to the nominal species Papilio podalirius Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. 
(ed. 10) 1 : 463, nota). For the benefit of those zoologists who may 
be called upon to consider this case but who are not personally 
acquainted with the details, it may be explained that there are two 
species (as many specialists, including myself, consider)—or (as other 
specialists consider) two very strongly differentiated subspecies of a 
single species—of Swallow-Tail Butterfly belonging to the genus 
Iphiclides Hiibner [1819], found in the Western Palaearctic Region. 
These may be distinguished for the present purposes by their area of 
distribution which are substantially distinct : Species ““ A’, to which 
the trivial name podalirius Linnaeus has been almost universally applied 
for nearly two hundred years, which is widely distributed in Central and 
Southern Europe; Species (or subspecies) ““B”’, which occurs in 
North Africa and enters Europe in the Iberian Peninsula, which was 
originally described from Barcelona and which has been known 
consistently by the trivial name /feistamalii Duponchel, ever since that 
name was published in 1832. The need for action by the International 
Commission in the present case arises from the fact that Dr. Verity 
found only one Linnean specimen labelled podalirius and that 
specimen is referable not to species ‘‘A”’ (the species universally 


336 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


known by the trivial name podalirius Linneus) but to species (or 
subspecies) “ B”’, i.e. the Spanish and North African insect habitually 
known by the trivial name feisthamelii Duponchel. Thus, if the Regles 
were to be strictly applied in the present case, it would be necessary (a) 
to transfer the name podalirius Linnaeus from the common Central 
and South European Species ” A ”’ to the Spanish and North African 
Species ““ B”’, a transfer which would give rise to great confusion, and 
(b) to apply some other name—actually, the name sinon Poda, 1761 
(Papilio sinon Poda, 1761, Ins. Mus. graec. : 62, pl. 2, fig. 2)—to the 
Central and South European species, a change which would cause great 
inconvenience and at least initially considerable confusion. 


3. I have long had in mind that at some stage a request must be 
made to the International Commission for action under the Plenary 
Powers to prevent the confusion inevitable under a strict application 
of the Rég/es in this case, but I felt that, before such an application was 
submitted, it would be helpful if the Linnean material were to be 
re-examined, so that the Commission, when considering the proposed 
application, might have before it an up-to-date appraisal of that 
material by way of supplement to that made by Dr. Verity some thirty 
years ago. When therefore early in the war I learnt that Dr. A. Steven 
Corbet (British Museum (Natural History)), in conjunction with his 
colleague Mr. W. H. T. Tams, was carrying out a fresh examination 
of the Linnean Lepidoptera, I asked Dr. Corbet to give special 
consideration to the problem represented by the name Papilio 
podalirius and, having done so, to furnish a statement of his conclusions 
which could form the basis of an application to the International 
Commission for remedial action. I was therefore very pleased when 
I received Dr. Corbet’s letter, with enclosure, of 18th March 1945, 
setting out the conclusions which he had reached. 


4. I have since discussed this matter in some detail with Dr. Corbet, 
whose paper of this case was, it will be recalled, expressly marked as 
being a ‘“‘ draft’ and contained no concrete proposal for submission 
to the Commission. In that paper Dr. Corbet marshalled the 
available evidence and advanced the view that it might be possible to 
claim that Linnaeus described Papilio podalirius in 1758 only from 
previously published descriptions and without any actual specimens 
before him, and therefore, that the undoubted Linnean specimen of 
feisthamelii Duponchel preserved in his collection under the name 
podalirius may not have been received by Linnaeus until after the 
publication of the Tenth Edition of the Systema Naturae in 1758. 
While I agree that the method adopted by Linnaeus in describing 
this species—that is, the fact that he described it in a footnote instead 
of in the main text—lends some colour to the theory that in 1758 he 
was not personally acquainted either with Species “ A ” (the Central 
and Southern European species) or with Species ““B” (the Spanish 
and North African species), that theory is, I am convinced quite 


2 Reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion. 


_ OPINION 263 337 


untenable. For, if (as this theory requires) Linnaeus in 1758 knew 
nothing of either species except what he could glean from the works 
of the three authors (Ray; Résel; Réaumur) whom he cited, all of 
whom were concerned only with European insects and only one of 
whom gave a locality for this species, it would be impossible to explain 
away the fact that, in addition to having in his collection an African 
specimen (belonging to Species “B’’), he stated in the original 
description of this species that the species occurred in Africa “* Habitat 
in Europae australis et Africae Brassica’’. The existence of the 
African specimen in the Linnean collection might be accounted for 
by claiming that that specimen was received by Linnaeus on some date 
subsequent to 1758, but it would be stretching credibility altogether 
too far, if in addition it were necessary to argue that the reference, in 
the original description, to Africa as part of the area in which this 
species occurs was no more than some extraordinary coincidence 
or an inexplicable piece of clairvoyance on the part of Linnaeus. I 
have put this view to Dr. Corbet who now agrees that his former 
theory can no longer be regarded as tenable and that it must be con- 
cluded that Linnaeus was acquainted with the African species 
(feisthamelii), of which very likely a specimen or specimens had been 
sent to Linnaeus by Erik Brander who was Swedish Consul at Algiers 
in the period 1753—1765, and who is known to have supplied Linnaeus 
at various times with specimens of North African butterflies. 


5. In a case of this sort finality can be obtained only by the use by 
the International Commission of its Plenary Powers to direct that the 
name in question (in the present instance, the trivial name podalirius 
Linnaeus) shall be used in some particular way and in no other. It is 
necessary therefore to consider at this stage the precise form of the 
proposal which it is desirable should be submitted to the International 
Commission. It would, of course, be possible to select some modern 
figure or description which indubitably applies to Species “‘ A” (the 
common Central and South European species) and to ask the 
Commission under its Plenary Powers to direct that the figure or 
description so selected shall constitute the unique standard of reference 
for identifying the taxonomic species represented by the nominal 
species Papilio podalirius Linnaeus, 1758. In many cases such a 
course would be the most advantageous, in that it would eliminate 
all possibility of doubt as to the identity of the species to which it is 
desired to tie a given name. It happens, however, that an equally 
satisfactory result can be secured by selecting for the foregoing purpose 
one of the bibliographical references used by Linnaeus in 1758 as the 
basis for his nominal species Papilio podalirius. Neither the reference 
to Résel nor that to Réaumur would be satisfactory from this point 
of view, for, although there is no doubt that it was Species “A”’ (the 
common Central and South European species) with which those authors 
were dealing, the selection of either reference would give rise to fresh 
difficulties in the case of a polytypic species such as that with which 
we are here concerned, for the descriptions given by these authors are 
quite insufficient to provide a guide at the subspecies level and no 


338 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


localities for this species were cited by either. The position is quite 
otherwise in the case of Ray, the first of the three authors cited by 
Linnaeus, for his description, coupled with the precise particulars 
which he gives as regards the locality in which his specimens were taken 
make the position at the subspecies level, as well as at the species level, 
absolutely clear. For of this species he wrote: “‘ Prope Liburnum, 
portum in Etruria invenimus, atque etiam, ni male memini, in Anglia ” 
The locality “‘ Anglia”’ is incorrect for this species and is ineligible 
for consideration in the present context in view of the fact that it was a 
locus inguirendum from the standpoint of Ray. Accordingly the 
selection of the reference given by Linnaeus to Ray to be the standard 
by which the nominal species Papilio podalirius is to be interpreted 
would not only fix the identity of the taxonomic species represented 
by Linnaeus’ nominal species beyond possibility of argument but 
would also in addition fix with equal precision the identity of the 
nominotypical subspecies of that nominal species, for that subspecies 
would automatically be that found in the neighbourhood of Livorno 
in Tuscany. 


6. The foregoing is therefore the designation which I suggest the 
International Commission should be asked to make in this case. I 
have discussed this question both with Dr. Corbet and with Mr. N. D. 
Riley (Keeper, Department of Entomology, British Museum, London), 
each of whom is in agreement with the course suggested. Dr. Corbet 
has asked that his proposal to the International Commission a 
be interpreted in this sense. 


3. 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 for the purpose 
of determining the identity of the taxonomic species represented 
by the nominal species Papilio podalirius Linnaeus, 1758, 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. 


Ill.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


4. One of the first matters connected with the wording of the 
Régles to be considered by the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in 1948 was 


OPINION 263 339 


the clarification and reform of Article 31, the Article concerned 
with the designation of holotypes and the selection of lectotypes 
(Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 11) (1950, Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 4 : 73—76). It was in the light of the conclusions so 
reached 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 27) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 497—499) :— 


THE COMMISSION agreed :— 


(1) to use their Plenary Powers to direct that the reference 
toe Ray ms. tir n. 3 (ee. Ray (s_), 1710) Hist, nists 
111 n. 3) cited by Linnaeus, when in 1758 he first 
published the name Papilio podalirius was to be treated 
as representing the type specimen of that species and 
therefore that the trivial name podalirius Linnaeus, 
1758 (as published in the binominal combination cited 
above) was to be applied to the species there described 
by Ray from specimens taken at Livorno in Tuscany 
(“ prope Liburnum, portum Etruriae ’’) ; 


(2) to place the undermentioned trivial names on the Official 
List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— 


podalirius Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal 
combination Papilio podalirius), as defined in (1) 
above ; 


feisthameli! uponchel, 1832 (as published in the 
binominal combination Papilio feisthameli) (without 
prejudice to the prior rights of the trivial name 


t For an explanation of the use of a single terminal ‘“‘-i’’ for this name see 
paragraph 8 below. 


340 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


podalirius Linnaeus, 1758, from the standpoint of 
specialists who regard these as the names of sub- 
species of a single collective species) ; 


(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 Monday, 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 5 : 116). 


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. It must be noted also that, in view of the fact that it was. 
decided by the Paris Congress in 1948 that infringements of the 
provision in the concluding portion of Article 14 of the Régles 
(which at that time required that, where a trivial name was based 
on the modern patronymic of a man, that name should be formed 
by the addition to that patronymic of the genitive termination 


OPINION 263 341 


**-1”°) should be subject to automatic correction (1950, Bull. 
zool. Nomencl. 4 :67—68), the specific name /feisthamelii 
Duponchel, 1832, as published in the combination Papilio 
feisthamelii, was automatically corrected to feisthameli before 
being cited in the Conclusion reached by the Commission in Paris, 
quoted in paragraph 4 of the present Opinion. At its meeting 
held at Copenhagen in 1953 the Fourteenth International Congress 
of Zoology reviewed the decision taken by the Paris Congress in 
this matter and agreed to amend Article 14 in such a way as to 
provide that in cases such as that referred to above the 
terminations “-i” and “-ii” shall be permissible variants, the 
differences between them to have no nomenclatorial significance 
(1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 54). Accordingly, 
in the Ruling given in the present Opinion the “ -ii”’ spelling for 
the specific name feisthamelii Duponchel, 1832, as published 
in the combination Papilio feisthamelii, has been restored. 


9. The following are the original references for the names 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology in the 
Ruling given in the present Opinion :— 


feisthamelii, Papilio, Duponchel, 1832, in Godart, Hist. nat. 
Lépid. France, Suppl. 1 (Diurnes) : 7, pl. 1, fig. 19 ““ Barcelone ” 

podalirius, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 463, 
nota 


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 incorporated in the 
Ruling given in the present Opinion. 


342 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


11. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in 
dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is 
accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International 
Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary 
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in 
virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that 
behalf. 


12. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two 
Hundred and Sixty-Three (263) of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature. 


Done in London, this Twenty-Fifth day of December, Nineteen 
Hundred and Fifty-Three. 


Secretary to the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 


FRANCIS HEMMING 


Printed in England by MretcatFe & Cooper Iimirep 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 5. Part 25. Pp. 343-354 =i 


OPINION 264 SF 
Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a figure to 
represent the lectotype of the nominal species Papilio 
iris Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) 


LONDON : 
Printed by Order of the International Trust for 
Zoological Nomenclature 

and 
Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 

41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 
1954 


Price Four Shillings and Sixpence 
(All rights reserved) 
_——— 
Issued 10th August, 1954 


INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 264 


A. The Officers of the Commission 


President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural Hace 
Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England). 

Vice-President: Dr. James L. Peters (Museum of Comparative Zoology, 
Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.). 

Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London, England). 


B. The Members of the Commission 


Class 1949 


Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina). 

Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary to the Commission). 

Dr. Karl JoRDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, 
Tring, Herts, England) (President of the Commission). 

Dr. Th. MorRTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). 

Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia). 


Class 1952 

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil). 

Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.). 

Professor Lodovico di 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. MercaLr (North Carolina State College of Agriculture and 
Engineering, University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.). 

Mr. N. D. RInEy (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 Ma L. USINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California, 
U.S.A 


OPINION 264 


DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF 
A FIGURE TO REPRESENT THE LECTOTYPE 
OF THE NOMINAL SPECIES ‘PAPILIO 
IRIS ”’ LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS 
INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) 


RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers, the illus- 
tration given as figure 1 on plate 29 of South (R.), 1906, 
The Butterflies of the British Isles is hereby designated to 
represent the lectotype of the nominal species Papilio iris 
Linnaeus, 1758, and the restricted locality of the nominate 
subspecies of the foregoing species is to be treated as 
being ““ England ” (=“* Anglia’”’ of Linnaeus, 1758). 


(2) A note of the foregoing determination of the 
above nominal species is to be inserted in the entry in 
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name 
No. 48 of the specific name iris Linnaeus, 1758, as 
published in the combination Papilio iris, made under the 
directions given in Opinion 232. 


(3) The specific name i/ia [Schiffermtller and Denis], 
1775, as published in the combination Papilio ilia, is 
hereby placed on the foregoing Official List as Name 
No. 79. 


I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE 


On 18th March 1945, Dr. A. Steven Corbet (British Museum 
(Natural History), London) submitted to the International Com- 
mission the following preliminary note foreshadowing an 
application for a ruling under the Plenary Powers that the 
trivial name iris Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination 
Papilio iris, should be held to apply to the “ Purple Emperor ” 
Butterfly which occurs in Europe, including England, and which 
is habitually known by the specific name iris Linnaeus, 1758, and 
not to the allied species which occurs in Continental Europe 


346 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


but not in England and which is habitually known by the specific 
name ilia [Schiffermiiller and Denis], 1775! :— 


Request for the use of the Plenary Powers to secure the continued usage 
in its accustomed sense of the name ‘‘ iris ’’ Linnaeus, 1758, as 
published in the combination ‘‘ Papilio iris ”’ 


By A. STEVEN CORBET 
(British Museum (Natural History), London) 


Extract from a letter dated 18th March 1945 


I enclose a draft of some notes on Papilio iris L., which contains 
all the relevant information, although I feel sure that it could be put 
together in a more logical form. 


Enclosure to Dr. A. Steven Corbet’s letter of 18th March 1945 
Papilio iris ’’ Linnaeus, 1758 


When the Linnean Collection was examined in detail by Mr. 
W. H. T. Tams and myself in 1941 we were impressed by the sound 
state of preservation of the specimens, by the absence of any evidence 
suggesting that label-changing had been carried out: by Sir James 
Edward Smith, who acquired the collection after Linnaeus’ death, and 
by the presence of almost all the types which were known to be in the 
collection originally. To my mind, there is no doubt that the Linnean 
names should be based on these specimens (to a large extent this is the 
position which obtains already), and should not rest on selections of 
‘* types ’’ by later authors from among the figures and descriptions of 
previous authors cited by Linnaeus in his descriptions. At the same 
time, of course, it is necessary to ascertain that these specimens were 
actually in the Linnean Collection at the time that they were described. 


2. In the description of Papilio iris in Systema Naturae, Edition 10, 
p. 476, Linnaeus cited references to four authors including two figures 
and gave a detailed description which may refer to Apatura iris auctt. or 


to A. ilia (Schiff.) ; ‘‘ Habitat in Quercu Germaniae, Angliae etc. 
P. Forskal ”’. 


3. The Linnean Collection has two males labelled “iris”? and 
“110 iris’? in Linnean writing and both are A. i/ia: there is, in 
addition, a male of A. iris auctt. without label and (according to 
Verity) a female of A. ilia, also without a label but both believed to be 
Linnean. The species was marked in the Linnean copy of Edition 
10 as being in the Linnean collection and one of the males labelled 


1 Frequently, this name is incorrectly cited as having been first published in 
1776, but in fact it first appeared in 1775. 


OPINION 264 347 


‘iris’ should be regarded as the type. Although the description of iris 
in Edition 10 does not differentiate between iris auctt. and ilia there is 
a note added to Linnaeus’ copy of Edition 10 which made it clear that 
he was describing A. ilia and not A. iris auctt. ‘‘ Primoras supra 
maculis albis sparsis in media & exterius [et ocello nigro inde 
ferrugineo] ”’. 


4. In view of the confusion which must result from using the name 
iris in its correct sense, there is much to be said for the Commission 
fixing the name “iris” to A. iris auctt. with an arbitrarily selected type 
locality or designating the specimen of iris auctt. in the Linnean 
Collection as the type. I have no idea as to the provenance of this 
particular specimen. 


Ii—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 


2. On the receipt of Dr. Corbet’s letter, the problem dealt 
with in the present Opinion was given the Registered Number 
Z.N.(S.) 184. As soon as practicable thereafter, discussions were 
started with Dr. Corbet, by Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to 
the Commission, who, as a lepidopterist, was already familiar 
with the problem involved, the object of these discussions being 
to settle the precise nature of the request to be submitted to the 
International Commission and, generally, to finalise Dr. Corbet’s 
application which, as will have been noted (paragraph 1), was 
submitted only in draft form. These discussions were concluded 
in the summer of 1945, and on 23rd June of that year, the outcome 
was formally placed on record by Mr. Hemming in the following 
paper which was then placed in the Commission’s File 
Z.N.(S.) 184 :— 


Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate the species to be 
accepted as that represented by the nominal species ‘‘ Papilio 
iris ’’ Linnaeus, 1758 


By FRANCIS HEMMING (London) 


The purpose of the present note is to examine the question of the 
application of the name Papilio iris Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 
1 : 476) and to put forward a proposal for the use by the International 
Commission of its Plenary Powers for the purpose of securing that this 
name shall be available for use in its universally accepted sense. 


348 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


2. The present case is similar in its main outlines to that of the name 
Papilio podalirius Linnaeus, 1758, which has already been submitted 
to the International Commission by Dr. A. Steven Corbet and myself, in 
the sense that an examination of the material preserved in the Linnean 
collection at Burlington House carried out by Dr. Roger Verity in 
1912—1913 showed that this name was correctly applicable not to 
the species to which it is habitually applied but to an allied species 
which has always been known by a different name (Verity, 1913, 
J. linn. Soc. Lond. (Zool.) 32 : 180—181). Before examining the present 
case, it may be convenient to set out the issue in simple terms for the 
convenience of those zoologists who may be called upon to consider 
this matter but who are not personnally acquainted with the two 
species involved. Briefly, the point to be noted is that in the West 
Palaearctic Region there are two widely distributed species of the 
genus Apatura Fabricius, 1807, which for the present purpose may be 
distinguished as Species “‘ A’ and Species ““B’’. These species may 
be separated as follows :— 


(1) Species ““ A”: 


This species is most readily recognised by the presence on the 
upper side at the inner angle of the forewing of a black spot which, 
by reason of its being surrounded by the dark ground colour, 
is often barely visible. 


This species is widely distributed in Western, Central and 
Southern Europe. It occurs in England but does not extend 
as far north as Scandinavia. It is doubtful how far east it occurs ; 
the insect occurring in West China which was formerly regarded 
as a subspecies of Species “‘ A ”’ is now known to be structurally 
distinct. This species is known in England as the “Purple 
Emperor ”’. 


(2) Species SB: 


This species can at.once be distinguished from Species “‘ A”’ by 
the fact that the black spot at the inner angle of the forewing 
on the upperside is always surrounded by a circle of tawny scales. 
Moreover, unlike Species “A”, Species ““B” commonly 
exhibits marked dimorphism, there are frequently occurring speci- 
mens in which the white bands on the upperside are replaced by 
bands of a yellowish colour. 


In Western Europe this species has a distribution not unlike 
that of Species “A’’, but it does not extend as far north and is 
not found in England. It extends, however, much further to the 
East. 


3. Species ‘‘ A’ is habitually known as Apatura iris (Linnaeus, 
1758), being identified with Papilio iris Linnaeus, 1758. Species “* B” 
is habitually known as Apatura ilia [Schiffermiiller and Denis], 1775, 
being identified with Papilio ilia ({Schiffermiiller and Denis], 1775) 
(Ankiindung syst. Werk. Schmett. wien. Gegend : 172, no. G.2). 


OPINION 264 349 


4. The description given by Linnaeus (1758 : 476) for his Papilio 
iris might apply to either Species ““ A” or to Species ““B”’. Three of 
the four bibliographical references cited by Linnaeus are all to 
Species “A”. The fourth (that to Richter) is indeterminate. The 
locality cited by Linnaeus (“ Habitat in Quercu Germaniae, Angliae 
etc.”) certainly applies to Species ““ A” (by reason of the reference 
to “ Anglia’) and may also apply to Species ““B’’. Judged by the 
foregoing criteria, it would be reasonable to conclude (1) that the 
nominal species Papilio iris Linnaeus was certainly based upon Species 
“A” but (2) that, owing to the vagueness of the description and of 
one of the references cited, Linnaeus might also have had before him 
specimens of, or may have been referring to, Species ‘“‘B’”’ when 
establishing this nominal species but that there is no clear evidence 
that he did so. On this basis it would be reasonable to conclude that 
the current universal identification of Papilio iris Linnaeus with Species 
“A” (The Purple Emperor of England) was correct and to treat 
any elements of Species ““B’”’ which may have been included by 
Linnaeus in this nominal species as having been removed therefrom 
by Schiffermiiller and Denis, the first authors to recognise the dis- 
tinction between Species “‘ A ”’ and Species “ B ’’, when in 1775 they 
gave the name Papilio ilia to Species “‘ B”’, thus leaving Species “ A ” 
in undisputed possession of the name Papilio iris Linnaeus. 


5. Unfortunately, there are two pieces of evidence which clearly 
show that such a conclusion would be incorrect. These are: (1) In 
his own interleaved copy of the Tenth Edition of the Syst. Nat. (now 
preserved at Burlington House) Linnaeus, as noted by Verity (1913 : 
180—181), added at the end of the entry for Papilio iris the words 
“et ocello nigro inde ferrugineo’’, thus unmistakably identifying 
Papilio iris with Species ““B”. (2) The examination of the Linnean 
collection at Burlington House, first by Verity (1913 : 180) and again, 
recently, by Dr. Corbet shows conclusively that the Linnean syntypes of 
Papilio iris belong to Species ‘‘ B’’ and not to Species ““ A ”’. 


6. Every lepidopterist will agree that the utmost confusion would 
arise if it were necessary to transfer the trivial name iris Linnaeus 
from Species “A ’’, the species to which this name has been con- 
sistently applied for one hundred and eighty-seven years (i.e. ever 
since 1758), to the closely allied Species ‘‘ B”’, which ever since 1775 
has been known by the trivial name ilia [Schiffermiiller and Denis]. 
This is a clear case of a transfer of the kind expressly mentioned by 
the Ninth International Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913, as being 
a peculiarly suitable subject for the use by the International Com- 
mission of the Plenary Powers granted to it by that Congress. 


7. It remains to consider the form which action by the Inter- 
national Commission under its Plenary Powers might most suitably 
take in the present case. First, it will, I think, be generally agreed 
that ease of recognition will be promoted if the Commission, in giving 
directions as to how the nominal species Papilio iris Linnaeus, 1758, 


350 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


is to be interpreted, were to secure that the standard specimen or 
figure to be used for identifying this species should be a specimen, or a 
figure of a specimen, obtained in England, for of the two localities 
cited by Linnaeus for his Papilio iris this could only refer to Species 
“A ”’, since Species “‘ B ”’ does not occur in Great Britain. If we were 
concerned with a highly plastic species, it would probably be well to 
define the type locality of this species with greater precision than 
“England ’’. In that event it might, other things being equal, be 
convenient to select either the locality given by Ray or that given by 
Wilkes in the passages cited by Linnaeus, when describing Papilio iris, 
both of which are quite precise. Ray said of this species: “ Julio 
mense capta est circa Heveningham Castle in Essexia Anno 1695 A.D. 
Courtman’”’ ; Wilkes wrote: “... may be taken in Comb-Wood in 
Surrey, about Westram [sic] in Kent and in other places”. Neither 
of these localities would, however, prove a very convenient selection at. 
the present date, for the species has long been extinct both in Essex 
and in Kent. In the circumstances, it seems to me that the broader 
indication given by the word “‘ England ”’ will be quite sufficient. 


8. It will certainly be desirable that, when prescribing the manner 
in which this nominal species should be interpreted, the International 
Commission should cite a good modern coloured figure, preferably 
one published in some inexpensive and easily accessible book. I 
suggest for consideration that the excellent figure of a male specimen 
given as figure 1 on plate 29 of Richard South’s well-known little book 
entitled The Butterflies of the British Isles published in 1906 would be 
very suitable for this purpose. 


9. I accordingly suggest for consideration that the International 
Commission should use its Plenary Powers to direct that the trivial 
name iris Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio iris, 
shall be held to apply to the species represented by the specimen as 
figured in the work cited in the immediately preceding paragraph and 
that the type locality of the nominotypical subspecies of this species 
shall be held to be “‘ England ”’ (= “‘ Anglia’ of Linnaeus, 1758). 


3. Support received from Mr. N. D. Riley (British Museum 
(National History), London) : On 23rd June 1945, Mr. N. D. Riley 
(Keeper, Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural 
History), London), with whom Mr. Hemming had been in 
correspondence when preparing the paper reproduced in the 
immediately preceding paragraph of the present Opinion, stated 
that he was in full agreement with the application submitted in 
the present case, adding that, in his view, any other course would 
inevitably lead to the most serious confusion. 


4. Issue of Public Notices : On 14th November 1947 a notice 
of the possible use by the International Commission on 


OPINION 264 351 


Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers for the purpose 
of determining the identity of the taxonomic species represented 
by the nominal species Papilio iris Linnaeus, 1758, 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. 


I1l—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


5. One of the first matters connected with the wording of the 
Régles to be considered by the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in 1948 was 
the clarification and reform of Article 31, the Article concerned 
with the designation of holotypes and the selection of lectotypes 
(Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 11) (1950, Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 4 : 73—76)*. It was in the light of the conclusions so 
reached 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 39) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 540—542) :— 


THE COMMISSION agreed :— 


(1) to use their Plenary Powers to direct that the trivial name 
iris Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal 
combination Papilio iris, should be applied to the 
species figured as Apatura iris by South (R.), 1906, 
The Butterflies of the British Isles as figure 1 on plate 29 
and that the type locality of this species, i.e. the type 


2 Article 31 was further amended by the Fourteenth International Congress of 
Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, but the changes then made do not affect the 
decision taken in the present case. See 1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. 
Nomencl. : 72—78. 


352 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


locality of the nominotypical subspecies of this species, 
should be deemed to be “ England” (“‘ Anglia” of 
Linnaeus, 1758) ; 


(2) that the foregoing definition of the meaning to be applied 
to the trivial name iris Linnaeus, 1758, should be 
entered against that trivial name, when, in accordance 
with the decision recorded in Conclusion 16 (6) of 
the present meeting that name was inscribed on the 
Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; 


(3) to place the trivial name i/ia [Schiffermiller and Denis], 
1775, as published in the binominal combination 
Papilio ilia, on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names 
in Zoology ; 

(4) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified 
in (1) to (3) above. 


6. It should be noted that the only reason why the specific 
name iris Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination 
Papilio iris, dealt with in the decision set out in the immediately 
preceding paragraph was not, in that decision, placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology was that this name had 
already been placed on that List under a decision which has since 
been embodied in Opinion 232. 


7. The following are the original references and localities for 
the names placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 
in the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— 


ilia, Papilio, {(Schiffermuller and Denis], 1775, Ankiindung syst. 
Werk Schmett. wien. Gegend : 172, no. G.2. ““ Wiener Gegend ” 


iris, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 476 “‘ England ” 
(by designation in the present Opinion) 


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 Monday, 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 5 : 117). 


OPINION 264 353 


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 
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. It must be noted also that at the time when the Ruling 
given in the present Opinion was adopted by the International 
Commission, the expression prescribed to denote, in the case of 
polytypic species, the subspecies upon which the nominal species 
concerned was originally based was the expression “ nomino- 
typical subspecies ’’ (Paris Session, 7th Meeting, Conclusion 2) 
(1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 191), but that at its meeting held 
at Copenhagen in 1953 the Fourteenth International Congress of 
Zoology decided to substitute for the foregoing expression the 


354 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


expression “ nominate subspecies ” (1953, Copenhagen Decisions 
zool. Nomencl. : 21). The change in terminology so adopted has 
been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 


13. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by 
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in 
dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is 
accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International 
Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary 
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in 


virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that 
behalf. 


14. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two 
Hundred and Sixty-Four (264) of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature. 


Done in London, this Fourth day of January; Nineteen 
Hundred and Fifty-Four. 


Secretary to the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 


FRANCIS HEMMING 


SAS RONAN IES AB OS tg RR 
Printed in England by Metcatre & Cooper Limitep 10-24 Scrutton St. Londen EC2 


OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 
RENDERED BY THE INTER- 
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


Edited by 
FRANCIS HEMMING, cmc, cae. _ | 
Secretary to the Commission is &: rs ; | 


VOLUME 5. Part 26. Pp. 355-366 \\= [fj SJ 


OPINION 265 


Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the specific 

names aristolochiae Fabricius, 1775, as published in the 

combination Papilio aristolochiae and ascanius Cramer 

[1775], as published in the combination Papilio ascanius 
(Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) 


LONDON : 


Printed by Order of the International Trust for 
Zoological Nomenclature 
and 
Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 
1954 


Price Four Shillings and Sixpence 


(All rights reserved) 


Issued 10th August, 1954 


INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 265 


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 JoRDA™m (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, 
Tring, Herts, England) (President of the Commission). 

Dr. Th. MORTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). 

Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia). 


Class 1952 

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil). 

Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.). 

Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (University of Parma, Italy). 

Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Canada). 

Dr. James L. PETERS (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, 
Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). 

Dr. Harold E. Vokes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., 
U.S.A.). 


Class 1955 

Professor Dr. Hilbrand BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, 
Leiden, The Netherlands). 

Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Tayport, Fife, Scotland). 

Professor Teiso ESAKI (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan). 

Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary). 

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Polish Zoological Museum, Warsaw, Poland). 

Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Princeton, 
New Jersey, U.S.A.). 


C. Alternate Members of the Commission at the Session held in Paris 
in 1948 

Professor Enrique BELTRAN (Instituto Mexicano de Recursos Naturales 
Renovables A.C., Mexico City, Mexico). 

Dr. Edward HINDLE (Zoological Society of London, London, England). 

Dr. Arturo Ricardo JoRGE (Museu Bocage, Lisbon, Portugal). 

Professor Harold Kirspy (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). 

Dr. Henning LemcHeE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologisk Labora- 
torium, Copenhagen, Denmark). 

Professor Kamel MANsSouR (King Fouad University, Cairo, Egypt). 

Professor Z. P. METCALF (North Carolina State College of Agriculture and 
Engineering, University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.). 

Mr. N. D. RiLey (British Museum (Natural History), London, England). 

Professor Ragnar SpARCK (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, 
Denmark). : 

Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de 
Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). 

ge aes L. UsINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California, 


OPINION 265 


VALIDATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE 
SPECIFIC NAMES “ ARISTOLOCHIAE ” FABRICIUS, 
1775, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION 
‘PAPILIO ARISTOLOCHIAE” AND 

“© ASCANIUS ” CRAMER [1775], AS 
PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINA- 
TION “ PAPILIO ASCANIUS ” 
(CLASS INSECTA, ORDER 
LEPIDOPTERA) 


RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers, the under- 
mentioned specific 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) the 
name ascanius Linnaeus, 1768, as published in the com- 
bination Papilio ascanius ; (b) the name aristolochiae 
Pallas, as used by that author in the combination Papilio. 
aristolochiae on any date prior to the publication in 1775 
of the name aristolochiae Fabricius in the same combina- 
tion. 


(2) The specific names suppressed under the Plenary 
Powers in (1) above are hereby placed on the Official Index 
of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as 
Names Nos. 21 and 22. 


(3) The undermentioned specific names are hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 
as Names Nos. 80 and 81 :—(a) the name ascanius 
Cramer [1775] as published in the combination Papilio 
ascanius ; (b) the name aristolochiae Fabricius, 1775, as 
published in the combination Papilio aristolochiae. 


I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE 


In the early part of the year 1945 Dr. A. Steven Corbet (British 
Museum (Natural History), London) recalled to Mr. Francis 
Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, that in 
1941 he had published a suggestion (Corbet, 1941, Proc. R. ent. 
Soc. Lond. (B) 10 : 27) that an application should be submitted 
to the International Commission asking for the use of the Plenary 


358 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


Powers to suppress the specific name ascanius Linnaeus, 1768, 
as published in the combination Papilio ascanius, a long-overlooked 
name recently brought to light by Dr. Corbet’s survey of the 
writings of Linnaeus which, if re-introduced, would lead to the 
sinking in synonymy of the name aristolochiae Fabricius, 1775, as 
published in the combination Papilio aristolochiae, and to the 
rejection, as a junior homonym, of the name ascanius Cramer, 
1775, as published in the combination Papilio ascanius. Dr. 
Corbet took the view that both these results would be highly 
objectionable, especially the former, having regard to the fact 
that either in its Latin form or in some vernacular form the name 
aristolochiae had been widely used to denote an important 
section of the genus Papilio Linnaeus, 1758, sensu lat., a usage 
which would quickly become unintelligible if the name aristolochiae 
Fabricius were to be discarded as a junior (subjective) synonym. 
Dr. Corbet added that, now that the Commission was in a position 
to deal with new applications, he proposed formally to submit 
this case. In informing Dr. Corbet of his support for the sub- 
mission to the International Commission of an application on the 
foregoing lines, Mr. Hemming added that, as lepidopterist, he 
hoped that Dr. Corbet would widen his application somewhat, 
in order to include a proposal that the Commission should 
suppress a usage of the name aristolochiae in the combination 
Papilio aristolochiae which it was known had been made by 
Pallas on some date prior to 1780 in a work which it had been 
impossible to trace; a lengthy description by Pallas of his 
Papilio aristolochiae had been quoted by Esper in 1780 and it 
might well be that that name had been published by Pallas before 
the appearance in print of the name Papilio aristolochiae Fabricius, 
1775, the name which it was Dr. Corbet’s principal object to 
preserve. Mr. Hemming therefore suggested that he should 
include in his application to the Commission a request that the 
name aristolochiae as used by Pallas in the combination Papilio 
aristolochiae on some date prior to 1780 should be suppressed 
under the Plenary Powers. Dr. Corbet agreed to expand his 
application in this way, and on 26th March 1945 he submitted 
the following letter enclosing the draft of his projected application 
to the Commission. Dr. Corbet had not supplied the substantive 
application at the time of his premature death, and accordingly 
the document furnished by him in 1945 was adopted by the 
Commission as constituting the “Statement of the Case” in 


OPINION 265 359 


relation to the names discussed above. Dr. Corbet’s letter and 
enclosure were as follows :— 


Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the names ‘‘ Papilio 
aristolochiae ’’ Fabricius, 1775, and ‘‘ Papilio ascanius ”’ 
Cramer [1775] 


(a) Letter, dated 26th March 1945 from Dr. A. Steven Corbet to 
Mr. Francis Hemming 


Enclosed is a draft of my proposed application to the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for suspension of the Rules 
in order to invalidate the names Papilio ascanius Linnaeus, 1768, and 
Papilio aristolochiae Pallas. 


(b) Enclosure to Dr. A. Steven Corbet’s letter of 26th March 1945 


1. Papilio ascanius Linnaeus, 1768 


Papilio ascanius (Eques) Linnaeus, 1768, Iter in Chinam : 7, 8 (note d; Hab. in 
Insula Nieuw Bay -[Java]. 


This name was applied by Linnaeus to a butterfly taken by Anders 
Sparrman in Java during his voyage to China in 1765. The insect 
remained unidentified until recently when the opinion was expressed 
(Corbet, 1941, Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (B) 10 : 25) that the name 
applies to the form antiphus Fabricius of Atrophaneura aristolochiae 
(Fabricius). The Sumatran race of the species is of this form, which 
also occurs occasionally in west Java, according to material in the 
British Museum. 


2. Papilio aristolochiae Fabricius, 1775 


Papilio aristolochiae Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 443; “‘Hab. in Aristolochiis 
Indiae Orientalis’’. 


It is generally considered that Fabricius’s name was based on an 
Indian example of the common and widely distributed species of 
Atrophaneura to which it is currently applied. The name of aristolo- 
chiae, however, was not consistently applied to this species for, in 
the first half of the last century, it was incorrectly known as P. polydorus 
and later it passed under the name of P. diphilus Esper, which is now 
regarded as a synonym of aristolochiae. Butler re-established the 
Fabrician name for the species in 1869 and this name has been univer- 
sally used for the collective species ever since. 


3. Papilio ascanius Cramer [1775] 


Papilio ascanius Cramer, 1775, Ujitlandsche Kapellen, 1 : 20, pl. xiv, fig. A; 
Brazil, Rio de Janeiro. 


Although Cramer made no mention of the Linnean name ascanius 
there can be little doubt that he was aware of it, for the South American 
species to which he allotted the name bears a superficial resemblance 
to the Oriental species described as P. ascanius by Linnaeus and as 
P. aristolochiae by Fabricius. Cramer’s species, which is now known 


360 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


as Battus ascanius ({Cramer]), appears to be confined to the neighbour- 
hood of Rio de Janeiro and has been known by no other trivial name 
than that which Cramer applied to it. 


4. Papilio aristolochiae Esper [1780]. 


Papilio aristolochiae Esper [1780], Die Schmetterlinge, 1 (Bd. 2) (Forts. Tag- 
schmett.) : 19 ; Stidlich Russland. 


In his description of Zerynthia rumina (Esper nec Linnaeus), for 
which the oldest valid name appears to be Z. hypermnestra Scopoli, 
1763, Esper commented on the appropriateness of Pallas’s name 
Papilio aristolochiae for the species, since the larva feeds on Aristolo- 
chia. From Esper’s remarks, it might appear that Pallas had previously 
published this name, but a search through his Reise Prov. Russ. Reichs. 
has not revealed any clue. For the present, therefore, the name 
must be attributed to Esper. 


The name aristolochiae has not been employed consistently for any 
of the Zerynthia species and it would be unfortunate if it had to be 


brought into use following the discovery of its publication by Pallas 
before 1775. 


5. A strict application of the laws of priority to these two pairs 
of homonyms would necessitate the following changes in nomen- 
clature. 


(i) Atrophaneura ascanius (Linnaeus, 1758) would replace Aztro- 
phaneura aristolochiae (Fabricius, 1775) as the oldest valid name for 


the widely distributed oriental species at present known under the 
latter name. 


(ii) A new name would be required for the South American species 
of Battus which has been known under the trivial name of ascanius 
[Cramer], 1775, for over a century and a half. 


(iii) If a name Papilio aristolochiae Pallas came to light with a date 
of publication prior to 1775 it would invalidate the Fabrician name 
and this latter name would not be available for use even as a sub- 
specific name. If Pallas’s name appeared before 1763, it would 
invalidate Scopoli’s name of hypermnestra for the Zerynthia species. 


6. It must be conceded that a strict application of the law of priority 
would have a most unfortunate effect on the nomenclature of two, 
or possibly three, well-known species of PAPILIONIDAE. The trans- 
ference of the name ascanius from the South American species of 
Battus to the common Oriental species of Atrophaneura which is widely 
known as aristolochiae would upset the nomenclature of two important 
species which have been known by these names for a long time and 
of which the latter species has an extensive literature. 


The resuscitation of Pallas’s name aristolochiae (if such were found), 
for the Zerynthia species now known as hypermnestra Scopoli would 
not only lead to confusion in the literature of this species but would 
involve changing the name of the Oriental Atrophaneura species, 


OPINION 265 361 


assuming that this had not been done in consequence of the identifica- 
tion of the Linnean name ascanius. 


In my opinion, these devastating changes in nomenclature resulting 
from the identification of Linnaeus’s ascanius and the discovery that 
Pallas used the name aristolochiae for a species of Zerynthia are not 
only unwarranted but may well have the effect of bringing zoological 
nomenclature to ridicule; certainly they would create “ greater 
confusion than uniformity”’. 


7. I, accordingly, on the basis of the evidence submitted, apply to 
the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature : 


(1) To suspend the rules in the case of Papilio ascanius Linnaeus, 
1768, and to reject the name permanently. 


(2) To suspend the rules in the case of Papilio aristolochiae Pallas, 
if this name should subsequently be found in the literature, 
and to reject the name permanently. 


Il.—HISTORY OF THE PRESENT CASE PRIOR TO THE 
RECEIPT OF DR. CORBET’S APPLICATION 


2. As has already been explained, one aspect of the proposal 
submitted by Dr. Corbet had been considered by Mr. Hemming, 
as a lepidopterist, before the outbreak of war in 1939. The 
following is a note on this subject prepared by Mr. Hemming on 
28th July 1936, shortly before he was elected Secretary to the 
International Commission :— 


The problem created by the use of the name ‘‘ Papilio aristolochiae ”’ 
by Pallas on some date prior to 1780 for the Zerynthiid species 
formerly generally known as ‘‘ Thais polyxena ”’ 
[Schiffermiiller & Denis], 1775 


By FRANCIS HEMMING (London) 


The common South European Zerynthiid species formerly known 
as Thais polyxena ({Schiffermiller & Denis], 1775), and now referred 
to the genus Zerynthia Ochsenheimer, 1816, presents a nomenclatorial 
tangle which at present is quite insoluble. 


2. This species was universally known as Thais polyxena ([{Schiffer- 
muller & Denis], 1775) (Ankiindung syst. Werk. Schmett. wien. Gegend : 
162, no. C.1) until about 1908, although it was usually dated “* 1776” 
and attributed to the version of the same authors’ work published in 
the latter year in an edition differing from that of 1775 only in its 
title (Verzeichniss der Schmetterlinge der Wiener Gegend). 


362 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


3. In 1908, however, Verity proposed (1908, Rhop. pal. : 31) the 
re-introduction for this species of the trivial name hAypermnestra 
Scopoli, 1763 (Papilio hypermnestra Scopoli, 1763, Ent. carn. : 149) 
and this suggestion won a fair measure of acceptance. This usage 
was, however, incorrect, for the name Papilio hypermnestra Scopoli, 
1763, was an invalid junior homonym of an identical name published 
for an entirely different species somewhat earlier in the same year, 
namely Papilio hypermnestra Linnaeus, 1763 (Amoen. acad. 6 : 407). 
As soon as it was realised that the name hypermnestra Scopoli was 
not available, a fresh hunt was made for a name for this species. 
The name next brought forward was hypsipyle Fabricius, 1777 (Papilio 
hypsipyle Fabricius, 1777, Gen. Ins. : 265). In 1934 (Stylops 3 : 196), 
I accepted this name, but pointed out that it had been published by 
Schulze a year before it was published by Fabricius, and therefore 
that it should be known as Zerynthia hypsipyle (Schulze, 1776) (Papilio 
hypsipyle Schulze, 1776, Naturforscher 9 : 221 et nota). The nominal 
species so established by Schulze is objectively identical with the 
nominal species Papilio hypermnestra Scopoli, 1763, Schulze having 
stated that his new name was a nom. nov. for Scopoli’s hypermnestra. 


4. In the course of the survey of the old literature on which I am 
at present engaged for the purpose of detecting all the names published 
for the Palaearctic butterflies—and, so far as possible, securing the 
suppression, by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- 
clature, of any of these old names, the resurrection of which would 
give rise to serious confusion—I have come across a hitherto unsus- 
pected difficulty in connection with the name to be used for the present 
species. For I find that in Band 2 of the first Theil of the Fortsetzung der 
europdischer Schmetterlinge Esper, when discussing the present species 
under the name P. N. Ph. Rumina (the use of this name being a mis- 
identification of the entirely different species Papilio rumina Linnaeus, 
1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 480), quotes a long description of what is 
undoubtedly this species written by Pallas under the name Papilio 
aristolochiae. The specimens on which Pallas’s description was based 
were obtained from Southern Russia. Esper gave no reference from 
which to trace this long and important quotation from Pallas. The 
only contemporary author who appears to have noted the name 
Papilio aristolochiae Pallas was Borkhausen (1788, Naturgesch. eur. 
Schmett. 1 : 23, 113 ; 1789, ibid. 2 : 212), but he also gave no biblio- 
graphical reference to the passage in Pallas concerned, his knowledge 
of this name being evidently mainly, if not entirely, derivative from 
the passage in Esper referred to above. It is possible that the long 
passage—extending to over one full page of Esper’s work—may be 
no more than a transcript from a lengthy communication received 
by Esper from Pallas, but the description is so detailed that this is 
most improbable. In view of the locality in which were obtained 
the specimens on which Pallas stated that he based the description 
of his Papilio aristolochiae, it is much more likely that the passage in 
question appeared somewhere in the massive volumes of Pallas’s 
Reise durch verschiedene Provinzen des Provinzen des Russischen 


OPINION 265 363 


Reichs. published in the period 1771—1776. Both Dr. C. D. Sherborn 
and myself have spent long hours in searching the three volumes of 
the foregoing work, but we have entirely failed to find any usage 
therein of the name Papilio aristolochiae Pallas. 


5. The situation disclosed above is extraordinarily unsatisfactory, 
not only because it leaves completely in doubt what is the oldest 
available name for the Zerynthiid here under consideration, but 
also—and, viewed from a more general standpoint, particularly— 
because of the possibility that Pallas may have published for this 
species a name consisting of the combination Papilio aristolochiae 
prior to the publication of the name Papilio aristolochiae Fabricius, 
1775 (Syst. Ent. : 443). The disappearance, as a junior homonym, 
of the latter name would be a most serious matter, having regard to 
the fact that either in its Latin form or some vernacular adaptation 
that name has given its currently adopted title to one of the most 
characteristic Sections of the genus Papilio Linnaeus, 1758, as broadly 
conceived, and has become the centre around which a large literature 
has accumulated. 


6. In view of the considerations set out above, it is essential from 
the point of view of the nomenclature of the West Palaearctic butterflies 
that an end should be put to the present irremediable uncertainty as 
to the name to be applied to the Zerynthiid formerly known as Thais 
polyxena ([Schiffermitller & Denis], 1775), by the suppression, by the 
International Commission, under its Plenary Powers, of the mystery 
name—perhaps no more than a cheironym—aristolochiae as used by 
Pallas in the combination Papilio aristolochiae. The same action is 
absolutely essential also in order to prevent the most serious confusion 
in the nomenclature of the largest single group—the genus Papilio 
Linnaeus, 1758, as formerly understood—in the family PAPILIONIDAE. 


IIl—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 


3. On receipt of Dr. Corbet’s letter of 26th March 1945, the 
problem dealt with in the present Opinion was given the Regis- 
tered Number Z.N.(S.) 186. Mr. Hemming thereupon consulted 
Mr. N. D. Riley (Keeper, Department of Entomology, British 
Museum (Natural History), London), with whom before the war 
he had discussed the aspect of this case raised by the discovery 
of the existence of the name Papilio aristolochiae Pallas. On 
15th May 1945 Mr. Riley informed Mr. Hemming that he was 
in agreement with the action proposed by Dr. Corbet; Mr. 
Riley added that great confusion would result if the name 
aristolochiae Fabricius, 1775, had to be discarded for the species 
of Papilio to which it was universally applied. 


364 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


4. 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 for the purpose of validating 
the specific name aristolochiae Fabricius, 1775, as published in 
the combination Papilio aristolochiae, was sent 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. 


IV.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


5. The present application was considered by the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Fourteenth 
Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi- 
theatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 2030 hours. 
The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Pro- 
ceedings of the International Commission, setting out the decision 
taken by it in the present case at the foregoing meeting (Paris 
Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 40) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
4 : 542—545) :— 


THE COMMISSION agreed :— 


(1) to use their Plenary Powers :— 
(a) to suppress the trivial name ascanius Linnaeus, 
1768, as published in us binominal combination 
Papilio ascanius ; 


(b) in so far as such use might be necessary, to suppress 
the trivial name aristolochiae Pallas, as published 
in the binominal combination Papilio aristolo- 
chiae, prior to the publication by Esper in 
[1780] of an extract, containing this name, from 
some work by Pallas ; 


OPINION 265 365 


(c) to validate the under-mentioned trivial names :— 


aristolochiae Fabricius, 1775, as published in the 
binominal combination Papilio aristolochiae, 

ascanius Cramer [1775], as published in the 
binominal combination Papilio ascanius ; 


(2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Specific Trivial Names in Zoology the trivial names 
specified in (1)(a) and (1)(b) above ; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in 
Zoology the trivial names specified in (1)(c) above ; 


(4) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in 
(1) to (3) above. 


6. The following are the original references for the names 
which appear in the decision set out in the immediately preceding 
paragraph :— 
aristolochiae, Papilio, Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 443 
ascanius, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1768, Dissert. acad. sistens in Iter in 

Chinam : 7, 8 (nota d) 
ascanius, Papilio, Cramer, 1775, Uitl. Kapellen 1 (2) : 20, pl. 14, 

fig. A 


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 Sixth 
Meeting held on Monday, 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 5 : 118). 


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 wee 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. 


366 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


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 incorporated 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 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 Sixty-Five (265) of the International Comms 
on Zoological Nomenclature. 


Done in London, this Fifth day of January, Nineteen Hundred 
and Fifty-Four. 


Secretary to the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 


FRANCIS HEMMING 


Printed in England by Mretcatre & Cooper LimirepD, 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 W a <p [IM 
Seon 
is or 
(aes 
VOLUME 5. Part 27. Pp. 367—386, 2 plates \ i= Oi 
\<e Liu 
Ko a | 
Se i 
OPINION 266 — 


Determination of the species to which the specific 
name annulatum Dschunkowsky & Luhs, [1906], as 
published in the combination Piroplasma annulatum 
(Class Sporozoa, Order Coccidiida) shall be held to apply 


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, $.W.7 
1954 


Price Ten Shillings and Sixpence 


(All rights-reserved) 


Issued 10th August, 1954 


INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 266 


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. Ta 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 LeMcuE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologisk Tabor 
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). 

eee! ora L. UsINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California, 

.S.A.). 


thi ie 


OPINION 266 


DETERMINATION OF THE SPECIES TO WHICH THE 
SPECIFIC NAME ‘* ANNULATUM ”? DSCHUNKOWSKY 
& LUHS, [1906], AS PUBLISHED IN THE COM- 
BINATION ‘ PIROPLASMA ANNULATUM ”’ 
(CLASS SPOROZOA, ORDER COCCIDIIDA) 
SHALL BE HELD TO APPLY 


RULING :—(1) The name Piroplasma annulatum (Class 
Sporozoa, Order Coccidiida) was published in 1906 on 
page 290 of the Report of the VIIIth International 
Veterinary Congress, Budapest, 1905, where it appeared 
(3 : 290) in a paper by Dschunkowsky & Luhs communi- 
cated to the Congress by M. G. Tartarowsky, and is 
therefore to be attributed to Dschunkowsky & Luhs, 
[1906]. 

(2) Sergent (E.) was in error when in 1923 he rejected 
the specific name annulatum Dschunkowsky & Luhs, as 
published in the foregoing combination, on the ground 
that, when that name was first published, its authors 
had included under it two species (the one, pathogenic ; 
the other, non-pathogenic), for under the Régles a specific 
name may not be rejected on such grounds, it being 
necessary to determine the species to which the name 
should be held to apply by the use of the mechanism 
provided by Article 31. 


(3) The first author to apply the provisions of Article 31 
to the foregoing name was Witenberg in his paper 
published in 1947 in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- 
clature (1 : 233—234), when he selected, as the species 
to which the name should apply, the pathogenic (as 
contrasted with the non-pathogenic) species included 
under the name Piroplasma annulatum by Dschunkowsky 
& Luhs, when establishing the nominal species so named. 


(4) The nominal species Theileria parva Donatien, 
Plantureux et al., 1923, and Theileria dispar Sergent (E.), 
1924, considered by specialists to be identical with 
Piroplasma annulatum Dschunkowsky & Luhs, [1906], as 
determined under (3) above, and the specific names 
parva Donatien, Plantureux et al., 1923, and dispar 
Sergent, 1924, as published in combination with the 


370 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


generic name Theileria, are therefore junior subjective 
synonyms of annulatum Dschunkowsky & Luhs, [1906], 
as published in the combination Piroplasma annulatum. 


(5) The specific name annulatum Dschunkowsky & 
Luhs, [1906], as published in the combination Piroplasma 
annulatum, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology as Name No. 82. 


1.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE 


On 7th April 1938 Dr. G. Witenberg (Hebrew University, 
Jerusalem) submitted to the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature the following request for a ruling on 
the question of the taxonomic species to which the name Piro- 
plasma annulatum Dschunkowsky & Luhs, 1904 [sic] (Class 
Sporozoa, Order Coccidiida) should, under the Régles, be held 


to apply :-— 


On the status of the name commonly cited as ‘‘ Piroplasma annulatum ”’ 
Dschunkowsky and Luhs, 1904 (Class Porozoa, Order Coccidiida) 


By G. WITENBERG 
(Department of Parasitology, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem) 


Dschunkowsky and Luhs, 1904, Zb/. Bakt. (Erste Abt.) 35 : 486— 
492 ; in a paper entitled ‘‘ Die Piroplasmosen der Rinder ”’ described 
but did not name a disease of cattle in the Caucasus. In this article, 
reference is made to two “forms” of the parasite, one occurring 
in an “‘ acute ’’ form of the disease and the other in a “ chronic” one. 
These authors later wrote of this species under the name Piroplasma 
annulatum, but it has not so far been possible to trace the paper in 
which this name was first so published. 


Both the above “‘ forms ”’ of this parasite may now be distinguished 
as species, the one belonging to the genus Theileria Bettercourt, Franca, 
& Borges, 1907, Arch. Inst. Bact. Camera Pestana 1 : 343, the other to 
Anaplasma Theiler, 1910, Bull. Soc. Path. exot. 3 : 135. The Theileria 
species is apparently identical with a well-defined North African, 
namely Theileria dispar Ed. Sergent. 


Ed. Sergent (1923, Bull. Soc. Path. exot. 16 : 23—30) expressed 
the view that the trivial name annulatum of Dschunkowsky and Luhs 
should not be recognised because the species so named by those authors 


ee 


OPINION 266 371 


is a “ mixed species’. Sergent considered that the species of Theileria 
described by the above authors under the above name might have been 
either of the two species of that genus found in the Mediterranean area, 
one pathogenic and the other non-pathogenic. The pathogenic species 
Sergent incorrectly called Theileria parva, though in his later papers 
he replaced that name by the name Theileria dispar ; the non-pathogenic 
species he called Theileria mutans. 


However, the arguments advanced by Sergent cannot be accepted, 
for it is quite certain that there exists only one pathogenic species 
of the genus Theileria in the Mediterranean area. It seems, therefore, 
that the name Theileria dispar Sergent, should be regarded as a synonym 
of Theileria annulata (Dschunkowsky & Luhs, 1904) and not the 
contrary, as Sergent treats it in all his recent papers. 


I should be much indebted for an Opinion on the question whether 
the rejection by Sergent of the trivial name annulatum Dschunkowsky 
& Luhs is in accordance with the provisions of the International Code 
of Zoological Nomenclature. 


Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 


2. The present application, which had been addressed by 
Dr. Witenberg to 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.) 127. 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. 


3. Immediately upon a start being made by Mr. Hemming in 
the routine checking of the details of this case, difficulties were 


312 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


encountered, for it was found that in the paper by Dschunkowsky 
& Luhs published in 1904 (entitled Die Piroplasmosen der Rinder), 
which had always been treated as the place in which the name 
Piroplasma annulatum had been introduced into the literature, 
there was a full description of the newly detected organism but 
no scientific Latin name was applied to it. This led to a search 
of the literature which was both lengthy and arduous and in the 
end not wholly successful. In this difficult bibliographical investi- 
gation the Secretary to the Commission was greatly assisted by 
the late Dr. C. M. Wenyon, C.M.G., C.B.E., F.R.S. (The Wellcome 
Foundation, London) and by Mr. D. A. E. Cabot, M.R.C.V.S. 
(Chief Veterinary Officer, United Kingdom Ministry of Agriculture 
& Fisheries, London). The International Commission desires to 
express its thanks to these specialists for their assiduous efforts 
to further the investigation of the complex bibliographical 
problems involved in this case. The International Commission 
desires at the same time to thank (1) the Director of the Imperial 
Bureau of Animal Health for help given in this connection and, 
in particular, for supplying a photostat copy of the very rare 
paper by Dschunkowsky & Luhs published in 1903 which towards 
the close of the foregoing investigation it was thought might be 
the place where the name Piroplasma annulatum was first published, 
and (2) Miss I. M. Bellis, Personal Assistant to Dr. Wenyon, 
who undertook on his behalf a large part of the laborious search 
of the literature involved. 


4. In October 1944 Mr. Hemming prepared a summary of 
the investigations into the question of the place of first publication . 
of the name Piroplasma annulatum Dschunkowsky & Luhs 
carried out up to that date. This paper was prepared for 
publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and its 
purpose was, by bringing to light the bibliographical difficulties 
which had been encountered, to enlist the assistance of any 
interested specialist who might be in a position to give assistance. 
Mr. Hemming’s note was as follows :— 


On the question of the place and date of first publication of the name 
‘* Piroplasma annulatum ’’? Dschunkowsky and Luhs (Class Sporozoa, 
Order Coccidiida) commonly treated as having been first published in 1904 


By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. 
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 


Since it is a condition of publication in the Bulletin of Zoological 


OPINION 266 373 


Nomenclature that a full bibliographical reference should be given in 
any paper containing an application submitted to the International 
Commission for decision, I attempted, when preparing Dr. Witenberg’s 
application for publication, to identify the paper in which it was stated 
in that application Dschunkowsky and Luhs had in 1904 first published 
the name Piroplasma annulatum (Class Sporozoa, Order Coccidiida). 
When, however, I consulted the paper published by those authors 
in 1904 under the title “‘ Die Piroplasmosen der Rinder”’ (1904, Zbl. 
Bakt. (Erste Abt.) 35 : 486—492, pls.), I found that, although that 
paper was a preliminary communication, it contained a full description 
of the new species, but that nowhere did it contain a scientific name for 
it. Accordingly in September 1944, I wrote both to Dr. Witenberg 
and to Dr. C. M. Wenyon, C.M.G., C.B.E., F.R.S., The Wellcome 
Foundation, London, asking for assistance in this matter. 


Dr. Wenyon replied (6th September 1944) saying that he was 
examining the literature and would write as soon as his investigations 
were complete. On 11th October 1944, Dr. Wenyon reported as 
follows :— 


We have made researches and have arrived at the following, which seems to 
be as far as we can go at present. It we get any more information, we will let 
you know. 


We have been unable to trace the paper to which Dschunkowsky and Luhs’ 
“ Vorlaufige Mitteilung’’ in the Centralblatt, 1904, was intended to be a pre- 
liminary. If it appeared at all, it is possible that it was in some obscure Russian 
journal. The earliest use we have discovered of the name Piroplasma annulatum 
(and there it is used as if it were already an accepted term) is in a paper read in 
the name of Dschunkowsky and Luhs by :— 


TARTAKOWSKY [M. G.] (1906). [Remarks on Dschunkowsky and Luhs’ 
observation on Piroplasmosis of Cattle in Trans-Caucasia.] Report of the 
VUIth International Veterinary Congress, Budapest, 1905, Vol. III, p. 290. 


The author appears as Herr Tartakowsky : we have taken his initials from the 
list of persons present (and on comparison with the rest, the ““M”’ does not 
appear to stand for “ Monsieur’’). There is no title to his remarks; he is 
third speaker i ina discussion on ‘‘ Les maladies tropicales des animaux domes- 
tiques ”’ and “Le réle des protozoaires dans les maladies des animaux,” and 
starts with the words : “‘Als Beitrag zu den bis jetzt erstattelem Referaten sei mir 
gestattet, im Namen des Herrn Dschunkowsky . . . under seines Assistenten Herrn 
Luhs in kurzer Fassung einige Resultate ihrer ‘Untersuchungen und Beobacht- 
ungen betreff der tropischen Rinderkrankheiten, welche in Transkaukasien 
verbreitet sind der Sektion mitzuteilen . 


Later, at the end of a list of names of diseases he gives :—** tropische Piro- 
plasmose Dschunkowsky’s und Luhs. Der Parasit: Piroplasma annulatum ” 
[not in italics} . . . ‘‘ Bemerkungswert ist, dass Piroplasma annulatum unter 
verschiedenen Umstanden in drei Grundformen auftrifft : 


1. die Hauptform, kleine ring-und birnenf6rmige Parasiten ; 
2. lange und kleine bacillenartige Form ; 
3. punkformige . . . P.-Sporen genannt. 


In akuten Fallen beobachtet man die kleinen Ring- und Birnenformen im . 
Sommer und P. Sporen im Winter. In dieser Hinsicht treten die Autoren von 
ihrer friiheren Ansicht, dass die Punkform nur dem chronischen Verlauf der 
Krankheit eigen ist, zuriick. In chronischen Fallen beobachtet man P.-Sporen 
im Winter und grosse bacillenartige Formen (3—5 ») im Sommer . 


374 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


Immediately before Tartakowsky spoke, Herr Bitter (Cairo) concluded remarks 
he had made on Egyptian piroplasmosis with the words: “ Es ist sehr wahr- 
scheinlich, dass der Parasit identisch ist mit dem von Dschunkowsky und Luhs 
beschriebenen und ebenfalls auf dem Kongress demonstrierten Parasit.”’ 


Possibly Dschunkowsky and Luhs were present at the Congress and demon- 
strated their parasite though in the discussion Tartakowsky spoke for them. 


In a further letter dated 18th October 1944, Dr. Wenyon stated :— 


We have now seen and examined very carefully the 1st and 2nd volumes of the 
Report of the 8th International Veterinary Congress, Budapest, 1905 (published 
in 1906) and can find no mention of any paper by Dschunkowsky and Luhs 
and no account of the description and demonstration mentioned by Bitter in 
vol. III. 


I add two new references, unfortunately to journals which, according to the 
World List of Scientific Periodicals, are not available in this country :— 


1. Dzhunkovski, E. P. Tropical Piroplasmosis or African shore fever. Protk. 
zasid. Kavkask. med. obsh., Tiflis, 1903-4, XL, 742. 


2. Dzhunkovski, E., & Luhs, I. Piroplasmosis of cattle. Vestnik obsch. vet., 
St. Petersb., 1903, XV, 769. 


The second of the above papers is quoted twice by Laveran, A., (1906) in 
“ Tropische Krankheiten der Haustieren’”’, Rep. 8th Internat. Vet. Congr., Buda- 
pest, 1905, under the spelling ““ Dschunkowsky & Luhs’”’ and the date “ Sept. 
1904’. 


On 25th October 1944 I received from Dr. Witenberg the following 
letter dated 15th October, 1944 :— 
Referring to the publication in which Piroplasma annulatum was first proposed, 
I am sorry to say that Iam not able to trace it. I corresponded with Dschunkow- 
sky on this question but he was not able to help. I quote below a translation 
of a part of his letter of 13th July 1938, which contains hints in the matter :— 
. in the same year, (1903) I published, together with my collaborator, the 
late I. Luhs, a preliminary note in a small Russian journal, possibly * Veterinarnii 
Vratch.. In 1904 I reported on this species in the International Congress in 
Budapest... .” 


On receipt of the above letter, I consulted Mr. D. A. E. Cabot, 
Chief Veterinary Officer, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, London, 
who (in a letter dated 22nd November 1944) informed me that the 
Imperial Bureau. of Animal Health had located copies of the journals 
containing the papers referred to by Dr. Wenyon in his letter of 18th 
October and were seeking to obtain microfilms of these papers, in order 
to ascertain whether the name Piroplasma annulatum has been published 
in either of them. These microfilms have not yet been obtained and, 
if any specialist reading the present note has access to either of these 
papers, it will be of great assistance to the Commission if, he will be 
so good as to furnish them with information on the above subject. 


It will be seen from the foregoing particulars that it has not yet 
been possible to trace the original reference for the name Piroplasma 
annuiatum or even to determine whether it was first published by 
Dschunkowsky alone or by that author jointly with Luhs. The fact 
that these questions have not yet been finally determined fortunately 
does not mean that there need be any delay in reaching a decision on 


OPINION 266 375 


the problem submitted by Dr. Witenberg, since the question raised in 
Dr. Witenberg’s application is one of principle and is not dependent 
upon the exact manner in which the name Piroplasma annulatum was 
first published. 


5. Dr. Witenberg’s application (paragraph 1 above) and 
Mr. Hemming’s note on the subsequent bibliographical investiga- 
tions (paragraph 4 above) were sent to the printer in September 
1944 for publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 


6. In October 1944 the position was reviewed by Mr. Hemming 
and Dr. Wenyon who then came to the conclusion that it must be 
concluded that the name Piroplasma annulatum Dschunkowsky & 
Luhs was first published in 1906 in the Report of the VIIIth 
International Veterinary Congress held at Budapest in 1905— 
in the irregular manner described in the note by Mr. Hemming 
reproduced in the immediately preceding paragraph—unless that 
name was published in one or other of the following papers :— 


(1) Dschunkowski, E. P. “ Tropical Piroplasmosis or African 
shore fever.” Protk. zasid. Kavkask. med. obsch., Tiflis, 
1903- 1904, vol. 40, p. 742. 


(2) Dschunkowski, E., & Luhs, I. “ Piroplasmosis of cattle.” 
Vestnik obsch. vet., St. Petersb., 1903, vol. 15, 769. 


7. In the light of the foregoing conclusions, an approach was 
made in November 1944 to Mr. D. A. E. Cabot, M.R.C.V.S., 
Chief Veterinary Officer, Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries, 
London, in the hope that it might be possible for him, with the 
help of the Imperial Bureau of Animal Health, to trace copies 
of the foregoing papers. Mr. Cabot at once undertook to assist 
to the full extent of his power but indicated that it might be some 
time before he was able to submit a definite report. 


8. In January 1947 an attempt was made, on the suggestion of 
Dr. Wenyon, to obtain further light on the question of the original 
reference for the name Piroplasma annulatum Dschunkowsky & 
Luhs by addressing an enquiry on this subject to Professor E. N. 
Pavlovsky (Institute of Experimental Medicine, Moscow, U.S.S.R.), 


376 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


but he was not immediately in a position to help in this matter. 
For Professor Pavlovsky’s reply see paragraph 12 below. 


9. On 14th January 1947 Mr. Cabot forwarded a photostat 
copy of the second of the two papers referred to in paragraph 6(2) 
above (namely the paper published at St. Petersburg in 1903 in 
the Vestnik obsch. vet.) which he had obtained with the assistance 
of the Director of the Imperial Bureau of Animal Health. An 
inspection of this paper showed that, although in it Dschunkowsky 
& Luhs had discussed the Piroplasmosis of Cattle, they did not 
then use the name Piroplasma annulatum. In view of the claims 
advanced on behalf of the foregoing paper as being the first in 
which the name Piroplasma annulatum was published and of the 
extreme rarity of this paper, it has been judged best permanently 
to dispose of this matter by reproducing this paper in facsimile. 


10. As regards the other paper cited in paragraph 6(1) above, 
namely the paper by Dschunkowsky (not on this occasion in 
collaboration with Luhs) published at Tiflis in 1903 in the 
Kavkask. med. obsch., Dr. Wenyon reported on 4th February 1947 
as follows :— 


This name does not occur in the other paper that we have been trying 
to trace, namely, Dschunkowsky (not Dschunkowsky & Luhs), 1903, 
in Kavkask. med. obsch. Hoare [Wellcome Foundation] has a photostat 
copy of this. 


11. Although, as explained in paragraph 5 above, Dr. Witen- 
berg’s application and Mr. Hemming’s note were sent to the 
printer in September 1944, publication was greatly delayed owing 
to difficulties arising from paper rationing, shortage of labour 
at the printing works and similar causes, and it was not until 
28th February 1947 that publication actually took place (Witen- 
berg, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 233—234 ; Hemming, 1947, 
ibid. 1 : 234—236). The publication of these papers elicited 
no comments upon the question submitted by Dr. Witenberg 
and secured no additional information on the vexed question of 
the place of first publication of the name Piroplasma annulatum 
Dschunkowsky & Luhs. 


Opinions Decl. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 5 


! eeHrn6pa 1903 rona. 


Plate 3 


Toa»w XY 


OPHTRHAAHDA H DEPEBOARDA CTATbH. 


Mnponaasmosm poraroro cKota. 
Hpetkapumessnoe coobwcrie') FE. Racynxoecnaso u H. dycu. 
(Mas SypcoGarcnsl epormpodymmod crsaaia) 


Hkpousasoses porararo Chora, ARBECTHwe MOS pasxuy- 
iicMA HadbaniawH — TexacckoR anxopaxeH, KpuBaRch wogA, 
remord0OHeewIH, Madapin porararo ckota, poxesl&cnof aHxo- 
paaxH (R. Koch) 6 Ap. — aBToph CRAOBEM coBTaTE Goxbsublo, 
ppappaemof UapasaTOHE OAHOTO H Tero ake BAAA. OABaKy 
Lignitres H Bb camoe mocxtagee Bpema R. Koch, Edington, 
irray. Robertson, Pitchford a Theiler Goxbe onpextaefao 
BHICKGSHBaWOTCH 88 pAs¥Auie MemMxy DAponAAaNoaamH K)«- 
woh AdbpugeH (fanp., Redesian fever) # TexucckoR Amxo- 
paxsog. 

TlaponaagMosh HaGatxaembie BL Piccin, MoRAD 
INTL Ha TPA BBAa: 

J. Waponaaswost cheepa Poccin. 

If. eponsasmost Kangaaa. ° 

Ill. wponsaswost Sakapeaapa. 

Tocrbanift Mel CUHTaeMB ocoGof dopwoh, 6xmsKo croames 
Kb MAZApPIB AtOXeM, BH HasnIBAeME ee TPOAGeCKOR Ghopmuf 
UHpOUAsMOBA POraTaTO CKOTA, Cb MlogpasAbrewlen® Ba OCT- 
poe saGoa beanie a kaxexciz. 

KaWHHUeCEH UspouxasMost, BeTpbuaromiaca na cheeph 
Voccid, Bh OFpOMHOMb OOALMAACTBR CAyWAeBh COmpoBox- 
jaeTta KpobaBoh moueh, npu orcyreTBia pbaxo BmpamcnHAok 
weatyxH. [ipa mepotxasmosh, HadawxzaeMoms Ha Ilepexsems 
KapkasB, &KPOBABaH MOA COCTAaBINeTh Tome DocToaHana 
 HIpRshakb, OPH VeMb BCerAa paBAHIaeTCA OKPAWABABle CAB- 
| SHCTHXF OGOMOGERD Bh paBXAIAhle OTTSHER MesTaro uszbra. 
x Tpulsveckaa Popma WHponAasMosa BL OOMeMb CBOAHTCA 
Kb CabxytomeR Kaprnab. ocah wECKOADKHXE BaleTOBL 
t’ Bb 40—41°C., cabxzyromaxt Apyrb Ba ApPSroMb wepess 
OpOMeRyTORh BE 8—10 AneH, AAXOpaARa Aaaetcs 0- 
(TORHHOR, Upa Yewb (° yoctnreeTh 41—42° C Samt- 
yaetcH Apomanie oTghibaxt rpyoob uwmob. Haorgza 
HacTyoaWTh MOsroBig aBgenia. JHaBOTHHIA AERO Bpalitn- 
Th raasaMH, Opocattca #a wwxek. Jxauic oOblanoscHAO 
ycKopeno Xo 30—35 pass Bb muRyty. Ilyapch GacTmA, xv 
120 BR MuayTy, egsa omyTAMnf, HBuTeBUABWA. Mova 
UOBIRHOBERHO CBETIAd H TOALRO Bb ACKAWUATCABHWIXE CH)- 
4@HXb OKPAMeHAa Bh KeiTO-posopna WBBTE; yacTo AabAw- 
Aaewaa Atappemx opeBpamactca waorgZa BS KpoBaBoA noHOCL, 
HAaCTyHAeTb Mepaswye cihawxreposs. Be Rpyrexd caywauxs 
HAc6opoTh GkIBAaWTS yHOpHbe sanopw. Hepeas cuepTbW mA- 
HOTHO® JEKATE, HHONA Cb BCRPHBZeRHOM HA ORBY CTOpOHy 
Deel, H YUMpeeTs UpA USYATCIBEWILG CyROporagy. 

‘autca Goabanb orp 4—8 ane. [pu cazentaveccof 
opm t° poctArieTs 41° C., gaihus, cb Tetediews Bpenesa 
olyckeerca yo 39—89,7°C. a ocraetea a TALOA BEcorh 
AO CMepTH. SaGurbpamie xapakTapEsyeTca Tome METesCHB- 
N08 szexryxo% 4 yocrenoHanM® ucxygaHiemt. Koxnvecrso 
KpaCHHXS ZPOSARWX% Wap BAALATEARHO MaKacrTs, 
AOXOAA KO GOO 1. Mb OAHOME KyGHUeCKOND NM. 

Harozoro-agarouecocaia sawSrewia Up ONpotyasMoza rb, 
Nabtogsewext Ho chsep® Poccin a Uepeancut Kapnash 
NOUTH OxnMaKORE. On CBOAHTCA fiaBEINt OOparoKy ES 
YeeAageRi NApenxGLATOSHMXS OprakoBd M OTISCTH Kb HO- 
WOAeHIIO Eb pASSATHEITD Opfanals sncrpanasaTony. Psavena 


‘} Bearozapa copepmedsco senpexsexbamums O6CTOMTEALCTBAMS, Mit 
bwe UW nocukmars sevavamlem\ macTommaro apelsaperestacro cood- 
NOMS. We OMNARA BMaCHeRin FAKOTOPMXS BAMEMXIT CTopeny BIyVarmare 
KAM BOBpocA © QUpOMsasMOSAID POrAtaro CKOTA, 


pasak- 


S4ERMIOTReTCH Bh HRTCRCRBHO Beipamenend mMesty rh pit 
kapmaackoR hopms. Tpoumsecnas popma xapartepmuyesc « 
OOMBPRHME Tetoppariams ao DChIB opfeRaXth. UA aTpt- 
Gapotcs: Ma CAmsHCTOR COMOTED raags. TyOb, BBMIKS, Tparer 
CpOnXOBb, OMMCBAPRTFILWarO YpadTa, Ba CepuamMIh 0%.- 
AONKAIb. DeeBph, VONKAPAS, HepHKaprzt, Opaomnrh we mot 
DoxkomHOm cabriareh oesena. seramxs, cesssenat, mors 
MCAVROUL & MOTEROME OYdW pars. UOcobeamve pam Wamie 06 - 
pamtasrs sa ceOd xapaxtepwbiA Sasbuemia se ceisyrh wv 
TORKMI® KROIRAXE. GXBch UNSHE Sacto HabAMARWTCH BIDE 
Kpyrsok Hopas! ch TEMEMNS ABOWL, OKPY Me Reh apKs- 
EpacHhina o60,Koms. Co Bponekers arbta saum O2barbeote 
Dowywaerc 1 mMexTosaToe AaO # TeMRu-posuBmi o604K4. 
Haphi o6pas) rcs OOH RBOReRED Ha wecrh mpom naaiasitt 
EpOBb, BHXOAS OAL ZAMRAENIGKD, UPAHOIRBMMaeTH TIOBeDI- 
HOCTHDA C30 CansncroR ocfboaogmm — woaysaetca polar 
Syropka TeMHu-mpacwaro, & MAUTAA Yepsare uNbta. Hworta 
YROUKH HakoXMTcMS Tach Oamako APY Kb APHry, Wr: ai- 
AyYWaeTCH BuUeWATESHIC, SYATO OM CANBRCTAR OO6OLONKA YCHHH. 
nepaess 

Haphi WSb TaKWXb YseAKOWh UPUMCKOARTS Dytems a. 
CTeHeHHAMO OTMAPAaHia BUBEPIROCTA CHOM Haxd SyropKami: 
IIpm XpommyeckEXt GhopmMarh Bb CHYSTR HaGawzaion x 
Mtcta, INMeHeWA HOkepXBOCTHAly CACR CaBuMctod (6o205KI1 
Bb BEAB BeOO’AMAXS DONC Me.TowaTaro Owbta. llapenxy- 
waTOsaide Opraum! yBextnfenw. [leeemb ramumctaro usbta, 
melUb Opapmeraro nehTs, crammneoipasuas. Ceseaeana yRedin- 
weHa WH ONyabla eg pacnatiesetca. []oqam, 2a mceasmseniens 
remopparifi BE Kadcyat mw pb camo Tore. oCcubex> HaMt- 
Hemi® He OPCACTaBARWOTh. Bh MONCBOMD Hyseipt crbrza1 
MyTHas wova. He ooxxomav® xataarxt, a rane om 
Kabraatxé Memynimewa A, ocGeamo Sb VOZACTE JAONATKH. 
SANBYAETCH MeRTORATHA CT\ACHHCTH, MBDHILTpsTs. hatr 
YaTKa BOXP)Ce MeATHary Dyaps Mu YeheadMaTHoepcTHOR 
KROJKH HEQMALTPMPCBAda TaKHMb Be * amb. He tparet 
H OpunxaX> WHCPAR ChipaeTh BMRTATEARACe KOAMYECTRO Kpo 
BaaMCTOR abAMcTON MaBXKocTH. Jlerxiad MBUrAA VNpMoem- 
TOGH bE. 

llumamo OnHCaHHCR KapTMBW, GoiBaloTh eMle cCwbmagublit 
dopMbl, Hadsp.aewbrA ocoSeaBO y ChOTa, UpABeresaaro wb 
Gakapkaabe azh pasHWx> wbcTS [lepersuro hanaasa. 

OSpantasch Kb Auibhepesuiatbeowy Marsesy, MA ACIABN 


OTMBYBT CXOACTBO PSsHeiXd opm’ OMPoTAasmnecwe ch 


CHOMpcKOR agpo% mw WymoM porataro cKora '). 

Lmpovaasmoa, cheepa xapakreputyetca TeORSHbiNH 
TpyukaMu piroplasma bigeminum, 6amsceWh Kb Remy BM AUMD 
OOycsos:HBawTca a saGorbesHis, madswaaewhis wa Lepes- 
Hewt Kasxas’, ce ToW ToAbRO pasmmmge®, Tro axes oupo- 
Wiaswh RECKOABKO GoxbMe® s24nqnme. pa Trponmveckums 
UMporiasMos’ MapaseTe BCTphIAMOTCA Bb THeXd BRABIL: 

1) Bb Barb Cansixe, 

2) Bb BAA KOARMERUNARXS DapasmToss, 

3) Bh BARB TOeKS. 

Octpas @opms o6yciopinpeetcd SauHilama RB Rotsge- 
BOABMMM WapaguTaMu, a Kaxekiia TovetdmeN. Beeeebs 
AOCTRCADOMiA Bb AABy 3—4 :., COCTONTS Szb TeCTaro 
XPOMaTBHS, BanoMAAAIOTS No Popith SHUPAMACMMMA 4iNK- 
Thld M NOLVUMAH. KouLMeDMAHWe DApasHTh Npelcrassxwtce 
BAH crporo Kpyraof. saa obcruzbeo opaabaoh opm. a 
pox’ wesorbmom rpywan. Xpomatags aabes pacupeaBasetca 
H@ OKO BH PBAKO Ba ABYX'> DOMOCCARS Ob BMXB EPYTIwxs 


’ MOE @RCKOARRO OBAILGHKS TOUCKD MAN Bb Bart Sorbe o4- 


imapbaro yroumesia <onayps. Ora hopaia Tame O6zaAseTS 

‘, Ba Bagy ma Gofsatn gocrouaro Spusctolsis sasopasyute.s. 
MPH YON) DeTepauapy Bivewuie OCMOTPOMD MACA, JIREPMAAIE, To mA 
pMsox. gocTaRiwetca SyuBUl cots Tomb secrd soma geposca OLm0t) 
BEL fOpPOACREID BeTepERaposs, marectpa (. [pwscpe sa Jypustarcayp 
RporspotymAym crauaiw, rab emy Ouse yeasany vcavse Als paceossa- 
Baula CEPOCLAIMORY MH RPOACM NCTPAPOBAEM MASP. # NEXPOCRURRSECEIC 
D}.Oaparh. ate omedce wy xiarnost spexparazach laxoe me cutax 
vawle co synod Tponesecko@ Gopuw tepmsacaess amtee worm # as 
Ancectast. 


Facsimile of the first portion of the paper by Dschunkowsky & Luhs on “ Piro- 
plasmosis of Cattle ’’ published in 1903 in Vestnik obsch. vet., St. Petersb., 


vol. 15, Columns 769—770. 


Opinions Decl. int. Comm. zool. 


771 


1903 r. BBCTHAED OBIMECTBEHHOM BETKPHHAPIN. 2 17. 


Nomencl., Vol. 5 Plate 4 


772 


YCRACHBEMA aMeCONABUMM ABUMCHLAMA. Mh noxaraens, WuBawTca Bb GASCTAMe KApMEHOBO-Kpacowh netTr. 


GTO KOABMeBHAHaA POPMA APONCXOAWT. BSS Ganmsrepecd, 
pM Yew Xhso uUpomcxogmTs vax. Banesaxa, Germammas 
BHavaIb OXMHAKUPOR TOAMLMEE no cEOell ocm, cranoerrcs 
NOCpeAMR TORLING; XPOMATHAL CTATMBAETCA KL DOLOCaNE—- 


foryvastca Kact Ob zwb Gaquazr (Hantelform xoxcnok | 


waigpin). O08 covxsnenusia Oansaanl MOryTs pactozarareca, 


OAAPOAAPA HOCTOABHOMY ABH Moai, OOAb pAALaVHLIMS YrAaME, 
Uepesh BBKOTOpOe BpeMa Gangmalb OCTXORATE APYCh Ob | 


Apyra. Teueps xpowaTse> wuqusacTh CTArNBAaTECA, risR- 
BEM OOpasOMh, Kb OAHOMY TyNOMY KOHNY, Bpa Vewse N0- 
cpéxumb mapaswra Hausnaerca piighsesie odpoTonsagMn. 
llapaswrt coxpasaerh, 00 upemHemy, hopMy esinpamsensok 
galarof®; cxotsemle xpomaTeHa BaxOANTCH Ba yTOosmenHoMs 


Tostoch A Bb BAAS TeHesLKOM KaeMRH CO OKPYRaocTE, a | 


CaMad EPOTOURaIMA PaCHOwAraeTcCa BRYTPH. 


Ormomeuie jiaMerposs napassta 8b eo Bpema pakHAo . 


3:1. flawbe, Ganeasn crarapatorca 00 sanpaBrenio AaKH- 
HOR ccm @ pacMepasrca: ocrpHh Koners TakeN> ofipasoN, 


craamepaetcs. llosyaaetca BEAD COBepMeHHO UpaBHABBArO | 
Ch ceomseniemt | 


KOZRDR WIH CHEMKR ObaAbEON rpy lice, 
XPOMaTMHA Ha OAHOME HB PBR HR ARYXL NOAWCAXD BD 
BHRB TOWERS, IPH Jems OND lipeserawT, BAN KD BNYTpenHeR 
CTropon’ o60;Ka #1H AewATE Ha CaMoM> O6OAES, Tak, TO 


HOMOBBHA TOUKM BHICTyOseTS Baxb HaMe (Siegelringform | 
aioxcwoh Masspla). Oza, web TOTeRE XpOMaTHHa ObinaeTS | 


pasa wb tpm Goibme, when apyris. [pm maxexcin wnapa- 
SETH ObBAIOTL LOUTH BCerza BE BEAK TOWEKD Kpyraoh uzw 
Clerea OOANEEOR Hopebl, cocromMBXt WBE OXBOLO MauTHArO 
xpomarmua. Ob wenoxsumaen; eto Gorke crofcia dopwy. 
Kormdectpo napaskToRb gb KpoBH OmBaeTS pasamudo. Bp 
OCTPHXS CAYYARXE nopamensl HOUTH BCH MapeRa (95—96"/0) 
H Bh KAMXOMb HaxXOkATCH OTD 2 20 8 HapasmTos,. UpaA 
KaxekciH Dopameam ors 25-—50°/o WApHKOSh mH Bb KAK- 
X0Mb OTh 1-3 HapasHToBh. GapameHnble MapHxe He yoe- 
ARYHBAIOTCA H He TepsaRTt Kpacnilaro Bemectsa; Bb HHXD 
Takwe He samireo cxonzeHi& sroro memecrBa Bh BAAS 
rouexh (Tipfelang). 

cim paocmatpapars, DapasAToRy Bb BACHYeR Kanas KpOBH 
Ha Harpheates,gomt croxmxh, ro Mbi sa bTHN, %TO ORR, 
COBCPIMAA AMOOOMAHWA ABBMCHIS, BIXOANTE RSE WApHKOET 


Bb GaaaMy B Bach OMCTPO ABAMYTCH, BPAllagch wb TO we 


BPeMA 00 OCH BAN HErMOANCh TO BL ORY, TO Bb APYTyw 


cropony. epest wbckoxbKO WacoRh UpaBHIbeble KOSTYPH | 


Wapasere HOCTeENeHHO RSMBSHOTCH; WpOTOAasMa OpRBAMaeTL 
Up Troms Camyio pagHoOoOpasmym opwy; m#orga ofa Ba- 
MBTHa BL BRAS He HCHO BhipameHBOR CaxXpOMKE, OTS KOTO- 
po co BpeMewem® ocraercH TOABKO MecTAaS KaeMKAa, Ch 


TPYACMD CRpaMmmMRammasca wb CHHIG gebrs. Baxpowsa | 


pacopeabagetcs oGsikHObemMO 0 OAHY CTOpORy xpowarnaa, 
A camnl XpomaTHAL CTarMBaetcad Bb Kpyracnarwa KomoKs. 
Yepess 10—15 neff xpomarawh HAaqusaers AhaaTECA Ha 
AWE WACTH, HO, RRpPORTHO, MOMETE PACHAAATECE H Cpasy HA 


HECKOILKO MAIKEXD, SEPHMCT&XS, yraonaToh Qopmyi, pern-— 


UNBoR pb seGommie Koxam. jJlaxte, keaxin vepHnmeu Bb- 
CKOABKO YECIHUMRAIOTCA H CHOBA AbARTCH. Tanawn obpa- 
BOME DOAYWASTCA pox KyAbTyph. AiuAKocrs eb opotupeh 
OGhEHOBEHHO coRapmenHO npospayHs, a ga AR cobupactca 
HeMHOMO OCaAKa chpopararo Wshra. pasrombpsaro pac- 
UpexBicuig OCAAKA Wh MUAKOCTH UpodapKy meoGrogumo 
AOATO B CHALUO B”eTpaxBBaTL. TaKoA pocrs Uapaswrows 10- 
AyWaeTCa HS CeIBOpOPRE GOMRMLIZG MMSOTANIXD Cb UPHWECLIO 
remorzo6maa. Poors apa Aaipebaniexs pepectear: wabxn- 
AMCTCH TOMKO Yapess 10—15 gued. 

Oxpacka uponapogmrca yerburhe ecoro no Giemsa; a0 
Reiter'y napazatn rpoumvecko& dopup ae oxpammnawrcs 
CoSepIeRBO, TOPAA Kak HApesaTM APYTAXs NeponAasNCeORD 
OkpatmBaiorca oven, xopomo. Taxsirs oOparoms, oxpama- 
Bea no Relter’y, momno xerxo xmddepennuponars pasiay- 
RHXh Uapaswtorh uspouzasuceoss. Oxpacea no Giemsa 
ASOTS TAKylo KapTAAy: GenHANH BL MOAOZOR Cragin oxpa- 


i lips noctenenaoms axbaegin Ganmazh, Nperonzaima «x> 
okpammpaetca Bb OxbAHO-CRHeRaTMA Gebers. Bs corne- 
BEXBMIIL BapAsRTAaX® MH MSACMLENKD PPYUKATh xrpowaraut 
DPOACTABIACTCH OTh KAPMAHBOBO-KpacHaro AO KpacHo-Pivse- 
| TOBOLS netra, a mpotousagma Orhaao-cwHesaTaro, Ope we. 
Cambill KORTYP> KameTce poooseraro Mim CHweRATArO UebTa. 
‘PR. ‘oOmemt uapaseT, BanoMABAeTL Gupmy foxbna. Axpo- 
MATAVeCEKOA 20mm mb Be sambtars. Toweiaie napaautsy 
| OPW Kaxexcia OKpamwmBaccica otesb phar) Bh ApPk -Kpac- 

Hui a wasyuaoBHt uebrh. Bb KyabTypaxs Napaynte, ¢o- 
CTom B25 Gusbe phtxaaro XpoMATHGA, ORpPAMmpaeTcA ue 
TAKE OCTpO A MeHDO APKO, IPM WeMS 10 KpagMh OTADIE 
HEIXE wepablOeR® RaGwOABeTCA HHOTMA OTTeAOKS posoparo 
wan rosyGosararo usbra. 

Gapamekie SkOpOuUNIt MEROTHNXb KPOBLIO, Coxepmames 
DapasBTORh, HAMEL BM pAasyY HE YASAOCk, HECMOTPA HA MHOTU- 
| UNOGCHHHIS Ole Th BBeeHiM BEPYACHTHArO MaTepiaga o024 

KOMY, Rb BeHhl H BL GplomBys aoxocTe, Unorga xpos. 
BBOAHZACh BL KowRVecTHh BECKQEBKHXE ANTpOBh. Ontith 
BUPBICKEBARIA KPOBS KO3aMb, KPOAMKAME, NOPCKHME CBAH- 
| KAM), MblaMb & fosyOaMe AaAW OTPENATeAbuble pe- 
eyaeTatnh. Mat Ba6aoxaan Aambe, WTO HOPMAILHMA 8a 
BRA} MHBOTERIA HMKIOTD Bh KPOBM H6SHAYHTCALHHIG KOAH- 
WecTba napasuToRS GanniaspHoR H KOEbWeBEAHOA opunl. 
CCAB TAKHXIG MABOTHMIL VOAREPMyTh sapameRito Wy MOH 
porataro cKora, To oom saGoxbealor> OAHOBPEMeHHO TY MUA 
H MApoDAasMosoms. Ch OTUME SBACHIOMP IIPHXOABTCH, MeMAy 
WpOvEMb, ciaTaTeca Up upuwbrexia KomOunaniosiar: 
METOLA HPOTHBOUYMAHXh MpPHBHBOKS Bb Gakaskashb, ocv- 
GeHRO Bb AHJMUHAHIXD MECTAXG, OOPAMeHANXR NoBpoTaas- 
wosamu. Kpom toro, sa craguin waf tioeamch ClyNal, KOT. 
Hoceb sHauwTerbaaro MpORONYCKawIo V BbICOKO-HMMYBSAIX1 
MAPOTEID CRBACHAIO DOBLIMeNle t+ DepATPP H PAsBi- 
BaZAch TpoMuGecKkad (Popma NepoNrasncka CO CMEPTENLHEIND 
WCXOXOME. Mbl XYMAEME, WTO Y MABOTHHID, HOCAULAXh 
ye Bb KpORA gapasy, BCBUPAYHAR, BhBOXRMiA OpranusNh 


| 88> OONUBarO paBHoRhcis, BLIZbIBARKOTE oSoctpesie Goxbenn. 


Onmter noaysesia xwbue6uoh cipoporka wocpexcTsou, 
HMMYHBSANIO porataro cKota SOILMIHMM KOAMECTBAMH BHDYy- 
seHTHow KpOBK He yxaauCch. CelBOpOTES He OKAsbiBALa BHRAKOTY 
paignia wa regenie Goxbsau. Pesyanrathi onbiTORD NpeAcxpa- 
REHM MHBOTAMA CMBOPOTKOR, BUPYACHTHOR Kpousio M KYAl- 
TypawH OyayTb onyOxwkobanhi wosme. Uto kacaeTca poaH 
ixodes npa rponayecko& qopwh, TO Mit OrpauayaMcd ToKa 
yRalaniem’, %TO BIIpICKHBAHI® BAOPORLIMS MHBOTALINE 
| OMYARCiM Hob KReMMOR MH AMGNHORDS, CHBMAXE Ha OOABHHIXT. 
aadorbpania He BEIshipaeTb. Hakonedh, Ml BMBAH 8 93MOIK- 
HOCTh yOB¢uTaca, GTO Ba TOPHIX, WacTOwnaxd, paciosr- 
| MOHHNIXS Ba BHICOTh usTM TecaTD PyTE # Goake, rxb ve Bu- 
OafAaetca MHponzasMogs, He BCTpbiawTca H ixodes. 


Npumbuenie waraenua sb o.-netep6yprcxom> seuctst 
3a l-yo nosormny 1903 rosa 


(20 Xaumuws serepuaapmarc orgtsemia c.-neTep6. ry6. semcrea). 


Hocrbyonanie nomaxeR <n0XOspheseMbXh Bb sapamedli 
| CalloMb» XO Upouearo roma HO WPOMSBOAMAOCE, M TaKid Ju~ 
| MakW OCTABASANCL OX® BeTepssap. Hadxiogenier> RIpeAl: 
XO Uposasenia y BAKE OpHsAaKOBb, FAWULEXb BosMOMHOCT! 
CYATATS HX ‘GOARMHIMN CAGONS HB, KAKL YTAKOSHIS, TOMA 
owh @ yauuTomascs. Ho, cant maeicrao, raxia soma). 
TODCXOAT Bh PASPSAS <UOAOSPRISIENNIXD HO sadorbsagiv>, 
TORRKO JH vWepess Gorbe WIN MEBSA MpOAORMMTeSbHO™ 
Bpema, Bb Tevenie Koroparo OW ACTKO MOTyTh CAyMHTE 
BCTOURHKOME SAPAMeHIN AAA OKPYMAWUAIE H Gite COBep 
MeHHO BXOPOBNXh AOWMaxeh, octapxewie Me HXb Jan Gorbe 
TOwHarO Hecabgosauia OaxTepios0r HYeCKUME My cb CONpA- 
Keno Ch MoTepell BHAVATCIBHAIM BPEeMeRM, & CTBAOBATEIEH? 1 


Facsimile of the concluding portion of the paper by Dschunkowsky & Luhs on 
‘¢ Piroplasmosis of Cattle ’’ published in 1903 in Vestnik obsch. vet., St. Petersb., 


vol. 15, Columns 771—772. 


OPINION 266 307 


12. On 13th April 1948 Miss I. M. Bellis, on behalf of 
Dr. Wenyon, forwarded the following extract from a letter dated 
12th June 1947 addressed to Dr. C. A. Hoare (The Wellcome 
Foundation) by Professor E. N. Pavlovsky (see paragraph 8 
above) :— 


With regard to Dschunkowski, I have copied everything that was 
published. As to whether the new name (Piroplasma annulatum) was 
given according to the rules—it was not. They [Dschunkowski & 
Luhs] simply named it and that is all. I think that he [Dchunkowsky] 
was in Yugoslavia. 


IIl—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


13. 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 which, subject to the condition specified in Point (6) of 
the Official Record (quoted below), the Commission reached in 
regard to this case at the meeting referred to above (Paris Session, 
14th Meeting, Conclusion 5) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 431— 
433) :— 


THE COMMISSION agreed :— 


(1) that, pending the outcome of the further investigation 
referred to in (5) below, the name Piroplasma annulatum 
(Class Sporozoa, Order Coccidiida) should, on the 
information at present available, be treated as having 
been first published in 1906 in the Report of the VIIIth 
International Veterinary Congress, Budapest, 1905 : 290, 
where it appeared in a paper by Dschunkowsky & Luhs 


378 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


communicated to the Congress by M. G. Tartarowsky, 
and that this name should therefore be attributed to 
Dschunkowsky & Luhs, [1906] ; 


(2) that Dr. E. Sergent was in error when in 1923 he rejected 
the trivial name annulatum Dschunkowsky & Luhs on 
the ground that, when that name had been first 
published, it had been applied to a composite species 
(the one pathogenic, the other non-pathogenic), for 
under the Rég/es a trivial name cannot be rejected on 
this ground, it being necessary to determine the species 
to which the name should be applied by the means 
provided by Article 31 ; 


(3) that Dr. Witenberg himself in his application to the 
Commission (1947) applied the provisions of Article 31 
to the trivial name annulatum Dschunkowsky & Luhs, 
1905, when he selected as the species to which that name 
should apply the pathogenic (as contrasted with the 
non-pathogenic) species included by Dschunkowsky & 
Luhs in the nominal species Piroplasma annulatum 
when they first published the name of that composite 
species, and therefore that the trivial names parva and 
dispar, as published by Sergent (1923) (in combination 
with the generic name Theileria) were objective 
synonyms of the trivial name annulatum Dschunkowsky 
& Luhs (as published in 1906 in combination with the 
generic name Piroplasma) ; 


(4) to place on record their thanks to Dr. C. M. Wenyon 
(Wellcome Foundation, London) and Mr. D. A. E. 
Cabot, Chief Veterinary Officer, United Kingdom 
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, for their assidu- 
ous efforts to assist in the investigation of the complex 
bibliographical problems involved in this case ; 


(5) to invite the Secretary of the Commission to examine, 
in consultation with specialists, the question whether 
there was any prospect of obtaining more precise 
information regarding the date on which, and the 
place in which, the name Piroplasma annulatum was 
first published ; 


(6) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified 
in (1) to (3) above, as soon as the Secretary had either 


OPINION 266 379 


brought to a successful issue the inquiry referred to in 
(5) above or was satisfied that no further information 
regarding the date and place of first publication of the 
name Piroplasma annulatum was likely to be obtained. 


14. The publication on 9th June 1950 of the Part (Triple Part 
13/15) of volume 4 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
containing the Official Record of the decision reached by the 
Commission at Paris in this case elicited no further information 
bearing upon the question of the date and place of first publication 
of the name Piroplasma annulatum Dschunkowsky & Luhs. The 
position was further reviewed in the autumn of 1951 by 
Mr. Hemming, as Secretary to the Commission, in the light of 
the duty imposed upon him by the Commission at its Paris 
Session (Point (5) in the decision quoted in paragraph 13 above). 
Mr. Hemming then decided to make one further effort to obtain 
information on the foregoing subject by publishing a short 
Report on this case, together with an appeal to specialists to 
furnish any additional information which they might possess. 
Mr. Hemming’s Report, which was as follows, was published on 
15th April 1952 (Hemming, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 206— 
207) :— 


Case 14: Species to which the trivial name ‘‘ annulatum ’’ commonly 

treated as having been published by Dschunkowsky & Luhs in 1904 

(in the combination ‘‘ Piroplasma annulatum ’’) (Class Sporozoa, Order 
Coccidiida) is to be treated as applicable 


By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. 
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 


(See 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 431—433) 


32. The question of the species of the Order Coccidiida (Class 
Sporozoa) to which is applicable the trivial name annulatum commonly 
treated as having been published by Dschunkowsky and Luhs in 1904 
in the combination Piroplasma annulatum was submitted to the 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by Dr. G. 
Witenberg (Hebrew University, Jerusalem) in an application which was 


380 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature in 1947 (Witenberg, 
1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 223—224). In the course of preparing 
this application for submission to the Commission, in my capacity as 
Secretary to the Commission, I established that the name Piroplasma 
annulatum was not published in the paper by Dschunkowsky & Luhs 
which appeared in 1904 and which was always cited in the literature 
as the place where this name was first published. In spite of extensive 
correspondence with specialists on the subject, I was not able definitely 
to establish when and where this name was first published with an 
indication, though I did form an opinion as to the place where it 
probably first appeared. The foregoing investigations formed the 
subject of my Report which was published at the same time as 
Dr. Witenberg’s application (Hemming, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
1 : 234—236). 


33. Dr. Witenberg’s application and my Report were considered by 
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its 
Session held in Paris in 1948 ; the Commission then took a decision on 
the question submitted by Dr. Witenberg, but decided to postpone 
for a short time rendering an Opinion on this subject, in the hope that 
further efforts might elicit information throwing light on the question 
of the place where the name Piroplasma annulatum was first published 
and the date on which it was first published. The publication in 1950 
of the foregoing decision has not, however, brought any fresh informa- 
tion to light on this subject. Clearly the formal promulgation of the 
Commission’s decision on the question submitted by Dr. Witenberg 
cannot be allowed much longer to be held for the sake of investigations 
as to the date and place of first publication of the foregoing name. 
In order, however, to exhaust every possible means of obtaining 
information on this subject, this case is included in the present Report 
in the hope that there may be some protozoologist or other zoologist 
or some veterinary specialist who may be able to throw some additional 
light on this question. 


15. On 11th October 1953, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary to the 
International Commission, prepared the following Report in 
discharge of the duty imposed upon him by the International 
Commission at its Session held in Paris in 1948 under Point (5) 
of the decision then taken by it in the present case :— 


Decision taken conditionally by the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in 1948 
in the case of the name ‘‘ Piroplasma annulatum ~’ 
Dschunkowsky & Luhs 


REPORT by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. 
Secretary to the International Commission 


In Paris in 1948 the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature took certain decisions (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 


OPINION 266 381 


4 : 432433) in regard to the name Piroplasma annulatum commonly 
(though incorrectly) treated as having been published in 1904 in a 
paper by Dschunkowsky & Luhs entitled “‘ Die Piroplasmosen der 
Rinder” (1904, Zb/. Bakt. (Erste Abt.) 35 : 486—492) and agreed 
to render an Opinion embodying the decisions so taken. 


2. One of the problems considered by the International Commission 
in connection with the present case was the determination of the date 
and place of first publication of the name Piroplasma annulatum. On 
this subject the Commission agreed that on the available evidence the 
foregoing name must be regarded as having been first published in 
1906 in the Report of the VIIIth International Veterinary Congress, 
Budapest, 1905 (3 : 290), but (Point (5)) invited me, as Secretary to the 
Commission, “‘ to examine in consultation with specialists, the question 
whether there was’ any prospect of obtaining more precise information 
regarding the date on which, and the place in which, the name Piro- 
plasma annulatum was first published’. At the same time the Inter- 
national Commission agreed (Point (6)) to render an Opinion embodying 
the decisions then taken in regard to this name, ‘“‘as soon as the 
Secretary had either brought to a successful issue the enquiry referred 
to in (5) above or was satisfied that no further information regarding 
the date and place of first publication of the name Piroplasma annulatum 
was likely to be obtained ”’. 


3. In view of the prolonged investigations into the foregoing 
question carried out before the Paris Session of the International 
Commission by Dr. Wenyon, Dr. Witenberg, and Mr. Cabot, and the 
negative evidence furnished by Professor Dschunkowsky (in corre- 
spondence with Dr. Witenberg) and by Professor: Pavlovsky (in 
correspondence with Dr. Hoare), it was evident at that Session that it 
was most unlikely that it would be possible to secure more precise 
_ information regarding the date on which, and the place in which, the 

name Piroplasma annulatum was first published, than was already 
available to the International Commission. Since that date, the 
foregoing problem has twice been ventilated in print: first, in June 
1950 when the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commission 
in Paris were published in volume 4 of the Bulletin of Zoological 
Nomenclature ; second, in April 1952 on the publication of my Report, 
with its accompanying appeal to specialists, in volume 7 of the Bulletin. 
On each occasion the result has been completely negative, no intorma- 
tion of any kind bearing upon the date and place of first publication 
of the name Piroplasma annulatum having been elicited. In the 
concluding stages of this investigation, the most valuable assistance 
has been rendered by Dr. C. A. Hoare, F.R.S. (The Wellcome 
Laboratories of Tropical Medicine, London) and by Miss I. M. Bellis 
of the same Institution, who, though unable to throw any additional 
light on the central issue, have solved a number of other bibliographical 
problems on which information was required in this case. The thanks 


382 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


of the Commission are offered to both these specialists for the help so 
rendered. 


4. At this stage, however, it is necessary to note an inadvertent error 
in the Point (3) ‘of the preliminary decision taken by the Commission 
in Paris in this matter, where it was stated that the species Theileria 
parva Sergent (Ed.) and Theileria dispar Sergent (Ed.), 1923, were 
objectively identical with Piroplasma annulatum Dschunkowsky & 
Luhs, [1906], and therefore that the specific names (there referred to, 
under the then correct term, trivial names) parva Sergent (Ed.), 1923, 
and dispar Sergent (Ed.), 1923, as published in each case in combination 
with the generic name Theileria were junior objective synonyms of 
annulatum Dschunkowsky & Luhs, [1906], as published in the com- 
bination Piroplasma annulatum. ‘This statement, which was based upon 
a misreading of the brief application originally submitted in this case, 
is incorrect, for the nominal species Theileria parva (for which Theileria 
dispar is no more than a substitute with a different name) and Piro- 
plasma annulatum were not based upon the same material and are 
therefore only subjectively the same as one another, and their names 
_ are subjective, and not objective, synonyms of one another. Moreover, 
the name Theileria parva was published not by Sergent (Ed.) but by 
Donatien (A.), Plantureux (E.), Rossi (P.), & Espérandieu (G.). 
Finally, the name Theileria dispar Sergent (Ed.) was published in 1924 
and not in 1923. The necessary corrections will need to be made 
in the Ruling to be given in the present case. 


5. In view of the circumstances described in paragraph 3 of the 
present Minute, I now, as Secretary to the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature, hereby formally discharge the duty 
imposed upon me under Point (5) of the decision taken by the 
International Commission at its Session held in Paris in 1948 by 
reporting that I am satisfied that no further information regarding the 
date and place of first publication of the name Piroplasma annulatum 
is likely to be obtainable. 


SIGNED this Eleventh day of October, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty- 
Three. 


Secretary to the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 


FRANCIS HEMMING 


16. The signature of the Minute by the Secretary reproduced in 
the immediately preceding paragraph completed the action called 
for from that Officer under Point (5) of the decision taken by the 
Commission in Paris in 1948. Thereupon, under Point (6) of 


OPINION 266 383 


the said decision, definitive effect was automatically given to the 
decision by the Commission to render an Opinion embodying 
the matters specified in Points (1) to (3) of the Ruling agreed upon 
in Paris, as quoted in paragraph 13 of the present Opinion, subject 
to the inclusion therein of the corrections on certain points of 
detail noted in paragraph 4 of the Secretary’s Report of 11th 
October 1953 (paragraph 15 above). 


17. Under the regulations relating to the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology and the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Specific Names of the Zoology, the International Commission is 
required to place on the foregoing Official List every specific 
name which it either validates under its Plenary Powers or 
declares to be an available name, and on the foregoing Official 
Index every specific name which it either rejects under its Plenary 
Powers or declares to be invalid. In the present instance, the 
entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the 
specific name annulatum Dschunkowsky & Luhs, [1906], as 
published in the combination Piroplasma annulatum, was inad- 
vertently 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. 


18. The following are the original references for the names 
which appear in the decision set out in paragraph 13 of the 
present Opinion :— 


annulatum, Piroplasma, Dschunkowsky & Luhs, [1906], Rep. 
Vil[th int. vet. Congr., Budapest, 1905, 3 : 290 

dispar, Theileria, Sergent (E.) et al., 1924, Ann. Inst. Pasteur 
38 : 297 

parva, Theileria, Sergent (E.), 1923, Donatien, Plantureux et al., 
1923, Bull. Soc. Path. exot. 16 :7 


19. 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 : 112). 


384 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


20. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was concurred 
in by the sixteen (16) Commissioners and Alternate Com- 
missioners 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. 


21. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was dissented from 
by no Commissioner or alternate Commissioner present at the 
Paris Session. 


22. 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. 


23. 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. 


OPINION 266 385 


24. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two 
Hundred and Sixty-Six (266) of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature. 


Done in London, this Sixth day of January, Nineteen Hundred 
and Fifty-Four. 


Secretary to the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature. 


FRANCIS HEMMING 


OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 
RENDERED BY THE INTER- 
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


Edited by 
FRANCIS HEMMING, CMG, CBE. 7 


Secretary to the Commission is S 


es 


; VOLUME 5. Part 28. Pp. 387—396 2% | of an 
= [ wd, i at 
\h oD 
INS W, 
SS” 


OPINION 267 Dig 


Rejection of a proposal for the validation, under the 
Plenary Powers, of the generic name Porina Walker, 
1856 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) by the 
suppression thereunder of the generic name Porina 
-@Orbigny, 1852 (Class Bryozoa) 


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) 


ee ———————_____ 
Issued 10th August, 1954 


INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 267 


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. 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. Veterinezr- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologisk Labora- 
torium, Copenhagen, Denmark). 

Professor Kamel MANsourR (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. UstnGer (University of California, Berkeley, California, 
U.S.A.). 


OPINION 267 


REJECTION OF A PROPOSAL FOR THE VALIDATION, 
UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE GENERIC 
NAME “PORINA” WALKER, 1856 (CLASS 
INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) BY THE 
SUPPRESSION THEREUNDER OF THE 
GENERIC NAME “PORINA ” 
D’ORBIGNY, 1852 
(CLASS BRYOZOA) 


RULING :—(1) The request for the use of the Plenary 
Powers for the purpose of validating the generic name 
Porina Walker, 1856 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) 
by suppressing the name Porina @Orbigny, 1852 (Class 
Bryozoa) is hereby rejected, because such action, though 
helpful in the Class Insecta (Order Lepidoptera), would 
involve the suppression of a well-known generic name 
in another part (Class Bryozoa) of the Animal Kingdom. 


(2) The generic name Porina Walker, 1856, is hereby 
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 66. 


(3) The generic name Oxycanus Walker, 1856 (gender 
of name : masculine) (type species, by selection by Kirby 
(1892): Oxycanus australis Walker, 1856) is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology 
as Name No. 683. 


(4) The specific name australis Walker, 1856, as 
published in the combination Oxycanus australis, is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 
as Name No. 83. 


390 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE 


On 10th July 1945, Dr. J. T. Salmon (Entomologist, Dominion 
Museum, Wellington, New Zealand) submitted the following 
request for the use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers for the 
suppression of the generic name Porina d’Orbigny, 1852 (Class 
Bryozoa) with the object of validating the generic name Porina 
Walker, 1856 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), a name of 
considerable interest in agriculture in New Zealand :— 


‘* Porina ’’ versus ‘* Oxycanus ”’ 


By J. T. SALMON 
(Dominion Museum, Wellington, New Zealand) 


(extract from a letter dated 10th July 1945) 


I should like to draw your attention to recent changes in name 
concerning the genus Porina Walker in the Lepidoptera. It is sug- 
gested that this be changed to Oxycanus by N. B. Tindale, Records 
of the Australian Museum, Vol. 5, 1935, p. 280. This has been followed 
by Dumbleton and Dick in several papers in the New Zealand Journal 
of Science and Technology between 1940 and the present time, con- 
cerning the ravages of Porina (or Oxycanus) in the pastures in New 
Zealand. Porina is a very widespread genus in the Lepidoptera, very 
well represented in New Zealand and also in Australia, and is known 
to all entomologists as Porina, and has become known to the farming 
community of New Zealand as Porina. The change is made mainly 
because Porina previously had been used in the Mollusca; and I 
should like the matter to be taken up by your Commission to see 
whether it would be possible for Porina in the Lepidoptera to be 
declared a nomen conservandum, and that the change in name necessary 
be made in the Mollusca, where the name has a very much narrower 
use. In the meantime, until I hear from you in the matter, I am 
delaying the necessary changes of name which would have to be made 
in the reference collections and literature of this Museum. 


Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 


2. On receipt of Dr. Salmon’s letter, the present problem was 
given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 194. In acknowledging 
receipt on 9th September 1945 of this application, the Secretary 


OPINION 267 391 


took note that the essential question which it would be necessary 
for the International Commission to consider in this case would 
be whether the advantages of the proposed action from the 
point of view of entomology (including its economic aspects) 
would be such as to outweigh any objections entertained by 
other specialists to the suppression of the name Porina d’Orbigny, 
1852. 


3. Issue of Public Notices: On 14th November 1947 a notice 
of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoo- 
logical 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. 


4. In June 1948 the Secretary invited Dr. Salmon to ascertain, 
for the information of the International Commission, what 
would be the attitude of interested workers on the question of 
the proposed suppression of the name Porina d’Orbigny, 1852. 
At the same time Mr. Hemming invited Mr. R. Winckworth 
(London) to furnish a statement of his views on this question. 
The replies received from Mr. Winckworth and Dr. Salmon are 
given in the immediately following paragraphs. 


5. Reply received from Mr. R. Winckworth: On 28th June 
1948, Mr. Winckworth replied as follows :— 


Porina d’Orbigny, 1852, was proposed not for a genus of molluscs, 
but for a Cretaceous genus of Bryozoa, and the name has since been 
used also for recent species. Thus, in the Cambridge Natural History, 
it is listed among the principal genera of Polyzoa, and it is also referred 
to in two other places in connexion with recent species of Porina. 


6. Reply received from Dr. J. T. Salmon : On 15th July 1948, 
Dr. Salmon replied as follows :— 


With reference to your letter of 23rd June, concerning the status 
of Porina Walker, I have been enquiring into this myself and have 
ascertained that the name as used in the Bryozoa is the type genus of 
the PORINIDAE and is a teaching type in Zittel’s work on Geology. 
On this account it seems to me that it is far more widely known in 
Palaentology than it is in agriculture or entomology in New Zealand 
and Australia. On this account I think the case for the suppression 


392 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


of Porina in the Bryozoa in favour of its retention in the Lepidoptera 
should be withdrawn. 


7. On 25th July 1948 Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, submitted 
to the Commission a Paper (I.C.(48)19), containing summaries 
of the principal points arising on a number of individual cases, 
of which the present was the fourth. Later, Mr. Hemming’s 
Paper was published as part of the historical record of the Pro- 
ceedings of the International Commission during its Paris Session 
(1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 135—138). The passage relating 
to the present case (3 : 136) was as follows :— 


(4) Proposed use of the Plenary Powers for ‘* Porina’’ Walker, 
1856 (Order Lepideptera) : This name is of importance as this genus has 
a species which is a serious pasture pest in New Zealand. It is invalid, 
however, because it is pre-occupied by Porina d’Orbigny, 1852, the 
name for a genus of Cretaceous Bryozoa. Recent species have also 
been referred to this genus which is regarded as one of the principal 
genera of Bryozoa. It would seem to me to be quite a wrong use of 
the Plenary Powers to employ them to validate a name in one part of 
the Animal Kingdom, if (as here) this means upsetting a well-known 
generic name in some other part of the Animal Kingdom. It appears 
to me, therefore, that the present application should be rejected and 
that the next name for “‘ Porina’’, 1.e., Oxycanus Walker, 1856, should 
be used in its place, as in fact is already being done by some authors 
in New Zealand. It is suggested that concurrently with the rejection 
of the present application the name Oxycanus should be placed on the 
Official List. 


III.—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- 
théatre Louis-Liard at 1730 hours. The following is an extract 
from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International 


OPINION 267 393 


Commission, setting out the decision reached by it in this case 
at the foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 
5) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 356—357) :— 


THE COMMISSION agreed :— 


(1) to reject, for the reasons set out in Point (4) in Com- 
mission Paper I.C.(48)19,1 the application referred to 
in (a) above? that they should use their Plenary Powers 
to validate the generic name Porina Walker, 1856 
(Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) by suppressing the 
generic name Porina d’Orbigny, 1852 (Class Bryozoa) ; 


(2) in conformity with the decision in regard to the procedure 
in cases where an application for the use of the Plenary 
Powers is rejected, to place on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology the oldest available name 
for the genus for which the invalid name Porina Walker, 
1856, had been published, namely the generic name 
Oxycanus Walker, 1856 (type species, by selection by 
Kirby (1892) : Oxycanus australis Walker, 1856) ; 


(3) in conformity with the decision in regard to the pro- 
cedure to be adopted where the Commission either 
suppresses a generic name or rules that it is invalid 
under the Rég/es, to add the name Porina Walker, 1856 
(type species, by monotypy: Porina novaezealandiae 
Walker, 1856), to the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; 


(4) to place the specific trivial name australis Walker, 1856 
' (as published in the binominal combination Oxycanus 
australis) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names 

in Zoology ; 


(5) to render an Opinion setting out the decisions specified 
in (1) to (4) above. 


- 


See paragraph 7. 


The application here referred to in point (a) of the Official Record of the Paris 
Proceedings (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 5) (1950, Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 4 : 356) is the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the 
present Opinion. 


394 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


9. The following are the original references for the names 
placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given 
in the present Opinion :— 


australis, Oxycanus, Walker, 1856, List. lep. Ins. Brit. Mus. 
(7) : 1574 

Oxycanus Walker, 1856, List lep. Ins. Brit. Mus. (7) : 1573 

Porina Walker, 1856, List lep. Ins. Brit. Mus. (7) : 1572 


The reference for the type selection for Oxycanus Walker, 1856, 
is :—Kirby, 1892, Syn. Cat. Lep. Het. : 892 


10. The gender of the generic name Oxycanus Walker, 1856, 
referred to in the decision given in paragraph 8, is masculine. 


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 Monday, 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 5 : 104—105). 


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 
Hank6é ; 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 


OPINION 267 395 


in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected 
and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken 
by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen 
1953, the expression “ specific name” was substituted for the 
expression “trivial name” and corresponding changes were 
made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such 
names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). 
The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated 
in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 


15. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by 
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in 
dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accord- 
ingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International 
Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary 
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 


in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that 
behalf. 


16. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two 
Hundred and Sixty-Seven (267) of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature. 


Done in London, this Sixth day of January, Nineteen Hundred 
and Fifty-Four. 


Secretary to the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 


FRANCIS HEMMING 


Printed in England by Me 


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 5. Part 29. Pp. 397408 | == 


OPINION 268 <7 


Acceptance of the generic name Aspidoproctus 
(Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) as from Newstead, 1901 


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 10th August, 1954 


INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 268 


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. Te E. Vokes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., 
U.S.A.). 


Class 1955 

Professor Dr. Hilbrand BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, 
Leiden, The Netherlands). 

Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Tayport, Fife, Scotland). 

Professor Teiso ESAKI (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan). 

Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary). 

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Polish Zoological Museum, Warsaw, Poland). 

Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Princeton, 
New Jersey, U.S.A.). 


C. Alternate Members of the Commission at the Session held in Paris 
in 1948 

Professor Enrique BELTRAN (Instituto Mexicano de Recursos Naturales 
Renovables A.C., Mexico City, Mexico). 

Dr. Edward HINDLE (Zoological Society of London, London, England). 

Dr. Arturo Ricardo JORGE (Museu Bocage, Lisbon, Portugal). 

Professor Harold Kirsy (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). 

Dr. Henning LEMcHE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologisk Labora- 
torium, Copenhagen, Denmark). 

Professor Kamel MANSouR (King Fouad University, Cairo, Egypt). 

Professor Z. P. METCALF (North Carolina State College of Agriculture and 
Engineering, University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.). 

Mr. N. D. RILeEy (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 268 


ACCEPTANCE OF THE GENERIC NAME ‘‘ ASPIDO- 
PROCTUS ” (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER 
HEMIPTERA) AS FROM NEWSTEAD, 

1901 


RULING :—(1) The generic name Aspidoproctus New- 
stead, 1901 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), is available 
as from the date in April 1901 on which it was published 
and accordingly has priority over the name Lophococcus 
Cockerell [August], 1901. 


(2) Walkeriana pertinax Newstead, 1901, is the type 
species of the genus Aspidoproctus Newstead, 1901, by 
monotypy, that being the sole species at that time cited 
in connection with this generic name. 


(3) The generic name Aspidoproctus Newstead, 1901 
(gender of generic name: masculine), with the above 
species as type species is hereby placed on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 684. 


(4) The specific name pertinax Newstead, 1901, as 
published in the combination Walkeriana pertinax is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology as Name No. 84. 


400 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE 


On 18th February 1931 Professor T. D. A. Cockerell (University 
of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.) submitted to the Inter- 
national Commission the following application for a ruling 
on the status of the generic name Aspidoproctus Newstead, 1901 
(Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) :— 


On the status of the name ‘‘ Aspidoproctus ’’ Newstead, 1901 (Class 
Insecta, Order Hemiptera) 


By T. D. A. COCKERELL 
(University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.) 


In 1901, Newstead [April 1901], Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1900 (4) : 
948 described a species of COCCIDAE, of which he said that he had 
intended to place it in a new genus Aspidoproctus, but that he had 
decided that this was unnecessary. He therefore called the insect 
Walkeriana pertinax Newstead [1901], ibid. 1900 (4): 947 pl. 59. 


Later (1901, Entomologist 34:227), the name Lophococcus 
Cockerell was proposed for a different species (Lophococcus mirabilis 
Cockerell, 1901, ibid. 34 : 248), which is now considered congeneric 
with Walkeriana pertinax Newstead [1901]. 


Still later, authors have resurrected the name Aspidoproctus Newstead, 
and this is now used as the generic name for the species in question 
(see Morrison, (H.), 1928, Tech. Bull.. U.S. Dep. Agric. 52 : 151). 


My idea has been to accept the first published name, but there is 
confusion as to the meaning of the Code in this matter and this 
confusion should be cleared up by the International Commission. 


| OPINION 268 401 
Tiss) SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 


2. In May 1938 the papers relating to the present application 
were transferred by Dr. C. W. Stiles to the care of Mr. Francis 
Hemming, who in 1936 had been elected Secretary to the Inter- 
national Commission. On receipt, these documents were given 
the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 46. 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 des- 
truction 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 drawing 
the attention of zoologists to 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 (Cockerell, 1946, Bull. 
zool. Nomencl. 1 : 171). 


Il—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


3. The present application was considered by the Inter- 
national 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 this case at the foregoing 


402 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


meeting (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 25) (1950, 
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 381—382) :— 


THE COMMISSION agreed :— 


(1) that, in accordance with the ruling given in Opinion 41 
and now to be embodied in the Rég/es, the generic 
name Aspidoproctus published by Newstead in April 
1901, as a rejected manuscript name was available 
under Article 25 as from the date of being so published 
and accordingly had priority over the name Lopho- 
coccus Cockerell [August], 1901 ; 


(2) that Walkeriana pertinax Newstead, 1901, was the type 
species of the genus Aspidoproctus Newstead, 1901, by 
monotypy, that being the sole species at that time cited 
in connection with this generic name ; 


(3) to place :-— 

(a) the generic name Aspidoproctus Newstead [April], 
1901 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), with the 
above species as its type species, on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology ; 

(b) the trivial name pertinax Newstead, 1901 (as 
published in the binominal combination 
Walkeriana pertinax), on the Official List of 
Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; 


(4) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified 
in (1) to (3) above. 


4. The decision taken in the present case was reported to, and 
approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth 


1 See paragraph 7 below. 


OPINION 268 403 


International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Fifth 
Meeting held on 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
5 : 106). 


5. The decision set out in paragraph 3 above 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. 


6. The foregoing decision was dissented from by no Com- 
missioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the Paris Session. 


7. At its meeting held at Copenhagen in August 1953 the 
Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology revoked the 
decision taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of 
Zoology, Paris, 1948, to incorporate into the Régles the provision 
previously laid down in the Commission’s Opinion 4 and decided 
to substitute therefor a provision under which (1) as from a 
future date to be specified in the revised Rég/es, no name published 
in a synonymy without an independent indication can acquire 
availability in virtue of being so published, (2) names originally 
so published, if generally accepted before the coming into force 
of the foregoing provision, are to be accepted, and (3) where there 
is a difference of opinion among the specialists as to whether a 
given name is generally accepted for the purposes of (2) above, the 
case is to be referred to the International Commission for decision 
(1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 63—64). Since 
the foregoing provision is not (as explained above) to become 
operative until some date subsequent to the coming into force 
of the revised text of the Rég/es, it could not in any circumstances 
have an adverse effect upon the decision taken by the Commission 


404 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


in the present case over five years ago. Nevertheless, when in the 
autumn of 1953, the Secretary to the Commission had an 
opportunity to start the preparation of Opinions recording the 
decisions taken by the Commission at Paris in 1948 and published 
two years later in the Official Record of the Proceedings of the 
Commission during its Paris Session (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4), 
it appeared to him that it would be inappropriate to include in 
the Ruling given in the present Opinion a specific reference to the 
provision incorporated in the Régles from Opinion 4 by the Paris 
Congress, having regard to the action taken in respect of that 
provision by the Copenhagen Congress. Mr. Hemming took the 
view that it was desirable to obtain the directions of the Com- 
mission on the question of the wording to be adopted in the Ruling 
embodying the decision taken by the Commission in regard to this 
case, before the requisite formal Opinion was prepared. Accord- 
ingly, on 19th November 1953, Mr. Hemming submitted the 
following memorandum to the Commission :— 


Wording of the decision regarding the name ‘‘ Aspidoproctus ’’ Newstead, 
1901 


By FRANCIS HEMMING 
Secretary to the International Commission 


_ During the last few weeks, while waiting for the proofs of the 
Copenhagen Report, I have started to prepare the Opinions required to 
give effect to the decisions taken in Paris in 1948, a task long overdue. 
In one case I have encountered a problem of drafting on which I wish 
to consult the Commission. The case is that of Aspidoproctus 
Newstead, 1901, dealt with on pp. 381—382 of vol. 4 of the Bulletin of 
Zoological Nomenclature. 


2. In its decision on this case the Commission stated that it relied 
upon the ruling given in Opinion 4. Nermally, this statement would 
be included in the Ruling given at the head of the Opinion. But the 
Copenhagen Congress decided that, as from a future date not yet 
specified, the ruling in Opinion 4 is to be Withdrawn and that thereafter 
it will not be permissible to bring into use a name originally published 
in a synonymy. The ruling given in Paris in this case was well based 


OPINION 268 405 


then and is well based now, but, in view of the Copenhagen decision, 

‘it would, I feel, be likely to cause misunderstanding if an Opinion 
published now were to contain a prominent reference to Opinion 4, 
more especially as it is not necessary for any such reference to be made. 
I have accordingly prepared a revised draft of the wording to be used 
to give effect to the decision on Aspidoproctus, which omits all mention 
of Opinion 4. This draft is given at the head of the annexed Voting 
Paper and is now submitted for the consideration of the Commission. 


8. Issue of Voting Paper V.P. (53)7: Simultaneously with the 
submission to the Members of the Commission of the memoran- 
dum reproduced in the immediately preceding paragraph, Mr. 
Hemming issued on 19th November 1953 a Voting Paper 
(V.P. (53)7) in which the Members of the Commission were 
invited to vote for or against the following “revision of the 
wording of the Paris decision in regard to the name Aspido- 
proctus”” :— 


Text of suggested revised wording of Ruling to be given in the present case 


(1) The generic name Aspidoproctus Newstead (Class Insecta, Order 
Hemiptera) is available as from the date in April 1901, on which it 
was published, and accordingly has priority over the name Lophococcus 
Cockerell [August], 1901. 


(2) Walkeriana pertinax Newstead, 1901, is the type species of the 
genus Aspidoproctus Newstead, 1901, by monotypy, that being the sole 
species at that time cited in connection with this generic name. 


(3) The generic name Aspidoproctus Newstead, 1901 (gender of 
generic name: masculine), with the above species as type species, 1s 
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 


(4) The specific name pertinax Newstead, 1901, as published in the 
combination Walkeriana pertinax, is hereby placed on the Official 
List of Specific Names in Zoology. 


9. The prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting 
Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the prescribed 
Voting Period closed on 19th December 1953. 


406 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


10. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(53)7: The 
state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P. (53)7 at the close of the 
prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— 


(a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following eighteen 
(18) Commissioners! (arranged in the order in which Votes 
were received) : 


Lemche; Ruiey; MHolthuis; Sylvester-Bradley ; 
Hering ; Bradley (J.C.) ; Bonnet ; Dymond ; Esaki ; 
Mertens; Vokes; Pearson; Boschma; Jaczewski ; 
Hemming ; do Amaral; Hanko ; Cabrera ; 


(b) Negative Votes : 
None ; 


(c) Voting Paper V.P.(53)7 was not returned by one (1) 
Commissioner : 


Stoll. 


11. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 7th January 1954, Mr. 
Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as 
Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P. (53)7, 
signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 


1 The following Commissioners who took part in the vote on Voting Paper 
V.P. (53)7 were not members of the Commission at the time when the question 
cr with in the present Opinion was decided by the Commission in Paris in 
1948 :— 

Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) 

Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) 

Professor Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt- 
Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) 

Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The 
Netherlands) 

Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, 
Warsaw, Poland) 

Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, 
Denmark) (an Alternate Commissioner at the Paris Session) 

Professor Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, 
Frankfurt a. M., Germany) 

Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (British Whee (Natural History), London) (an 
Alternative Commissioner at the Paris Session) 

Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) 


OPINION 268 407 


10 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the fore- 
going Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision 
so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the 
matter aforesaid. 


12. On 8th January 1954, Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling 
given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a 
Certificate that the terms of the Ruling were in complete accord 
with those of the proposal approved by the International 
Commission at its Session in Paris in 1948 as re-worded in its 
Vote on Voting Paper V.P. (53)7. 


13. The following are the original references for the names 
placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given 
in the present Opinion :— 


Aspidoproctus Newstead [April], 1901, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 
1900 (4) : 948 

pertinax, Walkeriana, Newstead [April], 1901, Proc. zool. Soc. 
Lond. 1900 (4) : 947, pl. 59 


14. The gender of the generic name Aspidoproctus Newstead, 
1901, referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 3, is 
masculine. 


15. It must be noted at this point that at its meeting held at 
Copenhagen in August 1953 the Fourteenth International 
Congress of Zoology decided to substitute the expression 
* specific name ”’ for the expression “ trivial name ” adopted by 
the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, as 
the expression to be used for the second portion of the binomen 
which constitutes the scientific name of a species. At the same 
time the Copenhagen Congress made a corresponding change in 
the title of the Official List till then styled the Official List of 
Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. It is for this reason that this 
revised terminology was employed in the draft of the revised 
Ruling in the present case quoted in paragraph 8 above. 


16. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing 


408 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


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 Sixty-Eight (268) of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature. 


Done in London, this Eighth day of January, Nineteen 
Hundred and Fifty-Four. 


Secretary to the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 


FRANCIS HEMMING 


NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS 


The present volume (Volume 5) will be complete on the publication 
of Part 30 containing the indexes, title page, etc. This concluding 
Part is now in the press and will, it is hoped, be published at an early date. 


Printed in England by Mercarre & Cooper Limitep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2 


RENDERED BY THE INTER- 


NATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 
| 
| 


OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 


Edited by 
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., 


Secretary to the Commission 


VOLUME 5S. Part 30. 
(Concluding Part) 


En HSONiax 
OCT 21 5h | 


CIBRARY 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 Fifteen Shillings 


(All rights reserved) 


Fr 


Issued lst 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 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 CAporiIAcco (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. sane 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. Stour (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. Metrcatr (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). i 

Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de 
Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). 

re ae L. Usincer (University cf California, Berkeley, California, 


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 


VOLUMES5. Part30. Pp. 409—426 
(also published with this Part: T.P.—XIV) 


CONTENTS 


Corrigenda ; Index to Authors of Applications dealt 
with in Opinions 240—268 and of comments on those 
Applications ; Subject Index ; Particulars of the dates 
of publication of the several Parts in which the present 
volume was published ; Instructions to Binders 


Also published with this Part: Title Page, Foreword ; 
Table of Contents. 


LONDON : 


Printed by Order of the International Trust for 
Zoological Nomenclature 
and 
Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 
1954 


Price Fifteen 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 


Presideni : 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. ae E. Voxes (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 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 Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, 
Denmark) 

Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de 
Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). 

See Anic Rae L. Ustncer (University of California, Berkeley, California, 


ee ae ee ee ee ee 


Corrigenda 


page 84. Line 26: substitute “ 1840’ for “ 1804”’. 
page 141. Ruling (3), line 1: substitute “ 1844” for “‘ 144”. 


It is much regretted that in Opinions 245 to 255 Dr. R. I. Sailer’s name was misspelled 
as Sailor. The pages involved are: 76, 86, 95, 96, 99, 108, 112, 120, 123, 132, 135, 144, 147, 
156, 160, 168, 172, 179, 180, 183, 192, 196. 


Volume 5 413 


INDEX 
TO AUTHORS OF APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH IN 
“OPINIONS ”? 240 TO 268 AND OF COMMENTS ON 
THOSE APPLICATIONS 


Page 


Andrewes, H. E. 49—5] 


Balfour-Browne, W. A. F. 50—51 


Blackwelder, R. SIT 
Biair KG. .. 50—51 
Breder, ©. M., Jr. ... See ess) 
paves. ©. Tf. .. La 203 
Cameron, M. 50—51 
Caporiacco, L. di .. 12226 
Chace, F. A., Jr. 289—290, 
Si), Sul) 

China, W. E. 61—64, 74—75, 
84—85, 94—95, 106—107, 


118—119, 130—131, 142— 
143, 154—155, 166—167, 
178—179, 190—192 


Cockerell, T. D. A. .. .. 400 


Corbet, A. S... 332—334, 346— 
347, 359—361 


Costa Lima, A. 216—217 


Fairchild, G. B. 211—214 


Page 


Green, EE 64, 75 


Hemming, F. 4—5, 19—20, 27— 
32, 202—203, 217—226, 234 
—240, 248—249, 256—258, 
268—274, 284—288, 292— 
293, 301—309, 312—315, 320 
—322, 324—326, 334—338, 
347—350, 361—363, 372— 
373, 379—382, 392, 404 


Hershkovitz, P. 237, 249 
Hertig, M. H. 211—214 
Hildebrand, S. F. 33—38 
Jordan, K. 16—18 
Kellogg, R. 237, 249 
Lyon, M. W., Jr. 235—237 
Macknight, F. C. 206—211 
Marshall, Sir G. A. K. 50—51 
Miller, R. R. 33—38 
Mortensen, T. 66, 76 
Osgood, W. H, 236—237, 249 


414 Opinions and Declarations 


Page 
Pavlovsky, E.N.  .. 5 cai 
Peters. Jee o: Ae LO 
Rapp, W. F. .. .. 204—205 


Riley, N. D. 290—291, 350, 363 


Sailer, R. I. 65—66, 76, 86, 
96, 108, 120, 132, 144, 156, 
168, 180, 192 

Salmon, J. T. 390, 391—392 


Schultz, L. P. see 33—38 


Stone, A. 


Travassos, H. 


Trewavas, E. 


Usinger, R. L. 


Wenyon, C. M. 


Winckworth, R. 


Witenberg, G. 


373—374 * 
_ 391 
370—371, 374 


Volume 5 


SUBJECT INDEX 


abietum Bergroth, 1914, Gastrodes (Class Insecta), designated, under the Ieee 
Powers, to be type species of Gastrodes Westwood, 1840 .. 


placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 65 . 

Alydus Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology as Name No. 670, with Cimex calcaratus Linnaeus, 1758, as type species. . 
gender of name 

annulatum Dschunkowsky & Luhs, [1906], as published in the combination Piro- 
plasma annulatum (Class Sporozoa), determination of the species to which this 
name shall be held to apply fe a ce 2 ae : ms 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 82 .. 

antillarum Kirkaldy, 1909, Cimex (Class Insecta), designated, under the Me 
Powers, to be the type species of Tetyra Fabricius, 1803 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 74.. 

Aquarius Schellenberg, 1800 (Class Insecta), all type selections for, set aside under 
the Plenary Powers, and Cimex najas De Geer, 1773, designated as type species. . 
gender of name 
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 673 .. 

arenarius Edwards, 1771, as published in the combination Cancer arenarius (Class 


Crustacea), placed on the pues Index ao een and Invalid Dige Names in 
Zoology as Name No. 18 ; 


aristolochiae Fabricius, 1775, as published in the combination Papilio aristolochiae 
(Class Insecta), validation of, under the Plenary Powers ie Wi ae 


placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 81.. 


415 


Page 
83 
83 


=) 
59 


369 
370 


189 
189 


93 


93 
93 


300 


357 
357 


416 Opinions and Declarations 


aristolochiae Pallas, as used by that author in the combination Papilio aristolochiae, 
on any date prior to the publication in 1775 of the name aristolochiae Fabricius 
in the same combination, 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 oe fogeted and Invalid Be Names in Zoe 
as Name No. 22 : 


ascanius Cramer, [1775], as published in the Seinen Papilio ascanius (Class 
Insecta), validation of, under the Plenary Powers ie ie BY 


placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 80.. 


ascanius Linnaeus, 1768, as published in the combination Papilio ascanius (Class 
Insecta), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes both of the 
Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy i Be Ee 


placed on the Official Index vy aCe and Invalid Se Names in oe 
as Name No. 21 


Aspidoproctus Newstead (Class Insecta), acceptance of, as from April 1901.. 


gender of name 


placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 684, with 
Walkeriana pertinax Newstead, 1901, as type species 


australis Walker, 1856, as published in the combination Oxycanus australis (Class 
Insecta), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 83 


austriacus Schrank, 1776, Cimex (Class Insecta) designated, under the ene 


Powers, to be the type species of Bellocoris Hahn, 1834 


placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 67.. 


Bellocoris Hahn, 1834 (Class Insecta), all type selections for, set aside under the 
Plenary Powers, and Cimex austriacus Schrank, 1776, designated as type species. . 


gender of name 


placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 674.. 


Beosus Amyot & Serville, 1843 (Class Insecta), all type selections for, set aside under 


the Plenary Powers, and Cimex maritimus Scopoli, 1763, designated as type species 


gender of name 

placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 675. . 
bicolor Douglas & Scott, 1866, Litosoma (Class Insecta), designated, under the 

Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Pachylops Fieber, 1858 .. 


placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 72 .. 


Page 


357 


357 


357 
357 


357) 


357 


410 
410 


410 
389 


105 
105 


105 
105 
105 


1170 
117 


117 


165 
165 


Volume 5 


calcaratus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cimex calcaratus (Class 
Insecta), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 63 


Carabus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta), all type selections for, set aside under the 
Plenary Powers, and Carabus granulatus Linnaeus, 1758, designated as type species 
gender of name 


placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 669.. 
Catesby, Mark, The Natural History of Carolina, as republished by Edwards in 1771, 
rejection of names used by, but acceptance of names formed in accordance with 


the Linnean system included by Edwards in the Concordance inserted in Volume 
2 of that edition .. ae ae 


placed (with the exception of the Concordance containing the names mentioned 
above), on the Official Index of Ree and Invalid Works in ee 
Nomenclature as Work No. 9 


Catesby, Mark, The Natural History of Carolina, the Concordance of Linnean names 
inserted by Edwards, G. in Volume 2 of the 1771 edition, pa ea of, for 
nomenclatorial purposes F 


placed on the Official List of Works RTE as Available in tes Nomen- 
clature as Work No. 6 


Catoplatus Spinola, 1837 (Class Insecta), all type selections for, set aside under the 
Plenary Powers, and TJingis fabricii Stal, 1868, designated as type species. . 


gender of name 


placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 676.. 


clavatus Linnaeus, 1767, Cimex (Class Insecta), designated, under the ae nats 
Powers, to be the type species of Pilophorus Hahn, 1826 .. 


placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 73 .. 


Coriscus Schrank, 1796 (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 Rares and Invalid Generic Names in Foe as 
Name No. 64 .. P 


Dictyonota Curtis, 1827 (Class Insecta), all type selections for, set aside under the 
Plenary Powers, and Dictyonota strichnocera Fieber, 1844, n gesenats as type 
species Be ae ins ome i s 5 


gender of name 


placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 677.. 


dispar Sergent, E., 1924, as published in the combination Theileria dispar (Class 
Sporozoa), declared a junior subjective homonym of Piroplasma annulatum 
Dschunkowsky & Luhs, [1906]. . ma hs a fs e, Ie 


Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pisces), designation, under the Plenary Powers, of 
Echeneis naucrates (emend. of neucrates) Linnaeus, 1758, as type species of : 


position of, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, confirmed 


417 


Page 
59 


47 
47 
47 


255) 


255 


255 


Pas) 


129 
129 
129 


177 
liga 


59 


59 


141 
141 
141 


369 


2 
25 


418 Opinions and Declarations 


fabricii Stal, 1868, Tingis (Class Insecta), designated, under the Melua Powers, to be 
the type species of Catoplatus Spinola, 1837 . 


placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 69.. 
feisthamelii Duponchel, 1832, as published in the combination Papilio feisthamelii 


(Class Insecta), place on the PRS List of a Names in mae as Name 
ING, WE. oc 5 


Flebotomus Rondani, 1840 (Class Insecta), an Invalid Original spelling, placed on the 
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 65. . 


Frisch, J. L., Das Natur-System der vierfiissigen Thiere, 1775, rejection of, for nomen- 
clatorial purposes ae aks ah Sr ae 5 


placed on the Official Index of Reged ss and Invalid Works in oolenies 
Nomenclature as Work No. 8 


Gastrodes Westwood, 1840 (Class Insecta), all type selections for, set aside under 
the Plenary Powers, and Gastrodes abietum Bevel 1914, designated as type 
species : oe : 5 : 
gender of name 
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 672 .. 


granulatus Linnaeus, 1758, Carabus (Class Insecta), designated, under the ee 
Powers, to be the type species of Carabus Linnaeus, 1758 . ale 


placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 62 .. 


Gronovius 1763—1781, Zooph yaa Gronovianum, rejection of, for nomenclatorial 
purposes a5 ‘ a a sth a 


placed on the Official Index af Reieeire and ovale Works in 7o0loe es Nomen- 
clature as Work No. 11 


Gronovius, 1763—1781, Index to Zoophylacium Gronovianum, published By 
Meuschen, F. C., in 1781, rejection of, for nomenclatorial purposes 


placed on the Official Index of ees and Invalid Works in manans Nomen- 
clature as Work No. 12 AG : 


ilia {Schiffermiiller & Denis], 1775, as published in the combination Papilio ilia 
(Class Insecta), pee on the Official L List oi Deu Names in meee as Name 
No. 79 Sis 


Page 
129 
129 


331 
201 


247 


247 


83 
83 
83 


47 


47 
283 
283 


283 


283 


345 


Volume 5 


iris Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio iris (Class Insecta), 
designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a figure to represent the lectotype of.. 


placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 48 .. 


littoralis Linnaeus, 1758, Cimex (Class Insecta), designated under the beer 
Powers, to be the type species of Sa/da Fabricius, 1803 ae 


placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 64 . 


mabouya Lacépéde, 1788, as published in the combination Lacertus mabouya (Class 
Reptilia), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 59 


Mabuya Fitzinger, 1826 (Class a tae Lacerta hee de peter 1788, declared 
to be type species of 5 ; 


maritimus Scopoli, 1763, Cimex (Class Insecta), designated, under the ee 
Powers, to be the type species of Beosus Amyot & Serville, 1843 .. 


placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 68 .. 


Meuschen, F. C., Museum Gronovium, 1778, rejection of, for nomenclatorial purposes 


placed on the Official Index of Boeced and Invalid Works in a Nomen- 
clature as Work No. 10 : 


Nabis Latreille, [1802—1803} (Class Macca) Posen of, on the siete List a 
Generic Names in Zoology confirmed . 


najas De Geer, 1773, Cimex (Class Insecta), designated, under the Plenary Powers, 
to be the type species of Aquarius Schellenberg, 1800. . : : ; 


placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 66 .. 


naucrates (emend. of neucrates) Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination 
Echeneis naucrates (Class qisees), pied on the Cueat List ye Malo: Names in 
Zoology as Name No. 60 : : 


neucrates (an Invalid Original Spelling for naucrates) Linnaeus, 1758, as published 
in the combination Echeneis neucrates (Class Pisces), placed on the Official Index 
of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 17.. ae Pe 


Nozeman & Vosmaer, Geslachten der Vogelen, 1758, a Dutch Translation of Moehring’s 
pre-Linnean work entitled Avium Genera, 1752, Say of, for nomenclatorial 
purposes : ae “ie ae me Bi ef af 


placed on the Official Index af Beers and Invalid Works in Paclaglen, Nomen- 
clature as Work No. 6 


419 


Page 
345 
345 


73 


3) 


Lil 7/ 
117 


267 


267 


59 


93 
93 


26 


26 


15 


15 


420 Opinions and Declarations 
Page 
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, names placed on :— 
Coriscus Schrank, 1796 ms Bi Re ae ae af on by 59 
Flebotomus Rondani, 1840 aio ted Ae: ee Poe Bhs aie Be 201 
Porina Walker, 1856 a5 3 5% ae ies ae Hi as Be 389 
Remora Forster, 1771 .. ee a i au ae S vi ae 26 
Remora Gouan, 1770... a fee a Ys Ea ie aid a 26 
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, names placed on :— 
arenarius Edwards, 1771, Cancer aus at Ms 300 
aristolochiae Pallas, in so far as published, prior to 1775, Papilio ote ta) SSM 
ascanius Linnaeus, 1768, Papilio Pe : ; ae, As Leas 
neucrates Linnaeus, 1758, Echeneis .. 3 bas we BS ah at 26 
quadratus Meuschen, 1778, Cancer us ae ae ae o as ei 300 
quadratus Meuschen, 1781, Cancer fa ne oe BS ae Oe 2c 2300 


Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature, works 


placed on :— 
Catesby, Mark, 1771, The Natural History of Carolina, as republished bye Edwards 283 
Frisch, J. L., 1775, Das Natur-System der vierfiissigen Thiere re 247 
Gronovius, 1763—1781, Zoophylacium Gronovianum. . a & Be PASS) 
Gronovius, 1763—1781, Index to Zoophylacium Gronovianum Fo oy pe 33) 
Meuschen, F. C., 1778, Museum Gronovium .. a tr Es Ba AST 
Nozeman & Vosmaer, 1758, Geslachten der Vogelen.. 15 
Zimmermann, A. E. W. von, 1777, esas Zoologicae, Quadrupedum Domicilia et 

Migrationes sistens .. ae F a ai 3 Koy LSS 


Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, names placed on :— 


Alydus Fabricius, 1803 .. a a 26 A ee ae oe Ns 59 
Aquarius Schellenberg, 1800  .. re bn iz as as ws a4 98 
Aspidoproctus Newstead, 1901 ats as of es a i .. 410 
Bellocoris Hahn, 1834 .. , i zal ao on SH ah ae 105 
Beosus Amyot & Serville, 1843. us ae i te a ae Se 117 
Carabus Linnaeus, 1758 oe ee ue a4 oe oes -. Se 47 
Catoplatus Spinola, 1837 ay eA Ag a As = an Be 129 
Dictyonota Curtis, 1827 .. Li e est. yee a ad ue Ph 141 
Gastrodes Westwood, 1840 ne an Ae ie hs A ae a 83 
Oncotylus Fieber, 1858 .. a ee Bie. =e a Ei at si 153 
Oxycanus Walker, 1856 a an a ae aa Pe ot: 08 389 
Pachylops Fieber, 1858 . : a Ag ire a8, 165 
Phlebotomus (emend. of Fleboromus) Rondani, "1840. ae a ie ve 20 
Pilophorus Hahn, 1826 : as re Ae a 177 
Remora Gill, 1862 e. ee Ba By 5 ~ a Sg nis 26 
Salda Fabricius, 1803... ia ke ny ait a m A 73 
Tetyra Fabricius, 1803 .. ee ae at ee pee ae Me Peder coe, 


Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, names confirmed in position on :— 


Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758.. 35 Be se Aa oy; oh te te 25 
Nabis Latreille [1802—1803] .. ds ae #5 as ve Aa a 59 


Volume 5 


Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, names placed on :— 


abietum Bergroth, 1914, Gastrodes 

annulatum Dschunkowsky & Luhs, [1906], Piroplasma 
antillarum Kirkaldy, 1909, Cimex : 

aristolochiae Fabricius, Gai Papilio 

ascanius Cramer, [1775], Papilio 

australis Walker, 1856, Oxycanus 

austriacus Schrank, 1776, Cimex : 

bicolor Douglas & Scott, 1866, Litosoma 

calcaratus Linnaeus, 1758, Cimex 

clavatus Linnaeus, 1767, Cimex 

dispar Sergent, E., 1924, Theileria 

fabricii Stal, 1868, Tingis 5 

feisthamelii ‘Duponchel, 1832, Papilio 

granulatus Linnaeus, 1758, Carabus .. 

ilia | Schiffermiiller & Denis], gs Pape 

iris Linnaeus, 1758, Papilio 

littoralis Linnaeus, 1757, Cimex 

mabouya Lacépéde, 1788, Lacertus 

maritimus Scopoli, 1763, Cimex 

najas De Geer, 1773, Cimex 

naucrates (emend. of neucrates) Linnaeus, 1758, Echeneis 
papatasi Scopoli, 1786, Bibio  .. ava ay. 
pertinax Newstead, 1901, Walkeriana .. 

podalirius Linnaeus, 1758, Papilio 

punctipes Reuter, 1873, Oncotylus 

quadratus Fabricius, 1781, Cancer 

remora Linnaeus, 1758, Echeneis 

strichnocera Fieber, 1844, Dictyonota 


Official List of Works Approved as Available in Zoological Nomenclature, works 
placed on :— 


Catesby, Mark, 1771, The Natural History of Carolina (Edwards ed.), Concordance 
with Linnean names inserted by Edwards in Volume2 .. 

Zimmermann, A. E. W. von, 1778—1783, Geographische Geschichte des Menschen 
und der allzemein verbreiten vierfiissigen Thiere 


Oncotylus Fieber, 1858 (Class Insecta) all type selections for, set aside under the 
Plenary Powers, and Oncotylus punctipes Reuter, 1873, designated as type species 
gender of name 
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 678.. 

Oxycanus Walker, 1856 (Class Insecta), placed on the Official List of Generic Names 
in Zoology as Name No. 683 with Oxycanus australis Walker, 1856 as type species 


gender of name 


Pachylops Fieber, 1858 (Class Insecta), all type selections for, set aside under the 
Plenary Powers, and Litosoma bicolor pouens & Scott, 1868, aa ais as EYRE 
species : Pe 


gender of name : ai ys F 
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 679.. 


255 
233 


153 
153 
153 


389 
389 


165 
165 
165 


422 Opinions and Declarations 


papatasi Scopoli, 1786, as published in the combination Bibio papatasi (Class inseagy 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 75 . 


parva Donatien, Plantureux et al., 1923, as published in the combination Theileria 
parva (Class Sporozoa), declared a junior subjective homonym of gag 
annulatum Dschunkowsky & Luhs, [1906| : 5 5 oe 


pertinax Newstead, 1901, as published in the combination Walkeriana pertinax 
(Class Easceta), placed on the ue List a BCE Names in aan as Name 
No. 84 : 


Phlebotomus Rondani, 1840 Kees pasceta)s emendation to, under the Plenary Powers, 
of Flebotomus ; fs oe a ve ies tye 


gender of name 


placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 682, with 
Bibio papatasi Scopoli, 1786, as type species 


Pilophorus Hahn, 1826 (Class Insecta), all type selections for, set aside under the 
Plenary Powers, and Cimex clavatus Linnaeus, 1767, designated as type species .. 


gender of name 


placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 680. . 


podalirius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio podalirius (Class 
Insecta), designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a description to represent the 
lectotype of ; Be ae ate a ve ie a ae 


placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 77 .. 


Porina Walker, 1856 (Class Insecta), nalee aay of a proposal for the validation of, 
under the Plenary Powers : i es ae at se Fes 


placed on the Official Index of Re and Invalid Generic Names in Zool as 
Name No. 66 .. 4 ; 


punctipes Reuter, 1873, Oncotylus (Class Insecta), designated, under the Plena 
Powers, to be the type species of Oncotylus Fieber, 1858 


placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 71 .. 


quadratus Fabricius, 1781, as published in the combination Cancer quadratus (Class 
Crustacea), declared to be the oldest available name for the “‘ Sand Crab ” and 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 76. . 


quadratus Meuschen, 1778, as published in the combination Cancer quadratus (Class 
Crustacea), placed on the Official Index of Boece and Invalid Spears Names 
in Zoology as Name No. 19 , 


quadratus Meuschen, 1781, as published in the combination Cancer quadratus (Class 
Crustacea), placed on the Official Index of peace and Invalid See Names 
in Zoology as Name No. 20... 


Page 
201 


369 


410 


201 
201 


201 


177 
107, 
177 


331 
331 


389 


389 


153 
153 


300 


300 


300 


Volume 5 423 
Page 
Remora Forster, 1771 (Class Pisces), placed on the ee Index a RoE and 
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 62 .. 26 
Remora Gill, 1862 (Class Pisces), pieced: on the gerne! List oh Generic Names in 
Zoology as Name No. 668 Be 26 
Remora Gouan, 1770 (Class Pisces), placed on the vole! Index oF ee and 
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 63 .. 26 
remora Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Echeneis remora (Class 
Pisces), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 61.. 26 
Salda Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta), all type selections for, set aside under the 
Plenary Powers, and Cimex littoralis Linnaeus, 1758, designated as type species .. 18 
gender of name a: Suk mt a ef ee Be as 73 
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 671.. 73 
“Sand Crab”, determination of the specie name for, see also under quadratus 
Fabricius, 1781, Cancer .. bi : ae 5 a om Sp 297—328 
strichnocera Fieber, 1844, Dictyonota (Class Insecta), designated, under the Plenary 
Powers, to be the type species of Dictyonota Curtis, 1827 .. 5 141 
‘placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 70 .. 141 
Tetyra Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta), all type selections for, set aside under the 
Plenary Powers, and Cimex antillarum Kirkaldy, 1909, designated as type species. . 189 
gender of name 189 
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 681.. 189 
Zimmermann, A. E. W. von, 1778—1783, Geographische Geschichte des Menschen 
und der allgemein verbreiten vierfiissigen Thiere, acceptance of, for nomenclatorial 
purposes ee 36 eS ae oe wa ue : 233 
placed on the Official List of Works gperoned. as Ayailable in tae Nomen- 
clature as Work No. 5 233 
Zimmermann, A. E. W. von, 1777, Specimen Zoologicae, Quadrupedum Domicilia et 
Migrationes sistens, rejection of, for nomenclatorial purposes ae 233 
placed on the Official Index of eeeciee and Invalid Works in Aan al Nomen- 
clature as Work No. 7 Ne 233 


Volume 5 


425 


PARTICULARS OF DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL 
PARTS IN WHICH THE PRESENT VOLUME WAS PUBLISHED 


Part No. 


OWN NHND NA BR WN 


Uo N NN NW ND PP RB RR RR RK Re 


Contents of Part 
1—12 
13—22 
23—44 
45—56 
57—70 
71—80 
81—90 
91—102 
103—114 
115—126 
127—138 
139—150 
151—162 
163—174 
175—186 
187—198 
199—230 
231—244 
245—252 
253—264 
265—280 
281—296 
297—328 
329—342 
343—354 
355—366 
367—386 
387—396 
397—408 
409—426 
ey 


Date of Publication 


21st May 1954 
21st May 1954 
21st May 1954 
21st May 1954 
21st May 1954 
11th June 1954 
11th June 1954 
11th June 1954 
11th June 1954 
11th June 1954 
11th June 1954 
11th June 1954 
11th June 1954 
11th June 1954 
11th June 1954 
11th June 1954 
10th August 1954 
10th August 1954 
10th August 1954 
10th August 1954 
10th August 1954 
10th August 1954 
10th August 1954 
10th August 1954 
10th August 1954 
10th August 1954 
10th August 1954 
10th August 1954 
10th August 1954 


Ist October, 1954 


426 


INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDERS 


The present volume should be bound up as_ follows :—T.P.—XIV 
1—426, coloured wrapper (cover) to Part 30. 


Note : The wrappers (covers) to the Parts of which this volume is 
composed form, with the exception of the coloured wrapper (cover) 
issued with Part 30, an integral part of those Parts, being included for 
purposes of pagination. These wrappers should therefore be bound 
up in the position in which they were issued. The brown wrapper 
(cover) to Part 30 should be bound in at the end of the volume. 


Printed in England by Metcarre & Cooper LimiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2 


P 97Q° 


\F 
4 


ITHSONIAN | 


3 


WAL ULUNUI 
90 0338 


88 01571