*
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
The Official Organ of
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
VOLUME 15, SECTION A
Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
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.
1957—1958
(All rights reserved)
an a : :
as bie .
«
a Sniaipuinieems or
TART, ta LIeAMGES,
THANKS TO U.N.E.S.C.O.
The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature on
behalf of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature
has great pleasure in expressing its grateful
thanks to the
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND
CULTURAL ORGANISATION
UNESCO. =
for the financial assistance
afforded
towards the cost of producing
the present volume
’ ar |
Lenigntond at taut?”
f he -* * gh Sy
Pie STILE F Hips barren
A ys ¥
he WA PE
FOREWORD
by
The Lord Hurcomb,
Chairman of the
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
The present is the second of the two volumes of the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature which in the autumn of last year were allocated by the Inter-
national Trust for Zoological Nomenclature for the publication of documents
submitted for inclusion in the Zoological Nomenclature Agenda Paper for the
Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology at its Meeting to be held in London
in July 1958. The documents reserved for publication in this volume were
of two kinds :—(1) documents containing suggestions for the further amend-
ment of the Régles as approved by the Paris and Copenhagen Congresses of
1948 and 1953 respectively ; (2) proposals for the amendment of the Draft
of the Régles as approved by the above Congresses prepared by Professor J.
Chester Bradley, President of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.
The number of documents falling in the above classes greatly exceeded
expectations with the result that instead of containing between 500 and 600
pages the volume contains about 1300 pages. When bound, a volume of this
size would be unmanageably large and it has therefore been decided to divide
it into two Sections of approximately equal size and to provide a title page
for each.
The concluding Parts (Parts 41 and 42) have been kindly prepared on the
invitation of the Trust by Mr. Francis Hemming as having been Secretary
to the Commission and Editor of the Bulletin during the period in which the
earlier Parts of this volume were published.
(Signed) HURCOMB
Office of the International Trust
for Zoological Nomenclature,
41, Queen’s Gate,
Lonpon, S.W.7.
4th September 1958.
a oe ma mt
uftely: pacts tard misresettlei’
na hy ale ah
= Prien otf ae sean ;
ane Sin bE eet a beky ratory me 43
ree W jakboed wha 3 ¥ whoo’ 1 ape if
eobtnndiebecct wily inion she
a a a ee si yQket ni
LAD AQ) ee Mise rel og Etaa by a
jas Sabre 8 Ba ec zt ’
es i aed Betenvag econo. at
X25 tori Vaaoive
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Report on the work carried out by the International Trust for Zoological
Nomenclature in the five-year period 1953-1957
Report dated 25th June 1958 prepared by the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature for consideration by the International Union
for Biological Sciences at its General Assembly, London, July, 1958.
Papers circulated to the Colloquium on Zoological
Nomenclature for information
Document A :—Report dated 20th June 1958 submitted by the Interim
Committee on Zoological Nomenclature in respect of the period
1953-1958 addressed to Professor J. Chester Bradley, President of
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
(Communicated to the Colloquium for information by direction of
the President of the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology)
Document B :—Comment on the Report of the Interim Committee on
Zoological Nomenclature on the subject of the future organisation of
the work of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature:
Statement dated 8th July 1958 Prepared i the International Trust
for Zoological Nomenclature ae ‘
The Agenda Paper for the discussions on zoological nomenclature to be
held at, and in connection with, the Fifteenth International Congress
of Zoology, London, July 1958: Explanatory Note. By FRANCIS
HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission he Mi oy
CASE No. 1
Suggested New Article: proposed recognition of the concept
** parataxon ’? and the provision of Rules for the
nomenclature of units of this category
Document 1/1.—Proposed insertion in the Régles of a provision recognis-
ing “parataxa”’ as a special category for the classification and
nomenclature of discrete fragments or of life-stages of animals which
are inadequate for identification of whole-animal taxa, with proposals
of procedure for the nomenclature of “ parataxa”. By RAYMOND
C. MOORE (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) and
P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (University of Sheffield, England) .
ix
Nip.o-0-ai1
VII
Document 1/2.—First supplemental application: Application for a
Ruling of the International Commission directing that the classifica-
tion and nomenclature of discrete conodonts be in terms of “ para-
taxa” Pe RAYMOND C. MOORE and P. C. SYLVESTER-
BRADLEY . ‘ bi oe Ae 8
Document 1/3.—Second supplemental application: Application for a
Ruling by the International Commission directing that the classifica-
tion and nomenclature of ammonoid aptychi (Class Cephalopoda) be in
terms of “ parataxa”. By RAYMOND C. MOORE and P. C.
SYLVESTER- BRADLEY tit ie se ie
Document 1/4.—Proposed adoption of a Declaration that a generic or
specific name based solely upon the “‘ aptychus”’ of an ammonite
(Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) be excluded from availability
under Article 27 of the Régles and proposed suppression of certain
such names under the Plenary Powers. By W. J. ARKELL ae
University, Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge) ;
Document 1/5.—Comments received in 1954 on the proposal by Dr. W.
J. Arkell depriving names based solely upon the aptychi of ammonites
of the status of availability for the purposes of zoological nomen-
clature (i.e. of whole-animal nomenclature in the terminology of the
“ Parataxa Plan”). By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the
Commission . . : ee oe si - ~ on af
Annexe 1: Comment by JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr. ae ew
California, U.S.A.) . e
Annexe 2 : Comment by C. W. WRIGHT (London)
Document 1/6.—The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘“‘ Parataxa ’’ Proposals.
By W. J. ARKELL seal oe 3 co inne Museum,
Cambridge) . ate kits
Document 1/7.—The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa ”’ Proposals.
By DON L. FRIZZELL and HARRIET FRIZZELL ine Missouri,
U.S.A.)
Document 1/8.—The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘“‘ Parataxa ”’ Proposals.
By ELIANE BASSE (Laboratoire de Géologie, Sorbonne, Paris)
Document 1/9.—The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa ”’ Proposals.
By J. BROOKES KNIGHT (Smithsonian Institution, United States
National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)
Page
14
35
71
76
Vi.
77
78
79
80
81
Document 1/10.—The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa ” Proposals.
By H. SCHMIDT ( Geologisch-Palaeontologisches Institut der Georg
August-Universitét, Gottingen, Germany). . ie “ ae oh
Document 1/11.—The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa ” Proposals.
By CURT TEICHERT (Petroleum Geology Laboratory, United States
Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado, U 9: By Me te
Document 1/12.—The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa ” Proposals.
Copy of a letter dated 18th July 1956 from RAYMOND C. MOORE
(University of Kansas) to H. SCHMIDT (Gottingen, Germany) com-
menting on suggestions submitted by J. Brookes Knight (Document
1/9), H. Schmidt (Document 1 /10) and Curt Teichert (Document 1 /11)
Document 1/13.—The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa ” Proposals,
By D. T. DONOVAN (U: niversity of Bristol) ce tie at
Document 1/14.—Note on the provision in the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley
“Parataxa Plan” for the possible application of the “ parataxa
system ” to the naming of collective groups of certain stages in the
life-histories of parasites. By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to
the Commission .. ae ¥; i < oF a
Annexe 1: Resolution by the American Society of Parasitologists ..
Annexe 2: Copy of a letter dated 10th October 1956 from FRANCIS
HEMMING (London) to A. C. WALTON (American Society of
Parasitologists) eh as a ay nu ae a
Annexe 3 : Copy of a letter dated 22nd October 1956 from ALLEN
McINTOSH (Chairman, Committee on Nomenclature, American
Society of Parasitologists) to FRANCIS HEMMING (London)
Annexe 4: Copy of a letter dated 27th November 1956 from RAY-
MOND C. MOORE (U: niversity of Kansas) to FRANCIS HEMMING
(London) .. as 3 & i xy i ee we
Annexe 5 : Copy of a letter dated 5th December 1956 from FRANCIS
HEMMING (London) to RAYMOND C. MOORE (University of
Kansas) .. Ate a aie a ie a ee ip
Annexe 6 : Copy of a letter dated 8th January 1957 from RAY-
MOND C. MOORE (U: niversity of Kansas) to FRANCIS HEMMING
(London) .. ~ oe ah Pe 7" a bs fe
Page
85
86
87
88
89
89
90
90
91
91
x
Annexe 7: Copy of a letter dated 13th August 1956 from ALLEN
McINTOSH (Chairman, Committee on Nomenclature, American
Society of Parasitologists) to NORMAN R. STOLL ai nis
Institute for Medical Research, New York)
Annexe 8: Copy of a letter dated 30th November 1956 from J.
CHESTER BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, New York) to
A. C. WALTON (American Society of Parasitologists) 23
Annexe 9 : Copy of a letter dated 10th December 1956 from ALLEN
McINTOSH (Chairman, Committee on Nomenclature, American
Society of Parasitologists) to J. CHESTER BRADLEY Caenen
University, Ithaca, New York) - ai ; ay
Document 1/15.—Arrangements made between the Office of the Com-
mission and Professor Raymond C. Moore for making an organised
attempt to obtain comments on the “ Parataxa Plan” from repre-
sentative palaeontological institutions and individual specialists.
By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission
Annexe : Letter dated 8th July 1957 issued by the Office of the Com-
mission to certain palaeontological and other zoological institutions
and to certain specialists inviting comments on the “‘ Parataxa Plan”’
Enclosure to letter 8th July 1957 reproduced above. .
Document 1/16.—Parataxa nomenclature in relation to whole-animal
nomenclature: Correspondence between FRANCIS HEMMING,
RAYMOND C. MOORE and P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY
Annexe 1: Copy of a letter dated 5th July 1957 from FRANCIS
HEMMING (London) to RAYMOND C. MOORE (University of
Kansas) and P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (University of Sheffield)
Annexe 2: Copy of a letter dated 9th July 1957 from P. C. SYLVES-
TER-BRADLEY bam. ih ita to FRANCIS HEMMING
(London) . ;
Annexe 3: Copy of a letter dated 13th July 1957 from RAYMOND
C. MOORE ea ct of are tres to FRANCIS HEMMING
(London) .
Document 1/17.—Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa
Plan”. By DON L. FRIZZELL and HARRIET FRIZZELL
(Rollo, ‘Missiate: U.S.A.) . ar j a
Document 1/18.—Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa
Plan”. By SAMUEL P. ELLISON, Jr. + es
Page
92
95
96
99
99
100
107
107
lll
116
118
120
CASE No. 2
Article 5 : proposed cancellation of Decision 54(1)(a) of the
Copenhagen Congress under which a family-group name
is to be retained when based upon a generic name
which has been rejected either as a junior
objective, or as a junior subjective,
synonym of another generic name
Page
Document 2/1.—Proposal for the withdrawal of Copenhagen Decision
54(1)(a). By W. J. ARKELL Coie eee ee renie
Museum, Cambridge) aft é 121
Document 2/2.—Proposal for the withdrawal of Copenhagen Decision
54(1)(a). By Sir JOHN ELLERMAN (London) Be 5 123
Document 2/3.—Support for Dr. W. J. Arkell’s proposal for the with-
drawal of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a). By C. J. STUBBLEFIELD
(Geological Survey and Museum, London) ve 2h a4 .. 124
Document 2/4.—Support for Dr. W. J. Arkell’s proposal for the with-
drawal of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a). By L. R. COX (British
Museum (Natural History), London) Mp e ast 4% au) Ghee
Document 2/5.—Support for Dr. W. J. Arkell’s proposal for the with-
drawal of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a). By JAMES D. BUMP,
MORTON GREEN, JOHN PAUL GRIES and J. R. MACDONALD
(South Dakota School of Mines and ee ri ee oe South
Dakota, U.S.A.) .. ¥ ual £26
Document 2/6.—Proposal for the withdrawal of Copenhagen Decision
54(1)(a). W. H. EASTON A sheenceirt > eae Los San
California) 127
Document 2/7.—Support for Dr. W. J. Arkell’s proposal for the with-
drawal of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a)
Copy of a letter dated 12th May 1954 from JOSEPH J. GRAHAM,
MYRA KEEN, SIEMON MULLER and HANS E. THALMANN
(Stanford University, Stanford, California) .. ¥. 5: wdfn koe
Copy of a supplementary letter dated 29th July 1954 from MYRA™
KEEN and SIEMON MULLER .. ‘i : 129
XII
Document 2/8.—Support for Dr. W. J. Arkell’s proposal for the with-
drawal of Copenhagen Decision pega Ayes F. E. EAMES (Woking,
Surrey, England) 5 ee Ia wa
Document 2/9.—Comment on Dr. W. J. Arkell’s proposal for the with-
drawal of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a). By CURTIS W. SABROSKY
(United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,
Entomology Research Branch, Washington, D.C.) a Ee
Document 2/10.—Support for Dr. W. J. Arkell’s Le pe for the with-
drawal of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a). By R. M. STAINFORTH
(International Petroleum Company, Talara, Peru) ea
Document 2/11.—Support for Dr. W. J. Arkell’s proposal for the with-
drawal of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a). By C. A. FLEMING and
N. DE B. HORNIBROOK rte co ica ass New
Zealand) :
Document 2/12.—Proposed maintenance of Copenhagen Decision
54(1)(a). Statement setting out the views of the Members of the
Committee on Entomological Nomenclature of the Entomological
Society of America : communicated oe ROBERT L. USINGER on
behalf of the Committee es y ie she
Document 2/13.—Views of the Nomenclature Committee of the Society
of Systematic Zoology : communicated pt W. I. FOLLETT (Chair-
man of the Committee) Me : : : me rs
Annexe 1 : Circular letter dated 7th August 1954, issued by W. I.
FOLLETT, Chairman, to the Members of the Nomenclature Com-
mittee of the Society of Systematic Zoology “5 oy
Annexe 2: Comments by CURTIS W. SABROSKY
Annexe 3: Comment by CYRIL F. dos PASSOS
Annexe 4: Comments by MYRA KEEN
Annexe 5 : Comment by ERNST MAYR
Annexe 6 : Comment by CARL L. HUBBS
Document 2/14.—Report on the action taken by the International
Commission under its Plenary Powers to prevent the application of
Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a) (retention in certain cases of family-
group names based upon invalid generic names) in cases where it had
been represented by specialists in the groups concerned that otherwise
confusion and name-changing would result. By FRANCIS
HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission Be ae oy as
Page
130
131
136
137
138
139
139
140
142
142
143
145
146
XII
Page
Appendix 1 : Objection to Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a). By W. J.
ARKELL (Cambridge University, Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge)... 151
Appendix 2: Objection to Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a). By
ROBERT MERTENS (Natur-Museum u Forschungs-Institut
Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. Main) Ri a0 152
Appendix 3: Objection to Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a). By
TADEUSZ JACZEWSKI (Institut of Zoology. Polish Academy of
Sciences, Warsaw) é oy oe et bis avs oe > Lee
Document 2/15.—Proposed withdrawal of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a).
By W. F. WHITTARD (University of Bristol) . . 154
CASE No. 3
Article 5 : proposed amendment and/or clarification of Decision
54(1)(b) of the Copenhagen Congress regarding the date and
authorship to be attributed to the name of a family-group
taxon published as a substitute for a family-group
name rejected by reason of the name of its type
genus being a junior homonym of an older
generic name
Document 3/1.—Request for a clarification of Copenhagen Decision
54(1)(b). By A. K. MILLER and W. M. FURNISH (State University
of Iowa, Iowa City). . 5 ate 3 155
COMMENTS ON PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED CASES
Comments on Case No. 1
(The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa ” Proposals)
Document 1/19 : Comment by H. SCHMIDT (Geologisch Palaeonto-
logisches Institut der Georg August-Universitat,
Gottingen) .. * ve ‘es oe va 66
Document 1/20: Comment by JOHN W. KOENIG (Missouri Geo-
logical Survey & Water Resources, Rolla, Missouri;
U.S.A.) pues aks 158
XIV
Document 1/21 :
Document 1/22 :
Document 1/23 :
Document 1/24 :
Document 1/25 :
Document 1/26 :
Document 1/27 :
Document 1/28 :
Document 1/29 :
Document 1/30 :
Document 1/31 :
Document 1/32 :
Document 1/33 :
Document 1/34 :
Views of the SCIENTIFIC STAFF OF THE AUS-
TRALIAN MUSEUM (Sydney, Australia) : state-
ment communicated by J. W. EVANS
Comment by R. 8. BASSLER paises i Institu-
tion, Washington, D.C.) :
Comment by R. V. MELVILLE ssccinaaeie pick
and Museum, London) Fa
Comment by J. CHESTER BRADLEY act
University, Ithaca, New York) ‘
Comment by CARL C. BRANSON (Oklahoma Gieo-
logical Survey, Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.)
Comment by ROBERT O. FAY (Oklahoma Geo-
logical Survey, Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.)
Comment by J. ROGER sag uséum National d’ Histoire
Naturelle, Paris)
Comment by M. F. GLAESSNER ne aig a
Adelaide, Australia)
Comment by O. M. B. BULMAN (Department of
Geology, University of ee reer Museum,
Cambridge) ;
Comment by FREDERICK M. SWAIN eta
of Minnesota, Minneapolis, U.S.A.)
Comment by O. H. SCHINDEWOLF (Institut und
Museum fiir Geologie und ee der Uni-
versitat Tribingen)
Comment by A. K. MILLER and W. M. FURNISH
(State University of Iowa, Iowa City)
Comment by G. UBAGHS (Université de Inege)
Comment by E. M. HERING (Zoologisches Museum
der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin)
Page
160
162
164
167
169
170
172
175
176
177
178
182
183
184
CASE No. 4
Article 4: Proposed addition to Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(b)
of a provision relating to the method to be followed in citing
the date and authorship to be attributed to a substitute
family-group name published when the name of the
type genus of an older nominal family-group
taxon is rejected as a junior synonym or as a
junior homonym of another generic name
Document 4/1.—Submission of a Draft Text of a provision relating to
the method to be followed in citing the date and authorship to be
attributed to a substitute family-group name. By G. H. E. HOP-
KINS (British Museum asi ae The deine Museum,
Tring)
CASE No. 5
Application of the priority principle to family-group names
Document 5/1.—Experience gained since the Copenhagen Congress of
1953 in applying the priority principle to family-group names, with
recommendations designed to facilitate the application of that
principle in this field. Pe FRANCIS HEMMING, Wd to the
Commission .
Document 5/2.—Support for the priority principle in family-group
names. Views of the members of the Committee on Zoological
Nomenclature of the Entomological Society of America (statement
communicated by ROBERT L. USINGER)
CASE No. 6
Article 19 (Copenhagen Decision 75) relating to the question of
the conditions in which a spelling not subject to emendation
under Copenhagen Decision 71 may be rejected in place
of a spelling in general use
Document 6/1.—Proposed adoption of provisions in substitution for
Copenhagen Decision 75. By J. CHESTER BRADLEY ie ;
University, Ithaca, New York)
XV
Page
185
187
194
196
XVI
CASE No. 7
Article 4 (Copenhagen Decision 50(1)(a) and (b)) relating to
the formation of family-group names
Document 7/1.—Proposed substitution of revised provisions in place of
Copenhagen Decision 50(1)(a) and (b). ra J. CHESTER BRADLEY
(Cornell University, Ithaca, New York) . : bg
CASE No. 8
Article 4 (Copenhagen Decision 45) (family-group names) :
relative merits of continuity and priority respectively
Document 8/1.—Continuity of usage in the case of names of the family-
group. By J. CHESTER BRADLEY Sag Si od Ithaca,
New York) : oa
Document 8/2.—On the importance of maintaining continuity of usage
at the family-group-name level. By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary
to the Commission .% a as > — af
CASE No. 9
Proposed adoption of provisions regulating the citation of a name
which has been either emended or corrected under the “* Régles ”’
Document 9/1.—Citation of the author of a corrected name. By J.
CHESTER BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, New York)
Document 9/2.—Method to be followed in citing a name after its
spelling has been emended or corrected. pis FRANCIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the Commission a .
Page
199
201
203
205
207
CASE No. 10
The question of the language or languages to be adopted by the
Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology, London, 1958,
as the substantive language or languages for the revised
edition of the ‘“‘ Régles Internationales de la Nomen-
clature Zoologique ’’ (International Code of
Zoological Nomenclature)
Document 10/1.—Proposal relating to the Substantive Text of the
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. By CURTIS W.
SABROSKY (United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Research Branch, Entomology Research Division) oe ais
Document 10/2.—Historical Survey of the question of the language
to be accepted for the Substantive Text of the Régles Internationales
(International Code). By FRANCIS HEMMING, tte: to the
International Commission ;
COMMENTS ON PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED CASES
Comments on Case No. 1
(The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘“‘ Parataxa ’’ Proposals)
Document 1/35: Objection lodged by the Nomenclature Discussion
Group, Washington, D.C.: Statement furnished
by CURTIS W. SABROSKY, Chairman, and
ELLIS L. YOCHELSON, eee?” 13th gies
ember 1957
Annexe 1: Minutes of a Meeting of the Nomen-
clature Discussion one held on 7th ake,
1957.. ms , : :
Annexe 2: Particulars of Voting Papers enclosed
with the Joint Letter of 13th September 1957. .
Document 1/36: Comment by E. VOIGT (Hamburg, Germany)
Document 1/37: Comment by LEIF STORMER igs ee ia
Institutt, Oslo, Norway)
XVII
Page
210
212
216
216
218
220
221
Document 1/38: Comment by WILBERT H. HAAS (United States °
National Museum, Washington, D.C.)
222
XVII
Document 1/39 :
Document 1/40 :
Document 1/41 :
Document 1/42 :
Document 1/43 :
Comment by VLADIMIR POKORNY ee
University, Prague, Czechoslovakia)
Rejoinder to the objections to the “ Parataxa Plan”
advanced by the Nomenclature Discussion Group,
Washington, D.C. By P. C. SYLVESTER-
BRADLEY (University of Sheffield)
Comment by FRIEDRICH TRAUTH (Vienna)
A Supplementary Proposal arising in connection
with the “ Parataxa Plan”. By J. CHESTER
BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, New York)
Comment by JOHN S. HAMPTON (Bromley, Kent)
Comments on Case No. 2
(proposed cancellation of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a))
Document 2/16 :
Document 2/17 :
Submission of a Draft Text embodying the reversal
of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a) and the amal-
gamation of the provisions so amended with
Decision 54(1)(b). By G. H. E. HOPKINS
(British Museum (Natural H ey, The rch
Museum, Tring, Herts.)
Submission of a Draft Text embodying a partial
reversal of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a). By
J. CHESTER BRADLEY Sie ee
Ithaca, New York)
Comment on Case No. 3
(proposed amendment of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(b))
Document 3/2 :
Submission of a Draft Text providing for the reversal
of the provisions in Copenhagen Decision 54(b)(1)(b)
in relation to the date and authorship to be
attributed to a substitute family-group name.
By G. H. E. HOPKINS (British Museum (Natural
History), The Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts.) ..
Page
223
228
230
247
249
255
CASE No. 11
Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 18, Section 2, and Article 13,
Section 4(a) : The nature of the type of a taxon
of the family-group category
Document 11/1.—Proposed verbal amendment to Article 18, Section 2,
of the Revised Draft of the Régles and proposed addition of an
Explanatory Note to Article 13, Section 4(a) of the above Draft.
By J. CHESTER BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, New York)
CASE No. 12
Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 11, Section 1 : emendation
of generic and specific names
Document 12/1.—Proposed clarification of the expression “ evidence
in the original publication ”’ as used in relation to the emendation of
generic and specific names in Article 11, Section 1, of the Draft of
the Revised ae a FRANCIS HEMMING, aes to the
Commission . ;
CASE No. 138
Draft ‘ Régles ’’, Article 28, Section 13: specific names in
adjectival form consisting of partially Latinised words :
proposal that such names should be treated as
** barbarous ”’ words and therefore as being
exempt from change in gender
Document 13/1.—Question of the treatment in the matter of liability to
gender changes to be accorded to adjectival specific names consisting
of partially Latinised words. nef FRANCIS HEMMING, ber
to the Commission : : :
Appendix : On the application of the Rule of Gender Agreement in
the case of specific names which are adjectival but have not been
Latinised. By L. W. GRENSTED conten Classical Adviser
to the Commission) Sa ‘ at x gh ;
Document 13/2.—Correspondence as to the applicability of the Gender
Rules to adjectival specific names consisting of partly Latinised words
between FRANCIS HEMMING ab sila to the lager a and’
ERNST MAYR
Page
257
260
263
267
270
XxX
Extract from a letter dated 17th September 1957 from ERNST MAYR
Extract from a letter dated 21st November 1957 from FRANCIS
HEMMING F ’ ae 3 ae
Extract from a letter dated 27th November 1957 from ERNST MAYR
Extract from a supplementary letter dated 17th December 1957
from ERNST MAYR a : B a ea :s
Document 13/3.—Support for the proposed adoption of a Declaration
to treat barbarous words as exempt from change in gender. By LEO
SHELJUZHKO peg pagrne des Sis as ae
Miinchen) : : + :
CASE No. 14
Draft ‘‘ Régles ’’, suggested new Article between Articles
25 and 26 (the Code of Ethics) : proposed clarification
and extension of provisions in
Document 14/1.—The “Code of Ethics’’: proposals for clarification
and extension in certain respects. By FRANCIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the Commission a - a a age
Document 14/2.—Revised proposal for the clarification and amplification
of the “ Code of Ethics ” and a proposal regarding the place in which
the ‘Code of Ethics”’ so revised should be incorporated in the
Régles. By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission
CASE No. 15
Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 8, Section 2 (Copenhagen Decisions
123-124) : proposed re-instatement of the ‘“‘ Page Prece-
dence Principle ’’ in place of the “ First Reviser
Principle ’’ restored by the Copenhagen
Congress
Document 15/1.—Proposal for the amendment of Article 28 of the
existing Régles as amended at Copenhagen (1953) so as to give
preference to the principle of page priority in the selection of generic
and specific names and for other purposes. By CYRIL F. dos
PASSOS (American Museum of Natural History, New York) and
ALEXANDER B. KLOTS (College of the City of New York).. :
Page
270
270
270
271
272
273
281
285
Document 15/2.—Proposed retention of the “ First Reviser ” Principle
for the purpose of determining the precedence to be accorded to any
one of two or more names published in the same work and on the
same date. By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission
COMMENTS ON PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED CASES
Comments on Case No. 1
(The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “‘ Parataxa ’’ Proposals)
Document 1/44: Comment by KLAUS J. MULLER Paani
Universitat, Berlin) . :
Document 1/45: Remarks on the value of parataxonomy in the case
of the Phylum Porifera. By R. E. H. REID
(Queen’s University, Belfast) S a
Document 1/46: Comment by ARTHUR N. DUSENBURY, Jr.
(Creole Petroleum Corporation, Jusepin, Monegas,
Venezuela) an ; =F :
Document 1/47: Comment by F. H. T. RHODES ee tis
Swansea)
Document 1/48: Comment ‘i ELLIS L. YOCHELSON Far
De)
Comments on Case No. 3
(proposed amendment of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(b))
Document 3/3: Proposed repeal of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(b)
(family-group names based on homonyms). By
J. CHESTER BRADLEY wat ley ind
Ithaca, N.Y.) ‘ :
CASE No. 16
Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 6, Section 6(b) : proposals
relating to the form of generic names intended
for palaeontology
Document 16/1.—Proposed deletion of Article 6, Section 6(b), of the
Draft Regles. By CURTIS W. SABROSKY (United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research
Division, Washington, D.C.) ae
XXI
Page
293
296
298
303
305
313
315
" $21
XXII
Document 16/2.—The form of generic names intended for palaeontology :
a word of caution on Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal. By FRANCIS
HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission a wi Bs ie
CASE No. 17
Article 22, Recommendation 10( 8) of the Draft ‘“‘ Régles ’’
(citation of dates in bibliographical references)
Document 17/1.—Proposed deletion of Article 22, Recommendation 10( 8)
relating to citation of dates in a particular situation. By CURTIS
W. SABROSKY (United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Research Service, Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C.)..
Document 17/2.—Proposed retention of the Paris Congress at present
embodied in Recommendation 10( 8) of Article 22 of the Draft Régles.
By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission ety
CASE No. 18
Draft ‘* Régles ’’, Article 24, Section 15(e) : replacement of junior
homonyms possessing only subjective synonyms
Document 18/1.—Proposed redraft of Section 15(e) of Article 24 of
the Draft Régles. By CURTIS W. SABROSKY (United States
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Entomology
Research Division, Washington, D.C.) cy +e
Document 18/2.—Points for consideration on Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal
relating to the replacement of junior homonyms ated only
subjective synonyms : i i
CASE No. 19
Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 26 : banning of the use of intemperate
language in discussions on zoological nomenclature
Document 19/1.—Proposed deletion of Article 26 of the Draft Reégles.
By CURTIS W. SABROSKY (United States Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research Division,
Washington, D.C.) - ae ba vs “3 wa
Page
322
323
324
325
326
328
XXIII
Page
Document 19/2.—Proposed retention of the provision banning the use
of intemperate language in discussions on zoological nomenclature.
By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission 329
CASE No. 20
Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 28, Section 9(a) and Appendix :
grammatical formation of family-group names
Document 20/1.—The grammatical formation of names for taxa
belonging to the family-group category. eee CHESTER BRADLEY
(Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.) 331
CASE No. 21
Draft ‘“ Régles ’’, Article 22, Section 11: gender
of generic names
Document 21/1.—Report on the Rules for the determination of the
gender attributable to generic names of various classes adopted by
the Copenhagen Congress of 1953 in its Decision 84. By L. W.
GRENSTED, Consulting Classical Adviser to the Commission. . 334
CASE No. 22
Draft ‘“‘ Régles ’’, Article 24, Section 11(c) : provision for
challenging the rejection of secondary homonyms
Document 22/1.—Proposal to eliminate the provision for Challenge
of the Rejection of Secondary Homonyms. By CURTIS W.
SABROSKY (United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Research Service, Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C.) 337
Document 22/2.—Support for Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal for the repeal
of the provision agreed upon by the Copenhagen Congress for the
application of the “ Notification and Challenge ” procedure in relation
to secondary ee cage et FRANCIS HEMMING, Salted to the
Commission . 339
XXIV
CASE No. 23
Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 6, Section 1(d) ; Article 10, Section 2(a) ;
Article 23, Section 1(a)(i) : banning of names calculated to
give political, religious or personal offence
Document 23/1.—Deletion from the Régles of the provision relating to
the rejection of names calculated to give political, religious or personal
offence. By CURTIS W. SABROSKY (United States Department of
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research
Division, Washington, D.C.) a
Document 23/2.—Support for the retention in the Régles of the provi-
sions banning the use of offensive words as zoological names. By
FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission ..
COMMENTS ON PREVIOUSLY
PUBLISHED CASES
Comments on Case No. 1
(The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “‘ Parataxa ’’ Proposals)
Document 1/49: Comment by C. W. WRIGHT (London)
Document 1/50: Comment by M. K. HOWARTH (British Museum
(Natural History), London) aS + *
Comments on Case No. 2
(proposed cancellation of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a))
Document 2/18: Comment by R. I. SAILER (United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,
Entomology Research Branch, Beltsville, i oa
U.S.A.) 3
Document 2/19: Comment by JAMES A. SLATER ae ae a
Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, U.S.A.) .
Comments on Case No. 13
(gender change and specific names consisting of barbarous words)
Document 13/4: Comment by CYRIL F. dos PASSOS as iar
New Jersey, U.S.A.) .
Page
341
343
345
349
351
352
353
Document 13/5: Comment by G. van SON (Transvaal Museum,
Pretoria, South Africa) ‘ ee ;
Comments on Case No. 14
(proposed amplification of the ‘“‘ Code of Ethics ”’)
Document 14/3: Comment by CYRIL F. dos PASSOS seas
New Jersey, U.S.A.) ar
Document 14/4: Comment by G. van SON (Transvaal Museum,
Pretoria, South Africa) Se A
CASE No. 24
Provisions in Professor Chester Bradley’s Draft of the “‘ Régles ”
not covered by Congress Decisions or by “ Declarations ”’
subsequently adopted by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature
Document 24/1.—Provisions included in Professor J. Chester Bradley’s
Draft of the English Text of the Régles which are not covered by
existing Congress Decisions or are at variance with Congress Decisions :
Report by the Régles Section, Office of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature. _ (Report prepared a Mrs. ANN WILSON,
Research Assistant in Charge, Régles) .. '
CASE No. 25
Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 12, Section 1 (names for taxa
of the Order/Class and Higher Categories)
Document 25/1.—Problems involved in the stabilisation of the names
for Orders, Classes and Taxa of Higher Rank. ae FRANCIS
HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission , si
Document 25/2.—Questions relating to Order/Class-Group Nomen-
clature in the Class Echinoidea. By R. V. MELVILLE (Geological
Survey and Museum, London) and J. WYATT DURHAM Sete
of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.)
XXV
Page
354
355
356
360
489
497
XXVI
Document 25/3.—Proposed type genera for higher taxa within the
Sub-Phylum Ciliophora (Phylum Protozoa). By JOHN CORLISS
(Department of ene an se a I ei Urbana, Illinois,
U.S.A.) a as
Document 25/4.—Questions arising in connection with the naming of
Orders and taxa of higher- rank. By ELLSWORTH C.
DOUGHERTY (University of ee pe at He) Hs beer:
Berkeley, California, U.S.A.)
Document 25/5.—The relative merits of the Class Names “ Polyzoa”
and “Bryozoa”. By D. A. BROWN (Senior Lecturer in Big
University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand) Be :
Document 25/6.—Question of the name to be used for the Class typified
by the genus Chiton Linnaeus, 1758. tis L. R. COX (British Museum
(Natural History), London) a a “i
Document 25/7.—Order/Class-Group Names in Zoology with special
reference to the name to be used for the Order of Insects comprising
the Fleas. By G.H. E. HOPKINS cate Museum sith = eee).
The Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts.) . ‘
Document 25/8.—Question of the Rules for the naming of Orders and
taxa of higher rank. By HENNING LEMCHE (Universitetets
Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen). . : a =e ri
Document 25/9.—Petition requesting clarification of the date and
authorship of the Order/Class name ‘‘ Monoplacophora”’. By J.
BROOKES KNIGHT (Honorary Research Associate, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.), HENNING LEMCHE (Universitetets
Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen) and ELLIS L. YOCHELSON
(United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.) :
CASE No. 26
Draft “‘ Régles ’’ : proposed Schedule giving guidance as to the
transliteration of words from the Cyrillic alphabets to the
Latin alphabet when such words are used as zoological
names
Document 26/1.—On the problems involved in giving effect to the
decision by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris,
1948, for the addition to the Régles of a Schedule giving guidance as
to the transliteration into the Latin alphabet of words normally
written in Cyrillic characters when such words are used as zoological
names. By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission
Page
520
523
543
547
553
555
557
XXVIT
Appendix : Copy of a letter despatched by the Office of the Com-
mission on 2nd February 1955 to certain Institutions
in the U.S.S.R. and in other countries using Slav
languages
' List of Institutions in the U.S.S.R. and other countries
- using Slav languages to which the Almasov/Boltovskoy
Plan [Document 26/2 below] was communicated for
observations on 2nd February 1955
Document 26/2.—A Plan for the treatment of words written in Cyrillic
characters for the purpose of zoological nomenclature published in
1955 as a basis for discussion in relation to the Schedule giving
guidance in the above matter, the addition of which to the Régles
was agreed upon, in principle, by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948. By ALEXEY ALMASOV and
ESTEBAN BOLTOVSKOY (Buenos Aires, Argentina)
Document 26/3.—Comment on the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan. By
ERICH M. HERING ACR Museum der Humboldt- Universitat
zu Berlin) ae : ah
Document 26/4.—Comment on the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan. By G.
WITENBERG elie of Fe ee The Hebrew ieee
Jerusalem, Israel)
Document 26/5.—Comment on the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan. By
CURTIS W. SABROSKY (United States Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research Division,
Washington, D.C.)..
Document 26/6.—Comment on the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan. By
TADEUSZ JACZEWSKI Wier ve of See Polish cece a
Sciences, Warsaw)
Document .26/7.—Comment on the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan. By
JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) YF.
Document 26/8.—Views of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R.
on the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan : letter dated 5th September 1955
from D. M. STEINBERG, Vice-President of the ere Institute
of the Academy ‘ .
Document 26/9.—Comment on the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan. By
LEO SHELJUZHKO ci olaies sig ‘pretmety des ak chai aang:
Miinchen)
Page
563
564
571
582
585
587
588
590
593
597
XXVIII
Document 26/10.—Comment on the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan. By
H. S. BUSHELL (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London) ..
Document 26/11.—Comment on the ee see Plan. By P.
H. M. GEELAN (London).. i ‘ ot
Document 26/12.—The System for the Transliteration of Cyrillic
characters recommended by the Royal Society in its publication
entitled “‘ The Transliteration of Russian, Serbian and Bulgarian for
Bibliographical Purposes ”
Document 26/13.—Letter dated 25th shicbciabi 1958 from the at ss
Society me ' ,
Document 26/14.—Transliteration System for Russian and Bulgarian
geographical names prepared by the “ Permanent Committee on
Geographical Names for British Official Use” (communicated by
the Permanent Committee) : Ke a BS -_
COMMENT ON A PREVIOUSLY
PUBLISHED CASE
Comment on Case No. 1
(The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘‘ Parataxa ”’ Proposals)
Document 1/51: Comment by JOHN 8. HAMPTON (Bromley, Kent)
[For the remainder of the Agenda Paper of the
Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature, London,
1958, see Section B of the present volume.]
CONCLUDING ITEMS
Index to authors of communications included in the First Section
(Section A) of the Agenda Paper for the Recent: on eee
Nomenclature, London, 1958 =
Volume 15, Section A : Particulars of dates of publication of the several
Parts in which the present Section (Section A) of Volume 15 of the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature was published
Instructions to Binders
Page
606
610
612
615
617
619
620a
620e
620f
VOLUME 15. Part 39 7th July 1958
pp. i-viii
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
The Official Organ of
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
bane crises NOMENCLATURE
yr
vu 4 sul st
Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
CONTENTS
Report on the-work carried out by the International Trust for Zoological
Nomenclature in the five-year period 1953-1957
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
1958
Price Five Shillings
(All rights reserved)
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
A. The Officers of the Commission
Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Joxpan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological
Museum, Tring, Herts, England) “ri :
President: Professor James Chester Brapiey (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(12th August 1953)
Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953)
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemmine (London, England) (27th July 1948)
B. The Members of the Commission
(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent
re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)
Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
(1st January 1947)
Senor Dr. Angel Casrera (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948)
Mr. Francis Hemmine (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)
Dr. Henning Lemcus (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948)
Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)
Mr. Norman Denbigh Rey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950)
Professor Dr. Tadeusz JaczEwsx1 (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw,
Poland) (15th June 1950)
Professor Dr. Robert Mrrrens (Natur-Musewm u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt
a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950)
Professor Dr. Erich Martin Hurre (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitét zu Berlin,
Germany) (5th July 1950)
Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amarat (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President)
Professor J. R. Dymonp (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953)
Professor J. Chester BRapLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
(President)
Professor Harold E. Voxes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana,
U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
Professor Béla Hanx6 (Mez6gazdasdégi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)
Dr. Norman R. Stoxx (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(12th August 1953)
Mr. P, C. SytvesTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953)
Dr. L. B. Hournuis (Rijksmuseum van Natwurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th
August 1953)
Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra,
A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954)
Dr. Alden H. Miter (Musewm of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California,
U.S.A.) (29th October 1954)
es Dr. Ferdinand Pranti (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October
54)
Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kinet (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th
November 1954)
Professor F, 8. Bopennrrmer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954)
Professor Ernst Mayr (Musewm of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954)
Professor Enrico Tortonese (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th
December 1954)
Dr. Per Brrxcx (Lunds Universitets, Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19th May 1958)
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Volume 15, Part 39 (pp. i—viii) 7th July 1958
REPORT ON THE WORK CARRIED OUT BY THE INTERNATIONAL
TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE IN THE FIVE-YEAR
PURLCT ASE: PERIOD 1953-1957
Report prepared by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
for consideration by the International Union for Biological Sciences at
its General Assembly to be held in London in July 1958
In the present Report the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
has pleasure in placing before the International Union for Biological Sciences
a Report on the work carried out by it on behalf of the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature in the five-year period 1953-1957. As will be
seen, the period was one of great achievement, both scientific and financial.
2. At the time of the submission of its last general Report in 1953 the
International Trust had just carried through with great success a Colloquium
on Zoological Nomenclature which with the assistance of grants from the
International Union for Biological Sciences and from U.N.E.S.C.O. it had
organised in connection with the meeting at Copenhagen of the Fourteenth
International Congress of Zoology. The purpose of that Colloquium was to
provide an internationally agreed basis for the completion of the revision
of the Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique (International
Code of Zoological Nomenclature). In this the Colloquium proved highly
successful, for the whole of its recommendations were ultimately approved
by the Congress. This satisfactory result was largely due to the careful
preparation of the ground by the Trust and to the allocation for this purpose
of three volumes (Volumes 7, 8 and 10) of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.
3. The time and effort devoted to the preparations for the Copenhagen
Colloquium were well justified by the results secured, but inevitably involved
some sacrifice in the normal work of the Commission and the Trust. The first
task after the close of the Colloquium was the preparation and piloting through
the press of the volume containing the Official Record of the decisions taken
by the Copenhagen Congress on the basis of the recommendations of the
Colloquium. This volume which was published under the title Copenhagen
Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature was issued on 3lst December 1953.
ii Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
4, The fact that it was possible during the summer of 1953 to carry through
the preparations for the Copenhagen Colloquium on the scale and with the
speed achieved was due mainly to the fact that in April of that year Mr. Francis
Hemming, Secretary to the Commission, had retired from the British Civil
Service and had started to work on a whole-time (though unpaid) basis instead
of only in his spare time which alone previously he had been able to give to
this work. It was evident that once the work arising out of the Colloquium
was completed, the Office of the Commission would on the above account
be in possession of resources far greater than had ever previously been at its
disposal. Careful consideration was given by the Trust in the autumn of 1953
to the administrative problems involved for the purpose of devising the
arrangements best calculated to take full advantage of the opportunity so
offered. Clearly, the Secretary by working on a full-time (unpaid) basis would
be able to increase the level of output far above that ever previously achieved.
Thus, by the maintenance of the Trust’s established price-policy it would be
reasonable to look for a small profit on the sale of each of the increased number
of units which it would be possible for the Trust to publish. The Trust took
the view that the fullest possible advantage should be secured from having a
whole-time Secretary and formed the conclusion therefore that the proper
course would be to appoint a salaried Administrative Officer to relieve Mr.
Hemming of as much as possible of the routine or semi-routine duties which
he would otherwise have had to perform, thereby freeing him to concentrate
as far as possible upon the purely scientific side of the work. It was hoped that
by this means the number of publications issued annually would be increased
to an extent which would not only cover the salary of the proposed
Administrative Officer and the consequent increase in general office expenses
but would in addition, through the increase in the number of units published
annually, actually lead to an increased net profit. As a contribution towards
the success of this plan, Mr. Hemming offered to provide office accommodation
for the reinforced staff of the Commission in his own private house without
any charge in respect of rent. The plan described above obviously involved
certain risks but on the other hand it alone offered a possibility of enabling the
Office of the Commission to make substantial inroads into the arrears of
applications which had inevitably accumulated when the Secretary had been
able to work only on a spare-time basis in the evenings and at week-ends.
5. The new plan was brought into operation in November 1953 and the
first of the new series of documents was published at the end of January 1954.
It very quickly became apparent that the rate of production and publication
could be still further increased by the appointment of additional staff accom-
panied by a further devolution of duties by the Secretary. A number of such
appointments were made in the course of 1954 and these still further swelled the
volume of current output. In the period preceding the Copenhagen Congress the
major part of the work of the Office of the Commission—other than that
concerned with the preparations for the Copenhagen Colloquium—had been con-
cerned with the production of units of the Trust’s serial, the Bulletin of Zoological
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ili
Nomenclature, containing applications on individual problems submitted to the
Commission for decision. A large number of decisions had been taken by the
Commission on such cases largely by postal vote but the decisions so taken had
not been promulgated as Opinions. The Trust accordingly decided that its
new programme should consist of two branches, namely the preparation and
publication of Opinions on individual cases on which decisions had already
been taken, and, second, the preparation of further cases for consideration
by the Commission through publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
and later through the issue of Voting Papers on the questions raised in those
cases. The success of the new policy described above was both immediate
and complete. The number of publications issued rose rapidly, a small profit
was made on each item sold and the income so obtained proved to be more than
sufficient to cover the cost of employing salaried staff to assist the unpaid
whole-time Secretary.
6. The first units published—in 1954—under the new Publications
Programme were units of the Opinions and Declarations Series. In the
above year no less than 139 Parts (including three index Parts) of this Series
were published at a printing cost of £5,110. Income from sales of Parts of this
Series (including the sale of back-parts) amounted to £5,704, thus providing a
net profit of about £600 during the year. Similar results were obtained in
each of the three following years. Throughout that period the conditions
obtaining were strictly comparable and it is therefore very gratifying to note
that, while expenditure on printing was at a somewhat lower level, income from
sales showed a steady increase, as the result partly of increases in the number
of subscriptions and partly of sales of complete back-sets, the cost of
which increased rapidly during the period under review. As the result of these
favourable factors sales of units of the “‘ Opinions and Declarations ’’ Series
exceeded the cost of printing by about £2,000 in 1955, by £3,000 in 1956 and
by over £3,500 in 1957. The total output published during the five-year
period 1953-1957 amounted to 432 Parts (including 15 index Parts) and
contained over 8,000 pages.
7. The publication of units of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature under
the new programme during the period 1954-1957 produced results very similar
to those described for the Opinions and Declarations Series. In 1954, for
example, printing costs amounted to £1,200, while sales (current sales and
sales of back Parts) amounted to £2,200, thus providing a contribution of
about £1,000 towards the general overhead costs of the work of the Commission.
In the following year (1955) printing costs amounted to £1,030 and income from
sales £1,980, while for 1956 the figures were £1,950 and £3,700. For 1957 about
one half of the expenditure incurred was on “ normal ”’ Bulletin, the remainder
being on Parts of the London Congress Agenda Volumes (Volumes 14 and 15).
The total expenditure so incurred amounted to £3,140 and income to £6,040.
Thus, the total expenditure incurred on printing the Bulletin in the period
1954-1957 amounted to approximately £7,300 and income from sales (including
iv Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
back sales) to £13,900, the net contribution to the general income of the
Commission amounting on the average to £1,650 per annum during the period
under review. The total number of Parts (including six index Parts) published
during the four-year period amounted to 85 (3,250 pages).
8. The adoption in 1953 of the plan described above for launching a
greatly enlarged Publications Programme was, as has been seen, fully justified
in the event but at the time when it was initiated, it necessarily involved
considerable risks, as at that time it was impossible to be certain that the
increased output to be looked for would provide a volume of sales sufficient to
cover the cost to the Trust of the salaried staff required for their production.
Up to that time (i.e. up to the end of the year 1953) administrative expenses
chargeable to the Income and Expenditure Account had amounted to about
£500 per annum. In 1954 the new Publications Programme led to an increase
of about £800 in this item which amounted in that year to about £1,300; in
1955 this figure was increased to about £1,500. Further developments in the.
work of the Office raised expenditure under this head to about £2,500 in each
of the years 1956 and 1957. As in previous periods the expenditure shown
under this head throughout the period under review was substantially less than
that which would have been involved if the Office of the Trust had been
organised on ordinary business lines. For in these years the Offices of the
Trust and the Commission were accommodated rent-free in Mr. Hemming’s
private residence, while Mr. Hemming discharged the duties of Secretary on a
whole-time basis without remuneration.
9. During the period under review the Trust—and through the Trust the
Commission also—was extremely fortunate in the matter of gifts received.
First, it is necessary to record that in 1953 at the time of the launching of
the new Publications Programme Mr. Hemming presented a gift of £1,760, the
largest single benefaction ever received by the Trust. During the same period
also the International Union for Biological Sciences continued to mark its
interest and that of U.N.E.S.C.O. in the work of the Trust and the Commission
by making financial contributions within the limitations imposed by its own
budgetary position. During the four-year period 1954-1957 the amount so
presented to the Trust amounted to £857. In addition, gifts of small amounts
from various institutions and individuals amounted in the aggregate to the
sum of £106 during the four years in question. To all those from whom gifts
were received during the period under review the grateful thanks of the Trust
are offered.
10. Reference must be made at this point to the exceptional arrangements
made by the Trust in 1953 to secure the widest possible publicity in the scientific
world for the decisions on nomenclature taken by the Copenhagen Congress in
1953. Two considerations were judged to be of special importance, namely
speed of publication and a low price for the volume to be published. The work
itself was issued under the title Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature v
at the end of December 1953—that is, little more than four months after the
close of the Congress. In order to ensure that this vital work should be
obtainable at a price so low as to be within the reach of any institution or
individual the Trust decided to grant a substantial subsidy to its production
and thus to render it possible to place it on sale at the nominal price of five
shillings a copy. The total number of copies sold of this first impression
amounted to about 900. At the time when the stock was exhausted there
remained only a small unsatisfied demand. In view, however, of the importance
of this work it was decided by the Trust to issue a Second Impression. By the
end of 1957 about 100 copies of this new impression had been sold. The total
sales achieved thus amounted only to about 1,000 copies, in spite of the fact
that the work itself was one of much more general interest than are most works
dealing with zoological nomenclature and that the price charged for the
principal edition was fixed at an artificially low level. The experience gained
from the publication of this book is, in the view of the Trust, very instructive,
for it shows that the potential field for the sale of books and serials dealing with
zoological nomenclature is extremely limited, not because of lack of interest
in the subject but because under modern conditions the private purchaser
has almost disappeared, his place having been taken by institutional libraries
serving large numbers of individuals.
11. During the period under review great attention has been devoted by the
Trust to two special projects of great importance, each of which has now been
brought virtually to its conclusion. The first of these was concerned with the
publication in book-form of the Official Lists of valid names and of the Official
Indexes of rejected and invalid names; the second was concerned with the
preparations for the publication of the Draft of the text of the Régles
Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique (International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature) as revised by the International Congresses of Zoology held in
Paris in 1948 and at Copenhagen in 1953. Brief particulars of the action taken
by the Trust under each of these heads are given below.
12. The plan for the establishment of an Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology was approved by the International Congress of Zoology held at Monaco
in 1913, the purpose of the List being to promote stability in the names for
important genera. Owing first to the First World War and later to the spirit
of defeatism in matters of nomenclature which marked the greater part of the
inter-war period the List grew very slowly, the number of names inscribed on it
by the end of 1936 amounting only to 563. By this time it had become
apparent that the value of the Official List was severely prejudiced by the fact
that the decisions placing names on it were scattered over a large number of
separate issues of serial publications and that what was required was a
consolidated edition of the Official List published in book-form. It was then
found that the earlier entries on the Official List had been made in so condensed
(and often incomplete) a form that a considerable amount of further work
would be required before publication in book-form would be practicable. For
vi Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
this work it was decided to set up a special ‘‘ Official List Section ” in the
Office of the Trust and to engage a qualified zoologist to take charge of this
Section on a whole-time basis. These arrangements were brought into operation
in September 1954. Concurrently with the examination of the entries on the
foregoing Official List made in the period up to the end of 1936 work was
started also on the preparations for the publication in book-form of the Official
Lists for valid specific names established by the Paris Congress in 1948 and for
valid family-group and Order/Class names and for valid zoological works
established by the Copenhagen Congress in 1953. At the same time work
was started on the corresponding Official Indexes of rejected and invalid names
and works. Almost all the problems outstanding in connection with generic
names placed on the Official List in the period up to the end of 1936 had been
cleared up by the summer of 1957. It was thereupon decided that arrangements
should be put in hand forthwith for the publication in book-form of the First
Instalments of all the Official Lists and Official Indexes, even though in the case
of generic names this might involve a few temporary omissions from the List
so published. These volumes have now in some cases been published and it is
hoped that the publication of the remainder will be completed in time for the
Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology when it meets in London next
month (July). The total expenditure incurred on this important project
during the four-year period 1954-1957 amounted to the modest figure of £1,950.
The prices charged for the volumes now being published are very moderate
but from the advance orders already received it seems likely that the actual
cost of printing—though not the cost of preparation—will be recovered in 1959.
13. The second of the two important projects which have engaged the
attention of the Trust during the period under review has been the arrangements
to be made for securing the approval of the Fifteenth International Congress of
Zoology, London, 1958, for a text of the Régles Internationales (International
Code) based upon the decisions taken by the Paris and Copenhagen Congresses
in 1948 and 1953 respectively. In this connection it will be recalled that, while
the actual preparation of the first Draft of the revised text of the Régles was
confided to Professor J. Chester Bradley (Ithaca, N.Y.), the publication of
that Draft and all the subsequent arrangements necessary for its due considera-
tion were entrusted to the International Trust. The compilation of the proposed
document would, it was apparent, be a highly complex task, having regard to the
very large number of separate points to be covered. Accordingly, in agreement
with Professor Bradley, the Trust established a special ‘‘ Régles Section ” to
advise on all problems arising in connection with the Draft of the Régles.
Somewhat later, arrangements were put in hand by the Trust for summoning
a Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature for the purpose of considering the
Draft of the Regles and of proposals for the further amendment of the Régles
or for the correction of the Draft prepared by Professor Bradley received either
from the members of the Colloquium or from others. At the same time the
Trust earmarked two volumes of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature to
serve as Agenda Volumes for the London Congress. The first of these volumes
(Volume 14) was reserved for Professor Bradley’s Draft of the English Text
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature vii
and for the Draft of the corresponding French text ; the second (Volume 15)
was made available for the publication of comments of any kind on Professor
Bradley’s Draft. The total expenditure incurred in connection with the above
matter during the three-year period 1955-1957 (including the expenditure
incurred on the publication in 1957 of the first instalments of each of the above
volumes) amounted to £2,570.
14. Having now examined both the Trust’s sources of income during the
four-year period 1954-1957 and the expenditure incurred during those years
both on the normal services of the Trust and on the two special projects
(Official Lists ; Régles) on which expenditure was incurred during that period,
it is at length possible to determine the overall financial position of the Trust,
as measured in terms of the difference annually between total income and total
expenditure. In 1954, the first of the four years under review, the Trust had to
bear the whole of the additional expenditure on salaries involved in its new
Publications Plan, while it could not be hoped that in that year it would be
able to build up the support from subscribers needed to make that programme
a financial success. In these circumstances it was very gratifying that in that
year a net excess of income over expenditure amounting to £660 should have
been obtained. In each of the succeeding years the favourable results so
obtained were not only maintained but greatly enhanced. In 1955 income
exceeded expenditure by £1,780 ; in 1956 by £2,631 ; in 1957 by £5,802. These
figures do not take account of the transfers made to the subsidiary accounts
from which the “ Official Lists” and “ Régles (Preparation) ’’ projects were
financed. The buoyant state of the finances of the Trust may best be judged
by reference to its Revenue Reserves.. These reserves at the end of 1957
amounted to £9,669, an increase of £6,300 over the level at which they had stood
at the end of 1953.
15. In the conduct of operations such as thus for which the Trust is
responsible considerable liquid assets are required both as an insurance against
adverse contingencies and in order also to provide the substantial amount of
working capital needed to finance the printing of publications before the actual
receipt of funds arising from the sale of units of the immediately preceding
instalments. Subject to the fulfilment of these conditions, the accumulation
of reserves has never been more than a secondary purpose of the Trust’s
financial policy, its prime object having been to build up its income to a level
which would make it possible to support the cost involved whenever, on a
change taking place in the Secretaryship of the Commission, the subsidies
represented by the whole-time unpaid service provided by Mr. Hemming as
Secretary and by the provision of rent-free office accommodation in Mr.
Hemming’s private house were no longer available. For it was apparent
that, whenever such a change were to take place, it would be necessary’ to
engage at the full market rate a senior zoologist to take charge of the Office
of the Commission. Such an official, being in a receipt of a salary from the
Trust, could not be a member of the Commission and could not therefore be
appointed to the Office of Secretary as hitherto constituted. On the other
viii Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
hand, once a senior zoologist had been appointed to take charge of the Office
on a whole-time salaried basis, there would clearly be no room for a spare-time
Honorary Secretary drawn from the membership of the Commission, for there
would be no effective functions for such an honorary officer to perform and the
existence of such a post could at the best lead only to duplication of effort and
delay—through the need for otherwise unnecessary correspondence between the
salaried head of the Office and the Honorary Secretary who almost certainly
would be a person resident in some other country. The Trust has accordingly
always considered that, when Mr. Hemming gave up his present honorary
post, it would be necessary not only that his whole-time salaried successor
should be a specialist whose personal achievements should command respect
from the Commission’s correspondents but also that he should be a man of
considerable seniority and thus qualified to take full charge of the Office of the
Commission, to which body he should be directly responsible. As will be
appreciated, the nature of the salaried post so to be created is a matter of direct
concern to the Trust in view of its responsibilities for providing the financial
and technical resources required for the continuance of the work of the
Commission.
16. It is a matter of great satisfaction to the Trust that when suddenly
some months ago Mr. Hemming found it necessary on the advice of his doctors
to ask to be relieved of his duties as Secretary to the Commission, the financial
position which had been built up in recent years made it possible for the
Trust at once to create the required post at the current market rate of salary—a
minimum of £2,500 per annum—and to rent at a moderate figure (£225
per annum) office accommodation for the Commission which, though very modest
and small, is nevertheless just sufficient to meet essential requirements at the
present time. Finally, with the active assistance of Sir Gavin de Beer,
President of the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology, and with the
friendly co-operation of the British Government Departments concerned, the
Trust was able to appoint Mr. R. V. Melville, a senior palaeontologist on the staff
of the Geological Survey of the United Kingdom, to the new post of Assistant
Secretary to the Commission and Director of its Office, for a period initially of
one year. At the same time Mr. Melville was appointed to be an Assistant Man-
ager to the Trust, the post of Managing Director being retained for the time being
by Mr. Hemming. The Trust is confident that the arrangements described above
are the best that in the circumstances could have been devised and will ensure
that the work of the Office is continued without interruption or disturbance.
Mr. Melville will, however, need to be given all possible support by interested
zoologists and the Trust does not doubt that this support will be forthcoming.
OFFICES OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR
ZooLogicaL NOMENCLATURE,
41 QuEEN’s GaTE,
Lonpon, 8.W.7.
25th June 1958
nO HASED
OH
wou
ee pe Oca s Bet ee ee ee SS
© 1958. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Printed in England by METCALFE & Cooper LiMiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC2
VOLUME 15. Part 40 14th July 1958
pp. iX-Xxxvi
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
The Official Organ of
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
CONTENTS
Papers circulated to Members of the Colloquium for information
HASED
21 JUL 1958 2
LONDON : be
Printed by Order of the International Trust LY
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
1958
Price Seventeen Shillings and Sixpence
(All rights reserved)
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
A. The Officers of the Commission
Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jorpan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological
Museum, Tring, Herts, England)
President: Professor James Chester BrapLEy (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(12th August 1953)
Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARrat (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953)
Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemmine (London, England) (27th July 1948)
B. The Members of the Commission
(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent
re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)
Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
(1st January 1947)
Senor Dr. Angel Casrera (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948)
Mr. Francis Hemurne (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)
Dr. Henning Lemons (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948)
Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)
Mr. Norman Denbigh Riey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950)
Professor Dr. Tadeusz JaczEwsk1 (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw.
Poland) (15th June 1950)
Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt
a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950)
Professor Dr. Erich Martin Hrrine (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin,
Germany) (5th July 1950)
Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amarat (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President)
Professor J. R. Dymonp (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953)
Professor J. Chester BrapLEey (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
(President)
Professor Harold E. Voxrs (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana,
U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
Professor Béla Hanxé (Mezégazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)
Dr. Norman R. Sroxt (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(12th August 1953)
Mr. P. C. Syivester-Brapuey (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953)
Dr. L. B. Horruuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th
August 1953)
Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra,
A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954)
Dr. Alden H. MiiiEr (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California,
U.S.A.) (29th October 1954)
a Dr. Ferdinand Prantu (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October
54)
Professor Dr. William Ktunett (Zoologisches Institut der Universitdét, Vienna, Austria) (6th
November 1954)
Professor F. 8S. Bopennemer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954)
Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954)
Professor Enrico TortonesE (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th
December 1954)
Dr. Per Brrycx (Lunds Universitets, Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19th May 1958)
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Volume 15. Part 40 (pp. ix—xxxvi) 14th July 1958
PAPERS CIRCULATED TO THE
COLLOQUIUM FOR INFORMATION
PURCHASED AER
? 7 Ju i958 DOCUMENT A*
REPORT DATED 20TH JUNE 1958 SUBMITTED BY THE INTERIM Xe
COMMITTEE ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE IN RESPECT
OF THE PERIOD 1953-1958 ADDRESSED TO PROFESSOR
J. CHESTER BRADLEY, PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
[Communicated to the Colloquium for information by direction of
the President of the Congress]
Leiden, 20th June 1958
Dear Mr. President,
We have the honour to submit with this letter the Report of the
Committee appointed at the Final Concilium Plenum of XIVth International
Congress of Zoology. This Committee was charged with the duty of
“implementing” the administrative and financial plan drawn up at
Copenhagen by a Committee presided over by Professor Sparck, President
of the XIVth Congress for the support of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature and the reorganisation of that Commission’s
Secretariat.
The Committee was instructed to put the Copenhagen Plan into effect
immediately upon the resignation of Mr. Francis Hemming as Honorary
Secretary of the Commission. As explained in the Report, Mr. Hemming
expressed his intention, at Copenhagen, of retiring from the office of Honorary
Secretary some time during the inter-Congress period. In fact, his resignation
has been delayed until the close of the London Congress. Under these
circumstances, the Committee are also submitting, for the consideration of the
*For Document B see page xxxiii.
x Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, and of the XVth
Congress of Zoology, their Recommendations for the implementation of the
Copenhagen Plan. These Recommendations would already have been put
into force had the delay in Mr. Hemming’s resignation not taken place.
Respectfully yours :
H. Boschma, Chairman ;
L. B. Holthuis,
P. C. Sylvester-Bradley,
R. L. Usinger.
Interim Committee.
To:
Professor J. Chester Bradley, President, International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.
Copies transmitted, on the instructions of Professor J. Chester Bradley, to :—
Sir Gavin de Beer, F.R.S., President, XVth International Congress of Zoology.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature xi
ENCLOSURE TO LETTER FROM THE INTERIM COMMITTEE
DATED 20TH JUNE 1958
International Congress of Zoology
Interim Committee on Zoological Nomenclature
Report : 1953-1958
1. Terms of Reference
The Interim Committee was established at the Final Concilium Plenum
of the XIVth International Congress of Zoology at Copenhagen in August,
1953, on the proposal of the Permanent Committee of the Congress and of the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. It was charged
with the implementation of a Plan, adopted by the Congress in Plenary
Session, for the transfer of the Secretariat of the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature, and the reorganisation of the arrangements for the
financial support of the Commission. This Plan has been formulated in
response to the intimation of Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the
Commission, of his intention of resigning during the forthcoming inter-congress
period. The Plan provided for :—
1. the organisation of a new financial structure on the basis of an
International Association formed for the study of zoological
nomenclature in general and for support of the International
Commission in particular ;
2. the re-allocation of the arduous duties which were then carried on at
great personal sacrifice by the Honorary Secretary. Some of these
duties, including financial matters, were to be handled by the
Association through its officers and members. General matters
relating to publications were to be placed in the hands of an Honorary
Editor.
2. Composition of the Interim Committee
The following four gentlemen were elected to the Interim Committee :—
Dr. H. Boschma, Chairman ;
Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley, Secretary, and Interim-Secretary-
Designate ;
Dr. L. B. Holthuis, Interim-Editor-Designate ;
Dr. Robert L. Usinger.
xii Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
3. Text of the Reports adopted at Copenhagen
The terms of reference and constitution of the Interim Committee, as
summarised above, were embodied in two Reports which were presented to the
Final Concilium Plenum of the Congress, and were there approved and adopted.
The circumstances attending the preparation of these Reports and their
subsequent history is briefly indicated in footnote No. 94, on p. 94, of the
Copenhagen Decisions (1953). The Plan embodied in these Reports (for
convenience, referred to as the ‘“ Copenhagen Plan’’) was drafted by a
Committee of which Professor Spirck, President of the Congress, acted as
Rapporteur, and by a meeting of the International Commission convened to
consider Professor Spirck’s Report. The footnote concludes with the
statement: ‘‘ The two Reports will be published shortly in the Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature ’’. Up to the present they have not been so published,
however, and their text is therefore appended as Annexes 1 and 2 to the present
Report.
4, Financial Support of the Interim Committee
No arrangements were made at Copenhagen for the financial support of
the Interim Commission. It is therefore a pleasure to record that the
Entomological Society of America and the Society of Systematic Zoology
each voted the Committee fifty dollars from their funds. These funds have
enabled the Committee to meet the costs of stationery, postage and
administration, and an account of the expenditure occurred is attached to this
Report as Annexe 3.
5. Arrangements for the transfer of the Secretariat to Sheffield
The date fixed at Copenhagen for the introduction of the Plan there
formulated was to be the date upon which the new Rules, as revised at the
Paris and Copenhagen Congresses, were published by the International Trust.
In order to render possible this arrangement, Mr. Hemming formally notified
the Commission that the date of his resignation of the Office of Secretary
should be timed to coincide with this event. At that time it was supposed
that this would take place some time in 1955, and Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley
was instructed (in terms adopted by the Congress in plenary session) to take
up office at that date as Interim Secretary and Dr. L. B. Holthuis was similarly
instructed to take up duties as Interim Editor. The Interim Committee
therefore put in hand arrangements for the transfer of the Secretariat to
Sheffield, England, where Mr. Sylvester-Bradley is employed as a member of
the University. The authorities of the Sheffield City Museum offered to put
at the disposal of the Commission rent-free accommodation for the offices of the
Secretariat.
6. Mr. Hemming’s decision to postpone the date of his retirement
Mr. Hemming, on 15th May 1954, wrote to the Secretary of the Committee
intimating that various changes in the situation since August 1953, had forced
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature xiii
him to the conclusion that it was no longer desirable to promulgate the new
Rules in the form that had been proposed at Copenhagen, but rather that the
text should be published in Draft form only, for consideration by a Colloquium
which he suggested should be summoned to meet in London during 1958,
just before the Congress. As a result of this conclusion, Mr. Hemming also
indicated that he proposed to delay the date of his retirement until some time
after the London Congress.
7. Arrangements for the Presentation of the Interim Committee’s Report and
Recommendations
Mr. Hemming also included in his letter of the 15th May, 1954, the following
statement :—
“ The fact that the Revised Code will not be ready as soon as was hoped
for at Copenhagen means . . . that the Copenhagen Committee will have
more time to examine the administrative and financial issues with which
they are concerned than was originally expected ”’.
After due consideration the Committee, on 12th October 1954 in a reply
to Mr. Hemming, agreed that the new timetable would have certain advantages,
and indicated that they proposed to lay their plans before the London Congress,
so that, if approved, the new International Association for Zoological
Nomenclature could be inaugurated at the final Plenary Session.
8. Mr. Sylvester-Bradley’s visit to California
At the request and by the generosity of various departments in the
University of California, Stanford University, and the California Academy of
Sciences, Mr. Sylvester-Bradley spent a week in California during May 1956,
discussing the plans of the Interim Committee at a series of meetings. The
audiences addressed expressed enthusiastic and unanimous support at the
prospect of the foundation of a new International Association for Zoological
Nomenclature, with its promise of wider and less expensive circulation of
publications relating to Zoological nomenclature.
9. Public Notification of Mr. Hemming’s Retirement
On 29th April 1958, Mr. Hemming gave public notification of his impending
retirement, and announced that, on the grounds of ill-health, he would not,
on the completion of his present term of service in that office, allow himself
to be nominated for a further term of service.
The Interim Committee took the view that the plan they had prepared
- for the consideration of the coming Congress gained, as a result of Mr.
Hemming’s announcement, a further degree of urgency, and resolved as a
xiv Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
consequence to call a special session of the Committee in Leiden on 19th and
20th June 1958, at which the Recommendations they had earlier drawn up
could be revised, where necessary, to cater for recent developments. At the
same time the Committee informed Professor J. Chester Bradley, President
of the International Commission of their plans and present arrangements, and
Professor Bradley graciously consented to act as a consultant to the
Committee, and offered any help that he could give.
10. The Committee’s Recommendations
The Committee adopted and approved the Recommendations which they
present currently with this Report and which, in accord with the instructions
given them in Copenhagen, outline a Plan for the inauguration of an International
Association for Zoological Nomenclature, and set out a detailed programme for
the re-organisation and financial support of the Secretariat of the International
Commission which, they suggest, should come into operation immediately
Mr. Hemming’s retirement becomes effective—i.e. from the close of the London
Congress on Wednesday, 23rd July 1958.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature xv
Appendix to the enclosure to the letter of the Interim Committee
dated 20th June 1958
RECOMMENDATIONS
of the
INTERIM COMMITTEE
for the implementation of the
COPENHAGEN PLAN
for the financial support and administrative
organisation of the
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Introduction
1. The authority of the Interim Committee and its terms of reference
are as set out in the Report of the Committee submitted concurrently with the
present Recommendations.
2. The Recommendations that follow are divided into five sections :—
(a) General Financial Policy ;
(b) The International Association for Zoological Nomenclature ;
(c) Publication ;
(d) Reorganisation of the Secretariat ;
(e) Budget.
Section A. GENERAL FINANCIAL POLICY
3. During all but the last few weeks of the period from the close of the
Copenhagen Congress until the opening of the London Congress, the Secretariat
of the Commission has occupied rent-free accommodation by courtesy of the
Honorary Secretary, Mr. Francis Hemming. On 10th June 1958, the Secretariat
moved to rented accommodation at 119, Parkway, London, N.W.1. The
amount of rent on this accommodation has not yet been divulged.
4. During the whole of the same period, Mr. Hemming has acted as
Secretary to the Commission in a purely honorary capacity. A gradually
increasing staff of clerical and technical assistants has been employed in the
xvi Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Secretariat, however, and in the last Report issued (for 1956) the total salary
expended on such assistance was given as £1,262. This compares with £117
for 1954. Since lst May 1958 Mr. R. V. Melville has been appointed as a full-
time salaried Assistant Secretary.
5. The amount debited during this period to office expenses has risen from
£498 (1954) to £1,282 (1956).
6. The cost of printing the Bulletin and the Opinions has been as follows :—
1954 £6,321
1955 £4,694
1956 £6,184
7. The total annual cost of running the Secretariat in its present form
including printing costs amounted to £8,670 in 1956. The developments
which have taken place since 1956 suggest that at least an additional £3,000
will be needed. £12,000 must be regarded as a conservative estimate of the
annual income needed to support the Secretariat and its publications as at
present organised.
8. The financial support of the Secretariat has been derived in a small
part from donations. The much larger remaining part (£10,939 in 1956) has
been derived from the sale of publications.
9. The greatly increasing costs of running the Secretariat have been more
than met by increased profits from the sale of publications. This increased
profit has been achieved not by any great increase in circulation, but rather
by an increased output, with a consequent increase in the cost to individual
subscribers. Every page added to the Bulletin results in more profit. The cost
to those who have subscribed to both the Bulletin and the Opinions during the
years since the Copenhagen Congress is as set out below :—
Bulletin Opinions Total
1954 £10 £50 £60
1955 £8 £46 £54
1956 £19 £62 £81
1957 £33 £74 £107
The amount of the annual subscriptions places the publications of the
Commission beyond the reach of any individual zoologist, and, indeed, beyond
the reach of a great many institutions. Only those zoologists who have access
to the libraries of the greater or more wealthy institutions can have recourse
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature xvii
to the publications and it can be calculated that the total number of
institutions who subscribed to both series of publications must have been
fewer than 135 in 1956. The Committee regard such a restricted circulation
with the greatest misgiving and fear that the further reduction in circulation,
of which there are already signs, can only result in the complete negation of the
Commission’s authority.
10. At Copenhagen, President Sparck’s Committee were conscious of the
strong feelings that had been expressed in opposition to a publication policy
such as that outlined above. It was indeed in consideration of the
disadvantages attendant on a financial policy based on high-priced publications
that the Copenhagen Plan was formulated. The object is as set out in Decision
184 of the Copenhagen Decisions (p. 95) :
“It is therefore of the highest importance that a new financial basis
should be devised as soon as possible for supporting the work of the
Commission which will be sufficiently strong and assured to make it
possible to place the Bulletin and the Opinions of the Commission on
sale at prices which will put these publications within the reach of all
zoologists ”’.
11. The financial situation has greatly worsened (from the point of view
of the zoological public) since Copenhagen, and the Interim Committee have
been aghast at the ever-increasing burden that has been laid on subscribers
to the publications. The Recommendations here put forward envisage a
drastic economy of expenditure, and the creation of an entirely new souree of
income, designed to render the expenses of the Secretariat gradually less
dependent on profits made from the sale of publications.
12. The Committee recognise the undesirability of terminating the
present source of income in favour of an untried and still hypothetical
alternative. They recommend that the change should be controlled in such a
way that the profit on sale of publications should be reduced gradually and
only as the introduction of economies and the new source of income become
effective.
13. The economies that the Committee have in mind include :—
(a) a drastic reduction in the number of salaried staff employed by the
Secretariat ; the Committee believe the employment of a salaried
Secretary to be both unjustified and undesirable ; the details of the
Committee’s recommendations are included in Section D below.
(b) the abandonment of rented accommodation ; many institutions are
proud of their record in support of such scientific activities as those
of the Secretariat and the Committee has secured the promise of
accommodation which would be provided free of rent if the
xviii Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Committee’s Recommendations are adopted by Congress; details
are again given in Section D below.
(c) a drastic reduction in the length and number of the publications, and
their re-organisation to avoid the present duplication between the
Bulletin and the Opinions ; details are in Section C.
14. The new source of income envisaged by the Committee is that which
would be derived from the various classes of subscription to an International
Association for Zoological Nomenclature. It is recommended that this
Association be inaugurated by the present Congress. Details are set out in
Section B.
Section B. THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
15. The most important task entrusted to the Interim Committee was the
organisation of the International Association for Zoological Nomenclature.
16. This Association is intended to attract a large individual membership
of zoological taxonomists. Its first purpose will be to provide a regular income
for the support of the Secretariat of the Commission. Its second and no less
important purpose will be to promote a wide distribution of the publications
of the Commission, and thus aid the important new procedures laid down at
Copenhagen whereby regular reference to the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
will be an essential part of the work of all zoologists aiming towards a stable
and universally accepted nomenclature.
17. The Interim Committee has realised that it is important to the success
of the Copenhagen Plan that the subscription rates to the new Association
should be low enough to attract a very wide support from individuals. The
annual subscription rate recommended is that of £1 1s. If the Association is,
with this low subscription rate, to fulfil its financial obligations, it will be
necessary to ensure that in fact such a wide support is achieved. It is with
this in mind that the Committee recommends that the Association should issue
free to every member on joining a copy of the new Rules.
18. It is proposed that the Association should be composed of the following
classes of members :
(a) Individual Members :
(i) Ordinary: Entrance fee 7s. ($1.00)
Annual subscription £1 1s. ($3.00)
(ii) Sustaining : Entrance fee 7s. ($1.00)
Annual subscription £5 5s. ($15.00)
(iii) Patrons: Single donation of £100 ($300) or more.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature xix
(b) Institutional Members :
(i) Ordinary: Annual subscription £1 15s. ($5.00)
(ii) Sustaining : Annual subscription £15 ($45.00)
(iii) Patrons: Single donation of £100 ($300) or more.
All members would receive the following privileges :—
(i) a free copy of the RULES on joining ;
(ii) the JOURNAL free of charge ;
(iii) all other publications at a reduced price ;
(iv) the right to vote at General Meetings and at Colloquia arranged from
time to time to discuss nomenclatorial matters.
Institutional members are to have the right to send representatives to General
Meetings and Colloquia. Individual patrons to receive the privileges of ordinary
membership for life. Institutional patrons to receive the privileges of
Institutional members for ten years.
19. It is recommended that the Honorary Officers of the Association
should be three: the President (who will be, ex officio, the President of the
Commission) ; Secretary ; and General Treasurer. There should also be local
Treasurers established in all countries where there is any considerable local
body of support.
20. The Council of the Association should consist of :—
(i) the honorary officers of the Association (President, General Treasurer,
Secretary) ;
(ii) the honorary officers of the Commission (Vice-president, Joint
Secretaries) ;
(iii) five other members to be elected at a general meeting.
21. In certain countries it is hoped that it may be possible to appoint
Sponsoring Societies, who will undertake through their own officers the
organisation of the affairs of the Association within the country concerned.
In such cases the Sponsoring Society would nominate from amongst its members
a Local Treasurer of the Association. It is recommended that the Society of
Systematic Zoology (which has over a thousand members) be invited to become
a Sponsoring Society for the U.S.A.
22. The Association should be responsible for the organisation from time
’ to time of both national and international meetings for the discussion of
matters of nomenclatorial interest.
xXx Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
23. It is recommended that the Congress consider inaugurating the new
International Association at the Final Concilium Plenum, planned to take
place on the morning of Wednesday, July 23rd. It is suggested that members
of the Congress should be invited to subscribe as founder members and that the
subscriptions of all institutions and individuals who register for membership
at the annual rate during 1958 should be deemed to secure membership from
the time of registration until December 31st 1959.
24. It is recommended that the panel of Honorary Officers and Council
of the Association should be nominated at a meeting of the Section on
Nomenclature, and that this Section be empowered to elect such a panel as
Council Designate of the Association, the said Council to assume full powers on
authorisation of the Congress in Plenary Session.
25. It is recommended that the first Council, thus elected, be instructed
to draw up the draft of a Constitution for the Association, and that this draft
should be published or otherwise made available to all members of the
Association before 30th June 1959, and that the adoption of the said
Constitution shall be by a postal referendum to all members, closing on 31st
December 1959.
Section C. PUBLICATIONS
26. The present official publications are issued for the Commission by the
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, and consist of the Bulletin,
the Opinions, and occasional volumes, such as the Copenhagen Decisions and
the Official Lists and Indexes of Zoological Names.
27. Apart from financial considerations, the particular advantage of the
present scheme is that all applications presented to the Commission, and most
documents relating to them, are transmitted to the Commission and the public
simultaneously by publication in the Bulletin. Comments on previous pub-
lished applications are issued serially in the Bulletin as received, and are not,
therefore, in immediate juxtaposition to the cases to which they refer. Both
the applications themselves, and also comments relating to them, are, however,
brought together after submission to the Commission, and are republished,
either in full or in part, in the Opinions. Also included are any other documents
that have been issued to the Commission in mimeographed form, the Opinion
as finally rendered by the Commission, and the state of votes recorded by
the Commissioners.
28. The disadvantage of the existing scheme as outlined in the previous
paragraph is that most of the documents in question are printed twice, first
in the Bulletin, then in the Opinions. A secondary disadvantage is that the
rather full documentation considered necessary for submission to the Com-
mission frequently obscures, by its comprehensiveness, the fundamental
nomenclatural point at issue.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature xxi
29. The Interim Committee, conscious as they are of both the advantages
and disadvantages of the present scheme, and taking into consideration also
the financial issues involved, make the following recommendations. It is
suggested that the regular publications should remain two in number, but that
the duplication, in verbatim form, of lengthy passages in both Bulletin and
Opinion should cease. The full documentation necessary for submission to
the Commission should, according to these recommendations, in future be
published in a form which will introduce separate pagination for each Applica-
tion. Each application will be allotted a Case Number, and subsequent
documents referring to this case will be published seriatim as received, and
will conclude with the official Opinion rendered by the Commission, and a
report on the voting recorded. The original application, all documents referring
to it, and the final Opinion rendered will thus be paginated consecutively and
bound up together. The Opinions thus rendered, and the documents on
which they were based, will be gathered together in volumes of convenient
size as are the Opinions at the moment. The price of the Opinions and sup-
porting documents thus issued will be regulated by the cost of printing and
distribution.
30. The second regular publication recommended by the Committee will
be a journal, issued free to all members of the International Association, whose
prime purposes will be :
(a) summaries of all applications and comments published in the Opinions
series ;
(b) notices of cases pending under the Plenary Powers ;
(c) notices of nomenclatural proposals in accord with automatic pro-
cedures subject to challenge ;
(d) summaries of decisions rendered by the Commission ;
(e) general articles on nomenclature as space permits ;
(f) a list of all current issues of the Opinions series, together with their
individual price.
In this way any zoologist interested in a case summarised in the journal will
be able to apply for the fuller documentation available in the Opinions series.
The title of this journal will be a matter of consultation between the Association,
and the International Trust.
31. The fact that the Committee recommend a summarised treatment of
each case, as well as a more fully documented treatment, does not mean that
they believe the present full documentation could not, if appropriately edited,
be considerably shortened, with a consequent gain in clarity of exposition.
It is with this in mind that the Committee recommend below the appointment
of an officer charged with the duties of editor.
xxii Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
32. The Committee realise that, as at present so in the future, it will be
necessary to arrange for the publication of special volumes, the most important
of which will be the Code itself. It is recommended that one copy of the Code
should be issued free to each member of the International Association on
receipt of entrance fee and first subscription. Other special volumes will
usually be issued at a price fixed to cover cost of publication and distribution.
33. The Committee has investigated with some care the possibility of
reducing printing costs by adopting other techniques of printing than letter-
press (“ varityper ” composition, offset lithography, photoscopic stencils, etc.).
The Committee are able to report that there would be no significant saving
in cost of these methods over letterpress if the total printing can be kept under
£2,000 per annum. There would be a progressively greater saving if printing
costs rose above this sum, but the work of supervising the various composition
and printing processes would be considerable, and the quality of the finished
article would be somewhat less attractive than if printed by letterpress. The
Committee is therefore unable to recommend any method of printing other
than letterpress. Comparative estimates have, however, been sought from
printers in different countries. The Committee is pleased to report that the
well-known firm of Brill of Leiden have offered terms somewhat below all
others. It is, therefore, proposed that this firm should be accepted for the
present as Printers to the Commission. The choice seems a particularly happy
one in that one of the Committee’s nominees for the post of Joint Secretary
to the Commission, Dr. L. B. Holthuis, is also of Leiden.
34. All Commissioners should continue to receive the publications of both
Trust and Association free of charge.
Section D. RE-ORGANISATION OF THE SECRETARIAT
35. The Copenhagen Plan calls for the re-allocation of the duties hitherto
undertaken by the Honorary Secretary so that they should be spread, some
to be carried out by an additional honorary officer (Editor) others (including
financial matters) to be handled by the International Association through its
officers and members. The Interim Committee have had the recommendations
of the Copenhagen Plan constantly in mind throughout the inter-Congress
period, and have surveyed the various possibilities presented by the changing
circumstances. They stand firmly by the basic principle as accepted at Copen-
hagen, namely that the senior officers of the Secretariat should serve in an
honorary capacity. Furthermore, they are of the opinion that a suitable
choice of such officers will lead to the offer of rent-free accommodation.
36. They recommend one modification in the Plan as conceived at
Copenhagen. They recommend that the two honorary executive officers,
which the Copenhagen Plan suggested should carry the titles of Honorary
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature xxiii
Secretary and Honorary Editor respectively, should rather be entitled Joint
Honorary Secretaries. This change in title will give to the Secretariat, it is
suggested, a greater flexibility.
37. The Committee has also spent some time and effort in evaluating the
effect that various changes in the location of the Secretariat might have in
general policy. They are of the opinion that it is essential that the main
expenses (i.e., those of printing and publication) should be incurred in a “ soft
currency ” area, and it is partly for this reason that they have recommended
the Dutch firm of Brill as printers. But they are also sensible of the fact
that a majority of authors on Systematic Zoology are situate in North America,
and that the language most frequently adopted for articles and applications
concerned with zoological nomenclature is English.
38. For these reasons, the Committee recommends that one of the Joint
Secretaries should be a continental European, and that the other should be a
native of an English-speaking country, preferably on the North American
continent.
39. It is with pleasure that they announce that the following two gentle-
men have agreed to accept nomination as Joint Honorary Secretaries to the
Commission :—
Dr. L. B. Holthuis, of the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie,
Leiden, The Netherlands ;
Mr. Curtis W. Sabrosky, of the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
40. They are further able to announce that both of these nominees have
approached the institutions of which they are members, and that these insti-
tutions have agreed, if the nominees are elected to office, to make available
the necessary accommodation free of charge and to permit the officers in
question to spend some part of their official time on the business of the
Commission.
41. It is considered essential that funds should be made available to
allow the employment of paid clerical help additional to whatever may be
forthcoming as a result of the generosity of the institutions concerned, and
this is duly budgetted for in the following section of these Recommendations.
Section E. BUDGET
42. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature was incorporated
in 1947 for the conduct of financial affairs on behalf of the Commission. There
xxiv Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
were initially seven members of the Trust. The Trust is managed by a
Committee, who may confer any or all of their powers on an officer termed the
Managing Director. There were initially four members of the Committee, and
Mr. Francis Hemming was appointed Managing Director. New members of
the Trust ‘‘ being members of the Commission or persons approved by the
Commission ’’ may be admitted by the Committee.
43. The conduct of the Trust is controlled in some detail under English
law according to the “ Memorandum of Association’ and the “ Articles of
Association”. There is provision in the Memorandum for collaboration
between the Trust and such an organisation as the proposed International
Association of Zoological Nomenclature. The following is an extract from the
list of ‘‘ objects for which the Trust is established ” as noted in the Memorandum
of Association: ‘‘ To collaborate with similar societies, bodies and persons in
the United Kingdom and in other countries with the object of securing the
comparative study, upon lines and by methods similar to those of the Trust,
of problems relating to zoological nomenclature common to the Trust, and
to such other societies, bodies and persons and the Commission ”’.
44. The Interim Committee is of the opinion that the most happy and
effective arrangement for the future would result from the close collaboration
of Trust and Association. Such a collaboration could more easily be effected
should the Trust decide to recruit to its membership some of those who were
also Council-members of the Association.
45. If the Committee of the Trust supported such collaboration, the future
income of the International Commission would primarily be derived from two
sources :
(a) sale of publications issued by the Trust ;
(b) subscriptions to the International Association.
46. The income of the Trust in 1956 was mainly derived from two sources :
(a) the sale of Opinions (£7,235) ;
(b) the sale of the Bulletin (£3,703).
47. According to the publication policy recommended above in Section C,
the material previously published in the Bulletin would in the future appear in
the Opinions series. All new applications and all applications outstanding
would be destined to appear once only in the Opinions series, and it is, therefore,
anticipated that this source of income would continue as in the past, and would
indeed probably increase if the output of the Commission increases as forecast
by Mr. Hemming. .
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature XXV
48. The Income derived from the sale of the Bulletin would be replaced
by the collection of subscriptions by the International Association. In
estimating the support likely to be given to such an Association, the Interim
Committee has been guided by the support given to two organisations of a
somewhat similar nature. The first is the International Association for Plant
Taxonomy. The second is the Society of Systematic Zoology (of the United
States of America).
49. The International Association for Plant Taxonomy was inaugurated
on 10th July 1950, during the VIIth International Botanical Congress at
Stockholm. 130 foundation members were enrolled and headquarters
established in the Netherlands. On February Ist, 1952, membership had
increased to 435, coming from 38 countries. By 1952 this had increased to
600 members from 50 countries, and by 1954 to 700 members from 58 countries.
The I.A.P.T. recognises the following classes of membership :
Individual : Annual Subscription
Regular £1 1s. ($3.00)
Associate 7s. ($1.00)
Institutional :
Supporting £17 10s. ($50.00)
Regular £8 15s. ($25.00)
Associate £3 10s. ($10.00)
The Association publishes a Journal entitled “ Taxon”, which all regular
members receive free. Nine numbers, totalling 280 pp., were issued in 1957.
It also publishes occasional volumes in a series known as Regnum Vegetabile,
some of which are issued free to regular members, others made available at
reduced prices. The 1952 edition of the International Code of Botanical Nomen-
clature was issued in this form free to regular members. The Committee has
been informed that the subscription charged for Associate membership does
not cover the cost of the publications issued.
50. The Society of Systematic Zoology is an American society with a
membership of 1,200. The annual dues are $2.00 for membership, $4.00
additional for those members desiring to subscribe to the journal “ Systematic
Zoology ”’.
51. The Committee is encouraged to believe that the proposed International
Association for Zoological Nomenclature will not receive less support than the
similar International Association for Plant Taxonomy. The number of
zoologists employed in systematic work is greater than the number of botanists
' similarly employed, and some idea of those potentially interested in zoological
nomenclature can be gained by the membership of the Society of Systematic
Xxvi Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Zoology in America. The Committee believe that this is an indication that it
would not be unduly optimistic to forecast that the membership of the
Association might reach 1,000 during the first three years, as many as 500 from
America, and an additional 500 from the rest of the world.
52. In an attempt to estimate how many institutions would be prepared to
support the Association as Institutional Members, members of the Committee
have privately approached the librarians of certain institutions who at present
subscribe to the Bulletin. As a result of these investigations the Committee
believes that within the first three years the number of Institutional Members
enrolled in the Association would exceed the present number of subscribers to
the Bulletin. It is expected that some of those institutions that subscribe
at present to the Bulletin but not to the Opinions will in future also subscribe
to the Opinions series, as duplication is to cease.
53. From these considerations, the Committee forecasts that the income
collected by the International Association should reach at least £1,400 by
1961.
54. Expenses of the new Secretariat will, if the recommendations are
approved, be divided into three categories :
office expenses ;
printing expenses ;
salaries.
55. Office expenses will include stationery and postage, and it is not anti-
cipated that they will be less than £1,000, which is the approximate cost noted
in the expenses of the Secretariat in 1956, less the amount expended on rented
accommodation for storage of back-numbers of publications. This sum will be
split between the Netherlands and America.
56. It is recommended that all printing be executed in the Netherlands.
It is difficult to budget any exact figure without specifying the size of the
journal to be issued. Purely for the purposes of this calculation, and without
recommending any particular size of publication as appropriate, a monthly
printing of 2,000 copies of a journal, each part consisting of 32 pp., would
have cost about £875 in 1954. To this must be added £5,000 for the
printing of the Opinions series (which cost £4,234 according to the figures
given for 1956).
57. The printing of the Code would have to be subsidised to a certain
extent. It is understood that considerable donations have already been
subscribed for this purpose, and are held by the International Trust. The
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature XXVii
entrance fee of 7s. payable to the International Association would help offset
the free issue of the Code to new members. It is recommended that the Code
should be offered to the public at £1 15s. ($5.00).
58. The salaries envisaged under the recommended scheme are confined
to the purposes of providing clerical assistance for the two Joint Secretaries.
The wages thus proposed amount to £715 ($2,000) for the United States and
£480 for the Netherlands.
59. Summarising the expenses envisaged for 1959 are as follows :—
Office expenses £1,000
Printing expenses £5,875
Salaries £1,200
Total £8,075
60. The income expected during the first year (1959) can be estimated
as :—
Sale of Opinions series (including back-stocks of
Opinions and Bulletins) £7,000
Subscriptions to the Association £1,075
Total £8,075
61. That part of the expenses expected to be incurred in the United
States must be met from income collected in the United States. It will,
therefore, be necessary to appoint a Regional Treasurer for the United States,
which officer could most conveniently act on behalf of both the International
Association and the International Trust.
62. The appointment by the Trust of Mr. R. V. Melville as Assistant
Secretary to the Commission for one year, from lst May 1958 to lst May 1959,
should facilitate the smooth transfer of the Secretariat from its present offices
to the new offices that are now recommended for Leiden and Washington.
63. The Trust as constituted must have its Registered Office situate in
England. Ifthe Secretariat were to move out of England, it might be advisable
for the Trust to move also. Although this is not possible in the terms thus
quoted owing to legal regulations, the Committee has been given to understand
by Mr. Hemming that the Trust could hand over all its assets and responsibilities
to a similar organisation in another country, providing the Trust was satisfied
that such another organisation had legal safeguards comparable to those
imposed on the Trust itself.
XXviii Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
ANNEXE I TO THE APPENDIX TO THE INTERIM COMMITTEE'S
REPORT
Report of the Committee appointed under the Chairmanship of
Professor Sparek to consider ways and means of improving the
financial position of the International Trust for Zoological
Nomenclature
Copenhagen, 10th August 1953
In view of the announced intention of the Honorary Secretary to retire
from his position before the next Congress, the Committee considers it absolutely
essential to face up to the difficult task of finding a replacement and also to
explore the possibilities of placing the entire Secretariat of the Commission
on a sound financial basis which will require less personal sacrifice on the part
of the Secretary. This the Committee understands to be the problem referred
to it by the Rt. Hon. Walter Elliot, Chairman of the International Trust, by
Mr. Francis Hemming, Honorary Secretary and Managing Director of the
Trust, and by Prof. Dr. R. Sparck, President of the International Congress of
Zoology.
In approaching the problem, the Committee recognizes that it is extremely
unlikely that a new secretary can be found who possesses the remarkable
combination of characteristics which have made the present secretary’s regime
so productive and successful. Even if a new man of this calibre were found, it
would be undesirable, as it is even now unfair, to impose such an enormous
load on one person. The Committee therefore believes that it is essential to
realize that in the future the new Secretariat must inevitably operate on
quite a different scale and in quite a different manner than at present.
With these considerations in mind, the Committee respectfully offers a
plan for consideration by the Permanent Committee of the Congress. The
plan is set up in three stages, recognizing that a suitable transition period
would be an essential feature in any scheme.
FIRST STAGE: The first stage must clearly be to appoint the necessary
new officers, preferably before the end of the present Congress. These, the
Committee feels, should be two in number, an INTERIM SECRETARY-
DESIGNATE and an EDITOR-DESIGNATE. The Permanent Committee
will perhaps desire that such officers should be elected to the International
Commission if not already members, and, if they concur, they will no doubt
approach the International Commission with a view to securing their election
forthwith. If the right men can be found and appointed at this time and if,
in addition, they have participated in the Colloquium at Copenhagen, the
Committee feels that important advantages would result, as follows: (a) the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature xxix
Permanent Committee of the Congress and the International Commission
would have ensured continuity of the Secretariat during the next inter-congress
period ; (b) the Interim Secretary-Designate would have the official authority
and blessing of the Congress ; and (c) the Interim Secretary-Designate would
have the enormous advantage of advice and consultation with the present
Honorary Secretary during the remaining period of service of the latter. The
first of the duties of the Interim Secretary-Designate would be to plan and
organize the future of the Secretariat along the lines suggested below.
SECOND STAGE : The second stage would commence immediately at the
close of the Congress and would be terminated as soon as the resignation of the
present Honorary Secretary becomes effective. Mr. Hemming has requested
that arrangements be made to permit him to devote his attention to completing
the proceedings of the Copenhagen Colloquium, to assembling the materials
to be used as a basis for President Bradley’s consolidation of the new Rules,
and to finishing the individual cases which are now before the Commission. The
Committee feels that this stage will perhaps be the most important in the
entire history of the Commission. Therefore every effort should be made to
facilitate the important work of the Honorary Secretary. To this end it is
proposed that funds be solicited for the immediate employment of additional
clerical assistance for the present Secretariat.
THIRD STAGE: The Committee believes it essential that the inauguration
of the new plan coincide with the publication of the new Rules. This is all-
important because of the opportunity presented at that time to capitalize
upon the increased interest in nomenclature which will surely occur. Steps
should be taken to see if such a timetable would be acceptable to Mr. Hemming,
and, if so, the third stage would start with the assumption of full responsibility
by the Interim Secretary and the Editor. It is suggested that, in view of the
necessity of putting into operation a new and as yet untried plan, this
third stage be regarded as terminated at the next Congress, when the whole
arrangement will be subject to review,
The plan that the Committee proposes should be put into force during this
period is as follows :—
1. A new financial structure shall be organized on the basis of an
international society which would be organized for the study of zoological
nomenclature in general and for support of the International Commission in
particular. The detailed organization and promotion of the new society would
be a primary duty of the new Secretary—working in co-operation with an
interim sub-committee of the Congress (see below), with existing scientific
Societies and institutions, and with individual zoologists throughout the world.
It is suggested that the new society consist of subscribing members, and various
categories of contributors including private and public institutions and perhaps
also governments. All subscribers would receive the Bulletin of Zoological
‘Nomenclature at no extra cost and other publications of the Commission at a
reduced rate.
XXX Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
The new Revised Rules would also be issued free to all members during the
first year. The possibility of affiliation with other societies which already
have a large membership is considered advantageous and desirable.
2. It is clear that during the Second Stage, pending the adoption of the full
plan, it will be essential that the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and the
policy and structure of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
remain unchanged.
Since a substantial increase in income from publications cannot be anti-
cipated in the immediate future, a grant-in-aid will be necessary for one or two
years after the new scheme comes into operation. It is expected, however,
that funds will become adequate as the new plan gathers way.
3. In the view of the Committee, it is absolutely essential to make realloca-
tion of the arduous duties which are now carried out at great personal sacrifice
by the present Honorary Secretary. Under the proposed scheme some of
these duties, including financial matters, would be handled by the Society
through its officers and members. It will be a matter for detailed consideration
whether such a procedure will fit in with the present structure of the
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. If not, alternative arrange-
ments will have to be inaugurated during the Second Stage. The Committee
inclines to the view that in any case the Interim Secretary-Designate should
not hold conjointly the post of Honorary Managing Director of the Trust. If
it were found desirable to dissolve the Trust, it would of course be necessary
for the financial duties of the Managing Director to be delegated to some
other appointment.
4. It is further proposed that general matters relating to publications be
delegated to a publication committee of the Society, of which, of course, both
the Interim Secretary and the Editor would be ex officio members. Although
the Editor and Interim Secretary would always have to maintain closest
co-operation, all routine matters in connection with publications would be
handled by the Editor. In this way the secretariat would be relieved of an
enormous amount of routine work.
ACTIVATION OF THE PLAN: Specifically, the Committee proposes
that before the conclusion of the Copenhagen Congress
(1) both a Secretary-Designate and an Editor-Designate be appointed ;
(2) an Interim Committee of the Congress be appointed to carry out the
wishes of the Permanent Committee during this period of transition
(it is suggested that a member of the Permanent Committee of the
Congress be designated as chairman of this Interim Committee and
that the Secretary-Designate be made Secretary of the Committee.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Xxxi
Other members should be selected with a view to the international
character of the project, but the Interim Committee need not be
large) ;
(3) the Interim Committee be authorised to approve such a plan as out-
lined above when the details have been worked out by the Interim-
Secretary-Designate and the time has come for inauguration of the
plan.
(4) If this scheme is approved by the Committee, it will of course be
necessary to ensure that the International Trust for Zoological
Nomenclature be formally notified of the fact.
(5) It is further recommended that either the Permanent Committee or
the International Commission should solicit whatever authorities
may be desirable to secure for the two persons appointed release
from such part of their present duties as might be necessary.
ANNEXE 2 TO THE APPENDIX TO THE INTERIM COMMITTEE’S
REPORT
Action taken by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature and communicated to Professor Sparck on 10th
August 1953
The Commission agreed :
1) at once to create the following additional Offices, namely :-—
g y.
(a) the Office of Interim Secretary-Designate ;
(b) the Office of Interim Editor-Designate ;
(2) to allot to the foregoing Offices the duties specified in the Report of
the Committee established by the Colloquium on Zoological Nomen-
clature on the recommendation of the Right Hon. Walter Elliot,
Chairman of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature ;
(3) to elect forthwith to be members of the International Commission
Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University) and Dr. L. B.
Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) ;
(4) to appoint Mr. Sylvester-Bradley to the Office of Interim Secretary-
Designate and Dr. Holthuis to the Office of Interim Editor-Designate ;
(5) to appoint the foregoing Officers to be Interim Secretary and Interim
Editor respectively as from the date on which Mr. Francis Hemming
relinquishes the Office of Secretary to the Commission ;
(6) to enlarge forthwith the membership of the Executive Committee of
the Commission by the addition thereto of the Interim Secretary-
Designate and the Interim Editor-Designate.
———_— |
SCL. rer 2 tess cuca. oeUR
0 8 I rm) oe ee oe oe puey ul ysep
S isk fee x a sqsoo Suryeordng
3 ee ee eas y gosuodxo Surjoavsy s,A1By9199§
oe e- ee sonbe
& 0 &I * a: ++ gonbeyo pue sesreyo qu es fp pes aD Pee
=e ope: =: = ei ++ goog ,systGAy, 0 -IP9t..* # ‘+ yueq uvowouy Aq porsc]
8 jae oT oe aie ais ate I3qLIMe dif, x0 aaa sosreyo Sse] ‘eotlouly Ul oly Ue BIA PoLlof
s ; os -sueay pure ‘ABopoo7, o1yeuteyshg Jo Ayo100g
Ss 8.<6t- ek = sa “: = <3 AIOUOTIEYS wos peatooer QO'OS$ 1OF enbeys jo spes001g
2 0 € euoyas[ay, 0 SE LE2° eouraury jo Aqarog [eo Bopou0 yg
3S 7) fe Aa dara a s oe oe ve sose4sog WOIF POALIL 00'0S$ 10F enbeyo jo spes001g
BS ‘ps 5 ‘p's 5
aungupuada iT IULOOUT
go}}IUIUIOD WIIe}UT et} JO einypuedxg pue sul0du]
qiodoy S,c0}jfOIU0D UIIIE}UT Of} OF xtpueddy oy} 0} ¢ exeudy
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature xxxiii
DOCUMENT B
COMMENT ON THE REPORT OF THE INTERIM COMMITTEE ON
THE SUBJECT OF THE FUTURE ORGANISATION OF THE WORK
OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
Statement dated 8th July 1958 prepared by the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
[Communicated to the Colloquium for information by direction
of the President of the Congress]
The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature has been invited by
the President of the Congress to give some preliminary comments on the
Report of the Interim Committee set up by Professor Sparck’s Committee
after the Copenhagen Congress, for consideration by the Comité Permanent,
to whom the Report has been referred by the President.
2. The Trust, as the body in whom are vested the assets on which the
work of the Commission depends, has a special responsibility to the Congress in
regard to the financial and administrative support of the continuing activities
of the Commission. The Trust has considered the Interim Committee’s Report
in the light of its knowledge of the problems of the work of the Commission
and its experience over the last ten years.
3. The Trust recognises that the Interim Committee has been bound to
work out details of the plan of organisation contemplated at Copenhagen. At
the same time, the Trust must draw attention to the very considerable change
in circumstances that has taken place since the Copenhagen Congress. At that
time the position of the Secretariat of the International Commission was
extremely precarious, being entirely dependent on the free services provided
by the Honorary Secretary to the Commission. The work required from the
Secretariat as the result of the growing activity of the International Commission
was clearly more than an Honorary Secretary, however able and energetic,
could provide unaided, and there seemed no prospect of securing the finance
needed to obtain assistance. There seemed every prospect that, when Mr.
Hemming was forced on any grounds to give up his duties as Secretary, the
work of the Commission which had so greatly increased in activity under his
regime would come to a standstill, and that it might be extremely difficult,
especially in an inter-Congress period, to make any workable arrangements for
its future conduct. It was for this reason that Mr. Hemming brought this
' matter up at the Copenhagen Congress—he was already 60 at the time—by
announcing his intention to retire before the next Congress.
XXxiV Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
4. As it turned out, Mr. Hemming was able to continue his work on a
whole-time but unpaid basis for nearly five more years, during which a complete
transformation has been brought about both in the scale of operations and in the
financial position of the Commission. This development made it both necessary
and possible to engage a small qualified salaried staff, and resulted in an
entirely unprecedented flow of decisions, the benefits of which to zoology
and palaeontology are already obvious.
5. In place of the precarious financial situation reported by the Chairman _
of the Trust at Copenhagen, the Trust became possessed of an income and
reserves sufficient to provide a reasonable secure financial backing for the
operations of the Commission. When therefore the contingency of Mr.
Hemming’s retirement actually matured in April last, it was possible to avoid
any interruption by engaging a whole-time salaried scientist and to ensure a
smooth transfer of the work of the Secretariat to new accommodation.
6. The basis of the financial policy consisted in placing on sale the Bulletin
of Zoological Nomenclature and the Opinions which are the tools by which the
Commission carries out its work. A sufficient number of important institutions
in different parts of the world have become regular subscribers to these
publications to provide the resources needed for financing the Secretariat and
for building up resources for the future.
7. The Trust appreciates that at first sight it would appear economical
to rely on honorary staff, but it wishes to place on record its considered view
that in modern conditions the volume of work which is at present undertaken
and the rate at which decisions are promulgated could not possibly be main-
tained on such a basis. Still less could that be done if the responsibility were
divided between two or more persons and if it were attempted to carry on the
work in two or more places in different countries. It has indeed become
obvious that efficient service to zoologists and palaeontologists in what are
mixed judicial and scientific questions depends on the maintenance of a
whole-time staff, limited in number but well qualified, and working with
adequate office and library facilities. On a point of detail the Trust suggests
that the necessity or otherwise for renting the modest accommodation should
not be regarded as an important factor in the decision of principle. It feels
bound to warn the Commission that the disruption of the present organisation
and its replacement by a system of the kind discussed at Copenhagen could
only result in the rapid return to the precarious situation of the past, when
only a trickle of decisions could be obtained and then only after a long delay.
Even under present conditions there are about 300 cases in various stages of
progress in the Office of the Commission.
8. In brief, the Trust suggests that the situation has developed in an
unexpectedly favourable way since the Copenhagen meeting, that the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature XXXV
contingency which the Plan there discussed was designed to meet has been
successfully met, and that it is unnecessary and would be unwise to make
fundamental changes at the present time.
9. On the other hand, the Trust recognises the importance of many of the
points raised in the Interim Committee’s Report and agrees that they require
careful consideration. While the primary object of its publications is to
provide the Commission with the full documentation of all relevant aspects of
the problems on which it has to reach decisions, it recognises that there may
be some possibility of simplification in these publications and is fully prepared
to study the problem of achieving this. If such a simplification can be achieved
consistently with meeting the Commission’s needs, this might result in some
reduction in the cost of these publications.
10. The Trust also feels that its work might be helped if there were
associated with it a small number of zoologists from various countries with
whom it could consult from time to time on various matters and would gladly
consider any arrangements to this end that may be proposed. In the actual
composition of the staff, there is of course no reason why qualified individuals
from any country should not be eligible for appointment if they wish to be
considered.
HURCOMB
Chairman, International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
8th July 1958
: eee *
wie a
Ae aut
.
re 5
© 1958. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Printed in England by MsrcaLre & Cooper LIMITED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C2
VOLUME 15. Quadruple-Part 1/4 11th September 1957
pp. 1-120.
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
The Official Organ of
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
-~ ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE AO
yaorinoe ,
195!
- a Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
CONTENTS
Page
The Agenda Paper for the discussions on zoological nomenclature to be
held in London in July 1958: arrangements made by the
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature .. hh re 1
(continued inside back wrapper)
LONDON :
Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
and
Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publication Office,
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
1957
Price Four Pounds
(All rights reserved)
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
A. The Officers of the Commission
Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jorpan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological
Museum, Tring, Herts, England)
President: Professor James Chester BrapLey (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(12th August 1953)
Vice-President: Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amara (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953)
Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemmine (London, England) (27th July 1948)
B. The Members of the Commission
(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent
re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)
Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijgke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
(1st January 1947)
Senor Dr. Angel Caprera (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948)
Mr. Francis Hemmrne (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)
Dr. Henning Lemons (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948)
Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950)
Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)
Mr. Norman Denbigh Ritny (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950)
Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jacznwsxi (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw,
Poland) (15th June 1950)
Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur Musewm u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt
a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950)
Professor Dr. Erich Martin Hertne (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin,
Germany) (5th July 1950)
Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMarat (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President)
Professor J. R. Dymonp (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953)
Professor J. Chester BrapiEy (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
(President)
Professor Harold E. Voxss (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana,
U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
Professor Béla Hanxé (Mezdgazdasdgi Museum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)
Dr. Norman R. Stout (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(12th August 1953)
Mr. P. C. Sytvuster-Bravey (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953)
Dr. L. B. Hotrsuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th
August 1953)
Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra,
A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954)
Dr. Alden H. Minter (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California,
U.S.A.) (29th October 1954)
Doc. Dr. Ferdinand Pranri (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October
1954)
Professor Dr. William Kiianetr (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th
November 1954)
Professor F. S. Bopenaumer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954)
Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954)
Professor Enrico Tortonrse (Museo di Storia Naturale “ @. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th
December 1954)
~
©
SS BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
\
Volume 15, Quadruple-Part 1/4 (pp. 1—120) 11th September 1957
THE AGENDA PAPER FOR THE DISCUSSIONS
ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
TO BE HELD AT, AND IN CONNECTION WITH,
THE FIFTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY,
LONDON, JULY 1958
(Note by the Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature)
By an arrangement made with Sir Gavin de Beer, the President of the
Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology to be held in London in July
1958, the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature has allotted two
volumes of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature to serve as Agenda Volumes
for the Section on Nomenclature of the foregoing Congress. These Volumes
will in addition constitute the Agenda Volumes for the discussions to be held
in connection with the above Congress both by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature and by the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature
which is being organised by the International Trust and which will hold its
First Meeting on Wednesday, 9th July 1958, i.e. one week before the actual
opening of the Congress. The two Agenda Volumes so to be provided are
Volumes 14 and 15.
2. The first of the London Agenda Volumes (Volume 14) is being devoted
to the draft of the English text of the Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature
Zoologique, as amended by the Paris (1948) and Copenhagen (1953) Congresses,
which has been prepared by Professor J. Chester Bradley.
3. In the present volume, which constitutes the second of the two London
Agenda Volumes, there will be published (a) any comments which may be
received on Professor Bradley’s draft and (b) any proposals for the further
improvement of the Régles which may be received. The International Trust
has been notified by the President of the London Congress that it is his view
that the harvesting of the reforms of the Régles decided upon by the Paris
and Copenhagen Congresses should be treated by the Section on Nomenclature
as having the first priority and should be dealt with by it in advance of any
other item on the Agenda. The work of the Colloquium is accordingly being
organised on this basis.
A
2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
4. The method to be followed in the present volume for publishing docu-
ments included in the London Zoological Nomenclature Agenda Paper will
follow generally that adopted by the Trust when in 1953 it published (in
Volumes 8 and 10 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature) the corresponding
Agenda Paper for the Copenhagen Congress. As on that occasion each subject
will be allotted a Case Number and papers relating to that Case will be allotted
consecutive Document Numbers. Thus for Case Number 1 the first of the
papers submitted will be allotted the Document 1/1, the second, Document
1/2 and so on.
5. All the subjects on which communications have already been received
have been allotted Case Numbers and the individual communications have
been allotted Document Numbers in the appropriate series. Under this
arrangement the first instalment of papers to be published in regard to any
given Case will bear consecutive Document Numbers. Thereafter, documents
relating to the Case in question will be published as and when they are
received.
6. The method of publication described above, for which there is no alterna-
tive if documents are to be published as rapidly as possible, inevitably means
that in the later stages it will not be possible to group Documents by reference
to the Cases to which they belong. In order to overcome this difficulty, it is
the intention of the Trust to issue on the eve of the meetings of the Colloquium
and the Congress a consolidated statement in which the comments and suggested
amendments published in the present volume up to that time will be grouped
by reference to the Articles of the Régles to which they respectively refer.
FRANCIS HEMMING
Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Managing Director and Secretary to the
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
19th July 1957
SECOND VOLUME OF DOCUMENTS PREPARED
AS AGENDA DOCUMENTS
FOR USE BY
THE COLLOQUIUM ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE,
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE,
AND
THE FIFTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS
OF ZOOLOGY
AT
THE MEETINGS OF THOSE BODIES TO BE HELD
IN
LONDON IN JULY 1958
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5
CASE No. 1
SUGGESTED NEW ARTICLE: PROPOSED RECOGNITION OF THE CON-
CEPT “ PARATAXON ” AND THE PROVISION OF RULES FOR THE
NOMENCLATURE OF UNITS OF THIS CATEGORY
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)
DOCUMENT 1/1
Note on procedure: The document reproduced below as
Document 1/1 was originally submitted by Professor Moore and
Mr. Sylvester-Bradley in the form of a request that the Commission
should render a Declaration introducing and defining the expression
‘“‘ parataxon”’ and providing for the regulation of the nomenclature
of units belonging to the category so recognised.
As Secretary, I then took the view that owing to the novelty
and complexity of the proposals submitted, procedure by way of a
Declaration would be inappropriate and that the proper course would
be (a) for a decision to be deferred until the meeting of the Fifteenth
International Congress of Zoology in London in 1958, (b) for the
paper submitted to be placed on the London Agenda Paper, and
(c) that, prior to the Congress, all possible steps should be taken
to canvass opinion among interested specialists. This view was
accepted by the applicants. It is under the foregoing agreement that
the following paper is here placed on the London Agenda Paper.
[intl’d F.H. 11th July 1957.]
Proposed insertion in the ‘‘ Régles ’’ of provisions recognizing ‘* Parataxa
as a special category for the classification and nomenclature of discrete
fragments or of life-stages of animals which are inadequate for identification
of whole-animal taxa, with proposals of procedure for the nomenclature
of “ Parataxa”’
By RAYMOND C. MOORE
(University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.)
and
P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY
(University of Sheffield, England)
The purpose of the present application is to draw to the attention of the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature the serious confusion
Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 15, Quadruple-Part 1/4. September 1957.
6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
of nomenclature that exists as a result of the naming of certain fragmentary
fossils which have been classified without regard to the whole-animals of which
they form part. A previous decision of the Commission made at Paris which
relates to the problems here presented recommended that names applied to
fragments* should be treated as technical terms rather than as zoological
names. Authors are now preparing manuscripts for the Treatise on Inverte-
brate Paleontology dealing with the taxonomy of fragmentary fossils comprised
in groups assigned to the holothurians, crinoids, conodonts, coccoliths, ammo-
noids, scolecodonts and others. Some of the manuscripts already submitted
employ divergent methods of dealing with the nomenclature of fragments,
and need revision if they are to comply with the Régles. If they follow the
recommendations made at Paris (1948),’ they have to employ a terminology
that falls outside the scope of zoological nomenclature altogether. Thus they
are deprived of the protection, regulation, uniformity and stability that the
Régles afford to the taxonomy of whole-animals. This leads to uncertainty
in the application of the Law of Homonymy which affects every branch of the
Animal Kingdom, and we regard it as a matter of prime importance that the
nomenclatural position of these groups should be regularized. Editorial
policy as it concerns the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology is loath to allow
important sections of the text to employ nomenclature which clearly conflicts
with provisions of the Régles, or which falls outside the scope of the Régles.
We accordingly submit that the problems raised are of urgency and warrant
immediate attention.
2. We have consulted Professor J. Chester Bradley on the preparation of
this application, and he informs us that there is a possibility that the recognition
of parataxa might benefit other branches of taxonomy than the paleontology
of fragments. For example, the scheme might be of use in the special problems
concerned with the recognition of collective groups of certain stages, of great
medical importance, in the life-histories of parasites. Our application is
therefore worded so that the establishment of parataxa can be varied to suit
diverse circumstances. At the same time a procedure is recommended which
limits the application of the provisions relating to parataxa to rigidly defined
groups of animals specifically approved for the purpose by the Commission.
3. Special category of zoological entities comprising discrete fragments :
Discrete parts of various kinds of animals, chiefly skeletal parts, occur commonly
* As used throughout this application, ‘“‘ fragment” is understood to refer to part (or
according to the suggestion stated in para. 2 below, to a life stage) of an animal when such part
is deemed wholly inadequate for identification of a whole-animal taxon.
1 The decision here referred to was taken by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature at a meeting held on 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 293—294),
that Meeting being the Eleventh Meeting of its Session held in Paris concurrently with the
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, 1948. Owing to the complexity of the issues
involved it was later decided to defer the preparation of a Declaration giving effect to the
foregoing decision until there had been an opportunity to consider in greater detail the problems
at stake.
eo i he te le, tl
i
-
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7
in nature ; more especially they are represented by abundant fossils in sedi-
mentary strata of all geological ages from Cambrian to Recent. Examples
are isolated coccoliths ; spicules of sponges, octocorals, and holothurians ;
ossicles of crinoids, cystoids, blastoids, echinoids, and asterozoans ; annelid
jaws (scolecodonts) ; radular elements and opercula of gastropods and cephalo-
pods (aptychi) ; and the abundant fossils of unknown zoological affinities
called conodonts. A large majority, if not all, of these bodies are usefully
classifiable within the groups to which they belong, even though the genera
and species of animals from which they were derived is almost universally
unknown. Such discrete fragments of animals constitute a special category
of zoological entities which, though classifiable in varying degrees of detail
and precision, offers critical problems in nomenclature.
4. Importance of nomenclature for animal parts : There is little need for
the classification and nomenclature of fragments when whole specimens of
animals are available for study. This applies to virtually all work by neo-
zoologists on living animals and may be accepted also for most work by
paleozoologists on extinct animals because the fossils on which many thousand
taxa have been recognized and named are judged adequate for discrimination
of various genera and species of whole animals. In addition, there are multi-
tudinous dissociated fragments of animals which are far from sufficient for
identification of the whole animals that produced them and yet these are so
distinctive in themselves as to have great usefulness for identifying the sedi-
mentary strata containing them. These fragmentary paleontological materials
are indispensable for correlations of many rock formations in the earth’s crust
and for aid in establishing a trustworthy geochronology of the post-Precambrian
part of geological time. However, in order to make use of such fragments,
they must be classified, named, described, figured, and recorded as to occurrence.
When this is done, many prove to be invaluable. For example, the dissociated
fossils called conodonts have been demonstrated to constitute the only reliable
means for determining correlations and relative geological age of various strata
containing these fragments. Other highly fragmental remains of animals,
especially echinoderms are similarly useful, but so far have been little studied
because no satisfactory means of naming them in accordance with zoological
rules has been available. When suitable procedure is provided for applying
names to discrete animal fragments without reference to the whole-animal
species which they represent, this will encourage greatly the study of such
fragments, making them useful in stratigraphical palaeontology.
5. Systems of dual nomenclature : The taxonomic arrangement adopted
in by far the greater majority of fossils studied is exactly comparable to that
which would have been proposed if whole animals had been available for study.
_ In many cases, if a fragmental specimen is at first inadequate for the identifica-
tion of the whole animal from which it was derived, evidence may accumulate
later which will establish its identity. In these cases the normal operation
8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
of Art. 27 of the Régles (which states that the Law of Priority applies when
any part of an animal is named before the animal itself) takes care of the
nomenclatural situation. In a certain number of cases, however, the strati-
graphical importance of the fragments far transcends their importance as
biological entities. In these cases a dual nomenclature has grown up, one
providing names for the fragments, the other for the whole animals. Such
dual systems are contrary to the present provisions of the Régles, but they
have great utilitarian value and are currently employed in the taxonomy of
conodonts (see First Supplemental Application submitted herewith”), ammonoid
aptychi (see Second Supplemental Application submitted herewith*), holo-
thurian spicules (see Frizzell and Exline, 1955, Bull. Univ. Missouri School
Mines & Metallurgy, No. 89) and, to a somewhat lesser extent, in a number
of other groups. This application seeks to regularize the establishment of
certain of these dual systems by the establishment of parataxa as a special
category for the classification and nomenclature of the specified fragments.
In a sense a parataxon is a taxonomic category, but, as Professor Chester
Bradley has pointed out to us, in a zoologically more important sense it is
outside of taxonomy. The study of parataxa might even be termed “ para-
taxonomy’. Zoological taxonomy is a single system based on natural rela-
tionships into which, with varying degree of success, all animals can be fitted.
It is just because fragments of the type here described cannot be fitted into
that system that parataxa are called for. It might be argued that if these
names cannot be applied in ordinary taxonomy, then they are better ignored ;
to this there is the very forceful counter argument that it would be most con-
fusing to have the same name applied to both ordinary taxa and to parataxa.
Such homonymy must be avoided. The regulations we here recommend
therefore suggest that for all purposes except those of the Law of Homonymy,
parataxa should be regarded as not coordinate with corresponding whole
animal taxa. To this extent they may be ignored by the taxonomist who is
only concerned with zoological taxonomy.
6. Divergent methods of naming animal fragments : Scientific names which
have been published for discrete animal parts of the sort defined in the
- preceding paragraphs comprise more than 2,000 binomina which consist of
Latin or Latinized words with the initial letter of the first word capitalized
and that of the second word not capitalized. They form binomina which
follow exactly the prescribed pattern of zoological nomenclature applied to
species. Some authors have sought to treat such isolated fragments of more or
less undetermined taxonomic placement as if they were actual whole-animal
taxa, construing nomenclature of them as strictly subject to the Régles, whereas
others have sought to treat them apart from taxa recognized by the Régles.
2 The Document here referred to is reproduced as Document 1/2 Case No. 1 (pp. 14—34
of the present volume).
3 The Document here referred to is reproduced as Document 1/3 of Case No. 1 (pp. 35—71
of the present volume).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9
At least three divergent methods of nomenclature as regards assumed status
of the fragments are discernible, as follows :
_ (a) Binomina may be treated as names for whole-animals, even though
based on one or another kind of individual parts, and accordingly,
these are conceived to be strictly subject to all procedures and rules
of zoological nomenclature. This is the method universally applied
to conodonts up to the discovery of distinctively organized associa-
tions of conodonts called “‘ assemblages ” in 1934, and is the method
still adopted by all those specialists who have not considered the
nomenclature of assemblages. Over 1,500 specific binomina have :
currently been proposed for the discrete conodonts.
(b) Binomina may be classed as “ technical terms ” (Bull. zool. Nomencl.
4: 294) and not as zoological names, thus being excluded by
definition from application of any zoological rules. Efforts to
employ nomenclature of this sort have been published for discrete
fragments of crinoids (Moore, 1938, Denison Univ. Bull., Jour. Sci.
Lab. 33), holothuroids (M. Deflandre-Rigaud, 1953, Classe des
Holothurides. Traité de Paléontologie, ed. Piveteau ; Paris. 3:
948-957), coccoliths (G. Deflandre, 1952, Sous-embranchement des
Flagelles. Traité de Paléontologie, ed. Piveteau ; Paris. 1 : 99-130;
E. Kamptner, 1948 (Coccolithen aus dem Torton des Inneralpinen)
Wiener Beckens. SitzBer. Abt. I. Oester. 157 (No. 1—5) : 1-16, 2 pl.)
and ammonoid aptychi (see Second Supplemental Application
submitted herewith‘),
(c) Binomina may be treated as “ form” taxa, consisting of “ form-
genera” and “ form-species ”. This is the method in current use
when classifying discrete conodonts by those authors who also
differentiate “ assemblages ”’ (see First Supplemental Application
submitted heréwith'),
7. Objections to using the same procedure for the nomenclature of frag-
Ments as for whole-animals : It is evident that if scientific nomenclature
are represented by abundant fragments. Among other provisions, the Law of
Priority stipulates that “the oldest available name is retained when any
part of the animal is named before the animal itself’ (Art. 27a), and accordingly,
. * See Footnote 3.
5 See Footnote 2.
10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
fragment is found to belong, important disturbance of nomenclature may ensue.
Unless the Plenary Powers of the Commission are invoked and exercised, not
only must the name of the whole-animal taxon yield to that of the fragment,
but the nomenclature of all other fragments associated generically with the
concerned fragment becomes unsettled. It would be untrue to suggest that
“generic ” grouping of fragments is ever exactly equivalent to generic grouping
of whole-animal species. Examples of the nomenclatural confusion resulting
from this situation are cited in the immediate succeeding supplementary
applications dealing with conodonts and ammonoid aptychi.
8. Objections to nomenclature of fragments by use of technical terms :
If parts of animals are given binominal or other sorts of names which expressly
are rejected from the domain of zoological nomenclature and application of
the Régles, the purposes of orderly classification and description of fragmentary
remains of animals are almost certain to be defeated. Absence of coordination
and regulation in this area can only lead to chaos. Rules of homonymy and
synonymy no longer apply ; priority of publication has no significance and no
author needs to take account of work done by others. Such a method of
dealing with fragmentary remains of animals does not merit serious con-
sideration unless some sort of mechanism for regulation outside of the zoological
rules can be devised, and even then, it seems to us, more would be lost than
gained. Also, it is pertinent to emphasize the point that in the realm of
palaeozoology all specimens representing kinds of animal life are varyingly
incomplete, so that in fact, discrimination between fossils considered adequate
for classification and nomenclature under the Régles and those which must be
excluded from the application of the Régles on the ground of fragmentary nature,
is entirely subjective. It is on this account that we recommend that the
provisions concerning parataxa should be limited to special groups of animals
specifically defined for the purpose by the Commission.
9. Objections to the nomenclature of fragments as “ form ’’-taxa : It has
been suggested by one of us (Sylvester-Bradley, 1954, J. Paleont. 28 : 333-336)
that “‘form’”’-taxa, analogous to the ‘‘form-genera”’ or ‘‘ organ-genera ”
of the Botanical Code, could with advantage be used for the nomenclature and
taxonomy of fragmentary fossils, and in fact this method is already in current
use in the classification of conodonts (see succeeding supplemental applica-
tion A for the recognition of conodonts as parataxa). The procedure, however,
contravenes the Régles as they at present exist. Moreover, we feel that the
terms ‘“ form-genera”’ and “ organ-genera’”’ would be ambiguous if applied
to animal fragments, as concepts of ‘“‘ form” and “‘ organ” are not precisely
equivalent in botany and zoology. Therefore, we recommend that the
Commission considers the introduction of a new term for taxonomic units
composed exclusively of fragments of animals, and the term we propose is
parataxon (“‘ associate taxon ’’).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 11
10. Procedure for nomenclature of parts of plants and whole plants in
paleobotany : The problem of classifying and naming fossil plants is not different
in kind from that encountered by paleozoologists in studying fossil remains
of animals or by students of some Protista. Commonly, the various parts
of a plant, such as leaves, impressions of bark, fruits, and roots, occur separately,
but enough associated parts of some plants are found preserved as fossils to
show characters of the whole plants. Paleobotanical rules take account of
this situation by providing for separate categories of names, those for parts
of plants being termed “ form-species” and “ form-genera”’ or “ organ-
species ’’ and “ organ-genera””. Names belonging to these categories are not
applicable to those given to whole plants. The “ form-species ”, “‘ form-
genera ”’, “ organ-species”’, and “ organ-genera” of paleobotanists are thus
exactly equivalent to parataxa as here proposed for recognition by zoologists.
11. Procedure for nomenclature of animal fragments : The classification
and nomenclature of animal fragments within the scope of the Régles are to be
recommended, both because at present any exclusion is subjective and therefore
ambiguous and because scientific studies of fragments need the guidance and
protection furnished by universally accepted zoological rules. How can
nomenclature of fragments under the Régles be provided without meeting
insuperable difficulties ?. The need is to provide a means of preventing (a) the
invalidation of names applied to taxa of whole animals which are junior
synonyms of parataxa ; and (b) the invalidation of parataxa as synonyms by
the discovery that more than one parataxon belongs to a single whole-animal.
The chief requisite is the recognition and segregation of parataxa, and their
rigid exclusion from the category of commonly used taxa for whole-animals.
Then, the rules governing all aspects of the nomenclature of taxa may be
applied without any difference in mode or force to the category of parataxa,
except that for the purposes of the Law of Priority, a wall should be conceived
to separate nomenclature of whole-animal taxa from nomenclature of fragments
defined as parataxa. Thus, without explicit sanction of the International
Commission, a parataxon of fragments could not be transferred to the other
side of the wall so as to be classed as a taxon of whole-animals, and the valid
name of a whole animal never could be treated as a parataxon. Then nomen-
clature in the two realms would not be subject to instability by interference of
one with the other. For the purposes of the Law of Homonymy, taxa and
parataxa would be coordinate.
12. Procedure for determining which animal groups should be classified
by reference to parataxa : The governing principle which alone can determine
whether a part of an animal should be classified and named in terms of whole-
animal taxa, or alternatively, in terms of part-animal parataxa, is the degree
. of adequacy of available specimens for determining what are judged to be
diagnostic characters of a whole-animal taxon. Several sorts of animal parts
present no problem when tested by this principle, for obviously they are fitted
12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
only for parataxa. Here belong all isolated skeletal elements of coccoliths,
sponges, annelids, several classes of echinoderms, conodonts, and some parts of
mollusks such as opercula and elements of the radulas of gastropods and
aptychi of ammonoid cephalopods. Decision as to whether a particular group
of animal fragments should be classified in taxa or parataxa must clearly,
however, be removed from the realms of subjective judgment. It is therefore
recommended :—
(1) that the parataxa system should only be recognized as validly applied
to those animal-groups specifically authorized for that purpose by
the Commission ; and
(2) that special procedures should be provided for disposing of questioned
determination of the status as taxa or parataxa of certain names
applied to animal fragments.
It will be necessary then for any taxonomist desirious of employing the parataxa
system in cases not previously recognized to make application to the Com-
mission for authorization called for in point (1) of the present paragraph.
Decisions of the Commission given in such cases would not necessitate use of the
Plenary Powers, but we consider that it would nevertheless be desirable to
stipulate that voting on such application should not take place until a period
of six months had elapsed after its publication in the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature*®. This would allow time for the Commission to receive and con-
sider any objections that might arise from other specialists in the same field.
Referring to subpara. (2), it may happen that some groups classifiable in terms
of parataxa contain fragments which by their unusually distinctive nature are
considered certainly referable to a whole-animal species; it may then be
sought to admit the nomenclature of that part as the name of a whole-animal
taxon. If such action seems desirable as concerns previously published names,
it is suggested that the Plenary Powers be invoked. Also, if such action seems
desirable to an author on introducing a new name, then the “ challenge pro-
cedure ’’ outlined at Copenhagen could be invoked, whereby the author would
submit his proposal to the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ; if no objections
were raised to such a proposal during a two-year period following publication,
the name would automatically be regarded as applicable to a whole-animal
taxon ; if objections were received, the case would be decided by the Commission.
Recommendations :
13. In view of the facts and considerations which have been stated above,
we now formally submit the following request :—
(1) that Article 27, subsection (a) should be modified by excluding para-
taxa by the addition of the phrase “‘ except for parataxa ” ;
6 This is already the normal Rule in the case of applications of all types published in the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.
1
— . .
—- eu
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 13
(2) that a new Article should be incorporated
(a) defining the expression “ parataxon”’ in the following terms:
“a parataxon is a taxonomic category comprising discrete
fragments or life-stages of animals which, by decision of
the Commission, are deemed unidentifiable in terms of
the whole animals from which they were derived ”’ ;
(b) stipulating the following conditions for the institution of para-
taxa :—
(i) “any zoologist desiring that classification and nomen-
clature of a particular group of animal fragments should
be made in terms of parataxa must submit formal
application therefor to the Secretary of the Commission ;
the Commission will proceed to vote on such applications
only after a period of at least six months has elapsed
after publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature’ ”’ ;
(ii) “‘ once the Commission has ruled that the classification of
any group of animal fragments shall be in terms of
parataxa, that ruling shall apply retroactively, as well
as to future publication, irrespective of whether the
> 99
author in question uses the term ‘ parataxa’”’ ;
(c) stipulating that nomenclature applied to taxa and parataxa
should be mutually exclusive and independent for the purposes
of the Law of Priority, but coordinate for the purposes of the
Law of Homonymy, names belonging to one category not being
transferable to the other.
7 See Footnote 6.
14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/2
Note on procedure : The paper reproduced below as Document
1/2 was originally submitted to the Office of the Commission at a
time (as explained in the Note on Procedure prefixed to Document 1/1
(page 5 above) the applicants contemplated the possibility of approval
for their plan for the recognition of the category “ parataxon ” being
given by the International Commission by way of a Declaration. The
paper given below was prepared as the first of a series of applications
for the issue by the International Commission as soon as the “ para-
taxa’’ scheme had been approved, of directions applying that
scheme to particular groups. The decision to postpone the
*“‘ parataxa ’” scheme until the London Congress in 1958 made it
impossible to achieve any progress with the proposals submitted in
the present paper. That paper is, however, placed on the London
Agenda Paper for the purpose of illustrating the type of application
which might be expected to be received by the Commission if the
principal “‘ parataxa”’ scheme were to be approved. [Under the
established procedure of the Commission proposals relating to
individual names are not considered by it at meetings held during
Congresses, it having been found more satisfactory that such cases
should be studied in detail by the full Commission under the normal
Three-Month Rule. Accordingly, it is not proposed that the detailed
recommendations in regard to individual names contained in this
paper shall be considered at the London Meeting. The papers will,
however, be placed before the Commission for decision under the
normal procedure as soon as possible after the close of that Meeting.
{intl’d F.H. 11th July 1957.]
First supplemental application : application for a ruling of the International
Commission directing that the classification and nomenclature of discrete
conodonts be in terms of “ parataxa ”’
By RAYMOND C. MOORE
(University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.)
and
P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY
(University of Sheffield, England)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)
The purpose of this application is to remove existing instability and
confusion of nomenclature relating to the fossils of unknown affinity termed
conodonts and to promote continuity and universality of nomenclature as
applied to natural assemblages of these fossils representing whole-animal
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 15
taxa on the one hand, and as applied to discrete conodonts not identifiable in
terms of whole-animal taxa on the other. Supplemental to a preceding
application of general scope? which calls for recognition of nomenclatural units
termed parataxa, a Ruling of the Commission is sought directing that the
classification and nomenclature of discrete conodonts are to be in terms of
parataxa, including both already described forms and those which may be
described in future.
2. Need for recognition of conodont parataxa : The fragmentary fossils
consisting of toothlike structures called conodonts are widely distributed
remains of animals which have been demonstrated to possess high value in
stratigraphical paleontology. Prevailingly they occur in isolated manner,
different kinds (more than 1,800) being described and named as genera and
species. However, at least 250 natural assemblages have been claimed to
indicate associations belonging to individual animals of unknown affinity, and
these too have been described as different genera and species and given names
distinct from those attached to their discrete parts. The elements of such
assemblages not only are found to be constant in composition (except for
adventitious incompleteness of some specimens) but many show the parts
preserved in oriented relationship to one another. As is made evident in the
following paragraphs, the system of nomenclature currently adopted runs
counter to the present Régles ; it is thus illegal and as a consequence unstable.
This may be avoided in a manner which would advance continuity with mainten-
ance of the present system of nomenclature by defining. genera and species
of discrete conodonts as parataxa, while recognizing certain assemblages of
them as whole-animal taxa.
3. Subjective nature of recognition of “‘ assemblages ’’ : The recognition
of an assemblage of discrete conodont parts as representative of a single animal
is subjective. The evidence presented for many of those described is regarded
as conclusive by a majority of authors, but a few of the assemblages described
are now thought to be random segregations, perhaps of faecal nature. It is
clearly desirable to remove subjective elements from application of the Régles,
and it is suggested that this be achieved by adopting wording which will make
it clear that names applied to assemblages of conodonts, presumed by the
author to be representative of single animals, are not available as names for
parataxa.
_ 4 Nomenclature of described assemblages: Eight generic names have
been proposed to designate assemblages of conodonts presumed by their
authors to represent single animals. Each of these assemblages is composed
1 The application here referred has been placed on the London Agenda Paper as Document 1/1
(pp. 5—13 of the present volume).
16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
of discrete parts, some assemblages being identified with genera and some with
species established previously on the basis of discrete parts. The nomen-
clatural position of the type species of each nominal genus of assemblages
is set out in Table 1 and further discussed in the following paragraphs.? Each
assemblage contains parts assigned to more than one genus of discrete conodonts.
On the other hand, several genera of discrete conodonts contain species
assigned to more than one genus of assemblages.
5. The generic name Duboisella Rhodes (1952b), with type species D. typica,
was proposed for 13 assemblages of conodonts of Pennsylvanian age from
Illinois. The components of the assemblages were identified by Rhodes
with five previously named discrete conodont species, each referred to a different
previously named genus. By the application of Article 27, these five species
should be placed in synonymy with D. typica, and the assemblage should be
known by the earliest name applicable.
(a) The generic names in question are :
Prioniodus Pander, 1856;
Hibbardella Bassler, 1925 ;
Lonchodina Bassler, 1925 ;
Idioprioniodus Gunnell, 1933 ;
Metalonchodina Branson and Mehl, 1941 ;
Duboisella Rhodes, 1952.
The type species of Prioniodus is known only from the Lower Ordovician
of Europe, and is most unlikely to represent a whole animal congeneric
with Duboisella, which is from the Pennsylvanian of North America.
Similarly, the type species of Hibbardella and Lonchodina are both of late
Devonian age, and unlikely to be congeneric with Duboisella. The type
species of Idioprioniodus (I. typus), however, is identified by Rhodes* as a
member of the assemblage named Duboisella typica, and on this basis the
name takes priority over Duboisella. The type species of Metalonchodina
is also identified by Rhodes with a member of Duboisella typica.
Metalonchondina must therefore be regarded as another junior subjective
synonym of Idioprioniodus.
(b) By Article 27, the specific name typica, as used by Rhodes in the
combination Duboisella typica, must be replaced by its earliest
synonym.
The six specific names in question are :
bidentata Gunnell, 1931 (Metalonchodina) ;
clarki Gunnell, 1931 (Lonchodina) ;
2 See page 29.
* Rhodes regards Idioprioniodus, when used for designation of discrete conodonts, as
synonymous with the genus Ligonodina Bassler (1925), whose type species is Devonian, although
this synonymization would not be likely to apply to the genus when used to design assemblage .
we =a
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17
conjunctus Gunnell, 1931 (Prioniodus) ;
subacoda Gunnell, 1931 (Hibbardella) ;
typus Gunnell, 1933 (Idioprioniodus) ;
typica Rhodes, 1952 (Duboisella).
Of the four names proposed by Gunnell in 1931, subacoda is only
conditionally recognized by Rhodes as part of the assemblage in question
(“ Hibbardella cf. sub acoda”’), but any one of the other three should, by
application of the present Régles, be chosen as the senior name to designate
the assemblage, which should therefore be known either as Idioprioniodus
bidentata, I. clarki, or I. conjunctus, but not (according to the present Régles)
as Duboisella typica.
(c) In addition to the type species, four other species based on discrete
conodonts have been assigned to Metalonchodina as follows :
acutirostris Mehl and Thomas, 1947, Miss., N.Am. ;
alternata Mehl and Thomas, 1947, Miss., N.Am. ;
deflecta Youngquist and Heezen, 1948, Penn., N.Am. ;
tenora Ellison, 1941, Penn., N. Am.
Possibly some of these species may belong to whole-animals congeneric
with Duboisella typica ; probably others do not. It is impossible to place a
discrete conodont in such a whole-animal taxon unless it is recognizable as
specifically identical with a form found in a natural assemblage. These
natural assemblages are rare, only about 250 having been so far described,
compared to the hundreds of thousands of discrete conodont fragments
known. It is not very likely, therefore, that it will ever be possible to identify
the four named species of Metalonchodina with whole-animal taxa. What
name should be used to designate them meanwhile ? The most convenient
and the most logical method is to continue referring them to Metalonchodina,
but this would only be possible, according to the Régles, if that name were
declared to be a parataxon.
REES
(d) Two nominal species in addition to the type species have been assigned
to Idioprioniodus. These are not necessarily derived from an
assemblage congeneric with Duboisella typica, but could be referred
to the discrete genus Ligonodina with which Idioprioniodus has been
previously identified.
6. Another case which raises problems of the same kind as Duboisella
is that of the genus Scottognathus Rhodes (1953), also named for a species
based on conodont assemblages. The type species is Scottella typica Rhodes
(1952) which is type species of Scottella Rhodes (1952) (non Enderlein, 1910).
and is based on 132 assemblages from Pennsylvanian strata of Illinois and
Kentucky. Rhodes recognizes four ‘‘ components ”, each consisting of one or
more pairs of conodonts, and each previously named as discrete conodonts.
Actually Rhodes lists, as synonyms, a very large number of species of discrete
conodont under each “ component”, but the only names that need concern
us here are the generic and specific names listed below. ,
18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(a) The six generic names in question in this case are :
Hindeodella Bassler, 1925 ;
Synprioniodina Bassler, 1925:
Idiognathodus Gunnell, 1931 ;
Streptognathodus Stauffer and Plummer, 1932 ;
Ozarkodina Branson and Mehl, 1933 ;
Scottognathus Rhodes, 1953.
As in the case of Duboisella, it is only possible to maintain that generic
identity exists between a genus based on discrete parts and a genus based on
an assemblage if the type species of the discrete genus can be identified in an
assemblage referred to the assemblage-genus. Neither the type species of
Hindeodella nor that of Synprioniodina have been identified in assemblages. In
any case, as species of each are known in more than one genus of assemblages,
neither name is suitable as a replacement name for Scottognathus. Rhodes, on
the other hand, identified the type species of both Idiognathodus and
Streptognathodus as members of assemblages of Scottognathus typica. By
application of Article 27, the genus should therefore be known as Idiognathodus ;
Streptognathodus and Scottognathus become synonyms. Ozarkodina has a type
species not yet identified in an assemblage, and remains, therefore, in the
same position as Hindeodella and Synprioniodina.
(b) The six genera in question are :—
claviformis Gunnell, 1931 (Idiognathodus) ;
excelsus Stauffer and Plummer, 1932 (Streptognathodus) ;
delicatula Stauffer and Plummer, 1932 (Ozarkodina) ;
microdenta Ellison, 1941 (Synprioniodina) ;
delicatula Stauffer and Plummer, 1932 (Hindeodella) ;
typica Rhodes, 1952 (Scottognathus).
Thus, in this case, the prior name for the assemblage described by
Rhodes as Scottognathus typica is Idiognathodus_claviformis Gunnell, 1931.
Fay (1952) records 64 nominal species of Idiognathodus and 43 of
Streptognathodus. Of these 107 species, all but 31 have been listed by Rhodes
as synonyms of forms found in such association with Scottognathus typica
as to suggest that they have been derived from animals conspecific with this
species. It is possible, but not certain, that these remaining 31 species
represent animals congeneric with Scottognathus typica. Until such time as
evidence indicates to which assemblage they belong it is difficult to see by
what generic name they should be described under the present Régles. All
doubt would be removed if they were classed as parataxa.
7. The case of the assemblage named JIlinella typica Rhodes (1952)
presents rather different problems. This species, based on 21 Pennsylvanian
assemblages, contains components identified by Rhodes with three genera of
discrete conodonts.
The three genera are :—
Lonchodus Pander, 1856 ;
Lonchodina Bassler, 1925 ;
Gondolella Stauffer and Plummer, 1932.
Of these three genera, only one contains individuals which have been
identified with previously named species, and no type species of a previously
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 19
named genus has been recognized in the assemblage. The species recognized
is of Gondolella, and contains five synonyms, G. curvata, G. magna, G. bella,
and G. minuta, all of Stauffer and Plummer (1932), and G. neolobata Ellison
(1941). The proper name for Jilinella typica, according to Article 27 could
therefore be Jllinella curvaia, I. magna, I. bella or I. minuta. It does not
seem likely that the type species of either Lonchodus or Lonchodina is
congeneric with JIlinella typica, for the type species of both are Devonian and
other species of these genera have already been identified as members of
assemblages ascribed to genera other than Iilinella (see Table 1). On the
other hand, it is possible that the type species of Gondolella (which is G.
elegantula Stauffer and Plummer, 1932) is congeneric with Jllinella typica,
in which case, according to the present rules, it would have to take priority
over Illinelia. These uncertainties in nomenclature would be removed by
the recognition of parataxa.
8. Each of the conodont assemblages described under the names Lochriea
Scott (1942) and Lewistownella Scott (1942) consists of four groups of components
which have been identified generically by Scott with names previously applied
to discrete conodonts, but not specifically.
The genera concerned are as follows :
(a) Lochriea montanaensis Scott, 1942
Prioniodus Pander, 1856 ;
Hindeodella Bassler, 1925 ;
Prioniodella Bassler, 1925 ;
Spathognathodus Branson and Mehl, 1941.
(b) Lewistownella agnewi Scott, 1942
Prioniodus Pander, 1856 ;
Hindeodella Bassler, 1925 ;
Cavusgnathus Harris and Hollingsworth, 1933 ;
Subbryantodus Branson and Mehl, 1934.
Both these assemblages were described from the Heath formation of
Montana (which is late Mississippian or early Pennsylvanian in age). It is
extremely unlikely that either is congeneric with the whole animal
represented by the discrete fragment from the Ordovician which is type
species of Prioniodus ; nor is it very likely that the Upper Devonian-Lower
Mississippian type species of the genus Hindeodella represents an animal
congeneric with either of these assemblages. Prioniodella also has a Devonian
type species and Spathognathodus a Silurian type species, so that these two
genera can likewise be regarded as unlikely to be senior synonyms of Lochriea.
; Cavusgnathus and Subbryantodus, on the other hand, both have Mississippian
- type species which might possibly be congeneric with Lewistownella. As
Fa Scott states of Lochriea, then: ‘‘ This Carboniferous animal most probably
ii is not generic with the genotype on which the oldest form genus was originally
% based, and to call it by that generic name, and to reduce the other names to
‘. synonyms, as would be required by the International Rules, not only would be
f improper but would result in utter confusion”. Under operation of the
present Régles, with present knowledge it is not possible to suggest which
name is the most “‘ proper ” for either assemblage. The consequent ambiguity
is solved in current practice by ignoring the application of the Law of Priority
in these cases. By the recognition of parataxa all ambiguities would be
removed and the current use of names sustained.
20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
9. Attention now may be directed to assemblages which have been assigned
generic names coinciding with those introduced for discrete conodonts. Two
cases can be cited. These are described in paragraphs 10 and 11 below.
10. An assemblage described by Eichenberg (1930, 177-182) under the
name “‘ Prioniodus hercynicus n. sp.” from the Carboniferous of Germany was
based on 30 figured discrete fragments.
(a) Eichenberg compared his figures with many named species of discrete
fragments, referred to the following genera, but none positively
identified with any particular species :
Prioniodus Pander, 1856 ;
Lonchodus Pander, 1856 ;
Polygnathus Hinde, 1879 ;
Hindeodella Bassler, 1925 ;
Bryantodus Bassler, 1925 ;
Ancyrodella Ulrich and Bassler, 1926.
The genus Prioniodus Pander was based on discrete conodonts of
Ordovician age, with P. elegans as type species. As a genus of discrete
conodonts it is considered to range from Lower Ordovician to Lower Permian
(Fay, 1952), and 171 nominal species have been assigned to it. Table 1
shows that species assigned to discrete fragments of this genus occur in more
than one genus of assemblages, species of Priontodus having been identified
in fact, in four of the eight assemblages tabulated.
(b) Branson and Mehl (1941) identified some of the elements figured by
Eichenberg with the following additional genera :
Gnathodus Pander, 1856 ;
Scaliognathus Branson and Mehl, 1941.
(c) Fay (1952) selected one of Eichenberg’s 30 figures as “ holotype ”
of Prioniodus hercynicus, and further synonymized this species
with Prioniodus undosus Ulrich and Bassler, 1926. If Eichenberg’s
specimens all truly belong to one animal, it is doubtful if Fay’s
action, in the light of Article 27, is valid.
(d) Eichenberg’s contention is subjective, and in this particular case the
evidence that the assemblage has been derived from a single animal
is not considered conclusive by all authors. However, if the present.
application concerning parataxa is accepted, the specific name
hercynicus as published in the combination Prioniodus hercynicus
(being stated by the author to be the name of an assemblage) would
not be available for a parataxon, despite its having been published
in combination with a generic name which we are recommending
should be added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 21
as a parataxon. In such case, should any author wish to substantiate
the identity of the single animal named by Eichenberg, it would be
necessary for him to refer to a genus not based on discrete fragments.
11. A case closely similar to that of Hichenberg’s assemblage named
“ Prioniodus”’ is that of a group of nine assemblages described by Schmidt
(1934) under the name Gnathodus integer n. sp. The generic name G@nathodus
was proposed by Pander in 1856 for discrete conodonts from Carboniferous
rocks of Russia. The type species (by monotypy) is G. mosquensis. It is
possible that G. mosquensis and G. integer represent whole animals that are
congeneric and Schmidt was therefore following the provisions of Article 27
in placing his assemblages in this genus.
(a) Schmidt recognized in his assemblages discrete fragments representing
the following genera :
Gnathodus Pander, 1856 ;
Lonchodus Pander, 1856 ;
Hindeodella Bassler, 1925 ;
Bryantodus Bassler, 1925.
(b) Rhodes (1952), from a study of Schmidt’s figures, concluded that
most of the discrete components had been misidentified. According
to Rhodes the following genera of discrete conodonts were represented
in the assemblages :
Hindeodella Bassler, 1925 ;
Synprioniodina Bassler, 1925 ;
Idiognathodus Gunnell, 1931, or
Streptognathodus Stauffer and Plummer, 1932 ;
Ozarkodina Branson and Mehl, 1933.
On this basis he believed that Schmidt’s species should be referred to the
genus he was then introducing with an assemblage as type species, Scotella
Rhodes, 1952 (=Scottognathus Rhodes, 1953; see para. 5(2) above).
However, a little later Rhodes (1953 : 612) changed his opinions, stating
that he believed Schmidt had correctly identified the polygnathid elements as
Gnathodus, and that as a consequence he did not believe the assemblage
named G. integer to be congeneric with Scottognathus typica.
(c) If the name Gnathodus is, by a ruling of the Commission, to be restricted
in use as the name of a paratoxon, a new generic name will be required
for the assemblage which has Gnathodus integer Schmidt as type.
We have communicated with Dr. Schmidt on this matter, and he
recommends that in this case the name Westfalicus should be used
for the genus of assemblages with Gnathodus integer as type.
(Westfalicus Schmidt, gen. nov.; type-species Gnathodus integer
Schmidt, 1934; diagnosis as given for Gnathodus Schmidt, 1934,
22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
pp. 79-84 ; gender, masculine ; derivation of name, from Westfalia,
the province of Germany in which the type species was found ;
distinction from Scottognathus Rhodes, 1953, the possession of a
different polygnathid component.)
12. Nomenclatural confusion relating to Polygnathus : The earliest descrip-
tion of a presumed natural assemblage of conodonts was published by Hinde
(1879, pp. 351-369), based on fossils obtained from Devonian rocks of New
York, and to this assemblage he gave the new name Polygnathus dubius (recte
dubia). Hinde’s description and illustrations, however, partly were based on
isolated conodonts which he considered to be equivalent to component elements
of the assemblage. The same paper includes 19 other species referred to
Polygnathus, all based on discrete conodonts, of which several now are considered
by specialists to belong elsewhere. Miller (1889 : 520) designated P. dubia
as the type species of Polygnathus and Bryant (1921 : 10-24) defined as lecto-
type of P. dubia one of the discrete conodonts figured by Hinde. This is an
application of Article 27 of the Régles in reverse, for (as in the case of the
a.atriction of the types of Prioniodus hercynicus Eichenberg and Gnathodus
integer Schmidt mentioned above in paragraph 11 (c)), instead of the oldest
name of a part applying to the whole, here the name of the whole (as intended
by Hinde) is fixed to a part. In addition to Polygnathus as thus restricted,
Branson and Mehl (1933 : 136-166) have identified among the constituents of
P. dubia representatives of conodont genera named Lonchodina, Hindeodella,
Bryantodus (all Bassler, 1925) and Spathognathodus (Branson and Mehl, 1941).
Other authors have made other identifications as indicated in Table I. Shall
the restriction in application of Polygnathus from the name for an assemblage
to the name for a component be denied ? If so, the discrete conodonts which
have come to be known as Polygnathus, including 179 described species, are
left without a generic name. Also, because Lonchodina (59 species), Hindeodella
(85 species), Bryantodus (154 species) and Spathognathodus (64 species) are names
published long after 1879, these genera and their 362 contained species are
threatened because as parts of the Polygnathus assemblage they might be
classed as junior synonyms. It has been maintained that the assemblage
described by Hinde is a fortuitious mechanical or faecal concentration. Under
these circumstances it seems wise to request the Commission to regard the case
of Polygnathus as an exception to the general provisions proposed here for the
establishment of parataxa. We would recommend that the Commission
should :
(a) reject (under the Plenary Powers if necessary) the name Polygnathus
dubia Hinde, 1879, as an available name for an assemblage of
conodonts presumed to represent a single animal ;
(b) issue a Ruling confirming the restriction of the lectotype of Polygnathus
dubia to a specified component as discussed in the next subparagraph ;
a ee ee eee er
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 23
(c) issue a Ruling that the generic name Polygnathus and the specific
name dubia as used in combination with Polygnathus are to be
regarded as parataxa.
13. The type species of Polygnathus : The position as regards the type-
species of Polygnathus may be summarised as follows :—
. (a) Hinde (1879 : 361-368) proposed the new genus Polygnathus “‘ for an
; animal possessing numerous minute and variously formed Conodont
teeth and similarly minute tuberculated plates grouped together,
but of which the natural arrangement is not at present known.
This meagre definition is all that is afforded by the single example
of the genus met with, in which about twenty-four entire and
: fragmentary teeth and six plates have been crushed together in a
a small patch of about one-fourth of an inch in diameter, in black
shale”. The “single example” of twenty-four fragments is then
described under the name Polygnathus dubius (recte dubia) and figured
as pl. 16, figs. 6-18. Hinde immediately follows this description
with the description of a further nineteen new species all assigned
to Polygnathus (four questionably so). All these nineteen species
were based on discrete conodonts. One was named P. pennatus
(recte pennata).
,
(b) Miller (1889 : 520) listed P. dubius as type of Polygnathus.
(c) Bryant (1921 : 23) described a species of discrete conodont under the
name Polygnathus pennatus Hinde, in the synonymy of which he
included “‘ Polygnathus dubius, G. J. Hinde (in part), ... Plate XVI,
fig. 17”. In the description of the species he states: “If, for no
other reason than convenience in classification, in the present state of
our knowledge, I believe the genus Polygnathus should be restricted,
so as to include only those tuberculated and rugose tritoral plates
discovered for the first time with the type specimen and characteristic
of it. These consist of leaf-shaped plates with a central rib or ridge
which is produced beyond the tritoral margin into a stem-like
flattened crest of pectinate teeth. P. pennatus is the smallest and
3 one of the commonest of these forms.”
(d) Ulrich and Bassler (1926: 43) in discussing the genus Polygnathus
make the following statement : “‘ Polygnathus was founded by Hinde
upon a group of plates and teeth occurring associated on the same
slab of Rhinestreet shale from western New York which he believed
to represent the remains of a single animal. In this assemblage no
less than five genera as now understood were represented, and it
RSs would have been better to have discarded the genus. Since Bryant
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
has redefined the genus and selected a genotype, P. pennatus, which
he says is represented in Hinde’s type assemblage of P. dubius in
the edge view of the common Genundewa species the genus may be
recognized in this restricted sense.’’ In spite of Ulrich and Bassler’s
contention, Bryant’s action could not, according to the present
Régles, be “‘ rigidly construed ”’ as selecting a type species. However,
Holmes (1928 : 17) lists P. pennatus as “‘ genotype ”’ with “ P. dubius
Hinde, 1879, part ” in parenthesis.
(e) Roundy (1926: 13) refers to Bryant’s restriction of the genus
Polygnathus, and states that: “As ... many of the various teeth
described and figured under the type species, P. dubius, have been
referred to previously described genera, it is necessary to select the
genotype. Of the forms figured by Hinde as P. dubius but three
(Pl. 16, figs. 16, 17 & 18) could now remain under the genus. Bryant,
however, says that figure 17 is only a differently oriented view of the
form described by Hinde as Polygnathus pennatus and that figures 16
and 18 show different aspects of the form described as P. cristatus.
I therefore propose that the genotype Polygnathus dubius Hinde be
restricted to the specimen shown on his Plate 16 as figure 17. Hence
Polygnathus pennatus Hinde becomes a synonym of P. dubius.”
Roundy reproduces Hinde’s figure 17 under the name Polygnathus
dubius.
(f) Branson and Mehl (1933: 146) make the following statement :
“Roundy calls Hinde’s figure 17 of plate 16 the genotype of Poly-
gnathus. Branson referred it to P. pennata after studying the types
and comparing the specimens, but as both were in slabs the comparison
was not entirely satisfactory. However, he took free specimens
of P. pennata and compared them by placing them adjacent to the
specimens on the slabs and thus verified his reference. The original
Polygnathus dubia, which consisted of specimens of several genera
. Should not have one of its kinds used as genotype. Bryant
used P. pennata as the genotype, and that seems the best way out
of a bad situation. If that procedure is followed and it is recognized
that Hinde’s figure 16 of plate 16 is not identifiable as to species, only
figure 18 of plate 16 remains to bear the name P. dubia and we are
using that specimen as the type.”
(g) If, as we recommend, the name Polygnathus is to be restricted to
the nomenclature of a parataxon, it will clearly be necessary for the ~
Commission to specify which species is to be regarded as type species,
_and which specimen is to be used in the interpretation of that species.
It will be seen from the foregoing analysis of the situation that
P. dubia has priority as type species, and that Hinde’s Pl. 16, fig. 17
has priority as lectotype of that species. The specimen is preserved
4
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 25
in the British Museum under the Catalogue Number A.4211. We
recommend that the Commission should specify that the genus
should be interpreted by references to this species and specimen.
(h) In the view of Bryant (1921), Roundy (1926), and Branson and Mehl
(1941), the specimen selected as lectotype of P. dubia according
to the recommendations is synonymous with the species described
by Hinde in the same paper as P. pennatus. It now becomes
necessary, therefore, to determine which of the two subjective
synonyms, P. pennata or P. dubia, should have priority. Bryant
(1921) synonymized the specimen subsequently selected as lecto-
type of P. dubia with P. pennata. Roundy (1926) on the other
hand quotes P. pennata as a synonym of P. dubia, rather than
vice versa. On the principle of “first reviser’’, it is difficult to
maintain that Bryant suppressed P. dubia in favour of P. pennata,
for he listed other of Hinde’s type-specimens of P. dubia in the
synonymies of several other species. In view of this ambiguity
we recommend that the Commission should rule that in the case of
the type-specimens of P. dubia and P. pennata being considered
members of one species, the former name is to have priority. This is
in accord with page precedence.
.
14. Gender of the genera Polygnathus and Scottognathus: The genus
Polygnathus Hinde (1879) was treated by him as masculine, and some subse-
quent authors have followed him in this practice. The word, however, is
derived from the Greek yva8os (jaw) which as a classical word has always been
regarded as feminine. Of the 179 species listed under this genus by Fay
(1952)47 are in masculine form, 71 in feminine form, and the remainder in a
form equivalent for either gender. It is recommended that the genus be
recorded as feminine in the Official List. The genus Scottognathus, also based
on the same Greek word, was treated as masculine. The name is of rather
recent introduction and has not yet been extensively quoted. We recommend
it should also be recorded as feminine in the Official List.
15. It is not proposed that all the names discussed in this paper should
at this time be entered on the Official Lists and Official Indexes, for many of
them are subjective synonyms even within the category of parataxa. We
believe that it is necessary, however, to enter on the Lists those names which
we have discussed above in some detail. Three of these names, which we are
proposing to enter on the Official List as parataxa, have become type-genera of
families. These are POLYGNATHIDAE Bassler, 1925, PRIONIODONTIDAE Bassler,
1925 (as PRIONIODIDAE) and GNATHODONTIDAE Camp, Taylor and Welles,
_ 1942. The last-cited name would be a junior homonym of GNATHODONTIDAE
Huene, 1929, if that name were an available name. Huene (1929 : 49) intro-
duced it for a family containing four genera of rhynchocephalian reptiles from
26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
the Triassic of South Africa. The name, however, is not nomenclaturally
available, as it is not based on the stem of a type-genus. Huene credited the
name to Broom (without date or bibliographic reference), but we have been
unable to trace to Broom any use of the name in the form quoted by Huene.
In a number af papers Broom referred to the ‘‘ Gnathodonts ”’ in the vernacular
(e.g. 1906 : 598) and at least once (1906 : 599) used the name Gnathodontia
as that of an Order.
16. In our view the present nomenclatural situation, which we have
disclosed in the foregoing analysis, is undesirable, and prejudices the strict
application of the Régles by leaving authors who work in this field with no
alternatives other than to disregard the Régles, or disrupt nomenclature to an
alarming extent. We therefore submit the following proposals to the Com-
mission requesting that they direct :
(1) that the nomenclature of all categories based on types which in the
opinions of the original authors, are discrete conodonts, shall be
in terms of parataxa and as such shall be unavailable as names of
taxa based on conodont assemblages ;
(2) that the names of all categories based on types which in the opinions
of the original authors, are assemblages of conodonts derived from
single animals, shall be unavailable for the designation of parataxa ;
(3) that, notwithstanding (2) above, the generic name Polygnathus Hinde,
1879 (: 359) (gender : feminine) (type species, by subsequent designa-
by Miller (1889 : 520) ; Polygnathus dubius Hinde, 1879) be placed
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as the name of a
parataxon ;
(4) that the name dubius Hinde, 1879 (: 362-365), published in the com-
bination Polygnathus dubius (Hinde, 1879) (type species of Poly-
gnathus Hinde, 1879) is to be placed on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology as the name of a parataxon, this species to be
interpreted by the specimen figured by Hinde as Pl. 16, Fig. 17,
now preserved in the British Museum (Natural History) under
Catalogue Number A.4211, which specimen is to rank as lectotype ;_
(5) that the following generic names, being introduced for assemblages of
conodonts believed by their authors to represent single animals,
are not available as names of parataxa, and are to be entered on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ;
Duboisella Rhodes, 1952 (: 895) (gender : feminine) (type-species,
by original designation, D. typica Rhodes, 1952) ;
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 27
Scottognathus Rhodes, 1953 (: 612) (gender : feminine) (type-
species, by original designation, Scottella typica Rhodes, 1952) ;
Illinella Rhodes, 1952 (: 898) (gender : feminine) (type-species, by
original designation, I. typica Rhodes, 1952) ;
Lochriea Scott, 1942 (: 293) (gender : feminine) (type-species, by
original designation, L. montanaensis Scott, 1942) ;
Lewistownella Scott, 1942 (: 299) (gender : feminine) (type-species,
by original desigriation, L. agnewt Scott, 1942) ;
Westfalicus Schmidt, [? 1956] (gender : masculine) (type-species,
by original designation, Gnathodus integer Schmidt, 1934).
(6) that the following specific names, type-species of the genera listed in
para. (5), being based on assemblages of conodonts presumed by their
authors to represent single animals, are not available as names of
parataxa, and are to be entered on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology :
typica Rhodes, 1952 (: 895), as published in the combination
Duboisella typica (type-species of Duboisella) ;
typica Rhodes, 1952 (: 891), as published in the combination
Scottella typica (type species of Scottognathus Rhodes, 1953) ;
typica Rhodes, 1952 (: 899), as published in the combination
Illinella typica (type species of Illinella) ;
montanaensis Scott, 1942 (: 295), as published in the combination
Lochriea montanaensis (type species of Lochriea) ;
agnewt Scott, 1942 (: 300), as published in the combination
Lewistownella agnewi (type species of Lewistownella) :
integer Schmidt, 1934 (: 77), as published in the combination
Gnathodus integer (type species of Westfalicus).
(7) that the following generic names, being introduced as names of
categories based on discrete conodonts, are to be entered as names of
parataxa on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :
Prioniodus Pander, 1856 (: 29) (gender : masculine) (type species
by subsequent designation by Miller, 1889 : 520, P. elegans
Pander, 1856) ;
Gnathodus Pander, 1856 (: 33) (gender : masculine) (type species,
by monotypy, G. mosquensis Pander, 1856) ;
(8) that the following specific names, having as type specimens discrete
conodonts, are to be entered as parataxa on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology :
elegans Pander, 1856 (: 5), as published in the combination
Prioniodus elegans (type species of Prioniodus Pander, 1856) ;
mosquensis Pander, 1856 (: 34) as published in the combination
Gnathodus mosquensis (type species of Gnathodus Pander, 1856) ;
28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(9) that the following family-group names, having as type genera conodonts
classed as parataxa, are to be entered as parataxa on the Official
List of Family-Group Names in Zoology :
POLYGNATHIDAE Bassler (1925: 219) (type genus: Polygnathus
Hinde, 1879) ;
PRIONIODONTIDAE (correction, first made herein, of PRIONIODIDAE)
Bassler (1925 : 218) (type genus : Prioniodus Pander, 1856) ;
GNATHODONTIDAE Camp, Taylor & Welles (1942: 525) (type
genus : Gnathodus Pander, 1856) ;
(10) that the name Scottella Rhodes, 1952, a junior homonym of Scottella
Enderlein, 1910, be entered on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ;
(11) that the names PRIONIODIDAE Bassler, 1925 (an Invalid Original
Spelling of PRIONIODONTIDAE) and GNATHODONTIDAE Huene, 1929
(an unavailable name since not based on the stem of a type genus)
be entered on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-
Group Names in Zoology.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 29
TABLE 1
Natural Conodont Assemblages and their Constituents
Names based on discrete conodonts with
which constituents of assemblages have been
identified
[Type species of genera indicated by an
asterisk (*)]
tIdioprioniodus Gunnell, 1933 (*I. typus Gunnell,
1933, L. Penn-U. Penn., N. Am.)
*7. typus Gunnell, 1933 .
Metalonchodina Branson & Mehl, 1941 (* Prioniodus
bidentatus Gunnell, 1931, M. Penn., N. ‘eee
* M. bidentata (Gunnell), 1931 :
Hibbardella Bassler, 1925 (*Prioniodus angulatus
Hinde, 1879, U. Dev., N. Am.)
H., sp., cf. H. subacoda (Gunnell) 1931 ...
Lonchodina Bassler, 1925 (*L. typicalis Ulr. & B.,
. Am
1926, U. Dev., m.)
L. clarki (Gunnell, 1931, L. Penn.-L. Perm.,
N. Am x
L. sp. [A], Rhodes, 1952 ...
ZL. subsymmetrica Branson & Mehl, 1941
Prioniodus Pander, 1856 (* P. elegans Pander, 1856,
L. Ord., Eu.), L. Ord.-U. Penn., Eu.-N. Am.
P. conjunctus Gunnell, 1931, M. Penn ...
P. sp. [B], Scott, 1942
P. sp. [C], Scott, 1942
P. undosus Ulrich & Bassler, 1926 ( 7 5
1952), U. Dev.-Miss., Eu.-N. Am.
P. radiatus Bryant, 1921
Names Applied to Conodont
Assemblages
@ |orj} > la |o lo |e Jo
RB jag/? la _ |& |8 (8 |&
SF ga Mae ae Cn ee ae
E ory ely . a g
Aaa * a aQ pO ”
BslS4\2 |es|S8lF |e jes
eS ero] pen ey foo Brae Oe = te
s<_¢it ein oF -lg = a7
os Oo 8 )19 DM 2G o g x
a(S P|o Aa eo) a Z| Sous
oZ|malast anj/o 2/9 ° ab
no) ~— an - 9 |.%-4 ea iva) i)
o = alm eS |2 A — =O
3 elssls*|s=|s2/8 =
c/s (22/88 a a aie LA
gal SIS 81s eo; Sols .
a Sse .;S &/ Ss SEIS als 8
ss iS) FisS/88/So1s o}8
&S] SISSl/S S| SSIS SIS ESS
S313 Sls 8 8 8iS$ sss] 2lek
3 3|s2 Sa, 33 2h 3A gs
sis - «|e. = :
SSS alesis als slscisslss
2s 4) 38 Sm Oo" iS & =
3Q S&S @ISsis SQlss 8s ©
3 ./3 2/8 8/3 2/8 g0/e0 18
S EISEISS(S ES Cle s(Ssls
AGSSRR ISS HAS |Re la ee
S| Rn | ec | eae nae [gael In gaan | Ade
Bape | SE EN | amie |e) erat geen |
x ie ae tea As Ce he
S| eal | aes | ey) peel Asan | oe ee
fue old BR bee Cae ek oe
saan shies aa A = f=] {X]
Me hese eset So eh hee: Te
spe ste wee i een Se eg lila
OT gee BEG Pie 5 Se ae, a ae
SST | aS |g Ngee le Di «al Pree gee:
Sie) eine oad $8
30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Idiognathodus Gunnell, 1931 (*J. claviformis
Gunnell, 1931, Penn., N. Am.
*I, claviformis Gunnell, 1931 __... aa ki a ee: ee ee ee ee
J. sp. [D], Rhodes, 1952 tss ee fob = = = s = 4) 7 eer ee
Streptognathodus Stauffer & Plummer, 1932 (*S.
excellsus S. & P., 1932, M. Penn.-U. Penn.,
N. Am.)
*§. excellsus 8. & P., 1932 — Sa és So Ke] Sap [hee Se —
Ozarkodina Branson & Mehl, 1933a (*O. typica B.
& M., 1933, M. Sil., N. Am.)
O. delicatula (S. & P.), 1932, Dev.-Perm., N. Am. =| tae = = = ae &
O. sp. [E], Rhodes, 1952 ... “a = = - = = = aay ff Ree
Synprioniodina Bassler, 1925 (*S. alternaia U. & B.,
1926, U. Dev.-L. Perm., N. Am.)
S. microdenta Ellison, 1941, Penn., N. Am. ... ah eee = = = me 2
S. sp. [F], Rhodes, 1952 ... oF es aro ~ - - = = = eae:
Hindeodella Bassler, 1925 (*H. et Us &.B.,
1926, U. Dev.-L. Miss., N. Am.)
H. delicutala Stauffer & Ss si M.
Penn.-U. Penn., N. Am. om ae Se eee
H. sp. [G] Scott, 1942... Bi ies a - - Bee | eae ay dhe & x oe
H. ap. [Hi] Scott, 1942... x. - Sieve) au 1) 20) Sa eee
H. sp. [1] Eichenberg, 1930 30 Bed Soe = j=) =.) ay Sonera
H. sp. [J] Schmidt, 1934 Pe ee be be es ees ee ees
H. acicularis Branson & Mehl, 1933b_ ... = -}/-]/-]-]-]-] - |B
Gondolella Stauffer & Plummer, 1932 (*G. elegantula
S. & P., 1932, Penn., N. Am.)
G. cufoata S. &P., 1932, M. Penn., N. Am. ... - et a os x a e
Lonchodus Pander, 1856 (*Centrodus simplex
Pander, 1856, Dev.-L. Carb., Eu.-N. Am.)
*L. simplex (Pander) fide Roundy, 1926 a8 -?}f-]-f-)-]- | = 9) Bg
Rach) Rhee, ar ee [ee te
Tierep fill Rishanbey 1090°~ eo ee =
L. sp. [M] Schmidt, 1934 Ses RD emer! tyaee Mam Frey CFE Meee ee
Ty. bneaies Padider, fide Roundy, 1926...) 2, -|'--03) 209i ees] L ak fee
Spathognathodus Branson & Mehl, 1941 (*Spathodus
primus B. & M., 1933a, Sil., N. see
S. sp. [N] Scott, 1942. = ree a le (lacked (a-Si | ae er oe
S. sp. [0] Branson & Mehl, 1933 3 fees i Cae Ci Wala Meee! (ete |i [=|
Prioniodella Bassler, 1925 (*P. normalis U. & B.,
1926, U. Dev., N. Am.)
P. sp. [P] Scott, 1942... ae at me — | =f = [Xena Seb
‘
M
if
j
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 31
Subbryantodus Branson & Mehl, 1934 (*S8. arcuatus
)
B. & M., 1934, L. Miss., N. Am
S. sp. [Q] Scott, 1942...
Cavusgnathus Harris & Hollingsworth, 1933 (*C.
altus H. & H., U. Miss., N. Am.)
C. sp. [BR] Scott, 1942 a
Gnathodus Pander, 1856 (*G. mosquensis Pander,
1856, Carb., Eu.
G. sp. [S] Branson & Mehl, 1941
G. sp. [T] Schmidt, 1934
Bryantodus Bassler, 1925 (*B. typicus U. & B.,
1926, U. Dev., N. Am.)
B. sp. [U] Eichenberg, 1930
B. sp. [V] Schmidt, 1934
B. immersus Branson & Mehl, 1933c
Ancyrodella Ulrich & Bassler, 1926 (*A. nodosa
U. & B., 1926, U. Dev., N. Am.)
A. sp. [W] Eichenberg, 1930
Polygnathus Hinde, 1879 (*P. dubia Hinde, 1879,
U. Dev., N. Am.-Eu.)
*P. dubia Hinde, 1879
P. sp. [X] Eichenberg, 1930
Scaliognathus Branson & Mehl, 1941 (*S. anchoralis
Branson & Mehl, 1942, iM Miss., N. at
8. sp. [Y] Branson & Mehl, 1941 a
7 Not considered by Rhodes to be generically
distinct as a discrete part from Ligonodina
Ulrich & Bassler, 1926 (*LZ. pectinata), Dev.,
N. Am.
t [X] An X in brackets denotes identifications
made by an author subsequent to the one who
named the assemblage.
0 ite cpedt }. 0p) ap
wz degh [ean 4 Nea nee eed hal MEER
Ssh peels (a RR Ds Fa a a
grey aE St PRET ES ae op
ei he ee ee ee ed
5s ett Fhe! io) eset Ay ad ee |
-}-{[-]/-]-]-|]|-|]x
Merde AS NT oh arh pdt
S pemoiese) $8E0 fox lv
References
Bassler, R. S. (1915), “‘ Bibliographic index of American Ordovician and
Silurian fossils’ Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 92, vols. 1 and 2 : 1-1321
Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer. 36 (No. 1)
- (1925), “ Classification and stratigraphic use of conodonts ” (abstract)
: 218-220
Branson, C. C., & Mehl, M. G. (1933a) ‘‘ Conodonts from the Bainbridge
(Silurian) of Missouri”? Univ. Mo. Stud., 8 (No. 1) : 39-52, pl. 3
32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(1933b), ‘‘ Conodonts from the Jefferson City (Lower Ordovician) of
Missouri”? Univ. Mo. Stud. 8 (No. 1) : 53-64, pl. 4, 1 fig.
(1933c), ‘A study of Hinde’s types of conodonts preserved in the
British Museum” Univ. Mo. Stud. 8 (No. 2) : 133-156, pls. 11-12
(1934), ‘‘ Conodont studies no. 4, Conodonts from the Bushberg sand-
stone and equivalent formations of Missouri’ Univ. Mo. Stud. 8 (No.4) :
265-300, pls. 22-24
(1941), ‘New and little known Carboniferous conodont genera e
J. Paleont. 15 (No. 2) : 97-106, pl. 19
Broom, R. (1906), “‘ On the South African Diaptosaurian Reptile Howesia ”
Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond 1906 : 591-600, pls. 40, 41
Bryant, W. L. (1921), ‘ The Genesee conodonts ” Bull. Buffalo Soc. nat. Sci.
13 (No. 2) : 1-59, figs. 1-7, pls. 1-16
Camp, C. L., Taylor, D. N., & Wells, S. P. (1942), “* Bibliography of fossil
vertebrates ” Geol. Soc. Amer. Spec. Paper 42 : 1-663
Eichenberg, W. (1930), ‘‘ Conodonten aus dem Culm des Harzes ” Paldont. -
Z. 12 : 177-182, 1 pl.
Ellison, Samuel (1941) ‘‘ Revision of the Pennsylvanian conodonts ” J. Paleont.,
15 (No. 2) : 107-1438, pls. 20-23, fig. 1-4
Fay, R. O. (1952), “ Catalogue of Conodonts ” Palaeont. Contr. Univ. Kans.,
Vertebrata, Art. 3 : 1-206, figs. 1-109
Gunnell, F. H. (1931), ‘‘ Conodonts from the Fort Scott limestone of Missouri”
J. Palaeont. 5 (No. 3) : 244-253, pl. 29
(1933), ‘‘ Conodonts and fish remains from the Cherokee, Kansas City,
and Wabaunsee groups of Missouri and Kansas ” J. Paleont. 7 (No. 3) :
261-297, pls. 31-33
Harris, R. W., & Hollingsworth, R. V. (1933), ‘‘ New Pennsylvanian conodonts
from Oklahoma” Amer. J. Sci. (5) 25 (No. 147) : 193-204, pl. 1
Hinde, G. J. (1897), ‘“‘ On conodonts from the Chazy and Cincinnati group of
the Cambro-Silurian, and from the Hamilton and Genesee-shale divisions
of the Devonian, in Canada and the United States ” Quart. J. geol. Soc.
Lond., 35 (xiii) (3) (No. 139) art. 29 : 351-369, pls. 15-17
Huene, Friedrich (1929) “‘ Ueber Rhynchosaurier und andere Reptilien aus den
Gondwana-Ablagerungen Siidamerikas” Geol. paldont. Abh. (N.F.)
17 : 1-62, 14 figs., 8 pls.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 33
Mehl, M. G., & Thomas, L. A. (1947), ‘‘ Conodonts from the Fern Glen of
Missouri” J. Sci. Labs., Denison Univ. 47 (No. 5) (40) art. 2 : 3-19,
pl. 1
Miller, S. A. (1889), North American geology and palaeontology for the use of
amateurs, students, and scientists: Western Methodist Book Concern
Cine., Ohio : 1-718, figs. 1-1265
Pander, C. H. (1856), ‘“‘ Monographie der fossilen Fische des silurischen Systems
der russisch-baltischen Gouvernements ” K. Akad. Wiss. St. Petersburg
1856 : 1-91, pls. 1-9
Rhodes, F. H. T. (1952), “A classification of Pennsylvanian Conodont
assemblages ” J. Paleont. 26 : 886-901, pls. 126-129, 4 figs.
(1953), “‘ Nomenclature of conodont assemblages ” J. Paleont. 27 : 610-
612
Roundy, P. V. (1926), ‘Introduction, the micro-fauna, in Mississippian
formations of San Saba County, Texas, by P. V. Roundy, G. H. Girty,
and M. I. Goldman” Prof. Pap. U.S. geol. Surv. 146 : 1-63, pls. 1-33,
fig. 1
Schmidt, Hermann (1934), “‘ Conodonten-Funde in urspriinglichem Zusammen-
hang ” Paldont. Z. 16 (Nos. 1-2) : 76-85, pl. 6
Scott, H. W. (1934), “The zoological relationships of the conodonts” J.
Paleont. 8 (No. 4) : 448-455, pls. 58-59
(1942), “‘ Conodont assemblages from the Heath formation, Montana ”’
J. Paleont. 16 (No. 3) : 293-301, pls. 37-40
Stauffer, C. R., & Plummer, H. J. (1932) “‘ Texas Pensylvanian conodonts and
their stratigraphic relations” Bull. Univ. Tex. 3201, Contr. to Geol.,
pt. 1 : 13-59, pls. 1-4, tabs. 1-2
Ulrich, E. O., & Bassler, R. S. (1926), “ A classification of the toothlike fossils,
conodonts, with descriptions of American Devonian and Mississippian
species” Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 68 (art. 12) (No. 2613) : 1-63, pls. 1-11,
figs. 1-5
Youngquist, W. L., & Heezen, B. C. (1948), ‘‘ Some Pennsylvanian conodonts
from Iowa” J. Paleont. 22 (No. 6) : 767-773, pl. 118
Cc
34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
ANNEXE TO DOCUMENT 1/2
Dates of some genera of Conodonts
The type species of Lonchodina, L. typicalis, is sometimes credited to
Bassler, 1925, sometimes to Ulrich & Bassler, 1926. In fact Bassler, 1925:
(1) lists genus Lonchodina ; (2) gives diagnosis of genus ; (3) lists : ““ Genotype,
_ L. typicalis, new species”. In our view this leaves L. typicalis a nomen
nudum, but some maintain generic diagnosis validates single species quoted.
Ulrich & Bassler in 1926 refer additional spp. to Lonchodina, and generic
diagnosis applies equally to all these species, as well as to the type species,
here first described.
The same observations apply to Synprioniodina Bassler, 1925, and its
type species 8. aliernata Ulrich & Bassler, 1926 ; to Hindeodella Bassler, 1925,
and its type species, H. subtilis Ulrich & Bassler, 1926 ; Prioniodella Bassler,
1925, and its type species, P. normalis Ulrich & Bassler, 1926 ; and Bryantodus
Bassler, 1925, and its type species, B. typicus Ulrich & Bassler, 1926.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 35
DOCUMENT 1/3
Note on procedure : The paper reproduced below as Document 1 B3
was originally submitted to the Office of the Commission at a time when
(as explained in the Note on Procedure prefixed to Document 1 [1
normal procedure as soon as possible after the close of that Meeting.
fintl’d F.F. 11th July 1957.]
Second supplemental application : Application for a ruling by the International
Commission directing that the classification and nomenclature of ammonoid
aptychi (Class Cephalopoda) be in terms of « parataxa ”’
By RAYMOND C. MOORE
(University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.)
and
P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY
(University of Sheffield, England)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)
The purpose of this application is to remove conflicts in nomenclature
of mollusks belonging to the Subclass Ammonoidea of the Class Cephalopoda
parts of these animals, known exclusively as fossils. These sets of names
36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
respectively comprise (1) generic and specific names based on the shell (or
conch) which enclosed the soft parts of the living animal, and (2) generic and
specific names based on the discrete internal (hyponomic) or opercular structures
called aptychi, which after the death of the animal generally are not retained
in the living chamber of the conch and therefore almost invariably are found
separated from the conch. The first-mentioned group far outweighs the other
in importance, because only the conch reveals morphological characters that
can be used reliably for taxonomic classification ; also, it is probable that
many ammonoids possessed no aptychi suitable for preservation as fossils.
On the other hand, some known aptychi possibly belong to extinct cephalopods
other than ammonoids, as for example belemnoids and soft-bodied dibranchiates.
Whatever their origin, many aptychi are common enough and distinctive
enough to have value in stratigraphic paleontology. Though they lack useful-
ness for distinguishing whole-animal taxa, there is need to describe them,
illustrate them, and name them ; in fact, the nomenclature of aptychi already
has developed to the extent of approximately 30 generic names and nearly
500 specific names. These aptychus names must be governed in manner to
assure avoidance of conflict between them and names based on ammonoid
conchs. The present application partly constitutes a counter proposal’ to one
submitted previously by W. J. Arkell (1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 266-269).
We agree with him unreservedly in the wish to remove disturbance of nomen-
clature that arises from treating names for aptychi as correlative with names
for ammonoid conchs but we are of the opinion that the suppression under
Plenary Powers of all aptychus names would be undesirable in the extreme.
The manner in which names published for aptychi introduces confusion in the
nomenclature of ammonoids has been stated clearly by Arkell (op. cit.) and
we urge that the problem presented should receive immediate attention of the
Commission, for conflicts are even more numerous than might be inferred from
the group of names cited by Arkell. The present application, which is supple-
mentary to a preceding application of general scope on the subject of parataxa,
seeks a Ruling of the Commission that the classification and nomenclature
of fossils defined by the original author as aptychi should be in terms of parataxa.
Reference to this application is being made in a volume of the Treatise on
Invertebrate Paleontology containing systematic descriptions of Ammonoidea
but in this volume the nomenclatural status of names published for aptychi
necessarily must be left unsettled.
1 As will have been noted, the applicants in the present case state that their proposals
represent, in part, a counter-proposal to an application previously submitted by Dr. W. J. Arkell.
Accordingly, it has been decided to include Dr. Arkell’s application among the documents
submitted in connection with the plan for the recognition of the concept “ parataxon ”’ (i.e. to
include that paper among the documents relating to Case No. 1 on the London Agenda Paper).
Dr. Arkell’s original application—on which no decision has as yet been taken by the International-
Commission—is accordingly being reprinted as Document 1/4 in the present volume (pp 71—75).
It will be understood that Dr. Arkell’s proposals were directed solely to the removal, as he
considered, of the threat to stability in the “ normal ” nomenclature of ammonites (i.e. in whole-
animal nomenclature) represented by names based solely upon aptychi. It was in no way
concerned therefore with the question dealt with in the present application by Professor Moore
and Mr. Sylvester-Bradley for the recognition of “ parataxa ”’, the proposals in regard to which
had not at that time been submitted to the Commission. [intl’d F.H. 12th July 1957.]
rE
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 37
2. Specialists in the study of ammonoid cephalopods are unanimous in
concluding that the only reliable basis for discrimination of genera and species
in this group of mollusks consists of morphological characters exhibited by the
shell or conch. Accordingly, without exception, zoological names given to
the ammonoid conchs have prevailed wherever a named coneh has been found
associated with a named aptychus in such a way as to allow no reasonable
doubt that both belonged to the same animal. No one has yet been willing
to accept the senior name of an aptychus as substitute for the name of a conch,
despite stipulation of the Régles (Article 27) that the first-published name for
a part of an animal shall be recognized for designation of the whole animal.
A pertinent point which needs emphasis in this connection is the fact that
prevailingly the characters displayed by aptychi are not diagnostic of genera
and species based on conchs, and in consequence, some individual species
of aptychi have been identified as belonging to two or more genera and species
of ammonoids as defined by conchs. Therefore, in considering this problem
it seems appropriate to accept as basic premises (1) the primary importance of
nomenclature based on ammonoid conchs, and (2) the distinctly secondary
importance of nomenclature based on aptychi. The present application is like
that of Arkell in having the main purpose of establishing firmly names for
ammonoids based on conchs by removing threats to their stability which come
from aptychus names, but it differs in seeking to safeguard the usefulness of
these latter. For the purpose of clear distinction generic and specific names
~ based on ammonoid conchs, wherever cited in this application, are printed in
boldface type, whereas all such names applied to aptychi are printed in italics,
generic names recommended for acceptance being printed in capital letters.
Designations employed simply as morphological terms (aptychus, anaptychus,
synaptychus) are printed in roman letters without initial capitals. The type
species of genera are marked uniformly by an accompanying asterisk (*).
. 3. Before attention is directed to the problems of nomenclature of aptychi
the bearing of somewhat opposed stipulations of the revised Régles, both
directed toward the stability and continuity of nomenclature, needs to be
considered. One of these stipulations is observance of the Law of Priority,
which in simplest terms means that the oldest valid name for a taxon shall
prevail. On the other hand, the Principle of Conservation provides that the
name of a generic or lower-rank taxon in general current use and available for
50 years or more shall not be replaced on nomenclatural grounds by a senior
Synonym unless the latter has been widely used during part of the 50-year
period preceding proposed substitution. Provision has also been made for the
suppression of nomina dubia and long-overlooked names by a challenge pro-
cedure that avoids use of the Plenary Powers (Copenhagen Decisions zool.
Nomencl. : 24,25). Several aptychus names are found to possess great antiquity
of original publication, yet they have been long-overlooked and lack much, if
any, subsequent use. Such names may appropriately be suppressed in favour
of later-published, widely-used names and therefore recommendations to this
effect are submitted in later paragraphs of the present application. We have
38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
not, however, recommended adoption of the “ challenge procedure ”’ advocated
at Copenhagen, for, as the Plenary Powers of the Commission need, in any case,
to be invoked in other instances, it seems preferable to deal with the whole
question of aptychi at one and the same time, rather than to adopt a procedure
which would enforce a waiting period of two years before finalization of some
but not all names concerned.
4, The following preliminary points are submitted :—
(1) It is the general purpose of this application to seek a Ruling that
only those names which were defined by the original author as aptychi
should be accepted as parataxa, special cases being dealt with through
use of Plenary Powers. All names herein proposed for recognition
fall into this category. It is a happy incident following this pro-
cedure that with a single exception (SIDETES) generic names of
aptychi recommended for acceptance uniformly are compounds of
various prefixes with the termination ‘‘-aptychus”’. The first use
of “ aptychus ” as a vernacular word which we have discovered is
by Giebel in 1847 who referred to a special sort of undivided aptychus
which he named SIDETES. He wrote: “.. . is ein besonders
Aptychus von Salzburg sehr bemerkenswerth, denn seine Schalen
beriihrten sich in der Mitte, Ich nenne ihn, da er generell eigentiimlich
ist, Sidetes’’.
(2) We recommend that the following two specific names, which are
designated as the type species of genera of aptychi, should be
recognized by Plenary Powers as the names of parataxa, although
introduced by their respective authors without statement that they
represent aptychi :—
lamellosus Parkinson, 1811, as used in the combination T'rigonellites
lamellosus (specific name of the type species of LAMELLA-
PT YCHUS Trauth, 1927) ;
ceratoides Ooster, 1857, as used in the combination T'rigonellites
ceratoides (specific name of the type species of LAHVILA-
MELLAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1930).
(3) The generic name T'rigonellites Parkinson, 1811, although not recognized _
by Parkinson as the name of an aptychus, is an objective senior
synonym of the genus LAMELLAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927. Both
names are in current use, and it becomes necessary to decide between
two alternative courses, both of which require use of the Plenary
Powers. Either the name T'rigonellites must be validated as the
name of a parataxon (when it would, of course, take precedence
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 39
over Lamellaptychus), or it must be suppressed for the purposes of
the Law of Priority to prevent conflict with conch names as listed
below in para. 11 (1). Either course would stabilize nomenclature,
but we believe that the latter would result in less preliminary name
changing than the former, and have therefore recommended that
the Plenary Powers should be used to suppress the name T'rigonellites
Parkinson, 1811.
5. Following is a chronologically arranged list of the generic names which
have been applied to aptychi, those recommended for recognition as parataxa
being printed in capital italic letters and those not thus recommended (including
junior homonyms, junior objective synonyms, nomina dubia, and long-disused
names which are recommended for suppression) being printed in small italic
letters with initial capital. Synonyms are marked as objective by the abbrevia-
tion “obj.” or as subjective by “subj.”. Earliest authors variously mis-
interpreted the zoological affinities of aptychi, which came to be classed as
lamellibranchs, fragments of fishes, or parts of crustaceans. Gradually,
evidence has accumulated which serves to prove that the fossils called aptychi
belong to cephalopods, many of them surely to ammonoids, but their taxonomic
placement necessarily is subjective. Names based on species whose type-
specimens were not recognized as aptychi by the original authors, but only
subsequently so recognized, are preceded by a question mark. The mor-
phological terms ‘“ aptychus ”’, “ anaptychus ’’, and “ synaptychus ”’ (printed
in small roman letters) are included in the list because each of these words has
been published also as a generic name ; explanations accompany the entries.
The designation of type species of aptychus genera offers no problem if
published names are based on aptychi, with type specimens consisting either
of discrete aptychi or the aptychi of conch-and-aptychus associations, but
difficulty is encountered where no separate and distinct specific name has
been used for an aptychus. This matter is discussed in later paragraphs
which deal with the conflict of aptychus and conch names.
4 8Solenites Gesner, 1758 (Tract. phys. Petrificatis: 39) [nec Mabille, 1887].
A nomen dubium possibly but not certainly applied to an aptychus, and in
any case unavailable, as Gesner’s T’ractatus has been suppressed for
~nomenclatorial purposes by the International Commission under its
Plenary Powers (Opinion 230).
? Tellinites Gesner, 1758(op. cit.: 38). Like Solenites Gesner, a nomen dubium,
possibly but not certainly applied to an aptychus, but in any case not
available, as Gesner’s work has been suppressed (Opinion 230).
¢ Trigonellites Parkinson, 1811 (Organic remains former world 3 : 184). Type
species (by subsequent selection, Moore and Sylvester-Bradley, 1956,
Treatise Invert. Paleont., L), *T'. lamellosus Parkinson, 1811 (: 186, pl. 13,
40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
figs. 10-11); =Tellina cuneiformis Baier, 1757 (Monum. petrif. oryct.
noricae: 19, pl. 14, fig. 6-7), non Tellina Linne, 1758 (7'. radiata, type
species, a lamellibranch). [=Solennites Schlotheim, 1813 (subj.) ; Aptychus
von Meyer, 1831 (subj.) ; Muensteria Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1835 (subj.) ;
Aptycus Deshayes, 1845 (subj.) ; Aptichus Crosse, 1867 (subj.) ; LAMELLA-
PTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (obj.); ? PALAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927
(subj.)]. Recommended for suppression by the Plenary Powers. The
junior objective synonym LAMELLAPT YCHUS is available as a replace-
ment name for the taxon, and has been commonly so used in recent years.
? Solennites Schlotheim, 1813 (Leonhard Taschenb. 7(1) : 105). Type species
(by monotypy), *S. annulatus Schlotheim, 1813. A nomen dubium,
possibly but not certainly applied to an aptychus. Recommended for
suppression as a nomen dubium and as a long-overlooked name (lack of
use subsequent to 1813).
? Tellinites Schlotheim, 1813 (op. cit.). Type species, none designated. A
nomen dubium, possibly but not certainly applied to an aptychus, but
certainly so used by Schlotheim, 1820 (Petrefactenk: 182, Tellinites
problematicus Schloth., n. sp., fig’d by Baier, 1757, Monum. petrif. oryct.
noricae: pl. 14, figs. 3, 8; =Trigonellites latus Parkinson, 1811; and
Tellinites solenoides Schloth., n. sp., fig’d by Baier, 1757, pl. 14, figs. 6-7,
=Trigonellites lamellosus Parkinson, 1811) and by Riippel, 1829 (Abbild.
Verstein. Solenhofen : 1-8), who redescribed and figured Schlotheim’s
species 7’. problematicus and 7’. solenoides. Recommended for suppression
both as a nomen dubium and as a long-overlooked name (lack of use
subsequent to 1829).
? Ichthyosiagones Bourdet de la Niévre, 1822 (Notice .. . fossiles inconnus : 81).
Type species (by monotypy, Riippell, 1829, Abbild. Verstein. Solenhofen :
12, pl. 2, figs. 1-3), *Tellinites problematicus Schlotheim, 1820 (=*T'rigo-
nellites latus Parkinson, 1811, subj.). Senior subjective synonym of
LAEVAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927. Recommended for suppression as
a long-overlooked name (lack of use subsequent to 1829).
Aptychus von Meyer, 1831 (Nova Acta Leopold.-Carol. Akad. Naturf. 15 (Abt. 2) :
125). Type species (by subsequent selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley,
1956, op. cit.), *A. imbricatus von Meyer, 1831 (: 127, pl. 59, figs. 1-12)
(=*T rigonellites lamellosus Parkinson, 1811, fide von Meyer, 127; fide
Giebel, 1851, Fauna Vorwelt 3 : 768 ; fide Trauth, 1938, Palaeontograph.
88A : 149; confirmed Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956) [=T'rigonellites
Parkinson, 1811 (subj.) ; Mwensteria Kudes-Deslongchamps, 1835 (subj.) ;
Aptycus Deshayes, 1845 (obj.) ; Aptichus Crosse, 1867 (obj.) ; LAMELLA-
PTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (subj.); Palaptychus Trauth, 1927 (subj.)].
The date of von Meyer’s publication has been cited erroneously by many
authors as 1829 (when the paper was read but not when it was published) ;
it is correctly cited by Neave (Nomencl. zool. 1 : 268) as 1831. Un-
questionably, the designation Aptychus was originally published as a
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 41
generic name and it has been used in this way by many authors in the
period 1837-90, by a few in the period 1890-1927 (to the time of beginning
of Trauth’s extensive studies), and virtually not at all since 1927. Mean-
while, aptychus (pl. aptychi), used as a common noun, has gained universal
currency as a morphological term, which is employed to designate the
presumed opercular structure of many ammonoids and possibly of some
other cephalopods. Aptychus is recommended for suppression as a generic
name on the grounds that (1) it has disappeared from common use as such
in paleontological literature ; (2) it has come to be replaced by other
generic names (both sensu lato and sensu stricto) ; (3) it induces confusion
with aptychus and aptychi as morphological terms ; and (4) it presents
an analogy between the proposed suppression of the name Aptychus and
the suppression of the name Ammonites under the Plenary Powers
(Opinion 305) but in this case Aptychus cannot be claimed a nomen dubium.
The case for the suppression of the name Aptychus rests, therefore,
mainly on the fact that its reintroduction into the literature as a generic
name would cause it to preoccupy, as a senior subjective synonym, the
currently used name LAMELLAPTYCHUS, whereas its suppression
would cause no name changes.
? Muensteria Kudes-Deslongchamps, 1835 (as Miinsteria) (Mém. Soc. linn.
Normandie 5:61) [non Knebel, 1909 (Arch. Biont. 2: 222)]. Type
species by subsequent selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956, op. cit.),
*M. sulcata Kudes-Deslongchamps, 1835 (: 66, pl. 2, figs. 10-11) (=* T'rigon-
ellites lamellosus Parkinson, 1811). [=Trigonellites Parkinson, 1811
(subj.) ; Aptychus von Meyer, 1831 (subj.); LAMELLAPTYCHUS
Trauth, 1927 (subj.)]. Recommended for suppression as a long-overlooked
name (lack of use since 1835).
Aptycus Deshayes, 1845 (in Lamarck, Hist. Anim. s. Vert. ed. 2, 11 : 228)
[pro Aptychus von Meyer, 1831 (obj.)]. Recommended for suppression as
an invalid subsequent spelling of Aptychus.
SIDETES Giebel, 1847 (N. Jahrb. Mineral. 1847 : 821). Type species (by
monotypy, Giebel, 1849, Zedtschr. Deutsch. Geol. Gesell. 1 : 99, text-fig.
p. 100), *S. striatus Giebel, 1849. [—Anaptychus Schlumberger, 1868
(subj.) (non Stimpson, 1860) ; Pholidocaris H. Woodward, 1882 (subj.) ;
Cardiocaris H. Woodward, 1882 (subj.) ; ? Hllipsocaris H. Woodward,
1882 (subj.); ? Lisgocaris Clarke, 1882 (subj.); Palanaptychus Trauth,
1927 (subj.); ? NEOANAPTYCHUS Nagao, 1931 (subj.)]. The type
species and its type specimen are based on an isolated aptychus found in.
Upper Cretaceous strata and association of this type species with ammonoid
conchs is unknown. On the other hand, several other species of SIDETES
are represented by specimens forming parts of conch-and-aptychus
associations. As the name SIDETES was stated by Giebel to be based
on a special kind of aptychus, it can be classed as a parataxon by operation
of the general Ruling recommended for adoption in this application. It is
currently used as a generic name for aptychi.
42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
? Ichthyosiagon Herrmannsen, 1847 (Index Gen. Malac. 1 : 555) [pro Ichthyo-
siagones Bourdet de la Nievre, 1822 (obj.)]._ Recommended for suppression
as an invalid subsequent spelling of Ichthyosiagones.
aptychus (pl. aptychi) Giebel, 1847 (N. Jahrb. Mineral. 1847 : 821), Oppel,
1856 (Jahresh. Ver. vaterl. Naturk. Wirttemberg 12 : 107, 194), common
noun used solely as a morphological term and subsequently almost uni-
versally employed in this way by authors. No consideration or action by
ICZN in connection with a morphological term is necessary or appropriate.
anaptychus (pl. anaptychi) Oppel, 1856 (op. cit. : 194) as indicated by context,
a common noun introduced and used solely as a morphological term for
an undivided type of aptychus and subsequently so used almost universally
by authors. As stated in discussion of Anaptychus Schlumberger, 1868,
the citation of Oppel as author of Anaptychus as a generic name is, in our
view, erroneous. The Commission is not concerned with anaptychus as
a morphological term. However, the name Anaptychus is listed by
Neave (Nomenclator Zoologicus) as a genus dating from Oppel, and has
often thus been regarded. We recommend that the Commission should
remove all ambiguity by directing that the name “ anaptychus ”’ as used
by Oppel, 1856, is not to be regarded as the name of a genus, but only as
a morphological term. [Oppel (1856: 194) first refers to this aptychus
in general terms, thus “Ammonites planorbis zeichnet sich durch den
Besitz eines ungespaltenen Aptychus* aus,” ; in a footnote he introduces
the new name: *(Footnote) Veilleicht besser ““Anaptychus ” (avaarvyos
entfaltet), da dieser innere Theil des Ammonites planorbis von Aptychus
anderer Ammoniten ginzlich verschieden ist.’’].
Aptichus Crosse, 1867 (J. Conchyliol. 15 : 456) [pro Aptychus von Meyer, 1831
(obj.)]. Recommended for suppression as an invalid subsequent spelling
of Aptychus.
Anaptychus Schlumberger, 1868 (Bull. Soc. linn. Normandie (2) 1 : 97) [non
Stimpson, 1860, Ann. Lyceum nat. Hist. N.Y.7 : 183 (Crust.)]. Based on
three conch-and-aptychus associations, two identified without query
with the following conch species: Ammonites laqueus and Amaltheus
margaritatus. If we are right in our opinion that Oppel, 1856, introduced
anaptychus as a morphological term only, the nomenclatural status of
Anaptychus as a generic name has nothing to do with Oppel. In 1860
Stimpson published this name for a group of crustaceans, making Schlum-
berger’s use of the same name for designation of ammonoid aptychi a
junior homonym and therefore invalid. Accordingly, Anaptychus
Schlumberger, 1868, is recommended for suppression as a junior homonym.
In 1928 Strand (Arch. Naturgesch. 92 (A8) : 40), thinking that Anaptychus
Stimpson, 1860, had been pre-occupied by Oppel, 1856, introduced the new
name Anaptychoides to replace Stimpson’s Anaptychus, which was actually
valid. Anaptychoides Strand, 1928, is therefore a junior objective synonym
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 43
of the crustacean Anaptychus Stimpson, 1860, but whether either name
has actually been used is a question which should be referred to specialists
on the Crustacea. ;
? Pholadocaris H. Woodward, 1882 (Geol. Mag. (2) 9 : 338). Type species (by
monotypy), *P. leeit Woodw., 1882 (: 388, pl. 9, fig. 16). [=SIDETES
Giebel, 1847 (subj. ; fide Trauth, 1935, Jahrb. Preuss. Geol. Landesanst.
55 : 69; fide Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956)]. Because the type
species has been only subjectively identified with an aptychus subsequently
to original publication, it is not recommended that the name should be
added to the Official Lists as that of a parataxon.
? Cardiocaris H. Woodward, 1882 (Geol. Mag. (2) 9 : 386). Type species (by
subsequent selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956), *C. roemeri
Woodw., 1882 (: 386, pl. 9, figs. 1-3). [=SIDETES Giebel, 1847 (subj. ;
fide Trauth, 1935, op. cit.: 65; fide Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956)].
This name, like that of Pholadocaris is based on a type-species only subse-
quently identified with an aptychus. It is not recommended that it
should be added: to the Official Lists as a parataxon.
Ellipsocaris H. Woodward, 1882 (Geol. Mag. (2) 9 : 444). Type species (by
monotypy), *H#. duwalquet Woodw., 1882 (: 445, fig. 4). (?=SIDETES
Giebel, 1847 (subj. ; fide Trauth, 1935, op. cit. : 58 ; fide Moore & Sylvester-
Bradley, 1956)]. It is not recommended that this name, with type species
only subsequently identified with an aptychus, should be added to the
Official Lists as that of a parataxon.
¢ Insgocaris Clarke, 1882 (Am. J. Sci. (3) 28 : 478). Type species (by mono-
typy), *L. lutheri Clarke, 1882 (: 478, fig. 5). [?=SIDETES Giebel, 1847
(subj. ; fide Trauth, 1935, op. cit.: 67; fide Moore & Sylvester-Bradley,
1956)]. It is not recommended that this name, with type species only
subsequently identified with an aptychus, should be added to the Official
Lists as that of a parataxon.
synaptychus (pl. synaptychi) Fischer, 1882 (Manuel Conchyliol. Paléont. :
377), common noun apparently intended as a morphological term rather
than a genus (for example, Fischer writes under the description of Scaphites
spiniger “Aptychus 4 surface granuleuse ou striée ressemblant 4 celui
des Perisphinctes. Les deux pieces se soudent sur la ligne mediane chez
les 8. spiniger et Rémeri (Schliiter). Cette forme d’Aptychus peut étre
appelée Synaptychus’”’. Nowhere does he use Synaptychus in combination
with a specific name so as to form a binomen). As stated in discussion of
Synaptychus Basse, 1952, the citation of Fischer as author of Synaptychus _
as a generic name is therefore, in our view, erroneous. The Commission
is not concerned with synaptychus as a morphological term. However,
as in the case of anaptychus, this name has been listed by Neave (Nomen-
ad Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
clator Zoologicus) as a genus dating from Fischer, 1882, and we recommend
that the Commission should, in order to remove all ambiguity, direct that
the name “ synaptychus ” as used by Fischer, 1882, is not to be regarded
as the name of a genus, but only as a morphological term.
CORNAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (Ann. naturhist. Mus. Wien 41 : 189, 228).
Type species (by monotypy), *Aptychus hectict Quenstedt, 1849 (Petre-
factenk. Deutschl. 1 : 119, 315, pl. 8, fig. 10). Recommended for entering
on appropriate Official List as a parataxon available for designation of
aptychi but not ammonoid conchs or conch-and-aptychus associations.
CRASSAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit.: 205, 228). Type species (by
monotypy), *Aptychus crassus Hébert, 1885 (Mem. Soc. Geol. France
5 : 368, pl. 28, figs. 8a, b). Recommended for entering on appropriate
Official List as a parataxon available for designation of aptychi but not
ammonoid conchs or conch-and-aptychus associations.
GRANULAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 217, 228). Type species (by
subsequent selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956), *G. swevicus Trauth,
1930 (Ann. naturhist. Mus. Wien 44 : 389, pl. 5, figs. 3-5 ; lectotype defined
by Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956, as original specimen represented by
Trauth’s fig. 4) ; no species were assigned to the genus in 1927 but descrip-
tions and illustrations of 4 species were published by Trauth in 1930,
G. suevicus being one of these. Recommended for entering on appropriate
Official List as a parataxon available for designation of aptychi but not
ammonoid conchs or conch-and-aptychus associations.
LAEVAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit.: 189, 228). Type species (by
monotypy), *Aptychus meneghinit Zigno, 1870 (Mem. reale Ist. Venete
Sci. Arte 15 : 11, pl. 8, figs. 1-4)[=Ichthyosiagones Bourdet, 1822 (subj.),
a name proposed for suppression as long-overlooked]. Recommended for
entering on appropriate Official List as a parataxon available for designation
of aptychi but not ammonoid conchs or conch-and-aptychus associations.
LAMELLAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit.: 189, 228). Type species (by
subsequent selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956), *T'rigonellites
lamellosus Parkinson, 1811 (op. cit. : 184, pl. 13, figs. 10-11). [=T'rigonel-
lites Parkinson, 1811 (obj.), a name proposed for suppression under the
Plenary Powers]. Recommended for entering on appropriate Official List
as a parataxon available for designation of aptychi but not ammonoid
conchs or conch-and-aptychus associations.
LISSAPTYCHUS Trauth (op. cit. 220, 231). Type species (by subsequent ~
selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956), *Aptychus leptophyllus
Sharpe, 1856 (Mon. Palaeontograph. Soc. : 55, pl. 24, figs. la, b]. Recom-
mended for entering on appropriate Official List as a parataxon available
for designation of aptychi but not ammonoid conchs or conch-and-aptychus
associations.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45
¢ Palanaptychus Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 203, 214). Type species (by monotypy),
*Manticoceras intumescens (von Bayrich). [=SIDETES Giebel, 1847
(subj.)]. Recommended for suppression by the Plenary Powers on the
grounds of nomenclatural ambiguity (since the type-specimen of the type-
species is a conch and not the conch-and-aptychus association on which the
name Palanaptychus is based). The name, moreover, has not been used
since its original introduction, and cannot be used for an aptychus as a
parataxon if its type-species has a conch for a type-specimen. Nor can
the name be used for a conch genus without such violation of the author’s
original intent as to introduce grave ambiguity. The case is further
discussed in para. 9(2) below.
PALAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit.: 214). Type species (by subsequent
selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956), *Aptychus carbonarius
Koenen, 1879 (N. Jahrb. Mineral. 1879 : 317), one of the two originally
included species. [?=LAMELLAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (subj.)].
Although doubtfully distinguished from LAMELLAPTYCHUS, we
recommend that it should be entered as a parataxon on the Official List
for the use of any taxonomist who believes it to represent a parataxon
distinct from that genus.
PRAESTRIAPT YCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 219, 230). Type species (by
subsequent selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956), *P. gerzensis
Trauth, 1930 (op. cit. : 380, pl. 5, figs. 14-15 ; lectotype defined by Moore
& Sylvester-Bradley as the specimen represented by Trauth’s fig. 14).
Recommended for entering on appropriate Official List as a parataxon
available for designation of aptychi but not ammonoid conchs or conch-
and-aptychus associations.
PSEUDOSTRIAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 220, 231). Type species
(by monotypy, Trauth, 1928, Ann. naturhist. Mus. Wien 42 : 168),
*P. pseudostobaei Trauth, 1928. Recommended for entering on appropriate
Official List as a parataxon available for designation of aptychi but not
ammonoid conchs or conch-and-aptychus associations.
PTERAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit.: 188, 218). Type species (by
monotypy), *Aptychus numida Coquand, 1854 (Mem. Soc. géol. France
(2) 5 : 140, 148, pl. 3, fig. 1). Recommended for entering on appropriate
Official List as a parataxon available for designation of aptychi but not
ammonoid conchs or conch-and-aptychus associations.
PUNCTAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 200, 228). Type species (by
subsequent selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956), *Aptychus
punctatus Voltz, 1837 (N. Jahrb. Mineral. 1837:435; Trauth, 1935,
Jahrb. Geol. Bundesanst. Wien 75 : 315, pl. 12, figs. 1-6), chosen from
3 nominal species cited by Trauth in his 1927 publication as belonging to
46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
the genus, although one of these (Aptychus profundus Pictet) was synony-
mized with A. punctatus by Trauth in 1935 (: 315). Recommended for
entering on appropriate Official List as a parataxon available for designa-
tion of aptychi but not ammonoid conchs or conch-and-aptychus asso-
ciations.
RUGAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 220, 228). Type species (by subse-
quent selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956), *Aptychus rugosus
Sharpe, 1856 (op. cit.: 57, pl. 24, figs. 8-9; Trauth, 1928, op. cit. : 122,
pl. 2, figs. 1-4), chosen from 4 species referred to genus in Trauth’s original
publication. Recommended for entering on appropriate Official List as
a parataxon available for designation of aptychi but not ammonoid
conchs or conch-and-aptychus associations. i
SPINAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit.: 200, 220). Type species (by
monotypy), *Aptychus spinosus Cox, 1926 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (9) 17:
577, pl. 24, figs. 1-3; Trauth, 1928, op. cit.: 131, pl. 3, figs. 17-18).
Recommended for entering on appropriate Official List as a parataxon
available for designation of aptychi but not ammonoid conchs or conch-and-
aptychus associations.
STRIAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 189, 229). Type species (by subse-
quent selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956), *S. spinigeri Trauth,
1927 (244), chosen from 20 species and subspecies listed in Trauth’s
original paper as belonging to this genus. [=Synaptychus Basse, 1952
(obj.)]. For further discussion of synonymy see below under Synaptychus
Basse, 1952 and para. 9(1). Recommended for entering on appropriate
Official List as a parataxon available for designation of aptychi but not
ammonoid conchs or conch-and-aptychus associations.
LAEVILAMELLAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1930 (op. cit. : 336). Type species (by
subsequent selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956), *T'rigonellites
ceratoides Ooster, 1857 (Petrif. remarquables Alpes Suisses (2) : 16, pl. 6,
figs. 6-8 ; Trauth, 1930, op. cit. : 366, pl. 4, figs. 9-10), chosen from 3 species
referred without question to the genus in Trauth’s 1930 publication.
Recommended for entering on appropriate Official List as a parataxon
available for designation of aptychi but not ammonoid conchs or conch-and-
aptychus associations.
NEOANAPTYCHUS Nagao, 1931 (Proc. Imp. Acad. Japan 7: 109). Type
species (by monotypy), *NV. tenuiliratus Nagao, 1931 (: 109, figs. 1-2).
Trauth in 1935 (N. Jahrb. Mineral. 73B : 75; ibid. 74B : 459) invalidly ©
designated NV. semicostatus Nagao, 1932 (Proc. Imp. Acad. Japan 8 : 175,
text-fig. p. 178) as the type species. [—?SIDETES Giebel, 1847 (subj.)].
Recommended for entering on appropriate Official List as a parataxon for
use of any taxonomist who believes it to represent a parataxon distinct
from SIDETES.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47
Laevicornaptychus Trauth, 1936 (Ann. naturhist. Mus. Wien 47 : 28). Not an
available name, as no type species was indicated subsequent to 1930.
Synaptychus Basse, 1952 (T'raité Paléont. 2 : 548). Type species (by mono-
typy), *STRIAPTYCHUS spinigert Trauth, 1927 (erroneously cited
by Basse as “‘ Synaptychus spiniger Trauth”’). Schliiter, 1872 (Palaeonto-
graphica 21 : 82-85, pl. 25, figs. 1-7) in describing a new species of ammonoid
named by him, Seaphites spiniger, mentioned two specimens which contain
“den zugehérigen Aptychus ” in the living chamber, one of these being
illustrated (pl. 25, figs. 5-7); this figured specimen with its bipartite
aptychus in position has been designated (Moore & Sylvester-Bradley,
1956) as lectotype of Schliiter’s species, now known as Acanthoscaphites
spiniger. It is the aptychus of this specimen that was refigured by Fischer,
1882 (op. cit.:377) with the designation “synaptychus of Seaphites
spiniger ’? and accompanying discussion which makes clear Fischer’s
use of synaptychus only as a morphological term. Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. :
244) introduced for this aptychus (or synaptychus) the name “ S7'RI-
APTYCHUS spinigert Trauth, n. n.”. Basse, 1952 (: 549, figs. 12, 19)
copied Schliiter’s pl. 25, fig. 6, incorrectly attributing it to Reeside, and
(: 549, fig. 12, 12) reproduced Schliiter’s pl. 25, fig. 7, with identification
of it as ‘‘ Synaptychus spiniger (Trauth)’’. As matters stand, Basse is
the first author to publish Synaptychus as a generic name and the holotype
of its type species is part of the same specimen that serves Acanthoscaphites
spiniger (Schliiter), as holotype Synaptychus Basse, 1952, is reeommended
for suppression as a junior objective synonym of STRIAPTYCHUS
Trauth, 1927.
6. A large majority of the binomina which have been published as
scientific designations for different aptychi are composed of generic and specific
names that are quite independent of those used for ammonoid conchs. For
example, the name SIDETES striatus Giebel, 1849, was given to an undivided
type of aptychus found in Upper Cretaceous strata, the type specimen being
an isolated aptychus, and neither the name SIDETES striatus nor fossils
belonging to this species are related to a known conch. Such aptychi may
have value in stratigraphic paleontology and are not involved in nomenclatural
conflicts until representatives of a given species happen to be found in associa-
tion with a named species of conch.
7. Specimens of aptychi sometimes are found in the living chambers of
ammonoid conchs or neatly filling the shell apertures in the manner of opercula ;
such associations leave no reasonable doubt that the aptychus and conch were
produced by a single animal. Under operation of the present Régles, every
occurrence together of a genus and species of aptychus with a genus and species
of conch, each independently named, introduces questions of synonymy which
48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
are illustrated and discussed in following paragraphs. At least 40 genera
defined by characters of the conchs are involved in nomenclatoral conflicts
of this nature. We believe that none of these genera or others which may be
found associated with aptychi should be synonymized with aptychus names and
hence propose in para. 14 of this application that nominal genera and species
of aptychi shall be defined as parataxa, thus remaining subject to the Régles
but being denied status which permits interference by them with names published
for conchs. As applied to aptychi occurring in association with ammonoid
conchs in manner that clearly indicates their belonging together in life, three
modes of nomenclatural treatment of the aptychi are found in the literature.
Each of them presents problems and is unsatisfactory from the standpoint of
trying to apply the present Régles. This is demonstrated by brief explanation
and illustration.
(1) A common method of referring to the aptychi of conch-and-aptychus
associations, especially in older publications, has been to use only
the morphological term “ aptychus ’ in combination with the name
of the conch, as ‘“ aptychus of Baculites knorrianus ’’ (Schliiter,
1876, p. 27), without other designation. This conforms to the
Régles and is entirely adequate for description of the conch-and-
aptychus specimen but isolated aptychi of seemingly identical sort
cannot safely be identified as belonging to this conch species. It
would be misleading to describe beds with many such aptychi but
lacking specimens of conchs as “characterized by abundant
Baculites knorrianus ”’.
(2) A second method of designating the aptychi of conch-and-aptychus
associations is to use the specific name of the conch combined with
a generic name different from that of the conch and denoting a particu-
lar sort of aptychus, as in the following example :
(a) The aptychus mentioned in subparagraph (1) has been cited
(Diener, 1925, Fossilium Catalogus, 29:40) as ““Aptychus
knorrianus Schliiter”’, which combines the generic name
Aptychus von Meyer, 1831, with the specific name knorrianus,
originally published by Demarest, 1817, in combination with
the conch name Baculites. The combination “Aptychus
knorrianus ’”’ was never used by Schliiter, who merely referred
to the ‘“‘ aptychus of Baculites knorrianus”’. The attribution
to Schliiter is therefore clearly false.
(b) In 1927, Trauth (op. cit. : 245) published the name “‘ Rugaptychus
knorrianus (Schliiter) ’’ for this fossil, changing the generic
name and repeating Diener’s error in attributing authorship
of the species to Schliiter.
(c) Ambiguity persists because it is not clear whether the specific
name knorrianus as used in the combination A ptychus knorrianus
ee
ie i Mile ee ene ete elie elie eee
G>- = o's
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49
should be interpreted as a new name introduced by Diener
[leading to designation as “ RUGAPTYCHUS knorrianus
(Diener) ’’, with type specimen the aptychus figured in asso-
ciation with a conch by Schliiter], or referred to Desmarest
[leading to ‘““RUGAPTYCHUS knorrianus (Desmarest) ”’,
with type specimen the conch (without atypchus) figured by
Desmarest in 1817]. With recognition of RUGAPT YCHUS
as a parataxon, the former alternative becomes the only possible
one, for RUGAPTYCHUS can only be a parataxon if its
type species is based on an aptychus.
(d) A number of the genera which we propose should be recognized
as parataxa have type species cited in this ambiguous manner.
To remove any doubt as to what specimens should be regarded
as type specimens of these species, we recommend that the
Plenary Powers should be used to specify the holotype in the
following cases :
GRANULAPTYCHUS suevicus Trauth, 1930, to be inter-
preted by reference to the specimen figured under this
name by Trauth (1930 : pl. 5, fig. 4) ;
PSEUDOSTRIAPTYCHUS pseudostobaei Trauth, 1928,
to be interpreted by reference to the unfigured specimen
described by Schliiter, 1872 (58) and Trauth, 1928 (168)
from Coesfelder Berge, Germany ;
NEOANAPTYCHUS tenuiliratus Nagao, 1931, to be
interpreted by reference to the specimen figured under
this name by Nagao, 1931 (109, fig. 1).
(3) A third method of referring to the aptychi of conch-and-aptychus
associations is to employ a name for the aptychus that is wholly
independent of the conch name (as noted in para. 6). This avoids
confusion of the sort considered in the preceding subparagraph, and
is the most common method in current use. However, it is incom-
patible with present Régles which allow only a single name for the
conch-and-aptychus, for the conch alone, or for the aptychus alone.
With the recognition of parataxa, however, it would be the recom-
mended method. Thus Anaptychus pala Trauth, 1935 (N. Jahrb.
Mineral., 73B : 85) is a name given to the aptychus of Amaltheus
margaritatus de Montfort, 1808 ; LAEVAPT YCHUS latus (Parkin-
son), 1811, is the name given to the aptychus of Euaspidoceras
perarmatum (Sowerby), 1822; SIDETES sellaeformis bicarinatus
(Trauth), 1935, is designation of the aptychus of Asteroceras stellare
(Sowerby), 1815 ; and LAMELLAPT Y CHUS beyrichi (Oppel), 1865,
is the name of an aptychus belonging to Haploceras elimatum (Oppel),
1868. All of these examples introduce problems of synonymy as
50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
interpreted by the present Régles which are discussed in later para-
graphs. These problems vanish with the recognition of parataxa.
8. As previously stated, every association of conch-and-aptychus which
leads one to believe that the two were derived from a single animal, results,
on applying Article 27 of the present Régles, to a conflict between the names
applied respectively to the conch and aptychus. The problem of synonymy
is complicated by the fact that the taxonomic bounds of many aptychus species
are currently drawn very much more widely than those of any conch species,
as is indicated by published records of a single aptychus species classed as
belonging to two or more different species (or even different genera) of conchs.
Therefore, it is not possible to determine what species of conch is represented
by an isolated specimen of aptychus, even if other specimens, subjectively
identified with the isolated one, are found in association with a conch species.
For example, Trauth, 1938 (130) identified the aptychus species LAMELL-
APTYCHUS rectecostatus (Peters), 1854, as belonging to four different conch
species classed in three different genera—Oppelia bous (Oppel), 0. euglypta
(Oppel), Neochetoceras steraspis (Oppel)*, and Haploceras lingulatum solenoides
(Quenstedt). Under such circumstances, synonymization according to the
present Régles is impossible at the specific level and the whole situation is
nomenciaturally unstable. If the names based on aptychi are classed as para-
taxa, conflicts of this sort will disappear. The extreme complication of the
synonymy involved, and the undesirable nomenclatural situation that would
arise if the present Régles were applied, is illustrated in the following para-
graphs 9-13. The degree of subjectivity concerned is first determined by the
firmness of identifying the species involved in the questions of synonymy.
Among all recorded ammonoid conch-and-aptychus associations none con-
stitutes the type specimen of the type species both of a nominal genus of conchs
and nominal genus of aptychi, thus providing for objective identification of
one with the other. Indeed, no conch genus with type species defined by a type
specimen consisting of a conch-and-aptychus association is known. There are
some cases, however, in which the type species of an aptychus genus has as
type specimen conch or conch-and-aptychus association, which is also type
specimen of a conch species. These cases therefore involve objective synonymy
between the aptychus species and the conch species and are dealt with in
paragraph 9. All other cases of synonymy between conch and aptychus are
subjective in that they involve type specimens which are not identical. Four
different classes of subjective synonyms can be distinguished as follows :—
(1) synonymy involving subjective identification of the type species of 4
an aptychus genus with the type species of a conch genus (see para-
graph 10) ;
BEDE ARTIC s OTS Coe Dk ee eee
* At the same time Trauth identified Lamellaptychus theodosia longa Trauth as belonging
also to Neochetoceras steraspis. This must surely be a case of misidentification.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51
(2) synonymy involving subjective identification of the type species of
an aptychus genus with a conch species other than the type species
of the genus to which it is assigned (see paragraph 11) ;
(3) synonymy involving subjective identification of the type species of
a conch genus with a species of aptychus other than the type species
of the genus to which it is assigned (see paragraph 12) ;
(4) synonymy involving subjective identification of a conch species and
an aptychus species, neither of which is the type species of a genus
(see paragraph 13).
9. This paragraph deals with those cases in which type species of aptychus
genera are, according to the present operation of the Régles, objectively
Synonymous with species of conch genera, being based on the same type
specimens. Five aptychus genera are involved. The fact that three of
these (Anaptychus, Synaptychus, Palanaptychus) are respectively classed as
a junior homonym, junior objective synonym, and junior subjective synonym,
the other two (STRIAPTYCHUS, PSEUDOSTRIAPTYCHUS) being
considered valid, is incidental to the nomenclatural problems presented by their
conch associations. These problems are discussed briefly.
(1) STRIAPTYCHUS and Synaptychus versus Acanthoseaphites. Syn-
aptychus Basse, 1952, is a junior objective synonym of STRIAPTY-
CHUS Trauth, 1927, since the type specimen of the type species of
both is the same, consisting of the aptychus of a conch-and-aptychus
association which is also the type specimen of Acanthoscaphites
spiniger (Schliiter), 1872. The name of the aptychus species is
STRIAPTYCHUS spinigeri Trauth, 1927. The nominal genus
Acanthoseaphites was introduced by Nowak in 1911 (type species,
*Seaphites tridens Kner, 1848). This is a clear-cut case which
according to the Régles leaves no possibility of doubt in concluding
that STRIAPTYCHUS spinigeri is a junior objective synonym of
Acanthoscaphites spiniger and that STRIAPTYCHUS is a
junior subjective synonym of Acanthoscaphites, even though
some aptychi which seem surely classifiable as ST7RIAPT YCHUS
are known to belong to other conch genera. For example,
S. cheyannensis occurs in the living chamber of a conch
identified as Discoseaphites cheyennensis (Meek). With recognition
of STRIAPTYCHUS spinigeri as a parataxon (as we recommend)
the name ST RIA PT Y CHUS becomes a permissible generic name for
such aptychi; otherwise the name must either be suppressed, as
@ synonym of Acanthoseaphites, or become designation of a new
genus of conchs with Acanthoscaphites spiniger as type species.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(2) Palanaptychus versus Manticoceras. The name Palanaptychus was
published by Trauth 1927 (op. cit. : 234) to designate the undivided
aptychus in the conch of a specimen of Manticoceras intumescens
(von Beyrich) from Devonian rocks. This species becomes type of
Palanaptychus by monotypy. As such, however, the species is based
not on the conch-and-aptychus association on which the name
Palanaptychus was founded, but on the conch (without aptychus)
which forms the type specimen of M. intumescens. According to the
Régles Manticoceras (type species, *Goniatites simulator Hall, 1874)
is therefore a senior subjective synonym of Palanaptychus, but if the
type specimen of the latter should be interpreted as generically
distinct from Manticoceras and from Gephuroceras Hyatt, 1884
(=Gephyroceras Frech, 1901, obj.) and Crickites Wedekind, 1913,
which now are classed as subjective synonyms of Manticoceras,
Palanaptychus would be an available name. This application proposes
the suppression of Palanaptychus, however, as we believe that to use
the name for a genus of conchs based on M. intumescens would be
most objectionable.
(3) PSEUDOSTRIAPTYCHUS versus: Parapachydiscus. The genus
PSEUDOSTRIAPTYCHUS was introduced by Trauth, 1927, for
an aptychus found in association with a conch identified as Para-
pachydiseus pseudostobaei (Moberg, 1885). No other specimen was
mentioned. This species therefore becomes type of PSHUDO-
STRIAPTYCHUS by monotypy, and, as in the case of Palanapty-
chus, we are left in the unsatisfactory situation in which the type
species of an aptychus genus has a type specimen which is a conch
without aptychus. Parapachydiseus Hyatt, 1900 (type species,
*Ammonites gollevillensis Sharpe, 1857) is a junior subjective
synonym of Pachydiseus Zittel, 1884 (type species, *Ammonites
neubergicus Hauer, 1858, by subsequent designation, de Grossouvre,
1894). However, if Pachydiscus pseudostobaei (Moberg) were deemed
to be generically distinct from both Pachydiscus and Para pachydiseus,
then PSEUDOSTRIAPTYCHUS would be an available name for
such a conch genus. This we believe would be as objectionable
as to use Palanaptychus as the name of a genus of conchs. If,
however, PSEUDOSTRIAPTYCHUS is ruled to be a parataxon,
as we recommend, it is necessary to stipulate that its type species
must be based on an aptychus. In 1928 Trauth (op. cit. : 168) named
the aptychus associated with Moberg’s species as ‘‘ PSEUDO-
STRIAPTYCHUS pseudostobaei Trauth, n.n.” Inasmuch as this
name was applied to a specimen of aptychus identified with Para-
pachydiscus pseudostobaei, it is based on a type specimen different
from that of the species of conch described by Moberg and therefore
is a new species as well as a new name. Moreover, since this is the
only species then referred without question to the genus, it may be
recognized as the type species by subsequent monotypy. In order
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53
to regularize the choice of type species without ambiguity, we
recommend that the Commission use its Plenary Powers to validate
PSEUDOSTRIAPTYCHUS pseudostobaei Trauth, 1928, as the
type species.
(4) Anaptychus. Oppel used the word “ anaptychus ” as a morphological
term in 1856. It was not until 1868 that Schlumberger introduced
Anaptychus as a generic name, including within it those conch-and-
aptychus associations identified with Amaltheus margaritatus
de Montfort and Ammonites laqueus Quenstedt. The name is, however,
a junior homonym, as it had already been used in 1860 by Stimpson
for a genus of Crustacea. It must therefore be suppressed, and it
becomes unnecessary to choose a lectotype. If, however, it had been
a valid name, it would have raised the same problems as PSHU DO-
STRIAPTYCHUS.
10. This paragraph deals with synonymy involving subjective identification
of the type species of an aptychus genus with the type species of a conch genus.
Nomenclatural conflicts which are encountered in applying the present Régles
can in each case be avoided by defining the aptychus names as parataxa.
The type species of both conch genera and aptychus genera are indicated by
an asterisk, and if synonymization involves the type specimen of an aptychus
species, this is indicated by “holotype” or “ lectotype”’ in parentheses
following the specific name, but otherwise identifications are based on speci-
mens other than type specimens.
(1) PUNCTAPTYCHUS versus Haploceras. The aptychus genus
PUNCTAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927, is based on the type species
*Aptychus punctatus Voltz, 1837. The conch genus Haploeeras Zittel,
1870, has the type species *Ammonites elimatus Oppel in Zittel, 1868
(by subsequent selection, Spath, 1923). Trauth, 1935 (Jahrb. Geol.
~ Bundesanst. Wien 85 : 314) records the occurrence together of these
two type species in a conch-and-aptychus association which is not
the type specimen of either species. If the identification of these
components is accepted, the Régles would require rejection of
PUNCTAPTYCHUS as a junior subjective synonym of Haploceras
and the specific name elimatus would be displaced similarly by
punctatus, introducing great nomenclatural confusion both as regards
designation of other species now assigned to PUNCT APT YCHUS
and coordination with the problem of Haploceras versus LA MELL-
APT YCHUS given in para. 12, subpara. 10 below. Such confusion
i: is avoided if the aptychus names are defined as parataxa.
(2) CORNAPTYCHUS versus Hecticoceras. The aptychus genus
CORNAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927, is based on *Aptychus hectict
4
54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Quenstedt, 1849 (monotypy). The conch genus Hecticoceras
Bonarelli, 1893, is based on the type species *Nautilus hecticus
Reinecke, 1818 (monotypy). The holotype of C. hectict occurs in
the living chamber of a conch identified by Quenstedt as Ammonites
hecticus (Reinecke) (Trauth, 1930, op. cit. : 351). According to the
Régles, the valid name of both conch and aptychus is Heeticoceras
hecticum, and since the name of the type species of the important
aptychus genus CORNAPTYCHUS thus becomes suppressed,
confusion arises as to the nomenclature of numerous described
species which are now assigned to CORNAPTYCHUS. The
problem can be solved by ruling that this and other aptychus genera
are to be classed as parataxa.
11. This paragraph deals with synonymy involving subjective indentifica-
tion of the type species of aptychus genera with species of conchs other than the _
type species of the genera to which they are assigned. Seven genera of aptychi
are contained in this group.
(1) Prigonellites (1811), Aptychus (1831), Muensteria (1835), and LAMEL-
LAPTYCHUS (1927) versus Oppelia (1869). The four above-
named aptychus genera are all either objective or subjective synonyms
of each other, all having type species which are objectively or sub-
jectively synonymous. This species has been subjectively identified
with the aptychus in three conch-and-aptychus associations in which
the conch has been subjectively identified as respectively Oppelia
flexuosa (van Buch) 1831; O. discus (Quenstedt) 1856; and
O. euglypta (Oppel) 1863. According to the ordinary operation of the
Régles, the oldest aptychi names have priority over the conch names.
According to our recommendations, as detailed in para. 5 above :
(a) the name T'rigonellites Parkinson, 1811 [*7’. lamellosus Parkinson,
1811] should be suppressed under the Plenary Powers (see
para. 4(3) above) ;
(b) the name Aptychus von Meyer, 1831 [*A. imbricatas von Meyer,
1831 (=Trigonellites lamellosus Parkinson, 1811)] should be
suppressed under the Plenary Powers ;
(c) the name Muensteria Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1835 [*M.
sulcata Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1835 (= T'rigonellites lamellosus
Parkinson, 1811)] should be suppressed as a long-overlooked
name ;
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55
(d) the name LAMELLAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 [*Trigonellites
lamellosus Parkinson, 1811] should, together with its type
species, be ruled a parataxon, available for classification of
aptychi but not for conchs.
(2) Ichthyosiagones (1822) versus Aspidoceras (1867). Ichthyosiagones
Bourdet de la Nievre, 1822 [*Tellinites problematicus Schlotheim,
1820 ; =Trigonellites latus Parkinson, 1811 (=Laevaptychus latus)].
Based on conch-and-aptychus associations, subjective synonyms
among conchs include Aspidoceras eyeclotum (Oppel) 1865 ; A. inflatum
(Zieten) 1830 ; and A. longispinum (Sowerby) 1825. Ichthyosiagones
has priority over Aspidoceras according to normal operation of the
Régles, but we recommend its suppression as a long-overlooked
name ;
(3) GRANULAPTYCHUS (1927) versus Hlawiceras (1921). GRANUL-
APT YCHUS Trauth, 1927 [*G. suevicus Trauth, 1927]. The type
specimen of the type species occurs in a conch identified as Hlawiceras
sp. aff. H. suevicum (Wetzel) 1911. The type species of Hlawiceras
Buckman, 1921, is *H. platyrrymum Buckman, 1921. The generic
name based on the aptychus is junior to that based on the conch,
which is not definitely identified specifically. We recommend that
GRANULAPTYCHUS should be recognized as a parataxon, thus
removing any conflict with Hlawiceras.
(4) NEOANAPTYCHUS (1931) versus Gaudryceras (1894). NHOAN-
APT YCHUS Nagao, 1931 [*N. tenuiliratus Nagao, 1931]. Holotype
of the type species in living chamber of a conch identified as Gaudry-
ceras tenuiliratum Yabe, 1903, Cretaceous of Japan. The genus
Gaudryceras de Grossouvre, 1894, is based on *Ammonites mitis
Hauer, 1866, as type species. Both the generic and specific names
for the conch have priority over those applied to the aptychus, but
we recommend that both the generic and specific names of the
aptychus should be recognized as parataxa.
12. This paragraph is concerned with synonymy involving subjective
identifications of the type species of conch genera with species of aptychi
other than the type species of the genera to which they are assigned. The
aptychus names given between quotation marks are as written by the author
who identified the conch-aptychus association. The names given in square
brackets are those which would be adopted as those of parataxa if our recom-
mendations are approved. Only in this case is conflict avoided between the
name of conch and aptychus. Conflicts with SJDETES are cited in sub-
paragraph (1) to (5) ; with CORNAPTYCHUS in (6) to (8) ; with LAMELL-
APTYCHUS in (9) to (11); with GRANULAPTYCHUS in (12); with
LAEVAPT YCHUS in (18) to (15) ; and with PRAEST RIAPT Y CHUS in (16).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(1) Amaltheus (1808) versus SIDETHS (1847). Amaltheus de Montfort,
1808 (*A. margaritatus Montf., 1808). Subj. syn., “Anaptychus
margaritatus ’’ Schlumberger, 1868 [=SI DET ES pala (Trauth, 1935)].
The generic name SIDETES Giebel, 1847, and specific name pala
Trauth, 1935, are both junior to the names applied to the conch.
(2) Asteroceras (1867) versus SIDETES (1847). Asteroceras Hyatt, 1867
[*Ammonites stellaris Sowerby, 1815 ; subsequent selection Buckman,
1911 ; already placed on the Official List (ICZN Opinion 324)]. Subj.
syn., “Anaptychus sellaeformis bicarinata ” Trauth, 1935[=SIDETES
sellaeformis bicarinatus (Trauth)]. The generic name Asteroceras
is junior to SIDETES Giebel, 1847, but the specific name stellaris
is senior to Trauth’s name for the aptychus found associated with
the conch identified as Asteroceras stellare.
(3) Pleuroceras (1867) versus SIDETES (1847). Pleuroceras Hyatt, 1867
[*Ammonites spinatus Bruguiére, 1789 ; subsequent selection Fischer,
1882; already placed on the Official List (ICZN Opinion 324)]
[=Paltopleuroceras Buckman, 1895 (obj.)]. Subj. syn., ““Anaptychus
mitraeformis”’ Trauth, 1935 [=SIDETES mitraeformis (Trauth)],
and “A. pala” Trauth, 1935 [=SIDETES pala (Trauth)], both
identified in the living chamber of conchs identified as Ammonites
spinatus [—Pleuroceras spinatum]. The generic and specific names
for the aptychi are junior to those of the conch.
(4) Psiloceras (1867) versus SIDETES (1847). Psiloceras Hyatt, 1867
[*Ammonites planorbis Sowerby, 1824 ; subsequent selection Spath,
1924]; already placed on the Official List (ICZN Opinion 324) ;
[=Psilonoticeras Quenstedt, 1883 (obj.)]. Subj. syn., “Anaptychus
carapax angusta”’ Trauth, 1935 [=SIDETES carapax angustus
(Trauth)]. Introduction of the designation ‘‘ anaptychus” by
Oppel (1856) was based on discovery of an undivided aptychus in
the living chamber of a conch identified by him as Ammonites
planorbis but plainly he used the word as a morphological term
rather than as a generic name. Ascribed to SIDETES Giebel, 1847,
the generic name for this aptychus is older than the generic name
given to the conch but the specific name is junior to planorbis.
(5) Arietites (1869) versus SIDETHS (1847). Arietites Waagen, 1869
[*Ammonites bucklandi Sowerby, 1816, already placed on the ~
Official List (ICZN Opinion 305)] [=Arieticeras Quenstedt, 1883
already placed on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Generic
Names (ICZN Opinion 337) (obj.) (non Sequenza, 1885, already
placed on the Official List, ICZN Opinion 337)]. Subj. syn.,
“Anaptychus sellaeformis”” Trauth, 1935 [=SIDETES sellaeformis
(Trauth)]. The generic name SIDETES Giebel, 1847, is older than
sh ee ee ee
Py Pere
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 57
Arietites but it could not appropriately be recognized as a replace-
ment name for this genus of conchs because the type of aptychus
to which it applies occurs with several other genera of conchs. We
recommend that it be recognized as a parataxon, and thus be removed
from competition with all the foregoing conch genera.
(6) Hildoceras (1867) versus CORNAPTYCHUS (1927). Hildoceras
Hyatt, 1867 [*Ammonites bifrons Bruguiére, 1789; subsequent
selection Buckman, 1889] already placed on the Official List (ICZN
Opinion 304). Subj. syn., “Aptychus elasma”’ von Meyer, 1831
[=CORNAPTYCHUS elasma (Meyer)]. Trauth, 1936 (: 49-52)
has identified this same species of CORNAPT YCHUS associated
with conchs identified by him as Leioceras opalinum (Reinecke),
Pseudolioceras lythense (Young & Bird), P. faleatum (Quenst.),
P. gigas (Quenst.), and P. lineatum (Quenst.). Both the generic
and specific names for the species of aptychus associated with
Hildoceras bifrons are junior to the names of the conch.
(7) Leioceras (1867) versus CORNAPT YCHUS (1927). Leioceras Hyatt,
1867 [*Nautilus opalinus Reinecke, 1818; subsequent selection
Buckman, 1887]. Subj. syn. ““Aptychus elasma’”’ von Meyer, 1831
[=CORNAPTYCHUS elasma (Meyer)]. See preceding subpara-
graph for other reported associations of this aptychus with species
of conchs.
(8) Harpoceras (1869) versus CORNAPTYCHUS (1927). Harpoceras
Waagen, 1869 [*Ammonites falcifer Sowerby, 1820; subsequent
selection Arkell, 1951 already placed on the Official List (ICZN
Opinion 303)] [Faleiferites Breistroffer, 1947 (obj.)]. Subj. syn.,
“ Tellinites sanguinolarius ’’ Schlotheim, 1820 [CORNAPT YCHUS
sanguinolarius (Schloth)], which is reported by Trauth, 1936, to
occur also in association with conchs identified as Harpoceras
serpentinum (Reinecke) 1818 and Pseudolioceras lythense (Young
& Bird) 1828. The generic name for this aptychus is junior to
names used for associated conchs. We recommend CORNAPTY-
CHUS be recognized as a parataxon, and thus removed from compe-
tition with these conch genera and those of the two preceding
subparagraphs.
(9) Oppelia (1869) versus LAMELLAPT YCHUS (1927). Oppelia Waagen,
1869 [*Ammonites subradiatus J. DeC. Sowerby, 1823 ; subsequent
selection H. Duovillé, 1884; already placed on the Official List
(ICZN Opinion 324)]. Subj. syn., ““ LAMELLAPTYCHUS sub-
radiatus’ Trauth, 1930 [=LAMELLAPTYCHUS sp.].
(10) Haploeeras (1870) versus LAMELLAPTYCHUS (1927). Haploceras
Zittel, 1870 [*Ammonites elimatus Oppel in Zittel, 1868; subsequent
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
selection Spath, 1923]. Subj. syn., “Aptychus beyrichi ’’? Oppel, 1865
[=LAMELLAPTYCHUS beyrichi (Oppel) Trauth, 1938]. This
synonymization is based on the occurrence of the aptychus L. beyrichi
in the living chamber of a conch identified as belonging to Haploceras
elimatum. As reported above (para. 10, subpara. (1)), PUNCTA-
PTYCHUS punctatus has also been identified in association with
a conch claimed to represent Haploceras elimatum. Clearly identifica-
tion of conch or aptychus must be at fault in at least one of these
conch-and-aptychus associations. If LAMELLAPTYCHUS and
PUNCTAPTYCHUS are recognized as parataxa, such uncer-
tainties of identification will not affect nomenclature.
(11) Neochetoceras (1925) versus LAMELLAPTYCHUS (1927). Neo-
chetoceras Spath, 1925 [*Ammonites steraspis Oppel, 1863]. Subj.
syn., “Aptychus rectecostatus’’ Peters, 1854 [=LAMELLAPTY-
CHUS rectecostatus (Peters), Trauth, 1938] and “Aptychus theo-
dosia’”’ Deshayes, 1838 [=LAMELLAPTYCHUS theodosia (Des-
hayes) longa Trauth, 1938]. Seemingly, the conch or aptychus
comprising one of the associated pairs is misidentified for, as in the
previous subparagraph, it is unreasonable to suppose that a single
species defined by characters of the conch would possess in different
individuals aptychi classifiable as belonging to different species.
In any case, however, we recommended that LAMEHLLAPT YCHUS
be recognized as a parataxon, thus nullifying the effect that such
subjective identifications would otherwise have on the nomenclature.
(12) Lithacoeeras (1900) versus GRANULAPTYCHUS (1927). Lithaco-
ceras Hyatt, 1900 [Ammonites ulmensis Oppel, 1858]. Subj. syn.,
“Aptychus planulati” Fraas, 1885 [=GRANULAPTYCHUS
planulati (Fraas), Trauth, 1937]; both generic and specific names
based on the conch are senior to those applied to the aptychus.
(13) Physodoceras (1900) versus LAEVAPT YCHUS (1927). Physodoceras
Hyatt, 1900 [*Ammonites circumspinosus Quenstedt, 1858]. Subj.
syn., “ Trigonellites latus’’? Parkinson, 1811 [=LAHVAPT YCHUS
latus (Parkinson), Trauth, 1931]. The generic name based on the
aptychus is junior to that based on the conch, whereas the specific
name of the conch is junior to that applied to the aptychus.
(14) Hybonoticeras (1947) versus LAHV APT YCHUS (1927). Hybonoticeras
Breistroffer, 1947 [Ammonites hybonotus Oppel, 1863]. [obj. syn.,
Waagenia Neumayr, 1878 (non Kriechbaumer, 1874)]. Subj. syn.,
“ LAEVAPTYCHUS hybonotus’”’ Trauth, 1931 [=LAHVAPTY-
CHUS sp.]. The generic name based on the conch is junior to that
based on the aptychus.
OD PE ee rR Oe ea ers ew
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59
(15) Euaspidoceras (1931) versus LARVAPTYOH US (1927). Euaspido-
ceras Spath, 1931 [*Ammonites perarmatus Sowerby, 1822]. Subj.
syn., “ Trigonellites latus ”’ Parkinson, 1811 [=LAEVAPTYCHUS
latus (Parkinson), Trauth, 1931]. Both generic and specific names of
the conch species are junior to those of the aptychus species. We
recommend recognition of LAEVAPTYCH US as a parataxon,
thus removing it from competition with the conch genera of this and
the two preceding subparagraphs.
(16) Sigaloceras (1900) versus PRAESTRIAPTYCH US (1927). Sigalo-
ceras Hyatt, 1900 [*Ammonites calloviensis Sowerby, 1815 ; subse-
quent designation (ICZN Opinion 324)]. Subj. syn., PRAEST RI.
APTYCHUS kostromensis Trauth, 1930. Both the generic and
specific names based on the aptychus are junior to those based on
the conch, PRAESTRIAPTYCH US is another of the names
which we recommend should be recognized as a parataxon.
13. This paragraph concerns synonymy involving subjective identification
of conch species and aptychus species, neither of which is the type species
of a genus, the synonymy being based on associations of conchs with aptychi
above-mentioned ambiguities. Specimens illustrating conch-and-aptychus
associations that involve species other than type Species of genera are fairly
numerous. We here list 21 genera and 43 Species of conchs which occur with
aptychi belonging to 8 genera and 36 species (including subspecies). These
are cited as concisely as possible, grouped according to aptychus genera
represented in the associations. The symbol “‘ + ” indicates “ associated
with ”’.
(1) Associations with species of SIDETES Giebel, 1847 [*8. striatus
Giebel, 1849]:
(a) Lytoceras Suess, 1865 [*Ammonites fimbriatus Sowerby, 1817].
L. cornucopia (Young & Bird), 1822 + S. latexcisus (Trauth),
1935.
60
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(b) Arnioceras Hyatt, 1867 [*A. cuneiforme Hyatt, 1867]. A. flavum
(Buckman), 1918 + 8S. peltarion (Trauth), 1935 [=S. falcaries
(Quenst.), 1883].
(c) Coroniceras [*Ammonites kridion Zieten, 1830]. ©. rotiforme
(Sowerby), 1824 + S. carapax (Trauth), 1935.
(d) Psiloceras Hyatt, 1867 [*Ammonites planorbis Sowerby, 1824].
P. harpoptyechum Holland, 1900 + S. listron (Trauth), 1935.
(e) Mojsvarites Pompeckj, 1895 [*Ceratites aginor Miinster, 1834].
M. planorboides (Giimbel), 1861 + S. planorboides (Giimbel),
1861.
(f) Damesites Matsumoto, 1942 [*Desmoceras damesi Jimbo, 1894].
D. semicostatus (Yabe), 1927 + S. semicostatus (Nagao), 1932.
(2) Associations with species of CORNAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927
[*Aptychus hectici Quenstedt, 1849] :
(a) Hildoceras Hyatt, 1867 [*Ammonites bifrons Bruguiére, 1789.—
(i) H. kisslingi Hug + C. sanguinolarius (Schlotheim) accurvata-
granulata Trauth, 1936.—(ii) H. levisoni (Simpson) + C. san-
guinolarius (Schlotheim) levisont Trauth, 1936.
(b) Harpoceras Waagen, 1869 [*Ammonites falcifer Sowerby, 1820].—
(i) H. exaratum (Young & Bird), 1828 + C. sanguinolarius
sanguinolarius (Schlotheim), 1820.—(ii) H. serpentinum (Rei-
necke), 1818 + C. sanguinolarius (Schlotheim) sigmopleura
Trauth, 1936.—(iii) ? H. faleifer (Sowerby), 1820 + C. sanguino-
larius (Schlotheim) accurvata Trauth, 1936.
(c) Dumortieria Haug, 1885 [*Ammonites levesquei d’Orbigny, 1844].
D. subundulata (Branco) + C. subundulatus (Buckman), 1891.
(d) Pseudolioceras Buckman, 1889 [*Ammonites compactus Simpson
in Buckman, 1889].—(i) P. lythense (Young & Bird), 1828 +
C. sanguinolarius sanguinolarius (Schlotheim), 1820.—(ii)
P. lythense (1828) + C. sanguinolarius (Schlotheim) sigmopleura
Trauth, 1936.—(iii) P. lythense (1828) + C. elasma (von
Meyer), 1831...(iv) P. lythense (1828) + C. ovatus (von Meyer)
clathratus Trauth, 1936.—(v) P. sublythense (Quenstedt) 1886 +
C. sublythensis Trauth, 1936.—(vi) P. faleatum (Quenstedt),
1886 + C. elasma (von Meyer), 1831.—(vii) P. gigas (Quenst.),
1886 + C. elasma (1831).—(viii) P. lineatum (Quenst.), 1885 +
C. elasma (1831).—(ix) P. lineatum (Quenst.), 1885 + C. elasma
(von Meyer) concordans Trauth, 1936.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61
(3) Associations with species of LAEV APT YCHUS Trauth, 1927 [*Apty-
chus meneghinit Zigno, 1870]:
(a) Aspidoceras Zittel, 1868 [*Ammonites rogoznicensis Zeuschner,
1846].—(i) A. aeanthicum (Oppel), 1863 + L. laevis longus (von
Meyer), 1831.—(ii) A. bispinosum (Zieten), 1830 + L. laevis
longus (1831).—(iii) A. inflatum (Zieten), 1830 + LZ. laevis
longus (1831).
(b) Hybonoticeras Breistroffer, 1947 [*Ammonites hybonotus Oppel,
1863]. H. autharis (Oppel), 1863 + L. “autharis”’ (Oppel),
1863.
(4) Associations with species of LAMELLAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927
[* Trigonellites lamellosus Parkinson, 1811] :
(a) Oppelia Waagen, 1869 [*Ammonites subradiatus J. De C. Sowerby,
1823].—(i) O. bous (Oppel), 1863 + L. rectecostatus (Peters), 1854.
—(ii) O. euglypta (Oppel), 1863 + L. rectecostatus, 1854.—(iii)
O. hauffiana (Oppel), 1863 + L. “ hauffianus ’’ (Oppel), 1863.—
(iv) O. trachynotus (Oppel), 1863 + L. pseudoparallelogramma
Trauth, 1938.—(v) O. holbeini (Oppel), 1863 + JL. sparsi-
lamellosus (Giimbel), 1861.—(vi) O. lithographiea (Oppel), 1863
+ L. “ lithographicus’’ (Oppel), 1863.—(vii) O. thoro (Oppel),
1863 + L. “thoro’’ (Oppel), 1863.—(viii) O. thoro (1863) +
L. “thoro”’ (Oppel) laevadsymphysalis Trauth, 1938.—(ix)
O. flexuosa hastata (Quenstedt), 271885 + L. “ thoro’”’ (Oppel),
1863.—(x) O. haberleini (Oppel), 1863 + JL. “ haberleini”’
(Oppel), 1863.
(b) Haploceras Zittel, 1870 [*Ammonites elimatus Oppel in Zittel,
1868].—(i) H. lingulatum solenoides (Hohenegger), 1861 +
L. rectecostatus (Peters), 1854.—(ii) H. lingulatum solenoides.
(1861) + ZL. lamellosus (Parkinson) “ solenoides ”’ Trauth, 1938.
(5) Associations with species of PRAESTRIAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927
[*P. gerzensis Trauth, 1930]:
(a) Perisphinetes Waagen, 1869 [Ammonites variocostatus Buckland,
1836].—(i) P. fasciferus Neymayr, 1873 + P. fraasi Trauth,
1937.—(ii) P. siliceus (Quenstedt), 1856 + P. fraasi (1937).
(b) Parkinsonia Bayle, 1878 [Ammonites parkinsoni Sowerby, 1821].
P. subarietis Wetzel, 1911 + P. subarietis Trauth, 1930.
(c) Sphaeroceras Bayle, 1878 [*Ammonites brongniarti Sowerby,
1817]. §S. bullatum (Reynes), 1867 + P. “ bullatus’’ Trauth,
1930.
62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(6) Associations with species of STRIAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 [*S.
spinigert Trauth, 1927]:
(a) Acanthoscaphites Nowak, 1911 [*Scaphites tridens Kner, 1848].
A. roemeri (Schliiter), 1872 + S. roemert Trauth, 1927.
(b) Discoscaphites Meek, 1876 [*Seaphites conradi Morton, 1834].
D. cheyennensis (Owen), 1852 + S. cheyennensis Trauth, 1927.
(c) Worthoceras Adkins, 1928 [*Macrocephalites platydorsus Scott,
1924]. W. bladenensis (Schliiter), 1871 + S. schluetert Trauth,
1927.
(7) Associations with species of GRANULAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927
[*G. swevicus Trauth, 1930]:
(a) Lithacoceras Hyatt, 1900 [*Ammonites ulmensis Oppel, 1858].—
(i) L. rueppellianus (Quenstedt), 1888 + G. planulati (Fraas),
1855.—(ii) L. filiplex (Quenst.), 1888 + G. planulati (1855).—
(iii) L. eudichotomus Zittel, 1870 + G. planulati (Fraas), 1855.
(8) Associations with species of LAHVILAMELLAPTYCHUS Trauth,
1930 [*T'rigonellites ceratoides Ooster, 1857] :
(a) Pseudolissoceras Sapth, 1925 [*Neumayria zitteli Burckhardt,
1903].—(i) P. aporum (Oppel), 1863 + ZL. “ aporus”’ Trauth,
1931.—(ii) P. zitteli (Burckhardt), 1903 + L. “ zitteli’ Trauth,
1937.
14. The recommendations which we now submit are that the International
Commission should :
(1) direct that all names introduced for taxa whose types are, in the
opinions of the authors, aptychi of cephalopods are to be in terms of
parataxa, and as such are not available as the names of taxa based
on ammonoid conchs, or conch-and-aptychus associations ;
(2) use the Plenary Powers to suppress the following long-overlooked
generic names (all of the Class Cephalopoda) (some of which are,
as indicated, also nomina dubia) for the purposes of the Law of
Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy :
Tellinites Schlotheim, 1813 ;
Solennites Schlotheim, 1813 ;
Ichthyosiagones Bourdet de la Nievre, 1822 ;
Muensteria Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1835 ;
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63
(3) use the Plenary Powers to suppress the generic names trigonellites
Parkinson, 1811, Aptychus von Meyer, 1831 and Palanaptychus
Trauth, 1927 (all of the Class Cephalopoda) for the purposes of the
Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ;
(4) use the Plenary Powers to direct that species described under the
following names are to be attributed to the authors named, and are
to be referred to the type specimen which formed the original of the
figure named in parenthesis (or as otherwise defined below) which is
to be regarded as the holotype of the species in question :
GRANULAPTYCHUS suevicus Trauth, 1930 (op. cit. : 389, pl. 5,
fig. 4) ;
PSEUDOSTRIAPTYCHUS pseudostobaet Trauth, 1928 (un-
figured specimen from Coesfelder Berge, Germany, described
by Schliiter, 1872, op. cit. : 58 and Trauth, 1928, op. cit. : 168) ;
NEOANAPTYCHUS tenuiliratus Nagao, 1931 (op. cit. : 109,
fig. 1);
(5) use the Plenary Powers to direct that the following species although
not stated by the authors to be names of aptychi, are nevertheless
to be regarded as names of parataxa, available only to designate
species of aptychi:
Trigonellites lamellosus Parkinson, 1811 ;
Trigonellites ceratoides Ooster, 1857 ;
(6) place the under-mentioned generic names (all Class Cephalopoda,
Order Ammonoidea) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
as parataxa, available only for designation of ammonoid aptychi
and not for ammonoid conchs or conch-and-aptychus associations :
(a) SIDETES Giebel, 1847 (N. Jahrb. Mineralogie, 1847 : 821)
(gender: masculine) (type species, by monotypy: Sidetes
striatus Giebel, 1849, Deutsche geol. Gesell. 1:99, text-fig.
p. 100) ;
(b) CORNAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (Ann. naturhist..Mus. Wien,
41 : 189, 228) (gender : masculine) (type species, by monotypy :
Aptychus hectici Quenstedt, 1849, Petrefactenkunde Deutsch.
1 : 119, 315, pl. 8, fig. 10) ;
(c) CRASSAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 205, 228) (gender :
masculine) (type species, by monotypy: Aptychus crassus
Hébert, 1855, Mém. Soc. géol. France 5 : 368, pl. 28, fig. 5a, b) ;
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(d) GRANULAPT Y CHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 217, 228) (gender:
masculine) (type species, by subsequent selection, Moore &
Sylvester-Bradley, 1956, T'reatise Invert. Paleont. L. GRANUL-
APTYCHUS suevicus Trauth, 1930, op. cit. : 389, pl. 5, figs.
3-5) [species defined under Plenary Powers under subpara. (4)
above] ;
(e) LAEVAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 189, 228) (gender :
masculine) (type species, by monotypy : Aptychus meneghinit
Zigno, 1870, Mem. reale Ist. Venete Sci. Arte 15:11, pl. 8,
figs. 1-4) ;
(f) LAMMELLAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 189, 228)
(gender: masculine) (type species, by subsequent selection,
Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956, Treatise Invert. Paleont.
L: Trigonellites lamellosus Parkinson, 1811, Orangic remains
former world, 3 : 184, pl. 13, figs. 10-11) [species defined under
Plenary Powers under subpara. (5) above] ;
(g) LISSAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 220, 231) (gender :
masculine) (type species, by subsequent selection, Moore &
Sylvester-Bradley, 1956, Treatise Invert. Paleont. L : Aptychus
leptophyllus Sharpe, 1856, Mon. Palaeontogr. Soc. : 55, pl. 25,
figs. la, b) ;
(h) PALAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 214) (gender : mascu-
line) (type species, by subsequent selection, Moore & Sylvester-
Bradley, 1956, Treatise Invert. Paleont. L : Aptychus carbon-
arius Koenen, 1879, N. Jahrb. Mineralogie 1879 : 317) ;
(i) PRAESTRIAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit.: 219, 230)
(gender: masculine) (type species, by subsequent selection,
Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956, Treatise Invert. Paleont.
L : Praestriaptychus gerzensis Trauth, 1930, op. cit. : 380, pl. 5,
figs. 14-15) ;
(j) PSEUDOSTRIAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 219, 230)
(gender : masculine) (type species, by monotypy, Pseudostri-
aptychus pseudostobaet Trauth, 1928, op. cit. : 165) (species
defined under Plenary Powers under subpara. (4) above) ;
(k) PTERAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 188, 218) (gender :
masculine) (type species, by monotypy, Aptychus numida
» Coquand, 1854, Mém. Soc. géol. France (2) 5 : 140, 148, pl. 3,
fig. 1);
(l) PUNCTAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 200, 228) (gen-
der : masculine) (type species, by subsequent selection, Moore &
Sylvester-Bradley, 1956, Treatise Invert. Paleont. L : Aptychus
punctatus Voltz, 1837, N. Jahrb. Mineralogie, 1837 : 435, Trauth,
1935, Jahrb. geol. Bundesanst. Wien 75 : 315, pl. 12, figs. 1-6) ;
i PE ORE IE MLE TG TO
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 65
(m) RUGAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 220, 228) (gender :
masculine) (type species, by subsequent selection, Moore &
Sylvester-Bradley, 1956, Treatise Invert. Paleont. L : Aptychus
rugosus Sharpe, 1856, Mon. Palaeontogr. Soc. : 57, pl. 24, figs.
8-9) ;
(n) SPINAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 200, 220) (gender :
masculine) (type species, by monotypy: Aptychus spinosus
Cox, 1926, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (9) 17 : 577, pl. 24, figs. 1-3) ;
(0) STRIAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 189, 229) (gender :
masculine) (type species, by subsequent selection, Moore &
Sylvester-Bradley, 1956, Treatise Invert. Paleont. L : Striapty-
chus spinigert Trauth, 1927, op. cit. : 244; Schliiter, 1872,
Palaeontogr. 21 : 82, pl. 25, figs. 5-7) ;
(p) LAEVILAMELLAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1930 (Ann. naturhist.
Mus. Wien 44 : 336) (gender: masculine) (type species, by
subsequent selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956,
Treatise Invert. Paleont., L : Trigonellites ceratoides Ooster,
1857, Petrif. remarg. Alpes Suisses, (2) : 16, pl. 6, figs. 6-8,
pl. 7, fig. 19) [species defined under Plenary Powers under
subpara. (5) above] ;
(q) NEOANAPTYCHUS Nagao, 1931 (Proc. Imp. Acad. Japan
7 : 109) (gender : masculine) (type species, by monotypy : Neo-
anaptychus tenuiliratus Nagao, 1931, op. cit. : 109, figs. 1-2)
[species defined under Plenary Powers under subpara. (4)
above] ;
(7) place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology as parataxa, available only for designation of
aptychi :
(a) carbonarius Koenen, 1879, as published in the combination
Aptychus carbonarius (specific name of type species of
PALAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927) ;
(b) ceratoides Ooster, 1857, as published in the combination T'rigo-
nellites ceratoides (specific name of type species of LAE VILA M-
ELLAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1930) (classed as a parataxon under
the Plenary Powers as in subpara. (5) above) ;
(c) crassus Hébert, 1855, as published in the combination Aptychus
crassus (specific name of type species of CRASSA PT YCHUS
Trauth, 1927) ;
(d) gerzensis Trauth, 1930, as published in the combination
PRAESTRIAPTYCHUS gerzensis (specific name of type
species of PRAESTRIAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927) ;
66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(e) hecticti Quenstedt, 1849, as published in the combination Aptychus
hectici (specific name of type species of CORNAPT YCHUS
Trauth, 1927) ;
(f) lamellosus Parkinson, 1811, as published in the combination
Trigonellites lamellosus (specific name of type species of
LAMELLAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927) (classed as a para-
taxon by virtue of Plenary Powers as in subpara. (5) above) ;
(g) leptophyllus Sharpe, 1857, as published in the combination
Aptychus leptophyllus (specific name of type species of LISS-
APT YCHUS Trauth, 1927) ;
(h) meneghinii Zigno, 1870, as published in the combination Aptychus
meneghinit (specific name of type species of LAEVAPTY-
CHUS Trauth, 1927) ;
(i) numida Coquand, 1854, as published in the combination Aptychus
numida (specific name of type species of PTHRAPT YCHUS
Trauth, 1927) ;
(j) pseudostobaei Trauth, 1928, as published in the combination
PSEUDOSTRIAPTYCHUS pseudostobaei (specific name of
type species of PSEUDOSTRIAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927)
and defined by Plenary Powers as in subpara. (4) above ;
(k) punctatus Voltz, 1837, as published in the combination Aptychus
punctatus (specific name of type species of PUNCTAPTY-
CHUS Trauth, 1927) ;
(1) rugosus Sharpe, 1857, as published in the combination Aptychus
rugosus (specific name of type species of RUGAPT YCHUS
Trauth, 1927) ;
(m) spinigert Trauth, 1927, as published in the combination ST RI-
APTYCHUS spinigeri (specific name of type species of
STRIAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927) ;
(n) spinosus Cox, 1926, as published in the combination Aptychus
spinosus (specific name of type species of SPINAPT YCHUS
Trauth, 1927) ;
(o) striatus Giebel, 1849, as published in the combination SIDETES —
striatus (specific name of type species of SIDETES Giebel,
1847) ;
(p) suevicus Trauth, 1930, as published in the combination GRAN-
ULAPTYCHUS suevicus (specific name of type species of
GRANULAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927) and defined under
Plenary Powers under subpara. (4) above ;
‘ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 67
(q) tenutliratus Nagao, 1931, as published in the combination
NEOANAPTYCHUS tenuiliratus (specific name of type
species of NHOANAPTYCHUS Nagao, 1931) and defined
under Plenary Powers under subpara. (4) above ;
(8) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, all suppressed for the
purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of
Homonymy under the Plenary Powers as in subparas. (2) and (3)
above :—
Trigonellites Parkinson, 1811 :
Solennites Schlotheim, 1813 :
Tellinites Schlotheim, 1813 :
Ichthyosiagones Bourdet de la Niévre, 1822 ;
Muensteria Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1835 ;
Aptychus von Meyer, 1831;
Palanaptychus Trauth, 1927 ;
(9) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology both for the purposes
of the Law of Priority and those of the Law of Homonymy :—
Aptycus Deshayes, 1845 (invalid subsequent spelling of Aptychus) ;
Ichthyosiagon Herrmannsen, 1847 (invalid subsequent spelling of
Ichthyosiagones) ;
Aptichus Crosse, 1867 (invalid subsequent spelling of Aptychus) ;
Anaptychus Schlumberger, 1868 (homonym of Anaptychus
Stimpson, 1860) ;
Laevicornaptychus Trauth, 1936 (nomen nudum, proposed without
‘indication of type species) ;
(10) place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology for the purposes of the Law
of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy :—
Synaptychus Basse, 1952 (junior objective synonym of Striaptychus
Trauth, 1927).
(11) direct that the name “ anaptychus ” as used by Oppel, 1856, and
“ synaptychus ” as used by Fischer, 1882, are not to be regarded as
the names of genera, but solely as morphological terms.
References
Arkell, W. J. (1954), “ Proposed Declaration that a generic or specific name
based solely upon the ‘ aptychus ’ of an ammonite (Class Cephalopoda,
Order Ammonoidea) be excluded from availability under the Régles ”
Bull. zool. Nomencel. 9 (9) : 266-269
68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Baier, J. J. (1757), Monumenta rerum petrificatarum praecipua oryctographiae
noricae (Norimbergae) : 1-20, pl. 1-15
Basse, Elaine (1952), “‘Classe des Céphalopodes ” in Piveteau, Jean, Traité de
Paléontologie, Masson (Paris) 2 : 461-555, 581-688, pl. 1-24
Bourdet de la Niévre (1822), Notice sur des fossiles inconnus . . . que j'ai nommé
Ichthyosiagones (Genéve, Paris)
Clarke, J. M. (1882), “ New phyllopod crustaceans from the Devonian of
western New York ”’ Amer. J. Sci. (3) 23
Coquand, H. (1841), ‘‘ Mémoire suivant les Aptychus ” Bull. Soc. géol. France,
12 : 376-392, pl. 9
Cox, L. R. (1926), ‘‘ Aptychus spinosus, sp. n., from the Upper Chalk”? Ann.
Mag. nat. Hist. (9) 17 : 573-580, pl. 24
Diener, Carl, (1925), Fossilium catalogus, Ammonoidea neocretacea: Animalia
I: pars 29, 224 p.
Eudes-Deslonghcamps, M. (1835), “Les coquilles fossiles du genre Miinsteria ”’
Mém. Soc. linn. Normandie 5 : 59-67, pl. 2
Fischer, Paul, (1880-87), Manuel de conchyliologie et de paléontologie F. Savy
(Paris), 1369 p., 23 pl., 1158 fig.
Gesner, Johann (1758), T'ractatus physicus de petrificatis (Lugdini Batavorum)
Giebel, C. G. (1847), “ Mittheilung an Prof. Bronn gerichtet’ Newes Jahrb.
Mineral. 1847 : 819-825
(1849), “ Briefliche Mittheilung an Herrn Beyrich” Z. Deutsch. geol’
Gesell. 1 : 99-100
(1851), Fauna der Vorwelt mit steter Beriicksichtigung der lebenden
Thiere: Brockhaus (Leipzig) 3 : 856 p.
Gmelin, J. F. (1793), Caroli Linné, Systema naturae (Lipsiae), ed. 13, 3 : 399
Hébert, E. (1855), ‘‘ Tableau des fossiles de la Craie de Meudon et description
de quelques espéces nouvelles ” Mém. Soc. géol. France 5 : 367
Koenen, A. von (1879), ‘Die Kulm-Fauna von Herborn” Neues Jahrb.
Mineral. 1879 : 309-346, pls. 6-7
Meyer, Hermann von (1831), ‘Das Genus Aptychus”’ Verhandl. Kais.
Leopold.-Carol. Akad. Naturforsch. 15(2) : 125-170, pls. 58-59
Moore, R. C., & Sylvester-Bradley, P. C. (1957), Treatise invert. Paleont. L : 465- ;
471 Ammonoidea (in press) 4
Nagao, T. (1931), ‘ The occurrence of Anaptychus-like bodies in the Upper
Cretaceous of Japan” Proc. Imp. Acad. Japan 7 : 106-109, figs. 1-2
(1932), “‘ Discovery of a Desmoceras operculum” ibid. 8 : 175-178,
text-fig.
Ooster, W. A. (1857), Petrifications remarquables des Alpes Suisses (IL) Genéve
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 69
Oppel, Albert (1856), “Ueber einige Cephalopoden der Juraformation
Wiirttembergs, 2, Ammonites planorbis Sow. (psilonotus Quenst.) mit
erhaltenen Aptychus’”’ Jahresh. Ver. vaterl. Naturk. Wiirttemberg 12 :
107-108
(1856), “‘ Die Juraformation Englands, Frankreichs und des siidwest-
lichen Deutschlands ” ibid, 12 : 121-556
Parkinson, James (1811), Organic remains of former world Sherwood, Neely &
Jones (London) 3 : 479 p., 22 pl.
Quenstedt, F. A. (1846-49), Petrefactenkunde Deutschlands (Tubingen) 1 : text
and atlas
Riippell, Eduard (1829), Abbildung und Beschreibung einiger neuen oder wenig
gekannten Versteinerungen aus der Kalkschieferformation von Solnehofen
Bronner (Frankfurt-a.M.), 12 p., 4 pl.
Schlotheim, E. F. von (1813), Taschenbuch fiir die gesamte Mineralogie mit
Hinsicht auf die neuesten Entdeckungen herausgegeben von Dr. Carl Caesar
Leonhard (Frankfurt-a.M.) 7(1) : 312 p., 7 pl.
(1820), Die Petrefactenkunde auf ihren jetzigen Standpunkte (Gotha),
437 p., pl. 15-29
Schlumberger, M. (1868), ““Aptychus et Anaptychus ” Bull. Soc. linn. Normandie
(2) 1 : 92-100, pl. 3, figs. 1-15
Schliiter, Clemens (1871-72), “‘ Cephalopoden der oberen deutschen Kreide,
Teil lL”? Palaconiographica 24 : 1-120, pl. 1-35 (1-24, 1871 ; 25-120, 1872)
(1876), ““ Cephalopoden der oberen Kreide, Teil 2” ibid. 24 : 1-144
Sharpe, Daniel (1856), ‘‘ Description of the fossil remains of Mollusca found in
the Chalk of England ’’ Mon. Pal. Soc., London : 37-70, pls. 17-27
Trauth, Friedrich (1927), “‘ Aptychenstudien, I, Uber die Aptychen in
allgemeinen ” Ann. naturhist. Mus. Wien 41 : 171-259 (no Illustr.)
(1928), “‘ Aptychenstudien II, Die Aptychen der Oberkreide”’ sbid.
42 : 121-193, pls. 24
(1930), ‘“ Aptychenstudien III-V ” ibid. 44 : 329-411, pls. 3-5, figs. 1-2
(1931), “ Aptychenstudien VI-VII ” ibid 45 : 17-136, pl. 1
(1935), “Die Aptychen des Paliozoikums” Jahrb. Preuss. Geol.
Landesanst. 55 (1934) : 44-83, pls. 1-2
(1935), “Die Aptychen der Trias” Sitzwngsber. Akad. Wiss. Wien
(math.-naturwiss. Kl.) 144(1) : 455-482, pl. 1
see ,» Die Anaptychen der Lias ’”’ Neues Jahrb. Mineral. 73B : 70-99,
pl. 6
(1935), “ Anaptychi und Anaptychus-ihnliche Aptychi der Kreide ”
ibid. T4B ; 448-479, pl. 14 cai
70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Trauth Friedrich (1935), “Die Punctaptychi des Oberjura und der Unterkreide”
Jahrh. Geol. Bundesanst. Wien 85 : 309-332, pl. 12, figs. 1-2
(1935-36), “‘ Die zweivalvigen Aptychen des Lias” Jahresh. Ver:
vaterl. Naturk. Wiirttemberg 91 (1935) : 22-58, pls. 1-2; ibid. 92 (1936) :
10-43, pl. 3
(1936), “‘ Aptychenstudien VIII” Ann. naturhist. Mus. Wien 47 : 127-
145
(1936), “‘ Die Praestriaptychi und Granulaptychi des Oberjure und der
Unterkreide ” Pal. Z. 19 : 134-162, pls. 10-11
(1938), “‘ Die Lamellaptychi des Oberjura und der Unterkreide”’
Palaeontographica 88A : 115-229, pls. 1-6
Voltz, P. L. (1837), ““Détermination des fossiles connus sous le nom d’Aptychus”’
Inst. J. gén. Soc. Trav. sci. France et l’Etranger, Sec. 1, 5 : 48, 97 (also
cited as published in Bull. Séances Soc. Hist. nat. Strasbourg)
Woodward, Henry (1882), ‘‘ On a series of phyllopod crustacean shields from
the Upper Devonian of the Eifel and on one from the Wenlock shale of
S. Wales ” Geol. Mag. (2) 9 : 385-390, 1 pl.
(1882), ‘‘ Note on Ellipsocaris duqalquei, a new phyllopod crustacean
shield from the Upper Devonian of Belgium ” ibid. 9 : 444-446, text-fig.
Zigno, A. de (1870), “ Annotazioni paleontologiche ” Mem. reale Ist. Veneto
Sct. Lette Arti 15 : 27
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 71
DOCUMENT 1/4
Editorial Note : The following paper by Dr. W. J. Arkell was
published in 1954 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 266—269), the intention
of the applicant being to secure that names based solely upon
aptychi should not be permitted to cause inconvenience and
confusion in normal ammonite nomenclature. It was not concerned
in any way with the question whether provisions should be inserted
in the Régles regulating the nomenclature of discrete fragments of
fossils, a matter which had not at that time been placed before the
International Commission. Following the publication of Dr.
Arkell’s paper objection was raised on the ground that the adoption
of a Declaration in the sense proposed might prejudice the general
question of the recognition of names given to unidentifiable discrete
fragments of fossils. For this reason Dr. Arkell’s application was
deferred for consideration in connection with the foregoing wider
problem. Of the three papers submitted by Professor Moore and
Mr, Sylvester-Bradley in regard to that problem the third, which is
specially concerned with the naming of ammonite aptychi—here
published as Document 1/3—is described by its authors (paragraph 1)
as being, in part, a counter-proposal to that previously submitted by
Dr. Arkell. The latter author’s original application has accordingly
been incorporated in the London Agenda Paper and is here
republished (as Document 1/4) in immediate juxtaposition to the
counter-proposal (Document 1/3) submitted by Professor Moore
and Mr. Sylvester-Bradley. [intl’d. F.H. 11th July 1957.]
Proposed adoption of a “ Declaration ’’ that a generic or specific name based
solely upon the “aptychus ’’ of an ammonite (Class Cephalopoda, Order
Ammonoidea) be excluded from availability under Article 27 of the
“ Régles ’’ and proposed suppression of certain such names under the
Plenary Powers.
By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S.
(Cambridge University, Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056, formerly Z.N.(S.) 589 and 858)
Sub-section (a) of Article 27 of the Régles provides that “ the oldest available
name is retained when any part of an animal is named before the animal
72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
itself’. The present application seeks a clarification of this provision in one
particular.
2. Many nominal genera are based upon nominal species of which the type
specimens are incomplete. The foregoing rule is therefore, in general, desirable.
8. There are however certain special cases where the application of the
above rule would lead to highly undesirable disturbance of existing nomen-
clature. Such cases can be dealt with either by the insertion of words in
Article 27 ruling out from availability names based exclusively upon some
specified part of an animal or can be eliminated individually by the names
concerned being suppressed by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature under its Plenary Powers, the names so suppressed being then
placed on the appropriate Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology.
4, An example of the undesirable disturbance of existing nomenclature
which would arise from the strict application of Sub-section (a) of Article 27
is provided by the names bestowed upon the aptychi of ammonites, structures
which are now generally admitted to be opercula, analogous with those of
gastropods. In the first half of the XIXth century, the nature of these structures
was not understood, and several nominal genera and nominal species were
established for them in the belief, usually, that they were lammellibranchs.
Subsequently, some of these opercula have been found in sifu in the body-
chamber of ammonites. In these cases the names currently used for the genera
and species of ammonite concerned were not published until long after the
names published for their aptychi. The names published for the aptychi being
at present available names, there is a serious risk of disturbance in current
nomenclatorial practice unless the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature takes preventive action.
5. One of the oldest nominal genera based upon aptychi is Trigonellites
Parkinson, 1811 (Organic Remains former World : 184), for which a description
and good figures were provided by Parkinson. No type species was designated
for this genus, the type species of which must however be one or other of the
two originally included nominal species, T'rigonellites latus Parkinson, 1811
(: 186, pl. 13, figs. 9, 12) and 7’. lamellosus Parkinson, 1811 (: 186, pl. 13,
figs. 10, 11). Since Parkinson’s time, the nominal species 7’. latus has been
identified as having been based upon the aptychus of a species of the genus
Aspidoceras Zittel, 1868, and 7’. lamellosus as having been based upon a species
of the genus Oppelia Waagen, 1869. Thus, whichever of the foregoing species
were to be selected as the type species of the nominal genus T'rigonellites
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 73
Parkinson, a serious situation would arise, for in the one case the name T'7i-
gonellites Parkinson would replace the name Aspidoceras Zittel, while in the
other case that name would replace Oppelia Waagen. These are both important
genera and are the type genera of families ; the supersession of either of these
names would give rise to confusion and would be open to strong objection. It is
the object of the present application to prevent these and other names in current
use from being invalidated by the resuscitation of these old names based upon
aptychi. In the present case it is desirable that, as part of its decision in regard
to the name T'rigonellites Parkinson, the International Commission should
place the name Aspidoceras Zittel on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology. In the case of Oppelia Waagen, 1869, a proposal for its addition to the
Official List has already been submitted to the International Commission (1951,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2(6-8) : 227) and no further action is therefore needed here?.
It may be noted that Dr. F. Trauth (Vienna), the sole world authority on
aptychi, does not recognise as an available name any generic name or specific
name based solely upon the aptychi of ammonites. See Trauth, F.,
1927-1936, Aptychenstudien I-VIII (Ann. naturh. Mus. Wien 44-48) (especially
“Aptychenstudien I”, published in 1927 (loc. cit. 44 : 221-228)). It will be
seen therefore that the action now recommended is in line with current usage
both from the point of view of the study of ammonites and from that of the
study of aptychi.
6. Itis accordingly recommended that the International Commission should
render a ‘“‘ Declaration ’’ recommending the International Congress of Zoology
to amend Article 27 of the Régles in such a way as to deprive of availability in
zoological nomenclature any name based solely upon the aptychus of an
ammonite.
7. The amendment of the Régles in the foregoing sense would completely
dispose of the problem here under consideration, but in the nature of the case
this is a remedy which cannot be secured until the suggested Declaration is
reported to, and approved by, the next International Congress of Zoology. It
would however be most undesirable that the particular names with which we
are here concerned should be permitted to retain their present status until
the next Congress, for, as matters now stand, it would otherwise be necessary
to take account of them in the forthcoming Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology.
It is therefore recommended that the immediate situation should be dealt with
by the suppression of these names by the International Commission under its
Plenary Powers, the names in question, when so suppressed, being placed on the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.
1 This name was later placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in Opinion
324 (published in 1955).
74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
8. The proposals which are now specifically submitted to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature are that it should :—
(1) render a “ Declaration” recommending that Sub-section (a) of
Article 27 be amended by the addition of the following words
excluding from its scope any generic name or specific name based
solely upon the aptychus of an ammonite: “save that, where
a nominal genus or nominal species of ammonites (Class Cephalopoda,
Order Ammonoidea) has been established solely upon an aptychus
or upon aptychi, the generic name or, as the case may be, the specific
name published for the nominal genus or nominal species so
established is to have no status in zoological nomenclature ”’ ;
(2) in anticipation of the insertion in the Régles of the foregoing amend-
ment of Article 27, use its Plenary Powers to suppress the under-
mentioned names of generic and specific names of species, each of
which is based solely upon the aptychus, or upon the aptychi, of
ammonites :—
(a) the under-mentioned generic names :—
(i) Trigonellites Parkinson, 1811, Organic Remains former
World 3 : 184;
(ii) Solennites Schlotheim, 1813, Tasch. Min. : 105;
(iii) Solenites Schlotheim, 1820, Petref. : 180 (an emendation of
Solennites Schlotheim, 1813) ;
(iv) Aptychus Meyer, 1831, Jahrb. f. Min. 1831 : 393 ; id., 1831,
N. Acta Acad. Caes. Leopold. Car. 15 (No. 2) : 125;
(v) Aptycus Deshayes, 1845, in Lamarck, Hist. Anim. sans
Vertébr. (ed. 2) 11 : 228 (an emendation of Aptychus
Meyer, 1831) ;
(vi) Muensteria Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1835, Mém. Soc. linn.
Normandie 5 : 61;
(b) the under-mentioned specific names :—
(i) lamellosus Parkinson, 1811, as published in the binominal
combination T'rigonellites lamellosus ;
(ii) Jatus Parkinson, 1811, as published in the binominal com-
bination T'rigonellites latus ;
(3) place the six generic names proposed, under (2) (a) above, to be
suppressed under the Plenary Powers, on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :
a
Sas
es
PP LAGI L Se
i
|
4
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 75
(4) place the two specific names proposed, under (2) (b) above, to be
suppressed under the Plenary Powers on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology ;
(5) place the generic name Aspidoceras Zittel, 1868 (Pal. Mitt. Mus.
Bayer. 2 (Abt. 1) : 116) (gender of generic name: neuter) (type
species, by monotypy : Ammonites rogoznikensis Zeuschner, 1868
(im Zittel, Pal. Mitt. Mus. Bayer. 2 (Abt. 1): 116, pl. 24, fig. 5)
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :
(6) place the specific name rogoznikensis Zeuschner, 1868, as published
in the combination Ammonites rogoznikensis (specific name of type
species of Aspidoceras Zittel, 1868) on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology.
76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/5
Comments received in 1954 on the proposal by Dr. W. J. Arkell for the adoption
of a “ Declaration ’’ depriving names based solely upon the aptychi of
ammonites of the status of availability for the purposes of zoological
nomenclature (i.e. of whole-animal nomenclature in the terminology of
the “ Parataxa Plan ’’)
By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056, formerly Z.N.(S.) 589 and 858)
The publication in 1954 of the application by Dr. W. J. Arkell for the
adoption of a Declaration depriving names based solely upon the aptychi of
ammonites of the status of availability for the purposes of zoological nomen-
clature, i.e. for the purpose of what becomes ‘“‘ whole-animal nomenclature ”’
in the terminology of the “ parataxa ” elicited three comments. These were
from the following specialists :—
(a) Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A. (letter dated
27th November 1954)
(b) C. W. Wright (London) (letter dated 30th November 1954) .
(c) P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (University of Sheffield, England) (letter dated
29th December 1954).
2. The communications so received from Dr. Baily and Mr. Wright are
reproduced in Annexe 1 and 2 respectively to the present note. The letter
received from Mr. Sylvester-Bradley was an objection based upon the apprehen-
sion that the issue of a Declaration in the sense recommended by Dr. Arkell
might prejudice the later introduction into the Régles of provisions regulating
the nomenclature of discrete fragments of fossils unidentifiable as parts of
whole-animals. The communications so received from Mr. Sylvester-Bradley
are not here reproduced, for they have since been superceded by the detailed
treatment of this problem, both generally and with particular reference to
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 77
names based solely upon the aptychi of ammonites in the detailed papers
subsequently submitted which are here reproduced as Documents 1/1 and 1 [3
respectively.
ANNEXE 1 TO DOCUMENT 1/5
Comment by JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr.
(San Diego, California, U.S.A.)
(Letter dated 27th November 1954)
On the basis of the information supplied by Dr. Arkell, I would recommend
the suppression of the name T'rigonellites Parkinson, as otherwise it would have
to displace one of two universally used and understood names.
I do not, however, agree with Dr. Arkell that subsection (a) of Article 27
of the Régles be amended to exclude the Aptychus of Ammonites from its
application. The rule is short and compact and semantically expressed, and
to make an exception to it would complicate it unnecessarily. Simple rules
that are easily understood and easily remembered are the best. If further
cases parallel to this one should develop it would be better to deal with each
one separately by suspending the rules, rather than by amending the rules with
complicated exceptions for the purpose of anticipating emergencies which may
not arise.
ANNEXE 2 TO DOCUMENT 1/5
Comment by C. W. WRIGHT
(London)
(Letter dated 30th November 1954)
As a specialist in Mesozoic Ammonoidea I should like to support strongly
Dr. Arkell’s proposal for a Declaration that generic or specific names of ammonite
aptychi should have no validity in zoological nomenclature.
78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/6
The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa ’’ Proposals
By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S.
(Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)
(Letter dated 20th June 1956)
I have read these documents and support them without reserve. The
proposal for a special category of parataxa with its own special nomenclature
is in my view the only satisfactory solution to an increasingly troublesome
problem facing palaeontologists. I think the authors have made their case
completely.
I am not qualified to comment on the First Supplemental Application
(Conodonts), and my support must be understood as limited to approval of the
Application as a general solution for the problem, and as applied in detail in
the Second Supplemental Application (Aptychi). On the latter I have some
small comments on matters of fact, which in no wise detract from my acceptance
of the authors’ main thesis.
Paragraph 5: Status of Anaptychus Oppel, 1856, and Synaptychus
Fischer, 1882. It does not seem to me to be satisfactorily demonstrated that
these names were not considered as genera by their authors. Oppel in his
1856—8 book did not print any generic or specific names in italics, and
Anaptychus was not printed in italics ; and it was listed in the “ Register”
at the end of the book, which contains no other entries but genera and species.
Synaptychus was printed by Fischer in italics with initial capital, as for genera,
and he used neither italics nor initial capitals for morphological terms.
Paragraphs 12 and 13 : The generic attributions given in these paragraphs
require careful sifting before they could be regarded as reliable. For instance :
Euaspidoceras referred to in paragraph 12(15) is an Oxfordian and Callovian
subgenus and it is highly doubtful whether it can have been found associated
with Aptychus latus, which is essentially Kimeridgian. This is unlikely to be
the only case of misidentification.
a
ee FR Fp ee.
iin
on
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 79
DOCUMENT 1/7
The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘‘ Parataxa ’’ Proposals
By DON L. FRIZZELL and HARRIET FRIZZELL
(Rolla, Missouri, U.S.A.)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)
(Letter dated 21st June 1956)
We wish to endorse most enthusiastically the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley
application for the recognition of the special category of “‘ parataxa”’ for
fragmental fossils. We feel strongly that this special category is indispensable
for progress in micropaleontology.
Moore and Sylvester-Bradley (paragraph 5) refer to our recent use of dual
nomenclature applied to fossil holothurian remains (Univ. Missouri School of
Mines & Metallurgy, Bull., Tech. Ser., No. 89, 1955). We would stress the fact
that our decision to use a dual system of binominal nomenclature within the
framework of the international code—essentially identical with Moore and
Sylvester-Bradley’s proposal for “taxa”’ and “ parataxa ’—was made quite
independently (except for the literature cited in our Monograph). No other
course seems possible to us, if confusion in nomenclature is to be avoided and
if the vast preponderance of fossil material is to be made available for use in
stratigraphy and paleozoology. The concept of ‘‘ parataxa ”’ certainly should
be incorporated within the Régles, and an orderly system of ‘‘ parataonomy ”
so expedited !
80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/8
The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘“‘ Parataxa ’’ Proposals
By ELIANE BASSE
(Laboratoir de Géologie, Sorbonne, Paris)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)
(Letter dated 23rd June 1956)
Je vous envoie mon accord au sujet des propositions concernant la nomen-
clature zoologique sous l’égide de Professor R. Moore et P. C. Sylvester-Bradley.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 81
DOCUMENT 1/9
The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘‘ Parataxa ’’ Proposals
By J. BROOKES KNIGHT
(Smithsonian Institution, United States National Museum,
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)
(Letter dated Ist July 1956)
May I endorse the proposal of Raymond C. Moore and P. C. Sylvester-
Bradley that the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature
establish a special category called ‘“‘ parataxa”’ for the classification and
nomenclature of discrete fragments or life stages of animals which are inadequate
for identification of whole-animal taxa.
Let me emphasize these authors recommendation “that the provisions
concerning parataxa should be limited to special groups of animals specifically
defined for the purpose by the Commission ”’.
It is my opinion that the period of six months which they propose be
allowed to elapse between the publication in the Bulletin of a proposal to the
Commission and the vote taken by the Commission is far too short. What
with delays in the world-wide distribution of the Bulletin by mail, in sorting
out and distributing the matter at the subscribing institution, the likelihood
that the Bulletin will not be called promptly to the attention of all interested
in this or other matter in it coupled with the time needed to digest the proposal
and get a letter back to the Commission, the entire interval of six months may
well have passed. I urge one year as a minimum.
82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/10
The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘‘ Parataxa ’’ Proposals
By H. SCHMIDT
(Geologisch- Palaeontologisches Institut der Georg August-Universitat,
Gottingen, Germany)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)
(Letter dated 3rd July 1956)
Zum Antrag Raymond C. Moore & Sylvester-Bradley méchte ich meine
grundsitzliche Zustimmung ausdriicken. Auch ich halte es fiir notwendig,
dass die Parataxa nomenklatorisch von den Taxa getrennt werden, und dass
Homonymie solchen gegeniiber verhindert wird. Beziiglich Festellung von
Synonymie sollte von seiten der I.R.Z.N. jedoch keine Vorschrift gemacht
werden.
Zum Wortlaut der Recommendation (sub 2a) schlage ich vor, das Wort
“ fragments ” durch “ parts ”’ zu ersetzen.
Begriindung : Es gibt zahlreiche Namen fur fossile Fahrten. Diese sind
niemals “ fragments ” von Tierkérpern, sie tiberliefern uns aber die Form von >
Teilen der Kérper und kénnen unter solche gerechnet werden, besonders weil
ja auch sonst viele Fossilien eigentlich nur Abdriicke (manchmal Pseudomor-
phosen eines Minerals) nach Teilen eines Tierkérpers sind. Die Aufzahlung
der “ zoological entities ’’ bei Moore & Sylvester-Bradley ist in Bezug auf
Fahrten und Spuren unvollstiindig. Ich vermute, dass beide Forscher, denen
diese Begriffe natiirlich nicht fremd sind, durch Weglassen derselben eine
Vereinfachung anstrebten. Ich bin aber der Meinung, dass auch die Parataxa
aus diesem Bereich beriicksichtigt werden sollten. Namen fiir Tetrapoden-
Fahrten (Beispiel : Chirotherium) sollten einbezogen werden. In der Kategorie
Organogene Spuren (Definition bei Krejci-Graf, Senckenbergiana 14, 1932, p. 29) _
gibt es beispielsweise solche, die auf Enteropneusta bezogen werden ; eine neue
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 83
Untersuchung k6nnte (theoretisch!) finden, dass andere ‘‘ Vermes ” zugrunde-
liegen, und so miissten nacheinander mehrere Tierklassen durch die Commission
eine Zulassung fiir Parataxa bekommen.
Ich hoffe, dass der vorliegende Antrag so modifiziert werden kann, dass
spatere Schwierigkeiten in dieser Richtung vermieden werden. Eine bestimmte
Formulierung in diesem Sinne vorzuschlagen habe ich nicht, méchte auch den
Antragstellern nicht vorgreifen.
Des weiteren bitte ich zu bedenken, dass es nach dieser Regelung im
Einzelfall oft unklar bleiben wird, ob ein Taxon oder ein Parataxon vorliegt.
Deshalb sollte fiir die Zukunft empfohlen werden, dass Parataxa schon in der
Namensform als solche kenntlich gemacht werden. Ich habe dazu einen
Vorschlag gemacht (Paldontologische Zeitschrift 28, 1954, p. 3).
Zu “Supplement Application Conodonts ” : In Table 1 sind zu dem von
mir beschriebenen Westfalicus integer (vorher “‘ Gnathodus’”’) einige Vermut-
ungen dargestellt. Ich habe kiirzlich Schritte unternommen, um neues
Material zu beschaffen. In einigen Monaten werden besser begriindete Aussagen
wahrscheinlich méglich sein.
Zu ‘Supplement Application, Aptychi”: Die Gottinger Sammlung
besitzt mehrere Aptychi(es ist tiblich, in solchen Fallen das Wort ‘““Anaptychus ”
nach Oppel, 1856 zu verwenden, aber diese Unterscheidung halte ich fiir
unrichtig) in situ bei Crickites holzapfeli, darunter das Original zu Matern,
Senckenbergiana 18, 1931, p. 160. Danach gehért Spathiocaris koeneni Clarke,
1884, hierher und wire p. 111 und 151 noch zu nennen. P. 411, 7a : carbonarius
Koenen, 1879, ist nach Trauth, Aptychen des Paldéozoikums, 1934, p. 78, zu
_ streichen, was ich bestitigen kann.
Ls
4 Translation of letter by H. Schmidt reproduced above
¢
* In regard to the application of Raymond C. Moore & Sylvester-Bradley
_ I would like to express my approval. I too think it necessary that the para-
_ taxa should be nomenclatorially separated from the taxa, thereby avoiding
_ homonymy. Regarding the establishment of synonymy there should be no
_ directions on the part of the I.R.Z.N.
e. The page numbers here cited are to the pages of the typescript of this paper which was
circulated by the authors to certain specialists. Of the pages cited page 11 is here
reproduced on pages 42-43, page 15 on pages 45-46, and page 41(7)(a) on page 65.
84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
As regards the wording of the Recommendation (subparagraph 2a)
I recommend that the word ‘ fragments ”’ be replaced by “ parts ”’.
Explanation: There are in existence countless names for fossile marks.
These are never “ fragments ”’ of animal bodies, but they give us the form of
sections of these bodies and can therefore be considered as such, especially as
many fossiles are really only imprints (sometimes pseudomorphosia of a mineral)
of parts of animal bodies. The enumeration of “ zoological entities” by
Moore & Sylvester-Bradley is incomplete in regard to tracks and marks.
I suppose that the two researchers, to whom this concept will not be a strange
one, want to simplify matters by omissions. I am, however, of the opinion
that also the parataxa falling into this group should be considered. Names for
Tetrapod tracks (Example : Chirotherium) should be included. In the category
Organogene marks (Definition by Krejci-Graf, Senckenbergiana 14, 1932, p. 29)
there are some which refer to Enteropneusta; a new examination could
(theoretically) find them to be based on another “ Vermes”’, and so the
Commission would have to admit several animal groups to the parataxa.
I hope that the application can be so modified that difficulties which might
later arise in this connection may be avoided. I cannot make definite sugges-
tions in this matter, and also do not wish to anticipate those responsible
for this application.
I would also like you to bear in mind that this Ruling would not always
make it clear whether a taxon or parataxon is under consideration. Therefore
it should be recommended that parataxa should be distinguishable in the form
of the name. I have made a suggestion to this effect (Paldontologische Zett-
schrift 28, 1954, p. 3).
In the First Supplemental Application (Conodonts), Table 1, I have
added a few remarks to my description of Westfalicus integer (formerly
“Gnathodus’’). I have lately taken steps to get new material. In a few
months’ time I hope to be able to give a better reasoned account.
Re the Second Supplemental Application (Aptychi): The Gdttinger
collection possesses several Aptychi (it is usual in such cases to use the word
“Anaptychus ”’ after Oppel, 1856, but I do not consider this correct) in situ
by Crickites holzapfeli, among which is the original of Matern, Senckenbergiana
13, 1931, p. 160. According to this Spathiocaris koeneni Clarke, 1884, belongs
here and should be quoted on p. 11? and p. 15%. Page 41°, 7a: carbonarius
Koenen, 1879, according to Trauth, Aptychen des Paldozoikums, 1934, p. 78,
should be omitted, which I can confirm.
= See Footnote 1.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 85
DOCUMENT 1/11
The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘‘ Parataxa ’’ Proposals
By CURT TEICHERT
(Petroleum Geology Laboratory, United States Geological Survey,
Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)
(Letter dated 9th July 1956)
_ Dr. R. C. Moore and Mr. Sylvester-Bradley have sent me a copy of their
“Application for a Declaration recognizing Parataxa, etc.’ and I wish to record
whole-hearted support of their proposals. These are extremely well phrased
and very logically conceived. I find it quite difficult to offer any worthwhile
comments except to say that the suggested solution of the problems arising
out of the naming of discrete fragments of animals strikes me as good common
sense.
To the groups of fragments and life-stages listed by Moore and Sylvester-
Bradley I would like to add the genera founded on cephalopod mandibles.
For these objects, mainly of Mesozoic age, about 10 or 12 generic names are
now available, but for most of them it is not known with certainty whether
they are of nautiloid or of belemnoid affinities. Classification and treatment
of this group as a parataxon as suggested by Moore and Sylvester-Bradley
would greatly facilitate taxonomic work.
86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/12
The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa ’’ Proposals
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)
Copy of a letter dated 18th July 1956 from R. C. MOORE
(University of Kansas) to H. SCHMIDT (Gottingen, Germany)
commenting on suggestions submitted by J. Brookes Knight
(Document 1/9), H. Schmidt (Document 1/10) and C. Teichert
(Document 1/11)
It is very helpful to have your discussion of application of parataxa to
various groups and the recommendation that wording in the basic declaration
should be broadly applicable to groups defined and approved by the Commission
for use of parataxa. Thus, it has been suggested that not only for parts of
organisms common as fossils but life stages of some organisms as in parasitology
may advantageously be classified and named in terms of parataxa. These
questions are subject for study and future decision. In order to avoid inde-
pendent subjective procedures, it has been the view of Sylvester-Bradley and
me that the responsibility for designating the areas in which parataxa may be
used, should be in the hands of the Commission. This is endorsed by a number
of others such as J. Brookes Knight and Curt Teichert. Teichert has raised
the question of applying parataxa to nomenclature of “ lebensspuren ”’ and
evidently he agrees with thinking expressed in your letter. Purposely, we
submitted only two Supplemental Applications because it has seemed to us that
the principles should receive consideration and I hope adoption before the
effort to apply parataxa in various groups is taken up comprehensively.
I thank you for the specific suggestions made with reference to the Supple-
mental Applications. I shall look forward to seeing the publication concerning
conodonts which you mention, and will study the suggested changes for the
Application concerning aptychi.
ee
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 87
DOCUMENT 1/13
The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “‘ Parataxa ’’ Proposals
By D. T. DONOVAN
(University of Bristol)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)
(Letter dated 10th September 1956)
I have received from Professor R. C. Moore and Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley
a duplicated draft of an application submitted to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature in which they ask for “ parataxa ” to be recognized
as a special category.
I am writing to say that as a palaeontologist, although not one who is
primarily concerned with the groups of fossils for which the category
_ “parataxon”’ is proposed, the concept seems to me to be a useful one, and I
_ therefore support the proposal.
88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/14
Note on the provision in the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘‘ Parataxa °’ Plan for
the possible application of the ‘‘ parataxa system’’ to the naming of
collective groups of certain stages in the life histories of parasites.
By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)
On 8th October 1956 I received a letter dated 3rd October 1956 from
Professor A. C. Walton, Secretary to the American Society of Parasitologists,
transmitting a Resolution adopted by the Society commenting upon the
relationship in the field of the nomenclature of parasites of the “ Collective
Group ” Concept to that which (in Document 1/1) Professor Raymond C. Moore
and Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley had recommended should be recognised under
the term “ Parataxon”’.
2. The receipt of the foregoing resolution led to correspondence between
the Office of the Commission, Professor Walton, Dr. Allen McIntosh and
Professor Raymond C. Moore. Later, Dr. McIntosh communicated to the
Office of the Commission copies of three further documents, namely, a letter
addressed by Dr. McIntosh to Dr. Norman R. Stoll, a letter addressed by
Professor J. Chester Bradley to Professor Walton, and Dr. McIntosh’s reply
to Professor Bradley.
3. The Resolution adopted by the American Society of Parasitologists
is attached to the present note as Annexe 1. The ensuing correspondence
between the Office of the Commission and the specialists referred to in para-
graph 2 above is attached as Annexes 2 to 6. The three documents communi-
cated to the Office of the Commission by Dr. McIntosh are attached as Annexes
7 to 9,
‘
“ ‘
Se ee ee
a i i = ee
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 89
ANNEXE 1 TO DOCUMENT 1/14
Resolution by the American Society of Parasitologists
(Transmitted by Professor A. C. Walton under cover of a
letter dated 3rd October 1956)
(a) That the “ parataxa plan’, as outlined by Moore and Sylvester-
Bradley, will not meet the needs of parasitologists.
(b) That the “ Collective groups ”’ have offered a suitable solution for dealing
with the problem of nomenclature for larval stages of parasites, of unknown
systematic position.
(c) That since there appears to be some difficulty among zoologists in the
use of the Recommendation pertaining to “Collective groups” the Com-
mission should clarify the Recommendation by a Declaration specifying the
status of names associated with them, therefore the Society proposes the
following resolution :
Certain biological groups which have been proposed distinctly as
collective groups, not as systematic units, may be treated for convenience
as if they were genera, but they require no type species. Any specific
name proposed in combination with a collective group name shall have
the same status as if it had been proposed in combination with a generic
name of a systematic unit.
ANNEXE 2 TO DOCUMENT 1/14
Copy of a letter dated 10th October 1956 from FRANCIS HEMMING
(London) to A. C. WALTON (American Society of Parasitologists)
I should like, if I may, to raise a question of interpretation regarding the
Resolution favoured by your Society. Am I right in thinking that it is the object
of this Resolution to secure that where names or terms are published to dis-
tinguish collective groups and not to serve as systematic units the names or
, terms so published though ranking for priority with one another would not
possess any status in zoological nomenclature as generic names, and would not
preoccupy the names so used for use as generic names by later authors either
in the same or in another part of the Animal Kingdom ?
90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
ANNEXE 3 TO DOCUMENT 1/14
Copy of a letter dated 22nd October 1956 from ALLEN McINTOSH
(Chairman, Committee on Nomenclature, American Society of
Parasitologists) to FRANCIS HEMMING (London).
Your letter of 10th October 1956 to Dr. A. C. Walton, Secretary American
Society of Parasitologists, Knox College, Galesburg, Illinois has been referred
to me for reply to the question you have raised regarding the resolution
presented by the A.S.P. pertaining to collective groups.
The purpose of the resolution is to request the Commission to issue a
declaration to clarify the Recommendation under Article 8 (old Code) per-
taining to collective groups.
The declaration to read as follows :—
Certain biological groups which have been proposed distinctly as
collective groups, not as systematic units, may be treated for convenience
as if they were genera, but they require no type species. Any specific
name proposed in combination with a collective group name shall have
the same status as if it had been proposed in combination with a generic
name of a systematic unit.
The declaration is twofold :
(1) To retain the collective groups as genera for convenience with the
interpretations you have given in your letter to Dr. Walton. Except that,
although not mentioned in the resolution, the same spelling as that of a collective
group name should never be employed for a generic name of a systematic unit.
(2) That any specific name proposed for a new species in combination
with a collective group name shall have the same status as if it had been pro-
posed in combination with a generic name of a systematic unit.
ANNEXE 4 TO DOCUMENT 1/14
Copy of a letter dated 27th November 1956 from RAYMOND C. MOORE
(University of Kansas) to FRANCIS HEMMING (London)
In view of the communications sent to you by Dr. A. C. Walton indicating
that “collective group” nomenclature seems adequate for purposes of bi-
nominal nomenclature of life-stages such as those studied by parasitologists,
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 91
it may be well to remove this from the application which we submitted on
parataxa. Seemingly, an essential difference between collective groups and
parataxa is that concept of type species, type specimens, and the like are not
used with the former whereas they are essential in connection with parataxa.
ANNEXE 5 TO DOCUMENT 1/14
Copy of a letter dated 5th December 1956 from FRANCIS HEMMING
(London) to RAYMOND C. MOORE (University of Kansas)
As regards the point raised in your letter, and my correspondence with
Dr. A. C. Walton, it seems to me that the question of whether or not collective
groups on parataxa should be accepted (a) as concepts not having type species
or (b) as concepts having type species, is one of fundamental importance,
for obviously if names given to such units are to be given type species as in the
case of ordinary genera, the problem is one of considerably greater complexity
than if they are not. In view of the differences of opinion which have been
expressed on this question it will be particularly necessary that the Commission
should be furnished with a representative sample of the view of specialists on
this aspect of the matter before it takes a decision.
ANNEXE 6 TO DOCUMENT 1/14
Copy of a letter dated 8th January 1957 from RAYMOND C. MOORE
(University of Kansas) to FRANCIS HEMMING (London)
After discussion with some parasitologists at the meeting of the Society
of Systematic Zoology in New York City, I am not sure that all agree with the
views expressed by Dr. Walton but so far as I am concerned reference to
“ life stages ” in our application on parataxa could be deleted without affecting
in any way the crucial objectives concerned with discrete parts of fossil organisms.
However, I do think that the question of requirement of type species or lack
of such requirement as affects names for “ collective groups” is important.
I am very sure that efforts to apply collective group nomenclature to our
discrete fossils would not solve problems, mainly because we must have
names both for the parts and for assemblages of parts presumed or
demonstrated to represent complete animals.
92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
ANNEXE 7 TO DOCUMENT 1/14
Copy of a letter dated 13th August 1956 from ALLEN McINTOSH (Chairman,
Committee on Nomenclature, American Society of Parasitologists) to
NORMAN D. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research) (trans-
mitted by Allen McIntosh).
Herewith are copies of letters from the other members (Hunter, Kruidenier,
and Wharton) of the A.S.P. Committee on Nomenclature and Terminology,
of which I am Chairman. These pertain to the possibility of incorporating
a new article in the Code for “ parataxa’”’ as recommended by Moore and
Sylvester-Bradley, with supplementary suggestion by Commissioner Chester
Bradley for broadening the plan to include “ Collective groups’ names as
used by the helminthologists.
Granting that the “ Parataxa plan ’”’ may be an excellent working tool for
the paleontologists, such a plan, as outlined by Dr. Moore and Mr. Sylvester-
Bradley, would, in the unanimous opinion of the A.S.P. Committee, handicap
the work of helminthologists if adopted by them.
It is true that the category “‘ Collective groups ”’, established for larval
stages of worm parasites in which only a fragment in the life-cycle is known,
is somewhat parallel to the proposed “ parataxa ’’, the latter to include fossil
fragments that are inadequate for identification. There is, however, a difference.
In the case of the parasites we are working with living animals and have been
able to resolve the complex life-cycle for many of the species placed in the
“Collective groups ”’.
To accept and practice the concepts of ‘“‘ parataxa”’ as outlined by the
two eminent paleontologists would be acting contrary to the Law of Priority,
Article 25, and the Application of the Law of Priority, Article 27.
Some nomenclaturists may argue that to accept the Recommendation
under Article 8, that certain biological groups which have been proposed
distinctly as collective groups, not as systematic units, but may be treated for
convenience as if they were genera, would be contradictory to the present
rules. But such is not the case. Most helminthologists, in general, have not
considered that the Recommendation under Art. 8 is inconsistent with or con-
trary to the rules and it has been their practice to accept as the valid name of
a species only that name under which it was first designated on the condition :
(a) That this name was published and accompanied by indication, or a definition,
or a description ; and (b) That the author has applied the principles of binary
nomenclature (Art. 25).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 93
Even in the case of collective groups where a name, for convenience, is
treated as a genus, the practice is not in violation of Article 27, for the Law
of Priority obtains and consequently the oldest available name is retained :
(a) When any part of an animal is named before the animal itself ; (b) When
any stage in the life history is named before the adult ; (c) When the two sexes
of an animal have been considered as distinct species or even as belonging to
distinct genera ; (d) When an animal represents a regular succession of dis-
similar generations which have been considered as belonging to different species
or even to different genera (Art. 27).
The practice of combining a new specific (trivial) name with a collective
group name (a genus for convenience) does not create a scientific name con-
trary to binary nomenclature. (Art. 25b).
Many of the names of the ‘“ Collective groups ”’ that are treated as genera
for convenience, were proposed as genera but are synonyms of valid genera.
If types were designated for other “Collective groups ” and the name treated
as generic taxa, they too would become synonyms of older genera. Some of
these names were proposed for the purpose of serving as genera for larval
stages of certain species that had similar characteristics. For such names
(genera for convenience) no types were designated nor were any needed as
the authors were aware that when the life histories were known several named
genera would probably be represented under the collective group names.
Other names that have come into use, as collective groups, were proposed as
valid genera with types designated at the time or at a later date, for what
were believed to be, in some cases, free-living animals but proved later to be
a free living stage in the life cycle of parasites. Mueller’s (1773) genus Cercaria
included such forms.
It has been argued that specific names combined with collective group
names (genera for convenience) are never combined with genera of systematic
units. This is not the practice of helminthologists as the following examples
will serve to indicate : 1. Schistosomatium douthitti (Cort, 1914) is the accepted
name for the blood trematode of the muskrat and other rodents. This para-
site was first known in the larval stage as Cercaria douthitti Cort, 1914. Before
the life history of Cercaria douthittti was known this parasite was of considerable
medical importance as a producer of schistosome dermatitis (‘‘ swimmer’s
itch’). Thus genus Schistosomatiwm was proposed by Tanabe in 1923 as a
monotypical genus with Schistosomatium pathlocopticum, Tanabe, 1923, as type.
Tanabe had first observed this parasite as a fwrcocercous cercaria in Lymnaea
palustris. He successfully developed the adult of this blood flude parasite in
mice.
In 1929 Helen F. Price, under the direction of Dr. George R. La Rue,
University of Michigan, worked out the life history of Cercaria douthitti Cort,
1914, obtaining the adult in rats and mice. The adults occur as natural
94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
infections in Ondatra zibethica and Microtus p. pennsylvanicus. Miss Price
transferred the specific name from the collective groups name, Cercaria (the
genus Cercaria was proposed by Mueller, 1773, for a number of free swimming
organisms that included among them some species of trematodes in their free
swimming larval stage) to the genus Schistosomatium Tanabe, 1923, and
today this parasite is known as Schistosomatium douthitti (Cort, 1914) Price,
1929, Syns. Cercaria douthitti Cort, 1914, and Schistosomatium pathlocopticum
Tanabe, 1923.
2. Another interesting parasite, in which the name was first proposed
in combination with a collective genus, is Leucochloridiomorpha constantiae.
(Mueller, 1935) Allison, 1943, a trematode in which the adult stage is found in
a duck, Anas rubripes. This parasite was first known and described from an
immature stage found in a snail, Campeloma decisum Say, and described
under the name Cercariaeum constantiae by Mueller, 1935. The adult
was described by Gowar, 1938, as Leucochloridiomorpha macrocotyle
n.g., n.sp., Allison (1943) in publishing the results of his investigations
on the life cycle of Cercariaewm constantiae found this larval species to be
identical with Gower’s Leucochloridiomorpha macrocotyle.
The accepted name today of this parasite is Leucochloridiomorpha con-
stantiae (Mueller, 1935) Allison, 1943 ; Syns. L. macrocotyle Gower, 1938 ; and
Cercariaeum constantiae Mueller, 1935.
3. Some additional collective group binominals in which the specific
names have been combined with genera of systematic units :
(a) Nematodium passali Leidy, 1852 [=Chondronema passali (Leidy, 1852)
Christie and Chitwood, 1931].
(b) Cercaria variglandis Miller and Northup, 1926 [=Microbilharzia
variglandis (Miller and Northup, 1926) Stunkard, 1951).
(c) Dubium erinacei Rudolphi, 1819, Syn. Sparganum erinacei-europaer
(Rud. 1819) Diesing, 1854 [=Spirometra erinacei (Rud. 1819) Mueller, 1937].
(d) Cercaria elephantis Cort, 1917, [=Spirorchis elephantis (Cort, 1917)
Wall, 1941].
(ec) Diplostomulum joyeuxi Hughes, 1929 [=Szidatia joyeuxi (Hughes, 1929)
Dubois, 1938].
(f) Aganofilaria georgiana Stiles, 1906, [=Filaria georgiana (Stiles, 1906)
Castellani and Chalmers, 1910).
aa SS.
————————— es OC TS——<—~CS:S
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 95
Some of the “Collective groups” have had only a few specific names
assigned to them and in the case of Amphistomulum Brandes, 1892, no species
have been assigned.
It is my opinion that the helminthologists should either go on record as
opposing the suppression of the Recommendation under Art. 8 of the Rules
pertaining to collective groups, or, recommend to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature the rendering of a Declaration to read as follows :—
Certain biological groups which have been proposed distinctly as
collective groups, not as systematic units, may be treated for convenience
as if they were genera, but they require no type species. Any specific
name proposed in combination with a collective group name shall have
the same status as if it had been proposed in combination with a generic
name of a systematic unit.
ANNEXE 8 TO DOCUMENT 1/14
Copy of a letter dated 30th November 1956 from J. CHESTER BRADLEY
(Cornell University, Ithaca) to A. C. WALTON (American Society of
Parasitologists) (transmitted by Allen McIntosh).
I have been giving thought to your recent letter. Some questions arise.
(1) What provision should be made concerning homonymy? Should
names of collective groups enter into homonymy with one another? With
generic names ?
(2) The Regles provide, in effect (cf. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 226, par. 21)
that a specific name, in order to become available, must be published in
connection with a specified generic name. This seems to be a fundamental
principle of zoological nomenclature. Would you care to propose an amendment
to bring it into line with the Society’s resolution 2
(3) The Reégles provide (cf. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 114, par. 16) that the
name of a hypothetical concept shall have no status. Since a “ collective
group ”’ is not related to taxonomy, will it be argued by some that it is a hypo-
thetical concept and therefore excluded from zoological nomenclature ?
(4) A taxon is any taxonomic unit—but this excludes a collective group.
Without a type such a group cannot be objectively defined—but perhaps no
definition is necessary. Should one conclude that being non-taxonomic it has
no place in taxonomy, that it belongs to no family, order or class ?
96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
In my proposed draft of the Régles I have frequently used the word taxon
in wording a provision. Since all such provisions would exclude collective
groups (as not coming under taxa) should not your resolution have some
provision to the effect that wherever the word “‘ taxon ”’ is employed in the
Regles, it should be understood that the provision in question likewise applies
equally to a collective group? Without reading through the entire draft
I cannot tell whether this should not poi be true, nor how important it
would be.
(5) Subsequent to 1930 a generic name does not become available until
published with a type-species. Since names of collective groups require no
type species, should there not be some clarification of their status inserted
in that provision ? I mean should one say “‘A generic name but not the name
of a collective group ” does not become available etc. ?
It would be helpful to know whether the Resolution enclosed in your
letter was adopted (a) by mail vote of the membership of your society, or (b)
by the nomenclature committee only. It would also be useful to know
whether the vote, however taken, was unanimous, or if not what proportion
was affirmative.
Personally, I feel that exceptions made for special disciplines are objection-
able in the Régles and should be held down to a minimum. I had hoped that
the proposal for parataxa might also cover the requirements of parasitologists,
or be modified so as to be acceptable to them as well as to paleontologists.
I am disappointed that your letter dismisses them without any explanation
of why they will not serve.
ANNEXE 9 TO DOCUMENT 1/14
Copy of a letter dated 19th December 1956 from ALLEN McINTOSH
(Chairman, Committee on Nomenclature, American Society of Parasitologists)
to J. CHESTER BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca) (transmitted by
Allen McIntosh)
Your letter of November 30th 1956, to Dr. A. C. Walton, Secretary,
American Society of Parasitology, Knox College, Galesburg, Illinois, has been
referred to me for reply to the questions you have raised regarding the Resolution
presented by the American Society of Parasitologists pertaining to collective
groups.
aah,
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 97
These questions are answered in the order in which they appeared in your
letter.
(1) Names of collective groups should be treated as if they were generic
names, entering into homonymy with one another and with generic names.
(Several names that are today used as collective groups were originally proposed
as generic names.)
(2) Names of collective groups should not present an insurmountable
problem. Why not state in Article 25, provoso (c), that such names are to be
treated as if they were generic names ?
With reference to specific names to become available (cf. Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 4 : 228, par. 21, last part) it is suggested that the underscored words
be inserted in the following paragraph quoted from the above-mentioned
reference :
The Commission agreed to recommend :—
that words should be inserted in Article 25 to make it clear that the
status of a trivial name (specific, subspecific or infra-subspecific) is
not adversely affected where the generic name (including name of a
collective group) with which it was combined when first published is
a name which was itself either an unavailable name by reason of its
having been published in conditions which do not satisfy the require-
ments of Article 25 (Law of Priority) (proviso (c) cases) or was invalid
under the Law of Homonymy.
(3) Names of collective groups should not be treated as “‘ hypothetical
concepts ” (cf. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 144, par. 16). They are names applied
to certain immature forms, the categories of which are supra-generic in scope,
and for convenience are treated as if they were genera.
Dr. Ch. Wardell Stiles (1905) in “ The determination of generic types ”
_ stated his views concerning collective biological groups as follows : “ Collective
groups of this kind are of course unnatural, but they are nevertheless con-
venient, for they enable an international specific nomenclature for certain forms
without recourse to classifying worms in an uncertain manner in genera which
_ have a more or less definite status ”’. Dr. Stiles went on to say, ‘‘ In case species
are temporarily classified in such collective groups, we believe their specific
_ nates should be entitled to priority when they are definitely classified in their
proper genera ’’. These quotations from Dr. Stiles’s work are mentioned here
since he has influenced the taxonomic and nomenclatural work of many
helminthologists.
G
98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(4) Collective groups should not be classed as non-taxonomic units as
all the species can be placed in classes, most of them in orders and many in
families.
It would do no harm if our Resolution contains some provision to the effect
that wherever the word “taxon” is employed at the generic level in the
Régles, it should be understood that the provision in question applies equally
to a collective group, except that a collective group does not require a type
species.
(5) Since generic names, Article 25, proviso (c), are not available until
published with a type species, there should be inserted in the proviso an
exception for collective groups, since, as you have pointed out, they require
no type species.
The Resolution was first approved by the nomenclature committee of
the American Society of Parasitologists. It was then presented at the Council
meeting of the Society at the annual meeting held at Storrs, Conn., August
26th, 1956. The Council, which consists of sixteen voting members of the
Society, adopted the Resolutions unanimously. At the annual luncheon and
business meeting of the Society, August 29th 1956, the action of the Council
was approved unanimously by the members assembled, estimated at over
two hundred present.
Your objections to exceptions made for special disciplines are under-
standable and appreciated. But, we believe our Resolution is more in the
nature of a clarification (of the Recommendation under Article 8, old code)
than a request for a special exception.
It is regretted that you were not informed as to the Nomenclature Com-
mittee’s reaction regarding parataxa. One of our objections to parataxa,
as outlined by Moore and Sylvester-Bradley, is that it violates the principle
that a name applied to any part of any stage of an animal is to be considered
in the same light as a name based upon any entire adult animal. In parataxa
a wall would be conceived separating parataxa nomenclature from taxa
nomenclature, disregarding the Law of Priority.
* Parataxa ’’ may be an excellent plan for the palaeontologists, but in the
field of parasitology it would not be practical as here we are working with _
living animals and have been able to resolve the complex life-cycles for many
of the species that were once placed in “ collective groups’, and hence to
definitely place them in taxonomic genera.
I am enclosing a copy of a letter to Dr. Norman R. Stoll (August 13th
1956) containing additional background data.
er
_
My
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 99
DOCUMENT 1/15
Arrangements made between the Office of the Commission and Professor
Raymond C. Moore for making an organised attempt to obtain comments
on the “ Parataxa Plan’’ from representative palaeontological institutions
and individual specialists.
By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)
In 1956 correspondence took place between the Office of the Commission
and Professor Raymond C. Moore on the question of the need for taking
special measures to obtain comments on the “ Parataxa Plan” submitted
by Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley and himself from representative palaeontologists
in different parts of the world. This led to Professor Moore kindly undertaking
to prepare for this purpose a succinct digest of the principal proposals embodied
in the foregoing Plan.
2. The document so prepared by Professor Moore was despatched by the
Office of the Commission on 8th July 1957 to a large number of palaeontological
institutions and individual palaeontologists. In addition, copies of Professor
Moore’s digest were sent to a number of other zoological institutions and
specialists whose views were sought on the question of possible repercussions
on the current system of nomenclature for species (i.e. of the nomenclature of
* whole-animals ” in the terminology of the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley Plan) of
the introduction into the Régles of provisions for the naming of discrete parts of
animals unidentifiable as whole-animals, such parts to be reorganised under the
title “ parataxa”’.
3. The Letter so issued, together with the digest prepared by Professor
Moore, is reproduced in the Annexe attached to the present note.
ANNEXE TO DOCUMENT 1/15
Letter dated 8th July 1957 issued by the Office of the Commission
to certain palaeontological and other zoological institutions and
to certain specialists inviting comments on the “ Parataxa Plan ’’.
Proposed insertion in the “‘ Régles ’’ of a provision defining,
and providing for the nomenclature of “ Parataxa ’’ (—dis-
crete parts of animals unidentifiable as belonging to whole-
animal genera and species).
Among the papers which will be considered by the Fifteenth International
_ Congress of Zoology, London, 1958, will be three papers on the above subject
100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
submitted jointly by Professor Raymond C. Moore (University of Kansas) and
Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (University of Sheffield). These papers will shortly
be published in the London Congress Agenda Volume (Volume 15) of the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.
It has been agreed between Professor Moore and this Office that in view of
the novelty and complexity of the issues raised by the foregoing proposals it
is desirable that exceptional measures should be taken before the Congress to
ascertain the views of specialists on the action recommended. For this purpose
Professor Moore has prepared a digest of the proposals in question which it has
been agreed should be submitted to a number of specialist bodies and individual
specialists for observations. A copy of Professor Moore’s digest is enclosed
herewith and it is hoped very much that you will be so good as to furnish
observations to this Office on the action recommended.
Two groups of issues are involved, namely :—(1) Are the proposals appro-
priate for the palaeontological purposes which they have been devised to serve #
(2) Are the safeguards proposed adequate to render the introduction of the
scheme innocuous from the point of view of the nomenclature of species and
subspecies (whole-animal nomenclature)? The first of these questions is
primarily of interest to palaeontologists ; the second is of importance to all
zoologists, neontologists as well as palaeontologists.
Enclosure to letter issued by the Office of the Commission reproduced
above as the Annexe to Document 1/15
Proposed addition to the “ Régles ’’ of provisions recognising
and regulating the nomenclature of “ parataxa ”’
Plan submitted jointly by RAYMOND C. MOORE (University of Kansas,
Lawrence, U.S.A.) and P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (University of
Sheffield, England).
Request to specialist bodies and specialists for advice.
(Note by the Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.)
Arrangements have been made by the International Trust for Zoological
Nomenclature for the publication at a very early date in the special London
Congress (1958) Agenda Volume of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(Volume 15, Part 1/4) of a group of three papers written jointly by Professor
Raymond C. Moore (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) and
P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (University of Sheffield, England) containing proposals
es eee
x
a
err
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 101
for the incorporation in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature of
a group of provisions recognising and defining the concept “ parataxon ”’ and
providing for the regulation of the nomenclature of units belonging to this
category.
2. In view of the novelty of the proposed plan and the inevitable complexi-
ties involved it is evident that the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology
when it meets in London in 1958 is likely to wish to satisfy itself not only that
the proposals are well-conceived but also that they command a representative
body of support among palaeontologists. This is all the more important in
the present case in view of the fact that its subject is primarily of interest to
palaeontologists, a body of specialists who are normally not strongly represented
at International Congresses of Zoology. In these circumstances consideration
has been given by Professor Moore and myself to the question of the procedure
to be adopted for bringing the foregoing proposals prominently to the attention
of interested specialists in advance of the London Congress.
3. It is to be hoped that in part the foregoing object will be achieved by
the publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of the detailed papers
prepared by the applicants and also by the issue of Public Notices to representa-
tive serial publications at the time when these applications are published in
the Bulletin. Experience has shown however that in the case of exceptionally
complicated problems and also in that of cases of a general—as contrasted with
a specialised—interest the foregoing procedure is not always capable of securing
as fully a representative sample of comments as is desired. This problem arose
in 1952 in connection with proposals affecting certain broad issues touching
the provisions of the Régles. It was then decided that the normal methods
for obtaining the views of interested specialists should be supplemented by the
distribution of questionnaires to specialist bodies and individual specialists.
The replies to these questionnaires were published in the special Copenhagen
Congress (1953) Agenda volumes of the Bulletin (Volumes 8 and 10) immediately
upon their receipt in the Office of the Commission. It has been decided to
adopt a similar procedure in the present case.
4. In pursuance of the foregoing decision Professor Moore has kindly
prepared a digest of the lengthy documents in which he and Mr. Sylvester-
Bradley had discussed the problem of the nomenclature of parataxa, in which
he drew attention to the principal issues involved and gave particulars of the
provision which it was recommended should be inserted in the Régles. The
digest so prepared by Professor Moore is attached to the present note as an
appendix.
5. It is particularly hoped that the specialist bodies and individual
specialist to whom the present document is being despatched will be so good
as to assist the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and,
102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
through it, the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology, London, 1958,
by communicating statements to this Office :—
(1) setting out their views on the proposals submitted by Professor Moore
and Mr. Sylvester-Bradley ;
(2) indicating, if they consider that those proposals ought to be expanded
or otherwise amended in any respect, how the changes desired
should be fitted into the general framework of the plan submitted
in this case.
6. Answers to the present appeal for advice should be addressed to the
Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (address :
28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1). Communications so
received will be published in the Agenda volume of the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature immediately upon their being received. In view of the import-
ance attached to the early publication in the above volume of the Bulletin
of comments on all matters of nomenclature to be brought before the London
Congress next year, it will be particularly appreciated if recipients of the
present request for assistance will be so kind as to furnish replies at the earliest
date which they may find to be practicable.
(signed) FRANCIS HEMMING
Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature
4th July 1957.
Appendix to the Note by the Secretary dated 4th July, 1957
Digest of an application submitted by R. C. Moore and P. C. Sylvester-
Bradley for the introduction into the “ Régles’’ of provisions
recognising parataxa as constituting a special category for the
classification and naming of Discrete Parts or Life-Stages of
Animals which are inadequate. for identification as Whole-
Animal Taxa.
Digest prepared by RAYMOND C. MOORE
(University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.)
The purpose of applications proposing recognition of classifactory units
termed “ parataxa” is to remove instability and confusion affecting the
nomenclature of several thousand kinds of already named Discrete Parts of
———— — ee
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 103
animals (almost exclusively fossils) which are unidentifiable as belonging to
generic and specific taxa of Whole Animals or are even unplaceable in supra-
generic taxa. A large majority of these fragmentary remains have been
demonstrated to possess high value in stratigraphic paleontology. Similarly,
certain life-stages of parasites, very important in medical studies, are indeter-
minable as to the taxa of adults and possibly those may be usefully defined as
parataxa.
2. As a basic premise we may agree that zoological taxonomy comprises
a single system based on presumed natural relationships and into this system
all animals, with varying degree of success, may be fitted. However, because
many Discrete Parts of animals cannot be incorporated in any Whole-Animal
taxa, a system of parataxonomy that is measurably independent of zoological
taxonomy is called for. Then classification and nomenclature applicable to
the Discrete Parts of unidentified animals may proceed without confusion or
disturbance of either category (taxa or parataxa) with the other. It is needful
that all rules governing nomenclature of whole-animal taxa should be applied
without any difference in mode or force to the category of parataxa as used for
Discrete Parts of unidentifiable Whole Animals, except that for purposes of the
Law of Priority a wall should be conceived to separate nomenclature of Whole-
Animal taxa from nomenclature of parts defined as parataxa. For the purposes
of the Law of Homonymy, taxa and parataxa would be co-ordinate.
3. Names given to Discrete Animal parts representing unknown Whole-
Animal taxa have been treated in three different ways, none of them satis-
factory. All consists of binomina for “ specific’? units and trinomina for
“ subspecific ” units.
(a) Names construed to differ in no way from those employed for Whole-
Animal taxa and conforming to Article 27 (a) of the Régles which
stipulates that “the oldest available name is retained when any
part of the animal is named before the animal itself ”’ ;
(b) Names construed as “‘ technical terms ”’ (Paris, 1948) which are rejected
from the domain of zoological nomenclature ; and
(c) Names construed to designate ‘‘form”’ taxa analogous to ‘ form-
genera ’’, “‘ organ-genera”’, “ form-species ’”’, etc., of the Botanical
Code but not recognised by zoological rules.
4. If nomenclature of Discrete Animal parts is governed exactly in the
manner accepted for naming of Whole Animals (see paragraph 3(a) above),
there would be a continuous risk of confusion and instability of nomenclature
which may be serious. Out of many examples, two are cited briefly here.
(a) T'rigonellites lamellosus Parkinson, 1811, based on an ammonoid aptychus
(operculum) is the type species of T'rigonellites Parkinson, 1811. It
104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
was described from a specimen not associated with a conch. Subse-
quently, 7’. lamellosus has been found in situ within conchs identified
as Oppelia flexuosa (von Buch, 1831), O. discus (Quenstedt, 1856) ;
and O. euglypta (Oppel, 1863). The genus Oppelia Waagen, 1869,
is based on Ammonites subradiatus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1823, as type
species, described from a conch. If Trigonellites and Oppelia are
correlative competing names, Article 27 (a) would call for the
acceptance of T'rigonellites and the rejection of Oppelia, despite
very long and widespread use of Oppelia for scores of species, including
fossil zone-guide forms. Also, it would be inadmissible for three
valid species as defined by conchs (O. flexuosa; O. discus; and
O. euglypta) to be synonymized under the name T'rigonellites
lamellosus. °"4 2
(b) A Whole-Animal (?) species named Scottognathus typicus (Rhodes,
1952) is based on 132 natural assemblages of Pennsylvanian (Upper
Carboniferous) conodonts. Scottognathus Rhodes, 1953, is a sub-
stitute name for Scottella Rhodes, 1952 (nec Enderlein, 1910).
Discrete components of these assemblages are conodonts named
Hindeodella d licatula Stauffer & Plummer, 1932; Synprioniodina
microdenta Ellison, 1941 ; Idiognathodus claviformis Gunnell, 1931 ;
Streptognathodus excelsus Stauffer & Plummer, 1932 ; and Ozarkodina
delicatula Stauffer & Plummer, 1932. Generic synonymy of
Scottognathus and of one or more of its constituents can be established
only if the type species of discrete conodont genera recognized in
the assemblages is present. Hindeodella and MSynprioniodina,
Bassler, 1925 and Ozarkodina Branson & Mehl, 1933, are not repre-
sented by their type species, whereas Idiognathodus Gunnell, 1931,
and Streptognathodus Stauffer and Plummer, 1932 are represented
by their type species. Accordingly, under Article 27, Scottognathus
typicus must yield to Idiognathodus claviformis as the name for the
assemblage. Out of sixty-four nominal species of Idiognathodus
and forty-three of Streptognathodus, all but thirty-one are listed as
synonyms of discrete conodonts found in such association with
“* Scottognathus ’”’ typicus as to indicate that they have been derived
1. It should be noted here that in 1954 Dr. W. J. Arkell made an application to the
International Commission for the grant of a Declaration excluding from availability for the
purposes of zoological nomenclature, i.e. for the purposes of what Professor Moore here terms
the nomenclature of “ whole-animal taxa ” of any name based solely upon the aptychus of an
ammonite and proposing the addition to the Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names
of a number of such names, including the name T'rigonellites Parkinson, 1811, here cited by
Professor Moore as an example (Arkell (W.J.), Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 266-269). No action has
as yet been taken by the International Commission on the above application, it having been
considered better to defer action thereon until a decision had been taken by the International
Congress of Zoology on the wider issues of a general character which it was known that Professor
Moore and Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley proposed to raise, i.e. the proposals put forward in the
papers, of which Professor Moore has here given a digest. (initialled F. H. 4th July 1957.)
2. See Document 1/4 on pages 71-75 of the present Case,
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 105
from animals conspecific with this species. It is difficult indeed to
see by what names these forms should be described under the
present Régles.
>
5. Names treated as “ technical terms” which are expressly rejected as
zoological names lack government by the Laws of Homonymy and Priority,
as well as other regulation, thus promoting chaos in nomenclature. Virtually
all names published for parts of unidentified whole animals are binomina com-
posed of “ generic’ and “ specific’ Latinized names exactly similar to zoo-
logical names and because most fossils are varyingly incomplete, discrimination
between those considered suitable for nomenclature under zoological rules and
those excluded from such treatment is wholly subjective. Indeed, the probably
complete skeletal remains of some organisms assignable to protistan groups
have been named by Deflandre using intended “ Technical term ”’ procedure
whereas most authors would consider the published names (without regard to
intent of the author) as undeniably acceptable zoological names. Here lies
confusion.
6. The concepts of ‘‘ form-genera ” and “‘ form-species ” might be adapted
advantageously to classification and nomenclature of Discrete Parts of uni-
dentified animals but they contravene the rules of zoological nomenclature.
It seems preferable to recognise a special category of “ associate taxa ”’, that is,
parataxa, which would be correlative with all zoological names for the purposes
of the Law of Homonymy but would constitute a wholly segregated group for
purposes of the Law of Priority. In this way instability and confusion of
nomenclature would be easily avoided. In order to avoid subjective variation,
in deciding what zoological objects are to be classified and named in terms
of parataxa, rather than in those of whole-animal taxa, it is recommended
that this be determined solely by the Commission.
7. Recommendation is made accordingly :
(i) that Article 27 (a) should be modified by adding the phrase “ except
for parataxa’”’, thus excluding the classificatory units called para-
taxa from application of the Article : and
(ii) that a new Article should be incorporated in the Régles :—
(a) defining “parataxon” as a taxonomic category comprising
Discrete Parts or Life-Stages of animals, which, by decision of
the Commission, are deemed to be unidentifiable in terms of *
the whole animals that produced them ;
106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(b) stipulating that classification and nomenclature of any group
of Discrete Parts or Life-Stages of animals in terms of para-
taxa shall be allowed only after the Commission has ruled to
this effect and then such ruling shall apply retroactively irre-
spective of whether an author uses the term “ parataxa ” ; and
(c) providing that the nomenclature applied to taxa and parataxa
shall be mutually exclusive and independent for the purposes
of the Law of Priority, but co-ordinate for the purposes of the
Law of Homonymy, names belonging to one category not being
transferable to the other.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 107
DOCUMENT 1/16
Parataxa nomenclature in relation to whole-animal nomenclature
Correspondence between Francis Hemming, Raymond C. Moore and
P. C. Sylvester-Bradley
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)
Editorial Note : The Document Number 1/16 has been allotted to letters
and other papers on the subject specifically of the possible repercussions of
the recognition of parataxa nomenclature on whole-animal nomenclature.
ANNEXE 1 TO DOCUMENT 1/16
Copy of a letter dated 5th July 1957 from FRANCIS HEMMING (London)
to RAYMOND C. MOORE (University of Kansas) and P. C. SYLVESTER-
BRADLEY (University of Sheffield).
I am sure, if I may say so, that you and Mr. Sylvester-Bradley were
right when you decided to base your plan for the recognition of parataxa on the
basis that the nomenclature of such units should be independent of, and should
not interfere with, zoological nomenclature as currently understood, that is
what you call “ whole-animal nomenclature”. It seems to me, however,
that in one or two respects your scheme needs further consideration from this
point of view.
2. The problems with which we are here concerned are very similar to
those which faced the International Congress of Zoology in Paris in 1948 when
it considered the question of granting some kind of recognition in the Régles
to names in what it was then decided to call “ infra-subspecific forms”. As
you no doubt know, there are some branches of whole-animal nomenclature the
literature of which is weighed down by innumerable names given to individual
aberrations, i.e. to individual specimens differing in some respect from what the
108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
authors giving the names consider to be the ‘‘ normal ” form of the population
in question. At that time the Régles contained no clear provision on this matter,
and in the particular groups concerned a growing body of workers attached
importance to the naming of these individual infra-subspecific forms, while
a much larger number of zoologists, while disliking the naming of such forms,
felt bound to take account for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy of the
names published for such forms. It was to resolve this dilemma that the
Paris Congress decided that, while names given to infra-subspecific forms
should be recognised, such names should be treated as belonging to a system
independent of that prescribed for species and subspecies, i.e. for populations.
This basic feature of the Paris decision on infra-subspecific forms has been copied
in your plan for the recognition of names for parataxa, but I feel that in its
present form your plan does not provide as completely as is required for the
independence of parataxa nomenclature and whole-animal nomenclature.
3. When the parallel problem was being considered in Paris, it was found
necessary to give consideration to the form in which names had been published
for taxa currently regarded as applying not to populations (species or sub-
species) but to aberrations and other minority forms. It seems to me a some-
what similar problem arises in the present case. The scheme will require
to be such as to apply appropriately to names published in any of the following
ways :—
(1) After the acceptance of your plan and its coming into operation, it
may certainly be expected that palaeontologists will start publishing
papers containing new names which they will expressly state are
names given to parataxa and not to whole-animal taxa.
(2) Names already published for “ form genera ”’ and the like.
(3) Names already given expressly to discrete parts of fossils and published
as being names belonging to the categories Legio, Cohors, Manipulus
or Centuria under the scheme devised by M. Georges Deflandre, or
under similar schemes devised by other specialists if such schemes
exist.
(4) Names stated by their authors as being based upon some object which
is, (a) expressly stated to be, or (b) is later determined by specialists
to be, a discrete part of some whole animal, for example a name
either expressly stated by the author to be based upon the aptychus
of an ammonite or later determined as having been so based.
4. In its present form your scheme does not seem to me to deal satis-
factorily, or at least not as satisfactorily as it could, with each of the classes
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 109
of names enumerated above. First, names belonging to class (1) above should
I suggest be brought within the parataxa scheme directly in the new Article,
it being quite unnecessary that names of this group should be subject to prior
reference to the Commission. Similarly, I consider that names belonging to
classes (2) and (3) above, i.e. names expressly given for form genera, etc., and
names expressly given as belonging to the special Hztra-Régles categories
devised by M. Deflandre should also be brought directly into the scheme and
should not be made subject to reference to the Commission.
5. We now come to class (4) above. For the purposes of discussion it will
I think be convenient to take as an example names based upon the Aptychi of
Ammonites. Under your scheme (point (2)(b)), it would be open to any zoo-
logist to submit an application to the Commission for a Ruling that a name
based upon the aptychus of an ammonite is to be treated as a name belonging
to the parataxa system, and not to the whole-animal system of nomenclature.
Once such a Ruling had been given, the position would be perfectly clear in the
case of any name, the author of which had stated expressly that he based the
unit so-named upon an aptychus, for in that case a definite and objective
criterion would be available for deciding to which of the systems of nomen-
clature (parataxa or whole animal) the name concerned belonged. It appears
to me, however, that this would not be the case where an author described
what he considered to be what you would call a whole-animal species but which
some later author or authors considered was based upon an aptychus or on
some other discrete part of a whole animal, for in that case only a subjective
taxonomic judgement would be available for determining to which of the two
systems of nomenclature the name should be considered to belong.
6. The ambiguity discussed above is one which will, I think, need to be
solved. As a palaeontologist, you may say that from your point of view a
subjective judgment of the foregoing kind is quite good enough, and no doubt
for the purposes of parataxa taxonomy this would be true, but we have to look
on this matter from the point of view of the whole-animal zoologists as well as
of that of the palaeontologist. From the point of view of the former, a
subjective taxonomic view by palaeontologists that a particular name was a
name which should be regarded as that of a parataxon under a Ruling given by
the Commission under point (2)(b) of your scheme, would not provide a satis-
factory solution. What the whole-animal zoologist requires is some provision
of a clear cut objective kind which would enable him to know whether the name
in question belonged to the parataxa system and, therefore, would not interfere
with whole-animal nomenclature, this being necessary if parataxa nomenclature
and whole-animal nomenclature are to be genuinely independent of one another.
7. This brings me to your point (2)(c), the meaning of which I do not find
to be clear. In this section you say that the names for whole-animal taxa and
110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
for parataxa are to be mutually exclusive and independent for the purposes
of the Law of Priority “ but co-ordinate for the purposes of the Law of Homo-
nymy ”’. The only point of the Law of Homonymy is to rule out as unavailable
the later of any two homonyms. Accordingly if names for parataxa and names
for whole-animal taxa are to be independent for the purposes of the Law of
Priority, I cannot see how the Law of Homonymy could play any useful, or
indeed any, part at all. My feeling is that as in the system for naming infra-
subspecific forms so also in that for the naming of parataxa, the mutual
independence should be complete and should apply therefore for the purposes
of the Law of Homonymy as well as for those of the Law of Priority.
8. There is also a question of drafting in connection with your point (2)(b)
which I should like to raise. As at present drafted, the only person who is
entitled to ask the Commission for a Ruling is the zoologist who wants to have
the classification and nomenclature of a particular group of animal fragments
treated in terms of parataxa. I quite see that it is natural that you should have
conceived of the scheme from this point of view, but it is necessary also that it
should be looked upon from the standpoint of a zoologist who wants to get out
of the way names based upon such units. For example, Dr. W. J. Arkell,
when he made his application to the Commission (1954, Bull. zool. Nomenel.
9 : 266-269) for the suppression of the name T'rigonellites Parkinson, 1811,
and other names based on ammonite aptychi, was not in the least interested
in the question of the use of names for discrete parts of ammonites, his sole
object being to get such names out of the way and to prevent them from
interfering with the ordinary nomenclature for ammonites. I think it clear
that the wording of your point (2)(b) will need to be revised to take account
of the foregoing considerations.
9. To sum up, it seems to me that :
(a) If there is to be a special world of parataxa nomenclature, there are
certain classes of names which ought to be put into that world
direct in the Article itself without the necessity of prior reference to
the Commission ;
(b) Further consideration is, I think, necessary in regard to the status to be
accorded to names published as names for whole-animal taxa but
considered subjectively on taxonomic grounds by later authors as
being names based on discrete parts of some whole animal ;
(c) For the reasons which I have explained, I feel that a name applicable
to a parataxon should be independent of any name given to a whole
animal not only as proposed in your paper for the purposes of the
Law of Priority but also for those of the Law of Homonymy ;
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 11]
(d) The wording of point (2)(b) in the plan requires further consideration
so as to provide an approach to the Commission not only to zoologists
who desire to see certain categories of names recognised as names for
parataxa but also to zoologists whose sole aim is to eliminate certain
such names from consideration for the purposes of whole-animal
nomenclature.
10. I look forward to receiving your comments and suggestions on the
above points at a very early date.
ANNEXE 2 TO DOCUMENT 1/16
Copy of a letter dated 9th July 1957 from P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY
(University of Sheffield) to FRANCIS HEMMING (London)
Thank you for your various letters on the “‘ Parataxa Plan ”’, and for the
careful reading you have given to the scheme, and for the comments and
suggestions which, as a result, you have incorporated in your letter to
Professor Moore of 5th July. I will in this letter set out my observations on
these suggestions of yours.
In paragraph 3 of your letter you suggest that it will be necessary for the
scheme to be applicable to names published in four different ways. I agree
that this is so, and it will be convenient if I deal with each in turn. In passing,
I should mention that I do not altogether agree with the suggestion you
make in the same paragraph, that the regulations introduced to cater for infra-
subspecific forms are in fact coping with a somewhat similar situation,as those
that are now proposed for dealing with dual nomenclature. The two situations
differ in many important respects, and any assumption that the problems of
the two can be solved by similar regulations would seem to me dangerous.
In particular I refer near the end of this letter to your observations on the Law
of Homonymy. Finally, I will deal with your remarks on the drafting of our
Proposal 2 (b).
1. Regulations governing names given in the future to taxa
expressly stated to be parataxa.
The regulations framed by us in proposal 2 (a) are intended to ensure that
this system of nomenclature will be applied only to groups of animals expressly
- listed by the Commission as available only for the creation of parataxa. In
your letter you say that you consider names in any animal group expressly
stated by the author in question to be those of parataxa should be accepted
112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
as such without prior reference to the Commission. The limitation we have
suggested was introduced to avoid strong criticism from the many palaeonto-
logists who would abhor the creation of parataxa in particular groups in which
they are specialists. Accordingly we have attempted to set out reasons for
seeking prior authorization from the Commission in paragraph 12 of our
application, and have also referred to them in the second half of paragraph 8.
Perhaps I can state the situation most clearly by citing examples: Discrete
animal parts vary in value as indicators of whole-animal relationship. In our
opinion, discrete conodonts and ammonoid aptychi possess insufficient diagnostic
characters to allow recognition of whole-animal taxa. In this context, “ our
opinion ”’ is of course subjective. In other groups of animals the degree of
subjectivity varies widely. Some vertebrate palaeontologists might believe
that fish-teeth formed a suitable group of discrete animal parts for “ para-
taxonomy ”’ ; I fancy, however, that most vertebrate palaeontologists would be
opposed to this view on two grounds : (a) because they believe that many fish
teeth possess sufficient diagnostic characters for the recognition of at least some
degree of whole-animal taxonomy ; and (b) because the existence of a dual
system of nomenclature such as would be brought about by the creation of such
parataxa would bring confusion into a system where confusion does not exist
at the moment. They might argue that no convincing case has yet been put
forward showing that any advantage attaches to the creation of a dual system
of nomenclature in this case and that the action of Art. 27 is satisfactory.
Even stronger arguments have been sent to Moore and myself by vertebrate
palaeontologists who have said that they would object to the recognition of
parataxa consisting of discrete vertebrate bones of any kind.
Other examples are more controversial, which usually means they are more
involved. In brief, I would say that my own feeling is that parataxonomy
is not likely to be justifiable in any animal group in which unofficial dual
systems of nomenclature do not already exist. One of the controversial cases
involves dual systems which have been proposed for the discrete skeletal parts
of crinoids, and in particular the discrete ossicles of crinoid stems. It is con-
troversial (as we discovered by correspondence) because some specialists
believe that the recognition of parataxa would introduce undesirable complica-
tions since some crinoid ossicles are sufficient for the diagnosis of whole-animal
taxa. Less controversial cases concern dual nomenclatures already existing
which deal with holothurian spicules and scolecondonts. We might, in fact,
have included these groups as supplemental applications additional to those
dealing with conodonts and aptychi if we had not felt that such recommend-
ations would have necessitated adding both to the length and complexity of a
subject which is already clearly long and complex enough.
fA
Summarizing, the decision of whether an animal group is suitable for the
creation of parataxa or not is a subjective one. Many of our correspondents
believe that it would be a mistake to leave such subjective judgments to
Ye ee ee
Ce ee ee ee ee ae oe
Wa”,
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 113
individual taxonomists, and argue that such a method would in many groups
of animals introduce confusion into a situation which is at present adequately
controlled by the provisions of Article 27(a). The only alternative is to give
to the Commission the onus of deciding whether or not a particular animal
group can usefully be classified into parataxa,
Ishould emphasize that once a group has been recognized by the Commission
for this purpose, new names introduced for parataxa will automatically be valid
without further reference to the Commission. Thus if the Commission were
to adopt our proposals regarding conodonts and ammonoid aptychi, new names
introduced within these groups would automatically be regarded as those of
parataxa.
2. Names already published for ‘ form-genera ”’
These would automatically be regarded as parataxa providing the original
authors had recognized them as names given to the discrete parts of groups
of animals listed by the Commission under regulations concerning parataxa.
3. Names given in schemes such as those devised by
Deflandre and his wife
No proposals have yet been made for the inclusion of the various protozoa
studied by Deflandre, or the holothurian spicules studied by his wife, in the
scheme of parataxa we present. In my opinion such proposals should be made,
however, if the scheme is approved by the Commission.
4a. Names expressly stated by their authors to be for
discrete parts
If such discrete parts are included in the Commission’s list of those in which
parataxa are to be recognized, the names will automatically be regarded as those
of parataxa. Ifthe discrete parts are not in the Commission’s list, names applied
to them will remain subject to the usual provisions of Article 27 until such time
as they may be added to the list.
4b. Names not expressly stated by the original author to be those
of discrete parts, but subsequently and subjectively so deter-
mined by later authors.
The subjective nature of arguments deciding whether such names should
be applied to whole-animal taxa or parataxa was recognized by Moore and
H
114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
myself when we drew up our application, and we have considered it in some detail
in our supplemental applications (e.g. para. 4(1) of that dealing with aptychi).
I agree with you, however, that it would be wise to deal with this question in
the general application, and enclose a draft of a possible additional paragraph
(to follow on, I suggest, after para. 12) for the consideration of Professor Moore
and yourself.
The Law of Homonymy as it affects parataxa.
I now come to the question of the Law of Homonymy. Your first comment
concerning our para. 2(c) is that you do not find its meaning clear. I have
re-read the paragraph carefully, and I cannot see where its meaning can be in
doubt. It is customary for Plenary Powers to be used to suppress names for
the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy.
The generic name Striaptychus Trauth, 1927 is a junior subjective synonym of
Acanthoscaphites Nowak, 1911. If the names are regarded as mutually
exclusive for the purposes of the Law of Priority, both can be used in their
respective roles as the names of a parataxon’ and a whole-animal taxon
respectively. On the other hand the name Sidetes Giebel, 1847, is that of an
aptychus, and is therefore a name of a parataxon. According to our proposal,
it would invalidate for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy any subsequent
use of the name Sidetes either for a whole-animal taxon or for any other para-
taxon of generic rank. The regulation seems to me clear.
A second point with regard to the Law of Homonymy is the fact that I
understand you disagree with the purpose of our proposed regulation, in that
you believe there would be no disadvantage in allowing the co-existence of two
valid generic homonyms such as Sidetes Giebel, 1847 (an aptychus) and Sidetes,
say, Smith, 1957 (a whole-animal genus). There is, of course, room here for
a difference of opinion. To my mind, to make such homonymy legitimate
would be to invite confusion, a confusion which would surely be disastrous if
the two homonyms happened to fall into closely related groups—for example,
into ammonoid conchs and ammonoid aptychi respectively—or into conodont
assemblages and into discrete conodonts.
The wording of our proposal 2 (6)
I see the force of the point you raise, but find it a little difficult to cater for ;
I cannot, in fact, devise a satisfactory solution. The Commission can only
judge on the advisability of admitting a specified group of animal parts to those
in which parataxa are allowed if full details of the circumstances are presented
to them. Such details can only be gathered by a taxonomist prepared to
devote some time and trouble to the task. The preparation of the twosupple- —
mental applications on aptychi and conodonts which were undertaken by
th tte
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 115
Moore and myself were not written without a deal of preliminary research—
greater, I suspect, than Arkell would have been prepared to spend on the question
of aptychi. If the sole object of an applicant is to get rid of unwanted names,
perhaps his best expedient is to do what Arkell did, and apply for the use of the
Plenary Powers to suppress such names. If this were found to be objectionable
by taxonomists using the names in question, they could be asked to prepare
the necessary application for the recognition of parataxa in their group.
Summary
The substance of this letter may be considered under three headings.
(1) The arguments which led us to restrict the operation of regulations
governing parataxonomy to animal groups expressly listed by the Commission
are set out. These arguments are not necessarily decisive. There seems to me
some force in your suggestion that any taxonomist should be able to adopt
parataxonomy in his group without prior reference to the Commission provided
his action affected only new names proposed by himself. Any such subjective
and individual opinions should not, in my view, be allowed to change retro-
actively the status of names already validly proposed as those of whole-
animal taxa. Such a proposal for a change or addition to the regulations
proposed by us would seem to me best framed as a separate proposal.
(2) The suggestion that names given to parataxa should not be co-ordinate
with those given to whole-animal taxa for the purpose of the Law of Homonymy
runs counter to one of the main objects of our proposal. I would myself
strongly oppose such a suggestion.
(3) I agree with your suggestion that our application needs an additional
paragraph setting out the procedure desired to secure objectivity in deciding
whether a name is that of a parataxon or not.
Draft of additional paragraph to R. C. Moore and P. C. Sylvester-Bradley’s
** Application for a Declaration recognising Parataxa”
13. Procedure to ensure objectivity in deciding whether a name is that of
a@ parataxon or not.
The scheme here put forward can only function without ambiguity if an
objective decision can be made as to whether a name is that of parataxon or not.
To ensure this, it will be necessary for the Commission to lay down in clear
1 The figure ‘13’ here cited by Mr. Sylvester-Bradley refers to the paragraph so numbered in the
paper reproduced as Document 1/1 on the Agenda Paper (see page 12 of the present volume).
116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
terms the form of evidence necessary to make such a decision. In the cases of
the two groups of animals which we propose, in the supplemental applications
that follow, as suitable for the recognition of parataxa, we have attempted to
word the proposals with the requisite clarity. We suggest that a name can
only be recognised as that of a parataxon in these groups if the original author
makes it clear that the name in question is for a taxon consisting of respectively
either the aptychi of ammonoids, or conodonts not regarded as natural
assemblages.
Some names introduced, for example, for aptychi have only subjectively.
been so classed by later authors, the original author not having used the word
“ aptychus ”. We suggest that these should not automatically be regarded
as the names of parataxa, as subjective decisions by later authors are not valid
for this purpose.
Such names, we suggest, should only be admitted as those of parataxa
by operation of the Commission’s Plenary Powers.
ANNEXE 3 TO DOCUMENT 1/16
Copy of a letter dated 13th July 1957 from RAYMOND C. MOORE
(University of Kansas) to FRANCIS HEMMING (London)
I believe that I understand the parallel which you draw between parataxa
and consideration of “‘ infra-subspecific forms ” as considered by the Congress
in Paris in 1948. Possibly it is true that if parataxa nomenclature is to be set
sharply apart from whole-animal nomenclature, your conclusion that the Law
of Homonymy is no more significant than the Law of Priority as regards
conflicts between names of the two groups seems logical. However, unless
proposals for recognition of parataxa as a separate system of nomenclature are
seriously diminished by letting the recommendations made by Sylvester-
Bradley and me stand, I very much favor legislation that prohibits hononymy
even in separate systems of nomenclature. I would go so far as to say
it is lamentable that some names for plants are duplicates of those allowed for
animals (1) because the supply of scientific names is not limited and (2) the
boundary between plants and animals is a decidedly fluctuating one, without
going into the question of Protista. In sum, I answer the points you raise
about homonymy by saying that in spite of favoring strongly the recom- .
mendation submitted by Sylvester-Bradley and me, if the change in this regard
makes for simplification of the whole proposal, thereby winning greater likeli-
hood of its acceptance, I should regard this change as a strategic retreat,
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 117
Concerning the four categories of names listed in paragraph 3 of your
letter, I readily agree with your opinion concerning numbers 1, 2, and 3.
The fourth category of names is quite another matter, bringing up problems
to which Sylvester-Bradley and I gave a great deal of thought, ending in
judgment that the only way in which subjectivity of the individual could be
avoided was by reference to the Commission. In this area we encounter the
vexatious question of ‘“‘ Problematica ”, but without mentioning these I turn
to the point you raise expressing the viewpoint of the whole-animal neozoo-
logists (or paleozoologists) who demand an objective criterion for classifying
entities belonging to one or the other systems of nomenclature. I fear that
a wholly objective basis for deciding this does not exist, even though in several
large areas an easy differentiation can be made. There are innumerable
isolated fragments of vertebrate skeletons (teeth, scutes or scales, otoliths, etc.)
that are unidentifiable in terms of whole-animal taxa and in greatly varying
manner some of these can be so identified reasonable. As consequence the
unidentifiables generally are let alone, which probably is as it should be.
If one contemplates a regulation (as objective criterion) that any unidentifiable
tooth is automatically ineligible to whole-animal nomenclature but appropriate
for parataxa nomenclature the situation must be faced that what is unidenti-
fiable now may be definitely so in a few years. Considerations of this sort led
us to the conclusion that objectivity in dealing with these matters could be had
probably only through the Commission.
Referring to your summation in paragraph 9, I do not now see how your
sub-paragraph (a) can be made effective presently by any sort of general
wording. Your sub-paragraph (b) calls to mind several examples known to me
that individually include questions on which the Commission should be called
to rule, decision on subjective basis by an author being inappropriate. I have
already discussed your sub-paragraph (c) and so pass on (d) to say that I will
welcome any suggestions that meet the points you have in mind. It seems to
me that present wording is susceptible of use by a zoologist “ whose sole aim is
to eliminate certain such names from consideration for the purposes of whole-
animal nomenclature”. For example, Dr. Arkell, wishing to avoid nomen-
clatural bothers arising from names for aptychi could submit the same applica-
tion as a paleontologist wishing to name aptychi in terms of parataxa. After
studying the revised draft of our application, Dr. Arkell has written to me of
his endorsement of it.
118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/17
Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “‘ Parataxa Plan ”’
(Reference ; Professor Moore’s Digest reproduced as Document 1/15)
By DON L. FRIZZELL and HARRIET FRIZZELL
(Rolla, Missouri, U.S.A.)
(Letter dated 16th July 1957)
I find, as a micropaleontologist, that a dual classification of discrete
parts and whole-animals is unavoidable. The need is obvious for numerous
groups, including fish otoliths, scolecodonts, conodonts and echinoderm
remains, and will be emphasized as work progresses on the taxonomy of less
known microfossil forms.
In general, Moore and Sylvester-Bradley’s proposals covers the situation
admirably. Some points, however, may cause difficulty.
(a) It could be inhibitive to progress in micropaleontology for
publication of a new parataxon type to await the Commission’s ruling
as to its appropriateness. Further, the need for recognition of a particular
parataxon might be more apparent to active workers in the field than to
members of the Commission.
To avoid delay in publication of parataxon names important to
stratigraphy and paleoecology, I would urge that all parataxa be per-
mitted, subject to protest within a limited time. The efforts of the
Commission, then, would be required only in cases of actual controversy.
(b) “ Discrete parts ’’, if possible, should be defined more adequately.
For example, a bone of a fish (although obviously “discrete ’’) is a unit
of a whole animal, whereas an otolith (or possibly a tooth) belongs
unavoidably to the parataxon classification. Similarly, the gastrolith
of an astacomorph decapod crustacean would be considered “ discrete”, |
although a disjointed cheliped from the same species would be undeniably
part of the whole-animal. These interpretations depend upon individual
judgment, nature of available fossil material, and general usage. A
Recommendation therefore would be preferable to stringent stipulations,
Le
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 119
(c) It should be stressed that a parataxon classification is basically
distinct in concept from a “natural” or “ genetic” arrangement. It
depends upon similarity of structure rather than postulated evolution.
The frequent associations of biologically closely related forms is to some
extent fortuitous.
For example, holothurian sieve plates occur in widely separated
taxonomic groups, yet it is convenient to place them within a parataxon
of family position. The otoliths of fishes show another situation. Closely
related whole animals of the Recent fauna sometimes possess otoliths
of types characterizing different genera and even families and in other
instances a distinctive otolith type crosses generic boundaries defined
from whole animals. The extra-legal nomenclatorial arrangement in use
for fossil fish otoliths for nearly 75 years is similar to the proposed para-
taxon system, but is-markedly inferior in allowing too few classificatory
hierarchies.
(d) It might well be recommended that, where possible, systematists
using the whole-animal nomenclature should include parataxon names
in their synonymies. Parataxa, of course, should be clearly distinguished
from the binomina of strictly zoological nomenclature.
(The foregoing has been discussed with Dr. Harriet Exline (Mrs. D. L. Frizzell),
who concurs.
120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/18
Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “‘ Parataxa Plan ”’
(Reference : Professor Moore’s Digest reproduced as Document 1/15)
By SAMUEL P. ELLISON, Jr.
(University of Texas, Austin, Texas, U.S.A.)
(Letter dated 18th July 1957)
I have your letter and request of July 8 concerning the proposed insertion
in the Régles of a provision defining and providing for the nomenclature of
* Parataxa ”’ (discrete parts of animals unidentifiable as belonging to whole-
animal genera and species). I personally like this proposal which Dr. Moore
and Mr. Sylvester-Bradley have made.
I think this would clear up a great deal of the problems of nomenclature
that exist in the whole field of micropaleontology. It will also make it pos ible
to continue the use of the Law of Priority on nomenclatorial problems that
involve discrete parts of animals which have yet not been identified as to the
whole.
From the view of the practical stratigrapher and micropaleontologist, I
urge that your Commission adopt Dr. Moore’s and Mr. Sylvester-Bradley’s
proposal.
7*
*
Se?
Or
Pa aat YA
PURCHASED
7 & SEP 1957
D.1/1
D.1/2
D.1/3
D.1/4
D.1/5
CONTENTS
(continued from front wrapper)
THE LONDON AGENDA PAPER
Case No. 1 : Proposed recognition of the category “ parataxon ”’
Proposal by R. C. Moore and P. C. Sylvester- Bradley
Proposal for the application of the ‘“ Parataxa Plan ”’ to discrete
conodonts. R.C. Moore and P. C. Sylvester-Bradley
Proposal for the application of the “ Parataxa Plan” to
ammonoid aera R. C. Moore and P. C. soe ae
Bradley 3 wy ; 4
Proposed adoption of a Declaration de ing the status of
names based solely on the aptychi of ammonites. W. J.
Arkell is fs a ee ae
Comments on W. J. Arkell’s proposal (D.1/4): Note by
Secretary to the International Commission .. . -
(a) By J. L. Baily, Jr.
(b) By C. W. Wright ..
D.1/6-D.1/13 Comments on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘‘ Parataxa ”
D.1/6
D.1/7
D.1/8
D.1/9
11/10
D.1/1l
D.1/12
D.1/13
D.1/14
proposals
By W. J. Arkell
By D. L. Frizzell and Harriet Frizzell
By Eliane Basse
By J. Brookes Knight
By H. Schmidt
By C. Teichert
Rejoinder by R. C. Moore
By D. T. Donovan
Correspondence on the possible application of the “ Parataxa
Plan ” to the names of collective groups in the stages of
the life histories of parasites: Note by Secretary to the
International Commission “a ¥. 7 ae
(a) A. C. Walton to Secretary
(b) Secretary to A. C. Walton
(c) A. McIntosh to Secretary
(d) R. C. Moore to Secretary
(e) Secretary to R. C. Moore
(f) R. C. Moore tq Secretary
(g) A. McIntosh to N. D. Stoll
(h) J. C. Bradley to A. C. Walton
(i) A. McIntosh to J. C. Bradley
&
14
35
71
76
77
77
78
79
80
81
82
85
86
87
88
89
89
90
90
91
91
92
95
96
CONTENTS :
(continued from inside back cover)
D.1/15 Digest of the ‘‘ Parataxa Plan ” (D.1/1)
(a) Letter by the Secretary to specialists inviting
comments ne a ” - 2% - 99
(b) Explanatory Note annexed to letter to specialists .. 100
(c) Digest prepared by R. C. Moore es a ba ae |
D.1/16 Correspondence between the Secretary to the International
Commission, R. C. Moore and P. C. Sylvester-Bradley
(a) Secretary to R. C. Moore and P. 8. Sylvester-Bradley 107
(b) P. C. Sylvester-Bradley to Secretary .. tr ; core
(c) R. C. Moore to Secretary a Ad o-
D.1/17 Comment on the “ Parataxa Plan”. D. L. Frizzell and.
Harriet Frizzell a 3 Se se “46
D.1/18 Comment on the “ Parataxa Plan”. 8S. P. Ellison, Jr. .
Note to Subscribers
The attention of subscribers is drawn to the fact that in order to make a
start with the publication of the documents to be included in the London Agenda
Paper, the present Quadruple-Part (Part 1/4) of the present volume is being
published (1) before the completion of Volume 13 (the current volume containing
applications for decisions from the Commission on individual names), of which
the most recently published Part is Part 8 (published today), and (2) before the
issue of any portion of Volume 14, the Volume earmarked for the publication
of the draft English text of the “‘ Régles ’’ as amended by the Paris (1948) and
Copenhagen (1953) Congresses. This latter volume is, however, now in the
press and will be published at an early date. (intl’d) F.H., 26th August 1957.
Printed in England by METCAL FE & Cooper LimrreD, 10-24 Scrutton St., e EC2
VOLUME 15. Double-Part 5/6 31st October 1957
pp. 121—184.
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
The Official Organ of
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
CONTENTS
Second Instalment of the London Congress Agenda Paper
(continued inside back wrapper)
AL HIS”
LONDON : ——
Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
and
Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenelature by the International Trust at its Publication Office,
41, Queen’s Gate, London, 8.W.7
1957
Price Two Pounds
(All rights reserved)
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
A. The Officers of the Commission
Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jorpan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological
Museum, Tring, Herts, England)
President: Professor James Chester BrapitEy (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(12th August 1953)
Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amara (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953)
Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemmaine (London, England) (27th July 1948)
B. The Members of the Commission
(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent
re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)
Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmuseum van Natwurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
(1st January 1947)
Senor Dr. Angel Caprura (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948)
Mr. Francis Hemmine (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)
Dr. Henning Lemcue (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948)
Professor Teiso Esaxr (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950)
Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)
Mr. Norman Denbigh Riwzy (British Musewm (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950)
Professor Dr. Tadeusz JaczEwski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw,
Poland) (15th June 1950)
Professor Dr. Robert Merrens (Natur Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt
a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950)
Professor Dr. Erich Martin Herrna (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin,
Germany) (5th July 1950)
Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amara (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President)
Professor J. R. Dymonp (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953)
Professor J. Chester Brapuey (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
(President)
Professor Harold E. Voxzs (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana,
U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
Professor Béla Hank6 (Mezégazdasdgi Museum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)
Dr. Norman R. Srotn (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(12th August 1953)
Mr. P. C. SytvesteR-Braviey (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953)
Dr. L. B. Horraurs (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th
August 1953)
Dr. K. H. L. Kuy (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra,
A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954)
Dr. Alden H. MrtiEr (Musewm of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California,
U.S.A.) (29th October 1954)
Doe. Dr. Ferdinand Pranti (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October
1954)
Professor Dr. William Ktunext (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th
November 1954)
Professor F. S. Bopunsumer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954)
Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954)
Professor Enrico Tortonrse (Museo di Storia Naturale “ @. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th
December 1954)
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
(ES pautaka <tal/nilbaledtlat stan as allel Alaa ae
Volume 15, Double-Part (pp. 121—184) 31st October 1957
EEE
pear ia SED
~S''19 CASE No. 2
ARTICLE 5 : PROPOSED CANCELLATION OF DECISION 54(1)(a) OF THE
COPENHAGEN CONGRESS UNDER WHICH A FAMILY-GROUP NAME
IS TO BE RETAINED WHEN BASED UPON A GENERIC NAME WHICH
HAS BEEN REJECTED EITHER AS A JUNIOR OBJECTIVE, OR AS
A JUNIOR SUBJECTIVE, SYNONYM OF ANOTHER GENERIC NAME
= —
DOCUMENT 2/1
Proposal for the withdrawal of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a)
By W. J. ARKELL
(Cambridge University, Sedgwick M useum, Cambridge)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 835)
(Letter prepared for the Geological Magazine and communicated by
Dr. Arkell under cover of a letter dated 11th February 1954+)
May I draw the attention of palaeontologists to Decision 54(1)(a) of the
“Additions to, and modifications of, the Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature
Zoologique approved and adopted by the XIVth International Congress of
Zoology, Copenhagen, August 1953”? This Decision directs that where the
name of the type genus of a subfamily, family or superfamily has been changed
because it is a junior synonym (whether objective or subjective), the name of
the subfamily, family or superfamily based upon the name of that type genus
is not to be changed.
a a ee
*For a fuller statement of Dr. Arkell’s views see Appendix 1 to Document 2/14.
122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Our colleagues who sacrificed their time, energies and funds in attending
the Copenhagen Congress achieved so much that is excellent and put us so greatly
in their debt, that it seems ungracious to criticise their decisions. On this
particular point, however, there surely must have been sharp division of opinion.
The decision would have such unhappy effects in at least molluscan systematics
that, if Mollusca are a fair sample, I feel palaeontologists should do all possible
to prevent this clause from being incorporated in the new Rules of Nomen-
clature.
Some of the changes that would be required would produce completely
unfamiliar monstrosities, for some family names formed on invalid objective
synonyms have been jettisoned and ignored almost from the moment of proposal,
along with the invalid nominal genus. The prospect of family and superfamily
names henceforth having to be altered so as to revive and immortalise invalid
junior synonyms is as daunting as the prospect of the discreditable hunt that
will be started among the literature, to be the first to unearth these corpses for
revival.
If all palaeontologists who object to this clause becoming part of the
Rules will write to the Secretary of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, Mr. Francis Hemming, let us hope that our protests may avail.
If any systematist feels that in an exceptional case it is desirable to retain a
well-known family name based on an invalid synonym it is always open
to him to apply for the protection of the Commission on behalf of that name.
Otherwise, the Rules surely should state the obvious : namely, that the legitimate
name of a family (or subfamily or superfamily) is that which is formed on the
valid name of the type genus.
SS ee
—
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 123
DOCUMENT 2/2
Proposal for the withdrawal of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a)
By SIR JOHN ELLERMAN
(London)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 835)
(Letter dated 26th February 1954 communicated by T. C. 8. Morrison-Scott)
I feel very strongly against Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a) [regarding the
retention of family-group names when based on generic names which have been
rejected as junior objective, or subjective, synonyms of other generic names]
on account of the fact that it seems to go against established nomenclatorial
practice which has been adhered to for the last century ; that it is utterly
ridiculous to have a family without a genus of the same name; superlative
chaos has now been introduced [in the nomenclature of the Class Mammalia]
as a result of this Ruling.
124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 2/3
Support for Dr. W. J. Arkell’s proposal for the withdrawal
of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a)
By ¢. J. STUBBLEFIELD
(Geological Survey and Museum, London)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 835)
(Letter dated 6th April 1954)
I share the views printed by Dr. Arkell in Geol. Mag., 1954, p. 174 : (1) that
it is ungracious to criticize but (2) that it would be unfortunate to go back
to the policy of allowing family names to be based on invalid junior synonyms.
For instance, trilobite workers have now got used to using CYOLOPYGIDAE
in place of AEGLINIDAE also OLENELLIDAE in place of MESONACIDAE and it would
seem odd to recant.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 125
DOCUMENT 2/4
Support for Dr. W. J. Arkell’s proposal for the withdrawal of
Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a)
By L. R. COX
(British Museum (Natural History), London)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 835)
(Letter dated 8th April 1954)
A letter from Dr. W. J. Arkell to the Editor, just published in the Geological
Magazine, have prompted me to write to you on the subject of Section 54
of the published Copenhagen Decisions—“ the effect on the name of a taxon
belonging to the Family-Group of a change in the name of its type genus ”.
You may remember that immediately after the Colloquium’s decision, I (as
one of the minority voting against it) raised the point whether its supporters
intended it to be retroactive, and I pointed out that in the mollusca and other
invertebrate groups with which I was best acquainted it had always been the
custom to base the family name on the accepted name of the type genus and
not, perhaps, on some name long previously discarded as a synonym, and
that the old family names which had been discarded for reasons of synonymy
or homonymy were not to be found in modern works of reference. I was
astonished to learn that entomologists and ornithologists have not been in the
habit of basing the family name on the accepted name of the type genus.
126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 2/5
Support for Dr. W. J. Arkell’s proposal for the withdrawal of
Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a)
By JAMES D. BUMP, MORTON GREEN,
JOHN PAUL GRIES and J. R. MACDONALD
(South Dakota School of Mines & Technology, Rapid City,
S. Dakota, U.S.A.)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 835)
(Letter dated 11th May 1954)
On page 218 of the March 1954 issue of the Journal of Palaeontology
is a short note. ‘“‘ Nomenclature of Families and Superfamilies’’, by W. J.
Arkell. In this note Dr. Arkell comments on Decision 54(1)(a) of the ‘Additions
to, and modifications of, the Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique
approved and adopted by the XIVth International Congress of Zoology,
Copenhagen, August 1953 ”’.
It is our opinion that this suggestion should not be incorporated into the
Rules as it will serve no valid purpose and add considerable confusion to many
nomenclatural problems. In addition, it will invalidate the basic principle
of attracting attention to the type genus of a subfamily, family, or superfamily
by using the generic name as a basis for the name of the higher units.
Le a
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 127
DOCUMENT 2/6
Proposal for the withdrawal of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a)
By W. H. EASTON
(University of California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 835)
(Letter dated 12th May 1954)
Decision 54(1)(a) of ‘Additions to, etc.’’, of the Rules acted upon at
Copenhagen relates to the names of families, subfamilies and superfamilies.
I am unequivocally opposed to any retroactive Ruling because it is
productive of chaos. This particular Decision is doubly undesirable because
it also reverses a previously understood practice which seemed to be quite
reasonable.
Your co-operation is enlisted hereby to bring about such action as will
remove Decision 54(1)(a) from the books.
128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 2/7
Support for Dr. W. J. Arkell’s proposal for the withdrawal of
Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a)
(a) By JOSEPH J. GRAHAM, Professor MYRA KEEN,
SIEMON MULLER and HANS E. THALMANN
(Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A.)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 835)
(Letter dated 12th May 1954)
Reference is made to the note on ‘“‘ Nomenclature of Families and Super-
families ” by W. J. Arkell, which was published in the Journal of Palaeontology
28 (no. 2) : 218, drawing attention to Decision 54(1)(a) of the “Additions to,
and Modifications of, the Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique
approved and adopted by the XIVth International Congress of Zoology, Copen-
hagen, August 1953 ”’.
We object to this Decision which states that where the name of the type
genus of a subfamily, family or superfamily has been changed because it is a
junior synonym (whether objective or subjective), the name of the subfamily,
family or superfamily based upon the name of that type genus is not to be
changed.
We are in complete accord with W. J. Arkell that compliance with this
clause will produce “‘ completely unfamiliar monstrosities ” a revival of invalid
synonyms, as well as a time-wasting hunt through the literature “to unearth
these corpses ”’.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 129
(b) By MYRA KEEN and SIEMON MULLER
(Letter dated 29th July 1954)
As a result of correspondence with other systematists and of conversation
with persons who attended the Colloquium, we wish to amend our letter of
May 12th in which we supported Dr. Arkell’s objections to Decision 54(1)(a).
We still object in principle but are now convinced that it was the intent of the
Colloquium to make this action one for the future, not the past.
If this is the case, we urge that the wording of the Decision be changed to
include the date, 1953, or some later date. Only in this way can Decisions 45
and 54 be brought into harmony.
Professors Graham and Thalmann are not available for consultation at this
time, but we know their stand on this issue and feel confident that they would
approve this action on our part.
130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 2/8
Support for Dr. W. J. Arkell’s proposal for the withdrawal of
Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a)
By F. E. EAMES
(Woking, Surrey)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 835)
(Letter dated 13th May 1954)
I am writing to endorse and support the views expressed by Dr. Arkell
in Geol. Mag. 91 (No. 2) : 174-175.
I greatly appreciate the good work being done by the Commission, but
feel that the opinion opposed by Dr. Arkell is a retrograde step mitigating
against that stability of nomenclature which is so much to be desired.
I am the Senior Palaeontologist of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co., but the
above opinions are expressed personally.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 131
DOCUMENT 2/9
Comment on Dr. W. J. Arkell’s proposal for the withdrawal of
Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a)
By CURTIS W. SABROSKY
(United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research
Service, Entomology Research Branch, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 835)
(a) Statement communicated by J. Brookes Knight under cover
of a letter dated 8th June 1954
W. J. Arkell (J. Palaeont. 28 (no. 2) : 218, March 1954), has recently
attacked Decision 54(1)(a) of the ‘‘ Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological
Nomenclature ”, which provides that a change in the name of a type genus
because of synonymy, whether objective or subjective, will not necessitate
a change in any family-group name founded upon it. The purpose of this
decision was to provide greater stability and continuity to names of the family
group, especially those of families and superfamilies that are of wide and general
usefulness and importance. It is accordingly surprising to find such a worth-
while provision so vehemently opposed. If indeed the decision would produce
“unhappy effects”? and “completely unfamiliar monstrosities’, and if it
would result in a “ discreditable hunt . . . to be first to unearth these corpses
[junior synonyms] for revival ’’, 1am sure that those of us who warmly supported
it at Copenhagen would join Dr. Arkell in denouncing it. But it seems clear
that Dr. Arkell has misread the decision and has misjudged its effects. It is
to be hoped that his forceful language has not prejudiced the case.
(1) The Copenhagen Decision actually reads “‘ where the name of the type
genus .. . has to be changed because it is found to be . . . [a junior synonym] ”’,
and not, as Dr. Arkell gives it, where it “ has been changed because it is... .”
His fears of the ghosts of long-buried junior synonyms are understandable
132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
if one begins with his verb tenses, but not with those adopted at the Congress.
Decision 54(1)(a) as it stands is specifically designed to avoid changes in the
future. A procedure that can be applied to the past is given in clause 45,
which Dr. Arkell does not mention.
(2) Under the old Code, when the type genus was found to be a junior
synonym, both generic and group names had to be changed, including those
of tribe, subfamily, family and superfamily, if all were involved. Changes
in at least the higher group names usually had wide repercussions in unfamiliarity
and inconvenience in collateral fields and in teaching. Under the Copenhagen
plan, when such synonymy occurs, the rule will not require any changes of
family-group names. This will give consequent advantages in stability,
continuity, and familiarity. Under Dr. Arkell’s proposal, however, we would
revert to the old Code, under which changes would be required in those cases.
We would be forced in the future to change family-group names to those new
and hence “ completely unfamiliar’ group names which he himself dislikes.
Furthermore, in cases of subjective synonymy, we might have to change names
frequently, in keeping pace with changing subjective views of authors.
(3) Even if Dr. Arkell’s interpretation were correct, authors who wished
to avoid exhuming old group names based on long-buried junior synonyms
would have only to maintain current usage while following the procedure
provided in clause 45. Surely it is a mistake to lift clause 54(1)(a) out of the
plan and criticise it without relation to other provisions, especially those of
clauses 45 and 54(2).
(4) It should be noted that the views of Dr. Arkell, and also those of
Dr. R. C. Moore, the leader of the Treatise of Palaeontology currently in progress,
were published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature prior to the Copen-
hagen Meeting, along with many other expressions of opinion and arguments
pro and con. All of these were before the Copenhagen Colloquium, which
considered the problem in detail and recommended the plan on family-group
names to the Commission and thence to the Section on Nomenclature and the
Congress. Palaeontologists were represented at all stages, and the views of
Arkell, Moore and others were known and their viewpoints argued. There was,
of course, difference of opinion on this point, as there was on many points.
But the decision in clause 54(1)(a) was arrived at by the substantial majority
of 20 to 8 after lengthy discussion of the advantages and disadvantages, on the
first and least hurried day of the Colloquium, and under the best circumstances
in which nomenclatural decisions have ever been taken.
In England, more than 25 years ago, the British National Committee
on Entomological Nomenclature formally proposed that a family name was
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 133
not to be changed unless it or the name of its type genus was found to be a
homonym. That Committee included such well known zoologists as Karl
Jordan, 8. A. Neave and G. A. K. Marshall. Support for this solution of the
problem has been growing in the last decade, and those who now wish to repeal
it should realize the large amount of opinion on the other side. In the Bulletin
of Zoological Nomenclature for July 1953 (8 : Parts 6/9), in which were published
the views of Arkell anid Moore, there are a number of statements in favor of
not changing family names in cases of generic synonymy. The proposition
of not changing was supported by several groups which gave special considera-
tion to the major problems to come before the Copenhagen Congress—namely,
the Nomenclature Committee of the Society of Systematic Zoology (W. I.
Follett, Chairman ; six out of eight members clearly expressing support),
the American Committee on Entomological Nomenclature (C. D. Michener,
Chairman), the Committee on Nomenclature of the American Museum of
Natural History (John T. Zimmer, Chairman), and the Nomenclature Discussion
Group of Washington, D.C. (R. E. Blackwelder, Secretary ; approved by nearly
2 to 1 majority). Palaeontologists are represented in three of those four
groups. In a specialized field, the insect Order Diptera, a questionnaire sent
to dipterists all over the world in 1952 showed 69 per cent. of 166 votes in favor
of the solution as later adopted at Copenhagen. It thus appears that the
Copenhagen vote was a fair sample of the views of zoologists.
(5) In the long view, if a great proportion of animal species remains to be
discovered and named (estimates for neo-zoology alone range from 50 to
90 per cent.), the number of generic and group names yet to be proposed and
shuffled about with successive classifications and reclassifications will be
considerable. Any rule that will render some name changing unnecessary for
the future, as does clause 54(1)(a) will be a great boon and should not be
discarded.
(b) Letter dated 26th April 1956
Enclosed is a short statement on family-group names based on junior
synonyms, which is a comment on Z.N.(S.) 9311 and also on the earlier case
Z.N.(S.) 811?, as far as the general principle is concerned although not on the
1 Application Z.N.(S.) 931 here referred to was a request submitted by Dr. W. J. Arkell for the
suppression under the Plenary Powers of the family-group name SEGUENZICERATIDAE Spath,
1924 (Class Cephalopoda) on the ground that that name was based upon a generic name
(Seguenziceras) which was invalid as being a junior objective synonym of an older name
(Arieticeras Seguenza). The application so submitted was approved by the Commission,
the decision so taken being embodied in Direction 70 (1957, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool.
Nomencl. 16 : (i)-(xii)).
2 Application Z.N.(S.) 811 here referred to contained a request submitted by Professor Robert
Mertens for the suppression under the Plenary Powers of the family-group name HATTERIIDAE
Cope, 1864 (Class Reptilia), that name being based on a generic name (Hatteria) which was
invalid as a junior synonym of an older name (Sphenodon Gray). This request was approved
4 the Commission, the decision so taken being embodied in Opinion 455 (1957, loc. cit.
: 379-392).
134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
subject matter itself. The family-group name discussion in the Bulletin has
been one-sided thus far, and I feel that the other side should be mentioned
though detailed discussion at this time seems unnecessary.
Enclosure to letter dated 26th April 1956
Recent issues of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature have carried
several references to the “unfortunate” decision by the Copenhagen Congress
that a family name does not have to be changed when its type genus is found
to be a synonym [Mertens, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11(5) : 139—1413;
Arkell, 1955, ibid. 11(9) : 2972984 ; Jaczewski, 1955, ibid. 11(9) : 304]°. Lest
the discussion appear one-sided, I am moved to point out that there is another
side to the question and that there is a substantial body of opinion which
believes that the decision was a wise and forward-looking contribution to
stability in family-group names. To reverse that decision at the London
Congress, as hoped by Mertens and Arkell, would be for many of us a retrograde
step to be opposed to the utmost.
Clarification or modification of the exact application of that decision to
cases in the past is, however, a different matter from reversal. I have no
objection to, and will support, modifications to prevent the unfortunate and
unnecessary overthrow of a long established family name in favor of one
based on a junior synonym where the synonymy was established many years
ago. I have not interpreted the decision as requiring such overthrow but
I agree that it should be clarified wherever necessary in order to avoid such
upsetting changes. But I see no reason to deprive ourselves of present and
future advantages merely to conserve some past usage. There must be a
better way to treat a blister than amputation of a limb.
In view of the charges that it is ridiculous and unreasonable to have
family-group names based on junior synonyms, it may be interesting to point
out that our sister biological field does not find it so. The latest edition of the
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (as adopted at the 7th International
Botanical Congress, Stockholm, July 1950; published 1952, Utrecht) states
in Article 28 that ‘““ The name of a family is a plural adjective used as a
substantive taken from the name of its type genus or from a synonym, and
ending in -aceae”’. Article 29 makes the same provision for subfamily names.
The previous edition (1935) read as follows: “ Article 23. Names of families
’ The application here referred to is that cited in footnote 2 above.
*The application here referred to is that cited in footnote 1 above.
5The communication here referred was a note of support by Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski
for the application by Professor Mertens cited in footnote 2 above.
OO
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 135
are taken from the name of one of their present or former genera and end
in -aceae”’. The wording of the 1935 edition is not as appropriate as in the
1952 revision, but the same meaning was intended, as is clear from the example
cited in both editions: ‘‘ Caryophyllaceae (from Caryophyllus, a pre-Linnean
genus)” [Caryophyllus of post-Linnean authors is cited in synonymy under
Dianthus Linnaeus]. As in certain other matters, notably the status of names
cited in synonymy, zoologists could well profit by adopting the wise provisions
of the Botanical Code.
(c) Letter dated 7th February 1957
I herewith submit comments on the proposed use of the Plenary Powers
for GavupAE.® The comments are on the general principles concerned with
family-group names, and not on the bird names per se, the latter being out of
my field.
In paragraph 7, it is good to note the comment that Copenhagen Decision
54(1) (a) had a praiseworthy object and could serve that purpose in the future. I
do not believe, however, that the deplored re-emergence from synonymy of
long-buried family names is a necessary result of that Decision, nor do I believe
that it is necessary to invoke the Plenary Powers. Authors who dig up such
names in challenge to long-established usage are borrowing trouble
unnecessarily and, one might almost suspect with malice aforethought to
put the Decision in the worst possible light. I suggest two alternatives :—
(a) That authors exercise the option provided in Copenhagen Decision 45,
which was written for the precise purpose of avoiding resort to the Plenary
Powers as much as possible ;
(b) That authors defer usage-upsetting changes or applications regarding
them until the London Congress has had an opportunity to clarify the Decision,
and in the meantime follow the long honored principle of maintaining the status
quo until such review has been carried out. I confidently believe that many
applications are and will be found to be unnecessary, and can and should be
avoided at this time in the interests of economy of effort and publication
space.
*¥For a fuller reference to the proposal here mentioned by Dr. Sabrosky see paragraphs 4 and
5 of Document 2/14.
136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 2/10
Support for Dr. W. J. Arkell’s proposal for the withdrawal of Copenhagen
Decision 54(1)(a)
By R. M. STAINFORTH
(International Petroleum Company, Talara, Peru)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 835)
(Letter dated 15th June 1954)
I have just noted Dr. Arkell’s note in the March Journal of Paleontology
relative to the status of family names. He protests at a decision of the XIVth
International Congress of Zoology at Copenhagen (Decision 54(1)(a)) that
family names should not be changed when the name of the type-genera are
changed by synonymy.
I agree heartily with Dr. Arkell. An instance arose very recently in
connection with a foraminiferal paper which I have been editing for Dr. J.
Hofker. He formerly used the family name PARRELLIDAE, based on the
foraminifer Parrella. However, Parrella has since been shown to be pre-
occupied for a fish. It seems to me that the word PARRELLIDAE must
automatically name a family of fishes, if it is to have any valid meaning at all,
and the foraminiferal family must be re-named according to the name which
replaces the invalid one—in this case OSANGULARUDAE from Osangularia.
That is rather a case of homonymy and perhaps has no bearing on the clause
at issue, but my protest remains. Picking up one of the older foraminiferal
works at random, I see the subfamily POLYSTOMELLINAE (in Flint, 1899). By
the new ruling this (unless preceded by a still older name) would be valid
for the NONIONIDAE or ELPHIDIINAE of modern authors, even though the
synonymy of Polystomella (1822) and Elphédiwm (1808) has been so long
established that the former is no more than a faint ghost from the past. That
example was on the first page I looked at, and I shudder to think of the hundreds
of similar cases which must exist, and at the chaos which would result from
attempting to apply rules of priority to the family names.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 137
DOCUMENT 2/11
Support for Dr. W. J. Arkell’s proposal for the withdrawal of Copenhagen
Decision 54(1)(a)
By C. A. FLEMING and N. DE B. HORNIBROOK
(Geological Survey, Wellington, New Zealand)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 835)
(Letter dated 2nd August 1954)
We wish to record our sympathy with the opinions expressed by Dr. W. J.
Arkell in his letter to the Geological Magazine (91(2) : 174—175) and his note
in J. Pal. 28(2) : 218 concerning the provisions of Decision 54(1)(a) of the
“ Additions to, and Modifications of, the Régles Internationales de la
Nomenclature Zoologique approved and adopted by the XIVth International
Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, August, 1953”. We believe that the name of
a family, subfamily and superfamily should be based on the valid name of the
type genus.
138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 2/12
Proposed maintenance of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a)
By Members of the Committee on Entomological Nomenclature,
Entomological Society of America
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 835)
(Communicated by Robert L. Usinger, under cover of a letter
dated 4th November 1954)
During the past year two questions were referred to the Committee.
These concerned actions taken by the International Commission at Copenhagen
and were raised by palaeontologists. The questions are stated below :—
1. Strong objection has been taken in the palaeontological field to the
decision that ‘‘ where the name of the type genus of a taxon belonging to the
Family-Group has to be changed because it is found to be either (i) a junior
objective synonym or (ii) a junior subjective synonym, the name of the Family-
Group taxon based upon the name of that type genus is not to be changed ”’
(Cop. Dec. Zool. Nomencl. : 36, paragraph 54(1)(a)).
The E.S.A. Committee voted on upholding the Copenhagen Decisions as
follows :—
Question 1: 6 for, 1 against.
1The second portion of this Resolution deals with a different subject (the practicability of
applying the priority principle to family-groups) and will be published later as the present
volume as part of the documentation relating to Case No. 5 on the London Agenda Paper.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 139
DOCUMENT 2/13
Views of the Nomenclature Committee of the Society of
Systematic Zoology
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 835)
(Letter, with enclosures, from W. I. Follett to the Secretary
to the Commission, dated 19th September 1956)
A majority of the Nomenclature Committee of the Society of Systematic
Zoology favors retention, subject to a provision excluding retroactivity, of
the decision reached at Copenhagen on the subject of type genera in synonymy.
The following comprises the Committee’s correspondence to date on this
subject :—
ANNEXE 1 TO DOCUMENT 2/13
Circular letter dated 7th August 1954 by W. I. Follett, Chairman,
to the Members of the Nomenclature Committee of
the Society of Systematic Zoology
Mr. Sabrosky has suggested that we consider the objection that has
recently been expressed to the following decision rendered at Copenhagen :
Where the name of the type genus of a taxon belonging to the Family-
Group has to be changed because it is found to be either (i) a junior
objective synonym or (ii) a junior subjective synonym, the name of
the Family-Group taxon based upon the name of that type genus is not
to be changed. Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature, 1953 -
36 Sec. 54(1)(a).
Objection to this provision has been published by Dr. W. J. Arkell (Journal
of Paleontology 28(2), 1954 : 218 ; Geological Magazine 91(2), 1954 : 174).
140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
To this objection, Mr. Sabrosky has replied by a two-page mimeographed
statement. Mr. Sabrosky has since received a letter from Dr. L. R. Cox,
of the British Museum, who believes that the provision in question must be
retroactive to 1758, and who states, ‘‘ The International Rules as a whole were
made retroactive to 1758, although not codified and legalized until very long
afterwards, and any additions to them must be considered to be similarly
retroactive unless a specific statement is made to the contrary and a definite
date fixed from which they are to apply (e.g. the date 1930, after which a
diagnosis is required for a new genus to be valid).”
The problem necessarily involves the question of reversal of a decision
rendered at an International Congress of Zoology, and whether such a reversal
should be confined to a demonstrable error of fact or whether it may properly
include a decision rendered after publication of the opposing views and after
discussion and vote at the Congress.
Will you please tell me whether you favor retention or reversal of the
Copenhagen Decision quoted above. An expression of your views on this
problem will also be useful.
ANNEXE 2 TO DOCUMENT 2/13
Comments by Curtis W. Sabrosky
(a) Letter dated 3rd September 1954
I believe that there is another alternative which should be considered,
namely :—
(1) To retain the Copenhagen provision as it stands, retroactive to 1758
(assuming Hemming and Cox to be technically correct, regardless of what
we may have thought we were doing).
(2) To reject that decision, and thus to return to the provisions of the
old Code. (Arkell’s position.)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 141
(3) To amend the decision so as to preserve its action for the future, but
to provide for the past in some other way to avoid confusion and upsetting
changes (e.g., my proposal for committee of specialists, cf., Bull. zool. Nomen.
8 (Parts 6/9) : 176).
My personal view is, and has always been, that the third choice is the
best. Accordingly, I should like to propose that as an alternative rather than
voting for either retention or reversal. I understand that because of various
difficulties now apparent, such as the accurate determination of the prior
name for each group (c.f. Usinger’s second question), Hemming has also come
to the view that the approach by specialists’ committees and the preparation
of Official Lists would be the best way to proceed.
(b) Correspondence between W. I. Follett and Curtis W. Sabrosky
(i) Letter from W. I. Follett to Curtis W. Sabrosky
dated 28th October 1955
In attempting to surmount a mass of unfinished business, I have come to
your problem of type genera in synonymy. You will recall that under date
of August 7, 1954 I wrote the members of the 8.8.Z. Nomenclature Committee
on this subject, enclosing a copy of your two-page mimeographed reply to
Arkell’s objection.
Few members of the committee have replied to my letter and I propose
to call the matter to the attention of those who have not done so, and to
request that they express their view within a specified period. Before writing
such a follow-up letter, I should like to have any suggestions that may occur
to you. Particularly, do you wish to comment on (1) Article 5, Section, of
Bradley’s draft (‘‘ No new rule shall retroact in such manner as to overturn
the well-established usage of any name ”’) and (2) footnote 7 of my “ Unofficial
Interpretation . . .”’, suggesting that the protest procedure be applied to this
situation ?
(ii) Letter from Curtis W. Sabrosky to W. I. Follett
dated 8th November 1955
Re yours of 28th October; I have little to add beyond my letter of
3rd September 1954. I had a nice exchange of letters with Arkell, and we
142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
agree that this problem will undoubtedly have to be settled at the London
Congress. But it would be worth while, I think, to give consideration to it
and to place some reaction on record with Hemming. My position in the
controversy with Arkell is certainly in keeping with the provision in Bradley’s
draft. I favor the third choice in my letter of 3rd September rather than the
procedure suggested in your footnote 7, chiefly because the latter would drag
the business on and on, involve the Commission in endless details, and, unless
the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature can be much more widely disseminated
than it is now, zoologists are not going to pay too much attention anyway.
I favour a positive approach, to get the job done.
ANNEXE 3 TO DOCUMENT 2/13
Comment by Cyril F. dos Passos
Letter dated 10th August 1954
In answer to your air mail letter of 7th August, you are advised hereby
that I favor the retention of the Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomen-
clature, 1953: Decision 54(1)(a). I concur fully with the views expressed by
Mr. Sabrosky’s enclosed memorandum on this subject.
ANNEXE 4 TO DOCUMENT 2/13
(a) Comments by Professor Myra Keen
(a) Letter dated 9th August 1954
Before we had received the printed copy of the Copenhagen Decisions
we responded to the plea of Dr. W. J. Arkell—taking it at face value—and wrote
a letter, signed jointly by Dr. Graham, Dr. Miiller, and Dr. Thalmann and myself,
to Mr. Hemming protesting the supposed provisions of Sec. 54(1)(a). Later,
Dr. J. Brookes Knight saw a copy of this letter, which apparently was circulated
by Mr. Hemming, and Dr. Knight wrote us an urgent request that we withdraw
our letter. By this time we had the Copenhagen Decisions in hand and after
Bulletin of Zoological N. omenclature 143
studying them and the arguments of Dr. Knight and Dr. Sabrosky, Dr. Miller
and I, in the absence of the other two signers, wrote Mr. Hemming as follows :
“. . . We still object in principle, but are now convinced that it was the
intent of the Colloquium to make this action one for the future, not the past.
If this is the case, we urge that the wording of the clause be changed to include
the date 1953 or some later date. Only in this way can Decisions 45 and 54
be brought into harmony.” We asked Mr. Hemming, therefore, to amend
our previous letter in the event he planned to publish it. For my own part,
to make Sec. 54 retroactive to 1758 would seem to me to be in direct contradiction
to Sec. 45, and I should object most strongly to any such provision. As I told
Dr. Knight, it would be carrying priority to the point of absurdity.
(b) Letter dated 10th December 1955
Concerning your letter of 7th December to the members of the Nomen-
clature Committee of S.8.Z.: I have nothing to add to my previous letter of
August 1954, except the observation that I remain opposed to the general
attempt to bring family-group names under the Rules. The problems of ranking,
content, and spelling are so numerous that it seems to me the work involved
in searching the literature is all out of proportion to the precision gained.
Moreover, the Commission is already burdened with enough real problems
without having to make decisions upon these more or less artificial ones.
ANNEXE 5 TO DOCUMENT 2/13
Comments by ERNST MAYR
(a) Letter dated 11th August 1954
I strongly endorse Curtis Sabrosky’s stand. I disagree entirely with Cox
since it was stated again and again at the Colloquium that provisions to be
adopted at the meetings were to be valid from the day of publication of the
144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Copenhagen Decisions and could obviously not be retroactive. The Decision
in question has incorporated the future tense “‘ has to be changed ” which as
Curtis shows clearly proves that this is not a retroactive provision. However,
I would assume that if a well-known family name has been changed in recent
years on the basis of Article 5 that authors will be free to apply to the
International Commission for an exercise of its Plenary Powers. I have no
objection if Messrs. Arkell and Cox ask for a statement confirming the non-
retroactive powers of the new Article, but I would vigorously fight any attempt
to repeal one of the most stabilizing decisions adopted by the Copenhagen
Congress.
I do not quite feel ready to make a formal proposal concerning Paragraph
46 of the Copenhagen Decisions until I have had some reaction. Up to now
I have had very numerous requests for reprints but no reaction except from
Hemming who states that the Article, incorporating priority for family names,
has raised such formidable technical difficulties that it may be best to drop it.
Having tried myself to determine the first date of proposal of several classical
family names, I can only sympathize with Hemming. Perhaps it would be
better if you as Chairman of our Committee would request an expression of
opinion either from the members of the Committee or if you should prefer,
from the Society as a whole as to their reaction.
(b) Letter dated 12th December 1955
Thank you for your communication on Copenhagen Decision 54. Nothing
has happened that would induce me to change my endorsement of Sabrosky’s
interpretation of the Copenhagen Decisions and -his proposal. I believe
American courts pay a good deal of attention to the intention of a given law
or constitutional provision. In the present case there is no question whatsoever
that the intention of the Copenhagen law makers was to stabilize nomenclature
with the new provision. This automatically rules out the proposal to revoke
the Copenhagen Decisions and to go back to the old Article 5 with its continuous
changing of family names for purely nomenclatural reasons on the generic
level. This, likewise, automatically rules out the Arkell interpretation which, I
believe Mr. Hemming half-heartedly adopts that this is a retroactive provision.
As Dr. Arkell says quite correctly a retroactive proposal would play havoc
with stability. Consequently this leaves only one interpretation of Copenhagen
Decision 54 namely that it should become valid and binding as of the date of
publication. Any other interpretation would seem legalistic, ritualistic and
unquestionably contrary to the intent of the Copenhagen Congress.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 145
ANNEXE 6 TO DOCUMENT 2/13
Comment by Carl L. Hubbs
Letter dated 13th December 1955
It seems to me rather absurd that we should give serious consideration to
the argument of Cox, that the new Rule should be retroactive to 1758. That
certainly wasn’t intended and doesn’t make sense. It seems to me to be
entirely in keeping with the spirit of our actions and the spirit of the times to
make the small addition of fixing a definite date when this new rule will take
effect. We decided to have a date for several actions, and to leave the designa-
tion of the date up for future determination. This would be in line with
Sabrosky’s third alternative proposed on September 3, 1954, though I do not
think that we need to go with him and make everything dependent on what a
committee of specialists will do with the fixing of family names. This is going
to be a difficult job, and in some groups it will be hard to get a sound set of
specialists together. In some groups the job may be done so poorly as to be
obviously bad. I don’t believe that we should object to having specialists go
into the matter, in the hopes that for a good many groups the job will be done
and done well. However, we will need to face the fact that such action will
often‘not be taken. So I think that in recommending the appointment of
such committees, there should be some provision that the matter can be settled
in some other way ; I would say preferably in line with the proposal in your
Footnote 7 of the ‘ unofficial interpretation ’.
146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 2/14
Report on the action taken by the International Commission under
its Plenary Powers to prevent the application of Copenhagen Decision
54(1)(a) (retention in certain cases of family-group names based upon
invalid generic names) in certain cases where it had been represented
by specialists in the groups concerned that otherwise confusion and
name-changing would result
By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 835)
The purpose of the present Report is to give particulars of the action
taken by the International Commission under its Plenary Powers to prevent
the application of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a) (retention of family-group
names based upon generic names rejected as junior objective, or as junior
subjective, synonyms of other generic names) in certain cases where it has
been represented that otherwise objectionable disturbance of current nomen-
clatorial practice would be involved. These cases are instructive as showing
how in actual cases Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a) would not only fail to secure
the object for which it was devised—the stabilisation of family-group-name
nomenclature—but would in fact defeat that object by promoting undesirable
name-changing.
(a) The family-group names “ Arieticeratinae ’’ Howarth, 1955, and
** Seguenziceratidae ’’ Spath, 1924
(Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea)
** Opinion ’’ 337 and “‘ Direction ’’ 70
2. In October 1950 Dr. W. J. Arkell (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge
University, Cambridge) submitted to the International Commission an
Bulletin of Zoological N omenclature 147
application in which he asked that a Ruling be given rejecting the reputed
generic name Arieticeras Quenstedt, 1883 (Class Cephalopoda, Order
Ammonoidea) and in consequence (i) accepting as an available name the name
Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885, and (ii) rejecting as a junior objective synonym of
3. At the time when Dr. Arkell submitted the foregoing application to the
Commission the family-group-name implications involved were not dealt with,
the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology not having at that time
been brought into existence. When, subsequent to the Copenhagen Congress,
this case was reviewed from the foregoing point of view, it was found that
Dr. Arkell who had from the first expressed the strongest Opposition to
Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a)? at once submitted to the Commission a supple-
mentary application asking that the Plenary Powers should be used to restore
the position by suppressing the family-group name SEGUENZICERATIDAE
Spath, thus leaving the way clear for the acceptance of the family-group name
being later embodied in Direction 70 (1957, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool.
Nomencl. 16 : (i)—(xii)).
(b) The family-group names “Gaviidae’’ Coues, 1903, and “Urinatoridae’’
(correction of “Urinatores)”’ Vieillot, 1818 (Class Aves)
“ Opinion ’’ 401 and “ Direction ’’ 75
4. In 1950 the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature
which had then recently been established by the International Ornithological
Congress, submitted to the International Commission an application designed
For a paper published on this subject by Dr. Arkell, see Document 2/1.
148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
to bring to a close a controversy centred around the generic name Colymbus
Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves) which for seventy years had divided the
ornithologists of the Old World and the New, the former using this name for
the Divers (Loons), the latter for the Grebes. The proposal so submitted was
that the Commission should use its Plenary Powers to cut the Gordian Knot
by suppressing the name Colymbus Linnaeus as a name hopelessly compromised
and deprived of utility by long-standing discordant usage, thus clearing the
ground for the use of the foregoing genera of names which were both well-
known and not subject to any doubt as to their interpretation. Under this
proposal the name Gavia Forster, 1788, would become the valid generic name
for the Divera (Loons) and Podiceps Latham, 1787, the valid generic name
for the Grebes. This application was published in 1952 (Bull. zool. Nomencel.
9 : 6—7) and received a wide measure of support from ornithologists. At the
close of the Prescribed Waiting Period the foregoing proposals were
unanimously approved by the Commission. The decision so taken was later
embodied in Opinion 401 (1956, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 1—
64).
5. At the time of the submission of the application upon which the
foregoing Opinion was based the Official List of Family-Group Names in
Zoology had not as yet been established and in consequence the family-group
name aspects of the Colymbus case were not then considered. When, however,
this matter came to be examined, it was found that at the family-group name
level the settlement reached in Opinion 401 would in part be upset ifthe provisions
of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a) were to be applied, for, if that Decision were
to have been so applied, it would have been imposssible to employ the family-
group name GAVIIDAE Coues, 1903, for the Divers (Loons), it being necessary
under that Decision to disinter the long-buried name URINATORIDAE (correction
of URINATORIVES) Vieillot, 1818, a name of older date based upon the name
Urinator Lacépéde, 1799, a name long rejected as a junior subjective synonym
of Gavia Forster, 1788. This unfortunate development was brought to notice
in a note by myself as Secretary (1956, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 12 : 240—247), in
which I suggested that, in order to harmonise the position at the family-group-
name level with that established at the generic-name level by the action taken
by the Commission under the Plenary Powers in Opinion 401, the family-group
name URINATORIDAE Vieillot, 1818, should be suppressed under the Plenary
Powers, thus restoring to the Divers (Loons) the family-group name GAVIIDAE
Coues, based upon the generic name which in the foregoing Opinion the
Commission had validated for that group. No objection to this course was
received by the Commission from any source,” and the foregoing reeommenda-
tion was unanimously approved by the Commission. The decision so taken
has since been embodied in Direction 75 (1957, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool.
Nomencel. 13 : 291—308).
2The application here referred to did, however, evoke from Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky a further
note on Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a), the text of which has been reproduced as Document
2/9(e).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 149
(ce) The family-group names ‘‘ Upogebiinae ’’ Borradaile, 1903,
and “‘ Gebiidae ’’ (correction of “‘ Gebidae ’’) Dana, 1852, and
“* Processidae ’’ Ortmann, 1896, and the names “ Nikidae ”’
Bate, 1888, and “ Hectarthropidae’’ Bate, 1888 (Class
Crustacea, Order Decapoda)
“ Opinion ’’ 434
6. In May 1954, Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie,
Leiden, The Netherlands) placed before the International Commission a request
for the validation under the Plenary Powers of the well-known generic names
Upogebia [Leach], [1814], and Processa Leach, [1815] (Class Crustacea, Order
Decapoda). In each of these cases there was a family-group name based on
the generic name in question that was in common use but which would under
Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a) disappear in synonymy, for in each case there
was an older family-group name based upon a generic name which was a junior
synonym—in the first of these cases, a junior subjective synonym, in the second,
a junior objective synonym, of the name of the type genus in question. In
the first case the name UPOGEBIINAE Borradaile, 1903, was a junior objective
synonym of GEBIIDAE (correction of GEBIDAE) Dana, 1852, a nominal taxon
having as its type genus Gebia Leach, 1815, the name of which was a junior
objective synonym of Upogebia [Leach], [1814]. In the second of the cases
referred to above there were two family-group names involved. These were:
NIKIDAE Bate, 1888, and HECTARTHROPIDAE Bate, 1888. In each of these
cases the name of the type genus was a junior subjective synonym of Processa
Leach, [1815]. Thus, under Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a) the name
PROCESSIDAE Ortmann, 1896, would need to be sunk as a junior subjective
synonym of NIKIDAE Bate, 1888, or, if that name were to be suppressed under
the Plenary Powers, of HECTARTHROPIDAE Bate, 1888, unless that name were
also to be so suppressed. In these cases the Commission was asked to validate
the names in common use (UPOGEBIINAE and PROCESSIDAE) by suppressing
under its Plenary Powers the older names based on discarded generic names
(in the first case, the senior objective synonym GEBIIDAE ; in the second case,
the senior subjective synonyms NIKIDAE and HECTARTHROPIDAE), thus valid-
ating the established practice of carcinologists in regard to these names. This
proposal was approved by the Commission, the decision so taken being
embodied later in Opinion 434 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 14:
403-424).
(d) The family-group names “ Sphenodontidae ’’ Cope, 1870,
and “ Hatteriidae ’’ Cope, 1864 (Class Reptilia)
* Opinion ’’ 455
7. In November 1954, Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Senckenbergische
Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) submitted to the
International Commission an application having as its principal object the
150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
validation of the currently accepted emendation to Sphenodon of the generic
name originally published by Gray (J.E.) in 1831 with the defective spelling
Sphaenodon (Class Reptilia). The problem raised by Copenhagen Decision
54(1)(a) was involved in this case also, for the universally-used family-group
name SPHENODONTIDAE Cope, 1870, would under that Decision fall as a junior
objective synonym of HATTERIIDAE Cope, 1864, a nominal taxon having as its
type genus Hatteria Gray (J.E.), 1842, which has the same type species as, and
is therefore objectively identical with, Sphenodon (correction of Sphaenodon)
Gray (J.E.), 1831. In this application Professor Mertens asked that the
confusing and objectionable change which would result from the application
of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a) in this case should be prevented from taking
place by the suppression by the Commission under its Plenary Powers of the
long-rejected name HATTERIDAE Cope, 1864, thus validating the name
SPHENODONTIDAE Cope, 1874, in general use for the family concerned. An
extract from Professor Mertens’ application setting out his views on this matter
is given in Appendix 2 to the present note, while in Appendix 3 is given a note
on the same subject which was furnished by Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaczewski
(Zoological Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) after the
publication of Professor Mertens’ application in the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature. The proposal submitted in this matter was approved by the
Commission which under its Plenary Powers validated the name SPHENODONTIDAE
Cope, 1870, by suppressing the name HATTERIIDAE Cope, 1864. The decision
so taken has since been embodied in Opinion 455 (1957, Ops. Decls. int. Comm.
zool. Nomencl. 15 : 379-392).
(e) No proposals received for the application of Copenhagen
Decision 54(1)(a) in particular cases
8. In conclusion, it should be added that in no case submitted to the
Commission has the applicant asked that, in accordance with the provisions
of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a), a currently-accepted family-group name
should be rejected in favour of some family-group name of older date that had
been discarded as being based upon a generic name which was a junior synonym
(either objective or subjective) of the name of the type genus of the currently
accepted family-group taxon.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 151
APPENDIX 1 TO DOCUMENT 2/14
Objection to Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a)
By W. J. ARKELL
(Cambridge University, Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge)
Extract from application in regard to the family-group names
SEGUENZICERATIDAE Spath, 1924, and ARIETICERATINAE
Howarth, 1955
(Arkell, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl, 11 : 297-298)
4. In the present case the difficulty arises from the unfortunate decision
by the Copenhagen Congress that a family-group name is not to be rejected
when the name of its type genus is rejected as being (as in the present case)
a junior objective synonym of some other generic name (1953, Copenhagen
Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 36, Decision 54(1)(a)). I have already protested
strongly against this decision (1954, Geol. Mag. 91 : 174, 410 ; 1955, J. Paleont.
29 : 188) which in my group and, as I now learn, in many other groups must,
if applied, lead to the overturning of many well-known family-group names in
favour of other names which have passed out of use completely. It is my
strong hope that the next (Fifteenth) International Congress of Zoology, when
it meets in London in 1958, will reverse the foregoing decision in favour of the
long-established practice under which a change is made in a family-group name
when it is found necessary to change the name of its type genus because that
name is either a junior objective synonym or a junior subjective synonym of
some earlier name. In the present case, I consider that it would be ridiculous
if there were to be an available name SEGUENZICERATIDAE in view of the fact
that by the Ruling given by the Commission Seguenziceras Levi, 1896, is a
junior objective synonym of Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885.
* For the paper here referred to see Document 2/1.
152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
APPENDIX 2 TO DOCUMENT 2/14
Objection to Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a)
By ROBERT MERTENS
(Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M.,
Germany)
Extract from application in regard to the generic name
Sphenodon Gray (J.E.), 1831
(Mertens, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 140-141)
6. We have now to consider the third of the family-group names concerned,
namely HATTERIIDAE Cope, 1864 (Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1864 : 227)
the type genus of which is Hatteria Gray, 1842, which, as shown above, is a
junior objective synonym of Sphenodon Gray, 1831. Thename SPHENODONTIDAE
Cope, 1870, which is in current use for this family, is junior by six years to the
name HATTERIIDAE Cope, 1864. Up to 1953, this would not have prevented
the family in question from being known by the family name (SPHENODONTIDAE)
based upon the oldest valid name for its type genus. Unfortunately, however,
the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, when
revising the rules relating to family-group names, inserted a provision that
“* Where the name of the type genus of a taxon belonging to the Family-Group
has to be changed because it is found to be either (i) a junior objective synonym
or (ii) a junior subjective synonym, the name of the Family-Group taxon based
upon the name of that type genus is not to be changed ” (1953, Copenhagen
Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature : 36, Decision 54(1)(a)). This decision
represents a most unfortunate innovation and one calculated to cause much
name-changing and confusion at the family-name level, and it is much to be
hoped that it will be reversed by the next (London, 1958) International Congress
of Zoology. In the present case this decision if applied, would lead to the
rejection of the well-known family name SPHENODONTIDAE and its replacement
by the long-rejected and inappropriate name HATTERIIDAE. In present circum-
stances the only way by which this result can be avoided is for the Commission
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 153
to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the family-group name HATTERIIDAE
Cope, 1864, thereby validating the accepted name SPHENODONTIDAE Cope,
1870. This course the Commission is therefore now asked to take.
APPENDIX 3 TO DOCUMENT 2/14
Objection to Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a)
By TADEUSZ JACZEWSKI
(Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland)
Letter dated 12th June 1955 furnished in support of Robert Mertens’
application regarding the generic name Sphenodon Gray, 1831
(Jaczewski, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 304)
I wish to support in full extent the proposition by Professor Dr. Robert
Mertens, concerning the validation of the emended generic name Sphenodon
Gray, 1831, and of the family-group name SPHENODONIDAE Cope, 1870.
In particular I wish to support most strongly the opinion expressed by
Professor Dr. Mertens in paragraph 6 (: 140—141) of the above proposition
concerning the use of family-group names derived from generic names which
proved to be synonyms. I quite agree with Professor Dr. R. Mertens that it
should be hoped that the unfortunate Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a), will be
finally reversed by the next International Congress.
In my opinion the only way leading to a reasonable stability of family-
group names is through the previous stabilisation, i.e., placing on the Official
List, of the names of the corresponding type genera of the families in question.
I think that the mentioned Copenhagen Decision is manifestly contrary to the
very principle of the type method which is taken as the basis for the formation
of family-group names. I am unable to see any reasonable idea in the
maintenance of family-group names derived from synonymous generic names
which may be placed any time on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology, and become thus doomed to oblivion. I think
valid family names based on invalid generic names are a very anomalous
combination.
L
154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 2/15
Proposed withdrawal of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 835)
By W. F. WHITTARD
(University of Bristol, England)
(Letter dated 26th September 1957)
I have recently had occasion to consult Decision 54(1)(a), reached by the
International Congress of Zoology at Copenhagen, with regard to the trilobite
family group-name ALASTASPIDAE Turner, 1940. Whittington (1952) correctly
claimed that Alsataspis Turner, 1940, as a subjective junior synonym of
Seleneceme Clark, 1924; accordingly he replaced the family group-name
ALSATASIDAE by SELENECEMIDAE. The Decision quoted above rules the name
SELENECEMIDAE to be invalid. This Decision appears to me to be at fault
when, as a result, it perpetuates in the family group-name an incorrect and
false generic name founded on an invalid synonym. I agree with Arkell’ that
the name of a family is only legitimate when it is founded on a valid generic
name.
i
1 See Document 2/1.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 155
CASE No. 3
ARTICLE 5 : PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND/OR CLARIFICATION
OF DECISION 54(1)(b) OF THE COPENHAGEN CONGRESS
REGARDING THE DATE AND AUTHORSHIP TO BE ATTRI-
BUTED TO THE NAME OF A FAMILY-GROUP TAXON PUBLISHED
AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A FAMILY-GROUP NAME REJECTED BY
REASON OF THE NAME OF ITS TYPE GENUS BEING A JUNIOR
HOMONYM OF AN OLDER GENERIC NAME
(Editorial Note : Mr. G. H. E. Hopkins (British Museum (Natural
History), The Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts) has intimated his
intention of submitting a proposal for the amendment of Copenhagen
Decision 54 (1)(b) so as to provide that a substitute family-
group name shall be treated as possessing the same priority and
authorship as the name which it replaces. This paper, which is not
yet available, will be published in the present series as soon as it is
received. ]
DOCUMENT 3/1
Request for a clarification of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(b)
By A. K. MILLER and W. M. FURNISH
(State University of Iowa, Iowa City, U.S.A.)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1252)
(Letter dated 15th April 1954)
In a recent circular, Professor R. C. Moore asked that you be sent as
soon as possible an expression of views from individual T'reatise authors
concerning matters of family-group nomenclature to be formulated in the
new Reégles.
It seems to us that Decision 54(b) of the Copenhagen Decisions should
be clarified because it does not specify (1) the authorship or (2) the date of
establishment of a Family-Group taxon the name of which is “replaced
by a name based upon the changed name of the type genus”. This becomes
important in case a subjective synonym for the Family-Group was proposed
during the interim between the original proposal and the change.
156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/19
Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘‘ Parataxa Plan ”’
(Reference : Professor Moore’s Digest reproduced as Document 1/15)
By H. SCHMIDT
(Geologisch-Palacontologisches Institut der Georg August-Universitat,
Gottingen, Germany)
(Letter dated 17th July 1957)
Zu Ihrer Anfrage (Z.N.(S.) 1056) darf ich zunachst auf meinen Brief
vom 3.7.56 verweisen. Zeile 5-8 desselben ist iiberholt.
Ich meine, dass Parataxa in der Paliontologie in grosser und rasch
anwachsender Zahl vorhanden sind. Sie verursachen Storungen in der
Nomenklatur, und ein Versuch zu Anpassung der I.R.Z.N. an die Lage erscheint
angebracht. Deshalb stimme ich dem Grundgedanken des Vorschlages
Moore/Sylvester-Bradley bei. Fiir die Fassung des vorgeschlagenen Artikels
halte ich jedoch gewisse Anderungen fiir richtig :
Im Absatz (a) empfehle ich zu streichen “ by decision of the Commission ”’.
Die Verantwortung dafiir, ob die Beziehung auf ein ganzes Tier moglich ist
oder nicht, kann und soll, wie ich meine, den Autoren nicht abgenommen
werden. Es ist schon jetzt gelegentlich besonders bei den Conodonten so, dass
Fragmente bearbeitet und benannt werden, ohne dass der jeweilige Autor die
Beziehung auf ein ganzes Tier sucht, obwohl es Moglichkeiten dazu gibt.
Wird den Autoren die Verantwortung in dieser Richtung abgenommen, so
kénnte die heute noch verbreitete Zuriickhaltung durch eine Inflation von
Namen abelést werden. Das Bewusstsein, dass jedes Parataxon ein uner-
wiinschter Notbehelf ist, sollte erhalten bleiben.
Zum Absatz (b) meine ich auch, dass die Freiheit, neue Gruppen von
Paratax-Namen zu schaffen, beschrankt werden sollte. Wenn aber die
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 157
Kommission nach dem Vorschlag Moore/Sylvester-Bradley 1956 Ziffer 3
(pag. 2/3) verfahrt, wird das nicht geniigen, weil zahlreiche Parataxa fiir
Fahrten und Spuren berticksichtigt werden miissen, darunter auch solche
incertae classis. Also wiirde erst eine Zeitspanne bendtigt werden, um die
Zulassung der Parataxa aus den vorgesehenen Tierklassen durchzufiihren.
Danach miissten fiir weitere Tierklassen Antrage gestellt und bearbeitet werden.
In der Zwischenzeit konnte es Verwirrung und Unzufriedenheit geben. Ich
habe 1956 permische Reptilfahrten bearbeitet und fand dabei, dass ohne
einige neue Namen eine ausrichende Diskussion der Befunde nicht moglich war.
So ergibt sich wiederum der Rat, man mége die Aufstellung neuer Parataxa
nicht ermuntern, aber auch nicht hindern.
An Stelle des Abstazes (b) wiirde ich demgemiass lediglich eine Ermahnung
an die Autoren vorschlagen, bei der Schaffung neuer Parataxa soweit méglich
Zuriickhaltung zu iiben.
Den Absatz (c) empfehle ich zu unveranderter Annahme.
Unter “ Ratschlage ’ konnte beigefiigt werden : Parataxa-Gattungsnamen
sollten zusammengesetzte Worter sein, bei denen ein Bestandteil den Begriff
als Parataxon kennzeichnet. Dazu sind Affixe verwendbar, wie- ichnus,
-aptychus etc. Auch die Verwendung eines kurzen Prifixes ist zulassig, diese
erscheint fiir Verwendung in alphabetischen Listen vorteilhaft.
Mit dem letzten Ratschlag beziehe ich mich auf Erfahrungen der Palyno-
logen : Die Verabredung von 1951 (Heerlen), die Namen der Sporae dispersae
stets mit -sporites (-pollenites) zu verbinden, hat sich bewadhrt, wenn auch
einige Worter von monstréser Linge die Folge waren. Bei meinen Fahrten
hatte ich gern statt Harpagichnus etwa Pe-Harpargis und statt Palmichnus
Pe-Palmae, geschreiben aber mein Vorschlag in Paliont. Z. 28 (1954, pag. 3)
ist wohl noch zu isoliert, als dass schon jetzt das nétige Verstaindnis hatte
erwartet werden kénnen.
158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/20
Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “‘ Parataxa Plan ”’
(Reference : Professor Moore’s Digest reproduced as Document 1/15)
By JOHN W. KOENIG
(Missouri Geological Survey & Water Resources, Rolla, Missouri, U.S.A.)
(Letter dated 22nd July 1957)
Dr. Don L. Frizzel of the Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy has been
most kind in bringing to my attention the contents of your letter pertaining
to the proposed insertion in the Régles of a provision for ““ Parataxa”’. Although
my work with microcrinoids and bryozoans does not ordinarily call for the use
of a parataxonomic system, I am often aware of the fact that the wealth of
currently useless disconnected parts of whole animals which I encounter in
my samples could be effectively used in the solving of many stratigraphic
problems if such a system as proposed by Moore and Sylvester-Bradley were to
be erected for their reception.
If the system is properly initiated, it should prove to be an excellent
tool for all paleontologists and stratigraphers. To this end, I would like to
emphasize the following points :
(1) The definitions of the several types of discrete parts and life stages to
be considered by the commission as parataxonomic in nature should be set
forth as explicitly as possible so that there can be no confusion as to what is
to be included. Special care should be taken in the consideration of life stages
of whole (or more specifically) mature animals. For example, the very immature
forms in the growth series of at least two general of Paleozoic microcrinoids,
Allagecrinus and Kallimorphocrinus could conceivably be considered as para-
taxa because at this stage in their development it is exceedingly difficult and
often impossible to determine to which adult genus they belong. However,
it would be unnatural and cumbersome to place these forms in a taxa different
from that of the adults.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 159
(2) Unavoidable delays in Commission Rulings on newly proposed para-
taxa may prove to be more of a hindrance than an aid to active workers
primarily concerned with the use of such units. It would be more practical
to allow the publication of such names subject to protest within a reasonable
period of time.
(3) The need for absolute distinction between parataxonomic and taxo-
nomic nomenclature cannot be stressed strongly enough. There should be
no question as to the immediate recognition of parataxonomic names when
used with descriptions, discusssions, and faunal lists of whole animals. It
also would be very useful if all paleontologists were urged to include parataxa
in their synonymies of whole-animals when and if the relationships had been
established.
160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/21
Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa Plan ”’
(Reference : Professor Moore’s Digest reproduced as Document 1/15)
Views of the Scientific Staff of the Australian Museum, Sydney, Australia
(Letter dated 26th July 1957 communicated by the Director
of the Museum, J. W. EVANS)
I circulated your letter of July 8th, to the scientific staff of this Museum.
Most of them have no particular comments to make, but I give below those
of Mr. Whitely, Curator of Fishes.
The proposed provision of Parataxa is largely a matter for palaeontologists.
Sometimes fish otoliths of uncertain allocation are given scientific names
such as “ Gadidarum laevigatum, sp. nov.” in which Gadidarum is not a proper
generic name but indicates that the new species of otolith can only be assigned
at present to some genus or other of the family GADIDAE.
When dealing with Recent fishes, ichthyologists usually express unidenti-
fiable novelties as “Gen. indet.” or by some similar term. There are not
very many genera incertae sedis amongst Recent fishes ; these are mostly loose
scales, otoliths, sharks’ teeth, etc.
I cannot recall any eggs of Recent fishes having been named as genera or
species. Larvae such as Leptocephalus have been named and their names
accepted or rejected according to the Régles as their adults have been associated
with them.
Leigh-Sharpe (J. Morph. 39 : 567-573) studying claspers of skates (Raia)
named a number of new “ pseudogenera’’, as he called them, framing for
each a new name by prefixing a Greek letter to the Latin word Raia: thus
Alpharaia, Betaraia, etc. These “ pseudogenera”’ were provided with type-
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 161
species by Leigh-Sharpe, and were acknowledged as subgenera by Jordan
(1925, Copeia 142 : 37) "who resolved them into subgenera when valid and
synonyms of subgenera which had been named earlier—a satisfactory arrange-
ment.
It might be better for parataxa to be clearly named as such in their place
of original publication, and for their names to be independent of the Law of
Homonymy, in the manner of a name published for some purpose other than
for use in zoological nomenclature (Copenhagen Decisions, 1953, p. 63, para.
114(1)).
In general, I see no objection to the proposed scheme as outlined in this
circular Z.N.(S.) 1056, except that I feel that the decision to classify an object
as a taxon or parataxon should be the responsibility of its describer, as a
specialist in his field, rather than of the Commission.
162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/22
Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa Plan ”’
(Reference : Professor Moore’s Digest reproduced as Document 1/15)
By R. S. BASSLER
(Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)
(Letter dated 29th July 1957)
In reply to your letter and enclosed Moore/Sylvester-Bradley proposals
of 5th July 1957 (Z.N.(S.) 1056) I have conferred with our local students
deeply concerned in the fundamental laws of zoological nomenclature. All
agree that further complicating the Rules would be inexcusable and might lead
to disrespect for decisions of the International Commission. The basic Rules
have been reprinted so often by scientific institutions and private individuals
and the methods for correcting mistakes are so ample that there is no lack of
information about them.
It would have been wise had Moore presented his subject for at least pre-
liminary discussion in say the Journal of Paleontology or other American
publications before his proposals were sent to the Commission. However,
as has been well said in American politics ‘‘ Let us look into the record ”’.
F. A. Bather, 1900 (Echinoderms in Ray Lankester’s T'reatise on Zoology)
changes the name of over 75 genera of crinoidea and cystoidea without any
explanation or previous references. American authors rebelled so in 1924
a conference held at Washington with Bather, Ullrich, Foerste and Bassler
present led to the agreement that one of us should change the names back to
the original valid ones. Naturally it fell to the youngest member and Bassler
did so in 1938 and 1943. Moore and Laudon in their large crinoid work following
Bassler adopted all these valid names, a procedure followed by succeeding
authors and text-book writers. Moore, however, as early as 1939 (Denison
Univ. Bull. J. Sci. Lab.) proposed an elaborate classification of fragmentary
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 163
crinoidal remains which some of us strongly disagreed with. Then as noted
by Bassler in 1943 (Bibliographic and Faunal Index, Pal. Echin. : 2) Moore
acknowledged that the fragments had no value as genera and species in classi-
fication. These fragments probably gave rise to the later term PARATAXA.
In 1957 Moore, with a European sponsor (Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley),
proposes the insertion in the Régles of the new term “ parataxa ’’, evidently
to replace his fragmentary fossil remains of 1939 and 1943. Considering the
trouble that parataxa will cause in our legitimate classification and the
approval-responsibilities placed upon the Commission, this is certainly the time
for all good naturalists to come to the aid of our taxonomy.
I contend that the use of common good sense can relieve the difficulties
of classification whether it be cephalopod or conodont. Any name based
upon an aptychus can remain until the whole shell is known, whereupon the
aptychus-name can go in parenthesis labelled as the operculum. Conodonts
can be treated likewise until the entire animal is found, maybe centuries later,
but the old unlocated names must be held for stratigraphic reasons. In such
cases the Commission at no time should make final decision except in species
with completed case-history.
Summing up, I feel that the proposals cited are necessary so seldom that
there is no need of expanding their discussion.
164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/23
Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘“‘ Parataxa Plan ”’
(Reference : Professor Moore’s Digest reproduced as Document 1/15)
By R. V. MELVILLE
(Geological Survey and Museum, London)
(Enclosure to letter dated 9th August 1957)
Palaeontologists have long felt that some of the difficulties inherent in
their material should be recognised by the incorporation of additional provisions
in the Régles. The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley proposals are to be welcomed
as the first successful attempt to direct the Commission’s attention to these
difficulties.
2. I feel, however, that stricter drafting would better fit the proposals
to the palaeontological purposes for which they are designed. Consideration
must first be given to the level at which the criterion of “ unrecognisability ”’
is to be applied. For example, in the Class Echinoidea, Order Cidaroida,
scores of species and a number of genera have been based on detached radioles ;
in many of these cases the corona (which is generally held to represent a whole-
animal species in fossil echinoids) is not known ; in many other cases, however,
the whole-animal species is known and can be identified from detached radioles.
I have not investigated how conflicts between synonymous names in this cate-
gory have been resolved in arriving at the currently stable usage, but clearly
there is no call for exceptional legislation. Some whole-animal species of
Diadematacean and Echinacean echinoids can also be determined from detached
radioles, but in most cases such fragments could only be recognised at family
or order level, while radioles of Gnathostomatan and Atelostomatan echinoids
could in general only be recognised as such.
3. Some whole-animal species of fishes can be identified from detached
teeth, otoliths, scales or fin-spines, although in other cases these discrete parts
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 165
can only be recognised at some higher taxonomic level. Gislén (1924 ; Zool.
Bidr. Uppsala 9) has proposed names for certain post-Palaeozoic articulate
crinoids that are known only from discrete parts ; here, although the whole-
animal species is not known, at least the ordinal placing is certain. Some
whole-animal species in this group can be determined from discrete parts.
4. In cases of the kind mentioned in the two preceding paragraphs,
it does not seem to me that any special rules are called for, since even if the
whole-animal species is not known, authors have clearly considered that the
remains under consideration have represented some whole-animal species for
which it was necessary to have a name. Hither it is possible to identify the
discrete-part species with some existing nominal species, or it can be given
a new specific name in an existing nominal genus, or it can be given a new
binomen in an existing family-group taxon (or placed incertae sedis in some
existing order/class-group unit). The course adopted would depend on the
level at which the discrete-part taxon could be recognised in terms of whole-
animal taxa. I am convinced that all such names should be treated as co-
ordinate in all respects with the names of true taxa, and I should certainly
oppose any attempt to treat such nominal species of echinoids as those mentioned.
in paragraph 2 above in any other way.
5. The special difficulty with the conodonts is that even the conodont-
assemblages cannot be placed in an existing phylum or class. For the sake of
argument, however, it can be assumed that the units distinguished among
these assemblages are whole-animal species, whose nomenclature should be
governed by the Régles in force at any given time.
6. The greatest difficulty arises with discrete-part fossils that are known
not to represent whole-animal taxa, but for which it is necessary to have a system
of nomenclature of one sort or another. Dissociated conodonts and the aptychi
of ammonites are fossils of this kind. Remains of this sort may be of the
greatest scientific importance to palaeontologists, since they may be the most
useful fossils in an assemblage from the point of view of stratigraphical dating
of the strata and of making correlations from one place to another ; they may
even provide the sole evidence on which the marine or non-marine nature of the
sediments is to be judged. I consider that the total suppression of all names
based on ammonite aptychi, as recommended by Dr. Arkell (Bull. zool. Nomencl.
9 : 266-268), would be a disservice to those palaeontologists who need names
by which to record the occurrence of these fossils and to make deductions based
on such evidence.
7. It is clearly necessary in the interests of palaeontologists that the
nomenclature of discrete-part fossils that are known not to represent true
taxa should be uniform and stable. It seems preferable to me for this to be
166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
achieved through the International Commission rather than otherwise. Any
independent authority that was set up to deal with this difficulty would be
under heavy pressure to deal also with other problems that afflict palaeontolo-
gists which the International Commission has hitherto refused to treat in the
manner requested. This could only lead to the establishment of a palaeonto-
logical commission in competition with the existing authority—a proceeding
already canvassed among certain palaeontologists. This would be a disastrous
result.
8. What in effect is desired is that the International Commission should
extend its functions to cover the regulation of the nomenclature of certain
entities known to be outside the scope of zoological nomenclature as that
term is currently defined. The fossils mentioned in paragraphs 6 and 7 above—
and I would confine the term “ parataxa ” to these categories alone—bear names
that would be thought of as “‘ technical terms ”’ in current definitions. These
names form part of the international language of zoology and they are used to
communicate concepts just as the names of normal taxa are used. Neverthe-
less, since the boundary between the nominal concepts represented by these
names and those represented by names presently governed by the Régles is
subjective and liable to fluctuation, it seems to me essential that the two
categories of names should be subject to the rule of the same authority.
9. The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley proposals for the government of the
nomenclature of parataxa seem to me adequate and effective. It is obviously
desirable to eliminate homonymy between the names of parataxa and the
names of normal taxa, so that both categories of names should be subject to the
same Law of Homonymy. It is also necessary for the two categories to be
independent from the point of view of the Law of Priority, since in the nature
of parataxa it will always be unlikely that any one of them will be found to
be synonymous with any one normal taxon. Im cases where specialists are
agreed that a condition of synonymy exists between one nominal parataxon
and one taxon, it should be ruled that the name of the taxon should always
prevail.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 167
DOCUMENT 1/24
Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘‘ Parataxa Plan ”’
(Reference : Professor Moore’s Digest reproduced as Document 1/15)
By J. CHESTER BRADLEY
(Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(Letter dated 12th August 1957)
Professor Moore and Mr. Sylvester-Bradley kept me informed as to their
proposals regarding parataxa while they were working on them. I was very
favourably impressed. I at once saw that any such proposal, if adopted,
would also have to apply to the non-taxonomic groups that parasitologists
are permitted to use, by exception. I urged Mr. Sylvester-Bradley to com-
municate his plan to Dr. Stoll.
Since I am neither a paleontologist nor a parasitologist, I do not feel
competent to commit myself as to the value and practicability of the plan.
I do not feel that the Commission should, or could, drive paleontologists and
parasitologists into adopting such a plan, and I think that it would be premature
to adopt it as part of the Réegles in 1958. It might, however, be wise to announce
that if any considerable number of specialists adopt it in their own work within
the next five years, that consideration would be given at the next succeeding
Congress to incorporating appropriate provisions in the Régles.
Since the problem facing parasitologists and that facing paleontologists
seems fundamentally the same, I should be opposed to making in the Code
separate exceptional solution for each discipline.
I would suggest that a footnote be added to the first paragraph of
Professor Moore’s Digest, hanging on the words “ Whole Animals”, to the
following effect.
168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
“Whole Animals” is to be interpreted broadly, to mean not only all
parts of an individual, but also all life-stages, sexes, and forms of a species.
The last sentence of paragraph 6 of Professor Moore’s Digest frightens me.
The Commission lacks the necessary specialised knowledge.
I believe that (perhaps permanent) committees of paleontologists and
parasitologists would have to be set up to advise the Commission.
The Recommendations made in paragraph 7 of Professor Moore’s Digest.
appear to me adequate and acceptable.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 169
DOCUMENT 1/25
Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘‘ Parataxa Plan ”’
(Reference : Professor Moore’s Digest reproduced as Document 1/15)
By CARL C. BRANSON
(Oklahoma Geological Survey, Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.)
(Letter dated 12th August 1957)
In regard to the proposal of Moore and Sylvester-Bradley to recognise
“ parataxa”’ :
I am opposed to any departure from rigid adherence to the Reégles except
in a relatively few calamitous instances. The case of T'rigonellites versus
Oppelia I regard as one. Nomenclature is to be thought of as to be used for
all time and not as a matter for the convenience of the present generation.
Any application of the proposal to conodont taxonomy is decidedly
premature. No difficulties arise from the present system excepting in the
attempts of Rhodes and of Scott to except ‘true genera”. Scott’s
assemblages are caprolite associations. The validity of other assemblages is
not demonstrated.
It is my opinion that the Régles should not be changed in this respect.
170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/26
Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “‘ Parataxa Plan ”’
(Reference : Professor Moore’s Digest reproduced as Document 1/15)
By ROBERT O. FAY
(Oklahoma Geological Survey, Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.)
(Letter dated 12th August 1957)
In regard to your letter of July 8 in which you express a desire for comments
on the proposed insertion in the Régles of a provision for the nomenclature
of parataxa, I have these questions.
(1) On page 3, last paragraph’, how does one know that Scottognathus
is a whole-animal species? If Scottognathus is a whole-animal species, how
do we know that all conodonts are whole-animal species? As all conodont
specialists well know, the fibrous conodonts (which would be treated as para-
taxa) may be different from other (lamellar) conodonts, and may have to be
treated as whole-animal taxa. This renders the Régles useless in this case because
there is room for doubt, even within a group of specialists. This means that
we will treat lamellar conodonts as whole-animal taxa when found in
assemblages and as parataxa when found as discrete components but we must
admit complete ignorance with the fibrous conodonts so in our ignorance we
must blindly make a decision. I vote to treat the fibrous conodonts as whole-
animal taxa, but now we cannot call them conodonts, because lamellar conodonts
are parataxa. However, others may not share my viewpoint and may wish
to treat fibrous conodonts as parataxa, thus placing them with the lamellar
conodonts. I have no serious objections to this latter plan except that it is
not objective or based on fact. Archeognathus Cullison (1938) may be a fibrous
conodont, and if so there is good reason to classify this group as whole-animal
taxa. Many people may not wish to accept Archeognathus as a fibrous conodont
1 The paragragh here referred to will be found on pages 104-105 of Quadruple—Part 1/4 of
the present volume.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 171
and thus ruin my basis for classification, and thus use the Régles to fit the person.
At present there is no competent person to make a decision on the classification
of conodonts (either taxa or parataxa) due to the fact that we lack fundamental
facts concerning the anatomical position, systematic relations, and physiological
functions of the conodonts. We are proceeding along an odd path, but all
specialists know that Scottognathus is a name for an assemblage and Hindeodella
is a name for a discrete unit. Therefore, I vote that we dismiss this proposed
insertion of parataxa into the Régles, because it is not sound, premature, and
unnecessary, and highly subjective.
(2) Who will make decisions on trilobites, etc. ?
172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/27
Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “‘ Parataxa Plan ”’
(Reference : Professor Moore’s Digest reproduced as Document 1/15)
By J. ROGER
(Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris)
(Enclose to letter dated 14th August 1957)
Le probléme est d’une trés grande importance générale et pour les
spécialistes des divers groupes se présente, dans ses aspects pratiques sous, des
aspects différents. Parmi les paléontologistes qui travaillent dans mon service,
sur les Ammonites, les Bryozoaires, les Lamellibranches, les Gastropodes ete.
. . . nous avons discuté cette proposition. C’est le résultat de ces échanges
de vues que, trés sommairement, j’indique ci-dessous :
Le probléme de la nomenclature, ainsi qu’il a été posé dans la proposition
de R. C. Moore et de P. C. Sylvester-Bradley, est absolument fondamental,
et cela non seulement pour la paléontologie mais aussi pour la taxonomie des
étres vivants et actuels. If faudrait reprendre Vhistorique du développement
des sciences biologiques, spécialement systématiques, depuis une centaine
d’années pour retirer l’impression d’une sorte de ralentissement des progrés
et peut-étre méme d’un enlisement depuis une vingtaine d’années. Les causes
en sont multiples. Parmi celles-ci, il semble que la manque d’adaptation de la
taxonomie au besoins nouveaux de la recherche biologique systématique soit
d’une grande importance. N’y-a-t-il pas d’ailleurs un désaccord fondamental
qu’il convient de souligner : les régles de base de la taxonomie ont été fondées
par Linné, qui n’était pas évolutionniste et depuis prés de cent ans, de fagon
de plus en plus unanime, la biologie se développe sur la base philosophique
évolutionniste. Le probléme posé déborde donc largement le cadre de simple
loi formelle de nomenclature, mais passe aussi dans le domaine de la philosophie
scientifique, c’est-d-dire qu’il intéresse non seulement la situation présente,
mais sa solution peut jouer un réle déterminant dans orientation future des
recherches de Biologie systématique. ;
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 173
Il semble aussi que le probléme de la nomenclature des piéces ou éléments
séparés d’un organisme doive étre discuté en commun entre paléontologistes,
zoologistes de toutes les spécialités et botanistes. Autrement dit il faut une
solution globale. En effet, nécessairement nous sommes amenés & effectuer
des comparaisons et 4 établir des identités ou des différences entre les groupes
actuels et les groupes fossiles, entre la systématique d’une grande catégorie
donnée avec celle d’une autre. La validité de telles confrontations dépendra
donc essentiellement de l’unicité de la conception systématique. Cela d’ailleurs
est d’autant plus valable que méme pour les groupes d’étres vivants actuels
ou en principe on dispose, pour définir les catégories systématiques, de l’ensemble
de l’organisme on n’utilise le plus souvent que les caractéres se rapportant a
certaines parties du corps qui, généralement, ne sont pas celles que la fossilisation
conserve.
Ces quelques commentaires, qui demanderaient de beaucoup plus longs
développements, tendent seulement 4 prouver l’importance de la question
posée.
Pratiquement l’échange de vues que nous avons eu dans mon laboratoire
est tout d’abord favorable a la distinction proposée d’une taxonomie et d’une
parataxonomie. La difficulté majeure sera évidemment de savoir ce qu'il
convient de classer dans la catégorie “taxon” et dans la catégorie “ para-
taxon”. Il semble que pour chaque groupe du régne vivant les spécialistes
devront se mettre d’accord.
On pourrait envisager deux cas : (1) Les piéces séparées décrites peuvent
étre identifiées quant 4 leur signification dans l’organisme globale. (2) Ces
piéces sont énigmatiques ou de signification douteuse.
Dans le premier cas on peut utiliser le binome linnéen habituel en le faisant
suivre de la désignation de l’appareil ou de l’organe auquel appartient la piéce
en question. Les objets de cette nature seraient done soumis 4 la taxonomie
normale. D/ailleurs cela mériterait encore une large discussion et pour les
restes par trop fragmentaires il serait probablement nécessaire de ne pas adopter
la loi de priorité.
Pour la seconde catégorie il y aurait lieu d’appliquer les recommandations
données dans la note de R. C. Moore et P. C. Sylvester-Bradley.
En tout état de cause l’adoption de ces propositions suppose la mise sur
pied de toute une organisation technique. En effet :
174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(a) 1 y aura lieu de marquer la délimitation entre “taxon” et “‘ para-
- taxon ” pour chaque catégorie d’animaux ;
(b) De nombreux cas particuliers dont la solution urgente sera une des
conditions essentielles de succés de la réforme, se trouveront posés.
L’application d’une parataxonomie suppose un fonctionnement
accéléré des commissions de nomenclature ;
(c) Une trés large documentation systématique sans cesse tenue & jour
par un dépouillement trés complet de la littérature zoologique,
paléontologique et aussi géologique sera nécessaire.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 175
DOCUMENT 1/28
Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘‘ Parataxa Plan ”’
(Reference : Professor Moore’s Digest reproduced as Document 1/15)
By M. F. GLAESSNER
(University of Adelaide, Adelaide, S. Australia)
(Letter dated 16th August 1957)
The proposals contained in the document concerning Parataxa have been
considered by the Palaeontological Seminar of this University [Adelaide
University] under my direction and are found appropriate and acceptable.
We have decided to support them. I shall pass on the document to other
interested Australian palaeontologists who may not have received it, and you
will hear from them directly.
176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/29
Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “‘ Parataxa Plan ”’
(Reference : Professor Moore’s Digest reproduced as Document 1/15)
By 0. M. B. BULMAN
(Department of Geology, University of Cambridge, Sedgwick Museum,
Cambridge)
(Letter dated 19th August 1957)
I am afraid I have no experience of Parataxa and no comments to offer
on the plan submitted by Moore and Sylvester-Bradley, Z.N.(S.) 1056. I have
read it through and the proposals seem to me eminently sane.
Anything that will tend to nomenclatorial stability has my blessing.
a al Aa
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 177
DOCUMENT 1/30
Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “‘ Parataxa Plan ”’
(Reference : Professor Moore’s Digest reproduced as Document 1/15)
By FREDERICK M. SWAIN
(University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, U.S.A.)
(Letter dated 4th September 1957)
I acquiesce to the proposals for nomenclature of “‘ Parataxa ” introduced
by Professor R. C. Moore and Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley.
In my collections are some Miocene cladoceran ephippia that cannot
at present be placed in an existing genus and I shall gladly follow reeommenda-
tions of Moore and Sylvester-Bradley in regard to naming these parts.
178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/31
Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa Plan ”’
(Reference : Professor Moore’s Digest reproduced as Document 1/15)
By 0. H. SCHINDEWOLF
(Institut und Museum fiir Geologie und Paldontologie der Universitat
Tibingen, Germany)
(Enclosure to letter dated 9th September 1957)
Den von R. C. Moore & P. C. Sylvester-Bradley gestellten Antrag, den
Begriff der “ associate taxa ”’ oder “‘ parataxa”’ in die Régles einzufiihren und
deren Nomenklatur verbindlich zu regeln, halte ich fiir sehr gefahrlich. Ich
lehne ihn aus folgenden Griinden ab :
1. Isolierte Einzelteile (‘‘ discrete parts”) und Gesamttiere (‘‘ whole
animals’’) sind im Bereiche’ der Palaontologie relative Begriffe und nicht
scharf gegeneinander abgrenzbar. ‘‘ Whole animals” gibt es unter den
Fossilien iiberhaupt nicht. Das Ammoniten-Gehiuse kann dem Ammoniten-
Aptychus nicht als “ whole animal ”’ gegeniibergestellt werden. Es fehlen die
Weichteile, und wenn wir den Bau des Ammoniten-Tieres nach Analogie des
rezenten Nautilus auch einigermassen rekonstruieren zu k6nnen glauben, so
wissen wir doch nichts Sicheres selbst iiber die fiir die Stellung im System so
grundlegende Frage, ob es vier Kiemen wie beim Nautilus oder nur zwei wei
bei den Dibranchiaten besessen hat. Noch weniger kénnen die Conodonten-
Vergesellschaftungen im Hinblick auf die einzelnen Conodonten-Formen als
‘“‘ whole-animals ” gelten ; denn hier ist iiber die zugeh6rigen Tiere und tiber
die anatomische Stellung der Conodonten im Tierk6rper rein gar nichts bekannt.
In einigen seltenen Ausnahmefillen verfiigt der Palaontologe tiber
Fossilien mit mehr oder weniger vollstandig erhaltenen Weichteilen, aber
dann fehlen immer noch die urspriingliche Farbe, die Ontogenie und, da es
sich um tote Organismen handelt, Anhalte fiir das ethologische und dkologische
Verhalten und manches andere mehr, das streng genommen zur exakten
taxonomischen Festlegiing gehért. Bei den (bisher stets ohne Weichteile
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 179
iiberlieferten) Ammonoideen kann es auf Grund zahlreicher neuer Beobach-
tungen keinem Zweifel unterliegen, dass ihre Gehiuse zum mindesten in vielen
Fallen gefarbt waren. Die Arten aber sind durchweg auf nachtraglich
entfarbte Gehause begriindet. Es kann da der Fall eintreten, dass neue Stiicke
gefunden werden, die einer beschriebenen Art durchaus entsprechen, sich
jedoch durch zwei verschiedene Farbmuster unterscheiden. In einem solchen
Falle ist es vollig unméglich anzugeben, fiir welche Form der auf gebleichte
Ammoniten-Gehause basierte Artname zu _ iibertragen ist, d.h. es kann hier
grundsitzlich der gleiche Sachverhalt einer Nicht-Identifierbarkeit bestehen
wie bei den “ Parataxa ”’ mit Bezug auf die Taxa der “ whole animals ”’.
Alle unsere Fossilien sind grundsatzlich unvollstindig ; fiir die Taxonomie
bedeutet es keinen prinzipiellen Unterschied, ob nun #, 4, ¢ oder nur 1/10
des urspriinglichen Gesamttieres vorliegt, vorausgesetzt, dass diese Teile als
charakteristsch und identifizierbar gelten diirfen. Belanglose Einzelteile, die
aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach keinerlei diagnostische Merkmale besitzen, d.h.
artlich und gattungsmassig nicht wiedererkannt werden k6nnen, wird ein
verantwortungsbewusster Systematiker tiberhaupt nicht benennen.
2. Bei der gegenwartig geltenden Rechtslage stehen fiir die Benennung
unvollstandiger Fossilien bzw. isolierter Einzelteile zwei Wege offen: (a) Sie
werden mit einer echten Nomenklatur belegt, wobei Art. 27a der Régles
Anwendung findet. (b) Es wird fur sie sie eine morphologische bzw. anatomische
Terminologie angewendet, die den Régles nicht unterliegt. Diese beiden
Méglichkeiten diirften fiir alle Falle vollig ausreichend sein.
Die Zulassung von “ Parataxa”’ wird ein ungeheures Anschwellen unserer
Nomenklatur zur Folge haben, ohne dass irgendein nennenswerter Vorteil
dadurch erzielt wiirde. Vor allem besteht keiner hinreichende Veranlassung
fiir eine Sonderbennennung der Einzelteile, sobald deren Zugehérigkeit bekannt
ist. Der Antrag von Moore & Sylvester-Bradley sieht vor, dass nur fiir eine
begrenzte Anzahl von Tiergruppen die Einfiihrung von ‘“ Parataxa”’ durch
die Nomenklatur-Kommission genehmigt werden soll. Es ist indessen mit
Sicherheit vorauszusehen, dass zahlreiche weitere Antrage fiir andere Tier-
gruppen folgen werden. Der eine Autor wird ‘“ Parataxa’”’ fiir die Pygidien und
Hypostome der Trilobiten fordern ; andere werden sie wiinschen fiir die Stiele der
Pelmatozoa, fiir die hiaufig isoliert gefundenen Ambulacralia, Adambulacralia,
Circumoralia, Terminalia usw. der Asteroidea, fiir die Femora, Humeri, Wirbel
und Zahne (méglichst gesondert fiir alle Einzelzaihne !) der Saugetiere und fiir
zahlreiche weitere Skelettelemente der Tetrapoden. Die Folgen fiir die
Ausweiteung der Nomenklatur und fiir die Beanspruchung der Nomenklatur-
Kommission waren nicht abzusehen, wenn man hier iiberall “ Parataxa ”’
zulassen wiirde, was fiir die einzelnen Skelettelemente der Vertebraten mit
demselben Recht gefordert werden kénnte wie fiir die Aptychen der
Ammoniten und fiir die Conodonten.
180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
3. Hinsichtlich der Aptychen der Ammonoidea, mit denen ich mich etwas
naher beschaftigt habe, méchte ich die folgendenBemerkungen machen :
(a) Die Aptychen bzw. Anaptychen sind, was allerdings in diesem
Zusammenhang weniger wichtig ist, Opercula der Gehaiuse von Ammonoidea
und ganz auf diese Ordnung beschrinkt. Sie kénnen nicht, wie Moore &
Sylvester-Bradley fiir méglich halten, auch zu “ belemnoids and soft-bodied
dibranchiates ” gehéren, da diese kein Aussengehiuse besitzen. Auch als
etwaige ererbte Rudimente sind sie bei den Dibranchiaten nicht zu erwarten, da
sich diese nicht von den Ammonoideen ableiten.
(b) Nicht zutreffend ist der Satz von Moore & Sylvester-Bradley: “ No
one has been willing to accept the senior name of an aptychus as substitute for
the name of a conch, despite stipulation of the Régles (Art. 27) that the first
published name for a part of an animal shall be recognised for designation of the
whole animal ’’. H. Matern (Senckenbergiana, 13, 1931, S. 163) beispielsweise
hat auf Grund des alteren Aptychen-Namens Spathiocaris koeneni Clarke, 1884
den Gehiuse-Namen Crickites holzapfeli Wdkd., 1913 in Crickites koenent
(Clarke) umbenannt.
(c) Moore & Sylvester-Bradley empfehlen in ihrem Antrage, eine grosse
Anzahl der von F. Trauth fiir die Aptychen vorgeschlagenen “ Gattungs ”-bzw.
“'Typus”’- und “ Art”’-bzw. ‘‘Form”-Namen zu tibernehmen und als
“ Parataxa”’ zuzulassen. Es kann jedoch keinem Zweifel unterliegen, dass
die Benennungsweise der Aptychen durch Trauth véollig ausserhalb der
giltigen Nomenklaturregeln steht. Er hat die alten bestehenden Namen
Tellinites, Trigonellites, Solenites, Ichthyosiagones verworfen und dafir im
Interesse einer einheitliche Bezeichnungsweise neue, mit -aptychus zusammen-
gesetzte Namen eingefiihrt. Synaptychus Fischer wird als angeblich wenig
bezeichnender Name unter Missachtung der Prioritat durch Striaptychus
Trauth ersetzt, Sidetes Giebel, 1847 als ‘“‘ Subgenus” bzw. “ Subtypus ” von
Anaptychus Oppel, 1856 behandelt. Trauth hat ferner nicht verfiigbare
Homonyme verwendet, willkirlich die Typen Aptychen- “ Gattungen ”
verschoben, Namen fiir noch nicht vorhandene, spiater vielleicht aufzufindende
Formen vorgeschlagen. In zahlreichen Fallen wurden von ihm neue
“ Gattungs ’’- und “ Artnamen ”’ fiir die Aptychen altebenannter Ammoniten-
formen aufgestellt, was bis heute gliicklicherweise unzulissig ist. Cornaptychus
beispielsweise ist nach der spateren Typenfestsetzung durch Moore & Sylvester-
Bradley begriindet auf den Aptychus von Hecticoceras hecticum (Rein.),
Granulaptychus auf den von Garantiana aff. suevica Wetz., Pseudostriaptychus
auf den von Parapachydiscus pseudostobaei (Mob.), Rugaptychus auf den von
Baculites knorrianus (Desm.) usw. Neue, von Trauth vorgeschlagene “ Artna-
men” sind unter vielen anderen: Anaptychus carapax angustus fiir den
Aptychus von Psiloceras planorbis (Sow.), A. mitraeformis fir den von
Pleuroceras spinatum (Brug.), A. pala fir den von Amaltheus margaritatus
(Montf.), A. sellaeformis bicarinatus fiir den von Asteroceras stellare (Sow.),
“hl ll. oe ee ee a ee
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 181
A. latexcisus fir den von Lytoceras cornucopiae (Y. & B.). In einigen Fallen
tragen bei Trauth die “ Artnamen “ der Aptychen die Genitivform der
Artnamen des zugehérigen Gehauses: Cornaptychus hectici, Striaptychus
spinigert. Das kann doch nur soviel bedeuten, dass es sich hier um die besondere
Aptychus-form des Hecticoceras hecticum (Rein.), bzw. Acanthoscaphites
spiniger (Schliiter) handelt, mit denen man sie im Zusammenhang gefunden hat.
Da Trauth nach diesen wenigen Proben die derzeit giiltigen Nomen-
klaturregeln und das Prioritatsprinzip vdllig ausser acht gelassen hat, kann
seine Benennungsweise, ganz gleichgiiltig was seine eigene Intention gewesen
sein mag, nicht als giiltige Nomenklatur, sondern lediglich als eine unverbind-
liche Terminologie bewertet werden. Das gleiche gilt fiir die Bezeichnungen
anderer Autoren, beispielsweise fiir die “‘Gattung” Neoanaptychus, die T.
Nagao 1931 fiir den Aptychus von Gaudryceras tenuiliratum Yabe, 1903
aufstellte.
(d) Die Termini Cornaptychus, Granulaptychus, Laevaptychus, Striaptychus
usw. sind zweifellos niitzlich, um diese besonders gestalteten Aptychen-Typen
zu kennzeichnen. Sie sollten jedoch als rein morphologische bzw. strukturelle
Begriffe (“ technical terms ’’), die ausserhalb der Nomenklatur stehen, behandelt
und daher auch als “ Parataxa’”’ nicht zugelassen werden. Als reine Termini
beritihren sie ohnehin die Nomenklatur der Ammoniten-Gehaiuse und ihre
Prioritat nicht, so dass der gefahrliche Weg einer Einfiihrung von “ Parataxa ”
nicht beschritten zu werden braucht. Fiir eine besondere “ artliche ”
Benennung der Aptychen bekannter, bereits benannter Ammoniten-Arten
besteht keinerlei Bediirfnis. Aptychen unbekannter Zugehérigkeit mégen
vorlaufig binar bezeichnet werden, wie es ja auch bei anatomischen Benennungen
vielfach tiblich ist. Der Name entfallt, sobald die Zugehérigkeit erkannt
worden ist.
(e) Das einzige, was zu geschehen hat, um die Gehause-Namen der
Ammoniten zu schiitzen und die Nomenklatur vor unnétigen Verwirrungen zu
bewahren, ist die Unterdriickung einiger alterer, nomenklatorisch gultig
aufgestellter Aptychen-Namen wie T'rigonellites, Ichthyosiagones und Sidetes ,
die Prioritat gegeniiber spiter aufgestellten Gattungsnamen fiir Ammoniten-
Gehause besitzen. Die neuren Aptychen-Namen, die auf bereits benannte
Ammoniten begriindet sind, stehen ohnehin ausserhalb der Linnéischen
Nomenklatur und kénnen daher nicht in Konflikte mit ihr geraten. Soweit
gelegentlich nomenklatorische Schwierigkeiten auftauchen sollten, kénnen
sie jedenfalls durch Suspension der ‘“‘ Regeln” weit einfacher und weniger
folgenschwer behoben werden als durch Einfihrung einer ‘‘ Parataxonomie ’’.
182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/32
Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘“‘ Parataxa Plan ’’
(Reference : Professor Moore’s Digest reproduced as Document 1/15)
By A. K. MILLER & W. M. FURNISH
(State University of Iowa, Iowa City, U.S.A.)
(Letter dated 18th September 1957)
In answer to your inquiry of last July 8, we wish to recommend affirmative
action by the Congress. The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley proposal seems to be
appropriate ; such a problem has existed for a century and has been given
active attention for more than a score of years.
The greater proportion of paleontological research has involved fragments
of unidentifiable “ whole animals’’. In addition, a considerable proportion
of such research today involves discrete hard parts with demonstrated strati-
graphic value. For example, tens of thousands of individual conodonts are
being secured from single rock layers by methods which preclude the discovery
of assemblages. So few aptychi have been found associated with their shells
that they are inconsequential.
Taxa for “ parts” have been and are being proposed irrespective of the
implications. If the International Commission is to retain its stature as the
regulatory body in nomenclature, it should take cognizance of this development
and care for it officially.
Further consideration of this matter may necessitate an alteration in the
specific proposal. The need can scarcely be denied.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 183
DOCUMENT 1/33
Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa Plan ”’
(Reference : Professor Moore’s Digest reproduced as Document 1/15)
By G. UBAGHS
(Université de Liége, Belgium)
(Letter dated 25th September 1957)
Je pense qu’il existe effectivement en Paléontologie Animale une situation
rendant nécessiare de reconnaitre des unités parataxonomiques analogues aux
“form ” taxa des paléobotanistes. Je soutiens donc volontiers la proposition
faite par le Professeur R. C. Moore et Mr. P. C, Sylvester-Bradley.
Je crains toutefois que les difficultés d’application soient plus sérieuses
qu’il ne parait & premiére vue, Tl me semble dés lors essentiel :
(1) de réserver A la Commission Internationale de Nomenclature
Zoologique le soin de décider si tel groupe de fragments fossiles reléve ou
non des parataxa ;
(2) de considérer que des objets ressortissant normalement aux
parataxa puissent quand méme étre attribués aux taxa s’ils presentent des
Je me suis pas compétent pour me prononcer sur l’opportunité de référer
aux parataxa certains stades de développement d’organismes parasites récents.
Acid
184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/34
Proposed amplification of the “ Parataxa Plan’’ to cover the
classification and nomenclature of ‘‘ Zoogene Marks ”’ Pp
Uti,
} (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056) Ss
By E. M. HERING
(Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin)
(Enclosure to letter dated 15th October 1957)
I should like to support most enthusiastically and without reserve the
proposal of R. C. Moore and P. C. Sylvester-Bradley for the recognition of the
special category of “‘ parataxa” for the classification and nomenclature of
discrete parts or of life-stages of animals which are inadequate for identification
of whole-animal taxa.
It seems to me to be desirable that the concept of “‘ parataxa ” should be
amplified. The International Congress should direct that the classification
and nomenclature of all traces which any animal which once existed has left
behind should be-in terms of ‘“ parataxa’’. This does not only concern the
different walking tracks, but also the often very characteristic feeding effects
which are of importance in identification, e.g., in the case of insects. These
may include all sorts of plant galls and leaf mines. In addition there should
be included in the concept of “ parataxa”’ the cases of case-bearing animals.
Very often it is much easier to identify a species of Coleophora (Insecta :
Lepidoptera) by the larval case than by the imago. Similarly in the case of an
Agromyzid fly identification may best be made from the mine burrowed in the
parenchyma of a leaf, and in that of a Cynipid Wasp of Gall Midge from the
gall produced on any part of a plant. A considerable number of specific names
were based for the first time only on such marks as plant galls and leaf mines,
and the imagenes bred in later times were identifiable from the descriptions of
their feeding marks.
Having regard to the very great importance of these marks of the above
types for the identification of animals I propose a ruling by the International
Congress directing that the classification and nomenclature of all types of
“ zoogene marks ”’ be in terms of “ parataxa’”’.
ie? ees
CONTENTS
(continued from front wrapper)
THE LONDON AGENDA PAPER
(a) New Proposals
Case No. 2: Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a) (maintenance of family-
group names based on generic names rejected as junior synonyms of
other names)
~ Page
D.2/1 Proposed withdrawal of Decision 54(1)(a). W. J. Arkell 121
D.2/2 Proposed withdrawal of Decision 54(1)(a). Sir J. Ellerman ... 123
D.2/3—D.5 Support for W. J. Arkell’s proposal (D.2/1)
D.2/3 By C. J. Stubblefield 124
D.2/4 By L. R. Cox : x vas. eee
D.2/5 By J. D. Bump, M. Green, J. P. Gries and J. K. Macdonald 126
D.2/6 Proposed withdrawal of Decision 54(1)(a). W. H. Easton 127
D.2/7—2/8 Support for W. J. Arkell’s proposal (D.2/1)
D.2/7 (a) By J. J. Graham, ee Keen, S. Muller and H. E.
Thalman Pi ees
(b) By Myra Keen He 8. Muller 129
D.2/8 By F. E. Eames mes Fg sak ie tent ALSO
D.2/9 Comment on W. J. Arkell’s proposal (D.2/1). C. W. Sabrosky 131
D.2/10—2/11 Support for W. J. Arkell’s proposal (D.2/1)
D.2/10 By R.M. Stainforth ... ae vue 136
D.2/11 By C. A. Fleming and N. de B. Hornibrook same: 5.7
D.2/12 Proposed maintenance of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a).
Committee on Entomological Nomenclature, Entomological
Society of America 138
D.2/13 Statement of the views of the Nomenclature Committee of the
Society of Systematic Zoology. Views of W. I. Follett,
C. W. Sabrosky, C. F. dos ae gs nee a de E. ere:
C. L. Hubbs * es 139
D.2/14 Particulars of action taken i the International Commission
on cases involving Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a): Report
by the Secretary to the Commission with annexed statements
by: W. J. Arkell, R. Mertens, T. Jaczewski .. 146
' D.2/15 Proposed withdrawal of sap esaagaes Decision sala). Wisk
Whittard . ‘ tea
154
CONTENTS :
(continued from inside back cover)
Case No. 3: Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(b) (priority and authorship
of substitute family-group names)’
Page
D.3/1 Request for clarification of. A. K. Miller and W. M. Furnish 155
(b) Comments on previously published proposals
Comments on Case No. 1 (the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘“‘ Parataxa ”’
proposals)
D.1/19 By H. Schmidt oa As Wot “ah Pa seg eee
D.1/20 By J. W. Koenig ... des a Bac aie int eae |
D.1/21 By the Scientific Staff of the Australian Museum, Sydney ... 160
D.1/22 By R.S. Bassler... et sal sie pes see a. Ge
D.1/23 By R. V. Melville ... o62 rs eg ste ee sa EG
D.1/24 By J.C. Bradley ... ie fas Se eae ace Seen, gee Bed,
D.1/25 By C. L. Branson ... re ae ae bes ce -se 4 LES
D.1/26 By R. O. Fay we ey sta sa an ais cast. ee
D.1/27 By J. Roger Set settee | chee veri! ete arr
D.1/28 By M. F. Glaessner Ei seat ives eee, = MER. fone
D.1/29 By O. M. B. Bulman se ae ot we a3 sce eae
D.1/30 By F.M.Swain ... io oe nae sae ae ae
D.1/31 By O. H. Schindewolf _... oe se se 234 <0 ae
D.1/32. By A. K. Miller and W. M. Furnish seh = 2 a ar in| =
D.1/33 By G. Ubaghs nice *. ie cae a “- ase Coenen
D.1/34 By E.M. Hering ... is oe rd pe a ee bo
Printed in England by MeTcALre & Cooper LimiTeD, 10-24 Scrution St., London E C2
VOLUME 15. Double-Part 7/8
8th January 1958
pp. 185—256
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
The Official Organ of
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
CONTENTS
Third Instalment of the London Congress Agenda Paper
(continued inside back wrapper)
PURCHASED
1 7 JAN 1958
LONDON :
Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
: and
Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publication Office,
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
1958
Price Two Pounds and Five Shillings
(All rights reserved)
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
A. The Officers of the Commission
Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jorpan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological
Museum, Tring, Herts, England)
President: Professor James Chester Brapiey (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(12th August 1953)
Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMaraL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953)
Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemane (London, England) (27th July 1948)
B. The Members of the Commission
(Arranged in order of precedence by reference io date of election or of most recent
re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)
Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
(1st January 1947)
Senor Dr. Angel Casrera (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948)
Mr. Francis Hemmine (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)
Dr. Henning Lemcue (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948)
Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950)
Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)
Mr. Norman Denbigh Rixey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950)
Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw,
Poland) (15th June 1950)
Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt
a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950)
Professor Dr. Erich Martin Hermxe (Zoologisches Musewm der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin,
Germany) (5th July 1950)
Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amarat (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President)
Professor J. R. Dymonp (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953)
Professor J. Chester Brapiey (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
(President)
Professor Harold E. Voxss (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana,
U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
Professor Béla Hanx6 (Mezdgazdasdgi Museum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)
Dr. Norman R. Strout (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(12th August 1953)
Mr. P. C. Sytvester-Brav.ey (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953)
Dr. L. B. Hournuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th
August 1953)
Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra,
A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954)
Dr. Alden H. MintEr (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California,
U.S.A.) (29th October 1954)
Doc. Dr. Ferdinand Pranti (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October
1954)
Professor Dr. William KitHnettr (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th
November 1954)
Professor F. S. Bopenarrmer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954)
Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954)
Professor Enrico Tortonese (Museo di Storia Naturale “ @. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th
December 1954)
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
———
Volume 15, Double-Part 7/8 (pp. 185—256) 8th January 1958
ee
CASE No. 4
ARTICLE 4 : PROPOSED ADDITION TO COPENHAGEN DECISION
54(1)(b) OF A PROVISION RELATING TO THE METHOD TO BE
FOLLOWED IN CITING THE DATE AND AUTHORSHIP TO BE
ATTRIBUTED TO A SUBSTITUTE FAMILY-GROUP NAME
OLDER NOMINAL FAMILY-GROUP TAXON IS REJECTED AS A
JUNIOR SYNONYM OR AS A JUNIOR HOMONYM OF ANOTHER
GENERIC NAME
YURCHASED commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1270)
7 é JAN (959 \z i I , . }
DOCUMENT 4/1 Up 04
Submission of a Draft Text of a provision relating to the method to be
followed in citing the date and authorship to be attributed to a
substitute family-group name
By G. H. E. HOPKINS
(British Museum (Natural History), The Zoological M useum, Tring,
Herts, England)
(Enclosure to a letter dated 14th August 1957)
Although it has been decided (Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological
Nomenclature, Decision 56) that “ authors’ names and dates of publication
for family-group names need not be cited, except, where so desired, in catalogues
or similar works for historical purposes, or in discussions of the relations
between names in the family-group ”, yet it is sometimes necessary to cite these
N
186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
particulars, and it is even arguable that, now that the principle of priority has
been extended to cover such names, it is desirable that their date and authorship
should be given. Decision 56 in no way prohibits this being done.
2. No difficulty arises as to the method of citation of the date and author-
ship of family-group names in most instances, but if it should be decided (as I
have proposed in a paper submitted simultaneously with the present paper’)
that it is more important to preserve the objective identity of a family-group
taxon than to apply strict priority, then the question of the date and authorship
to be attributed to the name of the taxon becomes of importance. It seems to
me that the solution introducing fewest complications would be to call such
replacement names nomina mutata and to cite for them both authorship and
date of the original erection of the taxon and the authorship and date of the
alteration in the name. I therefore propose the adoption of the following
provision :—
Where a family-group name is replaced by a substitute name by
reason of the fact that it is based upon a generic name which has been
rejected either (i) as a junior synonym (either objective or subjective) of an
older generic name or (ii) as a junior homonym of an older such name,
the substitute family-group name so published shall be attributed to the
author by whom the rejected name was published, and shall be regarded
as having been published on the date on which the rejected name was
published, the citation of that author’s name and the date on which
the rejected family-group name was first published to be followed by
(a) the name of the author by whom the replacement name was published
and the date on which that name was published and (b) the words “ nom.
mut. pro” and the family-group name for which it was published as a
substitute, the particulars under (a) and (b) to be cited in brackets
(parentheses).
Example: the family-group name SARCOPSYLLIDAE was published in
1880 for a taxon based on the genus Sarcopsylla Westwood, 1840, a junior
synonym of T'wnga Jarocki, 1838 ; the name TUNGIDAE was first published
by C. Fox in 1925. The citation should be in the form: TUNGIDAE
Taschenberg, 1880 (C. Fox, 1925, nom. mut. pro SARCOPSYLLIDAE
Taschenberg, 1880).
1See Document 3/2 on the London Agenda Paper (reproduced on pages 255 and 256 of the
present volume).
ee a ee a
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 187
CASE No. 5
APPLICATION OF THE PRIORITY PRINCIPLE TO
FAMILY-GROUP NAMES
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1251)
DOCUMENT 5/1
Experience gained since the Copenhagen Congress of 1953 in
applying the priority principle to family-group names with
recommendations designed to facilitate the application of that
principle in this field
By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
The decision by the Copenhagen Congress of 1953 formally to incorporate
into the Régles a provision that the relative priority to be accorded to taxo-
nomically competing family-group names, i.e. to the names of validly established
nominal family-group taxa having, as their respective type genera, genera
currently regarded by taxonomists as belonging to the same family-group
_ taxon, did no more than put into written form a practice which had in general
" been followed by zoologists for many decades. Nevertheless, the codification
of a customary procedure is apt to bring to light previously unsuspected
problems and it is convenient in such a case to review the application of such
a provision after it has been in operation for a number of years in order to
_ determine in the light of experience whether in practice the provision in question
has been working satisfactorily.
2. At the first stage the effect of the Copenhagen decision was to make
it necessary to ascertain in any given case by whom, when, and where the family-
_ group name concerned was first published as the name for a family-group
_ taxon of any rank within the family-group category (i.e. as the name for a
aug subfamily, tribe, etc.). Second, it is necessary to ascertain whether
_ from the taxonomic point of view the currently accepted name is the name for
the oldest nominal family-group taxon having as its type genus a genus
_ currently regarded as belonging to the taxonomic unit in question. In other
188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
words, it is necessary first to ascertain by whom, when, and where the generic
name X-us Brown, 1777, was first validly taken as the base for a family-
group name (X-IDAE, or X-INAE, etc.). Having ascertained, let us say, that the
genus X-us Brown was first taken as the base for a family-group name by an
author Smith in 1850, it is then necessary to find out from the literature whether
any other genus, say Y-a Gault, 1810, which is currently regarded as belonging
to the same family-group taxon as X-us Brown, was taken as the type genus
of a family-group taxon before the genus X-us Brown was so taken by Smith
in 1850. If it is found that there is no competing family-group name of older
date based upon the genus Y-a Gault, then the currently accepted family-group
name X-IDAE Smith, 1850, is under the Law of Priority the valid family-group
name for the genus X-ws Brown and for any other genera which taxonomists
may subjectively regard as belonging to the same family-group taxon as X-us
Brown. If, however, it is found that there is an older nomenclatorially available
family-group name—say, Y-IDAE Green, 1849—which is subjectively applicable
to the same family-group taxon as x-IDAE Smith, 1850, by reason of the fact
that, in the opinion of workers in the group concerned, the genera which are
the respective type genera of these nominal family-group taxa (i.e. in the
above imaginary case, the genera X-us Brown and Y-a Gault) are referable
to the same family-group taxon, then under the decision taken by the
Copenhagen Congress the valid name for the family-group taxon concerned
is Y-IDAE Green, 1849, and not x-IDAE Smith, 1850. As will be obvious, the
practicability of applying the foregoing provisions depends upon the possibility
of obtaining accurate information as to the dates when each of any pair of
competing family-group names was first validly published.
8. When after the close of the Copenhagen Congress in 1953 I first had
occasion, in conjunction with specialists who had submitted applications to the
Commission, to assist in establishing by whom, and where a given family-group
name was first published, the novelty of the task and the lack of works of
reference comparable with those long available for tracing generic and specific
names led me at first to wonder whether the labour involved in applying the
priority principle to family-group names might not be disproportionately
great and, whether, despite the obvious advantages offered by the adoption of
that principle, it might nevertheless be necessary on practical grounds to
consider the possibility of inviting the next International Congress of Zoology
to examine the possibility of devising some system for regulating the relative
status of family-group names which could be more easily operated. Greater
experience gained in the years which have since elapsed has however not only
confirmed me in the view that the Copenhagen Congress was well advised
when it laid down that the relative status of family-group names should be
regulated by the priority principle and, in addition, has led me to the con-
clusion that, granted the adoption of certain measures described later in the
present paper, the application of that principle to this class of name, though
inevitably presenting certain difficulties in the initial phase, does not offer any
insuperable obstacles.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 189
4. In the four-year period which has elapsed since the Copenhagen
Congress some practical experience has been gained in the operation of the
priority principle at the family-group-name level. The results so obtained
are, I think, of interest as throwing new light on this question. During the
above period about four hundred and fifty family-group names have been placed
by the Commission either on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology
or on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Growp Names in Zoology.
The number of names so accepted by the Commission as nomenclatorially
available and taxonomically valid which have thus been placed on the Official
List is just over two hundred. The proposals in regard to about half of these
names arose in connection with cases currently submitted to the Commission
in connection mainly with the names of the genera which are the type genera
of the nominal family-group taxa concerned, while the remainder arose in the
course of the review by the Commission of the family-group-name implications
of cases which had previously been dealt with by it only at the generic name level.
The foregoing sample, though not large, has the merit that it is made up of
the names of taxa belonging to a wide range of Classes in the Animal Kingdom.
In this sense the present sample may, I think, be regarded as being represent-
ative, for the placing of the names concerned on the Official List involved the
investigation by specialists of the early literature of a large part of the Animal
Kingdom.
_ 5. The practical experience derived from the foregoing investigations
justify the drawing of two important conclusions. First, the difficulties
involved in finding where a given family-group name was first published are,
in general, considerably less than might have been expected, being definitely
less formidable than I myself supposed (paragraph 3 above) when in the period
immediately following the Copenhagen Congress I first took part in attempts
to ascertain the original references for family-group names. Second, it is clear
that the question whether family-group names published in vernacular form
thould be treated as being acceptable for the purposes of the Law of Priority
is, in some groups at least, of considerably greater importance than was
believed by the Copenhagen Congress.
6. On the general question of the practicability of applying the priority
principle to family-group names, it usually happens that after a little preliminary
investigation one—or at most two or three—authors are found to have been
responsible for the most important of the family-group names in the Class or
Order concerned. It is usually found also that in the group in question there
is at least one work of fairly early date in which the family-group names known
to the author are listed. though usually without bibliographical references or
even dates. In the case of names published up to about the middle of the
XIXth century—that is, names published during the first century following
the starting point of zoological nomenclature—valuable assistance may be
obtained also from the Nomenclator Zoologicus Index Universalis of Agassiz
which contains references to all the family-group names known to that author.
190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Finally, in quite a number of groups there are recent—or fairly recent—
comprehensive catalogues containing particulars of names published for family-
group taxa. While none of these sources can serve to build up a complete
list of the family-group names published for any given group, taken in the
aggregate, they go a long way in this direction. In every case, however, the
results so obtained require to be supplemented by whatever means are open to
the specialists in the groups in question. On balance, I am now firmly of the
opinion that the task of establishing a system of family-group nomenclature
based upon the principle of priority, though one which in any given case
involves a considerable amount of work is thoroughly practicable and I consider
therefore that the Copenhagen Congress acted wisely in applying the priority
principle to the names for taxa of the family-group category.
7. The second point of general interest which emerges from the investiga-
tions carried out since 1953 in connection with individual cases submitted to
the International Commission by specialists in many groups of the Animal
Kingdom is the need for a relaxation of the rather rigid conditions imposed by
the Copenhagen Congress in the matter of the acceptance as an available name
of a family-group name based upon the name of the type genus of the taxon
concerned when that family-group name is published in a vernacular form,
i.e. with a vernacular termination. First, it must be noted that, as is now clear,
important family-group taxa in some groups are currently treated as having
been established by authors who, though the first to recognise the groups
concerned as constituting separate family-group taxa, did not propose for
those groups names in due Latin form, applying to them names based on the
Latin names of the type genera but not themselves Latinised. Examples of
this kind are provided by the names published in vernacular (German) form
in the forties of the last century by Emmrich for family-group taxa in the
Class Trilobita and by Koch for such taxa in the Class Arachnida. In some
cases the rejection of such names would lead to a change in the concept repre-
sented by the nominal family-group taxon owing to the fact that some allied
genus was taken by some other author as the type genus of a family-group
taxon before the name originally published in the vernacular form
described above was republished in due Latin dress. In other cases the
rejection of such names would lead to the attribution of the name for the
family-group taxon concerned to some later author who certainly did not
regard himself as having done more than make use of a name previously
validly established (as he believed) by the author by whom it had been published
in vernacular form only. The loophole provided for dealing with such cases
by the Copenhagen Congress (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 35-36,
Decision 53(2) was limited to securing the acceptance of family-group names
as from the date on which they were published in vernacular form only where
‘in the opinion of specialists in the groups concerned, it is specially desirable
in the interests of stability and universality of nomenclature’. In the light
of present experience I am of the opinion that these words are unduly restrictive
and that they serve only to disturb nomenclatorial practice. I suggest that
i
is
i
4
P
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 191
it would be of advantage if this provision were to be redrafted in such a way as
to provide that a family-group name based upon the name of the type genus
but published with a vernacular termination is to be accepted as having
acquired rights under the Law of Priority in virtue of having been so published
in those cases where such a name is customarily so treated by specialists in the
group concerned and is not to be rejected without the prior authority of the
Commission. Such a provision would not only secure the desired end but
in addition would have the advantage that under it the onus of taking
action would be placed (where it properly belongs) on the shoulders of those
who desire to upset nomenclatorial stability rather than upon those who desire
to promote it.
8. I may perhaps be permitted to supplement the experience of other
specialists by referring to a survey which, insuch spare time as I have had at
my disposal during the last few years, I have myself made of the literature
relating to my own speciality (the Rhopalocera) for the purpose of building
up as complete as possible a list of the family-group names published for the
butterflies. In general, my experience tallied closely with that of the specialists
in other groups who since 1953 have co-operated with the Commission in
tracing family-group names directly involved in applications submitted by
them for decision. For example, I quickly found that Leach, Swainson and
one or two other early authors were responsible for most of the family-group
names of early date. Considerable assistance was obtained also from sources
similar to those which had proved useful in the other investigations referred to
above. Thus, there is in this group a work published in the late forties of the
nineteenth century (Doubleday’s Genera of Diurnal Lepidoptera), in which
an attempt was made to list all family-group names so far published and this
proved very valuable, even though no bibliographical references were cited for
these names. However, once it was known that a given name had been
published by a particular author, it was usually possible with a little patience
to find the original reference without great difficulty. In addition, this group
is fortunate in that it possesses for most of the families concerned a general
catalogue of relatively recent date—Junk’s Lepidopterorum Catalogus—in
which also an attempt was made to enumerate all previously published family-
group names. At this stage a systematic search was undertaken of the Insecta
portion of the Zoological Record from the commencement of that work in 1863
down to the present time. This search brought to light a few names which
I had not previously noted. On the whole, however, especially in the middle
period the compilers did not note newly published family-group names. This
was no doubt partly because such names were not then definitely subject to
the Law of Priority and partly because until recent times authors publishing
new family-group names very seldom added an indication to show that those
' Names were new. The investigations described above sufficed to build up a
long list of previously published family-group names but required to be supple-
mented by the separate search of books and papers known to myself as being
likely sources both for family-group names that had been overlooked or for
192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
information showing that known family-group names were published in earlier
works than those recorded in the course of the preliminary investigations
described above. While in any list of this kind it is inevitable that there should
be some omissions, the list compiled in the present case is, I believe reasonably
complete. Certainly, it contains all known family-group names of ancient
date. The point which is relevant in the present connection is that by the
means described in the present paragraph it has been found possible to compile
a list of family-group names with their references which can be relied upon
as providing a safe working basis for the application of the priority principle to
family-group names in this particular group.
9. It must be admitted that the task described above was laborious and
time-consuming and that in any given group it would be a serious waste of
time if such a survey had to be undertaken separately by every specialist who
had occasion to find out what family-group names were already available in
his speciality. To some extent this difficulty could be overcome by the
publication in some specialist serial of the results of investigations of this kind.
This would not however provide a complete solution for, amongst other things,
it would throw no light on the question of possible homonymy between family-
group names in the taxonomic group so investigated and names for taxa of this
category in other groups of the Animal Kingdom. I am therefore led strongly
to the conviction that what is urgently required is a comprehensive catalogue
of the names of family-group taxa in the Animal Kingdom comparable in
accuracy and scope with that compiled by Sherborn for the names of genera
and species in his great Index Animalium. Discussions are already proceeding
with the British Museum (Natural History), the International Trust for Zoo-
logical Nomenclature and other interested bodies with a view to devising
a scheme which, by making possible the preparation of a catalogue on the
foregoing lines, would provide workers in systematic zoology and palaeontology
with the essential tool in this field which they at present lack. From this
point of view it would be of great value if at its meeting in London next year
the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology were to adopt a Resolution
strongly urging the carrying-through of the project described above.
10. The publication of an Index of Family-Group Names in Zoology,
1758-1958, on the lines discussed above would be an immense boon and would
clear up the position, so far as all past names are concerned. It would be
important, however, that every possible step should be taken to prevent the
recurrence in the future of the state of confusion and uncertainty which exists
today as regards family-group names already published. Here the International
Congress of Zoology could give help by inserting in the Régles a Recommandation
urging every author, when publishing a new family-group name, clearly to
indicate that it is a new name by adding some such notation as “ fam. nov.”,
“‘ subfam. nov.’’, etc.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 193
11. The conclusions which I have reached and the recommendations
which I desire to put forward for consideration are as follows :—
(1) The application of the priority principle to family-group names
decided upon by the Copenhagen Congress in 1953 offers certain
difficulties in the initial phases but is perfectly practicable and, being
the principle long recognised as that which should govern the
relative status of generic names and names of lower rank, is the most
suitable for the purpose (paragraphs 3-6).
(2) It has been found in some groups that the conditions laid down by the
Copenhagen Congress under which alone the status of availability
can be acquired by a family-group name which, though based upon
the Latin name of the type genus, is not itself published in a fully
Latinised form, are too restrictive and it is desirable in the interest
of nomenclatorial stability that the existing conditions should be
relaxed in such a way that the relevant provision in the Reégles
should provide that, subject to the termination employed being
duly Latinised by later authors, such a name is to be accepted as
possessing the status of availability in those cases where the name
in question is customarily accepted by workers in the group concerned
and, in cases of doubt is not to be rejected without the prior approval
of the International Commission (paragraph 7).
(3) The difficulty which at present faces zoologists in applying the priority
principle to family-group names arises from the fact that, contrary
to the situation which has long existed in the case of names published
for genera, species and taxa of lower category, there exists no com-
prehensive catalogue of the names already published for taxa
belonging to the family-group. What is urgently required is a work
enumerating the names so far published for family-group taxa
comparable in scope and form with the late C. D. Sherborn’s Index
Animalium. Discussions are proceeding for the purpose of initiating
the preparation of such a work. When available, that work
will be an essential working tool for all specialists in systematic
zoology and palaeontology, and it is recommended that the Fifteenth
International Congress of Zoology, when it meets in London, should
adopt a Resolution giving its support for the above project and
stressing its value and importance (paragraph 9).
(4) It is recommended that the London Congress should insert in the
Réegles a provision urging any author, when publishing a new family-
group name clearly to indicate that that name is a new name by adding
99 66
some such notation as “‘ fam. nov.”’, ‘‘ subfam. nov.”’, etc.
194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 5/2
Support for the priority principle to family-group names
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1251)
By Members of the
Committee on Entomological Nomenclature,
Entomological Society of America
(Communicated by Rosert L. UsincEr, under cover of a letter
dated 4th November 1954)
During the past year two questions were referred to the Committee.
These concerned actions taken by the International Commission at Copenhagen
and were raised by paleontologists. The questions are stated below :—
a
2. The second aspect of the Copenhagen decisions in this field in which
difficulties have been found is in relation to the application of the principle
of Priority to the older names in the family-group. This has arisen on each
case where so far the question has come up of putting a name of this group on
the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, namely, (a) in codifying
the decision in Opinion 140 regarding the family name MEROPIDAE in birds,
and (b) in the recent decision regarding the name Acmaea and family-group
name ACHMAEIDAE (Gastropoda). In the first case it has been impossible
so far to run down the place where the family-group name was originally
published, in the second case, Cox found that it took two and a half days’
work of his assistant and that even so the result could not be regarded as
certain. All the specialists who have taken part in these searches have
expressed the view that the search for the place of first publication of these
names (for which nothing like the Index Animalium exists) is altogether too
laborious and that some method other than strict priority ought to be devised
for names of this group.
1 The first portion of this Resolution dealt with a different subject (the proposed maintenance
of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a)), the text of which has been published as Document 2/12
(: 138 of the present volume).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature . 195
_ The E.S.A. Committee voted on upholding the Copenhagen Decisions as
follows :—
196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
CASE No. 6
ARTICLE 19 (COPENHAGEN DECISION 75) RELATING TO THE
QUESTION OF THE CONDITIONS IN WHICH A SPELLING NOT
SURJECT TO EMENDATION UNDER COPENHAGEN DECISION 71
MAY BE REJECTED IN PLACE OF A SPELLING IN GENERAL
USE
)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1264)
DOCUMENT 6/1
Proposed adoption of provisions in substitution for Copenhagen Decision 75
By J. CHESTER BRADLEY
(Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(Enclosure to a letter dated 19th September 1957)
Continuity or Priority of Spelling ?
A genus of wood-wasps was named Orussus by Latreille in 1796. This
was bad transliteration from the Greek dpv¥cou, and two years later Fabricius
corrected it to Oryssus. For more than a century entomologists wrote Oryssus,
and ORYSSIDAE, and the original mis-spelling was wholly forgotten. In 1911
the late S. A. Rohwer again noticed the original spelling and attempted to
restore it. A few authors, conscientious in following the International Code,
have followed him.
2. Every taxonomist knows of innumerable similar cases. The rule
requiring us to restore the original spelling may be likened to an imagined law
requiring each citizen to restore the earliest traceable spelling of his surname.
But until 1953 under the provisions of the Régles the original spelling had to be
restored. Then at Copenhagen a clumsy process was devised by which a
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 197
zoologist who felt that the revival of an old spelling was objectionable could
obtain a decision after an as yet indeterminate period of time (cf. Copenhagen
Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature : 45, Decision 75).
3. It is common sense not to disturb our zoological language by revising
these long-forgotten spellings. A stable set of names is an objective specified
in the preamble of the Reégles, but by some persons this is not interpreted to
extend to spelling. Even the right of the Commission to vary the spelling
under its Plenary Powers has been challenged (cf. E. G. Munroe, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 12 : 304), for the Plenary Powers were instituted in the first instance
to prevent confusion arising from name-changing. It would be difficult to
argue that restoration of the original spelling would be a cause of confusion.
It is rather an irritation and inconvenience.
4. Since their inception at Monaco in 1913, the Plenary Powers of the
Commission have been broadened. Their general purpose is expressed in the
preamble to the Régles adopted at Copenhagen in these words: “ It is also a
primary purpose of the Reégles to insure that . . - names shall be both stable and
universally accepted. Where either of these objects is threatened by the
application of any part of these Reégles in an individual case, the Plenary
Powers of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature afford
relief.” More specifically, the actual wording of the pertinent part of the
Monaco resolution, as amended by the Copenhagen Congress is: “ Plenary
power is herewith conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, acting for the Congress, to suspend the Rules as applied to any
given case for the purpose of preventing confusion and of promoting a stable
and universally accepted nomenclature”. This provision, especially as
interpreted in the preamble, clearly covers a right to preserve a stability in
spelling. Every attempt at restoration of a forgotten spelling promotes
diversity of usage instead of universality, because many zoologists always fail
to change over. In any event the Plenary Powers have been and are being
invoked to conserve well established spelling of names, cf. C. J. Stubblefield
“Validation under the Plenary Powers of the emendation to * Peltura’ of
‘ Peltoura ’ Milne Edwards ” (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 12 : 252).
5. Secretary Hemming writes me that he is fully convinced that the
procedure decided upon at Copenhagen, with its indeterminate delay, “ clearly
cannot produce a satisfactory result from the point of view of any zoologist
who wishes (to know) within a reasonable space of time what the correct spelling
of a given zoological name is, whether the emendation long in use or the original
long-forgotten, incorrect original spelling ”. Whenever the Commission places
’ the name of a taxon on an Official List, it must consider all spellings that have
been used for it, and cannot come to a decision under the Copenhagen plan
until after the lapse of some time. N ame-changing, in such cases, has been
avoided during the past four years by resource to the use of the Plenary Powers.
198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
But again Secretary Hemming says (in litt.) “‘ It has always seemed to me that
this is an unnecessarily heavy-handed procedure in a matter of this sort.”
6. It seems to the writer that there is clear need for the Commission to be
given power to decide upon the spelling that shall be used for any name that
it is about to place upon an Official List, and that this should be an ordinary,
not a plenary power. In case of a name currently spelled in different ways, six
months’ notice should be required before a decision is taken, in order that
interested zoologists should have opportunity to express their opinions.
7. If this were done, the Copenhagen provision covering the matter
(Copenhagen Decisions : 45, Decision 75) might best be rescinded, since any
one desiring to conserve the usual spelling of the name of a taxon could obtain
an earlier decision by applying to the Commission to have the name placed on an
Official List.
8. For these reasons I wish to suggest that the following proposals be
approved at the London Congress :—
(a) That the following amendment to the Régles be adopted : “ In placing
the name of a taxon on an Official List the Commission shall have
power to adopt the most widely used spelling, even though it be not
the original spelling. If two or more spellings are in current use, this
shall not be done until six months after the proposal has been
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’.
(b) Such action, when taken, shall not be deemed to be under the Plenary
Powers, and shall require merely a majority favourable vote.
Nevertheless, the same public notice shall be required as though
the action were to be taken under the Plenary Powers.
(This would fit into Article 11, Section 3 of the proposed redraft of the Régles.
The power should also be cited in Article 29, Section 6.)
(c) That Decision 75 appearing on page 45 of the Copenhagen Decisions
on Zoological Nomenclature be rescinded.
9. That if the action proposed in paragraph 8(c) above be not taken, then
the following should be added after paragraph (ii) of Article 11, Section 3(b)
of my proposed redraft of the Régles: “ (iii) Maintain the proposed usage
pending final decision”. (The Copenhagen Decision made the proposal
tentatively effective immediately, but my redraft is defective in not making
this apparent.)
2 See Vol. 14 : 89.
SETS S44 re AY
=
‘i... =o a?
—"
wdcs as oe
RO Wet
a
5
eae ae ees
————— es lS CCl
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 199
CASE No. 7
ARTICLE 4 (COPENHAGEN DECISION 50(1)(a) and (b)) RELATING
TO THE FORMATION OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1265)
DOCUMENT 7/1
Proposed substitution of Revised Provisions in place of Copenhagen
Decision 50(1)(a) and (b)
By J. CHESTER BRADLEY
(Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(Enclosure to a letter dated 19th September 1957)
Continuity of Usage in the Spelling of the Names of Taxa of the Family-Group
In a paper submitted simultaneously with the present paper! a simplified
procedure has been proposed for dealing with names of taxa currently spelled
in an invalidly emended form. The same problem arises in connection with
names of the Family-Group, which have come into current usage in a form
that, although employing the correct suffix, is different from that specified
in the Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature : 34, Decision 50(1)(a)
and (b). I wish now to propose that the same procedure be extended to cover
such names. I suggest that the following amendment be made to Decision
50(1)(a) referred to above.
(a) Conservation of currently used spellings. In placing the name of a
taxon of the Family-Group on the Official List of Family-group
Names in Zoology the Commission shall have power to adopt the
most widely used spelling, if based on the name of the type-genus.
1 The document here referred to has been reproduced as Document 6/1 on the Agenda
__ Paper (: 196-198 of the present volume).
200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
While the appropriate suffix must be employed, the rule for
formation of the name may be varied. Example: PIERIDAE instead
of PIERIDIDAE”, based on Pieris, genitive Pieridis.
(b) Such action, when taken, shall not be deemed to be under the Plenary
Powers, and shall require merely a majority favourable vote.
Nevertheless the same public notice shall be required as though the
action were to be taken under the Plenary Powers.
2. This amendment could be fitted into the proposed redraft of the Réegles
as Article 28, Section 9(d).*
ne nn eS EUUU I UE EEE nEIEEISE INNES ESR SERS
2 The particular case cited by Professor Bradley has recently been dealt with by the
International Commission under its Plenary Powers. Under the decision so taken the spelling
PIERIDAE was validated as against the technically correct spelling PrERIDIDAE. This decision
has since been embodied in Opinion 500 (now in the press).
3 See Vol. 14 ; 205.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 201
CASE No. 8
ARTICLE 4 (COPENHAGEN DECISION 45) (FAMILY-GROUP NAMES) :
RELATIVE MERITS OF CONTINUITY AND PRIORITY RESPECTIVELY
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1271)
DOCUMENT 8/1
Continuity of Usage or Priority in the Case of Names
of the Family-Group
By J. CHESTER BRADLEY
(Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(Enclosure to a letter dated 19th September 1957)
A situation somewhat similar to that of the resuscitation of long-forgotten
original spelling arises in connection with family names. I refer to instances
in which a forgotten family name is discovered to have priority over the
name currently and usually used. Copenhagen Decisions on Nomenclature : 33,
Decision 45, set up a somewhat clumsy and long protracted procedure by which
a decision in such a case can be reached. The application by Mr. Arthur N.
Dusenbury, Jr. (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 194-199), requesting the
Commission to use its Plenary Powers to direct that the Family-Group name
ORBULINIDAE, which has priority, shall not be given precedence over GLOBI-
GERINIDAE, which is of later date, illustrates the fact that authors, at least in
_ some cases, are not willing to go through the procedure demanded by the
Copenhagen provision, but prefer a more immediate decision by seeking action
under the Plenary Powers.
2. As in the case of an accepted emendation, the Commission should have
ordinary (not Plenary) power to settle such a case.
0
202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
3. I say not Plenary Power because setting aside of the Rules is not
involved. Since the Rules provide that priority in family names is not to be
maintained in case of conflict with current. usage, the Commission is merely
called upon to enforce the rule by decision as to whether a given case comes
under it.
4. I therefore propose that at the London Congress, Decision 45 of the
Copenhagen Decisions be rescinded and replaced by the following :—
(a) The Law of Priority shall govern the names of taxa of the Family-
Group, except that, in cases where priority is in conflict with general
usage, the latter is to be maintained.
(b) In case a taxonomist observes that a family-group name having priority
is in conflict with general usage, he shall request the Commission
to decide what name is to be used, and to place it on the Official
List of Family-Group Names in Zoology.
(c) In placing a family-group name on the Official List of Family-Group
Names in Zoology, in a case where names based on different taxonomic
genera have been proposed for that group, the Commission shall
adopt the name that it believes will best serve continuity and
universality of usage, even though that name does not have priority.
ey
4 ar
SEAT ae yg: 3
— SES — eS ee ee CU
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 203
DOCUMENT 8/2
On the importance of maintaining continuity of usage at the
family-group-name level
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1271)
By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
(Note dated 5th November 1957)
I desire strongly to support the proposal submitted by Professor J. Chester
Bradley (Document 8/1) that means should be found for meeting the general
wish of zoologists that established family-group names should not be liable
to rejection as the result of the discovery of an older name given to a family-
group taxon having as its type genus a genus subjectively regarded by taxono-
mists as referable to the nominal family-group taxon currently recognised.
2. I have given my reasons elsewhere (Document 5/1) for believing that
the Copenhagen Congress was well advised when it decided to insert in the
Reégles a provision expressly applying the priority principle to family-group
names. I agree therefore with Professor Bradley that the mechanism now to be
sought must be in the nature of a provision which will provide an escape from
difficulties in cases where priority is manifestly at variance with established
usage. As Professor Bradley suggests, a provision for the settlement of such
cases by a simple reference to the Commission would afford the most practical
solution.
8. I have, however, two points on the nature of the mechanism to be
; adopted which I suggest require further consideration :—
(i) As in the case of generic names, so also in the case of family-group
names, there is always room for differences of opinion among special-
ists on taxonomic grounds as to the zoological scope of the taxon
so named, that is, as to the number, in the former case of species,
and, in the latter case, of genera, which from the taxonomic point of
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
view can properly be regarded as belonging to the unit (whether
genus or family-group taxon) concerned. Express recognition of
this consideration was given by the Thirteenth International Congress
of Zoology, Paris, 1948 in relation to generic names when it directed
that, in order to avoid the appearance of judging a purely taxonomic
question in cases where there are differences of opinion among
specialists as to the scope of the genera involved in any given case,
the Commission when placing on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology, the oldest of the generic names concerned, should also place
on that List one or more of the later names with a note that these
latter were placed on that List for use by specialists who consider
on taxonomic grounds that the type species of those genera were not
congeneric with the type species of the oldest established of the
nominal genera in question (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 237, 268).
A similar principle has been applied by the Commission in recent
years when placing family-group names ‘on the Official List of
Family-Group Names in Zoology.
In these circumstances it would not be sufficient, as suggested
in Document 8/1, merely to prescribe that a family-group name
which is not the oldest such name subjectively available for the
taxon concerned should be placed on the Official List, for that action,
though necessary, would not by itself provide the name in question
with the necessary degree of security. What is required therefore
is that when it approves an application for the protection of an
established family-group name as against senior subjective synonyms,
the Commission should direct that the entry of that name then to be
made on the Official List should be endorsed with a direction that the
name in question is not to be rejected on the ground that it is a
junior subjective synonym of some other name.
(ii) It is, I think, desirable that an adequate opportunity for study and
comment should be provided to zoologists in any given case before
a decision is taken by the Commission under the procedure envisaged
in Document 8/1. I accordingly recommend that it should be
provided that every such application be published in the Bulletin
of Zoological Nomenclature and that no decision should be taken
by the Commission thereon until after the expiry of the six month
period following the publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature of the application concerned.
ee
eney ear ck
Wee 808 Gree,
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 205
CASE No. 9
PROPOSED ADOPTION OF PROVISIONS REGULATING THE
CITATION OF A NAME WHICH HAS BEEN EITHER EMENDED
‘ OR CORRECTED UNDER THE “ REGLES ”
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1269)
DOCUMENT 9/1
Citation of the author of a corrected name
By J. CHESTER BRADLEY
(Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y in Tha.)
(Enclosure to a letter dated 19th September 1957)
The Régles require that in certain circumstances a name is to be auto-
matically corrected but attributed to the original author and date. When the
correction is first made, the bibliographical facts will be clear, but when some
later taxonomist refers the corrected form to the original author and date
(without explanation) it is likely to be misleading. A reader, looking up the
original author and finding a different spelling or form of the word used, is apt
to conclude that the citation is a misprint or lapsus calami. The citation of the
name of the zoologist who establishes the name of a taxon is a matter of
bibliographical record, not done as an honour to the author, and like any biblio-
graphic record must be accurate.
2. It is apparent that there should be some provision in the Régles to
avoid this confusion. I am not certain just how this may best be done, but
in order that taxonomists may be thinking about the matter, I suggest that the
following addition to the Regles be approved at the London Colloquium :
When it is desired to cite the original author following a name that
has been validly emended or been automatically corrected, but that under
Some provision of the code is to be attributed to its original author and
206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
date, the author’s name shall be followed by a comma and the adjective
“ emendatus, -a, -wm”’, or the abbreviation “‘ em.’’, to indicate that the
name is being given in an amended or corrected form.
[This amendment would fit into the proposed revised text of the Ragles, as paragraph 5(e)
of Article 221].
saiisiie plete bye Sa i Min ial Baie weak ale ae
1 See Vol. 14 : 163.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 207
DOCUMENT 9/2
Method to be followed in citing a name after its spelling has been
emended or corrected
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1269)
By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
(Note dated 8th November 1957)
In Document 9/1 Professor Chester Bradley has raised the question whether
it is desirable that provision should be made in the Régles for the adoption of
some method for the citation of a name in cases where the original spelling of
that name has been either emended or corrected under the Régles. Professor
Bradley has tentatively put forward the suggestion that the Régles should
provide in such a case either for the addition after the author’s name of the
adjective “‘ emendatus ”’ (cited in the appropriate gender) or for the use of the
abbreviation “‘em.”’ and has invited zoologists to comment on the issue so
raised.
2. The foregoing question has arisen on many occasions in a rather special
form when the International Commission has had under consideration applica-
tions for the addition of names (both generic and specific) to the Official Lists.
On these occasions the Commission has taken the view that in the entry to be
made on the Official List the name should be entered in its valid form, i.e.
in its emended or corrected form, but that in addition the original incorrect
spelling should also be cited. The principal reason for adopting this double
method of citation has been to make it clear in the actual entry that the
Commission, before placing the name on the Official List, had duly considered
the relative merits of the Original Spelling on the one hand and on the other
hand of the emended or corrected spelling, this being necessary in this context
in order to show expressly in those cases where a spelling different from the
Original Spelling has been adopted that this spelling has been adopted
deliberately and does not owe its insertion on the List to inadvertence.
208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
3. The method adopted for the foregoing purpose in entries made on the
Official Lists has been, first, to cite the name in question in its valid spelling and
second, immediately after the name so given, to add in brackets (parentheses)
the original spelling preceded by the words “‘emend. of”. The following are
examples of actual entries of this sort which have been made on the Official
Lasts :—
(a) An entry made on the “Official List of Generic Names in Zoology’’ by
the Ruling given in “Opinion” 391:
Muensteroceras (emend. of Mumnsteroceras) Hyatt, 1884 (Class
Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea)
(b) An entry made on the “Official List of Specific Names in Zoology” by
the Ruling given in “Opinion” 411:
percnopterus (emend. of perenopterus) Linnaeus, 1758, as published
in the combination Vultur perenopterus (Class Aves)
4, While for the special reasons explained in paragraph 2 above the adoption
of a special notation to show that a name has been either emended or corrected
is necessary in the case of an entry made on any of the Official Lists, I do not
myself consider that this is necessary when in an ordinary book or paper
a name is cited for taxonomic, as contrasted with, nomenclatorial purposes.
It is certainly important that in a systematic work the attention of readers
should be drawn in cases of this kind to the fact that the spelling adopted
for a given name differs from that originally published, but it seems to me that
the best way of doing this by the inclusion at least once in the work concerned
of the full original reference for the name in question, a procedure which was
originally recommended to zoologists by the Tenth International Congress of
Zoology, Budapest, 1927, and which was incorporated into the Régles as a
Recommandation by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris,
1948, when it reviewed the provisions of Declaration 7, in which in the mean-
time the Budapest Resolution had been embodied (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencel.
4:170). Beside giving the basic information as to where any given name
was published, the adoption of this procedure has important advantages in the
case of specific names by, for example, giving information as to the generic name
in combination with which the specific name in question was originally published
and, in the case of many adjectival specific names, information as to the gender
adopted for the generic name concerned by the author of the specific name.
This class of information cannot all be indicated by the insertion of formulae
in the form to be adopted in the citation of a name and there does not appear
to be any valid reason for picking out one of these items (the original spelling
of an emended or corrected name) for special treatment.
5. If it were to be decided that some provision on this subject should ~
be included in the revised text of the Régles, it is important that the provision
a oe
ee Ps
PAS
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 209
_ concerned should take the form of a Recommandation only, for to include it
_ 88a mandatory provision would offend against the Canon originally propounded
by Dr. J. Brookes Knight of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.,
a provisions of the present type should not be given mandatory status in
_ the Régles, any contravention of thi Canon involving an undesirable act of
_ “ritualism ”.
210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
CASE No. 10
THE QUESTION OF THE LANGUAGE OR LANGUAGES TO BE ADOPTED
BY THE FIFTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY,
LONDON, 1958, AS THE SUBSTANTIVE LANGUAGE OR LANGUAGES
FOR THE REVISED EDITION OF THE “REGLES INTERNATIONALES
DE LA NOMENCLATURE ZOOLOGIQUE”’”’ (INTERNATIONAL CODE
OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1259)
DOCUMENT 10/1
Proposal relating to the Substantive Text of the
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
By CURTIS W. SABROSKY
(Entomology Research Division, Agricultural Research Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)
(Enclosure to a letter dated 17th October 1957)
The original International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature first appeared
in three approved versions, English, French, and German, with the French
designated as the substantive text. The draft of the new Code, however, is
in English, that being the native language of Professor J. Chester Bradley,
who was charged by the Copenhagen Congress with preparing it. This English
draft is the one to be scrutinised in the months before the London Congress
and in the Colloquium and the Congress itself. The utmost effort will be
directed toward making this text clear, accurate, and unambiguous.
2. Once that is done and approved, the French version which will then
be prepared will of necessity be a translation of the English text. It would
be rather unrealistic and anachronistic to declare that the translation was the
——— Ss ee
=
ea Ee
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 211
substantive text, because this would, in the event that some difference in
meaning was later found to exist, validate and give pre-eminence to a translator’s
error which had never been approved by the Congress. Presumably—and
ideally—there would be no differences in meaning, and both official texts
should be considered to have equal force. If any differences are found later,
or thought to exist, they should be referred to the International Commission
for adjudication as to which shade of meaning was actually intended, or which
is the most desirable.
3. In actual practice, a definitive text is rarely referred to by working
zoologists, if a version of the Code exists in their own language. During the
years that the French text has been the substantive one, the most widely used
text was actually an unofficial English text published by the Biological Society
of Washington and made available at a low cost. It would seem that all
translations of the Congress-approved English text should be officially checked
and approved by the International Commission, and that an appropriate
statement of their approval should be published with each official translation,
but that is probably an economically impracticable ideal.
4. Proposal : The proposal now submitted is :—
(1) That the Congress-approved English text and the official French
translation of it shall have equal force ; and
(2) that any questions or suspicions of difference in meaning between
texts shall be referred to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.
212
and Managing Director, International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature)
for a change in the existing arrangements relating to the texts to be adopted
as the Substantive Texts of the Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature
Zoologique (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature). As those zoo-
logists who were present at the Copenhagen Congress will recall, this question
then gave rise to delicate problems which were only adjusted with considerable
difficulty. It is evident therefore that particular care will need to be observed
when this matter comes to be discussed at the London Congress next year if
general agreement is to be secured.
members of the London Congress to have before them the following brief
historical survey of this problem. The salient points are as follows :-—
eo oe ll
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 10/2
Historical Survey of the question of the Language
to be accepted for the Substantive Text of the
“* Régles Internationales ’’ (International Code)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1259)
By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
(Note dated 8th November 1957)
In Document 10/1 Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky has put forward a proposal
2. In the circumstances it will, I think, be for the convenience of the
(1) The present Régles were adopted by the Fifth International Congress
of Zoology, Berlin, 1901. The task of editing the document so
approved was considerable and had to be postponed until it was
possible for the Editorial Committee appointed to hold a series of
meetings. It was not until three years after the Berlin Congress
that the Committee was able to discharge the duty entrusted to it,
the Committee holding a series of meetings for this purpose at Berne
after the close of the meeting in that city of the Sixth International
Congress of Zoology. The Régles so approved by the Editorial
Committee were published officially in Paris in 1905.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 213
(2) By a decision of the Berlin Congress the foregoing document was
drawn up in three languages, namely : French, English and German.
By a decision previously taken by the Fourth International Congress
of Zoology, Cambridge, 1897, which was endorsed by the Berlin
Congress, it was provided that the substantive text should be the
French text?.
(3) In the period following the official publication in 1905 of the Substantive
French Text of the accompanying English and German Translations
the arrangements described above worked with remarkable smooth-
ness. In a few cases, however, definite discrepancies between the
Substantive French text and the English Translation—I cannot
speak for the German Translation—came to light and were a cause
of difficulty.
(4) The question of the arrangements to be made in regard to the language
of the Substantive Text was reviewed in Paris in 1948 by the
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, by which a large
number of additions to, and modifications of, the Régles had been
adopted. As a result, the Paris Congress re-affirmed the decisions
taken by its predecessors that the Substantive Text should be the
French Text and at the same time instructions for the preparation
of a French text embodying the decisions taken by that Congress,
“ together with a literal translation thereof in the English language ”’
(1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 77, Minute 12(1)(a); 1950, ibid.
5 : 131, 148-149),
Jes a a=
a ae ee eee,
¢
(5) The question of the language to be accepted as the language for the
' substantive test of the Régles was considered again by the Fourteenth
International Congress of Zoology at its Meeting held at Copenhagen
in 1953. When this subject was brought before the Section on
; Nomenclature of that Congress, Dr. Karl P. Schmidt, the Chairman
of the Meeting, ruled that the vote first to be taken on this subject
be confined to a vote by those zoologists who were not nationals
| _ of French-speaking or English-speaking countries. This resulted
: in an unanimous vote in favour of the substitution of the English
language for the French language as the substantive language of
the Régles (Code) as revised by the Paris and Copenhagen Congresses.
. The Section on Nomenclature as a whole then took a vote on this
; subject in which it decided that, subject to further discussion with
the French zoologists, the Copenhagen Congress should be invited
a a a ee
1 “Ces Régles qu’on trouvera ci-aprés sont redigées en trois langues, conformement aux
resolutions des Congrés, la version frangaise faisant foi en cas d’incertitude, ainsi qu’en a décidé
le Congrés de Cambridge ” (Blanchard (R.), 1905, Internationales de la Régles Nomenclature
Zoologique : 11).
214
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
at its Final Plenary Session to make the foregoing change in the
substantive language of the Régles (Code). At the same time it
was agreed “ that in view of its importance, this subject should be
separately reported to the Comité Permanent of the International
Congresses of Zoology and that the suggestion for a change in the
language of the substantive text of the Régles should be proceeded
with only if the Comité Permanent concurred in that course ” (1953,
Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 99).
(6) Just before the opening of the Final Plenary Session of the Copenhagen
Congress, Professor R. Sparck, President of the Congress, informed
me that strong objection to the suggested change in the substantive
language of the Régles had been taken by the French members of the
Comité Permanent and that he feared in consequence that serious
difficulties would arise if the proposal were to be placed before the
Plenary Session then on the point of opening. In these circumstances
Professor Spirck and I agreed that it would be inexpedient that
this proposal should be placed before the Plenary Session, and when
at that Session I presented the remainder of the recommendations
agreed upon the the Section on Nomenclature, I made it clear that
those recommendations did not include any proposal for changing
the language of the substantive text of the Réegles (Sparck, 1953,
in Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 126).
(7) After the close of the Copenhagen Congress, I received from zoologists
in a number of countries expressions of keen regret that the proposal
for the change from French to English as the substantive language
of the Régles (Code) had not been placed before the Final Plenary
Session of the Copenhagen Congress. This led to correspondence
between Professor Spirck and myself which culminated in November
1953 with an exchange of documents setting out a settlement which
we had agreed between us. The first of these documents was a
letter dated 3rd November 1953 addressed to Professor Sparck by
myself as Managing Director of the International Trust for Zoological
Nomenclature, the second, a Minute dated 7th November 1953
addressed by Professor Spirck, as President of the Congress to
myself as Secretary to the International Commission. In this
Minute, which Professor Spirck authorised and instructed me to
include in the Official Record of the decisions on nomenclature
taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology under
his Presidency, he gave directions :—
“ that, subject to the undertaking given by the International Trust
for Zoological Nomenclature (in the letter dated 3rd November
1953 referred to above) that it will arrange for the preparation
and publication of a French text of the revised Rules, identical
sitbeietsceteaens ii
et ee ee ee ee ee eee ee a ee eee ee a
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 215
in substance and in form with the English text, immediately after
the English text has been finally approved :—
(1) The French and English texts of the International Rules of
Zoological Nomenclature, as revised by the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, and as
further revised and expanded by the Fourteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, prepared in the
manner agreed upon by the last-named Congress and
published by the International Trust for Zoological Nomen-
clature are both authentic, that is, the French text is the
substantive text of the Rules and so also is the English text.
(2) In the event of its having been alleged at any time that on
a due construction of the words employed there is a difference
of meaning in any provision as between the two substantive
texts, the matter is at once to be laid before the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, whose decision
shall be final ’’.
(1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 128-131.)
(8) Following the exchange of documents between Professor Spirck and
myself described above, the arrangement so arrived at was notified
by myself, at Professor Sparck’s request to the Société Zoologique
de France, to whom the undertaking given in my letter to Professor
Sparck of 3rd November 1953 was formally renewed. In acknow-
ledging this communication, the Society very kindly undertook to
make itself responsible for the preparation of the French text as
soon as the English text was available. (Letter dated 27th January
1954 from Professor P. Vayssiére, President of the Société Zoologique
de France).
3. It will be noted that in general form the proposal submitted as Document
10/1 resembles the settlement laid down by Professor Sparck in his Minute
of 7th November 1953 (paragraph 2(7) above) but that in that proposal
Dr. Sabrosky recommends that, while the officially approved French text
“shall have equal force’’ with “the Congress-approved English text’’, it
shall rank as “an official French translation’ and not as “a substantive
_ text”, the status which it would possess under the terms of Professor Spirck’s
Minute. It is this difference only which will require consideration by the
London Congress.
216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
CASA. oN On. 3
(continued from page 184)
DOCUMENT 1/35
The ‘ Parataxa Plan” : Objection lodged by the Nomenclature
Discussion Group, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)
(Copy of a letter with enclosure dated 13th September, 1957, from
CURTIS W. SABROSKY, Chairman, and ELLIS L. YOCHELSON, Secretary.)
On behalf of the Nomenclature Discussion Group of Washington, D.C., we |
are submitting herewith the following material relevant to the Moore and
Sylvester-Bradley application on the subject of Parataxa [Z.N.(S.) 1056] :
(1) Minutes of the Group’s meeting of August 7, 1957, and
(2) Signed Voting Papers.
Dr. R. C. Moore’s digest of the proposal for Parataxa was duplicated and
distributed to the entire group (current membership, 113) the week before the
meeting. The discussion meeting revealed overwhelming sentiment against
the proposal, with most of the paleontologists expressing particularly strong
opposition. Subsequently, the Minutes and a Voting Paper were circulated
to the membership.
Votes were received from 27 paleontologists and 29 neontologists, total
56, all opposed to the proposal. One member, W. H. Hass, spoke at the meeting
in favor of the proposal, but did not return a Voting Paper. We understand
that he is writing you directly.
ANNEXE 1
Minutes of a meeting of the Nomenclature Discussion Group held on
7th August, 1957
A meeting of the Nomenclature Discussion Group of Washington, D.C.,
was held on August 7, 1957, to discuss Parataxa. Forty-one members of the
group were present, approximately one-third being paleontologists. At the
close of the meeting a vote showed virtual unanimity in opposition to Parataxa.
The following paragraphs are to inform the I.C.Z.N. of the opinions of the
eet 5
PTE PRN RM Sree EN
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 217
group regarding this proposal, as requested in Secretary Hemming’s letter of
8 July, 1957, and to show_some of the reasons for the opposition to this proposal.
Opinions expressed both before and during the meeting indicate that
opposition has three bases :
(1) Several workers representing such divergent fields of interest as
ostracods, mollusks, fish and mammals expressed concern as to the effect of the
recognition of Parataxa in their speciality. All agreed that significantly more
confusion than clarity would result. Opposition was specially forceful in
regard to provisions suggesting that Parataxa be used for immature stages. A
specialist on parasitic nematodes expressed strong opposition and noted that
the American Society of Parasitology is opposed to the proposal. Though it
was not expressly mentioned, the general feeling was that if Parataxa were
adopted for any group, no matter what safeguards were written into the
rules, sooner or later attempts would be made to extend the concept of Parataxa
to the taxonomy of many diverse groups.
(2) A second source of concern was with the underlying philosophy of the
proposal. It is generally agreed that some poorly known taxa, and especially
some based only on discrete fossil fragments, are of necessity more or less
artificial. It is also generally agreed that one of the fundamental aims of
taxonomy is to construct a natural classification of organisms, and that with
increasing study of a group classification becomes more natural. The
retroactive principle and the separation of Taxa and Parataxa are considered
to be steps backward in any attempt to construct a natural classification. In
essence, the proposal puts a premium, in some cases, on the naming of what are
clearly artificial groupings rather than natural taxa.
(3) The third source of opposition and that most clearly expressed was
that the proposal is unnecessary. Most members believe that a strict
application of the Rules would solve most of the problems for which the
Parataxa proposal was initiated. In those few cases where strict application
of the rules would cause really significant confusion, recourse could be had to the
Plenary Powers of the I.C.Z.N. to suspend the Rules. It was felt that the
problems posed by conodont assemblages, for example, were not fundamentally
_ different from those of other fields. They differ only in the degree of complexity,
_ and no radical revision of the Rules seems warranted.
At the same time, it was recognised by many members of the group that
students of conodonts are faced with a difficult problem. In view of the highly
subjective nature of the interpretation of conodont assemblages and of
¥ subsequent identifications, it was suggested that synonymy of a conodont
_ assemblage with previously named taxa, based on discrete conodonts, might be
iz impossible to prove and should not be formalized.
In summary, the discussion group recognised that a problem exists in
regard to the taxonomy of conodonts, but felt that the application of the Rules
My
—T
218 : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
as they are presently written would solve the problem. They are almost
wholeheartedly against the proposal for the establishment of Parataxa.
ANNEXE 2
Particulars of Voting Papers enclosed with the joint letter of the 13th
September, 1957 from the Chairman and Secretary
(i) Votes by 27 palaeontologists who voted on the Parataxa Plan, with
particulars of their respective specialities.
Name of specialist
Applegate, 8. P.
Boardman, R. S.
Wythe Cooke, C.
Cooper, G. A.
Douglass, R. C.
Duncan, Helen
Dunkle, D. H.
Dutro, J. T., Jr.
Finks, R. M.
Grant, R. E.
Henbest, L. G.
Kier, P. M.
Ladd, H. S.
Nicol, D.
Oliver, W. A., Jr.
Palmer, Allison R.
Reeside, J. B., Jr.
Roberts, H. B.
Sohl, N. F.
Sohn, I. G.
Todd, M. Ruth
Vaughn, P. P.
Wetmore, A.
Whitmore, F. C., Jr.
Wilson, D.
Woodring, W. G.
Yochelson, E.
Speciality of
specialist
Fish
Bryozoa
Echinoids
Brachiopods
Foraminifera
Bryozoa and corals
Lower vertebrates
Brachiopods
Porifera
Brachiopods
Trilobites
Foraminifera
Echinoderms
Mollusks
Pelecypoda
Corals
Trilobites
Ammonites
Crustacea (Decapods)
Gastropoda
Ostracoda
Foraminifera
Amphibians and reptiles
Aves
Mammalia
Mollusca
Mollusks
Gastropods
Whether “‘ for ”’ or
“ against ” the
** Parataxa Plan ”
FOR AGAINST
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 219
(ii) Votes by 29 neontologists who voted on the Parataxa Plan, with
particulars of their respective specialities.
Name of specialist
Anderson, W. H.
Andrews, J. 8.1
Burks, B. D.
Cartwright, O. L.
Chace, F. A., Jr.
Clarke, J. F. Gates
Crabill, R. E., Jr.
Field, W. D.
Gurney, A. B.
Handley, C. O., Jr.
LaRue, G. R.
Lucker, J. T.
McIntosh, A.
Morrison, J. P. E.
O’Neill, Kellie
Paradiso, J. L.
Parfin, Sophy
Rehder, H. A.
Sabrosky, C. W.
Sailer, R. I.
Schultz, L. P.
Schwartz, B.
Setzer, H. W.
Spilman, T. J.
Stone, A.
Taylor, W. R.
Todd, E. L.
Vogt, G. B.
Wirth, W. W.
Speciality of
specialist
Insecta
Helminth Parasites
Insecta
Entomology
Crustacea
Insecta
Myriapoda ; Arachnida
Insecta ; Lepidoptera
Insecta
Mammalia
Trematoda ; Cestoda
Nematoda
Zoo parasites of all kinds
Mollusks
Insecta ; Thysanoptera
Mammalia
Insecta
Mollusca
Insecta ; Diptera
Insecta
Fishes
Zoo parasites of all kinds
Mammals
Coleoptera
Insecta ; Diptera
Fishes
Insecta
Insecta
Insecta ; Diptera
Whether “ for ” or
“ against ” the
** Parataxa Plan ”
FOR AGAINST
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
1 In a letter dated 14th October, 1957, Dr. Andrews supplemented the vote here recorded as
- follows :
“Tam taking this opportunity to express to you my full agreement with the conclusions of
the Nomenclature Discussion Group of Washington, D.C., which on August 7, 1957, voiced
its almost complete opposition to the proposal for the establishment of Parataxa.
“If Parataxa is adopted I should like to see the exclusion of the life stages of animal
parasites which are now known only by Collective Group Names, because these forms are very
often fully identified with recognised adult species at a later date ”.
220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/36
Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa Plan ’’
(Reference : Professor Moore’s Digest reproduced as Document 1/15)
By E. VOIGT
(Hamburg, Germany)
(Letter dated 17th October 1957)
Ich bedaure, mich den Vorschligen von Prof. Moore betr. “‘ Parataxa ”
nicht anschleissen zu kénnen. Die Einfiihrung von “ Parataxa”’ wird m.E.
die Konsequenz haben, dass kiinftig nicht nur bei Conodonten oder Aptychen,
sondern auch bei allen anderen, aus mehreren Skelettelementen bestehenden
Fossilien eine gesonderte Benennung fiir die Einzelelemente gefordert werden
wird. Eine Spezies kann aber nur einen einzigen giiltigen Namen haben.
Sobald die Zusammengehdérigkeit von Einzel-Elementen erkannt ist, fallen
sie automatisch als Synonyme weg.
Im Falle z.B. der Aptychen ware m.E. zu fordern, dass das
Ammonitengehiuse in jedem Falle vor dem Aptychus rangieren muss, d.h.,
wenn ein Aptychus vor der Schale formal die Prioritét hat (z.B.Trigonellites
vor Oppelia,) so ist nach der Auffindung der Aptychen in der Ammonitenschale
ersterer als Teil der letzteren erkannt und miisste in die Synonymie von Oppelia
fallen.
Es wire daher zweckmissiger, eine Anderung des Artikels 27 dahingehend
zu erwirken, dass LHinzelteile, z.B.Aptychen, Opercula von Wiirmern oder
Gastropoden, Otolithen von Fischen oder sonstige Einzelteile von Vertebraten
ihren Genus-oder Speziesnamen verlieren, wenn sie trotz ihrer Prioritét als
Teile eines bereits beschriebenen ganzen Organismus erkannt werden. Sie
erscheinen dann in her Synonymie der betreffenden Spezies. Es ware
festzulegen, welche Teile vor den anderen rangieren.
Letzten Endes sind die ‘‘ Parataxa’”’ nichts anderes als die bereits friiher
vorgeschlagenen “‘ Allotypen ”, welche sich ja auch nicht eingebiirgert haben.
Ich kann also die Fragen 1 und 2 Ihres Briefes nur negativ beantworten.
———
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 221
DOCUMENT 1/37
Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa Plan ”’
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)
By LEIF STORMER
(Paleontologisk Institutt, Oslo, Norway)
(Letter dated 22nd October 1957)
In reply to your letter of 8th J uly with the proposed addition to the Régles
of provisions recognising and regulating the nomenclature of “ parataxa ”’, I
wish to say that I have studied the edition and say ‘“‘ Yes ”
of issues involved. (Satisfactory safeguards are among
7(ii)(b).)
to the two groups
others given in
222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/38
Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “‘ Parataxa Plan ”’
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)
By WILBERT H. HAAS
(U.S. National Museum, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A.)
(Letter dated 23rd October 1957)
I consider the proposal submitted by Dr. R. C. Moore and Mr. P. C.
Sylvester-Bradley on that subject to be appropriate for the purpose it was
devised to serve and to contain adequate provisions for protecting the interests
of investigators concerned with the nomenclature of whole-animal taxa.
Parataxa provide a means whereby investigators can better meet the continually
developing taxonomic needs of certain groups of organisms, including conodonts
—the group of microfossils in which I am especially interested.
I have been a student of conodonts for the past 20 years, chiefly because
they are an extremely useful tool of the stratigraphic paleontologist. I am
convinced that progress in the study of conodonts will be most rapid under a
system that permits the classification and nomenclature of discrete conodonts
to be in terms of Parataxa and the classification and nomenclature of conodont
assemblages, to be in terms of whole-animal taxa. Such a system would
provide students of conodonts with a stable nomenclature, which is something
they do not have at present.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 223
DOCUMENT 1/39
Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “‘ Parataxa Plan ”’
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)
By VLADIMIR POKORNY
(Caroline University, Prague, Czechoslovakia)
(Letter dated 10th October 1957)
I agree with the proposed insertion in the Régles of “ parataxa ’’, because
the stability of these very important fragments as well as of the true taxa
related with these is highly desirable.
2. On the other hand I would like to emphasize the opinion of Prof.
Chester Bradley that the parataxon “in a zoologically more important sense
is outside of taxonomy ”’ (Document 1/1, para. 5, p. 8). This opinion must be
respected to the extreme.
3. The basic principle of every scientific classification is to exprime the
phylogenetic relations. The nomenclature should help to this purpose as
well as possible. Many fragments, the taxonomic place of which cannot be
ascertained as to the specific category, can without difficulties be classified
within natural genera or higher taxonomic groups. It is not advisable to
obscure the result of the taxonomy of the fragments by a “ nothing-saying ”
nomenclature. This has been well expressed already by Klaus J. Miiller (1956)
in discussing the same problem: “It is contrary to the basic aim of
nomenclature that either observations or ideas on taxonomy are to be
suppressed because there is no proper way for their expression” (Miiller,
J. Pal. 30(6) : 1328).
4. In the light of the above principles I make the following comments :
(1) The parataxa, an aid-tool, should be erected only in unavoidable
cases.
224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(2) The names of fragments should be as significative as possible.
(3) In view of (2) above the new names should, when possible, point to
the corresponding taxon (genus or higher category).
(4) It should be recommended that the names for parataxa should derive
from the morphological terminology of fragments already in common
use in paleontology and zoology.
5. In accordance with Proposition (1) above the aid-field of parataxa
must rest on a field of serious science. Its conversion into a sort
of philately would be highly undesirable. The newly opened field of
parataxonomy could easily become a domain of pseudo-scientists the highest
aim of which would lie in the ‘‘ Namenmacherei ” or ‘‘ Mihismus ”’, as it was
properly designated by R. Richter.
6. There would be no sense in erecting new names for fragments described
previously as parts of a known taxon, e.g.,a crinoid. Each carefully worked-out
crinoidal paper could become a base for erecting hundreds of new parataxal
names created by a mere indication by a “ Philatelist ’’ without a scientific
background. Such a procedure must be considered as one which would be highly
harmful to the literature and the scientist’s mind.
7. In the recommendations following the new proposed paragraph it
should be therefore strongly emphasised that the erection of parataxa must
rest only on “emergency exit’ for cases where the application of normal
taxa is impossible.
8. Proposition (3) in paragraph 4 above concerns paragraph 11* of
Document 1/1. It departs from the fact that the family—or generic place—of
fragments is in many cases identifiable, but not the specific one. In my opinion
it would be of great advantage if the name for such para-species were to
indicate its family—or generic—position. This would also be very useful in
work with parataxa.
9. Such a procedure has been in reality for many years in fact for many
decades been in common use within otoliths, a group not mentioned in the
Case No. 1, but one which can reveal further possibilities and difficulties
not considered in the propositions published by the applicants. It is not the
place here to argue why a parataxal classification of this group is needed, but
I feel that the case is quite clear.
* See page 11 of the present volume.
Di a ted inthe aha
ee ee, Ss eee eee ee
pee ee ee oN) ’
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 225
10. The common procedure of naming otoliths is as follows : The technical
term ‘“ Otolithus ” written with an initial capital is taken instead of a generic
name. Behind it follows (though not always) in parenthesis the name of the
family or of the genus to which the species belongs, for example :—
(a) Otolithus (Serranidarum) elongatus Weiler, 1942
(b) Otolithus (Scopelus) pulcher Prochazka, 1893
(c) Otolithus (inc. sedis) dispar Koken, 1891
Considered from the standpoint of the Régles this commonly used practice
is not faultless. Thus, in (b) above the name of the genus Scopelus must, under
the application of the Rules, be considered as that of a sub-genus. On the
other hand, considered purely from the objective side, this procedure is very
clear and useful.
11. Further serious problems arise when considering the content of the
“ generic’ name “ Otolithus ’. It is known that, contrary to the situation in
the conodonts, the form of otolith is specific for each genus, so that on the
basis of otoliths, form-genera may be erected which by their scope are equal
to natural genera. Using the present practice a new para-genus could be
designated, e.7. Otolithus (Boiolithus n. paragenus) typicus Charles. Under
such a procedure the name Otolithus could not be considered as a para-genus,
but being preferably regarded as a higher parataxon not defined as yet. Such
a denomination is not desirable.
12. In view of the fact that the shape of the otoliths is specific for
different genera, many authors designate the otoliths in full accordance with
the Régles by the names of natural genera, e.g., Scopelus pulcher Prochazka,
1893. The objections cited in paragraph 7 of Document 1/1 are valid against
such a procedure.*
13. The simplest way for designating otoliths, the great majority of
which can be attributed without difficulties to natural families and even
genera, would be by means of a binomen in which the parataxon would be
marked by a sign or abbreviation, e.g., pg. for paragenus, ps. for paraspecies.
A quite similar proposal has already been made by K. J. Miiller, 1956 (J. Pal.
30 : 1328) in discussing the nomenclature of conodont genera :—
(a) pg. Boiolithus typicus Charles, 1859; (b) Scopelus ps. pulcher
Prochazka, 1893. In the case of (a) it superfluous to write ps. Such a
_ procedure makes it very easy to draw paleoecological, paleogeographical and
other conclusions on the base of Ichthyofauna. It is convenient also for those
specialists which are not especially engaged in the study of otoliths, as are
many vertebrate paleontologists or zoologists.
* See pages 9-10 of the present volume.
226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
14. We may now summarise the views expressed above in regard to
Proposition (3) as set out in paragraph 4 above. From the standpoint of
securing the maximum possible correspondence between nomenclature and
scientific results, as well as from the standpoint of clearness and simplicity in
nomenclature I recommend to include the following provision in the suggested
new paragraph of the Régles :—
(a) When the generic taxonomic position of a given fragment is known,
the paraspecific name is combined with the generic name. When
only the family or higher taxon is known, the family (or higher
taxon) name is used in genitive form following the paragenus
(para-subgenus) name.
(b) In the case of such heterogenic nomina, parataxa are designated by an
abbreviation placed immediately in front of the parataxon name.
15. In my view Proposition (3) is of great practical importance. The
object has already been met in the case of aptychi, where the genera have the
significative ending—aptychus. A similar procedure represents the present
practice in naming otoliths, as has been shown in paragraph 10 above.
16. Personally I should consider it as very desirable if such a procedure
were to be recommended by the Régles for use also in other groups of parataxa
that may be formed. As an especially suitable example I may cite the spiculae
of sponges. For this group a very detailed and ingenious terminology was
worked out as can be seen, e.g. in the compendium of H. Rauff (1893-1894), in
his Palaeospongiologie (Palaeontographica 40, 41, Stuttgart). I am convinced
that the conversion of these morphological terms into paragenera by merely
writing them with initial capitals (oxyhexactin—Oxyhexactin ; criccaltrop-
Criccaltrop ; dichotriaen—Dichotriaen) would be the best course that could
be adopted. If so, the same terms would indicate the components of natural
genera and the corresponding paragenera. Such a procedure would have also
practical consequences, especially in the stratigraphical application of the
parataxa, while it would facilitate work with parataxa to non-specialists as
well as for specialists working in smaller laboratories.
Remarks on Document 1/1, paragraph 12 (: 12) and paragraph 13 (: 13)
17. The following comments are made on the under-mentioned passages
Document 1/1 :—
(a) Paragraph 12(1) reads: “the parataxa system should be recognised
as validly applied to those animal-groups specifically authorized
for that purpose by the Commission ”’.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 227
(b) Paragraph 13(2)(b)(i) however, runs as follows: “ any zoologist desiring
that classification and nomenclature of a particular group of animal
fragments should be made in terms of parataxa...”
18. The phrase “ animal groups ” used in paragraph 12 is not appropriate
as in this sense it has not always borne the same meaning as “ animal
fragments’, the phrase used in paragraph 13. This will be seen from the
following example : Among the Pisces can be classified as “ fragments ”
otoliths, teeth, scales, bones, but it does not seem advisable to classify all these
fragments in terms of parataxa. Thus for example the great majority of taxa
in Selachii is based on teeth exclusively. The new provisions must therefore
be in terms of about “ groups of animal fragments ”’.
228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/40
Rejoinder to the objections to the ** Parataxa Plan ’’ advanced by the
Nomenclature Discussion Group, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.*
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)
By P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY
(University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England)
(Enclosure to letter dated 1st November 1957)
I would like to preface my comments with a personal note. I am not
myself a student of any of the groups for which parataxa are proposed. I
have no specialised taxonomic interest in either conodonts or aptychi. My
collaboration with R. C. Moore in the production of the “ Parataxa Plan”
was undertaken, therefore, not in the capacity of a specialist, but as one of the
International Commissioners who is also a palaeontologist. My present
interest, in this period before the London Colloquium, is therefore, not that of
the parent of a fond child, but still that of one of the Commissioners who is
attempting to find a solution to a difficult nomenclatural problem. As such,
I am just as interested in clarifying the grounds for opposition as I am in
accumulating constructive ideas for the improvement of the proposals. I hope,
therefore, that some members of the Washington Group will be prepared to
add weight to their arguments by dealing in more detail with some of the points
noted below.
1. It is proper that the grounds for opposition should include statements
of opinion, but arguments such as that which reads: “all agreed that signi- —
ficantly more confusion than clarity would result ” would gain much in force
if they were related to some of the specific cases dealt with in the Proposal. _—
As it stands, para. 1 seems to express general misgiving, coupled with opposition
to the adoption of the “‘ Parataxa Plan ”’ as a method of dealing with immature
stages. A reasoned statement comparing the advantages and disadvantages
of the “‘ Parataxa Plan ” with the Collective Group Plan as put forward by the
American Society of Parasitologists (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 88-98) would 3
1 See Document 1/35 (: 216-219 of the present volume).
% Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 229
be of much value during the London meetings. General opposition from workers
in “ ostracodes, mollusks, fish and mammals ”’ seems to have no weight unless
it is related to specific proposals in those groups. If a mollusk specialist
can show how recognition of aptychi as parataxa can result in significantly
more confusion than clarity, that would be of great importance. Similarly,
_ it would be useful if a fish specialist could outline objections to recognising
otoliths as parataxa, for though no proposal has yet been published suggesting
_ such a course, it seems likely that some specialists in otoliths may feel the
‘i “ Parataxa Plan ”’ has value in their case. But nobody has suggested that the
_ “ Parataxa Plan ”’ can usefully be applied to ostracodes or vertebrates ; if they
_ did, opposition would be widespread. ~
2. Opposition to the underlying philosophy legalizing the present existence
_ of dual nomenclatures in certain groups is sound, but please, if possible, couple
_ this opposition with an alternative proposal of how to deal with the present
situation in either or both conodonts or aptychi. One such alternative was
4 proposed by Arkell (reprinted Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 71-75); but Arkell
himself now supports the “ Parataxa Plan” (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 78).
_ Please indicate wi.ether this alternative is supported, and, if so, whether the
_ names to be suppressed under the proposed Declaration “ as established solely
on aptychi”’ are to be suppressed for all purposes, or only for the purposes
_ of the Law of Priority.
8. The “ most clearly expressed course of opposition ”’ is contradictory as
_ at present worded. How can “strict application of the Rules” solve the
_ problem, if at the same time the ‘‘ synonymy of a conodont assemblage with
previously named taxa, based on discrete conodonts ... should not be
formalized” ? If the synonymy is not formalized, Article 27 is ignored,
_ and the dual nomenclature, which at present exists, continues with flagrant
‘disregard to “strict application of the Rules”. The “ Parataxa Plan” is
one method of legalizing such a dual nomenclature. Another way might be
_ to add a simple rider to Article 27, stating: “ This Article cannot, however,
be applied to the nomenclature of all fossil groups’. But it is illogical in the
_ one paragraph to recommend strict application of the Rules, and in the next
_ to advocate their disregard.
i 4. In conclusion may I express a hope that all alternative suggestions
for dealing with the problems of dual nomenclature will fully recognize the
_ principle, to be written into the Preamble to the new Rules, that the Rules
_ must not trespass upon the freedom of taxonomic thought. The Rules are not
_ the place for one group of taxonomists to curb the activities of another.
} Researchers investigating the taxonomy of conodonts or aptychi have as much
a,
cht to make use of the Rules as have other taxonomists.
230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/41
Comment on the “ Parataxa Plan ’’
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)
By FRIEDRICH TRAUTH
(Vienna, Austria)
(Enclosure to letter dated 28th August 1957)
Was zunaechst die allgemeine Bezeichnung der Verschlussdeckel (Opercula)
der Ammoniten betrifft, so haben wir uns schon 1927 (Trauth 1927, p.221)
dazu entschlossen, den dafuer 1829 von H. v. Meyer (Das Genus Aptychus.
Nov. acta phys-med. Acad. caes. Leop. Carol. nat. cur. Vol. XV, pars II p. 125
[Berlin u. Bonn]) vorgeschlagenen und vorherrschend auch im palaeontolo-
gischen Schrifttum dafuer gebrauchten Namen “‘Aptychus ” zu verwenden und
nicht den eigentlich aelteren und ihnen — allerdings unter der irrtuemlichen
Voraussetzung, dass sie Bivalven seien — von J. Parkinson (Organic remains
of a former world. III Vol. p. 184, 186 [London]) gegebenen Ausdruck
“* Trigonellites ” (vgl. Trauth 1927, p. 173, Fussnote 1. u. p. 221).
Die einschaligen und so gewissermassen der Verschmelzung der beiden
Valven eines Aptychus s. str. entsprechenden Anaptychi (Anaptychus Opp.=
Arten) sind wie wohl auch erstere fruehestens aus dem Devon bekannt
geworden.
Wenn wir nur die in den einzelnen Formationen auftretenden Opercula —
naeher betrachten, so haben wir zunaechst aus dem Palaeozoikum (Devon,
Karbon, Perm) und zwar dem von Deutschland, Frankreich, Belgien, Russland
und der Vereinigten Staaten die Formen (“‘Arten ’’) des Typus (der ‘“‘ Gattung”) _
Anaptychus Opp. zu erwaehnen, welche von den Goniatiten (bes. von Manti-
coceras Crickites und eventuell auch von Beloceras) herstammen (1934a, p. 47, —
Taf. 2-3) und welche da gelegentlich wohl auch von (leider nicht genauer ©
bestimmbaren) zweivalvigen Aptychi (1934a, p. 70, Taf. 3 Fig. 19) begleitet zu
sein scheinen. Oder sollte es sich bei den letztgenannten Opercula etwa auch —
nur um einschalige, infolge ihres Erhaltungszustandes “ zweischalige
Aptychen ” bloss vortaeuschende Anaptychi gehandelt haben ?
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 231
Die aus der Trias (speziell der Nord-und Suedalpen und auch Groenlands)
bekannt gewordenen Anaptychi sind wohl namentlich auf die Ammoniten-
gattungen Ceratites?, Glyptophiceras? Protrachyceras oder Trachyceras ?,
Monophyllites (Mojsvarites) und Arcestes, resp. Proarcestes ? beziehbar (1935a,
p. 456, Taf. I).
Im Lias von Deutschland, Frankreich und England sind Anaptychi
von den Ammonitengenera Psiloceras, Proarietites, Arietites (mit den Sub-
genera Arnioceras, Eparnioceras, Coroniceras, Vermiceras ? und Asteroceras *),
Aegoceras *?, Amaltheus und Lytoceras veroeffentlicht worden (19346, p. 70 ff.
Taf. V1).
Waehrend aus dem Dogger und Malm — wenigstens vorlaeufig — noch
_ keine Anaptychi bekannt geworden sind, sehen wir dieselben dann wieder in der
Unter- und Oberkreide des westalpinen Neokoms (Freiburger Alpen und
Suedostfrankreich) und in der Oberkreide Japans auftreten. Sie stammen
_ hier wohl im Wesent!ichen von dem Ammoniten-Genus Lytoceras (2), resp.
_ der diesem zunaechst stehenden Gattung Gaudryceras ab (1935c, p. 448 ff.,
_ Taf. XIV). Und lytocerate Herkunft gilt so wohl auch fuer den Anaptychus-
_ Subtypus Sidetes Gieb. mit seiner einzigen aus dem Senon des Quedlinburger
Salzberges bekanntgewordenen Form 8. striatus Gieb. (1935c, pp. 458-459,
_ Taf. XIV Fig. 4).
eras Seo ee
Anknuepfend an die ebenerfolgte Eroerterung der Kreide-Anaptychi
_ moege hier noch kurz zweier gleichfalls der Kreideformation (und zwar dem
Senon) entstammender und durch ihre Einschaligkeit wohl sehr daran erin-
_ hernder Typen gedacht sein, deren je einzige Artvertreter aber durch eine
gerade “symphysale ”’ Mitellinie eher an die echten zweivalvigen Aptychen
_ erinnern und auch aus solchen durch eine nachtraegliche Valvenverschmelzung
q hervorgegangen sein moegen. Wir meinen da einerseits den Neoanaptychus
é: Semicostatus Nag. von Desmoceras (K otoceras) semicostatum Yabe des Legere
Tat XIV, Fig. 12-14) und anderseits Pieramichaia mance Coqa: (vgl. bei
- Trauth, 1935c, pp. 462465, Taf. XIV Fig. 15) aus dem algerischen Senon,
- dessen Konvexflaeche durch die von jedem der zwei Lateralraender extern-
_ Yandwaerts geneigt der “ Symphysen-Linie ’’ zustrebenden Rippen gekenn-
_ zeichnet erscheint ; die von uns frueher einmal geaeusserte Meinung, dass es
_ sich dabei eventuell auch um ein Desmoceratiden-Operculum handeln koennte,
% hat jedoch seither keine Bestaetigung erfahren koennen.
a * Wir wenden uns nun der kurzen Eroerterung der zweivalvigen
; Aptychen der Juraformation und der Unterkreide zu, worauf wir dann
_ schliesslich diese Arbeit mit der Kennzeichnung von deren Oberkreide-Formen
f eeendtigen wollen.
232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Wir beginnen mit einem weitverbreiteten Opercular-Typus, naemlich mit
CORNAPTYCHUS Trauth (1927, pp. 214, 228, 236; 1930, pp. 345-354,
Taf. III Fig. 4-16; 1935d, pp. 22-58, Taf. V-VI; 1936a, pp. 10-28, 40-43,
Taf. III Fig. 1-6), welcher in einem weiten Gebiete —in Sued-und Nord-
deutschland, Frankreich, England, den West-und Ostalpen, Karpathen,
Sizilien und Japan — vom Mittellias bis zum obersten Dogger erscheinend,
doch namentlich im Oberlias vorkommend, vorwaltend der Ammoniten-gruppe
der Harpoceratinae entstammt und zwar den Gattungen Harpoceras s. str.,
Leioceras, Pseudoleioceras, Grammoceras, Pseudogrammoceras, Hildoceras und
Hecticoceras), ferner selten auch den Hammatoceratinae-Gattungen. Acantho-
pleuroceras (Cycloceras?) und Sonninia und der Polymorphinae-Gattung
Dumortieria.
Er besitzt eine haeutig-duenne kohlige Unterschicht und eine recht zarte
(D:B < 0.06) und konvexseitig imbrikat berippte Kalkschale (Oberschicht),
die aus bloss geringfuegige Zellraeumchen darbietenden und also ziemlich
kompakten und sich parallel-imbrikat uebereinander legenden Zuwachs-
blaettern besteht (1935d, p. 29).
Und nun eine gedraengte Kennzeichnung der sonstigen jurassisch-unter-
kreidischen Aptychentypen :
LAEVICORNAPT YCHUS Trauth (1936a, pp. 28-36, Taf. III Fig. 7-10).
Dieser im Oberlias von Wuertemberg und Nordfrankreich mit der Ammoniten-
gattung Harpoceras, resp. deren Subgenus Pseudoleioceras und eventuell auch
noch im Mitteldogger (oberem Bajocien oder Bathonien) der Freiburger Alpen
(Schweiz) mit Hecticoceras oder Oppelia verknuepfte Opercular-Typus stimmt
strukturell — durch den Besitz der haeutig-duennen, kohligen (urspruenglich
wohl hornig-chitinoes gewesenen) Unterschicht und der auch sehr duenn
bleibenden kalkigen Oberschichte der Schale —voellig mit Cornaptychus
ueberein, und unterscheidet sich von ihm bloss durch die ganzoderdoch ziemlich —
glatte und also hoechstens schwaechste konzentrische Rippenstreifen oder
Runzeln und demnach keine markanten imbrikaten Rippen tragende Valven-
konvexflaeche.
Laevicornaptychus steht also seiner Schalenbeschaffenheit nach zu
Cornaptychus etwa in demselben Verhaeltnis wie Laevilamellaptychus zu
Lamellaptychus (vgl. p. 6 u. 7).
Von Praestriaptychus (vgl. nachstehend) unterscheidet er sich insbesondere —
durch seine ganz glatte oder doch merklich schwaecher konzentrisch gestreifte _
oder gerunzelte Valvenkonvexseite.
Praestriaptychus Trauth (1927, pp. 219, 230, 233, 241 ; 1930, pp. 378-387,
Taf. V Fig. 11-18 ; 1937, pp. 135-152, Taf. 10 Fig. 1-12, Taf. 11 Fig. 1-4).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 233
Ad Stephanoceratidae:? Stephanoceras?, Sphaeroceras, Perisphinctes,
Holcostephanus ; ad Cosmoceratidae: Cosmoceras, Parkinsonia, Kepplerites ?,
Hoplites.
Die Scheidung der gemeinsam bei den Ammonitenfamilien der Stephano-
ceratidae und Cosmoceratidae vorkommenden Opercula, die wir als die
Praestriaptychi und Granulaptychi (vgl. p. 5) bezeichnet haben, auf Grund der
bei den letzteren praevalierenden, bei den ersteren aber hinter der konzentrischen
Runzelung zuruecktretenden konvexseitigen Granulationsskulptur ist — ange-
sichts ihrer so gleichartigen Herstammung — sicherlich eine kuenstliche und
in gewissem Grade willkuerliche, wie ja auch deren Abtrennung von den der
oberkreidischen Cosmoceratiden-Gattung Scaphites eignenden Striaptychi, die
sich strukturell und habituell ja kaum von den obigen Praestriaptycht
unterscheiden lassen. j
Wenn wir 1928, p. 135, als die wesentlichsten und staendigsten Merkmale
der Scaphites-Opercula oder Striaptychi s. str. ihre duenne (kalkige) Schalen-
beschaffenheit und die deutlich entwickelte konzentrische Runzelung oder
Rippenstreifung ihrer Klappenkonvexseite hingestellt haben, so gilt dies wohl
auch fuer ihre jurassischen Vorlaeufer, unsere Praestriaptychi. Auch sie sind
zweivalvige zartschaligkalkige Aptychen mit konzentrischen Runzeln oder
Streifen auf der Klappenkonvexseite. Gelegentlich koennen auch hier feinste
Granulationen (Knoetchen) erscheinen. Eine kohlige (urspruenglich hornige)
Schichte an der Konkavseite der Kalkschale ist nur ganz selten erhalten
geblieben.
Praestriaptychi haben sich besonders im Dogger (vom Dogger 6 an) und
im Malm Sueddeutschlands und gelegentlich im Neokom des Teutoburger
Waldes, der Schweizer und franzoesischen Alpen und auch Mexikos vorgefunden
GRANULAPTYCHUS Trauth (1927, pp. 217, 228, 233, 240; 1930,
pp. 387-395 Taf. V Fig. 1-10 ; 1937, pp. 152-159 Taf. 11 fig. 5-16).
Ad Stephanoceratidae: Perisphinctes?, Stephanoceras*?, Holcostephanus
(Astieria)
ad Cosmoceratidae : Garantiana (Subgarantiana) ? Hoplites.
Der, wie schon vorhin bemerkt, neben dem ihm nahestehenden Praestri-
aptychus als Operculum den Stephanoceratidae und den ihnen verwandten
Cosmoceratidae zukommende und namentlich bei der Ammonitengattung
Perisphinctes erscheinende Opercular-Typus Granulaptychus hat sich vom
Mitteldogger (8/e) an bis in den oberen Malm (£) Wuerttembergs und Bayerns
sowie im Oberjura der Lombardei und auch einmal im Callovien Suedamerikas
(Caracoles in Chile) vorgefunden.
Q
234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Der Begriff der Granulaptychi laesst sich etwa folgendermassen fassen
(1930, p. 388) : “ Zweiklappige, kalkige, duennschalige Aptychen, in der Regel
flach oder maessig gewoelbt, die Konvexseite mit mehr oder minder gleich-
maessig verteilten oder aber in konzentrischen Reihen angeordneten feinen
Knoetchen oder auch etwas groeberen Stachelwarzen bedeckt ; die erwaehnten
Knotenreihen zuweilen auf flachen, ihren Sockel bildenden Runzeln stehend,
wogegen sonstige konzentrische Runzelfalten oder Streifen (zum Unterschiede
von Praestriaptychus) ganz zu fehlen pflegen. Die Valvenkonkavseite zeigt
deutliche konzentrische Zuwachsrunzeln und-linien und zuweilen auch (nament-
lich beiden Malm-Formen) gegen den Externrand hin eine zarte Radialstreifung.”
Obzwar wir die Konkavseite der zarten Kalkschale nur bei einer einzigen
Form, dem Granulaptychus spinogranulosus Trth., von einem duennen kohligen
(wohl urspruenglich hornigen) Haeutchen ueberzogen gefunden haben, duerfte
der Besitz eines solchen Haeutchens urspruenglich doch wohl allen oder
immerhin einem Grossteil ihrer Formen zugekommen sein.
LAEVILAMELLAPTYCHUS Trauth (1930, pp. 363-377 Taf. III
Fig. 1-3, Taf. IV Fig. 1-13; 1936a, pp. 36-39 Taf. III Fig. 11-17; 1936c,
pp. 127-145 Taf. ITT).
Dieser mit Harpoceras (s.l.) im Oberlias und ferner mit Hecticoceras,
Oppelia, Haploceras, und Pseudolissoceras im Dogger und Malm verknuepfte
und schliesslich wohl auch noch im Neokom vorkommende Opercular-Typus ist
wohl aus dem vorbesprochenen Cornaptychus bei Verlust der kohligen Unter-
schicht, resp. aus Laevicornaptychus oder aus Lamellaptychus hervorgegangen.
Er umfasst zweiklappige, zart-bis kraeftigschalige, kalkige Valven, welche
bezueglich des Schalenbaues und der Beschaffenheit der Konkavseite im
Wesentlichen den Lamellaptychi gleichen, aber durch das gaenzliche oder
doch weitgehende Glattwerden der Konvexflaeche — sei es infolge
primaerer Rueckbildung der konvexseitigen Berippung, sei es infolge der Aus-
bildung einer stellenweise (bis am Apex) rel. dicken, feinblaettrigen und glatten
(sozusagen punctaptychus-oder laevaptychus-artigen Schalenoberschicht — von
ihnen abweichen und von den Punctaptychisich durch das Fehlen von “ Inter-
kostalroehren ’’ unterhalb der Obserschicht und von “ Punktloechlein ’’-Reihen
in, resp. auf derselben unterscheiden.
Das Verbreitungsgebeit von Laevilamellaptychus umfasst nach den bis-
herigen Feststellungen den oberen Lias Wuerttembergs (Lias £) und der
Kammerker in Nordtirol, den Dogger Wuerttembergs, der Schweiz, Frankreichs
und Englands, den Malm (bez. Tithon) Sueddeutschlands, der Nordalpen
(Klippenzone) und Suedalpen (Lombardei) und der argentinischen Anden
und das Neokom der Cap Verden (Insel Mayo).
LAMELLAPTYCHUS Trauth (1927 pp. 216, 228, 233, 237-239 ; 1930,
pp. 354-363 Taf. III Fig. 17-28; 1936b, pp. 66-76; 1938, pp. 115-229 Taf.
IX-XIV).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 235
Im Dogger noch ziemlich selten und auch bloss durch relativ wenige,
wohl aus den Cornaptychi des Lias und untersten Doggers hervorgegangene
“Formen” vertreten, werden die Lamellaptycht im Oberjura und der Unter-
kreide (Neokom) zu dem weitaus haeufigsten und formenreichsten Aptychen-
typus, der uns in diesen Formationsabteilungen bisher etwa ebensoviele
“Formen ” und “ Varietaeten ” geliefert hat wie alle anderen sonst noch darin
auftretenden Aptychentypen zusammengenommen.
Die Definition von Lamellaptychus, der namentlich dem Ammonitengenus
Oppelia weiteren Sinnes und daneben noch Haploceras p.p. (incl. Lissoceras)
und vielleicht auch Hecticoceras ? zugehoert, mag nun folgendermassen lauten
(1938, pp. 123-124) : “‘ Zweiklappige, zumeist maessigstarke kalkige Aptychen,
die aus einer sehr duennen und dabei recht kompakten (d.h. nicht zellig-poroesen)
Unter- und Oberschichte und einer ganz wesentlich dickeren und die Hauptmasse
der Schale darstellenden, fast stets zellig-tubuloes struierten Mittelschichte
bestehen und deren Konvexseite ‘‘ (die Oberschichte bildend)” ziemlich
kraeftige, durch Furchen getrennte, mehr oder minder deutlich schraeg
(“imbrikat ’’) gestellte, miteinander im allgemeinen parallel laufende Leisten-
rippen (‘“‘lamellose”’ Rippen) aufweist, waehrend die Konkavflaeche der
zarten kalkigen ‘‘ Unterschichte”’ nur ziemlich schwache konzentrische An-
wachsrunzeln und-linien darbietet. Ein Adsymphysalsaum erscheint hier an
der Konkavseite gewoehnlich deutlich entwickelt.
Lamellaptychi finden sich im alpinen wie im ausseralpinen Bereiche der
Jura-und Neokomablagerungen Europas und der uebrigen Erdteile.
PUNCTAPTYCHUS Trauth (1927, pp. 217, 228, 233, 239-240 ; 1930,
pp. 377-378 ; 1931, p. 22 ; 1935, pp. 310-332, Textfig. 1-2 Taf. XII).
Dieser dem Lamellaptychus ueberaus nahestehende undo ffenbar aus ihm
hervorgegangene Operculartypus, welcher sich eben ausser dem Lamellaptychus
und Laevilamellaptychus bei dem Ammoniten-genus Haploceras (incl. Pseudo-
lissoceras) vorfindet, vermutlich aber auch den freilich vorherrschend Lamell-
aptychit besitzenden Oppeliae gelegentlich —naemlich vereinzelten Arten
derselben — zukommt, erscheint vielleicht schon im oberen Dogger (Bathonien
oder Callovien), sicher aber erst im Oxfordien, um hierauf im Kimmeridge und
Tithon seine groesste Haeufigkeit zu erlangen und schliesslich im Unterneokom
(Berrias-Valendis) mit etwa zwei Formen abzuschliessen, wobei es von be-
sonderem Interesse ist, seine Verbreitung wohl ausschliesslich auf die alpin-
mediterrane Provinz (suedliches Europa und Nordafrika) beschraenkt zu sehen.
Der Typus Punctaptychus mag kurz in folgender Weise charakterisiert
werden (1935b, p. 310): “ Zweiklappige, kalkige und verhaeltnismaessig
kraeftigschalige Aptychen mit weitgehend den Lamellaptychen entsprechendem
Valvenbaue und auch mit einer lamellaptychus-artigen Imbrikationsberippung,
ueber die sich aber — ueber Rippen wie ueber deren Zwischenfurchen — zum
Unterschiede von Lamellaptychus im zirkumapikalen Hauptareale der Valven-
konvexflaeche die bei letzterem Typus nicht oder kaum zur Entwicklung
236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
gelangende feinstblaettrig struierte ‘‘ Decklage ’” (obere Partie) der Schalen-
oberschicht als ein ziemlich glatter und einheitlicher Ueberzug ausbreitet, nur
im Dache der Rippenzwischenfurchen je eine Reihe “ punktfoermiger ”
Loechlein (Punktloechlein, Punktationen) offen lassend.
LAEVAPTYCHUS Trauth (1927, pp. 217, 233, 242 ; 1930, pp. 395-403,
409, Taf. IV Fig. 14-19 ; 1931, pp. 23-136 Taf. I).
Dieser den Aspidoceratidae und zwar deren Gattungen Aspidoceras,
Waagenia und vielleicht auch Simoceras zugehoerige Aptychen-Typus, der
unseres Wissens zuerst im oberen Callovien und unteren Oxfordien des Jurage-
birges, Ostfrankreichs und Schwabens und dann, bei fortschreitender Dick-
schaligkeit auch ziemlich haeufig werdend, im ganzen uebrigen Malm (Ober-
oxford-Tithon) sowohl des ausseralpinen als des alpin-mediterranen Europas
wie im Oberjura von Suedarabien, Ost-und Nordafrika (Somaliland, Tunis) und
Amerika (Mexiko, argentin. Cordillere) angetroffen worden ist, laesst sich des
Wesentlichen etwa folgendermassen definieren : ‘‘ Zweiklappige, urspruenglich
nur maessigstarke, spaeter dickschalig werdende kalkige Aptychen, aus einer
schwachen dichten Unterschichte mit konzentrischen Zuwachsstreifen und-
runzeln an ihrer Konkavseite, dann aus der rel. kraeftigsten — meist sogar
sehr dicken — maschigzellig struierten, sehr widerstandsfaehigen Mittel-
schichte und endlich aus einer ueberaus zarten und hinfaelligen, daher oft nur
mangelhalft oder gar nicht erhalten gebliebenen, scheinbar dichten und nur
mit winzigen kleinen Poren besetzten, oberflaechlich glatten Oberschicht
bestehend ” (1930, p. 396).
Naehere Darlegungen ueber Schalenbau haben wir in unseren obzitierten |
Studien (bes. in 1931, pp. 24-31) geboten.
Aptychus sp. (vgl. Trauth, 1930, pp. 403-405).
Wie wohl im Palaeozoikum (p. 1) haben wir nun auch aus dem Mesozoikum
und zwar aus der Juraformation das Auftreten einiger zweivalviger Ammoniten-
Opercula zu erwaehnen, deren unzureichender Kenntnisstand leider nicht
ihre Zuweisung zu bestimmten der eben in dieser Epoche unterschiedenen Typen
erlaubt und die wir deshalb einfach bloss unter der ganz allgemeinen Bezeichnung
“Aptychus’”’ angefuehrt haben wie z.B. den Aptychus (?) amistus Greg. aus dem
Aalenien des Monte Grappa in den Venezianer Alpen (vgl. 1930, p. 403).
Wir wenden uns nun den Aptychen der Oberkreide zu (1927, p. 228 ff. ;
1928, pp. 121-193 ; 1930, pp. 339-344).
RUGAPTYCHUS Trauth (1928, pp. 122-130, Taf. II Fig. 1-9).
Ein im Senon und zwar besonders in den obersenonen Mucronaten-
Schichten von Sued-Schweden, Nord-Deutschland, Nord-Frankreich,
Belgien, Sued-England und ev. Daenemark vorkommender und der
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 237
Ammonitengattung Baculites zugehoeriger, rel. starkschaliger Aptychus
besitzt meist langgestreckte und leichtgewoelbte Valven, deren Konvexseite
mit ziemlich kraeftigen Rippen bedeckt ist, welche haeufig durch eine
nahe dem Externrand erfolgende hakenfoermige Biegung an die des neokomen
Lamellaptychus angulocostatus (Pet.) erinnern, jedoch abweichend davon
groesstenteils mit Knoten oder Koernchen besetzt und z.T. unregelmaessig
wellig verbogen erscheinen.
LISSAPTYCHUS Trauth (1928, pp. 173-180, Taf. II Fig. 10-18)
Aus dem Cenoman und Turon Boehmens und aus dem Turon und Senon
(Santonien-Campanien) des noerdlichen Europas (in England, Schweden,
Daenemark, Norddeutschland und Podolien) bekanntgeworden und wenigstens
hinsichtlich einer seiner Formen (L. leptophyllus [Shrp.]) als wahrscheinlichst
der Ammonitengattung Parapuzosia (resp. der Art P. leptophylla Shrp.)
zugehoerig erwiesen, besitzt dieser leider noch nicht voll erforschte Aptychen-
Typus als bezeichnendste Merkmale eine ziemlich betraechtliche Zartheit der
Schale und eine den Typus-Namen mitbedingende glatte Beschaffenheit von
deren Konvexseite. Die ganz duenne konkavseitige Unter-und die fast ebenso
zarte knovexseitige Oberschicht werden an Staerke merklich von der Mittel-
schicht uebertroffen, welche eine Lamellenstruktur aufweist, gebildet durch
ihre zarten, zur Valvenoberflaeche parallel liegenden Aufbaublaetter.
PSEUDOSTRIAPTYCHUS Trauth (1927, p. 233 ; 1928, pp. 165-173,
Taf. IV Fig. 1-12)
Da dieser der Ammonitengattung Pachydiscus, resp. Parapachydiscus
entsprechende Operculartypus derzeit nur durch einen einzigen ganz sicheren
Vertreter, den Ps. pseudo-Stobaei Trth., repraesentiert erscheint, waehrend die
Zugehoerigkeit seiner drei weiteren dazu gerechneten Repraesentanten, des
Ps. Gollevillensis Trth., Ps. Icenicus Trth. und Ps. Portlocki Trth. wegen der
nicht ganz sicher ausschliessbaren Moeglichkeit ihrer Zuweisung zu dem
Scaphites-Aptychus Striaptychus noch etwas zweifelhaft bleibt (Trth., 1928,
p. 166), kommt der von uns auf sie alle gegruendeten Charakterisierung des
Typus Pseudostriaptychus naturgemaess ein bloss vorlaeufiger, provisorischer
Tnhalt zu, der durch kuenftige Funde noch sehr wohl eine merkliche Abaenderung
_ erfahren koennte.
Unter der Voraussetzung also der Zugehoerigkeit saemtlicher vier obge-
nannter und aus dem Senon (den untersenonen Quadratus-Schichten [Santonien]
und obersenonen Mucronatus-Schichten [Campanien]) von England und
Norddeutschland stammender Aptychenformen als Opercula zu den Pachydiset,
' Tesp. den diesen naechstverwandten Parapachydisei laesst sich der Typus
“ Pseudostriaptychus’”’ etwa in nachstehender Weise definieren : Schale sehr
zart und daher fuer eine gute Konservierung wenig geeignet. Klappenwoelbung
zwar deutlich, aber meist doch nur von maessiger Staerke. Konvexseite der
238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Valven in der Regel mit feinen konzentrischen Rippenstreifen (resp. feinen
“‘ Imbrikationsrippen ”’) bedeckt, mitunter aber (bei Ps. Portlocki) mit flach-
imbrikaten, breiten, konzentrischen Rippenbaendern ; Konkavseite mit sehr
zarten konzentrischen Zuwachstreifen. Adsymphysalsaum gewoehnlich
deutlich entwickelt. Valvenform langgestreckt (bei Ps. Portlocki L : B=
3°2: 1, bei Ps. Gollevillensis L : B=2°5 : 1) oder von maessiger Laenge (bei
Ps. Portlocki L. : B=1-7 : 1 bis 1:5 : 1) oder ziemlich gedrungen (bei Ps. pseudo-
Stobaei L : B=1:25:1). Feinstruktur der Schale nicht bekannt und wohl —
wenn vorhanden gewesen — infolge calcitischer Umkristallisierung verloren
gegangen.
Die morphologische Aehnlichkeit mit den Striaptychi von Scaphites ist
demnach wohl eine sehr weitgehende (vgl. im Folgenden).
STRIAPT Y CHUS Trauth (1927, pp. 219, 229 ; 1928, pp. 134-165, Taf. III
Fig. 1-16, Taf. IV Fig. 13-27).
Dieser als Operculum der Ammonitengattung Scaphites zukommende und
aus den Turon und Senon von Daenemark, Norddeutschland Sachsen und
Boehmen sowie aus dem Senon (besonders Obersenon) des ausserkarpathischen
Galiziens, Englands und Nordamerikas sowie in vereinzelten Exemplaren
schliesslich aus dem Oberkreideflysch (wohl besonders Senon) der bayrischen
und niederoesterreichischen Flyschalpen bekanntgewordene Aptychus gleicht
wohl weitgehend dem den Ammonitengattungen Pachydiscus, resp. Para-
pachydiscus eignenden und vorhin gekennzeichneten Typus Pseudostriaptychus
und besitzt so eine duenne oder doch eine ziemlich duenne Schalenbeschaffen-
heit mit einer deutlich entwickelten konzentrischen Runzelung oder Streifung
der Klappenkonvexseite. Die Valven-Konkavseite ist gewoehnlich mit
concentrischen Anwachsrunzeln oder -streifen und zuweilen (so bei Striaptychus
cretaceus [Muenst.] und Str. radiatus [Fr.]) auch mit einfachen oder sich ver-
aestelnden Radialstreifchen versehen. Bei ihrer naeheren, speziellen Be-
schreibung haben wir die verschiedenen Striaptychus-Formen einer besseren
Uebersichtlichkeit wegen in vier auf die Skulpturentwicklung gegruendete
Gruppen zerlegt, naemlich in a) Formen mit konzentrischer Skulptur, aber
ohne Radialstreifung und ohne Granulationen auf der Schalen-Konvexseite,
b) Formen mit konzentrischer Skulptur und mit Radialstreifung, aber
ohne Granulationen auf der Schalen-Konvexseite, c) Formen mit konzentrischer
Skulptur und mit Granulationen, aber ohne Radialstreifung auf der Schalen-
Konvexseite und d) Formen mit konzentrischer Skulptur, Radialstreifung und
Granulationen auf der Schalenkonvexseite.
Die weitgehende Uebereinstimmung des Schalenbaues von Striaptychus
mit dem des jurassisch-neokomen Praestriaptychus laesst den ersteren unschwer
als Nachfahren des letzteren erkennen.
SPINAPTYCHUS Trauth (1927, pp. 220, 232; 1928, pp. 130-134,
Taf. III, Fig. 17-18 ; 1930, pp. 339-344, Taf. V, Fig. 19-20)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 239
Dieser im Senon (etwa oberem Coniacien bis unterem Campanien) von
England, Palaestina und Syrien (Libanon) angetroffene und wohl von Ange-
hoerigen der Ammonitenfamilie Prionotropidae Zitt. (etwa von deren Gattungen
Mortoniceras ? und Schloenbachia ¢) stammende Operculartypus ist an seiner
Konvexseite namentlich durch den Besitz von teils ungleichmaessig, teils aber
auch reihig gruppiert auftretenden Hohlwarzen (hohlen Stachelwarzen) aus-
gezeichnet.
Die Valvenkonkavseite zeigt namentlich feine konzentrische Anwachs-
runzeln, die mitunter auch von etwas groeberen und ihnen parallel laufenden
Runzeln begleitet werden.
Von den mittel-und oberjurassischen Granulaptychi unterscheidet sich
Spinaptychus namentlich durch die hohle scheitelgeoeffnete Beschaffenheit der
Oberflaechenwarzen.
CRASSAPTYCHUS Trauth (1927, pp. 221, 232: 1928, pp. 180-182,
Taf. IIT Fig. 19-20).
bestimmten Ammoniten-Genus noch voellig unbekannten Aptychen-Typus
ist der aus der weissen Kreide (den senonen Mucronaten-Schichten) von Meudon
(eine Strecke weit) noch ein wenig zunehmende Schalendicke, resp. die Staerke
der “ mittleren ” Schalenschicht und deren tubuloese, etwa an die des ober-
jurassischen Laevaptychus-Typus erinnernde Struktur. Die Innenschicht
erscheint duenn und abgesehen von ganz schwachen parallelen, bezueglich
konzentrischen Streifen glatt (vgl. E. Hébert : Tableau des fossiles de la Craie
de Meudon et description de quelques espéces nouvelles. Mém. de la Soc. géol.
de France V, tome, p. 367 [Paris 1855]).
Aptychus sp.
Einige oberkreidische Ammonitendeckel yon mangelhaftem, zu einer
sicheren Zuweisung zu einem der vorhin unterschiedenen Operculartypen nicht
oder kaum ausreichenden Kenntnisstand haben wir 1928, pp. 182-183 angefuehrt
und zwar aus dem ebenerwaehnten Grunde einfach unter dem allgemeinen
Gattungs-(Typus) Namen Aptychus, z.B. Aptychus Gravesianus d’Orb. aus der
Weissen Kreide des Pariser Beckens. (Dies analog wie bei den ebenso mangel-
haft ueberlieferten “Aptychi”” aus den frueheren geologischen Zeiten, vgl.
Pp. 1 und bes. p. 9.)
240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Veroeffentlichungen von F. Trauth ueber Aptychen
Aptychenstudien I. Ueber die Aptychen im Allgemeinen. Annalen d.
Naturhistor. Museums in Wien, Bd. 41, pp. 171-259 sie 8 sae iii
u. 1 Tabelle, Wien 1927)
Aptychenstudien II. Die Aptychen der Oberkreide. Ann. d.
Naturhistor. Mus. in Wien, Bd. 42, pp. 121-193 Taf. I-IV pai
1928)
Aptychenstudien IIJ-V. Ann. d. Naturhistor. Mus. in Wien, Bd. 44,
pp. 329-411 (Wien 1930).
III. Nachtrag zu den ““Aptychen im Allgemeinen ” pp. 330-338 ;
IV. Nachtrag zu den “‘Aptychen der Oberkreide ” pp. 339-345,
Taf. V, Fig. 19-20 ; V. Die Aptychen des rahul pp. 345-411,
Taf. III, IV und V. Fig. 1-18
Aptychenstudien VI-VII. Ann. d. Naturhistor. Mus. in Wien, Bd. 45,
pp. 17-136 (Wien 1931).
VI. Zweiter Nachtrag zu den ‘“‘Aptychen im Allgemeinen ”
pp. 18-21 ; VII. Die Aptychen des Malm und der Unterkreide,
pp. 22-23 ; pie dn pp. 23-136 em B, p. 129, ee C,
p. 131) Taf. I ip
Die Aptychen des Palaeozoikums. Jahrb. d. Preuss. eae Lande-
sanst. f. 1934, Bd. 55, pp. 44-83, Taf. 2 u. 3 (Berlin 1934)..
Die Anaptychen des Lias. N. Jahrb. f. Mineralog. etc., Beil-Bd. 73,
Abt. B, pp. 70-99 (Stuttgart 1934) : :
Die Aptychen der Trias. Sitzungsber. d. Akad. d. Wiss. in Wien,
mathem-naturw. Klasse, Abt. I, 1944, Bd. pp. 455-483 Taf. I
(Wien 1935) s : e
Die Punctaptychi des Oberjura und der Unterkreide. Jahrb. d. pia
Bundesanst, 85 Bd., pp. 309-332, Taf. XII (Wien 1935)
Anaptychi und anaptychus-aehnliche Aptychi der Kreide. N. Jahrb. f.
Mineralog. etc., Beil. Bd. 74, Abt. B, pp. 448-468 (Stuttgart 1935)..
Die zweivalvigen Aptychen des Lias. I. Teil. Jahreshefte d. Vereins f.
vaterlaend. Naturkunde in Wuerttemberg, 91 are 1935, pp. 22—
58, Taf. VI (Stuttgart 1935) ie
Die zweivalvigen Aptychen des Lias. IJ. Teil. Jahreshefte d. Vereins
f. vaterlaend, Naturkunde in Wuerttemberg, 92 ee 1936,
pp. 10-44, Taf. IIT (Stuttgart 1936) F
Ueber Aptychenfunde auf Cuba. Koninkl. Akad. van Wetensch. te
Amsterdam, eeprcual Vol. XX XIX, No. 1, pp. 66-76 ce dam
1936) Ny
Zitierl-mit
1927
1928
1930
1931
19344
19346
1935a
19356
1935¢
1935d
19364
19365
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 241
Zitierl-mit
Aptychenstudien VIII. Die Laevilamellaptychi des Oberjura und der
Unterkreide. Ann. d. Naturhist. Mus. in Wien, Bd. 47, pp. 127-
145, Taf. III (Wien 1936) i a : . 1936c
Die Praestriaptychi und Granulaptychi des Oberjura und der Unter-
kreide. Palaeontolog. Zeitschr. Bd. 19, pp. 134-162, Taf. 10 u. 11
(Berlin 1937) _... wi aya eit. S087
Die Lamellaptychi des picts und der Unterkreide. Palaeonto-
graph, Bd. LXXXVIII, Abt. A, pp. 115-229, Taf. IX-XIV
(Stuttgart 1938) a Y es i a - «. 1938
242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/42
A Supplementary Proposal arising in connection with the
“ Parataxa Plan ”’
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)
Proposed insertion in the “ Régles ’’ of provisions recognising
the giving of names to Collective Groups
By J. CHESTER BRADLEY
(Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(Enclosure to a letter dated 16th October 1957)
When parasitologists transfer a species from a collective group to a genus,
they appear to be accustomed to retain the name of the original author, con-
tained within parentheses, and followed by the name of the author who made
the transfer. This may be seen from a list of such transfers contained in a
letter dated 13th August 1956 from Mr. Allen McIntosh published in the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (15 : 94) on 11th September 19571. The
wording of Article 23 of the Régles does not authorize this, but should be
amended to do so. To this end I propose that Article 23 be amended at the
London Colloquium to read :
When a species is transferred to another than the original genus
or the specific name is combined with any other generic name than that
with which it was originally published, or a specific name originally
established in a collective group is transferred to a genus of different name,
the name of the author of the specific name shall be retained in the notation
but placed in parentheses. ,
1 The paper here referred to forms Annexe 7 to Document 1/14 on the London Agenda Paper.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 243
2. This change could be fitted into the revised draft of the Regles by adding
a new subparagraph (v) in Article 22, Section 5(c)?, to read :
The provisions of subparagraph (i) and (iv) shall apply equally in the
case of a species established in a collective group when it is subsequently
transferred to a genus of different name.
3. Since it is the custom among parasitologists to regard names of collective
groups as entering into homonymy with generic names (cf. paragraph (2) in
the letter from Allen McIntosh dated 9th December 1956 (Bull. zool. Nomencl.
15 : 97) a statement to that effect should appear in the Régles. For this purpose
I propose that Article 34 be amended to read :
A generic name, subgeneric name, or name of a collective group
shall be rejected as a homonym when it has previously been used for some
other genus, subgenus, or collective group of animals.
4. This could be fitted into the revised draft of the Regles by making
the following modifications :-—
Article 24, Section 73, to read :
The Law of Homonymy shall apply equally to generic names, names
of collective groups, and subgeneric names. It shall not apply between
such names and those of the Order and Class Group or higher, nor between
such names and those of taxa below subgenus.
Article 24, Section 8(a)4, the first sentence to read :
Generic names, names of collective groups, or subgeneric names of
identical spelling are homonyms.
Article 24, Section 10(b)> of the proposed redraft of the Reégles should be
changed to commence :
Homonymy among specific or subspecific names shall apply only to
those that are or have been contained in the same nominal genus or
collective group, thus .. .
5. The first phrase of Article 6, Section 1(h)® of my proposed draft of the
Réegles reads : A specific, subspecific, or infra-subspecific name must be published
_ "See Vol. 14 : 163.
3 See Vol. 14 : 175.
* See Vol. 14 : 176.
5 See Vol. 14 : 106.
® See Vol. 14 : 49,
244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
in connection with a specified generic name. This is a statement, in different
wording, of the rule of availability that an author must have applied the
principles of binominal nomenclature (Régles, Article 25(b), as amended at
Paris, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:65, paragraph (3)(a)(i)). In order to make
provision for collective groups, this should be reworded as follows :
A specific, subspecific, or infra-subspecific name must be published
in connection with a specified generic name or a name of a collective
group.
6. It would seem desirable to add the following paragraph to Article 1,
Section 3? of the proposed revised draft of the Régles (cf. Bull. zool. Nomencl.
15 : 97(3)).
(a) Collective groups. A collective group, although not a natural
taxonomic group, shall not be considered to be a hypothetical concept.
7. The following paragraph should be added to Article 25, Section 3 of
Proviso (c) of the Régles, as amended at Paris (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 72,
paragraph (8)(1)) and equally to Article 6, Section 1(k)* of the proposed draft
of the Régles :
The provisions of paragraph (k) do not apply to names of collective
groups.
8. The following paragraph should be added to the recommendation in
Article 8 of the Régles, made a mandatory provision at Paris (cf. Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 4 : 253, paragraph 15) and equally at the end of Article 14, Section 2°
of the proposed draft of the Régles :
Wherever the word “ taxon ” is employed at the generic level in the
Régles, it should be understood that the provision in question applies
equally to a collective group, except where it would be inappropriate,
or is distinctly excluded by the purport of the provision.
9. I believe that the foregoing proposals provide for the substance of the
resolution of the American Society of Parasitologists (adopted at a business
meeting of the Society, 29th August 1956, by a unanimous vote estimated to
have been over 200 persons) (cf. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 90) as well as for the
points discussed in the letter from Mr. Allen McIntosh dated 19th December
1956, to which reference has already been made (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 96-98),
and such additional matters as are necessary for the sanction and operation
of the relevant usages of parasitologists.
7 See Vol. 14 : 36.
8 See Vol. 14 : 51.
® See Vol. 14 : 101.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 245
DOCUMENT 1/43
Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘‘ Parataxa Plan ”’
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)
By JOHN S. HAMPTON
(Bromley, Kent)
(Letter dated 12th November 1957)
The recent proposals by Professor R. C. Moore and Mr. P. C. Sylvester-
Bradley, “Proposed Recognition of the Concept ‘ Parataxon’ and the Provision
of Rules for the Nomenclature of Units of this Category ” (1957, Bull. zool.
_ Nomencl. 15 : 5-13) appear to offer complete clarification of nomenclatural
and taxonomic problems which have arisen in micropalaeontological studies of
certain fragmentary fossils. In support of the above workers proposed
recognition of “ Parataxa”’ in the Régles, I furnish the following comments
concerning the discrete fossil sclerites of Holothuroidea (Echinodermata) :
(1) Dissociated sclerites are the only basis for an understanding of the
palaeontology of the class Holothuroidea. They are widely distributed in
marine sedimentary strata, but are seldom common (Frizzell and Exline, 1955,
Bull. Missouri School Mines and Metallurgy, No. 89). The study of fossil
sclerites presents, however, an almost completely unexplored field in micro-
palaeontology, as no suitable procedure has been provided for applying names
to them without reference to the whole-animal species which they represent.
The dual nomenclature now applied (see Frizzell and Exline, op. cit.) has to
some extent solved this problem, but the recognition of the ‘ families, genera
and species ”’ of Frizzell and Exline’s (op. cit.) classification of fossil sclerites as
parataxon would make the study of such discrete fragments of considerable
value in stratigraphical palaeontology.
(2) Many of the “ genera ” of fossil holothurian sclerites are extinct and
no comparisons can be made to Recent biospecies. This would, however, be
impossible as in Recent holothurians markedly unlike sclerites are found within
the same species, and apparently identical sclerites are reported to exist in
246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
relatively unrelated forms. It appears obvious, therefore, that fossil
holothurian sclerites are best fitted only for parataxa. Frizzell and Exline
recognise the categories of their classification (op. cit.) as parataxa (Frizzell,
1957, Personal Communication).
(3) In recent micropalaeontological studies several new “ genera, sub-
genera and species” of holothurian sclerites have been proposed (Hampton,
Geol. Mag., and Micropaleont., in press), the artificial nature of these categories
was recognised, and as they were proposed within the classification of Frizzell
and Exline (op. cit.) they are best considered as parataxa.
(4) The taxonomic arrangement adopted by Frizzell and Exline (op. cit.)
is exactly comparable to that of Zoology (i.e. Linnean taxonomic categories
are employed), and to avoid ambiguity the recognition of fossil categories as
parataxa is essential.
As a worker on the micropalaeontology of holothurian sclerites I strongly
support the proposals of Moore and Sylvester-Bradley (op. cit.) to apply to the
study of certain discrete fragments.
»
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 247
CASE No. 2
(continued from page 154)
DOCUMENT 2/16
Submission of a Draft Text embodying the reversal of Copenhagen
Decision 54(1)(a) and of the amalgamation of the provisions
so amended with Decision 54(1)(b)
By G. H. E. HOPKINS
(British Museum (Natural History), The Zoological Museum, Tring)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 835)
(Proposal submitted under cover of a letter dated 14th August 1957)
Until relatively recently the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature
made no provision for the application of priority to names other than those of
genera and smaller taxa, and until 1953 there was no clear provision for the
mode of application of priority to family-group names. In these circumstances
authors have applied priority to such names as best they could in the absence
of generally-accepted rules.
2. The Rules decided on at Copenhagen in 1953 (Copenhagen Decisions on
Zoological Nomenclature : 32-37, Decisions 43-58) have cleared up many
obscurities, but one point is still not sufficiently clear and one decision seems
to me to introduce an unnecessary complication into the Rules and to represent
an unfortunate departure from the principle which had been followed for very
many years, while another point is still not sufficiently clear.
3. Both the points I wish to discuss are contained in Decision 54 of the
Copenhagen Decisions and deal with family-group names found to be based on
generic names which are invalid, either because they are junior synonyms
(objective or subjective) (Decision 54(1)(a)) or because they are junior homo-
nyms (Decision 54(1)(b)). In the latter case the family-group name based on a
248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
junior homonym is to be altered, whereas in the former instance, provided for
in Decision 54(1)(a), the family-group name based on a junior synonym is not
to be changed. This difference in the treatment to be accorded to family-group
names based on generic names which are invalid for different reasons seems to
me to be illogical and to introduce an unnecessary complication. Moreover,
the provision that family-group names based on generic names which are
synonyms should not be altered is in conflict with a principle contained in the
earliest proposals for an international Code of Zoological Nomenclature which
include any provision on the point (1897, Bull. Soc. zool. France. 22 : 179,
“Un nom de famille doit disparaitre et étre remplacé, si le nom génerique, aux
dépens duquel il était formé, tombe en synonymie et disparait luiméme de la
nomenclature ’’), which was contained in the accepted version of the Régles
Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique published in Paris in 1905 (Article
5, p. 29, “ The name of a family or subfamily is to be changed when the name
of its type genus is changed ”’), and which was in force until 1953. That the
reversal of a principle which has been followed by two generations of zoologists
should apply retrospectively seems to me to be deplorable, and in the group of
insects with which I am mainly concerned will, if not rectified, force us to
choose between making a number of totally unnecessary changes in family-
group names which are universally accepted and which were valid under the
Rules in force when they were proposed, or making a number of appeals to the
Commission that these names should be validated. From Dr. W. J. Arkell’s
remarks (1957, Opin. Decl. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 16 : (v))* it is clear that
the same position exists in many other groups of animals besides that which is
my main concern.
4. The obscurity in the Copenhagen Decisions regarding family-group
names to which I have referred is in Decision 54(1)(b). On this subject I am
submitting a separate note.”
5. My proposal as regards the present part of the subject is that Section (1)
of Decision 54 of the Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature should
be rescinded and replaced by the following :—
The name of a taxon belonging to the family-group must be based on
the oldest available name for the type genus ; and accordingly where the
name of such a genus is rejected either (i) as a junior synonym (either
objective or subjective) of an older generic name or (ii) as a junior homonym
of an older generic name, the name of the family-group taxon based on
the rejected generic name is itself to be rejected.
1 See also Document 2/1.
2 See Document 3/2.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 249
DOCUMENT 2/17
Submission of a Draft Text embodying a partial reversal of
Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 835)
By J. CHESTER BRADLEY
(Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(Statement received on 15th October)
When should a rejected junior synonym continue to serve as the basis
for a name of the Family-Group ?
The Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature, Decision
54(1)(a) (: 36) provide that a family name is not to be changed because the
name of its type genus is found to be a junior synonym.
2. This action has led to widespread dissatisfaction. Numerous applica-
tions received by the Commission since 1953 strongly condemn it, and I have
not observed a single case where its wisdom has been upheld. In practise
it has been found that if followed, it would lead to name-changing, because in
the past it has been quite the universal custom to assume that the name of a
taxon of the Family-Group must be based on the valid name of its type-
genus, and changes based on that assumption have become firmly fixed in
literature.
_ 8. The action was taken to prevent name-changing, but certainly the
minds of its sponsors were looking to the future, and did not at all envisage
_ the overhauling of current names that it would entail. It was correctly
_ foreseen that the well-established name of many a Family-Group taxon would,
_ from time to time be found to be based on an objective or subjective junior
_ Synonym of another generic name. It was designed to prevent the necessity
_ of thereupon making a corresponding change in the name at the Family-Group
level. In this respect the Copenhagen action is not without merit. It may
readily be seen that it is particularly important in case the synonymy is
subjective and not universally accepted, for different taxonomists might
R
250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
otherwise feel obliged to use different names at the Family-Group level for the
taxon in question.
Where the name of the type-genus of a nominal Family-Group Taxon is
a Junior Synonym Z.N.(S.) 835
4, At the outset it will be worth while to consider the various ways in
which a Family-Group name could logically be handled within the general
principles of zoological nomenclature if the name of its type-genus is a junior
synonym, first for objective, then for subjective synonymy.
(a) If the nominal species which is the type-genus of a family is a
junior objective synonym
5. Suppose that the nominal genus A-uws, 1798, with its type species 2, is
the type-genus of the nominal family 4-1pAE, 1815. In 1900 B-us, 1796, is
found also to have the type species x and therefore to be an objective synonym
of A-us. In such a case, rules aside, there are four logical courses of action :
(1) If a new nominal family B-1DAE were to be founded in 1900, this would
have the type-genus B-us, a different nominal genus from A-us,
and therefore would date from 1900. B-1DAE would have to compete
in priority with all other Family-Group names within the same
taxonomic family. Thus if the first such taxon to be established
had been a subfamily c-INAE in 1875, c-IDAE would now become the
family name to replace A-IDAE. A-IDAE would become an unavail-
able* senior objective synonym of B-1DAz, and at the family level,
an unavailable senior subjective synonym of C-IDAE. B-IDAE would
become an available junior subjective synonym of o-IDAE, An
advantage of this procedure is that the family name would not be
a wholly unknown Family-Group name.
(2) A shift from the name a-1DAz, 1815, to B-1DAE, 1900 would involve
a change in the nominal type-genus of the taxonomic family, but
no taxonomic difference could possible arise. It would therefore be
reasonable for the Régles to provide that since the family B-IDAE
is objectively the taxonomic equivalent of a-1paz, it shall rank
from 1815 and supplant A-1DAE. This would have the disadvantage
of almost certainly introducing a wholly unfamiliar name to replace
a well-established family name.
* On the supposition that the name of a taxon of Family-Group is not an available name
unless the name of its nominal type-genus is valid.
, eee he Se ae Se eS SS Ue
- ‘
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 251
(3) A-us is the nominal type-genus of A-IDAE, 1815, and there is no provision
of the Régles to the effect that a nominal family must be abandoned
in case its nominal type-genus is incorrectly named. Therefore it is
quite logical to rule that the nominal family a-mDAz in such a case
shall be maintained, even though its nominal type-genus A-us
exists only as a junior objective synonym of B-us. This is the
prevailing rule, and was adopted at Copenhagen in 1953 (cf.
Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 36, Decision 54(1)(a)(i)). This
plan has the advantage that it avoids any shift in the first-
established family name for the taxonomic family. There is no
objection to applying it to cases that may arise in the future, but
the attempt to apply it to family names that have already been
changed on the basis of some other understanding is unfortunate.
(4) The Commission may be requested to suppress B-us under its Plenary
Powers, thus permitting the retention of A-us and A-IDAE.
(b) If the nominal species which is the type-genus of a family is a
junior subjective synonym
6. Suppose that the nominal genus A-us, 1798, is the type-genus of the
nominal family a-IDAE, 1815, with its type-species x. In 1900 B-us, 1796,
type species y, is believed to be a subjective synonym of A-us. In such a case
there are three logical courses of action :
(1) If a new family B-1DAE were to be founded in 1900, this would have
the type-genus B-us, a different nominal genus from A-us, and only
potentially synonymous with the taxonomic genus A-us. B-IDAE
would have to compete in priority with all other Family-Group
names within the same taxonomic family. Thus if the first such
taxon to be established had been a subfamily C-INAE in 1875, C-IDAE
would now become the family name to replace A-IDAE. A-IDAE
would remain an available senior subjective synonym of C-IDAE,
subject to revival only by anyone who treats A-us and B-us each as
a valid taxonomic genus*. At the family level it would also be a
senior subjective synonym of B-IDAE. As in Section (a) (paragraph
5(1) above) this method has the advantage of providing at the
family level a not wholly unfamiliar Family-Group name ; but it has
the disadvantage of providing only an unstable name subject to
fluctuation with taxonomic opinion as to the synonymy between the
genera A-us and B-us.
* Although 4-1paE would be a senior subjective synonym of both B-1pAk and 4-IDAE it could
not be employed by anyone who accepts the synonymy of A-us and B-us. This follows from the
assumption that the name of a taxon of the Family-Group is not an available name unless the
name of its nominal type-genus is valid.
252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(2) The solution described under Section (a) in paragraph 5(2) above,
will not apply in the case of subjective synonymy between A-us
and B-us.
(3) A-us is the nominal type-genus of a-IpAE, 1815, and there is no
provision of the Régles to the effect that a nominal family must be
abandoned in case its nominal type-genus exists only as a subjective
synonym of another generic name. Therefore it is quite logical
to rule that the nominal family a-1DAz shall be maintained. This
plan not only maintains the first-established family name, being
therefore in compliance with the provision that priority shall obtain,
but guards against the necessity of changing from one family-name
to another whenever there is change of thought in regard to the
synonymy between A-us and B-us. It is therefore even more
important to use it in the future than it is when the synonymy is
objective, but its application to cases which have been decided on
some other basis in the past, as now required by the Régles, is causing
trouble.
(4) As in the case of objective synonymy, the Commission could be appealed
to, but would scarcely be inclined to suppress the older genus B-us ;
since taxonomists who did not agree to the synonymy would wish
to use it at the generic level. If they did not suppress B-us, they
would either have to adopt A-1D4E for all taxonomists ; which would
be the equivalent to plan (3) preceding, or adopt A-IDAE only for
those who do not accept the synonymy of A-us and B-us, C-IDAE
for those who do, which would be the plan under (1) preceding.
7. Although, for simplicity, I have described the preceding alternatives
in terms of family, they apply equally to all categories of taxa of the Family-
Group.
8. It is evident that, whatever plan may be adopted, it should be clearly
stated to be the normal plan, especially applicable to cases that arise in the
future. Ifa family name has already been changed because its nominal type-
genus is an objective synonym, or held to be a subjective synonym, and the
change has won any measure of acceptance, it should not be again disturbed.
Other cases, or doubtful cases, should be presented to the Commission for
decision, evoking the Plenary Powers if necessary.
9. When the nominal species which is the type-species of a genus is
discovered to be a junior synonym, we do not change the name of the genus, nor
do we change the type-species. The principle of the permanency of types
forbids the latter. Any type, all of which serve to determine the proper
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 253
application of the name of some taxon, would be useless if it were subject to
change. What we do do is to list the nominal species which is the type-species
as a junior synonym of some other nominal species, and if it be an objective
synonym, we cite it in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology under the
name of its senior synonym. Here we find ample precedent for the principle
that would be applied to Family-Group names by paragraphs (3) preceding.
Furthermore only that method would observe the principle of priority in
names of the Family-Group. It is therefore the only plan (outside of appeal
to the Commission) that would consistently employ the oldest name, and
therefore would cause the least change, unless applied to names that have
already been changed by some other method.
10. From all these considerations, I am led to propose the following
amendments to the Régles, for consideration at the London Congress :—
(1) To extend Decision 61(2) of the Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological
Nomenclature to apply to all taxa of the Family-Group or higher,
and to re-word it to read :
(a) The type of each taxon of the Family-Group or higher shall
be a nominal genus.
Explanation: A taxonomic genus cannot serve as a type,
because it is incapable of objective definition, except in terms of a
nominal genus, and is therefore subject to varied interpretation and
fluctuating limits.
(b) The type of any taxon once fixed, shall not be subject to
change, except under the Plenary Powers of the Commission.
(c) A nominal type-genus is not necessarily a valid genus, but
may have come to be listed as a junior synonym of another nominal
genus.
Explanation : If the name of a taxonomic family is changed, as
from A-IDAE to B-IDAE, the type of the nominal family a-1Daz has
not been changed, but a new nominal family B-IDAE has been
established, dating from the time of the change. B-IDAE is then a
junior subjective synonym of A-IDAE as long as their type-genera
are held to belong to the same taxonomic family.
{This would replace Article 18, Section 21, of the proposed redraft of the Régles.|
(2) Decision 54(1)(a) of the Copenhagen Decisions to be amended to read :
The name of the nominal type-genus of a nominal taxon of the
Family-Group is found to be a junior synonym (whether objective or
1 See Vol. 14 : 117
254
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
subjective), and a corresponding change has not customarily been
made in the name of the taxon of the Family-Group, no change
shall hereafter be made on that account in the name of the taxon
of the Family-Group. But if such a change has already been made
on grounds of such synonymy, and has won general acceptance, it
shall be adopted as the correct name of the taxonomic Family-
Group, and shall be given the same date as the supplanted name, of
which it shall be deemed to be a senior synonym.
Doubtful cases, especially in regard to degree of acceptance,
shall be submitted to the Commission for decision.
Explanation : If both names were not given the same date, the
supplanting name would be a junior synonym, hence invalid under
the Law of Priority.
[This would replace Article 13, Section 4(a),? of the proposed redraft of the Régles.]
ee TTaETEEEnERERENOnINEnE
2 See Vol. 14 : 97.
eS
=
Sa -
a
te
dies?)
‘io
ee eS Oe
eae
i mm Longe ete
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 255
CASE No. 3
(continued from page 155)
DOCUMENT 3/2
Submission of a Draft Text providing for the reversal of the provisions
in Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(b) in relation to the date and
authorship to be attributed to a substitute family-group name
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1252)
By G. H. E. HOPKINS
(British Museum (Natural History), The Zoological Museum,
Tring, Herts, England)
(Enclosure to a letter dated 14th August 1957)
The authorship and priority to be attributed to Family-Group names
replacing others under Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(b) is not made sufficiently
clear. Traub & Hopkins (1955, Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 107 : 252) considered
that ‘it is clearly implied that the replacing name inherits the seniority of
that which it replaces ’’, and the same interpretation of the provision has been
made by at least two other siphonapterologists, but the Secretary to the
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature tells me that although this principle
was submitted to the Copenhagen Congress (see Hemming, 1952, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 7 : 73, 74) it was rejected, so that our interpretation of Decision
54(1)(b) is incorrect.
2. It is obviously desirable that no change of family-group name
necessitated by the discovery that the generic name on which a family-group
name is based is invalid should be allowed to affect the identity of the taxon
by bringing about a change in its type-genus, yet this will often be the case if
Decision 54(1)(b) is to remain unaltered. Taking an example from the
Siphonaptera, the family-group name SARCOPSYLLIDAE was published by
Taschenberg in 1880 for a taxon based on the genus Sarcopsylla Westwood,
1840 (a junior objective synonym of T'wnga Jarocki, 1838) ; the name TUNGIDAE
_ was first published by C. Fox in 1925 but there is a much senior family-group
name, HECTOPSYLLIDAE Baker, 1904, which most authors regard as a subfamily
of TUNGIDAE ; in this instance Decision 54(1)(b) involves the setting up as the
type-genus of the family of a genus belonging to a different subfamily from
that to which the genus which has always been regarded as the type belongs.
256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
In another instance (used below as an example) the family-name which has to
be replaced is based on a generic name which is a junior homonym, but again
the result of Decision 54 would be similar, for it would necessitate rejecting the
universally accepted name of the family in favour of one based on a genus which
certainly belongs to a different subfamily and which is regarded by some authors
as belonging to a different family.
8. All siphonapterologists, in common with what I believe to be the great
majority of zoologists, have taken the view that such changes in the basic
concept of a family-group taxon are undesirable in the highest degree, and I
can only assume that the rejection by the Copenhagen Congress of the principle
that the identity of a family-group taxon must be maintained through all
nomenclatorial vicissitudes must have been due to the obvious awkwardness of
attributing to a name an authorship and date which are not in accordance with
fact and which reference to the work cited would show to be incorrect. There
is a very real difficulty and I have tried to deal with it in a further proposal
which I am submitting herewith.
4. In order to ensure that the type-genus of a family-group taxon shall
not be changed because of some nomenclatorial discovery, I suggest the
following provision :—
Where a family-group name is rejected on the ground that the name of its
type genus is either (i) a junior synonym (either objective or subjective) of an
older generic name or (ii) a junior homonym of an older generic name, the
family-group name published in substitution for the name so rejected shall
rank for the purposes of priority from the date on which the rejected family-
group name for which it is a substitute was originally published.
Example: The family-group name CTENOPSYLLIDAE was published by
Baker in 1905 for a taxon based on the generic name Ctenopsyllus Kolenati,
1863 (a junior homonym of Ctenopsyllus Kolenati, 1857), for which Leptopsylla
Jordan & Rothschild, 1911, is a nomen novum and the oldest available name ;
the name LEPTOPSYLLIDAE was first published by Rothschild in 1915. The
Z «(oH “priority of this family would date from 1905. PURCHASE
Bs , JAM-On
—_— ey Dx. Corrigenda 1 / JAN (298
“Yea, yig(2Phe following corrections should be made on page 154 of the present
volume :—
line 3: substitute “ALSATASPIDAE ”’ for “ALASTASPIDAE ”
line 4: substitute ‘“‘is’’ for “‘as”
line 6: substitute “ALSATASPIDAE ” for ““ALSATASIDAE ”
1 See Document 4/1.
CONTENTS
(continued from front wrapper)
THE LONDON AGENDA PAPER
(a) New Proposals
Case No. 4: Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(b) (family-group names) :
citation of authorship and date for substitute names where the names
of the type genera of any two nominal family-group taxa are found
to be homonyms
D.4/1 G.H.E. Hopkins ... ‘ ;
Case No. 5: Family-group names, application of priority principle to
D.5/1 Francis Hemming
D.5/2 Committee on Entomological Nomenclature, Entomological
Society of America
Case No. 6 : Copenhagen Decision 75 (emendation of generic and specific
names) : proposed introduction of a revised saving clause in favour of
current usage
D.6/1 J. Chester Bradley
Case No. 7 : Copenhagen Decision 50(1)(a) and (b) (formation of family-
group names) : proposed adoption of a revised provision relating to
D.7/1 J. Chester Bradley
Case No. 8: Copenhagen Decision 45 (continuity versus priority in
relation to: family-group names) : proposed substitution of a revised
provision relating to
D.8/1 J. Chester Bradley
D.8/2 Francis Hemming
Case No. 9: Article 22 of Draft of the Revised “‘ Régles ’’ : proposed
insertion of an additional provision regarding the method to be adopted
in citing a name which has been validly emended
D.9/1 J. Chester Bradley
D.9/2. Francis Hemming
Case No. 10 : “ Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique ”’ :
proposed amendment of the Settlement of 7th November 1953 on the
subject of the language or languages to be accepted for the substantive
text or texts of
D.10/1 Curtis W. Sabrosky...
D.10/2 Francis Hemming
Page
185
187
194
196
199
210
212
CONTENTS
(continued from inside back cover)
(b) Comments on previously published proposals
Case No. 1 : Proposed recognition of the “‘ Parataxon ’”’ concept
D.1/35 Nomenclature Discussion Group of Washington, D.C. ...
D.1/36 E. Voigt
D.1/37 L. Stormer ...
D.1/38 W. H. Haas...
D.1/39 V. Pokorny ...
D.1/40 P. C. Sylvester-Bradley
D.1/41 F. Trauth
D.1/42 J. Chester Bradley
D.1/43. J. S. Hampton
Case No. 2: Family-group names : proposed rejection of when name of
type genus is rejected as a junior synonym
D.2/16 G. H. E. Hopkins ...
D.2/17 J. Chester Bradley
Case No. 3 : Family-group names : priority and authorship of substitute
names
D.3/2 G. H. E. Hopkins
Corrigenda to Double-Part 5/6
Priated in England by MeTCALFE & Cooper LimrteD, 10-24 Scrution St., London E C2
216
220
221
229
223
228
230
242
245
_ 85
255
ee ee ee a ee ee ee
ee a
a} Vee
SO ES Oe Pe Pee we eee
ST ae
VOLUME 15. Double-Part 9/10 llth February 1958
pp. 257—320
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
The Official Organ of
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
CONTENTS
Fourth Instalment of the London Congress Agenda Paper
(continued inside back wrapper)
PURCHASED 4)
| 7 FEE 1958 4 4 Beg
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
1958
Price Two Pounds
(All rights reserved)
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
A. The Officers of the Commission
Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jorpan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological
Museum, Tring, Herts, England)
President: Professor James Chester BrapLey (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(12th August 1953)
Vice-President: Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMarat (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953)
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemminea (London, England) (27th July 1948)
B. The Members of the Commission
(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent
re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)
Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
(Ist January 1947)
Senor Dr. Angel Casrera (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948)
Mr. Francis Hemmuine (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)
Dr. Henning Lemcur (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948)
Professor Teiso Esaxi (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950)*
Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)
Mr. Norman Denbigh Ritey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950)
Professor Dr. Tadeusz JaczEwski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw,
Poland) (15th June 1950)
Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt
a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950)
Professor Dr. Erich Martin Herina (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin,
Germany) (5th July 1950)
Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amarat (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President)
Professor J. R. Dymonp (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953)
Professor J. Chester Brapiey (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
(President)
Professor Harold E. VoxEs (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana,
U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
Professor Béla Hanxé (Mezdgazdasdgi Museum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)
Dr. Norman R. Strout (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.8.A.)
(12th August 1953)
Mr. P. C. SytvestEer-BrabDiey (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953)
Dr. L. B. Hotrnuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th
August 1953)
Dr. K. H. L. Kny (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra,
A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954)
Dr. Alden H. Minter (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California,
U.S.A.) (29th October 1954)
Doe. Dr. Ferdinand Pranti (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October
1954)
Professor Dr. William Ktunett (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th
November 1954)
Professor F. S. Bopensrmer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954)
Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954)
Professor Enrico Tortonese (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th
December 1954
* Professor Esaki died on 14th December, 1957, while the present Part was passing through
the press.
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Volume 15, Double Part 9/10 (pp. 257—320) 11th February 1958
PURCHASED
BEBO ASE’ No. 11
DRAFT “ REGLES ”’, ARTICLE 18, SECTION 2, AND ARTICLE 13, SECTION
4(a) : THE NATURE OF THE TYPE OF A TAXON OF THE FAMILY-GROUP
CATEGORY
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1280)
(For the relevant provision in the Draft of the Revised Regles
see 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 117, 97)
DOCUMENT 11/1
Proposed verbal amendment in Article 18, Section 2, of the Revised Draft
of the ‘“‘ Régles ’’ and proposed addition of an Explanatory Note to
Article 13, Section 4(a) of the above Draft
By J. CHESTER BRADLEY
(Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(Statement received on 25th October 1957)
In 1798 Fabricius established the nominal genus, Pompilus. When
Leach established the family PomPpiLipDaz in 1815 this automatically became its
nominal type-genus. Authors have supposed that Pompilus and POMPILIDAE
were spider-hunting wasps, but in recent years it has been discovered that the
type-species* of Pompilus belongs to another taxonomic family, the thread-
‘ waisted wasps. Therefore, the name POMPILIDAE, under the Rules, passed
* Pompilus and POMPILIDAE have been conserved under the Plenary Powers (1945, Ops.
Deels. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 375-398). These names are used here only as an illustration,
and all statements apply to what would have been the case if the Plenary Powers had not been used.
s
258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
out of the family of spider-hunting wasps and they had to receive some other
family name.
2. In this case it seemed that a name must be found for the taxonomic
genus which hitherto incorrectly had been called Pompilus. But what was
that genus? It is impossible to answer that question because only a nominal
genus has a type-species, and the group of species which at one time were
incorrectly termed ‘‘ Pompilus ’’ have in the course of time been divided into
many genera, no one of which has any better claim than another to represent
those spider-hunting wasps which were originally, but incorrectly, associated
with the name Pompilus. However, it has been found that there is a nominal
genus to which some of these wasps belong that is even older than Pompilus.
This is Psammochares Latreille, 1796, a name that fell into complete disuse. This
taxonomic genus had been renamed Anoplius by Dufour in 1834. Banks, 1910,
thought that in Psammochares he had found the answer to the unanswerable
question of a replacement name for the undefinable taxonomic genus that had
incorrectly passed under the name Pompilus. In reality he had merely
uncovered a senior subjective synonym of Anoplius Dufour, 1834. Nevertheless,
Banks fell into the error of assuming that Psammochares must now replace
Pompilus as type-genus of the taxonomic family of spider-hunting wasps. This
is the whole point of what I have been leading up to, for it serves as an excellent
illustration of erroneous thinking into which many taxonomists have
fallen and continue to fall. Banks, 1910, thought that he was proposing
PSAMMOCHARIDAE as a substitute name for POMPILIDAE*. What he actually
did, from the view-point of nomenclature, was to establish a new nominal
family, dating from 1910, with Psammochares as its nominal type-genus. This
family name could only compete with other potential family names, as to
becoming the correct name for the spider-hunting wasps.
3. The Régles provide that the Law of Priority shall govern the names of
taxa of the family-group (Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 33, Decision 45).
APORIDAE Leach, 1815 (type-genus A porus Spinola, 1808, a true genus of spider-
hunting wasps) was the first taxon of the family-group category erected within
the limits of that family as taxonomists now conceive it. Therefore, APORIDAE,
not PSAMMOCHARIDAE is the correct name under the Reégles (barring action
under the Plenary Powers) for the taxonomic family formerly incorrectly
known as POMPILIDAE
4. Because the situation illustrated by the preceding example has not
always been fully understood and confusion has sometimes arisen, it might be
well to slightly amend the Régles and to add an explanation to that part of
them that deals with changes in names of the family-group.
* Banks did not know that Pompilus was a valid name for a group within another family
of wasps, but abandoned the name under the mistaken belief that it was a preoccupied name.
This, however, makes no difference for the purpose of my illustration.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 259
5. Article 4 of the existing Régles might be divided by preceding the present
paragraph with one reading :
The type of each taxon of the family-group, or higher, shall be a
nominal genus.
6. In the revised Draft of the Régles' the preceding provision would
replace Article 18, Section 2.
7. It is quite impossible to make a taxonomic, as opposed to a nominal,
genus the type, because the former is purely subjective and incapable of
_ objective definition, except in terms of nominal genera.
8. The following explanation of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a) (page 36)
might be attached to Article 13, Section 4(a) of the revised Draft of the Régles.*
When the type-species of the nominal genus that is the type of a
nominal family is found to belong to a taxonomic family other than that
to which it had been supposed to belong, the family name passes out of the
taxonomic family to which it had mistakenly been supposed to apply and
comes to compete in priority with the current name of the family to which
it correctly applies. This leaves the misnamed taxonomic family without
a name, unless some taxon within that family, such as subfamily or tribe,
has already been named, in which case the oldest such name becomes the
name of the taxonomic family. All of this applies equally to any taxon
of the family-group.
All of the preceding follows logically and inevitably from the provision
that names of taxa of the family-group are subject to priority.
If the incorrectly used name of a taxon of the family-group is of some
importance and has long established usage, the best course may be to
request the Commission to conserve it, under the Plenary Powers. This
can be done by arbitrarily establishing a type-species ‘for the type-genus
of the family that is in harmony with the customary usage of the name.
Example: Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, was incorrectly used as though
pulcher Linnaeus, a spider-hunting wasp, were its type-species, and as
such became type-genus of the family Ppompripaz, 1815. This family
name was in use for more than a century. Under the Régles the species
viaticus Linnaeus, a thread-waisted wasp, was the correct type-species, so
that POMPILIDAE competed with sPHEGIDAE as the correct name for the
thread-waisted wasps. Under its Plenary Powers the Commission
designated pulcher to be the type-species of Pompilus, therefore restoring
that genus and the family pomprtipax to their customary usage.
1 See Vol. 14 : 117.
* See vol. 14 : 97-98.
260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
CASE No. 12
DRAFT “ REGLES ’’, ARTICLE 11, SECTION 1: EMENDATION
OF GENERIC AND SPECIFIC NAMES
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1286)
(For the relevant provision in the Draft of the Revised
Régles see, 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 88)
DOCUMENT 12/1
Proposed clarification of the expression ‘‘ evidence in the
original publication as used in relation to the emendation
of generic and specific names in Article 11, Section 1 of
the Draft of the Revised “‘ Régles ”’
By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
Note dated 5th December 1957
The present note is concerned to suggest a slight clarification of the decision
(Decision 71(1)(i)(a)) by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology,
Copenhagen, 1953 (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 43) that the
original spelling of a zoological name is the Valid Original Spelling, unless
there is clear evidence “ in the original publication ” that that spelling was the
result of an inadvertent error such as a lapsus calami or a copyist’s or printer’s
error.
2. This Rule is clear and unambiguous in the case of a name published
in a separate work, when issued in a single instalment, but is not free from doubt
in the case of a name published in a work issued in instalments or in a serial
publication. In the case of a separate work the author or editor by inserting
a “Corrigendum ” at the end of the volume is able to correct the spelling of
any new name included in that volume which had there appeared in an incorrect
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 261
‘ se
form and is thus able to provide “in the original publication’ the “ clear
evidence” that the ‘‘ Original Spelling’ for the name in question was an
“Invalid Original Spelling’. In such a case therefore the name in question
may be emended to its correct form, the conditions laid down by the foregoing
Copenhagen Decision being fully satisfied.
8. The position however is not so clear in the case of a name published
in a Part of a serial publication. For (1) the author of a name published in this
way has no means himself of providing evidence that an incorrect spelling
used for a particular name in his paper is due to any of the special causes
specified in the Copenhagen Decision quoted above, and (2) it is the practice
of editors to defer the publication of Corrigenda until the close of the volume
as a whole. In the absence of some qualification of the wording employed
by the Copenhagen Congress in this matter it is questionable whether the
publication of a correction in a Corrigenda issued on the completion of a volume
of a serial publication can properly be regarded as being made “ in the original
publication ’’, since some months at least may elapse between the publication
of an incorrectly spelled new name in a part of a volume of a serial publication
and the publication of a correction of that mistake in the concluding part of the
volume concerned.
4. This point was not expressly raised in the discussions at Copenhagen,
but it appears to me that it would be in harmony with the general intention
of Decision 71 of that Congress that in the case of a name published in a
serial publication, a correction of the spelling so used for that name, if published
in a “ Corrigendum ” included in the final part of the volume concerned, were
to be treated as having been published “ in the original publication ” for the
purposes of the foregoing Decision. Any other decision would produce the
highly anomalous result that, while misspellings of new names can be corrected
in the case of a name introduced in a separate work, if published as a single
unit and not in instalments (through the inclusion of a “ Corrigendum ”’ at the
close of that volume), no corresponding correction could be made in the case
of a name introduced in a serial publication or in a separate work if published
in instalments (by reason of the fact that in the case of publications issued
serially “ Corrigenda ” are not normally compiled by editors until the close of
the volume and therefore normally appear only in the concluding part of the
volume concerned).
5. It is accordingly proposed that the foregoing question should be clarified
by the addition of appropriate words at the point in the Revised Régles where
the foregoing decision by the Copenhagen Congress is incorporated. It is
recommended also that the same opportunity should be taken to correct
another small defect in Copenhagen Decision 71. This is in connection with
the use of the word “‘lapsus”’. In Article 19 of the existing Régles this word
262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
appears as part of the phrase ‘‘ lapsus calami’’ and, so used, makes sense,
having the meaning “‘ lapse [or slip] of the pen”. For some reason the word
‘‘ ealami ” was omitted at the time when Copenhagen Decision 71 was drafted.
Accordingly, this portion of that Decision reads “‘ an inadvertent error such as
a lapsus”. The word “ lapsus”’, when not employed in its principal meaning
(a fall, a slipping, a sliding, etc.) has the meaning “a failing’, “an error”
or ‘‘a fault ’’, but such errors or faults may be of any kind, the meaning not
being confined to slips of the pen, a sense in which indeed the word does not
appear to have been used at all in classical Latin. Accordingly, the expression
‘“‘an inadvertent error such as a lapsus”’ as used in the above Copenhagen
Decision is purely tautological meaning only “‘ an inadvertent error such as
a mistake’. It is recommended that this matter be rectified by the re-
instatement of the word “ calami”’ after the word “‘ lapsus ”’.
6. The Copenhagen Decision discussed above appears in Article 11(1)(a)
of the Draft of the Revised Régles (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 88). It is
recommended that the points indicated above be met by the insertion of the
following verbal amendments in the foregoing passage :—
(1) Line 6: After the words “ original publication’ insert the words
“including any corrigendum published for the volume in question ” ;
(2) Line 8: After the word ** lapsus ” insert the word “ calami”’.
——_— Sw
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 263
CASE No. 13
DRAFT “ REGLES ”’, ARTICLE 28, SECTION 13 : SPECIFIC NAMES
IN ADJECTIVAL FORM CONSISTING OF PARTIALLY LATINISED
WORDS : PROPOSAL THAT SUCH NAMES SHOULD BE TREATED
AS “BARBAROUS’’ WORDS AND THEREFORE AS BEING
EXEMPT FROM CHANGE IN GENDER
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1064)
(For the relevant provision in the Draft of the Revised Regles
see, 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 220-221)
DOCUMENT 13/1
Question of the treatment in the matter of liability to gender changes to
be accorded to adjectival specific names consisting of partially
Latinised words
By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
(Note dated 10th December 1957)
In the early part of last year a communication was received in the Office
of the Commission from Dr. Leo Sheljuzhko (Zoologische Sammlung des
- Bayerischen Staates, Miinchen) on the question of the treatment in the matter
of liability to gender changes which should be accorded to adjectival specific
names consisting of partially latinised words. The example actually cited
by Dr. Sheljuzhko was the name Parnassius mnemosyne Linnaeus, form melaina
Honrath, 1885. The question so raised was whether, having regard to the fact
+d
264 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
that the generic name Parnassius is masculine in gender the adjectival name
melaina which is feminine in form should be changed to the masculine form
and, if so, what would be the correct form for this name.
2. As the result of correspondence with Dr. Sheljuzhko and Professor the
Rev. L. W. Grensted, Consulting Classical Adviser to the Commission, I pre-
pared a paper for the consideration of the Commission in which I suggested
that the Commission should adopt a Declaration that a specific name consisting
of a partially latinised adjective should be treated as being a “ barbarous” word
and should therefore be exempt from gender change. The very interesting
Report received from Professor Grensted was attached to the above paper
as an Appendix. The paper described above was published on 26th August
1957 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 235—239).
3. Following the publication of this paper I received a letter dated 17th
September 1957 from Professor Ernst Mayr intimating that, in his view, the
solution recommended in the above paper was the realistic solution, but
adding that in the case of ornithology the practice had been to change the
gender of such names to agree with that of the name of the genus in which
the species concerned was currently placed, with the result that a given name
might appear in the literature as melas, melaena or melan according to the
gender of the generic name employed. In reply, I put forward (in a letter
dated 21st November 1957) the suggestion that in the circumstances the best
course might be for the Commission to adopt a Declaration in the sense
recommended but should add a rider to it to the effect that, where prior to the
proposed Ruling a name of this type had been altered in form to correspond
with the gender of the generic name with which it has been combined and that
change has become generally accepted, the original spelling should not be
restored without prior reference to the Commission. In a further letter (dated
27th November 1957) Professor Mayr expressed doubts as to the practicability
of freezing a given ending in a case of the kind under consideration.
4. In the circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that the best
course will be for the present matter to be placed on the Agenda Paper for the
London Congress rather than that it should be dealt with by way of
Declaration. I have so informed Professor Mayr.
-5. My original proposal for the adoption of a Declaration is attached
to the present paper as an Annexe. Extracts from my subsequent corres-
pondence with Professor Mayr are reproduced in the immediately. following
paper, Document 13/2.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 265
ANNEXE TO DOCUMENT 13/1
Proposed adoption of a “ Declaration’’ on the question whether
adjectival specific names consisting of not fully Latinised words should
be treated, under Article 14 of the “ Régles’’, as consisting of
“barbarous ’’ words and therefore as being exempt from change in
gender
The purpose of the present application is to place before the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature certain difficulties which have come
to light in connection with the spelling to be adopted for specific names
consisting of direct transliterations of Greek adjectives and to invite the
International Commission to provide a solution by rendering a Declaration
clarifying the action which under Article 14 of the Régles should be taken in
such cases.
2. This problem was first brought to the attention of the Office of the
Commission by Dr. Leo Sheljuzhko (Zoologische Sammlung des Bayerischen
Staates, Miinchen, Germany) who in a letter dated 9th December 1955 enquired
what was the correct form for the specific name melaina if placed in a genus
having a name which was masculine in gender. The word “ melaina”’ is a
direct transliteration of the feminine form of a Greek adjective, a direct
transliteration of the masculine of which is “melas” and of the neuter
“melan”’. The question for consideration is how a specific or subspecific
_ Mame consisting of the word “ melaina” should be formed when combined
with a generic name consisting of a word having either a masculine or a neuter
gender.
8. Ina case such as that discussed above there are broadly two alternatives :
either a specific name such as melaina should take the form melas if placed
in a genus having a name of masculine gender such as Parnassius (the genus
to which the taxon bearing the above name cited by Dr. Sheljuzhko is currently
_ referred) or (b) such a name should be treated as not being subject to change
when the taxon bearing that name is placed in a genus having a name which
is either masculine or neuter in gender.
| 4. As a preliminary to the further consideration of the present problem, I
_ invited Professor the Rev. L. W. Grensted, Consulting Classical Adviser to the
_ International Commission, to examine and report on the problems involved.
The very interesting Report subsequently furnished by Professor Grensted
is attached to the present note as an Appendix. It will be seen from Professor
Grensted’s Report that he takes the view that the best course will be to treat
specific names of the class discussed above as consisting (in the terminology of
266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
the Régles) of “‘ barbarous” words and therefore as being exempt from the
normal rules regarding the agreement in gender of adjectival specific names
with the generic names with which they are combined: It will be seen also
that in his Report Professor Grensted raises also the question of the treatment
to be accorded to specific names belonging to a somewhat analogous group,
namely names consisting of compound words which are adjectival in form in
cases where the final component of the name is wholly Greek in form.
5. Professor Grensted’s proposals appear to me to merit full support,
for in addition to being logical and self-consistent, they provide a solution
which is in harmony with current usage, the adoption of which would avoid
unnecessary and undesirable name-changing.
6. If provision in regard to this matter is to be made in the revised text of
the Régles by the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology when it meets in
London next year, it is clearly desirable that the present problem should be
thrown open to general discussion as soon as possible. It is for the purpose
of providing a basis for such a discussion that, in agreement with Professor
Grensted, I now submit for consideration the proposal that the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should adopt a Declaration clarifying
as follows the provisions of Article 14 in the above regard :—
Draft Declaration
(1) Where a specific name consists of a word which is an adjective in Greek
or in any other language, except Latin, and where the exact form of that
adjective is retained when the word in question is published as a zoological
name, the name is to be treated as being composed of a “ barbarous’”’ word
and accordingly is not to be subject to change in termination if the specific
name consisting of that word is combined with a generic name having a gender
different from that in which the specific name in question was cited at the time
when it was first published.
Example: A specific name consisting of the word “ melaina’’, that
word being an exact transliteration of the feminine form of a Greek
adjective, the transliteration of the masculine of which is “ melas ’’, is to
retain the form in which it was originally published, irrespective of the -
gender of any generic name with which it may be combined.
(2) The Rule prescribed in (1) above is to be applied also to any specific
name consisting of a compound word where that word is adjectival in form
and its final component is wholly Greek in form and origin.
Example: A specific name consisting of the compound word
* celebrachys ”’, being a word which is adjectival in form, its final component
————
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 267
being wholly Greek in form and origin, is not to be changed to “ celebracheia ”
if the taxon so named is placed in a genus having a name of feminine gender
but is to retain its original form, irrespective of the gender of any generic
name with which it may be combined.
APPENDIX
On the application of the Rule of Gender Agreement in the case of
Specific names which are adjectival but have not been Latinised
By L. W. GRENSTED, M.A., D.D.
(Consulting Classical Adviser to the I nternational Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature)
Dr. Sheljuzhko, in a letter to the Secretary of the Commission, has raised a
question as to the correct form of the sub-specific name in the case of
Parnassius mnemosyne melaina. The name melaina was first used by von
Honrath as the name for an aberration, but later von Bryk raised the form to
the status of a sub-species, and accordingly gave melaina its masculine form in
Greek, melas. This raises a question involving a number of Specific names
which are Greek in form and which have sometimes been attached to generic
names with a curious disregard for agreement in gender. Specific names, under
the Rules, are regarded as Latin. Should they, when wholly Greek in form,
follow the laws of Greek grammar, or not ?
2. The common Greek adjective melas, melaina, melan is a case in point.
_Melas is only found in classical Latin as a proper name, and the feminine
melaina is not found at all. In Souter’s Glossary of Later Latin an obscure
writer of 4th century A.D. is cited as giving the Latinised melas, melaena, melan,
but this is nothing more than a transliteration of the genders of a common
Greek adjective. It does not amount to its use. But it enables us to treat
as a proper Latin transcription of HéAacva, a fact which may be of
Service in circumstances which might arise. In zoological nomenclature the
use of melas begins with an anomaly, never challenged down to the present
day, in Erebia melas Herbst, where Erebia is feminine and melas masculine.
_ But melas in this case is doubtlessly the name Melas, taken from classical
mythology, as with so many butterflies, and not the adjective. For melaina
we have Sitta melaina Beseke (1787), and twenty years later, melaena appears
in Haltica melaena Illiger (1807), followed by Atherix melaena Hoffmansegg
(1820), Mordella melaena Germar (1824), Baris melaena Germar ( 1826),
- Hembracis melaena Germar (1835), Cetonia melaena McCleay (1838), Locusta
268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
melaena de Haan (1842), etc. As all these names are feminine no question
arises, and none can arise unless one of these species is transferred to a
masculine genus, when the question raised by Dr. Sheljuzhko would have
to be asked again.
3. Melas and melaina are purely Greek in form. It is more difficult to
know how to regard melaena. One solution is to treat it as a neo-Latin adjective
in spite of its obviously Greek origin. This solution appears in such regrettable
forms as Abramis melaenus Agassiz (1835), Aradis melaenus Germar (1840),
and Sphaeridium melaenum Germar (1824). Obviously Germar, who uses the
specific name five times, treated it in that way. The alternative is to treat
melaena, with melaina, as a fixed form, not varying in gender. The case can
fairly be argued on either side.
4. In this connection the use of the very common Greek adjective
micros-a-on is illuminating. This appears as a specific name with a complete
and undisputed disregard of gender. Thus micros, used correctly with Tachys,
Trechus and Miarus, appears in Bembidium micros (Sturm) C. R. Sahlberg,
Diss. Ent. Ins. Fenn. 205 (1827), where the neuter micron would naturally be
expected. Still more curious are Bulimus micra d’Orb, 1837, and Obeliscus
micra H. Beck, 1837, where the feminine is doubtless based on Helix micra
d’Orb, 1835. The danger here is that micra, like melaena, might come to be
regarded as a Latin feminine, giving rise to a masculine micrus, a form which is
wholly unclassical. The obvious suggestion is that an original micros or micra
should remain unchanged, whatever may be the gender of any generic name
under which the species concerned may come to be placed.
5. To confirm this we have Metallina lampros Herbst, where Metallina is
feminine, for which the accepted name now is Bembidion lampros, where
Bembidion is neuter, lampros being the masculine form of the Greek adjective.
6. In such a specific name as Hulophus myodus Walker the difficulty does
not arise, for though myodes (vaéns) is a purely Greek form it would not vary
at all in any gender when put into Latin lettering.
7. The natural suggestion, upon this evidence, is that where a specific
name is wholly Greek in form (or, indeed, of any other language than Latin)
it should be treated as “ barbarous”’ and not be subject to any change of
gender, even when there is a change of gender in the generic name to which
it is attached. This rule might apply when the diphthong ai is transliterated ae,
thus covering such cases as melaena, but there is an arguable case for treating
melaenus-a-um as a neo-Latin adjective.
8. Such a form as melaneus, melanea, which has been used (as in Sazicola
melanea Rueppell) is, of course, a true neo-Latin adjective, and would not come
under such a rule.
a ee. oo ee
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 269
9. The above rule should also apply in compound specific names where the
final component of the name is wholly Greek and cannot naturally be given a
Latin change of gender. Such names are rare, but a form such as celebrachys
(Eustrigiphilus celebrachys Nitsch in Denny, 1842) would have as its natural
Greek feminine celebracheia. It would be far better to keep the original form
of the name unchanged.
10. There is one group of Greek adjectives which might perhaps be held to
constitute an exception to the principle. These are compound two-termination
adjectives ending in -os. These do not change in the feminine, but end in -on
in the neuter, and were often taken over in their Greek form by Latin writers
with a taste for Greek, such as Petronius and Pliny. Thus we find monochromos
-on, monochordos -on, paraphoros -on, and many others. The case has not
actually arisen with Nymphalis polychloros (L.), but polychloros, though not
classical in either Greek or Latin, is clearly an adjective of this type, and there
would be strong classical precedent for writing polychloron if the species were
ever placed under a generic name of neuter gender. The case is a most unlikely
one, and such specific names appear to be extremely rare, if indeed there is
another to be found. Probably the best course would be to treat this case too
as coming under the Rule suggested above.
11. This note is not intended to be a complete survey of the cases that may
arise. Actually it is a very difficult matter to cover the field, since an Index
of specific names does not afford a ready clue to their termination. It would
be very desirable, before a final decision is taken in this matter, that comments
should be obtained from experts in different parts of the field. It would be
particularly helpful if specialists who may be aware of analogous cases which
would not fall within the scope of the rule suggested above would furnish
particulars of those cases, so that the rule might be expanded to such extent
as may be necessary.
270 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 13/2
Correspondence as to the applicability of the gender rules to adjectival
specific names consisting of partly Latinised words between FRANCIS
HEMMING (Secretary to the Commission) and ERNST MAYR
(a) Extract from a letter dated 17th September 1957 from Professor
Ernst Mayr
I am very much interested in your proposed Declaration dealing with the
action to be taken with respect to the gender of Greek adjectives.
The realistic solution is, no doubt, the one proposed by you even though
in the ornith. literature it has been customary to adjust the gender, for instance :
Lanius melas became Campephaga melaena when transferred to Cambephaga,
Edolsoma melan, and finally Coracina melaena. There seem to have been enough
Greek scholars among the ornithologists to swing eventually the opinion of
those who did not know Greek. I do think such adjustments of the gender
are much more frequent than is implied in your comments. I suggest you go
slow on this, or else there might have to be a lot of changing of well established
endings. The disadvantage of the proposal is that one will have to check in
what genus each specific name was first proposed !
(b) Extract from a letter dated 2ist November 1957 from
Francis Hemming
In the circumstances, I have been wondering whether the best thing.to do
might be for the Commission to take a decision on the lines indicated in my
paper but to add to it a rider to the effect that, where prior to the proposed
Ruling a name of this class has been altered in form to correspond with the
gender of the generic name with which it has been combined and that change
has become firmly established, the original spelling should not be restored
without prior reference to the Commission.
I should be grateful to have your views on this subject.
(c) Extract from a letter dated 27th November 1957 from
Ernst Mayr
If our classification were completely mature, one could freeze one ending.
However, we have numerous cases where a name, let us say melas, was originally
proposed in a genus with a masculine gender, subsequently transferred to a
genus with feminine gender and subsequently transferred back to a genus
with masculine gender. Let us assume that the feminine ending had been in
——s
a _ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 271
: exclusive use for 40 or 50 years, it would nevertheless seem pedantic to have
to ask the Commission to permit restoring the original masculine ending.
There is an alternate solution which might possibly cause fewer
difficulties. This would be to consider the adjective -melas, -melaena, -melan
as “‘ Latinized ” and included specifically as an appendix for those not familiar
_ with grammar. There may be a few more such cases but certainly not many.
Incidentally another word which should be mentioned somewhere in the rules
is the ending -cola. First of all it should be pointed out that this is a noun,
_ and secondly that in spite of the terminal “a ”’ the gender is masculine (ardiasic
first declension).
To go back to your original draft, I wonder how many Greek adjectives
have actually been used in nomenclature without complete Latinization.
_ Perhaps the most sensible approach would be to determine this first, because
it would give us a clue how often we will run into a problem. I might add
that the mere fact that the ending -melaena is used instead of -melaina indicates
_ clearly that the word has been Latinized. If this is the case, then it would seem
_ improper to treat it as a barbaric word. There are so many aspects to this case
that I would like to have advice from several specialists of medieval Latin.
(d) Extract from a letter dated 17th December 1957 from
Ernst Mayr
. The more I look into the Latinization of Greek words, the more I realize
that we have a tiger by the tail. A casual check through the literature reveals
_ that in ornithology it has been quite customary to treat Greek nouns as if they
were Latin adjectives! We have leucurus, Leucura, leucurum ; chalconotus,
-ta, -tum ; chloropterus, -ra, -rum; cyanocphalus, -la, -lum; diophthalmus,
-ma, -mum; macrorhinus, -na, -num; heliosylus, -la, -lum. These are just a
few examples. The minute we start legislating we are liable to find ourselves
in a morass of difficulties. The simplest solution is probably to advise
zoologists to disregard the original Greek and to treat any Greek word used in
Latin as if it were a Latin adjective, with a few spectacular and well known
exceptions. In view of the fact that melas has probably been used quite a few
_ times (see Sherborn) it might be simplest to say that the grammatical forms of
melas when Latinized are melas, melaena, melan. In addition to leucomelas
(Temminck, 1835) I have found also the deviant forms in the literature :
leucomela and leucomelanos (Latham, 1790).
_ The case of Coracina melaena is about as good a case as you can find
‘because the specific name is used as melan when in combination with the
generic name Edolisoma or as melas when in combination with the generic
a justed the ending of the specific name each time it was shifted into a genus
with a different gender.
272 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 13/3
Support for the proposed adoption of a ‘“ Declaration’’ to treat
barbarous words as exempt from change in gender
By LEO SHELJUZHKO
(Zoologische Sammlung des Bayerischen Staates, Munich, Germany)
(Letter dated 22nd June 1957)
melas/melaina Was meine Meinung betrifft, nach der Sie mich anfragen, so
bin ich volkommen mit Threr Ansicht einverstanden, dass in solchen Fallen, wie
der Vorliegende, keine Anderung der Namen vorgenommen werden soll. Ich
glaube namlich, dass solche Anderungen nur verwirrend wirken miissten.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 273
CASE No. 14
DRAFT “REGLES”’, SUGGESTED NEW ARTICLE BETWEEN
ARTICLES 25 AND 26: THE CODE OF ETHICS : PROPOSED
CLARIFICATION AND EXTENSION OF PROVISIONS IN
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 763)
(For the suggested position in the Draft of the Revised Régles
see, 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 189)
DOCUMENT 14/1
The “ Code of Ethics ’’ : proposals for clarification and extension in
certain respects
By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
(Note dated 12th December 1957)
Some years ago the late Professor Z. P. Metcalf (North Carolina State
College of Agriculture and Engineering, University of North Carolina, Raleigh,
North Carolina, U S.A.) drew attention to a practical defect in the “ Code of -
Ethics ” adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology, Monaco,
1913. No action was taken on this matter at that time, for it was apparent
that the “ Code of Ethics ” as adopted by the Monaco Congress was incomplete
and in need of a thorough review.
2. This matter was re-examined in the early part of the present year and a
paper putting forward proposals for the reform of the text of the “Code of
Ethics ” was prepared. This paper was published on 28th June 1957 (Hemming,
Tr
274 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 171—76). I have since been informed by
Professor Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) that the
proposal submitted has his general support. Professor Bradley has, however,
suggested various drafting changes.
8. The problem here involved appears to me to be one, the details of
which could more conveniently be discussed round the table than by means
of a postal vote in the Commission. I have come to the conclusion therefore
that, having regard to the fact that there will be an opportunity for such a
discussion at the London Congress in July next year, it would be better that
this case should be dealt with by inclusion in the London Agenda Paper
rather than by way of a Declaration, more especially in view of the fact that
such a Declaration could not in any case be published until shortly before the
London Congress. I have accordingly withdrawn the proposal that the
Commission should be invited to adopt a Declaration in this case and have
entered it as Case No. 14 on the London Agenda Paper.
4. In order that members of the London Congress may be aware of the
reasons which led to the submission of the proposal, the text of that proposal
is annexed as an Appendix to the present note. In a second paper—to which
has been allotted the Number Document 14/2—there is submitted a revised
draft which has been prepared in consultation between Professor Bradley and
myself and which is recommended by both of us.
APPENDIX TO DOCUMENT 14/1
Proposed adoption of a “ Declaration”’ clarifying and extending
the provisions of the “‘ Code of Ethics ”
By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
The purpose of the present paper is to place before the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature certain considerations relating to the
wording and scope of the “ Code of Ethics” and to suggest the adoption of a
Declaration clarifying and in one respect extending the provisions of that Code
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 275
I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
2. Before setting out the points on which it is suggested that further action
is necessary, it may be convenient briefly to recall the origin and purpose of the
“Code of Ethics” and its subsequent history. The precise circumstances
which led up to the adoption of the Code are not known and cannot now be
ascertained, for the papers relating to this matter were included among that
portion of the records of the Commission which owing to storage difficulties
were destroyed in 1931. All that is known is that at its Session held at Monaco
in 1913 the International Commission adopted a Resolution in which the “‘ Code
of Ethics’ was propounded. The Commission’s Resolution on this subject
was embodied in its Report to, and was approved by, the Ninth International
Congress of Zoology. Thereafter the “‘ Code of Ethics ” was published with all
editions of the Régles, although it was not formally a part of those Régles.
When in 1943 the “ Declarations”’ Series was inaugurated, the ‘‘ Code of
Ethics” was embodied in Declaration 1 (1943, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool.
Nomencl. 1(A) : 1-6).
8. In 1935 the Commission received from Professor Dr. Eduard Handschin,
then President of the Schweizerische entomologische Gesellschaft, a proposal
prepared by the Verein Entomologia Zurich that certain specified action
should be taken by the International Commission in any case where it was
satisfied that a given author had repeatedly and deliberately violated the
“Code of Ethics”. Particulars of an individual case which, in the opinion
of the two Societies, fell in the above class were furnished in the documents
then submitted to the Commission. This matter was considered by the
Commission at its Session held at Lisbon in September 1935. In the discussion
which then ensued the view was unanimously expressed that the Commission
was not equipped for undertaking disciplinary functions of the kind which
had been suggested and that it was undesirable that it should be asked to
undertake duties of this kind. At this meeting, in the absence through ill-
health of Dr. C. W. Stiles, I was officiating as Acting Secretary to the Commission
and it appeared to me that in recording the foregoing discussion it would
not be appropriate to include particulars of the individual case cited in the
application submitted in which, in the opinion of the applicant-societies, a
particular zoologist had committed breaches of the “‘ Code of Ethics ”’, having
regard to the expressed unwillingness of the Commission to take individual
cases into consideration. Accordingly, both in the Official Record of the
Proceedings of the Commission at its Lisbon Session (1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
1 : 25) and in the Declaration (Declaration 12 published in 1944, Ops. Decls.
int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : xvii-xxiv) embodying the decision then taken,
all reference to this side of the question was deliberately omitted, the record
_ being confined to a recital of the Resolution in which the Commission placed
on record its considered opinion that the question whether the “ Code of Ethics ”
had been duly complied with in any given case was not a matter on which it
felt authorised to enter.
276 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
4, The text of the “‘ Code of Ethics’ as embodied in Declaration 1 and
as clarified in Declaration 12 was examined in Paris in 1948 both by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and by the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology. As a result certain amendments, particulars
of which are given in paragraph 6 below, were made in the text of Declaration 1,
while as regards Declaration 12 greater precision was given to the provision
prescribing that it was no part of the functions of the International Commission
to exercise functions of a disciplinary character in relation to alleged breaches
of the ‘“‘ Code of Ethics’. Subject to the amendments so adopted the Paris
Congress decided that a provision embodying the “ Code of Ethics ” should be
incorporated in the revised text of the Régles which it then agreed should be
prepared. The provision which it was then decided to insert in the Régles
was in the following terms (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 167) :—
When a worker notices that a generic or subgeneric name or a name of
a species, subspecies or infra-subspecific form published as a new name by
an author who is alive at the time of the foregoing discovery is invalid by
reason of being a homonym and requires to be replaced, the author making
such a discovery should notify the author by whom the name in question
was published, and, before himself publishing a substitute name, should
so far as practicable, give the original author an opportunity of so doing,
it being made clear that the observance of the foregoing provision is a
matter to be left to the proper feelings of individual workers, it not being
part of the duties of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature to investigate or pass judgment upon alleged contra-
ventions of this provision.
II. Examination of certain aspects of the text of the “ Code of Ethics ”’
5. Having placed the “‘ Code of Ethics” in its historical setting, we are
now in a position to examine certain aspects of the text of that Code which
present features which appear to call for consideration. Two problems are
involved. The first is concerned with the question of removing from the text
a provision which, if strictly observed, might have the unintended result of
seriously impeding the necessary correction of errors arising out of the
publication of invalid homonyms. The second is concerned with the question
of coverage. The intention of the authors of the Code was no more than to
provide a means for discouraging irregular practices in the matter of the
replacement of invalid homonyms, and the title “‘ Code of Ethics ” given to
the resolution so adopted was much wider than the resolution itself. Now,
however, that the ‘“‘ Code of Ethics” is, under the decision of the Paris
Congress, to be incorporated in a special Article in the revised text of the
Régles it would be illogical to leave that provision in its present incomplete
and unbalanced state. These matters are considered separately below.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 277
(a) Proposed removal of an unduly restrictive provision from the
portion of the “Code of Ethics’’ relating to the replacement
of invalid homonyms
6. In the form in which it originally read, an author discovering that a given
name was an invalid junior homonym of another name was enjoined under the
“ Code of Ethics ”’ to give the author of the invalid name “‘ ample opportunity ”
himself to publish a valid substitute name. Nothing was said in the resolution
as what should be done if the author discovering the conditions of homonymy
between the two names was unable to get into touch with the author of the
invalid name nor was any indication given as to what should be regarded as an
“ample opportunity ’’ for the purpose of compliance with the “Code”. As
will be seen from the text of the decision quoted in paragraph 4 above, an
attempt was made in Paris to deal with both of these points, as regards the
former by inserting the words ‘“‘so far as practicable’ and as regards the
latter by deleting the word ‘“‘ ample” before the word “ opportunity ”’.
7. While the drafting changes adopted by the Paris Congress undoubtedly
constitute an improvement on the original text, neither, in my opinion, is
fully satisfactory. As regards the first, it is only in a minority of cases that an
indication of the addresses of the authors of papers are given in serial publications
and it is often very difficult to ascertain the address of the author of a paper
in a serial published in some foreign country or even to be certain whether the
author is still alive. Moreover, in existing world conditions, it is not always
possible to communicate with zoologists resident in particular countries or, if
one does write to them, to be confident that one’s letter is duly delivered. Of
_ these difficulties the first is relevant to the question of making a notification
under the ‘“‘ Code of Ethics’’, the second, to the question of the amount of
_ time which should be regarded as constituting an “ opportunity ” to the author
of an invalid name himself to replace it.
8. In view of the fact that we are here concerned with a provision, non-
_ compliance with which lays an author open to the stigma of having offended
against professional etiquette, it seems important that the wording of the
_ provision should be such as expressly to absolve from blame an author who
publishes a substitute name for an invalid name published by another author
_ if, after making reasonable efforts, he finds it impossible (a) to ascertain
_ whether the author concerned is alive—this being a relevant factor in that
_ the fact that a given name is an invalid homonym may often not be detected
_ until long after the publication of the paper containing the name in question,
or (b), if that author is alive, to communicate with him. It is accordingly
suggested in the revised text submitted in paragraph 13 below that words
dealing with this matter expressly should be substituted for the words “‘ so far
as practicable ” inserted in the “Code” by the Paris Congress.
278 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
9. The existing difficulties in regard to the interpretation of the expression
“ opportunity” were brought forward vigorously in the following passage
included in a letter primarily concerned with another subject which was
addressed to the Office of the Commission on 17th April 1953 by the late
Professor Z. P. Metcalf (North Carolina State College of Agriculture and
Engineering, University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.) :—
While I agree with the general purport of the Code of Ethics, in
regard to publishing new names to take the place of preoccupied names,
there is another side to this situation. When you write to an author
three or more times and he makes no reply or when he says he is going to
publish a new name for the preoccupied name in the next number of a
journal and then three or six years later, having forgotten his previous
promise, repeats the same promise, courtesy ceases to be a virtue.
10. The difficulties discussed above are more likely to confront the
compilers of large catalogues than any other class of zoologist and it may be
confidently concluded that it was as the author of the General Catalogue of
the Hemiptera that Professor Metcalf had encountered the difficulties in applying
the “‘ Code of Ethics ” described in the letter quoted above. The point which
he makes is, I consider, a valid one and I suggest that it should be met by the
insertion in the “Code of Ethics” of a specified period which, after having
made the prescribed notification, an author should be required to wait before
himself publishing a substitute name for the invalid homonym in question.
It is suggested that the period so to be specified should be “‘ one year’. Even
in this case there should, however, in equity be a safeguard exonerating from
blame an author who publishes a replacement name for some other author's
invalid name where this is necessary in order to save the author concerned
from being forced to employ in a book or paper already in preparation a name
which he has ascertained to be invalid.
(b) Proposed extension of the “‘Code of Ethics’’ to include a
condemnation of the publication of a name for a new taxon when
it is known that another author has arranged to publish a
name for the taxon concerned
11. In its present form the ‘‘ Code of Ethics’ contains a condemnation —
only of the publication of a substitute name without giving the author of the
invalid name a chance himself to publish a valid name. Such practice, though —
reprehensible, are not, however, by any means the most serious of those
‘which it would be reasonable to expect to see condemned in a “‘ Code of Ethics ”.
In particular, it seems very anomalous that the “Code ” does-not- condemn >
~~
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 279
the publication of a name for a new species by an author when he knows—or
has reasonable ground for believing—that another author has already arranged
to publish a name for that species. Fortunately, cases of this kind are rare
but they do nevertheless occur from time to time and it would seem appropriate
that a condemnation of them should be included in the ‘“ Code of Ethics” at
a time when that “ Code ”’ is incorporated into the Régles.
(ec) Responsibilities of editors in relation to the observance of the
“Code of Ethics ”’
12. In the case of papers containing new names published in serial
publications the editor of the serial would not normally himself possess the
detailed knowledge required to enable him to satisfy himself that papers
published in the serial for which he was responsible did not contain any breaches
of the ‘Code of Ethics”. It seems reasonable therefore that responsibility
for the observance of the ‘“‘ Code” should rest with the author of a paper
and that responsibility in this matter should not be imposed upon editors,
subject to the condition that no editor should wittingly publish a paper which
to his own knowledge contained a breach of the “ Code of Ethics ”’.
Ill. Recommendation
13. For the reasons set out above it is suggested for consideration that the
International Commission should render a Declaration substituting for the
existing text of the “Code of Ethics” the following revised text in which
have been embodied the amendments suggested in paragraphs 7 and 9 above
and the extensions suggested in paragraphs 10 and 11 :—
Suggested Revised text of the “‘ Code of Ethics ”’
(1) The following precepts in connection with the procedure to be observed
by authors publishing zoological names form collectively a “Code of Ethics ”
and any wilful failure to observe these precepts constitutes a breach of
professional etiquette :—
(a) An author should not publish a name for a new taxon if he knows, or
has reasonable ground for believing, that another author has already
arranged to publish a name for that taxon.
(b) An author should not publish a name in replacement of an invalid
homonym previously published by another author during the lifetime
280 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
of that author in any case where he is able to ascertain that author’s
address and where postal and other conditions make it possible to
communicate with that author until :—
(i) he has notified the author concerned that the name in question
is an invalid homonym and requires replacement ;
(ii) he has allowed a period of one year to elapse after the despatch
of the foregoing notification in order to enable the original
author himself to replace the invalid name, save where a delay
of so long a period would make it necessary for the author by
whom the condition of homonymy had been discovered to
employ the invalid name in a work to be published within that
period. 1
(2) Editors and others responsible for the publication of zoological papers
should avoid publishing any paper which to their knowledge contains a breach
of the foregoing precepts.
(3) The observance of the “ Code of Ethics”’ is a matter for the proper
feelings of individual zoologists and the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature is not authorised or empowered to investigate, or
pass judgment upon alleged breaches of its provisions.
—--
ee ee ee ce ne
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 281
DOCUMENT 14/2
Revised proposal for the clarification and amplification of the “ Code
of Ethics ’’ and a proposal regarding the place in which the “Code of
Ethies’’ so revised should be incorporated into the “ Régles ”
By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
(Note dated Ist January 1958)
The present note has a twofold purpose: First to put forward for
consideration a revised proposal for the clarification and amplification of the
“Code of Ethics” in place of the proposal published in June 1957 and now
republished as the Appendix to Document 14/1, this revised proposal having
been concerted in consultation between Professor Chester Bradley and myself ;
Second, to submit for consideration proposals as to the point at which the
“Code of Ethics”, as proposed to be revised should be incorporated into the
text of the Régles which the London Congress is to be invited to approve this
year.
I. Revised proposal for the clarification and amplification
of the “ Code of Ethics ”’
2. The revised draft of the ‘‘ Code of Ethics ’” embodying the proposals for
its clarification and amplification now recommended is attached to the present
_ Rote as an Annexe. Point (1) of this revised draft is substantially the same
as one prepared by Professor Chester Bradley in correspondence following the
_ publication of the original proposal, the only difference being that, in order to
avoid repetition, a new Point (2) has been added in place of qualifications
inserted by Professor Bradley both in (a) and (b).
5 8. The points numbered (3) and (4) in the present draft are the same as
_ those numbered (2) and (3) in the original draft. Point (2) contains an
_ admonition to the editors of zoological serials to assist by avoiding the
publication of any matter which to their knowledge contains a breach of the
_ “Code of Ethics”. Point (3) places on record that the Commission as a body
is not concerned with, and is not empowered to take action in connection
with, alleged breaches of the “‘ Code of Ethics ”’.
282 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
4. I think that Point (3) raises a matter of importance for I see no reason
why editors should be relieved of responsibility for securing compliance with
the provisions of the “Code of Ethics”. Point (4) reproduces a decision
taken by the Commission at Lisbon when dealing with an individual case—a
decision which was later embodied in Declaration 12 and in 1948 was
incorporated into the Régles by the Thirteenth International Congress of
Zoology, Paris, 1948. The existence of this provision has, in practice, proved
of value in dealing with suggestions in particular cases that the Commission
should intervene in the matter of certain alleged breaches of the “ Code of
Ethics ”.
5. The revised draft now submitted has been prepared in consultation with
Professor Chester Bradley who has informed me (in litt., 27th December 1957)
that he concurs in its terms.
II. Proposal as to the point at which the revised “‘ Code of Ethics ””
should be incorporated in the revised text of the “ Régles ”’
6. Bound up with the above question is the related question of the position
in which the ‘‘ Code of Ethics ’’ is to appear in the Revised text of the Régles
to be approved by the International Congress of Zoology this year. The
“Code of Ethics ’’ as such does not appear in the Draft of the revised text
of the Régles having been incorporated, in part only, as Recommendation 3
in Article 24 (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 172—173), where, it will be noted,
it is suggested that the decision by the Paris Congress (1950, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 4 : 167) that the “‘ Code of Ethics ” should be incorporated into the
Régles as a mandatory provision should be set on one side.
7. In this connection it is necessary to note that, if, as proposed by Professor
Bradley and myself in the draft annexed to the present note, the “ Code of
Ethics ” is expanded to cover the deliberate anticipation by one author of the
naming of a new taxon already proposed to be named by another author, the
present position of the suggested provision in the Draft of the Régles (paragraph
5 above) would in any case cease to be appropriate, for the Draft Article in ©
which that provision has been inserted relates only to the question of the Law
of Homonymy (with which the “ Code of Ethics ” is at present alone concerned).
. 8. On the broader issue involved, it would, I think, be most unfortunate
if the Congress were to be asked to approve a proposal (1) which involved the
:
:
¢
a ee
z
iter ca thy
Bulletin of Zoological N omenclature 283
reversal of the decision by the Paris Congress that the “Code of Ethics ”
should be included in the Réegles in a separate Article, (2) which dropped
altogether the long-established title “ Code of Ethics ” and (3) down-graded
the provisions now included in the “Code of Ethics” to the status of an
inconspicuous Recommandation included in some Article dealing with a different
subject. On general grounds it is undesirable that one Congress should be
asked to reverse a decision affecting the text of the Regles taken by an earlier
Congress unless it is actively desired to reverse the decision (as was the case,
for example, at Copenhagen as regards the problem of the “ First Reviser ”
Principle versus the “ Page Precedence ” Principle) or unless for some other
for example, at Copenhagen as regards the problem of the “First Reviser ”
Principle versus the “ Page Precedence ” Principle) or unless for some other
between Articles 25 and 26 of the draft, i.e. on page 189 of the Draft as published
Recommendations
9. The recommendations which I now submit for consideration are
therefore :—
(1) that the “ Code of Ethics ” should be amended as shown in the Annexe
to the present paper ;
(2) that, as decided upon by the Paris Congress of 1948 the “ Code of
Ethics ” should be incorporated in the Régles as a mandatory provision,
& Separate Article being devoted to this purpose.
284 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
ANNEXE TO DOCUMENT 14/2
“Code of Ethics’’: revised draft including certain proposed
clarifications and amplifications
(based upon correspondence between J. Chester Bradley and Francis Hemming)
The Code of Ethics
(1) The following precepts in connection with the procedure to be observed
by authors publishing zoological names form collectively a “‘ Code of Ethics ”’
and any wilful failure to observe these precepts constitutes a breach of
professional etiquette [? substitute “ conduct ” for “‘ etiquette ’’] :—
(a) A zoologist should not publish a name for new taxon if he (i) knows, or
has reasonable grounds for believing, that another zoologist has already
decided to publish a name for it or (ii) that a name for that taxon
is to be published in a posthumous work of a deceased zoologist,
unless there is an urgent need for the establishment of the new nominal
taxon concerned, in which case the second zoologist may establish
the taxon in question, provided (1) that he first so notifies the other
zoologist, if it is possible to communicate with him, and, (2), having
done so, waits for a period of at least one year.
(b) During the lifetime of a zoologist who has published an invalid homonym,
no other author should publish a name in replacement of it, or
intentionally publish a synonym of it, until, if it is possible to
communicate with the former zoologist, he has (i) notified that
zoologist that the name in question is an invalid homonym and
requires replacement, and (ii) has allowed a period of one year
thereafter to elapse.
(2) The period specified in (1) above may be reduced if it is necessary for
the second zoologist to refer to the taxon before the expiry of one year from the
date of his notifying the first zoologist.
(3) Editors and others responsible for the publication of zoological papers
should avoid publishing any paper which to their knowledge contains a breach
of the ‘‘ Code of Ethics ”’.
(4) The observance of the “ Code of Ethics” is a matter for the proper
feelings of individual zoologists and the Commission is not authorised to
investigate or pass judgment upon alleged breaches of its provisions.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 285
CASE No. 15
DRAFT “ REGLES ”’, ARTICLE 8, SECTION 2 (COPENHAGEN DECISIONS
123-124) : PROPOSED RE-INSTATEMENT OF THE “ PAGE PRECEDENCE
PRINCIPLE’? IN PLACE OF THE “FIRST REVISER PRINCIPLE ”
RESTORED BY THE COPENHAGEN CONGRESS
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1291)
(For the relevant provision in the Draft of the Revised Régles
see, 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 71)
Document 15/1
Proposal for the amendment of Article 28 of the existing
** Régles ’? as amended at Copenhagen (1953) so as to give
preference to the principle of page priority in the selection of
generic and specific names and for other purposes
By CYRIL F. DOS PASSOS
(The American Museum of Natural History, New York, and
The Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh)
and
ALEXANDER B. KLOTS
(The College of the City of New York, New York)
(Enclosure to letter dated 5th December 1957 from Cyril dos Passos)
Introduction
_ Prior to the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology held at Paris
in 1948, Article 28 of the Régles read as follows :
Article 28.—A genus formed by the union of two or more genera or sub
genera takes the oldest valid generic or subgeneric name of it
286 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
components. If the names are of the same date, that selected by the
first reviser shall stand. The same rule obtains when two or more
species or subspecies are united to form a single species or subspecies.
Recommendation.—_In absence of any previous revision, the
establishment of precedence by the following method is recommended :
(a) A generic name accompanied by specification of a type has
precedence over a name without such specification. [If all or
none of the genera have types specified, that generic name
takes precedence the diagnosis of which is most pertinent.
(b) A specific name accompanied by both description and figure
stands in preference to one accompanied only by a diagnosis
or only by a figure.
(c) Other things being equal, that name is to be preferred which
stands first in the publication (page precedence).
Prior ruling by the Commission
2. But one Opinion, Opinion 40, appears to have construed Article 28, and
that was back in 1912. That case involved two applications to the Commission
that were considered together.
(i) The first was : Salmo eriox vs. 8. trutta and S. fario and it was held that
on the basis of the evidence submitted it was not necessary to sub-
stitute ertox, the earliest name, in place of fario and trutta, later names,
because “. . . all other things are not equal in this case, and it is
best to select the most commonly used name, which under the
premises is Salmo fario”’.
(ii) The second case, Heniochus acuminatus vs. H. macrolepidotus was
decided in accordance with the first reviser principle, because it was
found that Cuvier (1817) had in fact acted as the first reviser and had
selected macrolepidotus.
3. At the time of the rendition of Opinion 40, the Commission consisted of
11 members, and it was quite apparent from the statements of some of them
that they followed reluctantly the First Reviser rule.
(i) Hartert, Commissioner, said in part :
“The greatest convenience is undoubtedly page-priority, and
as it is the only one which admits no discussion (convenience and __
common usage being uncertain quantities), it alone must decide.
Cuvier, in my opinion, was not a ‘first reviser’ or monographer.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 287
He did not revise nor monograph the South Sea fishes, but only
mentioned some in this Régne Animal.”
(ii) Jentink, Commissioner, said :
“Salmo eriox is the first published name, like also Chaetodon
acuminatus, and they have therefore priority.”
(iii) Jordan (D.S.), Commissioner, said :
“TI personally much prefer the recognition of line and page
priority as giving absolute fixity. But I agree that the above
is the rule and shall abide by it.”
4, Stejneger alone dissented from the Opinion upon the ground that
Collett united these species in 1875 and that he selected eriox as the collective
name.
Proceedings at the Thirteenth and Fourteenth International
Congresses of Zoology
in Jas
. 5. At the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology the First Reviser
_ rule was abolished, because of dissatisfaction with it, in favour of Page Priority.
_ Although the Régles as amended at Paris were never published’, as was
_ ordered by that Congress, we can obtain the gist of the amendment of Article 28
_ by referring to Volume 4 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. There
_ on pages 330-331 we find the following :
hg
i} THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend .—
+ (1) that in place of the provisions in Article 28 relating to names of the
; same date there be inserted in the Régles at an appropriate point
provisions (a) that where two or more names were published for
the same taxonomic unit, or where the same name was published
_1 Tm accordance with the decision here referred to taken by the Thirteenth International
_ Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, a draft of the Régles as amended by that Congress, was duly
oes. That draft was not, however, published because by the time that it was available
_ it was already evident that it was likely that the text of the Régles would be subject to such
_ extensive further amendment that it would be rendered out of date before it could be formally
Promulgated. In these circumstances the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
took the view that it would not be justified in incurring the expenditure involved in printing the
draft based upon the Paris decisions, considering that the proper course would be to wait until
it was possible to publish a draft embodying the Copenhagen, as well as the Paris, decisions.
(intl’d. F.H. 20th December 1957)
4
288
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
for more than one taxonomic unit, in the same book or serial or
in the same part of any book or serial and were in consequence of
identical date, the name printed on the earlier of the pages concerned
is to have precedence over the name or names published on a later
page, (b) that, where two or more such names are published on the
same page, the name which appears on the line nearest to the
top of the page is to have precedence over any name or names
which appear lower down that page and (c) that, where two or
more such names are printed in the same line, a name appearing
earlier, is to have precedence over any name or names appearing
later, in the same line ;
(2) that the provisions specified in (1) above should be subject to the
following conditions :—
(a) that, where the application of the foregoing provision would
lead to a change in the name of a taxonomic unit of importance,
particularly in the fields of medicine, agriculture, veterinary
science or other applied fields in biology or in the teaching of
zoology, specialists may apply to the Commission for the use
of its Plenary Powers to maintain existing nomenclatorial
practice and that, on such an application having been sub-
mitted, no change in that practice should be made until the
Commission’s decision is made known ;
(b) that the said International Commission shall give sympathetic
consideration to applications for the use of its Plenary
Powers for the purpose of stabilising names, when requested
to do so in accordance with (a) above ;
(3) that the existing Recommandation to Article 28, being inconsistent
with the provisions now proposed to be inserted in that Article,
should be deleted therefrom.
6. At the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology held at Copenhagen
in 1953, Article 28 was again amended so as to restore the First Reviser rule.
Again it is impossible to quote the exact language of the Amendment, because
this has not been published in either draft or final form. However, by referring
to the Copenhagen Decisions (1953), edited by Francis Hemming, we find
the following (: 66-67) :
Article 28
123. Reinstatement of the “ First Reviser”’ Principle in place of the
Principle of “Page Precedence” for determining the relative status of
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 289
names published in the same work and on the same date : The Colloquium
recommends that the decision taken in Paris in 1948 (1950, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 4 : 330-331) to substitute the principle of page, line and word
precedence for the principle of the First Reviser should be reversed, the
original provisions in Article 28 being reinstated with the addition (1) of
the definition of the action to be accepted as the action of a First Reviser
recommended in paragraph 124 below, and (2) of the Recommandation
submitted in paragraph 125 below.
124. Definition of action constituting selection by a “ First Reviser ” :
The Colloquium recommends the addition to Article 28 of the following
definition of the action constituting action by a First Reviser :—
The expression “selection by a First Reviser” is to be rigidly
construed, and such a selection is to be deemed to have been effected -—
(a) in the case of generic names, only when an author, after citing
two or more such names published in the same book and on
the same date, clearly indicates by whatever method, (a) that
he is of the opinion that the type species of the nominal genera
so named represent the same taxon, and (b) that he is selecting
one of the generic names concerned, to the exclusion of the
other name or names, to be the name to be used for the genus
concerned ;
(b) in the case of specific names, only when an author, after citing
two or more such names published in the same book and on
the same date, clearly indicates by whatever method, (a)
that he is of the opinion that the nominal species so named
represent the same taxon, and (b) that he is selecting one of
the names concerned, to the exclusion of the other name or
names, to be the name to be used for that taxon.
125. “ Recommandation”’ urging authors, when acting as “ First
Revisers ’’, other things being equal, to apply the Principle of Page Prece-
dence: The Colloquium recommends the addition to Article 28 of the
following Recommandation :—
An author, when acting as a First Reviser in regard to two names
for the same taxon published in the same book on the same date, is
advised to select, other things being equal, the name which appeared
first in the work in question, as judged from the standpoint of page and
line precedence.
290 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
The case of the names “ Hesperia hegon ’’ Scudder, 1863,
and “ Hesperia samoset ’’ Scudder, 1863
7. The above case illustrates how the return to the first reviser rule can
upset long-established usage.
8. In 1863 Scudder named two Hesperiidae on the same page of one of
his papers, Amblyscirtes hegon having line priority. The fact that these names
were synonyms was realized a few years (1868) later by Scudder, who there-
upon placed hegon, although having line priority, in the synonymy of samoset.
The use of these names by subsequent authors shows that samoset was almost
uniformly used until 1917 when Barnes and McDunnough changed the name to
hegon. This was probably due to the influence on American authors of the
Banks and Caudell ‘‘ Code of Entomological Nomenclature ” (1912), because
that Code prescribed the principle of Page Priority.
9. In 1955 when Evans completed the publication of his monumental
work on the American Hesperiids, he felt obliged to use samoset and sink
hegon, claiming that the Régles required that action. Thus a name that had
not been used for about forty years, with one exception, came into use again
and the principle of stability was upset.
10. The odd thing is that Evans, while correct in his conclusion, founded
it on a false premise. He relied upon Scudder’s revision of 1872, while Scudder
had originally taken similar action in 1868, a reference that Evans did not
discover. This shows the difficulty of ascertaining who was the First Reviser.
Evans was a taxonomist of wide experience with the literature of the world
at his elbow, yet he failed to find the first revision.
11. In a case such as this one, involving a search of the literature for nearly
one hundred years, there is every possibility of making a mistake and the
search may well consume days, whereas page priority is ascertained by a glance
at the original description.
Argument
12. This reversal of the page and line priority principle in favour of the
first reviser principle was, in the opinion of the authors, an error, with which
the great majority of systematists are not in accord for the following reasons :
(1) Page and line priority are objective. There can seldom be any
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 291
difference of opinion concerning the order in which pages of a book or
periodical were published. Usually they were numbered. Never in the
author’s experience has there been any dispute on this subject.
(2) The first reviser principle is highly subjective. Often there is
difficulty in determining what was the first revision and who was the first
reviser. Even then, serious differences of opinion may arise as to what
is a revision and who is a reviser.
(3) It is of vital importance that the Régles be objective. The more
the Régles make mandatory an objective method of solving problems,
the fewer will be the disputes that will have to be passed upon by the
Commission.
Proposal
13. It is the authors’ opinion that when two or more names have been
proposed at the same time in the same publication for the same genus or other
taxon, the first name published (line or page priority) should prevail, unless
to insure greater stability the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, for cause shown by application to it, shall otherwise order. No such
order should be issued by the Commission until one year shall have expired
after the publication of the application in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.
Such action by the Congress would reinstate the decision taken at Paris in
1948 and substitute the principle of page, line, and word precedence for the
principle of the First Reviser. As a proposed text for such a rule the following
wording is suggested :
Article 28
Names of the same date:
_ (a) that, where two or more names were published for the same taxon-
omic unit, or where the same name was published for more than one
taxonomic unit, in the same book or serial or in the same part
of any book or serial and were in consequence of identical date,
the name printed on the earlier of the pages concerned is to have
precedence over the name or names published on a later page ;
(b) that, where two or more such names are published on the same
page, the name which appears on the line nearest to the top of
292 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
the page is to have precedence over any name or names which
appear lower down that page, and
(c) that, where two or more such names are printed on the same line,
a name appearing earlier, is to have precedence over any name or
names appearing later, on the same line; »
that the provisions specified in (1) above should be subject to the following
conditions :
(a) that, where the application of the foregoing provision would lead
to a change in the name of a taxonomic unit of importance,
particularly in the fields of medicine, agriculture, veterinary
science or other applied fields in biology or in the teaching of
zoology, specialists may apply to the Commission for the use
of its plenary powers to maintain existing nomenclatorial
practice and that, on such an application having been sub-
mitted, no change in that practice should be made until the
Commission’s decision is made known ;
(b) that the said International Commission shall give sympathetic
consideration to applications for the use of its Plenary Powers
for the purpose of stabilizing names, when requested to do so
in accordance with (a) above.
Literature cited
Banks, Nathan, and Andrew Nelson Caudell, 1912. ‘‘ The entomological
Code. A code of nomenclature for use in entomology.” Washington,
D.C., Judd and Detweiler, Inc., 32 pp.
Barnes, William, and James Halliday McDunnough, 1917. “ Check list of the
Lepidoptera of Boreal America.” Decatur, Illinois, Herald Press,
viii + 392 + [6] pp.
Scudder, Samuel Hubbard, 1863. ‘‘A list of the Butterflies of New England.”
Proc. Essex Inst., 3 : 161-179
——, 1868. Supplement to a list of the Butterflies of New England. Proc.
Boston Soc. nat. Hist. 11 : 375-384
——, 1872. “A systematic revision of some of the American butterflies,
with brief notes on those known to occur in Essex County, Mass.”
Salem, Massachusetts, The Salem Press, 62 + [2] pp. Also published
in 4th Ann. Rept. Peabody Acad. Sci., for the year 1871, Salem,
pp. 24-83 + errata p. [1]
at
ee ee ee, ee ee ee
4
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 293
DOCUMENT 15/2
Proposed retention of the “ First Reviser ’’ Principle for the purpose
of determining the precedence to be accorded to any one of two or more
names published in the same work and on the same date
By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
(Note dated 20th December 1957)
The purpose of the present note is to advocate the retention of the decision
taken by the Copenhagen Congress of 1953 to re-instate the “ First Reviser”’
Principle as the method to be applied in determining the relative precedence
to be accorded to any one of two or more names considered to apply to the same
taxonomic unit in cases where the competing names in question were published
in the same work and on the same date.
2. When this matter was considered in Paris in 1948, I supported the policy
then decided upon that the “ First Reviser”’ Principle at that time embodied
in Article 28 should be replaced by the ‘“‘ Page Precedence” Principle. I
advocated this change at that time because of the much greater simplicity
of the “‘ Page Precedence ” method and the fact that, once the original of the
book or paper in which any two given names were first published was available
for inspection, the application of the foregoing principle was absolutely auto-
matic and thus not open to challenge. It appeared to me that these were such
important advantages as to make the “ Page Precedence ”’ Principle superior
to that of the “ First Reviser ”’, more particularly in view of the fact that, as
experience had shown, the application of the ‘“‘ First Reviser”’ Principle could
not be relied upon to produce unequivocal results in the absence of a provision
in the Régles defining the nature of the action required to be taken in order
to qualify that action as being that by a “ First Reviser ”’.
3. The decision of the Paris Congress to replace the “ First Reviser”’
Principle in Article 28 by that of ‘‘ Page Precedence ”’ evoked a large body of
criticism, mainly from specialists in the United States, on the ground that the
294 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
abandonment of the “ First Reviser”’ Principle, far from promoting stability
in nomenclature, would lead to extensive disturbances in existing nomenclature
and consequent name-changing. This question was accordingly placed on the
Copenhagen Agenda Paper as Case No. 38, six documents being submitted in
connection with this item. These documents were published in 1953 in
Volume 10 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (: 376-390). To any
zoologist not familiar with the back-history of the present problem a study of
the papers referred to above will be most rewarding.
4. In the light of the documents referred to above I came to the conclusion
before the Copenhagen Congress that the balance of opinion was in favour
of a return to the “ First Reviser”’ Principle for determining the relative
precedence of names published in the same work and on the same date and
I accordingly advocated that course, subject to the insertion in the Régles
of a definition of the action to be treated as constituting action by a “ First
Reviser”’ (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 10 : 377). The discussion at Copenhagen
showed that opinion was divided on this subject but by a large majority the
Colloquium agreed to reinstate the “ First Reviser ” Principle in place of that
of ‘‘ Page Precedence ” which had figured in the Régles during the preceding
five-year period (1948-1953), this decision being accompanied by a further
decision to include in the Régles a clear definition of the nature of the action
which is to be taken in order to qualify the author of any given work as there
acting as a “ First Reviser”’ (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencel. :
66-67, Decisions 123 & 124).
5. It seems to me quite clear that, whether the “‘ First Reviser ”’ Principle
is retained in this matter or whether that principle is once more displaced by
the “Page Precedence’”’ Principle, cases will always be found where the
principle enshrined in the Régles would, if acted upon, give rise to name-changing
of an objectionable kind. Indeed, in view of the fact that neither of these
principles has been uniformly applied by zoologists as a whole, the occurrence
of such cases is inevitable. What is required therefore is the selection of that
one of the competing principles whichever is on balance the least likely to give
rise to disturbance of existence practice. On this subject I personally found
the representations submitted in connection with Case No. 38 on the Copen-
hagen Agenda Paper very impressive and reached the conclusion that on
balance the “‘ First Reviser ” Principle was likely to give rise to fewer anomalies
than would that of “ Page Precedence”. Under either system individual
cases would be bound to arise where the only way of preventing undesirable
name-changing would be by the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers.
This is particularly likely in the case of a group such as the Lepidoptera where
frequently—though incorrectly—the “‘ Page Precedence ”’ Principle had been
applied prior to the acceptance of that principle by the Paris Congress of 1948.
A striking example of this kind is provided by the publication by Linnaeus
in 1758 of two names (jurtina and janira) for the two sexes of an extremely
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 295
common European Satyrid butterfly (The Meadow Brown). In this case the
“Page Precedence” Principle gives preference to the name jurtina and it is
by this name that the species has been known for many years. There is,
however, a very old but long-overlooked “ First Reviser”’ selection (by
Fabricius, 1787) in favour of the name janira. The adoption of this “ First
Reviser ”’ selection would have caused great disturbance in the literature.
For this reason the Commission was recently asked to use its Plenary Powers
to give precedence to the name jurtina over the name janira by setting aside
the action taken by Fabricius in 1787 (Hemming, 1956, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 12 :
279-286) and the request so made has since been granted by the Commission
(in Opinion 506, now in the press).
6. I am in complete agreement with my friends Mr. dos Passos and
Professor Klots in their desire to prevent unnecessary disturbance in the
currently accepted nomenclature but I cannot share their view that in the
present context the best solution would be to reinstate the “‘ Page Precedence ”’
Principle at the expense of the “‘ First Reviser ’’ Principle (see Document 15/1),
for I consider that the better course for zoological nomenclature as a whole
would be to retain the “ First Reviser”’ principle, while tempering any ill-
effects to which it might give rise in particular cases by a judicious use by the
Commission of its Plenary Powers.
296 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
CASE No. 1
(continued from page 246)
DOCUMENT 1/44
Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa Plan ”’
(Reference : Professor Moore’s Digest reproduced as Document 1/15)
By KLAUS J. MULLER
(Technische Universitat Berlin, Germany)
(Letter dated 22nd November 1957)
These notes are intended as an opinion on the proposed action of Prof.
R. C. Moore and Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley, insertion in the Régles of a
provision defining and providing for the nomenclature of “ Parataxa ”’.
2. Workers in systematic zoology may be appalled at the increase of names
which would result from this provision. On the other hand, insertion of
parataxa into the Régles could introduce stability in the nomenclature of
disjunct elements and thus serve as an aid for comparisons in those groups in
which isolated parts exclusively or at least predominately have important
applications, e.g., some branches of micropaleontology.
3. Following submittal of a formal application by specialists, it is believed
that permission for introduction of parataxa should be granted by the
Commission only for those groups where isolated parts have proved to have
broad significance, not restricted to taxonomy alone.
4. In order to designate clearly the fundamental difference between taxon
and parataxon it is proposed to mark the names of the parataxa in a simple
fashion. A preceding ‘‘ degree” sign or super-script lower case letter “‘o”’,
e.g., °Prioniodus elegans Pander, 1856, would indicate that this is a partial
component which may or may not be a part of a described animal. (See also
Miiller, 1956, p. 1327-28).
5. As I am working on conodonts, it may be logical to add observations
in regard to these particular microfossils, of still unknown affinity. Ordinarily,
single conodonts are preserved as fossils ; assemblages believed to be part of an
individual are preserved only under exceptional conditions and to date are
known from a few localities only. These assemblages in some cases are
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 297
composed of as many as 8 widely diverse form-types which have been named as
different genera. According to Article 27(a) of the Régles an assemblage should
receive the name of the first described portion which is included. However,
there are many natural assemblages which contain the same form-types of
conodonts without being closer related. This is the case, e.g. with Hindeodella
which was found in three, and Lonchodina which was found in two different
types of assemblages (Rhodes, 1953).
6. Application of Article 27(a) would produce permanent instability of
the names of isolated elements, which alone are applicable in micropaleontology
for determination of the age and the environmental conditions during the
formation of the rocks containing them. For practical reasons a system for
the isolated conodonts is needed which, as far as I can see, only could be
attained adequately by introduction of parataxa, as proposed by Moore
& Sylvester-Bradley.
7. The assemblages in most cases have already received new names in their
original descriptions. In conodonts, there are but two cases in which generic
names have been used for a disjunct element as well as for an assemblage :
Polygnathus. The lectogenotype P. dubius was erected by Hinde, 1879
for a presumed assemblage. Bryant, 1921, restricted the name
Polygnathus to a partial-genus and in this meaning it has been used
subsequently. This existing usage could be retained, or the partial-
genus, as defined by Bryant, will have to receive a new name.
Gnathodus was well established by Pander, 1856, for an isolated element.
H. Schmidt, 1934, used this name in accordance with the present
Regles for an assemblage containing the element. Subsequent
authors disregarded this action and it has been used since for isolated
elements. Schmidt’s assemblage will have to receive a new name.
References
Bryant (W.L.), 1921, “‘ The Genesee Conodonts ”’, Bull. Buffalo Soc. nat. Sci.,
13 (No. 2) 59 pp., 16 pl.
Hinde (G.J.), 1879, ““ On conodonts from the Chazy and Cincinnati group of the
Cambro-Silurian, and from the Hamilton and Genesee-shale divisions
of the Devonian, in Canada and the United States’, Quart. J. geol.
Soc. Lond. 35 : 351-369, pl. 15-17
Miller (K.J.), 1956, ““ Taxonomy, nomenclature, orientation, and stratigraphic
evaluation of conodonts ’’, J. Paleont. 30 : 1324-1340, pl. 145
Pander (C.H.), 1856, ‘“ Monographie der fossilen Fische des silurischen Systems
der Russisch-Baltischen Gouvernements”’, St. Petersburg: 91 pp.,
8 pl.
Rhodes (F.H.T.), 1953, “‘ Nomenclature of conodont assemblages ”’, J. Paleont.
27 : 610-612
Schmidt (H.), 1934, ‘‘ Conodonten-Funde in urspriinglichem Zusammenhang ”’,
Paldont. Zeitschrift 16 : 76-85, pl. 6
298 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/45
Remarks on the value of parataxonomy in the case of the
Phylum Porifera
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)
By R. E. H. REID
(Queen’s University, Belfast)
(Enclosure to letter dated 28th November 1957)
The spicules of which the skeletons of sponges are composed are divisible
into two groups according to the degree of connection which exists between
them during life.
(1) All spicules are initially separate from one another. Some remain
separate permanently, and are only connected together by living tissues or
additionally by organic fibres (spongin). As a result they are typically sub-
ject to dissociation and dispersal when the sponge dies. This is the case with
(i) all spicules in many sponges, (ii) some but not all of the megascleres of
certain others, and (iii) normally, all microcleres.
(2) In certain cases spicules are united, either by loose to rigid articulation
(zygosis) as in lithistid Demospongia, or by actual fusion together as in various
Hexactinellida. The resultant structures do not disintegrate on death of the
tissues, unless subjected to mechanical fragmentation. The spicules concerned
are usually choanosmal megascleres, but dermal (or gastral) megascleres may
also be affected. Skeletons of this type account for the majority of sponge
remains found as macrofossils. One obvious potential assessment of taxonomic
values is that remains referable to these groups should be treated as respectively
suitable for description in terms of parataxonomy and ordinary taxonomic
categories. This view, however, seems open to objections.
2. It is certainly true that isolated sponge spicules can provide a case
analogous with that of the Conodonts. The spicules concerned are usually
megascleres, as microscleres are rarely discovered as fossils. It is, first, not
uncommon for megascleric elements to be of several kinds in the same sponge,
Bulletin of Zoological N omenclature 299
Sponges. However, this problem has long been recognised by spongiologists.
Schrammen, for instance, has preferred to illustrate (e.g. 1936) isolated elements
of indeterminate status without referring them to specific or generic categories,
practice cited ; on the contrary, if spicules are not thought sufficiently diagnostic
for establishment of a normal species, then nothing of zoological value is achieved
by naming them artificially. The viewpoint of stratigraphy is, of course,
different, involving the desire for definite names applicable to all distinguishable
objects, particularly where these are of stratigraphical value as in the case of
Conodonts. I do not think, however, that any comparable need for para-
taxonomic nomenclature can be said to exist in the case of sponge spicules,
considering how little use has been made of these bodies by stratigraphers.
available for taxonomic purposes. It also seems fair to point out that occasional
spicular types have high diagnostic value, even in isolation. An extreme
example is the distinctive subdermal hexaster of the Hexactinellid Aulocalyx
F. E. Schulze. Hexaster microscleres are not in general diagnostic of any
taxon beyond the subclass Hexasterophora F. E, Schulze, but the form known
as the rhopalaster is not recorded from any Hexactinellid other than Aulocalyx.
4. The case of sponge skeletons in which spicular elements are united by
articulation or fusion presents a comparable analogy with that of the ammonite
conch. It may at first sight appear attractive to represent megascleric skeletal
300 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
structures as providing a generally sufficient basis for the establishment of
true generic and specific taxa. This view is certainly superficial. It is true
that these structures have a generally high value compared with isolated
elements, and that their adequacy for diagnosis is assumed by palaeontologists.
The loose spicules (i.e. those which are only connected by the tissues) can in
fact be closely similar in forms whose connected skeletons refer them to different
families. On the other hand, there are also cases where the species of a genus,
e.g. the Hexactinellid Farrea Bowerbank, cannot be separated by reference to
the skeletal framework, the diagnostic features being provided by the loose
spicules. The same can also apply to separation of genera, e.g. Farrea and
Claviscopulia F. E. Schulze. In other words, there are cases where connected
skeletal structures are just as much unidentifiable discrete parts as are many
isolated spicules. The fact is that diagnostic characters are not inherently
associated with any particular division of the skeleton. Hence it does not seem
possible to make any rigid generalisation, except (a) on a purely arbitrary
basis, or (b) on the basis of contention that the only type of material invariably
sufficient for recognition of true generic and specific taxa comprises complete
specimens with all spicules and soft parts present. Regarding the possibility
of analogy between loose spicular elements and aptychi, I do not think it can
be said that any serious problem exists due to named forms of isolated spicule
occurring in association with more than one kind of named skeletal framework.
In any case, such an association is, surely, a clear indication that type material
to which a name based on a discrete spicular element is attached cannot be
identified as representing any species based on a skeletal framework. Any
nomenclatorial problem resulting from assumption that a species name of the
former type must necessarily be a synonym of one of several of the latter is
therefore essentially artificial and unrealistic in terms of demonstrable relation-
ships. I do not think it can be claimed that introduction of parataxonomy
as a general solution for such cases has any appreciable general advantage over
a simple provision for suppression, subject to normal request and approval,
of unwanted names which are demonstrably non-diagnostic.
5. It also seems fair to comment in passing that the supposed adequacy
or otherwise of particular animal parts for normal taxonomic purposes is
essentially subjective. For instance, ammonite conchs are alleged to provide
a sufficient basis for use of normal nomenclature, where aptychi do not. In
terms of the whole animal, however, the conch is presumably just as much a
discrete part as an aptychus plate. One wonders what view might be taken
of the conch if soft parts—say, the tentacles and hood, assuming such to have
been present—were available for study.
6. Another point which seems to need comment is the different value of
discrete sponge remains at different taxonomic levels. For instance, material
which is of little value at specific level may be referable with certainty, so far
Po os stk eee
~~
| 4k
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 301
as is known, to a definite genus. It seems possible that indiscriminate intro-
duction of parataxonomy for application to discrete sponge material could
lead to difficulties in this connection. An extreme example was encountered
recently by the writer. The extinct Hexactinellid order Hemidiscosa
Schrammen (1924, as Hemidiscaria) was established on the basis of dissociated
microscleres of a type known as hemidiscs, or hemiamphidiscs (Schrammen,
1924, 1936). To provide this Order with a generic type, I have had to base
a new nominal species (the name of which will appear in a paper entitled
“A Monograph of the Upper Cretaceous Hexactinellida of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland”’ in the 1957 volume of the Palaeontographical Society’s
monographs) on one of Schrammen’s figured hemidiscs. Now the nearest
homologue of the hemidisc in living forms is the amphidisc, seen in all Amphi-
discosa. These microscleres are so generally similar among members of that
order that a specific and generic name based on an isolated example would
in general be worthless. A name based on an isolated hemidisc is open to
similar suspicion, at least as a species name, though this is, of course, by
analogy rather than direct evidence. Other names could be based on other
examples ; however, living Amphidiscosa often have amphidiscs of more
than one kind, so such names would be open to suspicion for a further reason.
Here, one might think, is a case for parataxonomy. On the other hand, it is
clear that there must have been at least one true species. Similarly there
must have been at least one genus, and no grounds can be cited for distinguishing
more than one. At ordinal level, the hemidisc is (a) acceptable evidence of
membership of the subclass Amphidiscophora, and (b) distinctive as a spicule
not found in any living Amphidiscophoran. Thus what is a dubious basis for
establishment of a species has a different perspective at higher taxonomic
levels ; in the order group, it is evidence of the former existence of Amphi-
discophora with a microsclere unknown in living forms, for which a taxonomic
distinction at this level needs to be recognised. Now: can it be possible for
a genus recognised in normal taxonomy, as in this case one needs to be, to have
for its type a species distinguished as a parataxon ?
7. With these points in mind, I do not think it is desirable to introduce
a system of parataxonomy as the basis for nomenclature of discrete sponge
remains in general. I do not imply that grounds might not be put forward
for use of parataxa in particular cases. I think, however, that any such
usage should be on a critical and selective basis, applied in individual cases
judged on their own merits, and subject to the approval of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature after due notice and allowance for
objection by other specialists. I consider that such usage should be restricted
to cases where :
(a) it is desired to suppress, for normal taxonomic purposes, a name based
on a discrete skeletal part known to occur in several distinguishable
skeletal assemblages, or in association with more than one type of
302 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
distinguishable connected skeletal structure, which for some reason
it is desired to retain for other—e.g. stratigraphical—purposes ; or
(b) it is desired to establish a name for a previously unnamed discrete
skeletal part, for purely stratigraphical purposes, from which it is not
expected that any single species will be identifiable.
It may have been noticed that no distinction has been made above between
zoological and palaeontological viewpoints. This is deliberate. No practical
taxonomic difference exists between the status of dissociated sponge spicules
from a recent dune sand and from the residue obtained by solution of a
Carboniferous limestone ; a macerated skeletal framework dreged from the
present Atlantic presents essentially the same problem as a similar framework
from the Cenomanian of southern England. Hence I see no grounds for
generally different viewpoints.
References
Hinde (G.J.), 1887-1912. ‘A Monograph of the British Fossil Sponges ’”’.
Palaeont. Soc.
Schrammen (A.), 1924. ‘“ Die Kieselspongien der oberen Kreide von Nort-
westdeutschland : III und letzter Teil”. Monogr. zur Geol. und Palaeont.
(ed. Soergel), Ser. 1, Heft. IT.
Schrammen (A.), 1936. “‘ Die Kieselspongien der oberen Jura von Sud-
deutschland’. Palaeontographica, lxxxiv, Abt. A, & lxxxv, Abt. A.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 303
DOCUMENT 1/46
Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa Plan ”’
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)
By ARTHUR N. DUSENBURY, Jr.
(Creole Petroleum Corporation, Jusepin, Monegas, Venezuela)
(Letter dated 17th November 1957)
I wish to support the proposals of Professor Raymond C. Moore and
Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley that provisions should be inserted in the Régles
recognising ‘‘ parataxa ”’ as a special category for the classification and nomen-
clature of discrete parts or fragments of animals, such as conodonts, which
are inadequate for identification of whole-animal taxa, yet are frequently
valuable in stratigraphic determinations. The majority of paleontologists
will probably be found to favor these proposals with enthusiasm.
2. However, in my opinion and in that of Creole paleontologists whom I
have consulted, there is a serious defect of omission in the proposals as submitted.
Although Moore and Sylvester-Bradley have carefully separated and distin-
guished between the two major categories which they call taxa and parataxa,
they have failed to provide names to distinguish the individual taxon from the
individual parataxon of corresponding rank. Their “species’’, ‘‘ genera ”’
and “families”’ may refer either to taxa or to parataxa, and it becomes
necessary to consult the context to discover, if possible, which is meant. This
can only lead to confusion. Furthermore, in spite of the fact that they have
demonstrated that the “species’’, ‘‘ genera” and “families” of parataxa
are not true species, genera and families, i.e., whole-animal taxa, they neverthe-
less propose to add these admittedly false “species”? to the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology, these admittedly false ‘‘ genera” to the Official
' List of Generic Names in Zoology and these admittedly false “ families ” to the
Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. This particular proposal
seems quite self-contradictory to me, and I would like to see it rejected.
304 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
3. Turning from destructive to constructive discussion, I propose that the
names “ species’, “‘ genus’, “‘ family ” etc. be applied only to taxa and that
their use for parataxa be prohibited. If such a proposal were adopted, it
would next become necessary to choose suitable names for the corresponding
parataxa.
4. One possibility would be the general acceptance of the scheme devised
by M. Georges Deflandre, according to which the names “ legio’’, “ cohors”’,
‘““manipulus”” and “ centuria’’ would be used for the parataxa corresponding
respectively to the taxa known as “order”, “family”, “genus” and
“species”. Although at first glance this would appear to be an excellent
scheme, the amount of acceptance which it has won is surprisingly small.
One reason may be that the organisation of the Roman army is unfamiliar
to the average modern zoologist or paleontologist, so that he is unable to recall
these names of Deflandre readily and, if he does succeed in memorizing them,
is likely to forget whether a cohors is composed of manipuli or vice versa.
Another reason may be that there is no mental association between “ legio ”
and “order”, ‘“cohors” and ‘“ family”’’, ‘‘ manipulus”’ and “genus” or
“centuria”’ and “ species”.
5. On the other hand, the mental association between “taxa” and
‘‘parataxa”’ is excellent and obvious. Unfortunately, “para-” is a Greek
prefix and ought not to be combined with Latin words such as species, genus
and familia. However, the Latin prefix “‘ pro’’, meaning “ for ”’, “in behalf
of” or “instead of”, is available, and we may therefore appropriately coin
the words “ prospecies ”, “ prospecific ’, ““ progenus ”’, “ progeneric”’, “ pro-
familia” (or “ profamily ”’) and “ profamilial”’. Although these names are
quite artificial, they are easy to remember and easy to associate with the
corresponding taxa. If any one has a better idea, I am open to suggestions.
6. If the above names coined for parataxa should be accepted, the next
step would be to establish the necessary official lists and indexes for para-
taxa, Viz. :
(1) Official List of Prospecific Names in Zoology
(2) Official List of Progeneric Names in Zoology
(3) Official List of Profamilia-Group (or Profamily-Group) Names in Zoology
(4) Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Prospecific Names in Zoology
(5) Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Progeneric Names in Zoology
(6) Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Profamilia-Group (or Profamily-
Group) Names in Zoology
--oo ee Ps oh ee
- ——— ss SC lee
— ee ee eee ae eee ee ee
ee a
'
a ae vee
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 305
DOCUMENT 1/47
Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “‘ Parataxa Plan ”’
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)
By F. H. T. RHODES
(University College, Swansea)
(Enclosure to letter dated 29th November 1957)
The recent application by Professor Moore and Mr. Sylvester-Bradley is
one which I strongly support. I am especially interested in the establishment
of parataxa as an aid to the study of the conodonts, and I wish to consider
particularly how this proposal relates to special problems in this fossil group,
which Moore and Sylvester-Bradley have considered in their First Supplemental
Application.
The Nature of Conodonts
2. The conodonts are an extinct group of tooth-like microfossils, of obscure
affinities. They are found in a variety of sedimentary rocks, ranging from
Cambrian to Triassic in age, and have a world-wide geographic distribution.
They are composed of calcium phosphate, with characteristics resembling those
of apatite, and they exhibit considerable diversity in form. The early types
tend to be simple conical or blade-like forms, and the later types either blade-
like or platform-like. They have been variously assigned to the Gastropoda,
Crustacea, Pisces, and Annelida, and there is at present little agreement
concerning their zoological affinities (see Rhodes, 1954). They are of the
greatest value as index fossils in the classification and correlation of strata.
Existing Nomenclature of Conodonts
3. Conodonts were first described by Pander over a century ago, and since
then more than 600 publications have been devoted to them. The lack of
knowledge of the zoological affinities and the function of conodonts has raised
a number of taxonomic problems. Existing methods of nomenclature are of
two types.
(a) Because of the selective processes of fossilisation and the usual
procedures for the extraction of microfossils, the great majority of conodonts
w
306 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
are known as single, isolated specimens. Most conodont students have
followed Pander (1856) in adopting a classification based upon the recognition
of various types of these individual conodonts as genera and species. A
binomial classification therefore exists, which has been developed by workers
who rigidly observed the Code of Zoological Nomenclature. More than
1,800 species have thus been erected. Such taxonomic categories are
distinguished hereafter in the present text by referring to the category
ap. be
in quotation marks (“ genus ”’, “ species ’’).
In addition a number of “ supra-generic’’ taxonomic categories have
been established (Ulrich and Bassler, 1926 : Branson and Mehl, 1944).
Experience has shown that this method of classification is both a
convenient and a useful one. The majority of “species” are well-
established and the nature of morphological variation in conodonts is such
that the method of classification is readily applicable. A considerable
number of ‘ species”’ have been shown to have a wide geographic dis-
tribution, and many are of great value in stratigraphic correlation.
(b) Recent studies (Schmidt, 1930, 1950 : Scott, 1934, 1942 : Kichenberg,
1930: Du Bois, 1943: Rhodes, 1952, 1953a, 1954) have shown, however,
that as many as five of these “ genera’ of conodonts may be present in
a single assemblage, which appears to represent the remains of an individual
animal. Recognising that the earlier classification of individual components
as different “‘ genera ’’ was therefore invalid, some workers have proposed
a new Classification, based upon the recognition of conodont assemblages
as natural taxonomic units (i.e. as representing the remains of individual
organisms).
4, There are three more or less distinct ways in which the nomenclature of
natural conodont assemblages have been established.
Method I. Assemblages have been named after the earliest applicable
name of any component which they contain (e.g. Eichenberg, 1930:
Schmidt, 1934: Sinclair, 1954).
Method II. Assemblages have been given new binomina, and the
component conodonts have been designated by descriptive technical terms.
Scott, 1942, followed essentially this practice, identifying the “ genera ”’
(but not the “ species ’’) represented in two genera of natural assemblages,
and describing the components by common nouns coined from the
“generic”” names. Thus specimens of Hindeodella were termed hindeodells,
ete. Scott emphasised, however, that he considered it desirable that the
earlier “‘ form-classification’”’ should be retained (1942, p. 295), even
though he found it inconvenient to employ it for assemblages.
ah) ae on a. ee ee
1
"ee ek pe ee
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 307
Method III. Assemblages have been given new binomina and the
component conodonts have been designated by their previously established
“ generic’ and “ specific’ names (if any). (e.g. Rhodes, 1952.)
The interpretation of conodont assemblages
5. Since the decision as to whether a conodont assemblage is “natural ”
is subjective, it is pertinent to summarise the evidence upon which this con-
clusion is based.
(a) The assemblages have been described from both Europe and North
America, but they are known only, as yet, from strata of Carboniferous age.
All the strata from which they have been described appear to represent
very quiet conditions of sedimentation.
(b) At least seven genera of organisms appear to be represented by the
known assemblages. Within each of these types of assemblage the com-
ponent conodont elements are generally constant in the variety of forms
represented and in their number, allowing for the vagaries and differential
hazards of fossilisation.
(c) The component conodonts of assemblages are usually found to be
paired, and are frequently preserved in what appears to have been their
original opposed positions. Isolated pairs of conodonts are not infrequently
found, as well as those within more complete assemblages.
(d) Such paired components are fundamentally similar to one another
in all but the more minute morphological details, except that one may be
the mirror-image of the other, representing “left and right ’’ forms.
6. These criteria seem to be sufficiently strong to leave little reasonable
doubt that the assemblages described are “‘ natural ’’ (as opposed to coprolitic
or fortuitous) associations. Random assemblages are, however, known,
and I have elsewhere discussed the problems which they present (Rhodes,
1952).
Morphological variation within natural conodont assemblages,
and its importance in taxonomic procedure
7. Moore & Sylvester-Bradley (1957, First Supplemental Application)
have considered the technical problems involved in the existing system of
nomenclature. The variation in the individual conodont components of
308 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
natural assemblages is of such a kind that it is an important factor in nomen-
clatorial considerations. The following summary indicates the main features
of this variation.
(1) Natural assemblages contain paired conodonts, which represent
from three to five ‘‘ genera ”’.
(2) The total number of component conodonts present in known assem-
blages varies from fourteen to twenty-two.
(3) Some component “ genera” are represented by a single pair of
conodonts, others by up to four such pairs.
(4) The same component “ genera ’’ may be present in more than one
type of natural assemblage (i.e. more than one natural genus).
(5) The component conodonts of a natural genus may show appreciable
variation in form, many previously described “ species ’’ being recognisable
within assemblages referred to a single natural taxon. (It is not yet
known whether such variation is specific or infraspecific.)
(6) Some indication of the degree of infraspecific variation in natural
assemblages may, however, be provided by the extent of variation within
a pair of components extracted from the same assemblage (see Rhodes,
1952, pl. 127, figs. 5, 6 and 11, 12). This variation, although slight, is
such that some of the more “‘ extreme ”’ conodont students would probably
recognise each of the paired individuals as different “species”. Such
paired individuals also commonly differ in being “left and right’ forms,
the one being a mirror-image of the other, but virtually all conodont
workers regard such variation as “ infra-specific ”’.
(7) Condont “ genera ” which are found together in natural assemblages,
are frequently not coextensive in their stratigraphic ranges.
Taxonomic procedure
It is necessary now to consider taxonomic procedure :—
(1) If freedom of taxonomic expression is to be granted to those who
work both with natural assemblages and to those who work with individual
conodonts, the nomenclatorial regulations should satisfy five requirements.
(a) They must provide a method for the recognition and classification
of natural conodont assemblages.
a
ee dl NP NMa c=
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 309
(b) They must provide a name to differentiate each of the diagnostic
forms of individual conodonts, which are of value in stratigraphy.
(c) Homonymy between these two systems of nomenclature must be
avoided.
(d) Both systems must be within the legal framework of the Inter-
national Code, and must derive the protection, stability and uniformity
which the Code provides.
(e) Any changes in procedures should be of such a kind as to produce
the minimum possible disturbance in the existing nomenclature.
(2) Of the three methods of dealing with the present taxonomic problem
listed in paragraph 4, Method I, in which the assemblages are named after
the earliest applicable name of any component conodont which they con-
tain, is the “legal’’ solution under the existing Régles (Article 27). It
involves serious difficulties of two main types.
(a) The name to be used for the assemblage. Clearly the name
that must be applied to the assemblage is that given to the first-named
part of the animal. If this is done, the following considerations arise :
(i) Objective identification with a natural genus can only be made
if the type species is present in the assemblage.
(ii) One “ genus ” may be present in more than one type of natural
assemblage (i.e. in more than one natural genus).
(iii) It might be suggested that this problem may be overcome by
a modified application of the Principle of Priority, so that the name
of a “‘ genus’ unique to the particular type of natural assemblage
is selected. Conodont assemblages are rare, however, and it is quite
impossible to predict whether or not any “ genus ”’ will prove to be
peculiar to a single type of assemblage.
(iv) Conodont specialists find it convenient to distinguish two
“genera”, Streptognathodus and Idiognathodus on minor morpho-
logical features, in spite of the fact that the two genera are
transitional*. Rhodes (1952, 1953) has shown, however, that
Scottognathus, a genus represented by “‘ natural”? conodont assem-
blages, may contain either one or other of these genera, which are
~ This neontologically offensive procedure is not uncommon in palaeontology, for chrono-
logical fossil sequences show all grades of transition. Ultimately taxonomic units are more
or less arbitrary subdivisions of more or less continuous faunal sequences, although often such
taxonomic division appears to be “ natural ”—that is, it corresponds with “ natural” faunal
breaks, which result from such factors as sedimentary hiatus, migration, etc.
310
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
transitional within the assemblages. Similar cases may also exist,
and it would be misleading if one of these “‘ generic’ names were
applied to assemblages in which the “ genus ”’ itself was not present.
It may be argued that the “genera ’’, if transitional, must ipso
facto be synonymous, but practising palaeontologists would reserve
the right to dispute this principle.
(v) Similar problems to these three noted above, arise in the choice
of a specific name. Other aspects of the problem of the choice of
a specific name have been discussed by Moore and Sylvester-Bradley.
(b) The name to be applied to isolated conodonts.
(i) If the earliest applicable name of a contained conodont
component should be applied to an assemblage, all other “ species ”
identified within that assemblage would be junior synonyms of that
name. This would result in utter confusion in the nomenclature
of the isolated conodonts. Some name must be available to designate
variation in isolated conodonts, which are of great stratigraphic
importance.
(ii) Some writers (e.g. Sinclair, 1953, p. 489) have argued that,
if this method were adopted, it would be possible to designate
individual conodonts as (for example) the ‘“‘ subbryantod element
of Streptognathodus elegans”’ (where the binomen is that given to -
a natural assemblage). The term “ subbryantod” is coined from
the “ genus” Subbryantodus. This might appear satisfactory for
conodont components which show little variation in natural assem-
blages. Some elements, however, are present in more than one
genus—so that two or more names are applicable. This results in
three possible ‘“‘ states of synonymy ”—at three categorical levels.
In any given case all three might apply. Thus two “species ”
Xognathus aa and Xognathus ba of isolated conodonts may be
regarded as synonymous. Both these might be further shown to be
present in the same assemblage, with the selected name of which at
least one or possibly both would then be synonymous. But thirdly,
they might also be found to be present in more than one type of
natural assemblage: in which case the descriptions “ xognathid
element of Alpha Xognathus beta” and ‘“‘ xognathid element of
Gamma Xognathus delta’ would be synonymous at a third (quite
different) taxonomic level! One need not elaborate the taxonomic
confusion that would result from such a situation.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 311
(iii) But this would be only the beginning of the confusion,
for only those isolated conodonts which show little variation in
natural assemblages have been considered. In many cases, however,
this variation is considerable, and a “ specific’ qualification would
be necessary to designate any particular form (e.g. the subbryantod
type 23 element of Streptognathodus elegantulus). This would not
only involve a complete revision of conodont terminology and the
substitution of a clumsy and unsatisfactory system of nomenclature
for that which at present exists, but it would also deprive the new
system of nomenclature of the uniformity and protection which the
Régles afford.
(iv) Even if, in spite of this, this solution were to be accepted,
one insurmountable problem would remain. Only a very few
“genera and species”’ (perhaps fewer than 5 per cent. of the
“species ’’) are at present known as components of natural assem-
blages. For the great majority of isolated conodonts, therefore,
no name would be available.
(3) It may be suggested that to avoid this confusion, all conodont
“ genera ”’ and “ species’ not based upon natural assemblages should be
regarded as invalid. Names should be applied only to assemblages, and
suitable technical terms should be used to designate isolated component
conodonts (Method II of paragraph 4). Such a solution would admittedly
reduce the problems of synonymy involved, but all the other major problems
discussed above would remain.
(4) The third possible method would be to give new names to natural
conodont assemblages, and to retain the existing system of nomenclature
for isolated conodonts. (Method III of paragraph 4.)
8. A consideration of the factors listed above, will indicate that this
represents the best possible solution. It is illegal under the existing Régles,
however, but it would be regularized by the recognition of parataxa. Only
by this method can the problem confronting conodont workers be satisfactorily
resolved.
References
Branson (C.C.) & Mehl (M.G.), 1944 ‘‘ Conodonts, in Index Fossils of North
America”’. H.W. Shimer and R. R. Shrock, N.Y., Wiley & Sons
Du Bois (E.P.), 1943 ‘‘ Evidence on the Nature of Conodonts”’. J. Paleont.
17 : 155-159
312 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Eichenberg (W.), 1930 “‘ Conodonten aus dem Culm des Harzes ”. Paldont. Z.
12 : 177-182
Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1957 “‘ The Agenda Paper for the Discussions on
Zoological Nomenclature To Be Held At, and In Connection With,
The Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology, London, July 1958 ”.
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : Quadruple-Part 1/4
Pander (C.H.), 1856 ‘‘Monographie der fossilen Fische des Silurischen
Systems der russisch-baltischen Gouvernments”’. K. Akad. d. Wiss. St.
Petersburg : 1-91
Rhodes (F.H.T.), 1952 “A Classification of Conodont Assemblages”. J.
Paleont. 26 : 886-901
——, 1953 ‘Nomenclature of Conodont Assemblages”. J. Paleont. 27 :
610-612
——, 1954 ‘‘ The Zoological Affinities of the Conodonts”’. Biological Reviews
29 : 419-452
Schmidt (H.), 1934 ‘‘ Conodonten-Funde in Urspriinglichem Zusammenhang ”’-
Paldont. Z. 16 : 76-85
—, 1950 “Nachtrage zur Deutung der Conodonten”. Decheniana.
?
104 : 11-19
Scott (H.W.), 1934 ‘The Zoological Relationships of the ‘Conodonts ”.
J. Paleont. 8 (No. 4) : 448-455
——, 1942 “‘Conodont Assemblages from the Heath Formation, Montana 54
J. Paleont. 16 : 293-300
Sinclair (G.W.), 1953 ‘“‘ The Naming of Conodont Assemblages”. J. Paleont.
27 : 489-490
Ulrich (E.0.) & Bassler (R.S.), 1926 ‘A Classification of the Toothlike Fossils,
Conodonts, with Descriptions of American Devonian and Mississippian
Species’. U.S. nat. Mus. Proc. 68 (No. 2613) : 1-63
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 313
DOCUMENT 1/48
Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘‘ Parataxa Plan ”’
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)
By ELLIS L. YOCHELSON
(Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)
(Letter dated 2nd December 1957)
For the past several weeks I have been studying the Moore/Sylvester-
Bradley proposal on parataxa. Though there are certain advantages to it, I
am opposed to it for several reasons. This opinion, of course, is mine as an
individual and not that of the United States Geological Survey.
2. It is important for zoologists, whether they study Recent or fossil
material to think in terms of the ‘“‘ whole animal’”’. All descriptive material
is to a greater or lesser extent incomplete. The fact that in cephalopods, for
example, aptychi are less complete, that is have fewer diagnostic characters,
than conchs, does not seem to be sufficient reason for discussing the conch as a
living animal and the aptychus as an entirely separate object. They are one
and the same in being parts of the living animal. Both are incomplete and not
“whole animals” ; neither is more of a “‘ whole animal ”’ than the other.
3. It is also important that nomenclature be stable. In my opinion,
stability is best achieved by using a single set of simple rules which can be
readily interpreted and applied without recourse to another group for rulings.
The erection of what is for practical purposes a second system of nomenclature
for part of the animal kingdom does not appeal to me as a means of promoting
stability. The students of conodonts have difficult problems in the synonomy
of generic and specific names, but these are differences in degree only, not in
kind, from those which beset the student of any animal group. True stability
will be achieved in conodont nomenclature when more is known about the group.
Until then, any changes reflecting a clearer understanding of zoologic affinities
should be welcomed.
4, Finally, and most important, zoology as such should be left to the
zoologists and nomenclature as such should be left to the International
314 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Commission. Moore and Sylvester-Bradley indicate that there is no clear
dividing line between taxa and parataxa. If there were, we should all welcome
their proposal. The retroactive principal and the concept of a wall between
taxa and parataxa certainly trespass on freedom of taxonomic practice.
5. To cite only one specific example, the Commission is asked to rule that
a genus Polygnathus which was considered by its author’ to be based ultimately
on a natural assemblage, is not based on a natural assemblage. Whether this is
a true assemblage or a faecal concentration is beside the point. The point is,
that matters of this sort should not be within the province of the
International Commission.
a
ae a. ee
—
lig te guy 35
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 315
CASE No. 3
(continued from page 256)
DOCUMENT 3/3
Draft ‘“ Régles’’, Article 13, Section 4(b): Proposed repeal of
Copenhagen Decision 54 (1) (b) (family-group names based on junior
homonyms)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1252)
By J. CHESTER BRADLEY
(Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(Statement received on 25th October 1957)
Decision 54 (1) (b) in the Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature
reads :
Where the name of the type genus of a taxon belonging to the Family-
Group has to be changed because it is found to be a junior hononym, the
name of that taxon is to be replaced by a name based upon the changed
name of the type genus. (The purpose of this provision is to secure
that in the circumstances in question the Family-Group name concerned
shall be based upon the oldest available name for a nominal genus which
is either objectively, or, if no such name exists, subjectively, identical
with the nominal genus, the name of which has been rejected.)
2. There is need for further examination of what nomenclatural acts
actually occur when the preceding provision is applied under various
circumstances.
3. I have shown in another paper that the type-genus of a taxon of the
family-group can only be a nominal, not a taxonomic genus.’
4. The name a-IDAE is based upon the nominal genus A-us, which is
therefore its normal type-genus ; B-IDAB, likewise, is based upon B-us. A-us
1 See Document 11/1.
316 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
and B-us may be objectively identical taxonomically, but each remains a
separate nominal genus, each with its own author and date. In that case
A-IDAE and B-IDAE, different nominal families, each with its own author and
date, are objectively identical from a taxonomic view-point.
5. Equally, one cannot change the name of a nominal genus. Suppose
that A-us and B-us, two nominal genera, are objective synonyms. Suppose that
the valid name for the taxonomic genus which they represent is B-us, but
that A-us has been in use incorrectly. The shift of name of the taxonomic
genus from A-us to B-us is not a change of name of the nominal genus A-us. It
is selection of the second of two synonyms as the valid name of the taxonomic
genus which each represents.
6. With these facts in mind, let us attempt to reword the first sentence
of the opening quotation of this paper. It will then read somewhat as follows :—
If a nominal genus, type of a taxon of the family-group, is found
to be a junior homonym and therefore invalid, the nominal taxon of the
family-group shall also be deemed invalid. The replacing valid nominal
genus automatically becomes type of a new nominal taxon of the family-
group. The two nominal taxa of the latter are to be listed as synonyms,
just as are the two nominal genera.
7. To illustrate : Suppose that A-us, 1796, a genus of birds, is a homonym
of A-us, 1800, a genus of insects, and that the latter is the type nominal genus
of the family a-1paE, 1815. Suppose that this homonymy was discovered in
1900, and therefore B-us was proposed as a new name for the taxonomic genus
represented by A-us, 1800, nec A-us, 1796. The nominal genus B-us, 1900, is
a valid (although junior) synonym of A-us, 1800, which is invalid because of
homonymy.
8. The rule that we have been discussing requires that, the above being
the case, a new nominal family B-IDAE must be erected to replace the nominal
family A-IDAE, now deemed nomenclaturally invalid. The family B-mDag,
1900, is then a valid (although junior) synonym of A-IDAE, 1815. A-IDAE is nota
homonym because no family of birds named 4-1DAE has been erected, but it is
deemed invalid because it is a potential homonym; that is, ornithologists
must be free to erect a taxon of the family-group with A-ws, 1796, as its type-
genus.
9. This is all sufficiently logical, but I think a contradiction in the Régles
will have become apparent.
is ss sae a ee ee ee a ee ee ee ee
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 317
10. Suppose that in 1835 a third genus, C-us, within the same taxonomic
family of insects, has become type nominal genus of a subfamily c-InAE. This
has priority as the name of a taxon of the family-group over B-IDAE, 1900, and
the Régles state that priority shall obtain among names of the family-group
(Copenhagen Decision on Nomenclature : 33, Decision 45(1). Therefore by that
provision 0-1D4E is the valid name of the taxonomic family, while by Decision
54(1)(b) B-1DAzE is the valid name.
11. This impasse can be resolved by a new provision to the effect that if
the type nominal genera of two nominal taxa of the family-group are objective
synonyms, the latter taxon shall be deemed to have the same date of origin,
namely the earliest date of either. Thus, in the preceding example, B-IDAE,
instead of dating from 1900, would date from 1815, the same as A-IDAE and
could then be substituted for A-IDAE.
12. It will occur to those who have read this far that there is still another
class of cases that may cause difficulty. As all know, it often happens that
when a nominal genus is found to be an invalid homonym, no substitute
name is proposed because there already exists a name which is an objective
synonym of the invalid nominal genus, or is considered by at least some
zoologists to be a subjective synonym of it. If such a nominal genus is the type
of a taxon of the family-group, it will be readily appreciated that the situation
may be quite different from the case where a name has been expressly proposed
as a substitute for the invalid generic homonym.
18. If the invalid generic homonym is replaced by an objective synonym,
even though one that has not been expressly proposed as a substitute, the case
is not essentially different from 4s though it had been, and the rule proposed
in the preceding paragraph can equally apply. But if it has to be replaced by
a subjective synonym, which is probably true in a large majority of such cases,
an element of uncertainty enters in, and if such a synonym were allowed to
become the type-genus of a new nominal taxon of the family-group, that name
would always be unstable, depending upon diverse views of taxonomists,
present and future, concerning the synonymy. Even at the outset the newly
proposed family-group name would have to be rejected by every taxonomist
who refused to accept the generic synonymy. At least this would be true as
long as the rule obtains that the new nominal taxon of the family-group has
to be based on the nominal genus that replaces the invalid homonym.
14, Under such circumstances it would seem better to let priority govern.
Thus, suppose that a-IDAE, 1815, has to be abandoned in 1957 because A-us
‘is an invalid homonym ; then, instead of erecting a new nominal family B-IDAE,
1957, based on a subjective synonym of A-ws, one would search for the oldest
family-group name that had been proposed, and this would become the valid
318 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
name of the taxonomic family formerly called a-ipaEz. Only in case no such
name existed would a new nominal family have to be erected, not advisably
on B-us, for the author could and should choose a type nominal genus of
which the status was not in doubt. A decided advantage of this method is
that it would usually result in the adoption of a name already familiar as that
of a subfamily or tribe instead of a wholly new one. Ifa family were concerned,
a familiar subfamily name might replace it. This would leave one taxonomic
subfamily without a name, and a known tribal name might be available as a
replacement. Then, only at the lowest and least important level, a new nominal
tribe might have to be erected.
15. While the methods that I have suggested seem to be those that most
closely comply with the intent of the Copenhagen provision, it will be well, now
that the subject is open, to consider another approach that would cause less
nomenclatorial upheaval. This method is to strictly follow priority in the
names of the taxa of the family-group, and not to rule that two names of the
family-group based on objectively synonymous nominal genera, are to be
deemed established at the same date.
16. For example, if A-us, 1800, is an invalid homonym, then A-IDAB,
1815, is an invalid family name. Another nominal family must be found or
established to replace the latter when the homonymy is discovered, say in
1957. If there is within the taxonomic family another nominal genus or genera
which have become each the type of a taxon of the family-group (as tribe or
subfamily), then the one first made such a type, say C-us, established in 1835
as type of c-INAE, automatically becomes type of c-1DAz, which is then the
valid synonym of invalid a-1naz. This is also the simpler rule to follow because
it then makes no difference whether the invalid name A-us was replaced by an
objective or a subjective synonym.
17. From these considerations I have to propose that one of two courses
should be decided upon, and the appropriate amendments, as indicated below,
adopted at the London Congress, either course to be preceded by annulment
of paragraph 54(1)(b) of the Copenhagen Congress.
Alternative “‘ A ’’
18. If the first plan is adopted, the following amendments will require
to be adopted :
(1) A nominal taxon of the family-group is invalid if its type nominal
genus is a junior homonym.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 319
(2) If a nominal taxon of the family-group that is invalid under the
preceding provision has a synonym, and if the type nominal genera
of the two nominal taxa are objective synonyms, the two nominal
taxa shall be deemed to have the same date of origin.
Example: A-us, 1800, is a junior homonym, therefore A-IDAE,
1815, is invalid. B-us, 1900, is an objective synonym of A-us,
having in this instance been proposed as a substitute name.
Therefore B-IDAE, actually proposed in 1900, is nevertheless deemed
to date from 1800.
(3) Rule (2) shall not apply in case that prior to the establishment of the
objective junior generic synonym, some author has proposed to
replace the nominal taxon of the family-group, on the grounds that
it is invalid, with whatever subjective synonym has priority.
Example: A-us, 1800, is a junior homonym, therefore A-IDAE,
1815, is invalid. c-rNaE, 1830, is the oldest subfamily of the
invalidly named taxonomic group A-IDAE. C-IDAE, a subjective
synonym of A-IDAE, dating then from 1830, was proposed in 1850 to
replace the invalid nominal family a-IpaE (A-uws and C-us are
not synonyms, but the families are subjective synonyms). B-us,
1900, is an objective synonym of A-us, but B-IDAE, proposed in 1900
to replace A-IDAE, 1815, then dates from 1900 not 1815, since the
name of the taxonomic family had already been changed.
(4) An invalid nominal taxon of the family-group shall be replaced by its
oldest synonym, whether objective or subjective.
Examples: (1) Objective synonomy. A-us, 1800, is a junior
homonym, therefore A-IDAE, 1815, is invalid. C-us, 1830, is the
type of c-INAE, 1830, but was not used for the family. B-us, 1900,
is an objective synonym of A-us, 1800, in this instance proposed as a
substitute name. B-IDAE, actually proposed in 1900, dates for
purposes of priority from 1815, since no prior proposal had been
made to replace the name A-IDAE. Therefore B-IDAE as the oldest
synonym, in this case objective, replaces A-IDAE.
(2) Subjective synonomy. A-us, 1800, is a junior
homonym, therefore a-1DAE, 1815, is invalid. C-us, 1830, is made
type of subfamily c-mnaz, 1830. o-1DAz, 1850, is adopted to replace
the invalid a-rpaz. Therefore, although C-us is not a synonym of
A-us, O-IDAE is a subjective synonym of a-IDAE. B-us, 1900 is
proposed as a substitute name for A-ws, 1800. But B-1DAz, if proposed
in 1900 to replace a-1Daz, dates for priority only from 1900, and
O-IDAE, 1850, remains the valid name to replace A-IDAE.
320 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(5) Rules (2) to (4) above shall apply to invalid nominal taxa of the family-
group if replacement has to be made subsequent to 1958. They
shall not be applied in such manner as to disqualify a nominal taxon
of the family-group that has been accepted prior to 1958 as the valid
synonym of an invalid name.
Alternative “ B ”’
19. By the second and simpler method, the following amendments will
need to be adopted :—
(1) Same as under Alternative “A”’.
(2) Same as (4) in Alternative ‘“ A”’.
(3) The preceding rule (2) shall apply to invalid nominal taxa of the
family-group if replacement has to be made subsequent to 1958. It
shall not be applied in such manner as to disqualify a nominal taxon
of the family-group that has been accepted prior to 1958 as the valid
synonym of an invalid name.
20. Whichever set of rules is preferred would replace Article 13, Section
4(b)? of the proposed Draft of the Régles.
2 See Vol. 14 « 98.
i a eas ine eel
CONTENTS
(continued from front wrapper)
THE LONDON AGENDA PAPER
(a) New Proposals
Case No. 11: Draft “ Régles ’’, Articles 18, Section 2, and 13, Section
4(a) : Family Group Taxa, nature of types of
D.11/1 J. Chester Bradley
Case No. 12: Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 11, Section 1: emendation of
generic and specific names
D.12/1 Francis Hemming ...
Case No. 13: Draft ‘‘ Régles ’’, Article 28, Section 13: Specific names
consisting of ‘‘ barbarous ’’ words : question of liability of, to gender
changes
D.13/1 Frané¢is Hemming
D.13/2 Correspondence between Francis Hemming and Ernst Mayr
D.13/3 Leo Sheljuzhko
Case No. 14: Draft “‘ Régles ’’, suggested Article between Articles 25
and 26: “Code of Ethics ’’: proposed amplification of
D.14/1 Francis Hemming ...
D.14/2 Franeis Hemming ...
Case No. 15 : Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 8, Section 2 : ‘“‘ Page Precedence ”’
versus “ First Reviser ’’ Principle
D.15/1 Cyril F. dos Passos & Alexander B. Klots
'D.15/2 Francis Hemming
Page
257
260
293
CONTENTS
(continued from inside back cover)
(b) Comments on previously published proposals
Case No. 1: Proposed recognition of the “‘ Parataxon ’”’ concept
D.1/44 Klaus J. Miiller
D.1/45 BR. E. H. Reid
D.1/46 Arthur N. Dusenbury, Jr. ...
D.1/47 F. H. T. Rhodes
D.1/48 Ellis L. Yochelson ...
Page
296
298
303
305
313
Case No. 3: Family-group names : priority and authorship of substitute names
D.3/3 J. Chester Bradley
© 1958. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Printed in England by MetTcALre & Cooper LimiteD, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2
315
VOLUME 15. Part 11
llth February 1958
pp. 321—356
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
The Official Organ of
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
ie dines » aia as
| Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
; Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
=EB 195 eee
1 TF CONTENTS WOR
Fifth Instalment of the London Congress Agenda Paper
(continued inside back wrapper)
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
1958
Price One Pound, Two Shillings and Sixpence
(All rights reserved)
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
A. The Officers of the Commission
Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jorpan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological
Museum, Tring, Herts, England)
President: Professor James Chester BrapLey (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(12th August 1953)
Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMarat (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953)
Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemmine (London, England) (27th July 1948)
B. The Members of the Commission
(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent
re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)
Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
(1st January 1947)
Senor Dr. Angel CasBrera (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948)
Mr. Francis Hemmine (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)
Dr. Henning Lemcue (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948)
Professor Teiso Esaxr (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950)*
Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)
Mr. Norman Denbigh Riwey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950)
Professor Dr. Tadeusz JaczEwsk1 (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw,
Poland) (15th June 1950)
Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt
a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950)
Professor Dr. Erich Martin Herme (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin,
Germany) (Sth July 1950)
Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMarat (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President)
Professor J. R. Dymonp (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953)
Professor J. Chester BrapLEy (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
(President)
Professor Harold E. Voxss (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana,
U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
Professor Béla Hanx6 (Mezojazdasdgi Muzewm, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)
Dr. Norman R. Srouu (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(12th August 1953)
Mr. P. C. SytvestEeR-Brab Ey (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953)
Dr. L. B. Hoxruuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th
August 1953)
Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra,
A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954)
Dr. Alden H. Minter (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California,
U.S.A.) (29th October 1954)
Doc. Dr. Ferdinand Prantt (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October
1954)
Professor Dr. William Ktuyetr (Zoologisches Institut der Universitét, Vienna, Austria) (6th
November 1954)
Professor F. 8S. BopENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954)
Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954)
Professor Enrico TortonEsE (Museo di Storia Naturale “ G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th
December 1954)
* Professor Esaki died on 14th December 1957, while the present Part was passing through
the Press.
———
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Volume 15, Part 11 (pp. 321-356) llth February 1958
CASE No. 16
DRAFT “ REGLES ’’, ARTICLE 6, SECTION 6(b) : PROPOSALS
RELATING TO THE FORM OF GENERIC NAMES INTENDED
FOR PALAEONTOLOGY
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1293)
(For the relevant provision in the Draft Régles see 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
14 : 57)
DOCUMENT 16/1
Proposed deletion of Article 6, Section 6(b), of the Draft ‘ Régles ”’
By CURTIS W. SABROSKY
(U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,
Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)
(Enclosure to a letter dated 29th November 1957)
It is proposed that part of (b) of Section 6 be deleted from the Code. IL
believe that the provisions of the Code should be general in nature, and not
' attempt to cover particular situations in individual groups. My proposal is
based on this principle, and not on the merits of the problem itself ; those
could be dealt with by the Commission under its Plenary Powers.
322 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 16/2
The Form of Generic Names intended for Palaeontology :
A word of caution on Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal
By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
(Note dated 3lst December 1957)
In his note dated 29th November 1957, Dr. Sabrosky has suggested the
deletion from the Régles of the provision which at present stands as Article 6,
Section 6(b) in the Draft (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 57) relating to the
forms of generic names intended for palaeontology. In submitting this
proposal Dr. Sabrosky explains that he does so because in his opinion the
Regles should not attempt to cover particular situations in individual groups,
adding that if difficulties were to arise in such cases they could be dealt with
by the Commission under its Plenary Powers.
2. In general I would agree with Dr. Sabrosky that care should be taken
to include in the Régles only provisions of a general character. It seems to
me, therefore, that what is required in the present case is advice from palae-
ontologists as to whether the problem dealt with in the proposal, sought to be
deleted by Dr. Sabrosky, is in their opinion one of sufficiently general character
to justify inclusion in the Régles.
3. Looking at this matter purely from the point of view of the procedure
of the International Commission, I must say that, if palaeontologists were to be
of the opinion that this is a useful provision and that its omission would be
likely to give rise either to lack of uniformity or to the submission to the
Commission of any considerable number of applications, I would favour the
retention of the provision drafted by Professor Chester Bradley. It is important
that the Régles should not deal with matters which could better be dealt with
on an individual basis by the Commission, but it is important also to avoid
falling into the opposite error by omitting provisions from the Régles, where
to do so would invite the submission to the Commission of possibly considerable
numbers of applications which would be unnecessary if the provision in question
had been inserted in the Régles .
/
|
|
|
:
|
|
.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 323
CASE No. 17
ARTICLE 22, RECOMMENDATION 10(8) OF THE DRAFT REGLES
CITATION OF DATES IN BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1294)
(For the relevant provision in the Draft Régles see 1957,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 166)
DOCUMENT 17/1
Proposed deletion of Article 22, Recommendation 10(£) relating
to citation of dates in a particular situation
By CURTIS W. SABROSKY
(U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,
Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)
(Enclosure to letter dated 29th November 1957)
It is proposed that item (ii) under Recommandation 7 be deleted. That is
a pedantic provision that would be ignored by most zoologists. The difference
between (1958) and [1958] would not be apparent to most, and perhaps is a
fine distinction that need not be made anyway.
324 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 17/2
Proposed retention of the Paris Congress decision at present
embodied in “‘ Recommandation ’’ 10(8) of
Article 22 of the “ Régles ”’
By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
(Note dated 31st December 1957)
Dr. Sabrosky (in Document 17/1) suggests that the London Congress
should reverse the decision taken by the Paris Congress in 1948 that zoologists
should be recommended to place the date of a given name in round brackets
(parenthesis) when that date is obtainable only from indirect evidence provided
by the work itself. The purpose of this decision by the Paris Congress was to
provide a ready means of distinguishing a date ascertainable only in the above
manner from a date which can only be determined by reference to some external
source. As regards the latter the Congress recommended that the date should
be enclosed in square brackets (brackets). The provision, which Dr. Sabrosky
suggests should be omitted, corresponds with the practice of the British Museum
(Natural History) and other leading bibliographical authorities and its use
often proves of material advantage to later authors when considering the date
applied to a name by some earlier author.
2. I would agree with Dr. Sabrosky that this is a Recommandation which
some authors and editors might perhaps ignore. This does not seem to me,
however, to be a good reason for not including in the Régles a provision which
has proved intrinsically useful and which, moreover, corresponds with the
best bibliographical practice. A provision of this kind would not be suitable
for inclusion in the Régles as a mandatory provision, but this is not the
proposal in Professor Bradley’s draft where it is recommended that this matter
should be dealt with in a non-mandatory Recommandation non-compliance
with which would not involve an actual breach of the Régles.
8. For these reasons I recommend that the Paris Congress decision in this
matter be upheld and that, in consequence, the provision discussed above be
retained in the Régles.
ee ee ee ee ee ee eS ee ee ee
ey ae ae ee re PR
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 325
CASE No. 18
DRAFT “ REGLES ’’, ARTICLE 24, SECTION 15(e) : REPLACEMENT
OF JUNIOR HOMONYMS POSSESSING ONLY SUBJECTIVE SYNONYMS
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1295)
(For the relevant provision in the Draft Régles see 1957, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 14 : 185-186)
DOCUMENT 18/1
Proposed Redraft of Section 15(e) of Article 24 of Draft “ Régles ””
By CURTIS W. SABROSKY
(U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,
Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)
(Enclosure to a letter dated 29th November 1957)
It is proposed that part (e) as it stands be deleted and be replaced with the
following, under the same letter and title: “If the junior homonym to be
replaced has no objective synonym, but already has one or more subjective
synonyms, the rejected homonym is to be replaced by its earliest established
available subjective synonym for so long as that name remains subjectively
identified with it. If that species ceases to be regarded as subjectively
synonymous, the next earliest shall be used. If no other subjective synonyms
are known and available, the junior homonym shall be renamed ”’.
326 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 18/2
Points for consideration on Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal relating to the
replacement of junior homonyms possessing only subjective synonyms
By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
The question of the procedure to be followed when a name is found to be
invalid as a junior homonym of some older available name was discussed at
considerable length at the Paris Congress in 1948. It was then generally
agreed that, other things being equal, the logical course would be to replace with
a new and available name any name found to be invalid as a junior homonym
of some other name, for the adoption of this course would make it possible in
discussing subjective synonymy to refer to the taxon concerned by a name
which was nomenclatorially available. On the other hand, the view was
expressed that in a very large number of cases the circumstances were such
that no specialist in the group concerned would be likely to take the view that
the taxon to which had been given the name to be rejected as a junior homonym
was without a name which, on the subjective plane, was clearly applicable
to it. In these circumstances, it was argued that the automatic replacement
by new names of names rejected as junior homonyms would lead to the intro-
duction into the literature of many names which in fact would never be used.
This latter view won the day, and it was for this reason that the Paris Congress
agreed to include in the Régles a provision under which it would be made clear
that an invalid homonym could be replaced by a new name or be replaced by
the existing subjective synonym of later date, whichever was considered the
more appropriate.
2. Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal has the effect of shifting the emphasis in favour
of the second of these courses, that is, against the giving of a new name and in
favour of using a subjective synonym. It seems to me that, subject to drafting
points noted below, Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal has the advantage of greater
brevity, while securing substantially the same ends as those agreed upon in
Paris. The drafting points which I should like to suggest for consideration
are the following :—
(a) First phrase of first sentence: It would, I think, be well to insert the
words “and nomenclatorially available’? between the words
“ objective” and “synonyms” because a junior homonym might
have an objective synonym which, for some reason, was itself invalid.
= eee er
——
ee ee ee eT
eed «
=—s ey ee
one eh
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 327
(b) First sentence, second portion: For reasons similar to those explained in
(a) above, it would, I think, be prudent to insert the words ‘“‘ and
nomenclatorially available” between the words “ subjective” and
“synonyms ”’,
(c) First sentence, main phrase: There may be situations, for example in
revisional work, where it is desirable, in the view of the specialist
there may exist a name which is, or is claimed to be, a subjective
while meeting the point referred to above, maintains, as it seems to
me, the general purpose of Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal.
(d) Last sentence, at end: In view of the confusion which has occasionally
arisen in the literature about the attribution and dating of substitute
names, it would, I think, be helpful if at the end of this sentence
there were to be added the words “a substitute name so published
to be attributed to the author by whom it was published and to the
date on which it was published ”, unless it is considered that words
to the same effect can be more conveniently inserted in some other
part of the Reégles.
328 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
CASE No. 19
Draft “ Régles’’, Article 26: banning of the use of intemperate
language in discussions on zoological nomenclature
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1296)
(For the relevant provision in the Draft Régles see
1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 190)
DOCUMENT 19/1
Proposed deletion of Article 26 in the Draft “ Régles ’’
By CURTIS W. SABROSKY
(U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,
Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)
It is proposed that this entire Article be deleted from the Code. It is an
insult to the great bulk of zoologists, and it is wishful thinking to believe that
it will have any effect whatsoever on those who do use it, except perhaps
to intensify their intemperacy. Language is a matter of good taste, but this is
subjective. What one man considers intemperate will seem merely picturesque
or forceful to another. The interpretation may vary according to whether or .
not one agrees with the speaker or writer. Actually, really intemperate
language will in these times rarely, if ever, get past an editor.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 329
DOCUMENT 19/2
Proposed retention of the provision banning the use of
intemperate language in discussions on zoological nomenclature
By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
(Note dated 10th December 1957)
In his note ,dated the 29th November 1957 (Document 19/1), Dr. Curtis W.
Sabrosky recommends the deletion from the Régles of the provision banning
the use of intemperate language in discussions on zoological nomenclature.
2. I recommend that Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal be rejected. The provision
to which he takes exception was unanimously adopted by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Monaco in
March 1913, and was approved by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology
meeting at that time. This resolution was subsequently embodied in Declaration
4 (1943, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 1(A) : 23-30), which contains
in full the discussion deprecating the use of intemperate language included
by my predecessor the late Dr. C. W. Stiles (Washington, D.C.) in the Report
which he prepared for, and which was adopted by, the International Commission
at Monaco. This Declaration was considered again by the International
Commission at Paris in 1948, and on its recommendation was incorporated into
the Régles by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology then meeting
in that city (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 167). The provision in question has
thus been part of the body of international rules relating to zoological
nomenclature for over forty years, and, for this reason alone, it would seem to
me a mistake to revoke this provision, unless there were any strong grounds
for so doing.
8. It will, I think, be generally agreed that during the last half century
the standard of politeness in papers on zoological nomenclature has greatly
improved, personal attacks and the use of offensive epithets in zoological
papers having been of much rarer occurrence than in earlier periods. No
‘doubt this change is due in part to the general improvement in manners during
the period, but it may, I think, be claimed that the resolution, adopted by the
Commission and approved by the Congress in 1913, deprecating the use of
330 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
offensive language contributed to the improvement which has taken place. It
would appear to me to be a retrograde step at this stage to cancel the existing
provision on this subject.
4. Dr. Sabrosky is no doubt right when he says that “ really intemperate
language will in these times rarely, if ever, get past an editor’. It is also true,
however, that the existence of the present provision has often proved of
assistance to editors when seeking to delete offensive passages from papers
submitted for publication. I might perhaps add that, as Editor of the Bulletin
of Zoological Nomenclature, I have on more than one occasion found the
existence of this provision of value when editing papers for publication.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 331
CASE No. 20
DRAFT “ REGLES ”’, ARTICLE 28, SECTION 9(a) AND APPENDIX :
GRAMMATICAL FORMATION OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1266)
(For the relevant provisions in the Draft of the Revised Régles
see 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 204, 233-237.)
DOCUMENT 20/1
The grammatical formation of names for taxa belonging to the family-
group category
By J. CHESTER BRADLEY
(Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(Enclosure to a letter dated 14th November 1957)
Formerly the rule that the name of a taxon belonging to the family-group
category was to be formed by adding the appropriate suffix to the stem of the
name of its type-genus gave rise to a good deal of uncertainty, because zoologists
untrained in the classics did not always recognize the stem of a classical word.
2. When at Copenhagen (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 34,
Decision 50(a)) the rule was changed, so far as classical words are concerned, to
require that the genitive case-ending of the word concerned be replaced by the
' appropriate family-group suffix it was believed that the matter had been
so simplified as to become routine for any zoologist to use. Since the genitive
332 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
is given in classical lexicons and the genitive case-ending in grammars, any one
could easily form the family-group name, without any knowledge of Greek or
Latin.
3. The Consulting Classical Adviser to the Commission, Professor L. W.
Grensted, has pointed out to me that the rule can only apply if the name, or the
last part of the name, is a Greek or Latin word. The wording “ of Greek or
Latin origin”, he points out, can lead to misunderstanding and confusion.
4, Any word that is a generic name is by that fact a Latin or Neo-latin
word. If it has been transliterated from the Greek with the Greek termination,
that is to say, employing the Greek nominative case-ending, then and then only
will it retain its original Greek stem. If it has been given a different Latin
nominative case-ending, then it will acquire both the stem and the gender
appropriate in Latin to the new ending. “‘ The Greek stem ” writes Professor
Grensted “‘ only survives when the Greek word survives entire and complete.
Then in classical Latin and in zoological usage the Greek stem is retained too,
but not otherwise’. ‘‘ The name, once coined, becomes Latin, and the stem
required is the Latin stem ”’.
5. For example, take generie names ending in the Greek word xépas
(keras) a horn, or ending in a Latinized derivative of that word. The Greek
képas has an increasing genitive «épatos (keratos) the termination (genitive
case-ending) of which is -os, and when this is eliminated there remains the
combining form «xépa7- to which the family suffix -idae must be added to form
the family name. The Greek K (kappa) is transliterated into Latin as c. Thus a
family name based on the generic name Calliceras would be CALLICERATIDAE.
If, however, in forming a Neo-Latin generic name from xé¢pus a new nominative
case-ending has replaced the -as, the original Greek stem has been lost, and
the word must be declined as any other Latin word. Thus in T'richocera the
nominative case-ending -a has replaced the Greek -«s, and the word both as to
stem and gender must be treated as a Latin noun of the First Declension and
as of the feminine gender. The genitive singular is Trichocerae, the family
name TRICHOCERIDAE. In Heterocerus the nominative case-ending “ -us” is
employed, and the word is a noun of the Latin Second Declension and is
masculine in gender, with its family name HETEROCERIDAE.
6. In order that this matter may be corrected, and clarified, I would
suggest that in the Revised Régles an amendment should be made in the portion
embodying the opening phrase of Copenhagen Decision 50(1)(a) (1953,
Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencel. : 34) and an “‘ Explanation’ added. In
addition, a further short ‘‘ Explanation ”’ is suggested, together with a proposal
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 333
for the amendment of one phrase wherever it occurs in the Draft Régles. The
proposals so submitted are the following :—
(1) Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 28, Section 9(a), opening phrase? :—
The words “ a word of Greek or Latin origin ” to be replaced by
the words “a Greek or Latin word ”’.
(2) “ Explanation’? proposed to be inserted :—
Explanation: If a Greek word is retained in a newly coined
Neo-Latin generic name without change of nominative case-ending
it retains its Greek stem and genitive. If a Latin nominative case-
ending is employed, both the stem and the gender become whatever
is appropriate in Latin to the new ending. Hxamples: The following
generic names all derive from the Greek word xépas (keras), trans-
literated into Latin “ ceras”’) a horn ; (a) Calliceras, using the Greek
nominative, retains the Greek stem and gender, and a family name
based on it would be CALLICERATIDAE (genitive Calliceratos, stem
Callicerat-) ; (b) In Trichocera the Latin nominative ending “ -a”’,
has been substituted and this makes it a feminine word of the First
Declension, with genitive trichocerae, family name TRICHOCERIDAE ;
(c) In Heterocerus the nominative case-ending -us, has been substituted
and this makes it a masculine noun of the Latin Second Declension,
genitive heteroceri, family name HETEROCERIDAE.
(3) Supplementary ‘‘ Explanation ’’ proposed to be added :—
The table of Latin nouns set out in the Appendix to Article 28?
may be consulted in such cases to assist in determining the proper
form of the genitive of a noun and its gender.
(4) Proposed substitution of the expression ‘‘ nominative case-ending ’
for the expression “‘ nominative suffix ’’ :
The expression “ nominative suffix’ used in the Draft Régles
means “‘ nominative case-ending ”’, but the latter expression is more
easily understood and should, it is recommended, be substituted
in the Draft Reégles for the expression ‘“‘ nominative suffix”’,
wherever the latter expression occurs.
1 The prase here referred to appears in lines 10 and 11 on page 204 of the Draft Régles (1957,
* Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 204).
? For the Appendix here referred to see pages 233-237 of the Draft Régles (1957, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 14 : 233-237).
334 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
CASE No. 21
DRAFT “ REGLES’’, ARTICLE 28, SECTION Il: GENDER OF
GENERIC NAMES
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 996)
(For the relevant provisions in the Draft of the Revised Régles
see 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 208 et seq.)
DOCUMENT 21/1
Report on the Rules for the determination of the gender attributable
to generic names of various classes adopted by the Copenhagen
Congress of 1953 in its Decision 84
By L. W. GRENSTED
(Consulting Classical Adviser to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature)
(Report dated 14th January 1957)
In accordance with the request contained in your letter of 30th November
1956 I have examined the rules for determining the gender attributable to
generic names laid down by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology,
Copenhagen, 1953 by its Decision 84 (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomenel.:
49-51) and submit the following Report on the matters on the nature of the
amendments to those Rules which, in my opinion, are desirable under the
review called for under Decision 85 (loc. cit.: 51) of the above Congress.
~~. |
~
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 335
2. Section 84(3) of the Copenhagen Decisions reads as follows :—
Where a Greek or Latin word has, on being used as a generic name,
been modified by the addition of a nominative suffix, the gender becomes
that of the Suffix (thus nouns ending in ‘‘-stomus ” are to be treated as
masculine, although those ending in “-stoma” are neuter).
This recommendation has resulted in difficulties of interpretation when read in
the light of Section 84(7)(b)(1) where names ending in “‘-gnathus”’ are deter-
mined as feminine, as being “ obviously derived from Greek words, which are
given in the standard Greek lexicon as being feminine in gender”, and of
Section 84(7)(c)(1) where names ending in ‘‘-cheilus’’, “rhamphus ”’,
“-rhynchus’”’, and “-stathus” are determined as neuter, as being “ obviously
derived from Greek words of neuter gender, by reason of having the termination
“08 99 ge
3. Two preliminary points arise in connection with these two clauses (as
well as certain others) of Section 84(7) :—
(i) The phrase “ obviously derived from” is far too loose, and might
give rise to many problems of interpretation. Thus, to take the
example given in Section 84(3) “-stomus” is “ obviously derived
from ”’ the neuter noun stoma, but is nevertheless determined as
masculine, by reason of the nominative suffix “-ys ”.
(ii) The Greek termination of “-os ” is masculine in the vast majority of
cases and cannot be cited as a reason for a neuter gender. Forms
such as gnathos, cheilos, etc. are very few, constituting a small and
special class.
There is clear need for careful re-drafting of Section 84(7) with these points
in view.
4. But the most serious difficulty arises in connection with the decision
that forms in -gnathus should be feminine, and forms in -cheilus (or -chilus),
-rhamphus etc. should be neuter. For by Section 84(3) it appears that, for
example, -cheilus is the Greek -cheilos transformed by the addition of the
Latin nominative suffix “ -ys ”, which is masculine, exactly as -stoma (the
example cited) is the Greek -stoma transformed by the addition of the Latin
nominative suffix “-us”, It ig agreed that in this latter case the gender is
masculine. There is every reason to apply the same reasoning to the cases
cited above of forms in -gnathus, -cheilus ete. A ruling has in fact been recently
-given to the effect that the generic name Oxycheilus (or Oxychilus) is, as it
has always been regarded in taxonomic usage, masculine, a decision reversing
Section 84(7)(c)(1), but agreeing with Section 84(3).
336 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
5. Against this it might be argued that -cheilus is simply a transliteration
of the Greek -cheilos (xetAos), and that a form such as Oxycheilus therefore
ends in a noun given in the Standard Greek Lexicon as neuter. This is indeed
the only ground for attaching the neuter gender to this and similar generic
names. There are good reasons for rejecting this argument, as follows :—
(1) -chetlus (and similar forms) are not transliterations but Latinisations.
The transliteration of yetAos would be cheilos and there are cases in
scientific Latin where this transliteration of the Greek “-os ” occurs,
as in Nymphalis polychloros, and, in principle in such generic names
as Ennomos. But a Latinised Oxycheilus would certainly, being
strictly an adjectival form, have been treated as masculine.
(2) The “‘ -ws ’”’ in this case must certainly be regarded rather as a masculine
“nominative suffix’? than as a transliteration. In other words
names such as Ozycheilus do not end in a noun given in the standard
lexicon as neuter, but in a modified form, masculine by its termina-
tion.
(3) A more obscure point, but in fact an equally decisive one, is that
names of this type, if put back into their Greek form, would be two-
termination adjectives. Thus Osxycheilus would be d€vxerdos
(sharp-lipped) and the “-os”’ would not be the termination of the
noun xeiAos but the ordinary masculine “-os” of the common
adjectival form. Such adjectives are abundant in Greek, and there
would be no doubt whatever that a name taken over from them,
either in Greek or in a Latinised form, would be masculine.
It is in fact not strictly true that Oxycheilus ends in the Greek
noun “‘ -cheilus”’. It is, properly speaking, an adjectival form, with
ce 2?
.
stem “‘ Oxcheil-’’? and the Latin masculine termination “ -ws
(4) To retain the masculine gender for these nouns would be, largely or
wholly, in line with taxonomic tradition.
6. It is clear that this discussion renders a revision of the language of
Section 84 very desirable, on lines sufficiently indicated above.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 337
CASE No. 22
DRAFT “ REGLES ”’, ARTICLE 24, SECTION 11(c) : PROVISION
FOR CHALLENGING THE REJECTION OF SECONDARY
HOMONYMS
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1275)
(For the relevant provision in the Draft Régles see 1957,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 180)
DOCUMENT 22/1
Proposal to eliminate the provision for Challenge of the Rejection of
Secondary Homonyms
By CURTIS W. SABROSKY
(U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Division, Entomology
Research Division, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)
(Enclosure to a letter dated 17th October 1957)
Article 24, Section 11(c) of the Draft of the new Code provides, in line
with Decision 162 of the Copenhagen Congress (1953, Copenhagen Decisions
zool. Nomencl. : 82-83), a procedure for challenging the rejection of a secondary
homonym. The procedure seems unreasonably drastic and open to abuse,
and hence undesirable, for the following reasons :—
(a) There is provision for challenge, but none for consideration of
the merits of a challenge. Thus one or a few individuals—possibly a small
minority in a given field of work—would be given a veto power over the
status of a replacement name, merely by entering a protest.
338
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(b) Difference in zoological views may be wide, but sincere, and
reasonable allowance must be made. It was not the intent of the
Copenhagen Decision, from the discussion at the Colloquium, to cover all
ordinary cases, but to provide an escape mechanism against flagrant and
meddlesome examples of unjustified synonymy leading to homonyms and
consequent replacement names. Yet there is evidence that, as presently
worded, the provision will be invoked against ordinary changes made in
good faith by reputable zoologists.
(c) There is no stated time limit on the replacement names which
may be challenged under the provision. In a case known to me, a challenge
was drafted against a replacement name over thirty years old, a name
proposed in good faith and accepted and used by a number of authors.
2. Particularly flagrant examples could always be handled under the
Plenary Powers, without writing into the Code a loose provision that would
breed disputes and litigation.
3. It is therefore proposed that paragraph c of Section 11 of Article 24
of the Draft Code be revoked and stricken from the Code.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 339
DOCUMENT 22/2
Support for Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal for the repeal of the provision
agreed upon by the Copenhagen Congress for the application of the
“ Notification and Challenge ’’ procedure in relation to secondary
homonyms
By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
(Note dated 10th November 1957)
I desire strongly to support Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal for the deletion from
the Draft Régles of the provision embodying the decision of the Copenhagen
Congress to provide what it was hoped would be a substantially automatic
procedure for challenging the rejection of names as secondary homonyms.
2. Everyone will agree that there should be appropriate means for securing
the rejection of names published as substitute names for names rejected as
secondary homonyms in cases where the circumstances leading to the condition
of homonymy are such as would never have arisen if the author publishing
the replacement names had acted with greater discretion. The opportunities,
however, for the unnecessary rejection of names as secondary homonyms are
not great, and I agree with Dr. Sabrosky in considering that the best way of
dealing with such cases, if detected, would be by submission of the relevant
particulars to the International Commission, with a request for the suppression
under the Plenary Powers of any replacement names unnecessarily brought
into existence in this way. In this connection, however, it will be necessary
to make sure that the final text in the Régles regarding the use of the Plenary
Powers is drawn sufficiently widely to prevent any question being raised as
to the appropriateness of their use for the foregoing purpose.
3. I am reinforced in my view that the proposal submitted in this matter
by Dr. Sabrosky deserves the fullest support by my conviction that the
’ “Notification and Challenge” procedure is inherently dangerous, and, as
Dr. Sabrosky observes in the present case, is likely to “ breed disputes and
litigation ”’, that is, that instead of promoting stability in nomenclature, as it
340 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
was hoped at Copenhagen that it would do, this procedure if applied, would, in
fact, give rise to instability and confusion. My reason for regarding this
mechanism as misconceived is twofold: (1) Experience in the day-to-day
work of the Commission has shown that even the publication of a full statement
of a case in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, coupled with the issue of
Public Notices, cannot be relied upon in every case to provide an adequate
assurance that the proposals submitted command the support of the general
body of specialists in the group concerned. In consequence in cases of this
kind I have felt it necessary, as Secretary to the Commission, myself to initiate
consultations with specialists before submitting the application concerned
to the Commission for vote, in order thereby to satisfy myself that the lack
of comments received was due to inertia or preoccupation with other duties
on the part of specialists in the group in question and was not attributable to
hostility to the action recommended by the applicant. (2) If even the full-dress
procedure of publication, followed by the issue of Public Notices, cannot be
relied upon in every case to provide a reasonable assurance that fiat action
is desirable and generally supported, it must be obvious that the supply of the
meagre particulars which alone are called for under the “ Notification and
Challenge” procedure would be totally insufficient to provide adequate
guarantees that its application would produce satisfactory results. Indeed, as
Dr. Sabrosky justly remarks in the present instance, the use of this procedure
might easily have the effect of putting minorities in a position of imposing their
will upon their more numerous—and possibly more responsible, though less
vocal—colleagues. While strongly endorsing Dr. Sabrosky’s plea in the
present case, I would add that from my own experience I am convinced that the
“ Notification and Challenge ”’ procedure suffers from such serious inherent
defects that it cannot be relied to promote stability or uniformity, being more
likely, on the contrary, to lead to uncertainty and confusion.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 341
CASE No. 23
DRAFT “ REGLES ”’, ARTICLE 6, SECTION 1(d); ARTICLE 10,
SECTION 2(a); ARTICLE 23, SECTION 1(a)(i): BANNING OF
NAMES CALCULATED TO GIVE POLITICAL, RELIGIOUS OR
PERSONAL OFFENCE
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1297)
(For the relevant provisions in the Draft see 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
14 : 49, 85, 167)
DOCUMENT 23/1
Deletion from the “ Régles’’ of the provisions relating to the
rejection of names calculated to give political, religious or personal
offence
By CURTIS W. SABROSKY
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,
Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)
(Enclosure to a letter dated 29th November 1957)
It is proposed that the three provisions in the Draft Régles (Article 6,
Section 1(d); Article 10, Section 2(a); Article 23, Section 1(a)(i)) dealing
with offensive names be deleted from the Code, or at most reduced to
Recommendations.
Provisions dealing with the offensiveness of names call forth the same
comments made in an earlier proposal relating to “The Use of Intemperate
342 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Language” (Article 26)4. Furthermore, there will be grave difficulties in
framing fair and effective rules. Intent would be very difficult to prove, and
the expression “‘in any language ”’ covers a lot of ground. Good taste and
editorial taste will take care of the really serious cases. The rare examples
that really ery for relief can always be handled by the Commission under its
Plenary Powers.
1 For Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal for the deletion from the Régles of the provision banning
of intemperate language in discussions on zoological nomenclature see Document 19/1 1 Vi 328)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 343
DOCUMENT 23/2
Support for the retention in the “ Régles ’’ of the provisions banning the
use of offensive words as zoological names
By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
(Note dated 10th December 1957)
In his note, dated the 29th November 1957 (Document 23/1), Dr. Curtis W.
Sabrosky recommends the deletion from the Régles of the provisions banning
the use of offensive words as zoological names. I recommend the retention of
this provision and, therefore, the rejection of Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal.
2. The provisions which Dr. Sabrosky seeks to delete from the Régles were
inserted on the recommendation of the Commission by the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
4:193—194). Dr. Sabrosky explains that his objections to the existing
provisions are similar in some respects to his objection to the proposal banning
the use of intemperate language in discussions on zoological nomenclature.
3. So far the provisions now in question have been used by the International
Commission on one occasion only. This arose on applications submitted by
Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) and Dr. Myra Keen
(Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A.), each of whom asked for the
rejection of a generic name in the Class Gastropoda which consisted of a word
which in the Lapp language, signifies the Christian Deity and is so used in
translations of the Bible in the Lapp and Finnish languages. In this case
the Commission came to the conclusion that the objections advanced were
‘ well founded and, accordingly, directed that the name in question (Jumala
Friele) be suppressed. The decision so taken has been embodied in Opinion
469 (1957, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 16 : 97-128).
344 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
4. In the case referred to above the provisions adopted by the Paris
Congress proved of practical value. If no such provisions had existed, it would
have been necessary for the Commission, if asked to deal with such a case,
to have proceeded under its Plenary Powers, a procedure which with its two-
thirds majority rule was considered in Paris to be inappropriate for dealing
with cases of alleged blasphemy and the like. Quite apart from this
consideration, a decision to delete from the Régles a provision of ten years’
standing banning the use of offensive words as zoological names would, if
taken by the London Congress in 1958, be calculated to give the impression
that in this matter that Congress took a more lax view than that held by its
predecessors. (Dr. Sabrosky’s alternative suggestion that the provisions
decided upon by the Paris Congress, if (contrary to his advice) these were to be
retained at all, should be downgraded to the status of non-mandatory
Recommandations does not meet the issue involved which was not merely to
deprecate the use of offensive words as zoological names but to provide a
ready means for invalidating such names.)
=
—
pS es Pe
eS
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 345
DOCUMENT 1/49
(continued from page 314)
Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘‘ Parataxa Plan ”’
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)
By C. W. WRIGHT
(London)
(Enclosure to a letter received 7th December 1957)
I write as a specialist in Mesozoic Ammonoidea, Echinoidea, Asteroidea
and Brachyura.
2. Professor Moore kindly sent me advance copies of his applications. I
have carefully considered these proposals and have concluded that they are
unnecessary and open to objection.
3. The great majority of palaeontological taxa are, as Moore and
Sylvester-Bradley admit, founded on more or less incomplete remains of
organisms. Many of these fragmentary remains consist of discrete parts,
for example the guards of belemnites, the marginalia of asteroids, the
cephalothoraces of brachyurous crustacea. In the cases mentioned sufficient
deductions can be made from the available evidence to allow a reasonable and
useful classification to be devised. This was not always the case in these
groups. Knowledge has advanced.
4, At the present day there remain a few well-known types of discrete
parts of organisms which are often found isolated from other parts and which
are not identifiable as to “whole-animal genera and species” in the
conventional sense. The problem of these groups does not differ in principle
but only in degree from that of very many, perhaps a majority, of other sorts
of fossil remains. I would emphasise moreover that not all the groups
mentioned by Moore and Sylvester-Bradley (paragraph 3) “ constitute a
special category of zoological entities’. In particular marginalia of asteroids
_ ean normally be classified in the same system as whole animals.
5. It is for those who wish to alter fundamentally the basic principle of
zoological nomenclature, one name for one kind of animal, to demonstrate the
necessity of change and the harmlessness of their proposals. Moore and
Sylvester-Bradley have in my view, done neither.
346 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
6. Since there is no group of cases that differs in principle from those of
other fossil remains I shall consider a few particular examples.
Aptychi
These are, at any rate in the main, the opercula of ammonites. As Moore
and Sylvester-Bradley explain, the danger of instability and confusion in the
nomenclature of ammonites arises because there exists a, limited, number of
technically valid and available aptychus names that are prior to the names of
the ammonite shell species or genera to which they are thought to belong.
However, few if any aptychi can be assigned without doubt to species of
ammonites founded on shells. Consequently it is impossible to determine to
which taxonomic species any aptychus belongs and there is therefore a good
case for regarding all aptychus names as nomina dubia and referring them to the
Commission for decision. Much the same situation applies in the case of
generic aptychus names since most aptychus genera can only be assigned, at
the best, to groups of shell genera. In any case the difficulties can readily be
resolved in a way that entirely accords with the practice of most authors for the
past century on the lines recommended in his application by Dr. Arkell, by
suppressing all aptychus names for purposes of zoological nomenclature.
There would be no practical loss to palaeontologist or stratigrapher. The
former would continue to use as technical terms or vernacular names the
“genera” and “ species ”’ in the literature and attribute to species or genera
of ammonites in so far as knowledge allowed. The latter could similarly use
such terms in the titles of or information about the rare beds which are solely
characterised by aptychi. The potential confusion in the nomenclature of
ammonites must obviously be cleared up but confusion will only arise in
practice if an author deliberately tries to create it.
Conodonts
These are discrete parts of animals of uncertain affinities. Each animal
had several pairs of “ teeth’ of a variety of shapes. Every shape has been
given a separate specific name and like shapes have been grouped into
“genera’”’. Each individual animal included parts assigned to several
“genera ”’ and “ species” (cf. Moore’s digest, paragraph 4(b’)). There is little
reason to doubt that eventually it will be possible to assign to certain whole-
animal species most of the “‘ form ”’ genera and species that now exist, but the
process will take some years. During the transitional period, which has
already begun, there will be very serious problems of nomenclature on which
the Commission will have to advise, but I find it hard to believe that a system
that perpetuates two independent nomenclatures could be of permanent
value to palaeontologist or stratigrapher.
1 Reproduced as Document 1/15
Bulletin of Zoological Ni omenclature 347
Holothuroids
Embedded in the skin of sea cucumbers are calcareous spicules or plates, of
several sorts in each species. A few American authors, quoted by Moore and
Sylvester-Bradley, have insisted that @ separate classification, up to family
level, should be erected for each main type of spicule, since the spicules are
usually found fossil only in isolation from each other. Thus they propose a
family for “ wheel ” spicules and a family for “ hook ” spicules, although they
were well aware that wheels and hooks occur together in living forms. There
was recently described (Hodson et al. 1956, Geol. Mag., 93 : 336—344 an
important fossil association of wheels and hooks, obviously belonging to one
individual. Yet the wheels were referred to a new species of one genus and the
hooks to a new species of another. Such a procedure cannot advance either
palaeontology or stratigraphy and its justification appears to lie only in the
easy cataloguing of isolated spicules.
7. In palaeontology one is often forced to resort to an open nomenclature,
for example “ A-idae, gen. nov. ? te ee sp.” or “ Indeterminate crinoid
brachials”. Such nomenclature determines to the limits of knowledge. So
more detailed or precise than the type of open nomenclature referred to above,
there are many simple ways in regular use. For example for many years the
varying shapes of calyces of the small crinoid Bourgueticrinus, which are of
great stratigraphical value in the English Upper Chalk, have been referred to as
“ Brydone’s Form. 2 ”, etc., with no possibility of confusion and no prejudging
of the hitherto unsolved question of the zoological importance of the various
shape variations.
9. There are, however, certain more positive objections to these proposals,
It is notorious that even now, after so many years existence of the current
. System, only a small proportion of palaeontologists are thoroughly familiar
with the Régles and try seriously to obey them. Indeed in France the
regulations of certain national institutions still prescribe to authors practices
348 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
at variance with the Régles. The only hope for the future therefore lies in
simple, clear and objective rules, such that, even to those uninterested in
nomenclature, they appear reasonable, secure and straightforward. The
effect of a “ parataxonomy”, whatever its safeguards and qualifications,
would be to demolish the basic principle of “one animal, one name”, to
introduce into nomenclature a system that is zoologically ridiculous, to confuse
the student and to provide an excuse to the industrious but unintelligent for
multiplying names of “ parataxa ”’ without making every effort to discover the
zoological truth before burdening science with names. Any new system that
allows authors to multiply names that will for ever be attributed to themselves
will be abused.
10. Finally the fact that a few authors have proposed systems contrary
to the Régles and to zoological common sense, need not and should not be
taken to mean, as is implied by Moore and Sylvester-Bradley, that their
schemes are “in current use”’. The great system of aptychus names stems
mainly from one author, Trauth, and is entirely rejected by the three
contributors to the Mesozoic part of the Ammonoidea volume of the Treatise
on Invertebrate Paleontology (Arkell, Kummel and myself). There is no desire
so far as I am aware among the five living specialists on Mesozoic Asteroidea
to erect a parataxonomy for isolated asteroid ossicles, nor am I aware that
any living Echinoid specialist wishes to erect a parataxonomy for unidentifiable
fragments or parts of echinoids. In fact I can only conclude that Moore and
Sylvester-Bradley are proposing this major disturbance to the present system
of zoological nomenclature primarily because of the very real difficulties in the
small case of conodonts and the potential but easily removable difficulties in
the equally limited case of ammonite aptychi.
141. I therefore advise that Moore and Sylvester-Bradley’s proposals
be rejected and that particular solutions be found within the Régles for
particular problems.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 349
DOCUMENT 1/50
Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “‘ Parataxa Plan ””
By M. K. HOWARTH
(British Museum (Natural History), London)
(Enclosure to a letter dated 11th December 1957)
While supporting in general the aims and purpose of the proposal to recognise
Parataxa, I believe it is essential for the Commission to consider the theoretical
implications that would be enhanced by recognition of this category. For the
first time the Commission is proposing to depart from the whole foundation and
basis of Zoological Nomenclature and give validity to certain binomial names
which in some cases do not conform to any possible definition of the most
fundamental unit of nomenclature, the species. Thus, when several “‘ species ”
and “genera” of conodonts are found together in a distinct symmetrical
orientation in a conodont “ assemblage ” (almost certainly the remains of a
single invididual) it becomes objectively provable that those “ species ” and
“ genera ”’ are, in fact, conspecific. Yet it is proposed to give validity to these
“species ’’ and “‘ genera’ as Parataxa ; clearly this extension of the concept
of Zoological Nomenclature warrants the closest attention. It is implicit in
the plan (as it now stands) that species and genera of Parataxa are to be con-
sidered as of the same kind as species and genera of ordinary taxa, for Taxa
and Parataxa are to be united for purposes of Homonymy. Thus the plan
will tend to foster the idea that species of Parataxa, being of the same kind as
species of Taxa, have the same attributes as species of Taxa ; i.e. they can be
used in the same way for correlation and evolution. It is, however, well
established that neither is true : similar aptychi (congeneric at least) are known
in association with ammonite conchs belonging to different families, and in
some cases evolutionary lineages for ammonites drawn up on their aptychi
alone can be proved incorrect by reference to their associated conchs ; in long
distance correlation by means of conodont “ faunas” the only unit that can
safely be used is the association of species or “ species list’, not the single
individual “ species’ which in some cases is known to be a component of
- several conodont assemblages representing different species and genera. There-
fore on theoretical grounds it is indefensible to propose full validity for species
and genera of Parataxa.
350 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
2. From the point of view of practical palaeontologists it is essential to
stabilise the relationship between nomenclature of certain Taxa and their
Parataxa, and to give validity or legality to names in both categories. The
Parataxa plan is the best way to achieve this stability, with names co-ordinate
for homonymy but separated for priority purposes. However, I would strongly
urge the Commission to insert into the proposals a statement to the effect that
“ even though nomenclature of Taxa and Parataxa are co-ordinate for purposes
of homonymy, in Parataxa the groups are as paraspecies and paragenera ”’.
This will then imply that in Parataxa these groups are separated in kind from
species and genera of Taxa, so that the Commission will not be giving validity
to ‘‘ species ” of Parataxa which in some cases are provably conspecific. It will
also enable paraspecies and paragenera to be correctly and validly put into
synonymy under their true species and genera, if and when these are dis-
covered, thus promoting the use of these species and genera for correlation and
evolution. It is to be understood that even though several paraspecies and
paragenera can be validly put into synonymy under one species, they still
remain valid as paraspecies and paragenera. In this way these categories in
Taxa and Parataxa will be separated in kind.
“A
3. The terms “ partial-species ’ and “ partial-genus ’’ have recently been
proposed by Miiller (1956, J. Paleont. 30 : 1324-40) for conodont nomenclature.
Unfortunately these imply that the categories they represent are necessarily
smaller divisions than species and genera, and they cannot, therefore, be used
generally for all Parataxa (e.g. ammonoid aptychi). Paraspecies and para-
genera can be applied generally, they are non-commital as to relationship
between nomenclature of Taxa and Parataxa, and they are linked etymologic-
ally with Parataxa.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 351
DOCUMENT 2/18
(continued from page 254)
Proposed maintenance of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 835)
By R. I. SAILER
(U.S. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research Branch,
Beltsville, Maryland, U S.A.)
(Letter dated 19th December 1957)
In Volume 15, Double-Part 5/6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature,
I note evidence of what might be interpreted as a ground swell of opinion
against Decision 54(1)(a) of the Copenhagen Congress. The opposing views,
apparently stimulated by Dr. Arkell’s strongly worded argument, are obviously
based on the assumption that this decision would be retroactive. Evidently
the members of the Colloquium failed to anticipate this regrettable inter-
pretation of the decision. Surely this problem can be resolved by simply
adopting the section of Bradley’s draft pertaining to Article 5 that states,
“No new rule shall retroact in such a manner as to overturn the well.
established usage of any name ”’,
This will leave Decision 54(1)(a) intact and provide zoologists with a rule
that will eliminate the most important cause of future instability in names
for those taxons between the genus and the superfamily.
352 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 2/19
Proposed maintenance of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 835)
By JAMES A. SLATER
(University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, U.S.A.)
(Letter dated 30th December 1957)
May I express my strong feeling against any attempt to weaken, change
or eliminate Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a). This decision is a definite and
firm statement that cannot help but to bring about as iii cs a degree of stability
in family-group names as is possible.
2. Opposition to this decision appears to be very short sighted and to
miss the spirit for which the rules are in existence. Furthermore the arguments
of such persons as Dr. Arkell appear to lack understanding of the, as I believe,
retroactive clause involved.
3. I sincerely hope that no hasty action will be taken in this situation.
Such a Decision should have been in the rules a generation ago, it would be
folly to lose such stability once it has been attained.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 353
DOCUMENT 13/4
(continued from page 272)
Comment on the proposed adoption of a “‘ Declaration ’’ to treat barbarous
words as exempt from change in gender
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1064)
By CYRIL F. DOS PASSOS
(Mendham, N.J., U.S.A.)
(Letter dated 16th December 1957)
While it is unfortunate that so many modifications and exceptions to the
Reégles as amended at Paris (1948) and Copenhagen (1953) are being proposed,
it appears that this Declaration is necessary, and the only question in my mind
is whether subdivision (2) goes far enough, whether both subdivisions could
not be consolidated and whether another matter should not be covered at the
same time.
It is noted that subdivision (2) relates only to compound words where that
word is adjectival in form and its final component is wholly Greek in form and
origin. Why not when its final component is wholly “ barbarous” in form
and origin ?
In my opinion a further subdivision would be desirable. As Professor
Grensted has pointed out in the Appendix, there are many scientific names
the origin of which is unknown, uncertain or difficult to ascertain. Hrebia
melas is pointed out as one example, and Professor Grensted has asswmed
that Melas was taken from classical mythology, but who knows? To solve
problems such as this I suggest an amendment to the Régles to be incorporated
wherever it may be deemed most appropriate in words or substance as follows :
Where an author in proposing a scientific name fails to indicate its
origin, that name shall be presumed conclusively to be Latin or Latinized
and if necessary shall be amended in accordance with the other appropriate
provisions of the Régles.
354 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 13/5
Comment on the proposed adoption of a “* Declaration ’’ to treat
barbarous words as exempt from change in gender
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1064)
By G. VAN SON
(Transvaal Museum, Pretoria, South Africa)
(Letter dated 3rd December 1957)
Many thanks for the five separates, references Z.N.(S.) 1064 (position as
regards specific names consisting of partially Latinized words) . . . sent to me for
commenting upon.
I completely agree to the proposed recommendations concerning each one
of the items dealt with, in their entirety, and hope they will be sanctioned by
the International Commission.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 355
DOCUMENT 14/3
(continued from page 284)
Proposed amplification of the “‘ Code of Ethies ”
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 763)
By CYRIL F. DOS PASSOS
(Mendham, N.J., U.S.A.)
(Letter dated 16th December 1957)
This will advise you that I am in accord with the proposed adoption of a
Declaration clarifying and extending the provisions of the ‘‘ Code of Ethics ”
as set forth on page 176 of the 1957 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 13 : 176.
Your revised text of the ‘“‘ Code of Ethics ” is a great improvement on the
text adopted as Paris in 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 167).
356 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 14/4
Proposed amplification of the “ Code of Ethics ”
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 763)
By G. VAN SON
(Transvaal Museum, Pretoria, South Africa)
(Letter dated 3rd December 1957)
Many thanks for the five separates, references Z.N.(S.) 763 (Code of Ethics)
... sent to me for commenting upon.
I completely agree to the proposed recommendations concerning each one
of the items dealt with, in their entirety, and hope they will be sanctioned by
the International Commission.
CONTENTS
(continued from front wrapper)
THE LONDON AGENDA PAPER
(a) New Proposals
Case No. 16: Draft ‘‘ Régles ’’, Article 6, Section 6(b) : form of generic
names intended for palaeontology Page
D.16/1 Curtis W. Sabrosky i Pe ie ie '- ve Mye2t
D.16/2 Francis Hemming on “ oF AN: “ie ote ee
Case No. 17: Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 22 : citation of dates in biblio-
graphical references
D.17/1 Curtis W. Sabrosky <5 ee :3 ne an a edbaae
D.17/2 ~=Francis Hemming af ts Pee Ac Fie wear ek
Case No. 18: Draft ‘‘ Régles’’, Article 24, Section 15(e): junior
homonyms having only subjective synonyms, replacement of
D.18/1 — Curtis W. Sabrosky és ar a “ 4 ie ee
D.18/2 Francis Hemming sa ae sis Hs Fe AS 46)
Case No. 19: Draft “‘ Régles’’, Article 26: intemperate language,
condemnation of
D.19/1 Curtis W. Sabrosky se ae -e zs “ Pe Ay 3)
D.19/2 Francis Hemming ae oY sig oe ais oe ~ hee
Case No. 20 : Draft ‘‘ Régles ’’, Article 28, Section 9(a) and Appendix :
Family-Group names : grammatical formation
D.20/1 J. Chester Bradley os wri ie “He a Sealer:
Case No. 21 : Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 28, Section 11 : generic names ;
gender of
D.21/1 L.W.Grensted .. ae ie oy Af ae .. ddA
Case No. 22: Draft “ Régles »?, Article 24, Section 11(c) : secondary
homonyms : proposed repeal of challenge procedure
D.22/1 Curtis W. Sabrosky ae is oe ee 3 fej eae
D.22/2 = Francis Hemming ie ey . aS e3 <3: ooo
Case No. 23 : Draft “ Régles ’’, Articles 6, Section 1(d) : 10, Seetion 2(a) :
23 Section 1(a)(i) : names calculated to give offence, rejection of
D.23/1 Curtis W. Sabrosky ra aS Me a TA «Meal
D.23/2 Francis Hemming ats ae jis oe a we es
CONTENTS
(continued from inside back cover)
(b) Comments on previously published proposals
Case No. 1 : Proposed recognition of the ‘* Parataxon ’’ concept Page
D.1/49 C. W. Wright 2 as Z. ae Ay a - oe O46
D.1/50 M.K. Howarth .. as a fe Ee ag .. 349
Case No. 2: Family-group names : proposed rejection of when name
of type genus is rejected as a junior synonym
D.2/18 ~~‘ R. I. Sailer és zs Me as ee ie -. | (oat
D.2/19 James A. Slater .. os om oe = S? .. 252
Case No. 18 : Adjectival specific names, barbarous words : liability to
gender change
D.13/4 Cyril F. dos Passos La a a sis has .. 353
D.13/5 G. van Son ~ Sa he a eS me as -» 354
Case No. 14: ‘* Code of Ethics ’’ : proposed amplification
D.14/3 Cyril F. dos Passos gh os =e ty ss -. 355 —
D.14/4 G. van Son Sr ve ae oe oa ae .. 3aa@
© 1958. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Printed in England by MeTcatre & Cooper LiMiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2
j
;
:
VOLUME 15. Quadruple-Part 12/15 18th February 1958
pp. 357—488
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
The Official Organ of
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
a cam
5 MAR’ 1958 ice
CONTENTS \z Lt
Sh > ee
Sixth Instalment of the London Congress Agenda Paper a, L Higt te)
_ Case No. 24: Points of Difference between the Draft of the English Text of the
“ Régles ’’ and existing Congress Decisions: Report by the “‘ Régles ’’
Section of the International Trust for 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
1958
Price Four Pounds, Two Shillings and Sixpence
(All rights reserved)
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
A. The Officers of the Commission
Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jorpan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological
Museum, Tring, Herts, England)
President: Professor James Chester BrapLEy (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(12th August 1953)
Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMaraL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953)
Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemmine (London, England) (27th July 1948)
B. The Members of the Commission
(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent
re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)
Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
(1st January 1947)
Senor Dr. Angel Caprera (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948)
Mr. Francis Hemmine (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)
Dr. Henning Lemcue (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948)
Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950)*
Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)
Mr. Norman Denbigh Rizey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950)
Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaczzwski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw,
Poland) (15th June 1950)
Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt
a. M., Germany) (Sth July 1950)
Professor Dr. Erich Martin Herine (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin,
Germany) (5th July 1950)
Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amarat (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President)
Professor J. R. Dymonp (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953)
Professor J. Chester BrapLEy (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
(President)
Professor Harold E. Voxss (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana,
U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
Professor Béla Hanx6 (Mezégazdasdgi Museum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)
Dr. Norman R. Stoxt (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(12th August 1953)
Mr. P. C. SytvesTeR-BravDLeEyY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953)
Dr. L. B. Hoxrsuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th
August 1953)
Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra,
A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954)
Dr. Alden H. Minter (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California,
U.S.A.) (29th October 1954)
Doc. Dr. Ferdinand Pranti (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October
1954)
Professor Dr. William Kitunetr (Zoologisches Institut der Universitét, Vienna, Austria) (6th —
November 1954)
Professor F. S. Bopunarmer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954) —
Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954)
Professor Enrico TorToNESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “ G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th
December 1954
* Professor Esaki died on 14th December, 1957, while the present Part was passing through
the press.
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Volume 15, Quadruple-Part 12/15 (pp. 357—488) 18th February 1958
PROVISIONS IN PROFESSOR CHESTER BRADLEY’S
DRAFT OF THE “REGLES’’ NOT COVERED BY
CONGRESS DECISIONS OR BY “ DECLARATIONS ”’
HASED SUBSEQUENTLY ADOPTED
HAR 17 8 Statement prepared by the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
In the note prefixed to Professor J. Chester Bradley’s
Draft of the English text of the Regles attention was drawn
(paragraph 4) to the fact that at various points in that Draft
Professor Bradley had either included provisions not covered
by existing Congress Decisions or by Declarations subsequently
adopted by the International Commission or for reasons
explained in the Draft had included provisions differing from
_ existing Congress Decisions. It was then intimated that it was
_ proposed to publish as Part 10 of Volume 14 of the Bulletin of
_ Zoological Nomenclature a Report prepared by the “ Régles ”
Section of the Office of the Trust, in which the differences
_ referred to above had been briefly enumerated. At the same
_ time it was added (paragraph 6) that it was proposed also to
_ incorporate in Volume 15 of the Bulletin appropriate references
_ to the points specified in the foregoing Report, in order that, as
_ arranged with the authorities of the London Congress, that
_ Congress should have before it in a single volume a complete
_ enumeration of the proposals for the further reform of the
_ Nomencl. 14 : 3—4).
= 2. Further consideration has since been given by the Trust
_ to the procedure to be adopted for giving effect to the decisions
_ set out above. In consequence the Trust has now taken the
_ view that it would better serve the general convenience—and
- in addition, would involve a lesser expenditure—if the Report
_ Teferred to above were to be published in the present volume
_ (Volume 15) instead of in the volume (Volume 14) in which
_ the actual Draft of the English text of the Régles has been
_ published. In accordance with this decision, the Report by
_ the “ Régles’’ Section has been placed on the London Agenda
<
358 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Paper as Case No. 24 and is being published in the present
Quadruple-Part (Part 12/15). A note explaining the change
in procedure set out above will be included in the next Part of
Volume 14 to be published.
3. The Report now published contains particulars of
two hundred and fifty separate matters affecting the wording
of the Draft of the Regles, each of which will require to be
considered separately by the Colloquium and the Congress in
London. It is evident therefore that this Report will become
the basic commentary on the London Agenda Paper to which all
other comments on Professor Bradley’s Draft will need to be
related.
4. The Trust is of the opinion therefore that the discussions
at the London Congress will be facilitated if the above Report
is printed in such a way as to enable members of the Colloquium
and the Congress to annotate their copies by inserting at
appropriate points notes of the Case and Document Numbers
of papers published in other Parts of the present volume. It
has accordingly been decided to print the Report across left- and
right-hand pages as a double spread and to leave a substantial
space between each of the two hundred and fifty items
concerned. For the further convenience of members of the
Congress making notes either of documents published elsewhere
in the present volume or of other relevant matters, a black
rule has been inserted between each item.
5. It is already evident that the number of items to be
considered in the course of examining the Draft of the English
text of the Régles will be very large and will tax to the utmost
the energies both of the Colloquium and of the Congress. It is
therefore particularly hoped by the Trust that in advance
of the London meetings zoologists and palaeontologists who
propose to attend the Colloquium will annotate their copies
of the present Part in the manner suggested in paragraph 4
above, thus assisting to some extent in the avoidance of
unnecessary delays when the discussion of the Draft actually
takes place.
FRANCIS HEMMING
Managing Director and Secretary,
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
6th December 1957.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
PROVISIONS IN PROFESSOR CHESTER BRADLEY’S DRAFT OF
THE ENGLISH TEXT OF THE “ REGLES” NOT COVERED BY
CONGRESS DECISIONS OR BY “DECLARATIONS” SUBSE-
= QUENTLY ADOPTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION
; ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
359
360 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 24/1
PROVISIONS INCLUDED IN PROFESSOR J. CHESTER BRADLEY’S
DRAFT OF THE ENGLISH TEXT OF THE “ REGLES’’ WHICH
ARE NOT COVERED BY EXISTING CONGRESS DECISIONS OR ARE
AT VARIANCE WITH CONGRESS DECISIONS
Report by the “‘ Régles ’’ Section, Office of the International
Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
In accordance with the instructions given by the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature at the time of the establishment of the “ Régles ”
Section of its Office, the Draft of the English text of the Régles prepared by
Professor J. Chester Bradley has been carefully compared with the text of the
Régles as it existed up to the time of the Paris Congress in 1948 and with
the amendments and additions made in that text both by the Paris Congress
and by the Copenhagen Congress in 1953. It has been found that in almost
every case Congress Decisions have been re-arranged or re-worded. In the
present Report an attempt has been made to draw attention only to the more
important changes noted.
2. In the light of the foregoing survey a list has been prepared in which
brief particulars are given of each passage in the Draft of the Régles where
the provisions inserted are either (1) provisions not covered by Congress
Decisions or (2) provisions which are at variance to a greater or less extent
with Congress Decisions. The number of items comprised in this list is two
hundred and fifty (250). The list so prepared is given in the Appendix
to the present Report.
ANN WILSON
Research Assistant in Charge, “ Régles”’ Section, International Trust
for Zoological Nomenclature
6th October 1957.
Pa
ee ee ee ee
“kee
a dad ee Lit
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 361
APPENDIX TO DOCUMENT 24/1
Comparison of the Draft of the English text of the “ Régles ’’ with
the relevant Congress Decisions and ‘‘ Declarations ’’ rendered by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
For purposes of convenience the following abbreviations are used in the
present Appendix :—
(1) The word “ Berlin” followed by an Article number is a reference to the
English text of the Régles as compiled by the Fifth International Congress
of Zoology, Berlin 1901, and as amended by successive Congresses up to
and including the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, Lisbon
1935. No official text of the Régles as they existed up to the eve of the
Paris Congress in 1948 was ever published. The following unofficial
(but substantially correct) English texts may be consulted :—
“International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature’ published in
Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique adoptées par les
Congrés Internationaux de Zoologie, Paris 1905 [exclusive of amend-
ments made by later Congresses]
“ International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature ’’ published in 1926
in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington Vol. 39 : 75-104
_ (2) The word “ Paris ’’ followed by a page number is a reference to the Official
} Record of the decisions taken by the Thirteenth International Congress
of Zoology, Paris, 1948, published in 1950 in Volume 4 of The Bulletin
of Zoological Nomenclature.
(3) The word “‘ Copenhagen ” followed by a page number is a reference to the
P Official Record of the decisions taken by the Fourteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, published as Copenhagen
Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature, 1953.
(4) The word “‘ Declaration” followed by a number is a reference to a Declaration
adopted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
and published in various volumes of Opinions and Declarations Rendered
by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The
reference “B”’ followed by a volume and page number refers to the
volume of The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature in which a proposed
Declaration under consideration by the Commission is to be found.
362 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of ‘‘ Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘* Declaration ”’
(1) Introduction Paris : 166—Conclusion 50
ee
(2) Preamble Copenhagen : 22—Decision 19
a SEE EEE SEESEE SESE SES
(3) I/Foreword
ere ————e
(4) 1/1 Paris : 144—Conclusion 16
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 363
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent Notes by “‘ Régles ’’ Section
* Declaration ”’
. insertion of draft defining the force Declaration 9 was considered unsuit-
of the terms used in the Code; able for embodiment in the Code at
incorporates part of Declaration 9 Paris
re-words
=
paragraph by Compiler explaining
the system to which zoological
nomenclature applies
drafts provision on what a name based on part of Opinion 2 which
esignates was not incorporated in the Code at
Paris
364 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “‘ Régles *’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’
(5) 1/2 Copenhagen : 63—Decision 114
(6) 1/3 Paris : 255—Conclusion 18(1)
(7) 1/4 Paris : 364—Concelusion 10
Copenhagen : 63—Decision 113
(8) 1/5
—— ee a ee
a en ac
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 365
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
“ Declaration ”’
Notes by “‘ Régles ’’ Section
_re-words with qualifying phrases
introduced from other parts of the
Code (old Articles 2 and 3)
adds a provision that the name of
an animal based on its work is only
_ an available name if published before
1931
re-words the Paris Decision on
names given to monsters and re-
drafts in a positive form the negative
Copenhagen Decision on names
_ based on specimens later regarded as
pathological monstrosities
see items (21, (38), (39) and (51) below
gives as reference the roneoed draft
of the Colloquium Report (Copen-
hagen MSS. 31 paragraph 75) [the
wording in the Report as approved
and published is similar to that in
the roneoed draft, except that the
last sentence, on the Colloquium
being against any provision involving
a subjective test of this kind does
not occur in the roneoed draft]
‘new provision explicitly stating that
the same system of zoological nomen-
clature applies to extinct as well as
to living animals
suggested by Professor E. Mayr
366 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “‘ Régles *’ or to subsequent “‘ Declaration **
(9) 4/5
(10) 5/1
(11) 5/2 Paris : 56—Conclusion 7(2)
: 292—Conclusion 10(6)
(12) 5/3, 4 Copenhagen : 25—Decisions 27-29
ates:
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 367
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
* Declaration
provision not previously stated on
the position of a work infracting old
Article 2 (the number of words in
scientific designations of animals)
new provision on the retroactive
application of the Rules
formulates specific statement on
actions which may be taken under
Plenary Powers and adds a reference
to the regulations governing the use
of these Powers
}
:
:
?
new draft of a provision on the
Principle of Conservation and the
procedure necessary to conserve
names under it
Notes by “‘ Régles ’’ Section
Compiler states this is added for
completeness and clarity
suggested by Professor Blake, based
on the legal principle of “‘ stare
decisis’? ; Compiler—“It appears
to have been accepted but not
formulated at Copenhagen” [see
also item (36)]
Compiler notes that the sentence
that the Plenary Powers are subject
to certain regulations and restrictions
(as in the procedure to be followed
in voting on cases involving
Plenary Powers) is not explicitly
stated by any Congress enactment,
but that it is the practice; in
addition the Compiler inserts a
definition of the purposes of the
Plenary Powers which has the effect
of restricting the scope of the
decision taken by the Paris Congress
[see item (232)]
wording not agreed at Copenhagen
but a Directive issued that such a
provision to be included in terms to
be agreed upon by the Commission
368 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “‘ Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’
(13) 5/4 Copenhagen : 25 —Decisions 27-29
(14) 5/5(a) Copenhagen : 24—Decision 26
(15) 6/1 Berlin. Article 25
Paris : 65—Conclusion 3
Paris : 69—Conclusion 6
Paris : 72—Conclusion 8
Paris : 175—Conclusion 67
(16) 6/1(j)(2) Berlin. Article 25(c)
[added at Budapest 1927]
Paris : 69—Conclusion 6(1)
Copenhagen : 61—Decision 109
ao ab,
se
a eee ee Se ee ee
1
— o——
ey Das
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 369
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
“ Declaration ”’
Notes by ‘“‘ Régles ’’ Section
formulates as a definite Rule the
procedure to be followed when the
Commission is notified of a long-
overlooked name and suggests limit-
ing the Rule to those names which
are a potential threat to stability ;
_adds a provision on the action to be
taken if an objection is received
>. gee oe te
: omits the word “ specific ” to widen
the application of the provision on
the suppression of nomina dubia
complete re-organisation of old
Article 25 (Law of Priority) into
Article 6 “The Rules of Avail-
ability’, Article 7 ‘“‘ What Con-
stitutes Publication’’, Article 8
“The Principle of Priority: The
Validity of Names” and Article 9
“Date ”’ ; old Article 25 as
amended at Paris and Copenhagen
-ve-worded to fit in with this re-
organisation
restores the wording deleted by the
Paris Congress of “ a definite biblio-
graphic reference ’’ which occurred
‘in one of the conditions which con-
ferred availability on a name pub-
lished after 1930
Compiler’s provision appears to be
based on a Paris enactment (Paris :
234—Conclusion 4) rather than on
the Copenhagen decisions given in
reference ; it is not clear whether
the suggested Copenhagen Draft is
intended to replace this Paris enact-
ment, on which Recommendations
in the previous section [Draft 5/3]
are also based causing partial dup-
lication as in Recommendations 2 and 5
Compiler’s comment—‘‘ A nomen
dubium may be a generic name. .
even... the name of a higher taxon ”’
‘
the distinction between an “ avail-
able”? name and a “ valid”’ name
[defined at Paris : 336, Conclusion
21(4)] is made in Draft 6/1 Explana-
tion and Draft 8/Foreword; the
definition of the terms adopted at
Paris are not included in the Draft
a4
the Budapest Congress’s phrase “a
definite bibliographical reference ”
which is retained by the Compiler
was deleted by the Paris Congress on
account of the strong criticisms
which had been levelled against it
on account of its “ritualistic ”
character; the provision in the
Draft is not limited to substitute
names which alone were considered
by the Paris Congress [see item (17)]
and the point noted above does not
apply therefore to cases where sub-
stitute names are not involved
370 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of ‘‘ Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ’’
(17) 6/1(j)(3) Paris : 69—Conclusion 6(1)(a)
(18) 6/1(1) and Paris : 214—Concelusion 14
6/9(c)
(19) 6/2 Paris : 309—Conclusion 2(1)
(20) 6/3(2) Paris : 149—Conclusion 21(a)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 371
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
** Declaration ”’
Notes by ‘‘ Regles ’’ Section
deletes wording “ invalid by reason
of being a homonym ”’, which in the
Paris provision qualified the name
which is to be replaced
widens the provision on names
published anonymously to apply to
names in general
_te-words, altering the emphasis of,
the provision on the status of a
work dealing only with genera or
higher taxa and not mentioning a
_binomen
,
Compiler comments that the impor-
tant point is that the name was
proposed as a substitute and not the
reason and that to prove such
invalidity should not be necessary
to make the replacement name
available [see item (20)]
applied at Paris to family-group
names and names of lower taxa
‘Omits words qualifying the names to
be replaced as an ‘invalid
hhomonym ”’
Compiler believes that the provision
“should apply to all replacements ”’
[see Draft item(17) above]
372 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “‘ Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’
(21) 6/3(3) Paris : 255—-Conclusion 18(1)
(22) 6/5(a) Paris : 152—Conclusion 26(1)
(23) 6/5(c) Paris : 144—Conclusion 17
(24) 6/5(e)
Sn ea SO Dito a nick
er 2”
y Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 373
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent Notes by ‘‘ Régles ’’ Section
* Declaration ”’
limits the provision on the work of see items (6), (38), (39) and (51)
an animal counting as an indication
to apply only to names published
before 1931
y
mentions specifically that the pro-
vision on composite nominal species
also applies to subspecies and infra-
subspecific forms
re-drafts the provision on the status
of names published conditionally
dds at the end a sentence further Compiler deems this inherent in old
larifying the provision on names Article 27
ased on part of an animal
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
374
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “‘ Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘* Declaration ”’
(25) 6/6(b) Copenhagen : 65—Decision 120
(26) 6/7 Copenhagen : 63—Decision 115
(27)
(28)
6/7(c) Copenhagen : 63-—Decision 115 (1)
P g
Copenhagen : 64—Decision 116
Ss ee
wer 4s
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 375
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
* Declaration ”’
a
re-drafts provision on names in-
tended for use exclusively for fossils,
_re-arranging points, and adds an
_ “ Explanation ”
Notes by “* Régles ’’ Section
re-arranges the points in the pro-
vision on names published in
synonymies ; amplifies to clarify
and to take into account the case of
the original nominal species being
misidentified
changes part of the provision on the
unavailability of a name published
without ‘“‘ an independent indica-
tion”, etc., to “without the re-
‘quired data ”’
omits Recommendation against bring-
into use, before the coming into
force of the provision making such
names unavailable, names published
im synonymies which are not already
generally accepted
Professor Mayr believes that the
Report as approved and published
did not succeed in representing the
consensus of the Copenhagen Col-
loquium on names published in
synonymy
Compiler states that the Copenhagen
wording does not give all the require-
ments necessary to make a name
published after 1930 available
Compiler expresses the view that this
Recommendation is contrary to the
Copenhagen Decision that such a
name unless it has already been
brought into general use is not
available (Copenhagen : 64—Decision
115[2])
376 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “‘ Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘* Declaration ”’
(29) 6/9(a) Paris : 150—Conclusion 24
(30) 6/9(b)(i) and Paris: 145—Conclusion 18
6/9(b)(ii)(4)(5) Copenhagen : 64— Decision 115
(81) 7/2(a)(i) Paris : 217—
Conclusion 15(1)(a)(i)(«)
(32) 7/2(b)(2) Paris : 218—Conclusion 15(1)(a)(ii)( y)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 377
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
** Declaration ”’
Notes by “‘ Régles ’’ Section
suggests the addition of subsequent
“ citation in synonymy ” as another
action which does not suffice to make
a name published before 1758 avail-
able
restores some of the wording deleted
by Copenhagen, in the Paris provision
on the status of a manuscript name
first published with an “indication”
introduces words “ large-scale” to
qualify the type of reproduction
necessary to constitute ‘‘ publica-
tion ”
Copenhagen Decision 115 does not
make it quite clear that it only
replaces the part on manuscript
names published in synonymy with-
out an independent “ indication ”
Compiler adds this qualification to
exclude a few carbon copies from
counting as a “ publication ”
_ omits the opening qualification that
_ the provision on the requirement for
sale or distribution applies only
where the author distributes the
document to certain selected persons
Compiler holds the view that his
omission results in a more general
statement which expresses the intent
at Paris rather than the narrow
wording used
378 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of ‘** Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’
(33) 7/4 Paris : 219—Conclusion (15)(1)(b)
Copenhagen : 61—-Decision 108
(34) 7/4(6) Paris : 146—Conclusion 19(b)
Paris : 219—Conclusion 15(I) (c)(ii)
a RR A
(35) 7/4(6) Second sentence
(36) 8/1 Berlin. Article 25
Paris : 130—Conclusion 6
ee i ee a. aE
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
* Declaration ”’
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 379
Notes by “‘ Régles ’’ Section
_ re-drafts the provision on what does
not constitute publication to cover
_ the Copenhagen Decision
suggests the addition of a new pro-
vision to protect the status of a
-separatum that was to be in a pub-
lication which subsequently was not
_ published
7
suggestion by Mr. dos Passos that
the provision that a separatum is
not counted as published until the
publication containing it is issued,
should only apply after a certain date
I e-drafts, in accordance with the
Te-arranged Artieles, the provision
on _ the Bee ontan of the Law of
Article 5 (Continuity and Univer-
sality of Usage); the form of the
380 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of ** Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’
(37) 8/2 Recommendation Copenhagen : 67—Decision 125
(38) 8/2(b)(6) Paris : 255—-Conclusion 18(1)
(39) 8/2(b) Paris : 255—Conclusion 18(2)
(40) 9/Foreword
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 381
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
“ Declaration”’
Notes by ‘“‘ Régles ’’ Section
states specifically that a taxonomist
acting as a First Reviser should if
possible select the name that would
best preserve stability
adds date, 1930, to limit the period
in which the description of the work
of an animal constitutes an “‘ indi-
cation ”
Compiler makes this addition as
otherwise states that this provision
would be inconsistent with the
further particulars required as an
‘indication ” after 1930 [see also
items (6), (21), (39) and (51)]
§ places as doubtful the Recommenda-
tion against basing a name solely
upon the work of an animal
this Recommendation would be super-
fluous in the light of the Compiler’s
interpretation given above [item (38)]
adds introductory drafting to the
_ Article on date of publication
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of *‘ Régles ”’ or to subsequent “* Declaration ”’
382 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature |
:
(41) 10/Foreword |
(42) 10/1 Recommendation 4 Copenhagen : 62—Decision 110
(43) 10/1 Recommendation 5 Paris : 169—Conclusion 54
(44) 10/1 Recommendation 6 Paris : 126—Conclusion 2(2)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 383
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
“ Declaration ”’
Notes by ‘‘ Régles ’’ Section
drafts explanatory introduction to a
new Article enumerating what a
taxonomist must do when estab-
lishing a new taxon or name
widens the Recommendation on the
desirability of giving a taxonomic
Species to apply to all taxa
suggests that, in the provision in-
dicating the method of signalising
a new name, the part on inserting a
comma should be omitted ; applies
to names in general
4
widens provision on publicity for
new names for family-group or lower
axa to apply to all taxa
comparison for new genera and.
proposal is not altogether in accor-
dance with the Recommendation
adopted in regard to family-group
names [Copenhagen : 35—Decision
52]; Copenhagen Decision 110 re-
places Paris : 71—Conclusion 7 which
Compiler nevertheless restores [see
items (47) and (49)]
states that the Paris Decisions were
inconsistent in regard to the use of a
comma [see item (50)]; applied at
Paris to family-group names and
names of lower taxa
384 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of ** Régles ”’ or to subsequent “ Declaration ”’
(45) 10/1 Recommendation 9 Berlin. Article 36
(46) 10/1 Recommendation 11 Copenhagen : 62——Decision 112(1)
(47) 10/1 Recommendation 13 _— Paris : 71—Conclusion 7(2)(a)
(48) 10/1 Recommendation 14
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 385
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent Notes by ‘“‘ Régles ’’ Section
“ Declaration ”’
discusses omission of the example
““macrodon and microdon ’’, actually
this was deleted by the Congress
at Graz (1910)
suggests addition of words “if
possible’ to the Recommendation
‘on selecting as a type species a
species with a satisfactory figure
restores the Paris form of the Recom- the Paris Recommendation was re-
-mendation on the desirability of placed at Copenhagen by Decision
‘giving a comparative description 110 [item (42)]
indicating characters that separate
a@ new genus from the most closely
elated previously established taxon
Suggests new examples to be added
to Recommendation on the avoidance
of similar specific names in the same
or a related genus
386 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “* Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ’’
(49) 10/1 Recommendations 18and 19 Paris : 71—Conclusion 7(2)(b)(c)
(50) 10/1 Recommendation 22 Paris : 92—-Conclusion 1(8)(a)
(51) 10/2(b) Paris : 255-—Conclusion 18
(52) 10/2 Recommendation 28 Paris : 223—Conclusion 17
ae
p
oh,
,
«
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
“ Declaration ”’
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 387
Notes by ‘* Régles ’’ Section
suggests omission of the part on the
case of the most closely related
species, if little known, not being
used for comparison in the descrip-
tion of a species
=
inserts for consistency the part on
placing a comma before an expres-
sion indicating that a subspecies is
new, but suggests this part should
be omitted
new provision that it is no longer
sufficient to base the description of a
aew species solely on the work of an
animal
<q
J
adds, to the Recommendation which
advises against publication of names
in abstracts in advance of their
scription, an “ Explanation ” de-
fining the status of the names so
published
=
but new draft substituted at Copen-
hagen [item (42)] [see also item
(47)]
Paris statements regarded by Com-
piler as inconsistent, compare Paris :
92, Conclusion 1(8)(a) and Paris : 169,
Conclusion 54; see above item (43)
see items (6), (21), (38)and (39) above
388 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of ‘‘ Régles ”’ or to subsequent “* Declaration ”’
(53) 10/2 Recommendation 29 Paris : 253—Conclusion 16
(54) 11/1 Copenhagen : 43-46—
Decisions 71-76
(55) 12/1(a) Copenhagen : 38—Decision 62
(56)
12/1(a)(i)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 389
Nature of difference from Congress
u Decision or from subsequent
* Declaration ”’
widens the provision on hidden
‘meanings from applying to generic
and specific names to apply to names
‘in general ; suggests the omission of
the phrase on an arbitrary combina-
tion of letters
y
:
re-drafts and reorganises the pro-
Visions on the emendation of names ;
the definitions of expressions intro-
duced at Copenhagen are placed in
a “ glossary ”’ at the end of the Code
new provision on the status of names
of taxa of the Phylum and Order/
Class-Groups after the adoption of
the Official Lists concerned
uggests new provision on categories
‘not provided for in the Lists pro-
‘posed for names in the Phylum and
Order/Class-Groups
Notes by “‘ Régles ’’ Section
Section 1 as drafted applies to names
in general (not to generic and specific
names as at Copenhagen) and is
accordingly not consistent with the
Copenhagen Decision on family-
group names reproduced in Section 2
of Article 11
Compiler deems this interpretation
to be inherent in the Copenhagen
resolution
390 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of ‘‘ Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘* Declaration ”’
(57) 12/2 Copenhagen : 40—Decision 63
(58) 12/3(a) Copenhagen : 41—Decision 65
(59) 13/1(a) Copenhagen : 32—Decision 44
(60) 13/2(b)
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
* Declaration ”’
er
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 391
Notes by “‘ Régles ’’ Section
suggests adding sentence on the
Commission deciding the case if a
protest is received on the proposed
adopting of a junior name on the
union of two taxa of a rank above
superfamily
adds to the provision on the names
that may be used when a taxon above
superfamily is changed in rank the
proviso that this does not apply
when the taxon is lowered in rank
into a category of the family-group
suggests addition of sentence, to the
provision on categories available for
use in the family-group, that supple-
mentary categories may be used
when required
new provision applying the stem
_ Provision to names of taxa of lower
zategories into which a family-group
taxon may be divided
Compiler expresses the view that
this is necessary for completeness
and to conform to custom
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “‘ Régles ”’ or to subsequent “* Declaration ”’
(61) 13/3(c) Copenhagen : 36—Decision 53
(62) 13/4(d)
(63) 13/5
(64) 14/Foreword
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 393
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
* Declaration ”’
Notes by “‘ Régles ’’ Section
suggests that the part providing for
the retention of vernacular words
for family-group names in certain
cases, must be revoked
Compiler expresses the view that this
part violates the requirement that a
name be Latin or Latinised and that
particular cases can be handled
under Plenary Powers
adds provision not specifically stated
before on altering a family-group
name to conform with the spelling
of the type genus if the latter
required automatic correction
;
adds provision not previously stated
_on substituting the appropriate suf-
fix for a category if the original one
inappropriate
a ere 3 O82
4
adds opening draft drawing atten-
tion to the subjective taxonomic
“nature of the question of whether a
taxon ranks as a genus or subgenus
Compiler believes that this was not
an intentional omission
Compiler considers that the meaning
was implicit although not directly
stated
394 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of ‘* Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’
(65) 14/1(a) Berlin. Article 7
(66) 14/1(b) Berlin. Article 9
Copenhagen : 21—-Decision 18
(67) 14/2 Berlin. Article 8
First Recommendation a
Copenhagen : 47—Decision 78(2)
(68) 14/5 Berlin. Article 10
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
* Declaration ”’
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 395
Notes by “‘ Régles ’’ Section
additional “‘ Explanation ”’ clarify-
ing the provision on the inter-
changeability of rank between genus
and subgenus
‘re-drafts the provision on a nominate
subgenus adding an “‘ Explanation ”
d oes not insert in Recommendation
form the existing Recommendation
on certain collective biological groups
being treated as genera; suggests
adding the sentence that the names
for such groups do not enter into
zoological nomenclature and quali-
fying these groups by the re-drafted
”
er
te-drafts in amplified form the pro-
rision on the citation of a subgeneric
name
ording ‘‘ not taxonomic in
according to Copenhagen : 47—Deci-
sion 78(2) this is restored to its
original status of a Recommendation ;
[the future of this provision is bound
up with the decision to be taken by
the Congress in Case No. 1 on the
Agenda Paper]
396 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “‘ Régles *° or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’
(69) 14/5 Recommendation
(70) 15/footnotes
(71) 15/1(e) Paris : 191—Conclusion 2(1)
(72) 15/2(a)
*. ee eee
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 397
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent Notes by “‘ Régles ’’ Section
* Declaration ”’
new Recommendation against citing suggested by Dr. K. P. Schmidt
any term other than that of a sub-
genus between the generic and
specific elements of a binomen
- footnotes added to explain the plan
of the re-organisation of old Articles
8and 14
te-drafts, altering the form of, the
‘provision on nominate subspecies
new provision on the status of a amendment proposed by Dr.
taxon to which the term “ variety ” Sabrosky ; this proposal is incom-
was applied before 1951 patible with the distinction in the
Regles between subspecific and infra-
subspecific names [Paris : 91 Con-
clusion 1(7)(a)]
398 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “‘ Régles *’ or to subsequent ‘* Declaration ”’
(73) 15/2(b)
15/3(a)
(74) 15/2(c) Copenhagen : 84—Decision 166
(75) 15/5(a) Paris : 262—Conclusion 33
RS RR SS SR RS RS SY
(76) 15/7(c)
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
;
L
{ “ Declaration ”
new provision on the rank of a new
taxon indicated as the form of a
particular geographical area
adds, to the provision defining the
status of a name published as a
trinomen in the case of a Fossil
species, a proviso excepting an
author’s express statement other-
addition of an “ Explanation’, in
the form of a hypothetical example
to the provision on the name of a
nominal taxon on transfer in rank
between a species and subspecies
proposed new provision on the status
of a subspecific or infra-subspecific
name violating the rules for its
sitation
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Notes by ‘‘ Régles ’’ Section
suggested interpretation
399
400 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “‘ Régles ”*’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’
(77) 15/8(a)
(78) 15/8(b) Declaration 30
(79) 15/8(c)
(80) 16/1(a)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 401
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent Notes by “‘ Régles ’’ Section
**Declaration”’
additional matter on a specific name Compiler adds for further clarifica-
transferred to another genus than tion of Declaration 30 [see item
that with which it was originally (78) below]
established
_re-words in a more concise form the
provision on the generic name with
which a species is first published
when referred to an established genus
and at the same time to a new
conditionally established genus
> ee 4
_hew provision on variant spelling or the reference to a proposed “ new
-emendation of the generic or specific Declaration’ is not understood [see
“name not causing distinct binomina items (131), (137) and (159)]
jogo 22
—
lew provision on the status of a proposed by Dr. E. Mayr
lame given to an individual
“known ” to be a hybrid
B
ne
Ver
i) £3 Pe.
=, t~ eh ,
: ~
402 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of ‘* Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’
(81) 16/1(b)
(82) 16/2
(83) 17/Foreword
(84)
17/(b)(2) Copenhagen : 27—Decision 31
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 403
Nature of difference from Congress
| Decision or from subsequent
** Declaration ”’
Pat]
‘new provision on the status of a
name given to a population believed
to be hybrid or intermediate be-
tween two subspecies
.
Notes by ‘“‘ Régles ’’ Section
proposed by Dr. E. Mayr
‘suggests the deletion of the pro-
vision that in the case of names for
hybrids the name of the male parent
‘shall precede that of the female
parent
adds opening explanation on the
significance of the type-locality
‘nomencliatorially and taxonomically
j n ew qualifying phrase on the portion
of the originally cited area that may
be selected by a first reviser
but not the sex
proposed on an observation by
Dr. E. Mayr
suggestion by Professor C. H. Blake
that there should be provision for
cases where the parentage is known
Compiler expresses the view that the
appropriateness to the Code of this
whole Article is questionable
404
Item
No.
(85)
(86)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
of “* Régles ’’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’
17/(a)(b)(c) Copenhagen : 26—Decision 31
18/Foreword
(88)
18/4 Copenhagen : 34—Decision 49(2) |
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 405
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
** Declaration ”’
additional explanation on types
new provision on the type of the
‘nominate subtaxon
Notes by ‘“‘ Régles ’’ Section
gives as reference the roneoed draft
of the Colloquium report (Copen-
hagen MSS. 31 paragraph 19 and
MSS. 35 paragraph 5) as well as
Copenhagen Decision 31 in the
Report as approved and published
suggested by Dr. E. Mayr for
completeness and clarity
R
additional explanatory matter in the
form of examples on the relation of
names of taxa, belonging to various
‘eategories within the family-group,
to the name of the type genus
406
Item
No.
(89)
(90)
(91)
(92)
(93)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision ~
of ‘* Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’
18/4 Recommendation 1 Paris : 139—Conclusion 11(2)(b)
18/4 Recommendation 2 Paris : 139—Conclusion 11(2)(c)_
19/Foreword
19/2(b)(i)
19/2(c) Copenhagen : 69—Decision 128
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 407
_ Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
“ Declaration ”’
ite ins the Recommendation advising
hat the genus selected as the type
genus of a family should be well
en dation providing for, in certain
gases, the retention of a family-
group name not based on its type
g onus
| dditional explanation on the course
4 development of the type concept
or genera
‘Uggests clause, on no change being
de that would upset usage, as a
ew addition to the provision on
wocedure to be followed if the
cies intended to be the type
ties is considered to have been
arranges and adds hypothetical
m iple to the provision on pre-
lously misidentified type species
Notes by “‘ Régles ’’ Section
not re-enacted at Copenhagen and
appears therefore to be cancelled by
Copenhagen : 32—Decision 43
Compiler states that it contradicts
the Copenhagen Decision that the
basic stem of the name of each taxon
of the family-group shall be that of
its type genus (Decision 49) (see
Draft 13/2 [a]). This provision
which originally appeared in Opinion
141 and was cast in the form of a
Recommendation at Paris appears
anyway to have been cancelled by
Copenhagen : 32—Decision 43
possibly inherent in Paris :
Conclusion 38(2)
158—
:
408 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision |
No. of “‘ Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’
(94) 19/3, 4
:
.
(95) 19/3(a)(iii) Copenhagen : 70—Decision 131
Paris : 153—Conclusion 28
Copenhagen : 70—-Decision 130
Declaration 26
(97) 19/3(d) Paris : 154—Conclusion 29
a
>
bs
i _ Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
*« Declaration ”’
he provisions relating to the
thod to be followed in deter-
ning the type species of a genus
ich appeared as “ Rules ”’ in the
Article 30 are here converted
9 subsequent provisions; the
etters denoting the old “ Rules ”
re altered and the order in which
ese provisions appear has been
changed
re-drafts the provision on the type
yecies of a nominal genus estab-
ished with more than one included
minal species but with the type
ecies established only for a nomi-
ate subgenus
a
summarises in a redrafted form the
ses of species that must be dis-
arded (as well as those unavail-
le) in the Rule on type species by
a inotypy
i
4
mserts the qualification * ‘ cited ”’
‘or a synonym in the provision on
e by absolute tautonymy
\
’
|
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 409
Notes by “‘ Régles ’’ Section
original Rules (b) and (c) are reversed
in order and original Rules (f) and
(g) are placed in a seperate section
and re-numbered
Compiler considers the part on the
author not having established a type
species for that genus already is
misleading as it might be inter-
preted to mean that the type species
of the genus might be differently
designated, and this is impossible by
definition
Compiler considers necessary for
completeness
Compiler considers that, although
not in accordance with the Paris
decision, unless this amendment is
included a subjective element would
be present
410 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Reference to Congress Decision
Item Reference to Draft
No. of “* Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’
(98) 19/3(d)(i) Paris : 145—Conclusion 29
(99) 19/4(b) Declaration 27 .
(100) 19/4(d) Berlin. Article 30(g)
(4101) 19/5(a) Paris : 156—Conclusions 32 and 3
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 411
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent Notes by “‘ Régles ’’ Section
** Declaration ”’
inserts the qualification “‘ objective ”
_ for a synonym in the part on hidden
tautonymy adding Examples to
clarify the point; suggests the
- omission of the reference to sub-
species
re-words and suggests adding new
clause that the provision, clarifying
_the question of the type species of a
substitute name, should apply des-
_pite any statement to the contrary
by the author ;
_adds proviso that the type by sub-
sequent selection may be reversed
by Plenary Powers ; omits
“valid”? which qualified the origin-
ally included species
mentions specifically, in the pro-
vision on species that are eligible for
subsequent type selection, that
species inquirendae and species sedis
incertae are excepted
412 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “‘ Régles ”’ or to subsequent “‘ Declaration ”’
(102) 19/5(c) (iii) Paris : 180—Conclusion 69 (3)(b)
(103) 19/5 Recommendation 3(v) ‘Berlin. Article 30(t)
(104) 19/5 Recommendation 5 Paris : 126—Conclusion 2(3)
(105) 20/Foreword
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 413
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent Notes by ‘‘ Régles ’’ Section
** Declaration ’’
suggests additional sentence defining
the date of type-selection when an
author accepts a previous selection
of a nominal species, not originally
included, to be the type species and
synonymises that species with an
originally included species
expands the page precedence Recom-
mendation in selecting type species
to a more definite statement men-
tioning line and word precedence
the expression used by the Com- the expression approved by the Paris
piler is “ recording publication ”’ Congress was “‘ literature-recording
serial ”’
new opening draft explaining the
term “ type ”
414 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of ** Régles ’’ or to subsequent ‘* Declaration ”’
(106) 20/footnote
(107) 20/1
(108) 20/1 Recommendation 2 Paris : 188—Conclusion 75(7)(c)
(109) 20/1 Recommendation 3 Copenhagen : 30—Decision 37
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 415
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent Notes by “‘ Régles ’’ Section
“* Declaration ”’
addition of note on the term “ lecto-
holotype ”
>
addition of an ‘“ Explanation ”’ in-
terpreting the phrase ‘are the
property of science ”
applies specifically the Recommenda-
tion on labelling of holotypes and
lectotypes to labelling of syntypes
and neotypes
suggests adding a sentence on the
reason for publishing information on
labels when designating types of
species
416 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “* Régles ”’ or to subsequent “‘ Declaration ”’
(110) 20/2 Recommendation 8 Paris : 187—Conclusion 75(7)
(111) 20/3(a)(i) Copenhagen : 73—Decision 137
(112) 20/3(a)(iv) Copenhagen : 75—Decision 141
(113) 20/3(c) Copenhagen : 74—-Decision 139
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 417
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
* Declaration ”’
suggests new wording qualifying the
requirement that data on the stage
of a holotype should be given, so as
to exclude cases where the type is a
mature adult
adds qualifying clauses, to the
provision on selecting a syntype to
be a lectotype, which provide that
such a selection is not final if (a) it is
contrary to action by previous
revisers and if (b) the type selected
proved not to be a syntype
adds the point that the existence of
only faultily preserved syntypes
absolves a taxonomist from selecting
a lectotype therefrom
v
Notes by ‘‘ Régles ’’ Section
in its present form the suggested
addition in (a), if approved, would
be incomplete for there is no previous
provision requiring action by a
reviser
see items (118), (237)
adds explanation on the effect of
making a single specimen the
holotype or lectotype of two nominal
species
418 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “ Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘“‘ Declaration ”’
(114) 20/3 Recommendation 10 Paris : 188—Conclusion 75(7)(b)
Copenhagen : 77—Decision 148
rr
(115) 20/4(a) Copenhagen : 28—Decision 34
(116) 20/4(b) Copenhagen : 28—-Decision 34(3)
(117) 20/4(d)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 419
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent Notes by “‘ Régles ’’ Section
* Declaration ”’
suggests sentence on the kind of
collection from which a lectotype
should be selected
new sentence on the purpose of Compiler’s suggestion to replace
establishing a neotype Copenhagen Decision 34(2), also gives
alternate drafting of the Copenhagen
version
re-drafts in an affirmative form the
provision defining the class of
species for which a neotype is to be
established
provision on priority if there are two Compiler states that, according to
neotypes established for the same Dr. Sabrosky, this provision was
nominal taxon adopted by the Colloquium but not
included in the Report as approved
and published
420 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “‘ Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’
(118) 20/5(a)(iv)
(119) 20/5(a)(ix) ~ Copenhagen : 29—Decision 35(6)
(120) 20/5 Recommendation 12 Copenhagen : 29—Decision 36
(121) 20/5(b)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 421
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent Notes by “* Régles ’’ Section
** Declaration
ee
suggested new provision allowing for see items (112) and (237)
existing type material, if faulty, to
be disregarded for neotype selection
ee a ee
re-words provision on the type of Compiler’s replacement of Copen-
descriptive data that must be pub- hagen Decision 35(6)
lished on the establishment of a
neotype
eee
qualifies the Recommendation on
consultation before designating a
neotype by adding the words “if
any ” in regard to fellow workers
eee
hew provision on Commission’s suggested by Dr. K. P. Schmidt
Powers in regard to establishing a
neotype
422 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of ‘* Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’
(122) 20/5(e) Copenhagen : 31—Decision 39(6)
(123) 20/5(a)(v)(vi) Copenhagen : 29—Decision 35(5)
(124) 20/6 Copenhagen : 31—Decision 40
(125) 20/7 Recommendation 16
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 423
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent Notes by “‘ Régles ’’ Section
* Declaration ”’
adds qualifications to the provision
relating to the procedure to be
followed on the final validation of a
neotype
re-arranges some of the points in
regard to establishing a neotype
omits “ provisional” to make more
definite the action of a First Reviser
in regard to retaining or rejecting a
neotype when part of the original
type material is subsequently dis-
covered
new Recommendation on not chang- suggested by the Compiler to guard
ing the specimen selected for a against the work of an original
neotype and published before the selector being overthrown
Article in question takes effect
424 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “‘ Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’
(126) 21/2 Copenhagen : 72—Decision 136
(127) 21/6 Berlin Article 29
(128) 22/Foreword
(129) 22/1(b) and Recommendation 1 Declaration 32
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 425
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent Notes by ‘‘ Régles ’’ Section
** Declaration ”’
adds “‘ Explanations”’ to the pro-
visions on the subjective and objec-
tive definition of a species
re-drafts the provision of original Compiler states that in practice the
Article 29 and omits the part on the Rule in original Article 29 is followed
necessity for the type species having even when the type species was
been originally established for the selected after the publication of the
nominal genus in question generic name
adds opening paragraph on the pur-
pose of quoting the author of the
name of a taxon
re-words and condenses the pro-
vision on the status of names in
unpublished papers presented at
meetings
426 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “* Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’
(130) 22/1(f) Paris : 144—Conclusion 17(a)
SS i
(181) 22/2(a)
(132) 22/2(b)(ii) Copenhagen : 59—Decision 105(2)
(133) 22/4(a) Copenhagen : 37—Decision 56
: 42—Decision 69
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 427
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
* Declaration ”’
suggests the omission of the word
“ specific ’’ to broaden the applica-
tion of the provision on the author
of a name published conditionally
new provision on variant spelling of
generic or specific names not causing
new combinations
Notes by ‘‘ Régles ’’ Section
by the time of the publication of the
Draft Code the action here proposed
had already been taken in Declara-
tion 24
the reference is not understood [see
items (79), (137) and (159)]
omits ‘‘on subjective grounds”
from the provision that a later
author claiming that the author of a
new combination misidentified the
nominal species concerned does not
affect the ruling concerning the
authorship of such a combination
Compiler considers the omitted word-
ing irrelevant
re-drafts the provision on the cita-
tion of the name of the author of a
family-group name or higher, al-
tering the emphasis and putting part
as a Recommendation
428
Item
No.
(134)
(135)
(136)
(137)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
of ‘* Régles ”’ or to subsequent “‘ Declaration ”’
22/4(b)
22/5 Recommendation 4 Paris : 215—-Conclusion 14(2)
Second version
22/Recommendations 5 and 7 Paris : 174—Conclusion 65
22/5(c)(iv) Berlin. Article 23
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 429
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
* Declaration ”’
Notes by ‘‘ Régles ’’ Section
adds footnote on the custom in
regard to the citation of the name of
the author of a taxon of generic or
lower rank
suggests new Recommendation that
the author of a name published
anonymously, but later known,
should be given and the abbrevia-
tion “‘ anon ”’ not used
retains the Recommendation against
abbreviating the names of authors
proposed by Compiler in replacement
of the Recommendation that an
author’s name in such a case should
be placed in square brackets
Compiler raises the question whether
this was cancelled by Copenhagen :
59—Decision 104
re-drafts opening wording of the
provision on the citation of the
author of a new combination and
suggests addition of clause to exclude
variant spellings of any of the names
‘counting as a new combination
additional clause on variant spelling
not traced [see items (79), (131) and
(159)] :
(189)
(140)
(141)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Reference to Draft
of “ Régles ”’
22/5(d)
22/7 Recommendation 6
22/7 Recommendation 9
23/Foreword
Reference to Congress Decision
or to subsequent “* Declaration ”’
Berlin. Article 24
Paris : 169—Conclusion 55
Paris : 170—Conclusion 57
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 431
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent Notes by ‘‘ Régles ’’ Section
* Declaration ”’
re-drafts and adds “‘ Explanation ” according to Paris : 174, Conclusion
of the significance of revising a 64 this example was to be cancelled
species ; retains the example based as Goeze was not a consistently
on Goeze’s action as a taxonomist binominal author
re-words in a condensed form the
Recommendation on not signalising
that a taxon is new more than once
substitutes the word “ taxonomist ”’ Compiler states that this re-wording
for “author” in the Recommenda- is to remove popular articles from
tion on giving a_ bibliographical being covered by the provision
reference to its original publication
when citing the name of a genus or
lower taxon
adds opening paragraph explaining
the Article on ‘‘ The Rejection of
Names ”
432 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of ‘‘ Régles ”’ or to subsequent “ Declaration ”’
(142) 23/1(a)(ii) Paris : 242—Conclusion 3(2)
(143) 24/Foreword
(144) 24/1 Berlin. Articles 34 and 35
(145)
(146) 24/1(i)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 433
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
* Declaration ”’
suggests the omission of the phrase
“or in group of allied genera ’’, as
too broad, in the provision on the
Commission’s Powers in regard to
similar compound specific names
(differing only in being in noun or
adjectival form)
Compiler inserts an explanation of
the principle of homonymy
new draft of the Law of Homonymy
broadened to apply to all taxa with
the qualification of “‘ based on a
different type ”’ introduced
Notes by ‘‘ Régles ’’ Section
Compiler states that Dr. Sabrosky
suggests that the Rule should be
broadened to include other cases of
similarity ; Compiler suggests that
provision might be rescinded any-
way, as the Plenary Powers of the
Commission would cover these cases
as worded, this does not bring out
clearly the position of family-group
names and names of higher cate-
gories; wording similar to that on
being based on a different type, is
used in all the drafts on homonymy
[see items (153) (154) (156) and
Draft 24/10(a)]
omits in this Article definitions of
primary and secondary homonyms,
although these phrases are used in
this Article
hew provision on the Commission’s
Powers to conserve a junior
homonym
(these definitions are inserted in the
Glossary)
Compiler states that this proposal
was suggested to him by Dr. E.
Mayr ; but that, anyway, the
Commission has this right under
its Plenary Powers; [see Paris : 339,
Conclusion 23(1)]
434 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of ‘‘ Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘* Declaration ”’
(147) 24/1 Recommendation 1 Paris : 119—Conclusion 1(4)
(148) 24/2(b) Paris : 163—Conclusion 44
: 1883—Conclusion 74(c)
(149) 24/2(c) Paris : 398—Conclusion 35(4)
(150) 24/4(a)(b) Copenhagen : 78—Decision 152
: 79—Decisions 154
and 155
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 435
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
* Declaration ”’
widens the Recommendation on
giving publicity to invalid specific
homonyms to include all homonyms;
and adds proviso that it does not
apply when the author discovering
such a homonym is himself taking
steps to replace it
Notes by ‘‘ Régles ’’ Section
widens the provision on emendations
of specific and generic names enter-
ing into homonymy to cover names
of all taxa
condenses the provisions on the
status of nomina dubia in regard to
homonymy into a more general
statement and omits Paris example
inserts as a substantive provision,
applying to names of taxa in general,
the special cases (i.e. the variations
on “Mac” and diacritic marks) of
differences which are to be treated
as causing homonymy
Compiler expresses the opinion that
the Copenhagen Report as approved
and published omits wording which
occurred in the roneoed draft of the
Colloquium report and which referred
to differences in spelling to be
ignored in regard to generic
homonymy
436 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of ‘‘ Régles ”’ or to subsequent “‘ Declaration ”’
(151) 24/4(b) Copenhagen : 79—Conclusion 155
(152) 24/4 Recommendation 3 Paris : 167—Conclusion 51
(153) 24/5(a) Copenhagen : 42—Decision 68
(154) 24/6(a)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 437
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
** Declaration ”’
Notes by “‘ Régles ’’ Section
re-words the provision.on diacritic
marks to take account of those marks
whose presence or absence causes no
change in spelling and applies the
provision to names generally
this suggestion re-opens the decision
taken at Copenhagen
inserts as a Recommendation the
ethics that should guide an author
re-naming a homonym
enacted as a mandatory Rule but
with a proviso exempting the Com-
mission from any responsibility in
investigating or passing judgment on
alleged contraventions
re-words the provision defining
homonymy in regard to taxa belong-
ing to categories in the Order/Class
and Phylum-Groups, introducing the
wording “objectively different ”
re-words the provision on family-
group homonymy [on the lines of the
provision above, item (153)] and
: adds an “ Explanation ” in the form
_ of examples
b
DD
438 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of ** Régles °’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’
(155) 24/6(b) Copenhagen : 37—Decision 55
(156) 24/7 Paris : 164—Conclusion 46(1)
(157) 24/8(a) Copenhagen : 78—Decision 152 -
(158) 24/10(b
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 439
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
* Declaration ”’
adds example to the provision on the
procedure to be followed in the case
of family-group homonymy resulting
from similar but not homonymous
type genera
adds footnote drawing attention to
‘the force of the re-drafting of the
Law of Homonymy in regard to
generic names
Notes by ‘* Régles ’’ Section
Compiler expresses the view in the
discussion that in some cases the best
solution of homonymy in family-
group names resulting from similar
type-genera might be to change the
type-genera
refers to exceptions to the Rule that
generic names differing even only by
a single letter are not homonyms
Compiler states that, although these
were not expressly stated at Copen-
hagen as exceptions, they were in-
tended as such [see item (150) above]
suggested statement on the Law of
Homonymy in the case of specific
names applying only to identical
binomina
Compiler expresses the view that,
although not expressly stated by a
Congress, the enactment suggested is
necessary for completeness
440 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “* Régles ”’ or to subsequent “ Declaration ”’
(159) 24/10(d)
(160) 24/11(b)(iii) Paris : 123—Conclusion 1(15)
24/ 13(c)
EEE
(161) 24/11(d) Copenhagen : 82—Decision 162
a
(162) 24/13(b)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 441
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent Notes by ‘‘ Régles ’’ Section
** Declaration ”°
new provision on a variant spelling reference not understood [see items
or emendation of a generic name (79) (131) and (137)]
being disregarded in determining
whether a specific name is a primary
homonym
suggests the repeal of the provision Compiler expresses the view that
on the status of a name proposed to such a name should have the status
replace a homonym or a supposed of a synonym
homonym when that homonym has
not been validly rejected
“retains the provision on challenging
the rejection of secondary
homonyms but suggests a replace-
ment which alters the procedure and
omits the statement on the avail-
ability, after publication of the
protest, of the replacement name
and of the name of the senior
secondary homonym
“Explanation ”’, in the form of a
_ hypothetical example, added to the
_ provision on identical specific names
in homonymous genera
aa ae
we TGO
442 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “ Régles ”’ or to subsequent “‘ Declaration ”’
(163) 24/13(b)(i)
(164) 24/15 Paris : 119—
Conclusion 1(5)(6)(13)(14)
(165) 25/1 Berlin. Article 36
Paris : 118—Conclusion 1(1)
(166) 25/2 Berlin. Article 36
= Pe | ee
OE EE ——————
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 443
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
* Declaration ”’
Notes by “‘ Régles ’’ Section
new provision against the reviving
of a specific name rejected before
the coming into force of the provision
on identical specific names in
homonymous genera
re-drafts considerably the Rules for
the replacement of a specific name
rejected as a homonym, condensing
and amalgamating the points made
at Paris
Compiler considers that although
already covered by Draft 5/1 [item
(10)] a definite statement should be
made here
retains statement on rejected
homonyms in original Article 36
re-worded to incorporate Paris
Conclusions
retains the statement on rejected
synonyms in original Article 36 and
enlarges to incorporate Paris enact-
ments
Article 36 was deleted altogether at
Paris
dt Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “* Régles ”’ or to subsequent “‘ Declaration ’’
(167) 26/ Declaration 4
Paris : 167—Conclusion 52
(168) 27/1(a) Copenhagen : 47—
Decision 78(1)(a)(i)
: 52—Decision 86
(169) 28/1 footnote
(170) 28/1(a) Copenhagen : 55—Decision 93
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 445
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
** Declaration ”’
Notes by “‘ Régles °’ Section
retains nearly in full the original
Declaration against using intem-
perate language, in the form of an
“ Explanation ”
only the first sentence was incor-
porated in the Code at Paris, not the
part in the “ Explanation ”
introduces, under the Rule of old
Article 3 (requiring scientific names
to be Latin or Latinised) the pro-
vision that an arbitrary combination
of letters, latinised, comes under
that Rule
additional note on grammatical
knowledge necessary for zoologists
wishing to compile new names
applies provision on the connecting
vowels in compound names to all
names (not only specific), adds a new
interpretation of the above provision
and refers to a new Table inserted at
the end of the Article giving in-
formation on connective vowels
the part on the arbitrary combina-
tion of letters was only mentioned
in Copenhagen in connection with
generic names (Article 8) and specific
names (Article 14)
Compiler considers that, in fact, this
provision was extended to all names
by Copenhagen: 43, Decision 71
(1)(a)(i) [actually this provision
applies only to generic and specific
names]
446 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of ‘* Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’
(171) 28/1 Recommendations 2,3 Berlin. Article 20
First Recommendation
(172) 28/1 Recommendation 5 Berlin. Article 20
Third Recommendation
(173) 28/2(a) Paris : 206—Conclusion 11(1)(d)
(174) 28/2(b) Paris : 198—Conclusion 9(2)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 447
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
* Declaration ”’
Notes by “‘ Régles ’’ Section
divides original Recommendation on
only combining ‘‘ sub-’’ and
“ pseudo-’’ with the appropriate
language into two separate Recom-
mendations
suggests exceptions to the provision
that proper names in languages not
using the Latin alphabet should be
transliterated according to the ap-
propriate Schedule annexed to the
Code
Compiler believes this to be a
desirable addition as it allows the
use of certain cases of names cus-
tomarily published in a form which
has not been transliterated ac-
cording to the Schedule
broadens provision on specific names
based on personal names ending in
“q’” to a general statement on all
names
Compiler states that, although this
was applied at Paris to specific
names only, it should be broadened
to include generic names
broadens provision, on specific
names based on compound personal
names and consisting of two words,
to include the names of other taxa
448 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of ‘* Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’
(175) 28/2 Recommendation 6 Paris : 208—Conclusion 11(5)
(176) 28/2 footnote
(177) 28/2(c) (g) and Paris : 207—Conclusion 11(2)(c)
Recommendation Copenhagen : 55—Decision 95
(178)
28/2 Recommendation 9 Paris : 205—Conclusion 11(1)(a)
—X—S as Sy
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 449
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
** Declaration ”’
Notes by ‘‘ Régles ’’ Section
suggests broadening the Recom-
mendation on specific names formed
from compound surnames to cover
all names
note on the formation of names of
taxa from Spanish compound names
added
extends the provision on specific
names, formed from two words of
which the first denotes Christian
Sainthood or is a nobiliar particle,
to cover names for taxa belonging
to any category; extends the
Recommendation (which applies, as
at Copenhagen, only to specific
names) to cover all types of “‘ Saint ”
names
extends provision on specific names
formed from persons of antiquity to
cover the name of any taxon
the Draft Recommendation would
appear also to cover Berlin, Article 8
Second Recommendation (h)(e) which
is not inserted elsewhere
Compiler considers that there is
confusion in the Copenhagen drafting
in regard to Saint names and the
draft of the postponed Paris pro-
posal (which covered all Saint names)
was more satisfactory; [Copen-
hagen : 55, Decision 95 applies only
to specific names and is cast in the
form of a provision, although non-
mandatory, and a Recommendation
based on the provision but drafted
with different wording as regards
‘* Saint ’? names]
450 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of ‘* Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’
(179) 28/2(e)
(180) 28/2 Recommendation 10 Paris : 205—Conclusion 11(1)(a)(ii)
(180a)
(181) 28/2(f)(i) Copenhagen : 48—Decision 80
: 55—Decision 92
(182) 28/2(f)(ii) Paris : 206—Conclusion 11(1)(e)
Copenhagen : 52—
Decision 86(c)(iii)
oa ~~? Bae ee ae —ss sree
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45]
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
* Declaration ”’
new provision on the treatment of
proper names of certain nationalities
when forming zoological names from
them
widens application of the provision
on names based on forenames of
classical origin belonging to modern
persons to include all taxa; and
adds sentence referring to the treat-
ment of non-classical forenames
applies the provision on generic and
specific names based on modern
surnames with “ Mac” to names of
taxa in general
suggests that the apostrophe should
be omitted in names based on
patronymics with “O’” and adds
explanatory footnote on the mean-
ing of 6é O’ 2?
Notes by ‘* Régles ’’ Section
Compiler states that this provision is
suggested to cover certain cases
brought to light by Dr. Sabrosky
Compiler suggests that the Recom-
mendations on generic and specific
names based on modern surnames
with prefixes should be revised and
applied in like manner to each ; and
that his provisions in Section 2(f)(h)
applying to names in general should
replace his tentative Recommenda-
tion (unnumbered following Recom-
mendation 22 in Section 12) devoted
to generic names only
see item (180)(a) above
see item (186) below
452 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of ** Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’
(183) 28/2(f)(iii)
(184) 28/2(h)
(185) 28/4(a) Copenhagen : 57—Conclusion 101
(186) 28/4(b)
:
:
;
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 453
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
* Declaration ”’
new provision on names formed from
Norman patronymics with the pre-
fix “ Fitz ”
Notes by ‘“* Régles ’’ Section
drafts Recommendations, in ex-
panded form and with new material,
on the treatment of prefixes in
personal names which are used as a
basis for zoological names
suggests that the use of a diaeresis
should be an exception to the pro-
vision prohibiting diacritic marks
these Recommendations are intended
to supplant more limited Recom-
mendations [see item (180)(a)]; parts
of them appear, however, to repeat
general Recommendations already
stated [compare Recommendation
12(«) with Recommendation 8, item
(177)]
Compiler states that the diaeresis
was in use in Latin; a proposal on
this subject is already before the
Commission. B.13 : 292
Suggests new Rule that an apos-
trophe should not form part of a
: zoological name
f
?
EE
see item (182) above
454 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “‘ Régles ’’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’
(187) 28/5 Recommendation 13 Berlin. Article 19 Recommendation
(188) 28/5 Recommendations 15 and 16
(189) 28/6 Copenhagen : 47—
Decision 78(1)(a)(ii)
(190) 28/7 Berlin. Article 2 and Article 4
(191) 28/9(a) Copenhagen : 34—Decision 50(1)(a) _
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 455
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
** Declaration ”’
suggests addition of specific mention
that italics are usual in printing
scientific names
new Recommendations on the use of
parentheses and brackets in con-
nection with the names of taxa
widens application of the provision
on capital letters for generic names
to apply also to the names of all taxa
of higher category than genus
Notes by ‘‘ Régles ’’ Section
Compiler considers that Copenhagen :
43—Decision 70 cancelling old Article
19 does not apply to this Recom-
mendation
Compiler states that this is according
to universal custom
states specifically that a family-
group name should be a single noun
in the nominative plural
no specific Congress statement as
such, but implied in old Articles 2
and 4
adds examples to the provision on
the formation of a family-group
name from the name of a type genus
which is of classical origin
456 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “‘ Régles ”’ or to subsequent “‘ Declaration ”’
(192) 28/10 Copenhagen : 47—Decision 78
(193) 28/11(a) Copenhagen : 49—Decision 84(1)
(194) 28/11(a)(i) Copenhagen : 49—Decision 84 (2)
wt i ee ell
CA ae =
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 457
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
** Declaration ”’
alters the provision on the Rules
for the formation of generic names
omitting (a) the part on the single
word being “either simple or com-
pound ” (b) the part “‘ must be either
a Latin word or a Latinised word ”
(c) the part that it must “consist of a
single word” (d) the part on being
treated as a noun in the nominative
singular “‘ by its original author ”
(e) the part on being written “with
a capital initial letter ’’’ (f) the part
on names prefixed with “‘ Mac ”
Notes by ‘“‘ Régles ’’ Section
Compiler bases his draft not on the
Official Record of the Copenhagen
Congress but on the roneoed draft of
the Copenhagen Colloquium report
(Copenhagen MSS. 35, para. 20) as
‘““ The Copenhagen printed report...
introduces more than one new ele-
ment” the reasons given by the
Compiler for omissions as enumerated
opposite are as follows: (a) not a
mandatory provision and so may
be disregarded; (b) and (c) are
covered by old Articles 3 and 2 and
are not therefore subject to auto-
matic correction; (d) the wording
negates the idea of automatic cor-
rection ; (e) placed in a more general
position covering genera and all
higher taxa ; (f) not included in the
MSS. Draft Report referred to above
as a mandatory provision and should,
in his view, only be a Recommendation
[does not appear to be consistent
with item (181) where it forms part
of a general provision cast in
mandatory form]
inserts in the provision on the gender
of classical words being treated as
given in lexicons the explicit state-
ment “unless by contrary direction
of the Commission” and adds an
example and footnote explaining the
method of indicating genders in
lexicons
substitutes the word ‘“‘ apparently ”’
for “obviously” in the provision
stating that names identical in
spelling with Greek or Latin words
are presumed to be taken from them
458 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of *‘ Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’
(195) 28/11(b) Copenhagen : 49—-Decision 84(3)
(196) 28/11(d) Copenhagen : 49—Decision 84(3)
(197) 28/11(d)(i) Copenhagen : 50—Decision 84(7)(a)
(198) 28/11(d)(ii) Copenhagen : 51—Decision 84(7)(b)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 459
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
** Declaration ”’
Notes by “‘ Régles ’’ Section
alters the provision on derivative
classical nouns by omitting the
word ‘nominative’ before suffix
and replacing the compound word
examples given at Copenhagen with
new examples; adds grammatical
explanations in footnotes; places
the examples of compound words
given at Copenhagen in separate
provision [see item (196) below]
Compiler expresses the view that
the Copenhagen enactment is baf-
fling and the examples given con-
trary to it
separate provision on possessive
compound nouns or adjectives used
as nouns
Compiler considers this provision
necessary to fit the type of examples
given in Copenhagen Decision 84(3)
uses ‘lexicon’ instead of “ dic-
tionary” in the provision on Latin
nouns to be treated as masculine
names, and adds examples and
footnotes
re-arranges, re-words and adds new
examples to the provisions on names
to be treated as feminine
460 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “‘ Régles ’”’ or to subsequent “ Declaration °’
(199) 28/11(d)(iii) Copenhagen : 51—Decision 84(7)(c)
(200) 28/11(e)
(201) 28/11(g)
(202) 28/11 Recommendation 18 Copenhagen : 50—Decision 84(6)(d)
1
‘
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 461
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
* Declaration ”’
adds footnotes and examples to the
provisions on names to be treated as
neuter
expands the draft of the suggested
Declaration on the cases of the
genders of certain generic names,
which do not agree with the Copen-
hagen Rules and suggests further
interpretations
new provision on the treatment of
the gender of a generic name re-
maining in doubt under the pro-
visions of the section in question
Notes by ‘‘ Régles ’’ Section
based by Compiler on suggested
Declaration B.11 : 259
Compiler proposes to cover difficult
cases [would not these cases be
covered by Recommendation 18, item
(202) below]
inserts as a Recommendation the pro-
vision on cases of doubt of the gender
of compound words
Compiler interprets the Copenhagen
decision as advisory and not as
mandatory
462 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “ Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’
eee eee eee
(203) 28/12 Recommendation 22 Berlin. Article 8
Second Recommendation(h)
—Ke—e—e—e—n eee — ———
(204) 28/12 Recommendation Copenhagen : 48—Decision 80
(unnumbered)
(205) 28/12(b) Berlin. Article 8
Copenhagen : 47—Decision 78(2)
(206) 28/12(b)(3) Paris : 264—Conclusion 37(2)
Paris : 297—Conclusion 20
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 463
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
“ Declaration ”’
Notes by “‘ Régles ’’ Section
suggests widening the Recommenda-
tion on terminations for generic
names based on modern surnames
to apply also to those based on
forenames
inserts the provisions on names
based on surnames prefixed with
“Mac” as part of a _ tentative
Recommendationin the Draft section
on Generic Names
re-drafts as mandatory provisions
the section on the types of words
which are available for generic
names, adding new examples, foot-
notes and “‘ Explanations ”’
adds ‘‘ Explanation’ on the prin-
cipal types of Greek compound
words with examples
Compiler believes that the provision
was not included as a mandatory
portion of old Article 8 at the
Colloquium [see item (192)], but
states that this Recommendation
should anyway be replaced by the
proposed Draft sections 2(f) and (h)
[see items (180)(a), (181)] which are
cast in mandatory form to apply to
names of taxa in general
these provisions appear at present
in the Regles as Recommendations
464
Item
No.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Reference to Draft
of “ Régles ”’
Reference to Congress Decision
or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’
(207)
(208)
(209)
(210)
28/13
28/16(b)(i)
28/16(b)(i)
(second sentence)
28/16(b)(iv)(v)(vi)
Berlin. Article 14
Copenhagen : 51—Decision 86
Paris : 205—Conclusion 11(1)(b)(i)
Copenhagen : 53—Decision 89
Copenhagen : 53—Decision 89
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 465
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
** Declaration ”’
alters, in the provision on the for-
mation of specific names, the Copen-
hagen wording “ may be ”’ to “ shall
have ”’
Notes by ‘‘ Régles ’’ Section
the alteration in wording is to make
clear that the provision is mandatory ;
retains in this provision the part on
the need for the word being Latin or
Latinised, but see Compiler’s dis-
cussion of this clause in reference to
generic names [point (b) of item
(192) above]
re-words the part in the termination
** ii ” in the provision on the forma-
tion of specific names) in the genitive
singular) based upon modern sur-
names of men
Copenhagen Decision 89 reduced
this Paris provision to apply only to
surnames not Latin, Latinised or of
Greek origin ; the Compiler considers
that the wording used at Copen-
hagen in regard to the ending
“ii” is not correct as regards
Latin words ; so he alters it through-
out [see item (211) below and
accordingly here, where, however, it
appears to have a different meaning
from the Copenhagen enactment
suggests new provision on a per-
missible treatment of specific names
formed in the genitive singular from
modern surnames of men which end
in a short “a”
inserts as three separate sub-para-
graphs the provisions on the forma-
tion of specific names based upon
modern patronymics of men in
Latinised form
Compiler queries whether this pro-
vision should be included ; although
noted as non-mandatory, it is not
cast in the form of a Recommendation
466 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “‘ Régles ”’ or to subsequent “‘ Declaration ”’
(211) 28/16(b)(iv) Copenhagen : 53—Decision 89
(first sentence)
(212) 28/16(b)(v) Copenhagen : 54—Decision 89
(second sentence)
(213) 28/16(b)(vi) Copenhagen : 54—Decision 89
(third sentence)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 467
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
** Declaration ”’
re-drafts the provision on specific
names based upon modern patrony-
mics of men consisting of Latinised
words having the termination
“-us”’ (a) altering to terminations
in “-ius” and (b) re-wording the
part on the genitive termination
ie Se)
-ii’”’; adds examples
Notes by ‘‘ Régles ’’ Section
Compiler expresses the view (see
Discussion in Draft, line 24, page
223) that the wording of Copenhagen
Decision 89 “is not quite correct‘as
regards Latin and Latinised words ”’ ;
so alters as in (a) opposite because he
states that a modern surname is
Latinised by adding the termination
“ jus” and re-drafts as in point (b)
because he believes the wording used
at Copenhagen to be wrong as “there
is no such thing in Latin as ‘ genitive
case-ending -ii’ ’’ [the expression used
in the Copenhagen Decision is
“‘ genitive termination (singular,
‘1’—or, less desirably, ‘ -ii’)”’];
the example given on Linnaeus does
not appear to be appropriate here
and this example is also inserted
later in Recommendation 25a of the
same section [see item (219) below]
suggests altering “having the ter-
mination ‘-a’ ” to “ has any termi-
nation other than ‘-ius’”’ in the
provision on names based on modern
patronymics of men Latinised and
terminating as above
SD
gives new version to replace the
provision on the formation of specific
names based on modern patro-
nymics of men with the termination
“us” or “-a” but of Greek not
Latin origin making it necessary
first to follow, if possible, gram-
matical usage as indicated in
lexicons
Compiler believes that the Copen-
hagen enactment “is improper from
the viewpoint of Latin” and alters
accordingly
468 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “* Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘* Declaration ”’
(214) 28/16(c)(i) Paris : 205—Conclusion 11(1)(b)
(215) 28/16(c)(ii)(iii)(v) Copenhagen : 54—Decision 90
(216) 28/16(c)(iii) Copenhagen : 54—Decision 90
(second sentence)
(217) 28/16(c)(iv)
ELK | eS Ce ee
—S ee ee ee ™
ese ee ee
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 469
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
* Declaration ”’
Notes by “* Régles ”’ Section
applies to names in general, not
only to surnames, and adds a clause
making it permissible to drop the
final vowel of the person’s name in
the provision on the formation of
specific names based upon modern
surnames of women
Copenhagen : 54, Decision 90 deals
with such names as are Latinised or
of Greek origin, thus excluding such
cases from this Paris provision
inserts as three separate sub-para-
graphs the provisions on the forma-
tion of specific names based upon
modern patronymics of women in
Latinised form and applies to names
in general not only to patronymics
gives new version of the provision
on specific names based upon modern
patronymics of women Latinised
and ending in “-us”’ replacing the
part which provides that the case-
ending is to be added to the entire
word
Compiler suggests as better Latin
new provision on specific names
formed from the names of modern
women Latinised with a termination
ce 9
other than “ -a ” or “ -us
tF
Compiler believes to be necessary
for completeness [corresponding to
item (212) above]
470 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “‘ Régles ”’ or to subsequent “‘ Declaration ”’
(218) 28/16(c)(v) Copenhagen : 54—Decision 90
(third sentence)
(219) 28/16(d) Recommendation 25a Paris : 206—-Conclusion 11(1)(c)
(220)! 28/16(f) Copenhagen : 53—Decision 87
(221) 28/17 Recommendation 26 Copenhagen : 57—Decision 99
and footnote
1 See also Item (250) which should have come between Items (219) and (220).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 471
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
* Declaration ”’
gives a replacement for the provision
on specific names based on modern
patronymics of women with the
ending “ -us ”’ or “ -a ”’ when a word
of Greek not Latin origin ; the new
version modifies the Rule that the
termination is to be added to the
entire word
inserts as a Recommendation the
provision on the formation of specific
names from the surnames of certain
persons (Linnaeus, etc.)
re-words the provision on contra-
ventions of (old) Article 14 being
“subject to automatic correction ”
to ‘‘must be corrected when noticed”’
suggest two replacements, for the
Recommendation on the formation in
adjectival form of specific names
based on geographical terms by
adding the termination “ -ensis ”’,
(a) in the form of a re-drafted foot-
note for such geographical terms as
are Latin words and (b) in the case of
such terms as are barbarous place-
names in the form of a Recommenda-
tion modified to allow for the final
vowel of the place-name to be
retained in certain cases
Notes by “‘ Régles ’’ Section
Compiler expresses the view that the
Copenhagen provision results in im-
possible Latin in the cases in which a
double “‘a”’ would be produced
although reduced to a Recommenda-
tion by Copenhagen : 53, Decision
86(2) this treatment is not consistent
with the use of the examples of
Linnaeus and Fabricius in the Draft
mandatory provision above [item
(211)]
this wording does not appear quite
to make clear that in the case of such
corrections original authorship and
date are to be retained [see also
Draft 6/5(f) where this section is not
mentioned]
Compiler holds the view that Copen-
hagen Decision 99 “ is grammatically
incorrect ’’ and that as far as Latin
words are concerned it is sufficient
to insert a footnote, re-worded to
result in correct Latin and covering
endings in general (as he considers
that this part is a statement of fact)
and to leave the Recommendation to
deal with barbarous place-names
472 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of ‘* Régles °’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’
(222) 28/18(d)
(223) 28/18(f) Berlin.—Article 15
Second paragraph
(223)(a)
(224) 29/1
(225) 29/3(b)(v) Paris : 40—Conclusion 1(2)(e)
ee eee
\
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 473
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent Notes by “‘ Régles ’’ Section
** Declaration ”’
new provision on certain cases of
words compounded with a capital
letter being treated as compounded
with a sign
gives further example in the pro-
vision on the rejection as names of
two or more words related by
conjunctions
adds new Tables as an Appendix to
the Article to guide taxonomists in
formation of names from Latin and
Greek
adds statement defining the status
of the Commission
suggests enlarging the provision on
scientific representation among the
Commissioners by adding the phrase
“ other fields of biology including ”’
474 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “ Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘“‘ Declaration ”’
(226) 29/3(g)(i) Copenhagen : 89—Decision 174(2)
(227) 29/3(g)(ii) Copenhagen : 89—Decision 174(3)
(228) 29/3(j)
(229) 29/4 Paris : 325—Conclusion 15(c)
EE A en ni
OU
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ATi
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent Notes by ‘‘ Régles ’’ Section
* Declaration ”’
substitutes the word “ organisation ”’ Compiler considers that the word
for “institution ’ in the provision “institution”? is too limited in
on interim elections of Commissioners meaning and suggests that it would
be better to announce, in the
Bulletin, the names of organisations
to be consulted
Compiler queries the meaning of the
procedure prescribed in cases where
only unsuitable candidates are put
forward as proposed Commissioners
during an inter-Congress period
new provisions on the duties of
Commissioners
suggests adding sentence defining the
duties of Officers of the Commission
476 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “ Régles ” or to subsequent “‘ Declaration ”’
(230) 29/4(a)
(231) 29/4(c) Paris : 326—Conclusion 15(c)(d)
(232) 29/6(c) Declaration 5
Paris : 56—Conclusion 7(2)
: 324—Conclusion 14
(233) 29/6(c)(v) Berlin. Plenary Powers
Resolution, third paragraph
(added at Monaco, 1913)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 477
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
* Declaration ”’
Notes by “‘ Régles ’’ Section
adds sentence limiting those eligible
for Office to Commissioners
suggested by Compiler as a new Rule
suggests additions further defining
the procedure by which, in inter-
Congress periods, vacancies in offices
are to be filled by the Commission
re-drafts explaining the type of
action that may be taken under
Plenary Powers and specifying cer-
tain instances ; adds that the Powers
are subject to certain provisions
stated in the section
restores the part on the Powers of the
Commission being especially suit-
able for application in the case of
the names of larval stages
provisions to which the exercise of the
the Plenary Powers are subject are on
the voting procedure to be followed
in such cases and the principles to
be followed in the suppression of
names [see also item (11)]
this part was deleted by Copenhagen:
23, Decision 20(2)
478 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “‘ Régles *’ or to subsequent ‘* Declaration ”’
(234) 29/6(c)(vi) Paris : 339—Conclusion 23(1)
(235) 29/7 Paris : 292—Conclusion 10(a)(4)
(236) 29/7(b)
(237) 29/7(s)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 479
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
** Declaration ”’
Notes by ‘* Régles ’’ Section
adds qualifying phrase to the part
on the Commission being guided by
certain principles in exercising its
Powers in regard to the suppression
of names
Compiler suggests the addition to
allow for more flexibility of practice
defines an Opinion and elaborates
the statement on the duties of the
Commission in regard to Opinions
inserts definite statement on the
duties of the Commission in regard
to suspected non-binominal works
the duties here assigned to the
Commission have been accepted by
that body and acted on in a number
of cases, but there does not appear
to be any explicit Congress Decision
on this point
new provision on the duty of the
Commission in regard to authorising
the selection of neotypes from other
material if the existing type material
is faulty
Compiler proposes to insert if the
previous provision on faulty existing
type material is accepted [see items
(112) (118) above]
480 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “‘ Régles ”’ or to subsequent “* Declaration ”’
(238) 29/9(c)
SEE ee Ee ee eee
(239) 29/9(d)
bia AT Tn Soa a I ee
(240) 29/9(d)(i)
dn Fe a ae De ee eee
(241) 29/9(e) Paris : 267—-Conclusion 41
: 270—Conclusion 42
Copenhagen : 37—Decision 58
: 38—Decision 62
Declaration 18
Declaration 19
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 481
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
** Declaration ”’
Notes by ‘‘ Régles ’’ Section
inserts definition of a Direction
inserts paragraph on the duty of the
Commission in regard to the Bulletin
and defines the aims of the Bulletin
lists notices which, according to
various Rules, are to be published
in the Bulletin
omits details of Rules applying to
entries on Official Lists and Indexes
under existing Congress Decisions
the particulars here omitted were
to be inserted in the Régles
482 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “‘ Régles ”’ or to subsequent “ Declaration ”’
(242) 29/10(a)(b)(c)
(243) 29/11
(244) 29/12(a)(1) Paris : 50—Conclusion 6(a)
(245) 29/12(a)(3)(i)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 483
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
* Declaration ”’
inserts provisions, not previously
formulated, on action that is not the
duty of the Commission
Notes by ‘‘ Régles ’’ Section
Compiler suggests that these novel
provisions would serve to prevent
misapprehensions
inserts new provision on sessions of
the Commission and the transaction
of business during the intervals
alters the wording, in the provision
on the procedure for the adoption
of an Opinion at a meeting, to make
the necessary majority calculable
on all those Commissioners or
alternates present not on all Com-
missioners
added by Compiler for completeness
Compiler states that the provision as
drafted at Paris would lead to a
procedure not intended or followed
inserts new sentence defining “all
Commissioners’ as the term is
used in regard to voting procedure
{apart from that specified in item
(244) above] in connection with
Opinions
484 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision
No. of “‘ Régles ’’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’
(246) Glossary
(247) Glossary /date Paris : 223—Conclusion 18(a)
(248) Glossary/homonym Paris : 118—Conclusion 1(2)
: 344—Conclusion 28
(249) §Glossary/infra-subspecific form Paris : 90—Conelusion 1(3)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 485
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
** Declaration ”’
Notes by ‘‘ Régles ’’ Section
definitions of expressions employed
are grouped at the end of the Draft
in a list entitled “‘ Glossary ”’
no provision for a “ Glossary” has
been made by the Congresses which
decided that definitions of expressions
should be included in the Régles at
the appropriate points; the Draft
contains no Article defining the
status of the “ Glossary ”’
adds to the definition of “ date”
that it must be reckoned according
to the Gregorian Calendar and omits
“ whole ” which qualified ‘“‘ edition ”
in the part on distribution free of
charge
re-words the definitions of primary
and secondary homonyms
Compiler considers that, as enacted
at Paris, the definitions are not
sufficiently broad, and do not cover
subspecies properly
re-words and narrows scope of the
definition of an infra-subspecific
form
Compiler notes that, according to
Dr. Sabrosky, the names of aberra-
tions which are teratological speci-
mens are excluded from zoological
nomenclature and should not there-
fore, be included in the definition
486
Item
No.
Additional
Item
(250)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Reference to Draft
of “ Régles °°
28/16(e)
Reference to Congress Decision
or to subsequent “ Declaration *°
Paris : 251—Conclusion 13
:
4
*
q
‘
.
:
q
Ol ee i et eel
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Nature of difference from Congress
Decision or from subsequent
** Declaration ”’
Notes by ‘* Régles ’’ Section
487
omits, in connection with the pro-
vision on modern surnames used in
an unchanged form for specific
names, the definite statement that
the provision that a specific name
may be a noun in the nominative
singular in opposition to the generic
name, does not apply in the case of a
specific name based on a modern
surname
¥’ y
hs
—.
at -
thes” 1h '¥ 0. Se
; * pe hme Se a eee
(nay :
en a
|
Cutt “eed
PURCHASED
~ 6 MAR 1958
© 1958. THe INTERNATIONAL
TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Printed in England by METCALFE &
Coorer Limrrep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC2
—“~
VOLUME 15. Double-Part 16/17
21st March 1958
pp. 489—556
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLO GICAL
NOMENCLATURE
The Official Organ of
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
CONTENTS
Seventh Instalment of the London Congress Agenda Paper
(continued outside back wrapper)
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
1958
Price Two Pounds, Two Shillings and Sixpence
(All rights reserved)
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
A. The Officers of the Commission
Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jorpan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological
Museum, Tring, Herts, England)
President: Professor James Chester BrapLtey (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(12th August 1953)
Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953)
Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemuine (London, England) (27th July 1948)
B. The Members of the Commission
(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent
re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)
Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
(1st January 1947)
Senor Dr. Angel Caprera (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948)
Mr. Francis Hemmine (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)
Dr. Henning Lemcue (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948)
Professor Teiso Esaxt (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950)*
Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)
Mr. Norman Denbigh Riey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950)
Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaczewsk1 (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw,
Poland) (15th June 1950)
Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt
a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950)
Professor Dr. Erich Martin Herne (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin,
Germany) (5th July 1950)
Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amanat (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President)
Professor J. R. Dymond (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953)
Professor J. Chester BrapLEy (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
(President)
Professor Harold E. Voxss (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana,
U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
Professor Béla Hanx6é (Mezojgazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)
Dr. Norman R. Srou (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(12th August 1953)
Mr, P. C. Sytvester-Brapuey (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953)
Dr. L. B. Houruuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th
August 1953)
Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra,
A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954)
Dr. Alden H. Mixture (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California,
U.S.A.) (29th October 1954)
Doc. Dr. Ferdinand Pranti (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October
1954)
Professor Dr. William Ktunext (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th
November 1954)
Professor F, S. BopENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954)
Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954)
Professor Enrico TorTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th
December 1954)
* Professor Esaki died on 14th December 1957, while the present Part was passing through
the Press.
i et i hee ——
ee ee
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Volume 15, Double Part 16/17 (pp. 489—556) 21st March 1958
CASE No. 25
DRAFT “ REGLES’’, ARTICLE 12, SECTION 1 (NAMES FOR
TAXA OF THE ORDER/CLASS AND HIGHER CATEGORIES)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1242)
(For the relevant provision in the Draft Régles see 1957, Bull,-<—
zool. Nomencl. 14 : 92)
CHASED
PURC! 2e
7 4 BAA ‘Dj gq
3 1 MAR 1958 DOCUMENT 25/1
Problems involved in the stabilisation of the names for Orders, Classes
and Taxa of Higher Rank
By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
(Note dated Ist January 1958)
The present note, which is in the nature of an Interim Report on certain
problems arising in connection with the plan for stabilising the names for
Orders, Classes and Taxa of Higher Rank adopted by the Copenhagen Congress
in 1953 (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 38-43, Decisions 59-69),
has been prepared in the hope that it may prove of assistance to the
Colloquium to be held in London next July, if, after it has completed the task
of examining the remaining portions of the Draft of the Régles for submission
to the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology for final approval, it finds
it possible to carry the consideration of this important matter forward to a
_ further stage.
Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 15, Double-Part 16/17 March 1958.
490 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
2. The scheme agreed upon by the Copenhagen Congress, it will be
recalled, had two basic features, namely (1) that the names for at least the
more important taxa of the Order/Class and Higher Categories should be
stabilised by being placed on an Official List then established for the purpose
and (2) that the nominal taxa belonging to the foregoing categories should be
given a determinate content by being provided with type genera to be selected
in harmony with current usage. No agreement was reached as to how the
nominal taxa to be stabilised in this way should be selected, and in consequence
all that it was possible to agree upon was that committees of specialists should
be established to prepare and submit for eventual approval lists of reeommended
nominal taxa, with type genera, for the various groups in the Animal Kingdom.
It was further decided that in preparing the suggested lists the Committees
should “ give first consideration to weight of usage, and, where usage affords
no clear basis for choice, to other considerations, such as priority, the nature of
such considerations to be specified in the list to be prepared ”’ (Decision 62(1)).
3. At this point I must report that, as Secretary to the Commission, I
initiated certain consultations subsequent to the close of the Copenhagen
Congress which led me to the view that at least until the ground had been
more thoroughly prepared by individual specialists in the various groups,
committees, if established, could not hope to achieve any fruitful results.
For it very soon became evident that the number of names to be considered
was very much larger than had been anticipated by the Copenhagen Congress
and the problems involved far more intricate than had then been supposed.
4. A pre-requisite to any scheme for providing stability for the principal
Order/Class names of any group must be a reasonably complete and accurate
knowledge of what are the names involved, so that not only may a choice be
made of those names which it is desired should be included in the Official List
for protection but also that appropriate arrangements may be made for
preventing names which are subjective senior synonyms of the names to be
stabilised from entering into competition with those names and thus leading to
further lack of uniformity in the nomenclature for taxa of these categories.
It is here that we encounter a major difficulty which, except in the case of a few
exceptionally well-placed groups (paragraph 5 below), would render impossible
the task of any ad hoc committee which might be appointed. I refer to the
total lack at present of any work containing an enumeration of the names so
far published for Orders (including Sub-Orders) and taxa of higher rank
comparable in scope to the great Index Animalium compiled by the late
Charles Davies Sherborn. A similar, though perhaps rather less serious,
difficulty confronts any zoologist who may have occasion to ascertain what
are the oldest available family-group names in his speciality. In this
connection I must refer to a scheme for the preparation of a work containing
bibliographical references for all names published for taxa belonging to the
— so ™
ee ee ee
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 491
Family-Group, Order/Class Group and Higher Categories which I have already
submitted and which appears on the London Agenda Paper as Document 5/1.
5. Pending the preparation of the work described above, it cannot, I
think, reasonably be expected that it will be possible to secure any general
advance in the matter of stabilising the names for Orders and Classes all along
the front from the Protozoa to the highest groups in the Urochorda. This
does not mean, however, that no immediate progress is possible in any part of
this field. But it does mean that such advance is only to be expected at those
points where by reason of undertaking large-scale revisions specialists in
particular groups find it necessary for the purposes of their own work themselves
to make a detailed survey of the literature for the purpose of drawing up lists
of the Order/Class Names which it is necessary for them to consider. In two
cases investigations by individual specialists have been undertaken since the
Copenhagen Congress and the results communicated to the Office of the
Commission. The first of these is a survey of the names involved in the Class
Kchinoidea undertaken jointly by R. V. Melville (Geological Survey and Museum,
London) and J. Wyatt Durham (University of California, Berkeley, California,
U.S.A.). The second, of which an abstract only has so far been received, is
concerned with Order/Class Names in the Sub-Phylum Ciliophora and has
been prepared by Professor John O. Corliss (Department of Zoology, University
of Iilinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.). The material assembled by these
specialists for the above groups concerned, together with their suggestions
as to the genera to be selected as type genera, provide the basic material
needed for the preparation of definite proposals for final approval. It is not
suggested that the London Congress should take either of these cases into
immediate consideration but it is thought that it would be helpful, as showing
the large amount of preliminary investigations needed in cases falling in this
field, if the Congress were to have before them the two papers referred to above.
The paper on the Class Echinoidea by Melville and Durham is accordingly
being placed on the London Agenda Paper as a paper submitted for information
only and has been allotted for this purpose the Document Number 25/2. The
abstract in regard to the Order/Class names in the Ciliophora submitted by
Professor Corliss is being placed on the Agenda Paper on the same basis as
Document 25/3.
6. The difficulties involved in making progress in this field are not confined
to those arising from the lack in the great majority of cases of sufficient
information as to the names to be considered and their relative dates. For
there is at least one major question on whch opinion is divided among those
specialists who have communicated with the Office of the Commission. This
_is the question of the role which should be allotted to the principle of priority
1 See pp. 187-193 of the present volume.
492 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
in determining the status to be accorded to names belonging to the Order/Class
and Higher Categories. As regards this, a wide variety of views has been
expressed. These may be summarised as follows :—
(a) In favour of priority being accepted as the means for determining the
relative status of names of the Order/Class, etc. Groups :—
Melville & Durham (Document 25/2)
Corliss (Document 25/3) who recognises that the Plenary Powers
will need to be used to protect well-known names in certain
cases
Dougherty (E.C.) (Document 25/4)
Brown (D.A.) (Document 25/5)
(b) In favour of usage being treated as of being of greater importance than
priority :—
Cox (L.R.) (Document 25/6)
Hopkins (G.H.E.) (Document 25/7)
Chitwood (B.J.) (as is made clear by E. C. Dougherty’s correspondence
with that specialist reproduced in Document 25/4)
(e) Opposed to any form of regulation which includes the designation
of type genera for nominal taxa of the Order/Class, ete. Groups :—
Lemche (H.) (Document 25/8) ;
(d) In favour of usage prevailing over priority until some date to be
specified by the Congress and thereafter priority to prevail :—
Bradley (J.C.) (in draft of Revised Régles, 1957, Bull. zool. Nomenel.
14 : 92).
7. Allied to some extent with the problem discussed above is that presented
by cases where there is an absolutely straight choice between two-well known
names for a single taxon, both of which are, and/or have been, extensively
used. Shall priority prevail in such a case or would it be better for an arbitrary
choice to be made? This problem is illustrated by the case of the names
POLYZOA and BRYOZOA discussed by Brown in Document 25/5 where the
adoption of the principle of priority is strongly argued. In the next paper,
Document 25/6, the problem presented by the name to be used for another
Class of invertebrates is discussed by Dr. L. R. Cox who is opposed to the
application of the priority principle for determining the status of names for
taxa at the Order/Class level. This case is of interest also as illustrating another
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 493
problem which arises sometimes at the Order/Class level, namely the existence of
homonymous names for taxa in different parts of the Animal Kingdom. In
this instance the name concerned is Loricata which has not only been applied
to the Class of the Mollusca with which Dr. Cox is concerned but has been
employed also for nominal Order/Class taxa both in the Class Reptilia and in
the Class Mammalia. Another situation which may arise is illustrated by the
problem presented by the question of the name to be used for the Order of
insects comprising the Fleas discussed by Hopkins in a paper originally prepared
8. If in cases of the kind discussed above the priority principle were to be
applied, a definite answer would automatically be obtainable, but it could not
reasonably be expected that the answer so obtained would necessarily be the
answer desired by specialists and the one which would best promote stability
and universality in nomenclature. If on the other hand, the “ weight of
usage ” principle were to be applied, it could hardly be hoped that committees
of specialists of mixed composition could succeed in suggesting satisfactory
specialists to secure general support for its findings, even if the members of
such a committee were willing to make a recommendation of this kind on a
subject outside their own fields. On the other hand, it will be generally agreed
that, if the “ weight-of-usage ” principle were to be adopted, a thorough
canvass of opinion would be needed among the specialists directly concerned.
Consultations so undertaken would secure all the advantages which could be
obtained from a formally constituted committee and by their greater flexibility
and greater homogeneity would, in my view, be much to be preferred. Indeed,
this method of procedure would seem the only one practicable in cases where—
as in the case of the Class Name for the genus Chiton raised by Dr. Cox in
Document 25/6—identical names for two or more Order/Class taxa in different
parts of the Animal Kingdom are in competition with one another, for in
such a situation separate consultations would need to be undertaken with
specialists in each of the groups concerned. Consultations so undertaken would
throw valuable light on the importance from the “ usage ’’ standpoint of the
names concerned in each of the groups involved but could not be expected
to provide an agreed recommendation supported by specialists in all of those
. Broups, save in the most exceptional circumstances. Clearly, in such cases,
the Commission alone—in virtue of its judicial function—would possess the
authority requisite for promulgating a decision that would be generally—even
if; in some cases, regretfully—accepted by all concerned.
494 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
9. The papers submitted raise other issues on which decisions are called
for :—
(a) Are vernacular names to be excluded from account if the priority
principle is adopted (Document 25/2, paragraph 2) ?
(b) Are names which, when first published, appeared as more than one
word to be excluded (Document 25/2, paragraph 2) ?
(c) What Rule should be applied to the naming of nominate sub-taxa
of the Order/Class and Higher Categories (Document 25/2, paragraph
3) ?
(d) Should the rules provide that only a genus which is itself the type
genus of a family is eligible for designation as the type genus of a
taxon belonging to the Order/Class Category (Document 25/2,
paragraph 3) ?
(e) Should the selection of a type genus for a taxon belonging to a given
series in the Order/Class Group constitute automatically a selection
of the same taxon as the type genus of every taxon of lower rank
in the same series within the Order/Class Category (as in the parallel
case of type selections for taxa belonging to the family-group category)
(Document 25/2, paragraph 3) ?
(f) When a name currently used as the name of a taxon of the Order/Class
Group was first published as the name for a taxon of the Family-
Group Category, should that name, as used for the former, rank as
from the first time that it was so used or should it rank from the
earlier date on which it was first used as the name for a family-
group taxon (Document 25/2, paragraph 4) ?
(g) For the purposes of the Law of Homonymy should the termination
used for an Order/Class Name be disregarded (Document 25/2,
paragraph 5; Document 25/4, Appendix III) ?
(h) Would it be a good plan to insert in the Régles a Recommandation that,
where within a given major taxon in the Order/Class Group names
are in general formed in accordance with a single principle, authors
should guide themselves by that principle when publishing names
for new taxa within that major group (Document 25/2, paragraph
6) ?
(i) When selections of type genera for nominal Order/Class taxa are being
made, can a genus that is already the type genus of one such taxon
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 495
be selected to be the type genus of another such taxon, in order
permanently to invalidate the later-published name (Document
25/2, paragraph 7) ?
(j) What should be done with senior subjective synonyms? Should
they be suppressed under the Plenary Powers? (Document 25/2,
paragraph 8) ?
(k) Is the field of choice for the selection of type genera for nominal
Order/Class taxa limited to genera expressly cited at the time of the
establishment of the Order/Class taxon concerned (Document 25/2,
paragraph 9) ?
(1) In order to secure the status of availability for an Order/Class name
must some “ indication ”’ be given at the time of its first publication
(see the note by Knight (J.B.), Lemche (H.) and Yochelson (E.L.),
reproduced as Document 25/9) ?
10. It is clearly desirable that the London Congress should provide
definite answers to the questions listed in the preceding paragraph and to any
others of a similar character which may come to light. In addition, it will be
desirable that further consideration should be given to the question of the
procedure to be adopted for formulating, and for dealing with, applications
for the stabilisation of names for taxa belonging to the Order/Class and Higher
Categories. As regards this, it is suggested for consideration that the best course
would be to include in the Régles provisions on the lines set out below. In
Alternative ‘‘ A” this suggestion is outlined on the assumption that, as agreed
upon at Copenhagen, usage rather than priority is to be the main factor in
determining what names are to be accepted for taxa of the Order/Class and.
Higher Categories. In Alternative ‘““B” particulars are given as to the
modifications which would be needed if priority were to be accepted as the
guiding principle (subject to the use of the Plenary Powers where necessary to
prevent the overturning of well-known names). The suggestions now submitted
could be combined if, as suggested by Professor Chester Bradley, the “ usage ”
principle were to be adopted for names published before a certain date and the
“ priority ” principle after that date.
Alternative ““A’’: Procedure suggested if the ‘‘ weight of usage ”
principle is accepted as the determining factor for the acceptance
of names for nominal taxa of the Order/Class and Higher Categories
(1) Where in the case of any substantially self-contained taxon of the
Order/Class Group or Groups of Higher Rank, specialists assemble
sufficiently complete data as to the names already published for
that taxon and for taxa of lower rank comprised therein, the paper
so prepared shall be submitted to the Commission, whose duty
it shall be to arrange for its publication in the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature, so that it may serve as a basis for further discussion.
496
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(2) In papers published under (1) above type genera shall be specified
for each of the nominal taxa of Ordinal or higher rank concerned
but type selections so made are to be treated as being provisional
in status only and shall not acquire any status under the Law of
Priority in virtue of being so published.
(3) Public notice of the publication of papers dealing with the above
questions shall be issued by the Trust in the same way as such
Notices are required to be issued in connection with applications
for the use of the Plenary Powers in particular cases.
(4) After the expiry of such period, not being less than six calendar months,
as the Commission may in any case consider necessary, it shall be the
duty of the Commission to issue directions as to which of the names
concerned are to be accepted as being available names and which are
to be rejected as being unavailable.
(5) Subject to due compliance with the foregoing procedure the Commission
shall not be required to use its Plenary Powers for the purpose of
rejecting a name of the Order/Class and Higher Categories when that
name is a senior subjective synonym of a name which it may decide
to preserve.
(6) When under (4) above the Commission issues a direction either
accepting as available, or rejecting, a name for a taxon belonging to
the Order/Class or Higher Categories, it shall be its duty to place
that name on the Official List or, as the case may be, on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Names, the entry so to be made to specify
in each case the type genus of the nominal taxon concerned.
Alternative “ B’”’: Procedure suggested if the “ priority ” principle
is accepted as the determining factor for the acceptance of names
for nominal taxa of the Order/Class and Higher Categories
As in “ A” above, except that (5) would no longer be applicable.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 497
DOCUMENT 25/2
Questions relating to Order/Class Group nomenclature in the Class
Echinoidea
By R. V. MELVILLE
(Geological Survey and Museum, London*)
and
J. WYATT DURHAM
(University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A).
(Enclosure to a letter dated 4th January 1957)!
Editorial Note: What was substantially the same paper as that here
reproduced was published by the present authors under the title ‘‘ A Classification
of Echinoids”” in January 1957 (J. Palaeont. 31 (No. 1) : 242-272). The paper
as here reproduced differs from that already published by the authors in that they
have (a) corrected one erroneous date (that for Echinideae Claus), (b) added
seventeen names previously omitted and (c) have changed the treatment accorded
to twenty other names. Particulars of the changes so made were communicated
to the Office of the Commission by Mr. Melville on behalf of his co-author and
himself in a letter dated 20th November 1957. The revisions so made by the
authors affect their conclusions as set out on pages 267-270 of the paper referred to
only in that the Order name Stereosomata Duncan, 1889, is now made a junior
objective synonym of Echinideae Claus, 1880, and is not regarded as an available
name. (Intl’d 23rd January 1958. F.H.)
In considering the names to be used in the Treatise of Invertebrate
Paleontology for taxa in the Order/Class-group in the Echinoidea, the writers
compiled as complete a list as possible of the relevant names. These lists were
then considered in the light of the decisions of the Fourteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, relating to names in the Order/Class-
group (Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl., 1953, Decisions 59-69, pp. 38-43).
* By permission of the Director, Geological Survey and Museum.
1 This case has an associated Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1194.
Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 15, Dowble-Part 16/17 March 1958.
498 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
The Decisions referred to envisaged the setting-up of committees of specialists
in each group to consider Order/Class-group nomenclature. Since no
committee is yet in being to review the subject so far as the Class Echinoidea
is concerned, it seems best to us to publish the lists that we have compiled in
the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, so that other specialists can criticize
our conclusions and supplement our lists prior to the establishment of an
Official List of Names in the Order|/Class-group in Echinoidea. We are grateful
to the Secretary of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
for his support and for the opportunity he gives us of getting our difficulties
more widely discussed. We therefore state the terms of reference that we have
adopted and set forth the problems that we have met, and append the lists of
names.
2. Our lists exclude all names that have been proposed in the vernacular
and all those consisting of more than one word, even if correctly latinized.
They include only latinized names referred to recognized categories (Suborder,
Order, Superorder, Subclass, Class) and latinized names not formally cate-
gorized but readily recognizable as equivalent to names in the recognised
categories, as well as names qualified by unaccepted terms such as “‘ Grade ”’
or “ Tribe ”’.
3. All names in the Order/Class-group have been treated as nomen-
clatorially co-ordinate to a limited extent; that is, a name introduced for a
taxon at one level in the group is regarded as available with its original
authorship and priority at all other levels in the group (with appropriate change
of termination). We find, however, that to adopt the corollary of nominate
sub-taxa would lead to the loss of well-established names. We have assumed
that a nominal genus selected as type-genus of a nominal taxon at any level
in the Order/Class-group must ipso facto be type-genus of a taxon at every
lower level in the group, as well as of taxa at every level in the Family-group.
This procedure seems to us a logical extension of Article 29.
4. Some familiar Order/Class-group names in the Echinoidea were first
proposed in the Family-group, but have since become attached to taxa in the
Order/Class-group. For instance, the names Regularia and Irregularia were
first used by Latreille, 1825, as Subfamily-names ; they were first applied to
taxa in the Order/Class-group by Carus (1863) and have been used by later
authors (including Mortensen, 1935) as Subclass-names with attribution to
Latreille. Again, the familiar Order-name Clypeasteroida has generally been
attributed to L. Agassiz, 1836, although his original name was in the
vernacular (‘‘les Clypéastres”’) without any category-name. We give both
these sorts of names priority only from their first usage in latinized form for
taxa in the Order/Class-group. Historically, the Phylum Echinodermata was
for long regarded as a Class (by one author until at least 1857) and the Class
Echinoidea as an Order, so that names in the Order/Class-group are generally
of later origin than names in the Family-group as such.
Bulletin of Zoolegical Nomenclature 499
5. We have extended Article 34 (the Law of Homonymy) in a strict sense
in that we have considered only the first use of each word ; but we have not
regarded a difference in termination as creating a condition of homonymy. In
this we disagree with Copenhagen Decisions paragraph 68(1) because we feel
that it is better to use the terminations now generally standardized in the
Echinoidea and to dispose of similar words with different terminations by
means of objective synonymy. Only identical words have been treated as
homonyms.
6. The majority of Order/Class-group names in the Echinoidea have been
formed from the name of an included genus, partly because many of them were
first proposed as Family-names. This fact has an obvious influence on the
selection of the type-genus. There are also names formed from the names of
what we consider marginal genera or nomina dubia (see Copenhagen Decisions
para. 62(3)(a) ; names formed from generic names modified by the addition of a
prefix ; and names formed from the name of a morphological character thought
to indicate relationship between the forms endowed with it. Names of this
last kind are relatively few and have generally been short-lived in practice. It
will probably be found that in each major taxon, Order/Class-group names
will tend more and more to have been formed in accordance with a single
principle—in the Phylum Arthropoda, for instance, names formed from the
names of morphological characters are obviously prevalent in current usage.
We suggest that the International Commission might recommend that, in future,
new Order/Class-group names should be formed in accordance with the principle
prevailing in the taxon in question. We regard this not as a restriction of
taxonomic freedom, but as an extension of the power of control over the mode
of formation of names in the Family-group already embodied in Article 4.
7. Following Copenhagen Decisions paragraph 62(4) we have tried to
provide an available name for every currently-recognised taxon. We seek
clarification of the question whether this paragraph means that every accepted
nominal taxon must have a different type-genus. If two mutually exclusive
nominal taxa exist at the same level, we see no objection to their having the
same type-genus. For example, the Class Echinoidea is currently divided into
two Subclasses in two different ways. Mortensen (1935) recognizes the Sub-
classes Regularia and Irregularia ; Durham and Melville (1957) recognize the
Subclasses Perischoechinoidea and Euechinoidea. These four names, with
type-genera as chosen by us, are :—
Perischoechinoidea M°Coy, 1849—Palaechinus M°Coy, 1844
Euechinoidea Bronn, 1860—Zchinus Linnaeus, 1758
Regularia Carus, 1863—EHchinus Linnaeus, 1758
Trregularia Carus, 1863*—Spatangus Leske, 1778
* It will be seen from the lists of names below that we regard the names Regularia and
Irregularia as objective junior synonyms of Endocyclica Bronn, 1860 and Exocyclica Bronn,
1860, respectively.
500 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
We hope that our selection of the nominal genus Echinus Linnaeus, 1758, as
type-genus both of Euechinoidea Bronn, 1860 and of Regularia Carus, 1863
will meet with the approval of our colleagues. Since it is inconceivable that
any taxonomic scheme would use both Euechinoidea and Regularia as Subclass-
names, we see no objection to a state of objective synonymy existing between
them. Any scheme that used both names would apply them to taxa at different
levels. This objective synonymy is in effect inevitable if we have correctly
applied the meaning of Article 29 in Paragraph 3 above.
8. It is not clear from Copenhagen Decisions paragraph 62(3)(b) what is
to be done with unwanted names that become objective senior synonyms of
names that are to be added to the Official Lists. We favour, as the least
equivocal course, the use of the Plenary Powers to suppress these names.
9. We have extended Article 30(e)(«) in assuming that the type-genus of
a nominal taxon in the Order/Class-group must be selected from among the
genera explicitly included in the taxon by the author of the name at the time
when he first proposed it. If this is rigidly construed, then two names in the
Echinoidea will have to be preserved although they serve no useful taxonomic
purpose and were from the beginning subjective junior synonyms of existing
names. The nominal Order Nodostomata Lambert, 1915 has as type by
monotypy the nominal genus Amblypygus L. Agassiz, 1840 (the only nominal
genus mentioned in connection with the name Nodostomata when this was
first proposed). Amblypygus is subjectively a member of the Order Cassiduloida
Claus, 1880 (as interpreted by Mortensen, 1948). The name Nodostomata is
proposed by Lambert in a more or less casual manner in a discussion of the
differences between Amblypygus and Echinoneus Leske, 1778, which is
subjectively a member of the Order Holectypoida Duncan, 1889, but for which
Lambert (1915) proposed the Suborder-name Globatoroida in a similarly
casual manner. When next used (Lambert, 1918), the nominal Order
Nodostomata included two Suborders, Procassiduloida Lambert, 1918 and
Spatangoida; the former contains, among others, the nominal genera
Amblypygus and Procassidulus Lambert and Thiéry, 1918. This latter name
was proposed as a substitute name for Cassidulus Lamarck, 1801, which was
held to be invalid as a homonym of Cassidula Humphrey, 1797. Apart from
the fact that there is not a true condition of homonymy in this case, the work
in which the name Cassidula was published (the anonymous Museum
Calonnianum) was ruled as not available for nomenclatorial purposes in
Opinion 51. The type-species of Cassidulus is C. cartboearum Lamarck, 1801,
and under Article 30(f) and Declaration 27 this must also be the type-species of
Procassidulus, in spite of the original designation of Echinites lapiscancri
Leske, 1778. The most satisfactory course would be to use the Plenary Powers
to designate the nominal genus Cassidulus Lamarck, 1801, as type-genus both
of the nominal Suborder Procassiduloida Lambert, 1918, and of the nominal
Order Nodostomata Lambert, 1915; if our selection of Cassidulus as type-genus
of the nominal Order Cassiduloida is upheld, then both Procassiduloida and
~ rh ~ ee
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 501
Nodostomata will become objective junior synonyms of Cassiduloida. Another
generic name will then have to be found for the group of species of which
Echinites lapiscancri Leske, 1778, is one. Again in 1918, the nominal Suborder
Globatoroida includes the nominal genus Globator L. Agassiz, 1840, which was
presumably the source of the Order-group name. Gilobator is regarded by many
specialists as a nomen dubium, possibly a subjective junior synonym of the
nominal genus Pyrina Desmoulins, 1835. If Globator can be ruled type-genus of
Globatoroida, then both the generic name and the Order-group name can be
dealt with under the procedure laid down for nomina dubia in Copenhagen
Decisions, paragraph 26.
Chronological list. of names in the Order/Class-group in Echinoidea
Echinodermata Leske, 1778. Used as an unnamed category (above Order)
for all echinoids, but not apparently including any other Echinoderms.
The name is now used as the name of a Phylum and we do not propose
to consider it in the Order/Class-group.
Kchinus Leske, 1778. Listed as an Order. Hchinus Linnaeus, 1758. Although
Leske’s name is homonymous with the name of the type-genus, it is
clear that he adopted it as the name of a Linnean Order to include all
echinoids in a sense quite distinct from his (and Linnaeus’s) use of the
generic name. We propose to adopt it, in the form Echinoidea, as the
Class-name.
Catocysti Leske, 1778. Proposed as a “ Class’ below Order. Echinocyamus
Van Phelsum, 1774. Subjective senior synonym of Clypeastridae
A. Agassiz, 1873.
Pleurocysti Leske, 1778. Proposed as a “ Class” below Order. Spatangus
Leske, 1778. Objective senior synonym of Spatangidea Claus, 1876.
Echinodermata Wad, 1803. Proposed as a second-rank category under “ Class
Zoophyta”’. See Echinodermata Leske, 1778.
Anocysti Parkinson, 1811. Proposed as a “Class” below Order. Cidaris
Leske, 1778. Objective senior synonym of Cidarideae Claus, 1880.
Catocysti Parkinson, 1811. Proposed as a “ grand division’ below Order.
Echinocyamus Van Phelsum, 1774. See Catocysti Leske, 1778.
Pleurocysti Parkinson, 1811. Proposed as a “ Class’ below Order. Spatangus
: Leske, 1778. See Pleurocysti Leske, 1778.
Echinodermia Rafinesque, 1815. Proposed as a Suborder. See Echinodermata
Leske, 1778.
502 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Radiaria Rafinesque, 1815. This name represents a taxonomic concept (that all
animals possessing radial symmetry are directly related) which no
longer claims any acceptance. It is suggested that specialists in the
groups concerned should jointly petition the International Commission
for its suppression.
Echini Goldfuss, 1820. Proposed as an Order. Hchinus Linnaeus, 1758.
Objective junior synonym of Echinus Leske, 1778.
Echinida Fleming, 1822. Proposed as a “ Tribe”’ under “ Order I’ which
was not named. Hchinus Linnaeus, 1758. Objective junior synonym of
Echinus Leske, 1778.
Emmesostomi Parkinson, 1822. Proposed as a first-rank category (unnamed)
below Order. Cidaris Leske, 1778. Objective senior synonym of
Cidarideae Claus, 1880.
Apomesostomi Parkinson, 1822. Proposed as a first-rank category (unnamed)
below Order. Spatangus Leske, 1778. Objective senior synonym of
Spatangidea Claus, 1876.
Echinata Fischer von Waldheim, 1823. Proposed as an Order. Hchinus
Linnaeus, 1758. Objective junior synonym of Echinus Leske, 1778.
Echinoderma Latreille, 1825. Proposed as a Class. See Echinodermata
Leske, 1778.
Echinoida Latreille, 1825. Proposed as an Order. EHchinus Linnaeus, 1758.
Objective junior synonym of Echinus Leske, 1778.
Echinides Stark, 1828. Proposed as a “ Section ” under Class Echinodermata.
Echinus Linnaeus, 1758. Objective junior synonym of Echinus Leske,
1778.
Echinidae Fleming, 1828. Unnamed second-rank category below Order, but
including all echinoids. Echinus Linnaeus, 1758. Objective junior
synonym of Echinus Leske, 1778.
Anocysti Fleming, 1828. Proposed as a third-rank category (unnamed)
below Order. Cidaris Leske, 1778. Objective senior synonym of
Cidarideae Claus, 1880.
Catocysti Fleming, 1828. Proposed as a third-rank category (unnamed) below
Order. Echinocyamus Van Phelsum, 1774. See Catocysti, Leske, 1778.
Pleurocysti Fleming, 1828. Proposed as a third-rank category (unnamed)
below Order. Spatangus Leske, 1778. See Pleurocysti Leske, 1778.
Echinidea Blainville, 1834. Proposed as an Order. Echinus Linnaeus, 1758.
Objective junior synonym of Echinus Leske, 1778.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 503
Pedicellata Griffith and Pidgeon, 1834. Proposed as an Order, to include
both the Echinoidea and Asterozoa of current usage. This name should
be transferred for consideration in the Phylum-group, as representing
a Subphylum.
Cirrhi-Spinigrada Forbes, 1841. Proposed as an Order. Echinus Linnaeus,
1758. Objective junior synonym of Echinus Leske, 1778.
Adelostella T. and T. Austin, 1842. Proposed as a Class. Hchinus Linnaeus,
1758. Objective junior synonym of Echinus Leske, 1778.
Columnidae T. and T. Austin, 1842. Proposed as an Order. This originally
included echinoids, crinoids, cystoids and blastoids and does not
represent any useful taxonomic concept. In addition, it is a potential
homonym of a Family-name in Gastropoda for the genus Columna
Perry, 1811. Columnidae T. and T. Austin should be suppressed.
Echinidae T. and T. Austin, 1842. Described as an Order. Echinus Linnaeus,
1758. Objective senior synonym of Euechinoidea Bronn, 1860.
Perischoechinida M¢Coy, 1849. Described as an Order. Palaechinus M°Coy,
1844. To be added to Official List as Subclass-name Perischoechinoidea.
Kchinoidea d’Orbigny, 1852 and all subsequent usages. Proposed as an
Order. Hchinus Linnaeus, 1758. Objective junior synonym of Echinus
Leske, 1778. This is the first use known to us of exactly this spelling
(i.e. that currently used for the Class-name) for a taxon in the Order/
Class-group including all Echinoids.
Perischoechinoidea Bronn, 1860. Proposed as an Order. Palaechinus M¢Coy,
1844. Objective junior synonym of Perischoechinida M¢Coy, 1849.
Euechinoidea Bronn, 1860. Proposed as an Order. Echinus Linnaeus, 1758.
To be added to Official List as a Subclass-name.
Endocyclica Bronn, 1860. Proposed as a Suborder. Hchinus Linnaeus, 1758.
to be added to Official List as Subclass-name. This, with the following
name, are the first latinized names known to us which represent the
taxonomic concept usually expressed by the terms “ Regularia”” and
“ Trregularia ”’.
Exocyclica Bronn, 1860. Proposed as a Suborder. Spatangus Leske, 1778.
To be added to Official List as Subclass-name.
Typica Carus, 1863. Proposed as a first-rank category (unnamed) below
Class. chinus Linnaeus, 1758. Objective junior synonym of
Euechinoidea Bronn, 1860.
Regularia Carus, 1863. Proposed as a second-rank category (unnamed) below
Class. Hchinus Linnaeus, 1758. Objective junior synonym of
Endocyclica Bronn, 1860.
504 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Irregularia Carus, 1863. Proposed as a second-rank category (unnamed)
below Class. Spatangus Leske, 1778. Objective junior synonym of
Exocyclica Bronn, 1860.
Palechinida Haeckel, 1866. Proposed as a Subclass. Palaechinus M°Coy,
1844. To be added to Official List as Order Palaechinoida.
Autechinida Haeckel, 1866. Proposed as a Subclass. Hchinus Linnaeus, 1758.
Objective junior synonym of Euechinoidea Bronn, 1860.
Melonitida Haeckel, 1866. Proposed as an Order. Melonites Norwood and
Owen, 1846 (non Lamarck, 1822), replaced by Melonechinus Meek and
Worthen, 1860. Since this name was formed from the name of an invalid
generic homonym, it would be best considered stillborn. Since there
are not as yet any rules that state that this must be the case, the best
alternative is to suppress the name on the grounds that it has never
been re-employed and is not used in any existing taxonomic scheme.
Eocidarida Haeckel, 1866. Proposed as an Order. Palaechinus M°Coy, 1844.
Objective junior synonym of Palechinida Haeckel (of which it was
originally only a part).
Desmosticha Haeckel, 1866 and all subsequent usages. Proposed as an Order.
Echinus Linnaeus, 1758. Objective junior synonym of Endocyclica
Bronn, 1860.
Petalosticha Haeckel, 1866, and all subsequent usages. Proposed as an Order.
Spatangus Leske, 1778. Objective junior synonym of Exocyclica Bronn,
1860.
Clypeastridae A. Agassiz, 1873. Proposed as a Suborder. Clypeaster Lamarck,
1801. To be added to Official List as Order Clypeasteroida. As
explained elsewhere (Durham, 1955), the alteration of the stem of this
name by the insertion of an e is considered a valid emendation on
etymological grounds and in order to conform with all other names of the
stem of which the Greek word aor7e forms a part.
Clypeastridea Claus, 1876. Proposed as an Order. Clypeaster Lamarck, 1801.
Objective junior synonym of Clypeastridae A. Agassiz, 1873.
Spatangidea Claus, 1876. Proposed as an Order. Spatangus Leske, 1778. To
be added to Official List as Order Spatangoida.
Palechinoidea Zittel, 1879 and all subsequent usages. Proposed as a Subclass.
Palaechinus M°Coy, 1844. Objective junior synonym of Perischoechinida
M°Coy, 1849.
Cystocidaridae Zittel, 1879. Proposed as an Order. Cystocidaris Zittel, 1879,
an unnecessary nom. nov. for Echinocystites Wyville Thomson, 1861.
The ordinal name is an objective senior synonym of Echinocystoida
Jackson, 1912.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 505
Bothriocidaridae Zittel, 1879. Proposed as an Order. Bothriocidaris Eichwald,
1869. To be added to Official List as Order Bothriocidaroida. This
name is sometimes attributed to Schmidt, (F.), 1874, but he did not
name the taxon, although he recognized the taxonomic need for one.
Perischoechinidae Zittel, 1879. Proposed as an Order. Palaechinus M°Coy,
1844. Objective junior synonym of Palechinida Haeckel, 1866.
Regulares Zittel, 1879. Proposed as an Order. Hchinus Linnaeus, 1758.
Objective junior synonym of Endocyclica Bronn, 1860. Zittel gives
“Endocyclica Wright” as an alternative name; this presumably
refers to Echinoidea Endocyclica Wright, 1857, which is excluded from
this list because it consists of more than one word.
Trregulares Zittel, 1879. Proposed as an Order. Spatangus Leske, 1778.
Objective junior synonym of Exocyclica Bronn, 1860. Zittel’s reference
to “ Exocyclica Wright ” is ignored on the same grounds as are stated
in the preceding entry.
Gnathostomata Zittel, 1879. Proposed as a Suborder. Clypeaster Lamarck,
1801. To be added to Official List as a Superorder.
Atelostomata Zittel, 1879. Proposed as a Suborder. Spatangus Leske, 1778.
To be added to Official List as a Superorder.
Echinothurideae Claus, 1880. Proposed as a Suborder. LEchinothuria
Woodward, 1863. To be added to Official List as Order Echinothurioida.
Cidarideae Claus, 1880. Proposed as a Suborder. Cidaris Leske, 1778. To be
added to Official List as Order Cidaroida.
Kchinideae Claus, 1880. Proposed as a Suborder. Echinus Linnaeus, 1758.
To be added to Official List as Order Echinoida (the nominate Order of
Echinus Leske, 1778).
Clypeastroideae Claus, 1880. Proposed as an Order. Clypeaster Lamarck,
1801. Objective junior synonym of Clypeastridae A. Agassiz, 1873.
Spatangoideae Claus, 1880. Proposed as an Order. Spatangus Leske, 1778.
Objective junior synonym of Spatangidea Claus, 1876.
Cassidulideae Claus, 1880. Proposed as a Suborder. Cassidulus Lamarck,
1801. To be added to Official List as Order Cassiduloida.
Spatangideae Claus, 1880. Proposed as a Suborder. Spatangus Leske, 1778.
To be added to Official List as Suborder Spatangina.
Abranchiata Ludwig, 1882. Proposed as an Order. Cidaris Leske, 1778.
k Objective junior synonym of Cidarideae Claus, 1880.
Branchiata Ludwig, 1882. Proposed as an Order. Echinus Linnaeus, 1758.
Objective junior synonym of Echinideae Claus, 1880.
HH
506 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Cidaridea Claus, 1883. Proposed as an Order. Cidaris Leske, 1778. Objective
junior synonym of Cidarideae Claus, 1880.
Entobranchiata Ludwig, 1886. Proposed as a Suborder. Cidaris Leske, 1778.
Objective junior synonym of Cidarideae Claus, 1880.
Ectobranchiata Ludwig, 1886. Proposed as a Suborder. Hchinus Linnaeus,
1758. Objective junior synonym of Kchinideae Claus, 1880.
Clypeastroidea Ludwig, 1886. Proposed as an Order. Clypeaster Lamarck,
1801. Objective junior synonym of Clypeastridae L. Agassiz, 1873.
Spatangoidea Ludwig, 1886. Proposed as an Order. Spatangus Leske, 1778.
Objective junior synonym of Spatangidea Claus, 1876.
Bothriocidaroida Duncan, 1889. Proposed as an Order. Bothriocidaris
Kichwald, 1859. Objective junior synonym of Bothriocidaridae Zittel,
1879.
Cidaroida Duncan, 1889. Proposed as an Order. Cidaris Leske, 1778.
Objective junior synonym of Cidarideae Claus, 1880.
Cystocidaroida Duncan, 1889. Proposed as an Order. See Cystocidaridae
Zittel, 1879.
Plesiocidaroida Duncan, 1889. Proposed as an Order. T'iarechinus Neumayr,
1881. To be added to Official List as an Order.
Diadematoida Duncan, 1889. Proposed as an Order. Diadema Gray, 1825.
To be added to Official List as Superorder Diadematacea and as name
of its nominate Order.
Holectypoida Duncan, 1889. Proposed as an Order. Holectypus Desor, 1842.
To be added to Official List as an Order.
Clypeastroida Duncan, 1889. Proposed as an Order. Clypeaster Lamarck,
1801. Objective junior synonym of Clypeastridae A. Agassiz, 1873.
Cassiduloidea Duncan, 1889. Proposed as a Suborder. Cassidulus Lamarck,
1801. Objective junior synonym of Cassidulideae Claus, 1880.
Spatangoida Duncan, 1889. Proposed as an Order. Spatangus Leske, 1778.
Objective junior synonym of Spatangidea Claus, 1876.
Streptosomata Duncan, 1889. Proposed as a Suborder. Echinothuria 8.
Woodward, 1863. Objective junior synonym of Echinothurideae Claus,
1880.
Stereosomata Duncan, 1889. Proposed as a Suborder. Echinus Linnaeus,
1758. Objective junior synonym of Echinideae Claus, 1880.
Palaeoechinida Perrier, 1893. Proposed as an Order. Palaechinus McCoy,
1844. Objective junior synonym of Perischoechinida McCoy, 1849.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 507
Neoechinoidea Perrier, 1893. Proposed as an Order. Hchinus Linnaeus, 1758.
Objective junior synonym of Euechinoidea Bronn, 1860.
Cystechinida or Cystoechinoidea [sic] Haeckel, 1896. Proposed as a Subclass.
See Cystocidaridae Zittel, 1879.
Promelonaria Haeckel, 1896. Proposed as an Order. Cystocidaris Zittel, 1879
(= Echinocystites Wyville Thomson, 1861). Objective senior synonym
of Echinocystoida Jackson, 1912.
Eumelonaria Haeckel, 1896. Proposed as an Order. See Melonitida Haeckel,
1866.
Palechinida or Palaeoechinoidea or Perischoechinoidea [sic] Haeckel, 1896.
Proposed as a Subclass. Palaechinus McCoy, 1844. Objective junior
synonyms of Perischoechinida M°Coy, 1849.
Stenopalmaria Haeckel, 1896. Proposed as an Order. Bothriocidaris Kichwald,
1859. Objective junior synonym of Bothriocidaridae Zittel, 1879.
Eurypalmaria Haeckel, 1896. Proposed as an Order. Palaechinus M°Coy, 1844.
Objective junior synonym of Palechinida Haeckel, 1866.
Desmosticha = Cidaronia [sic] Haeckel, 1896. Proposed as a Legion or Order.
Cidaris Leske, 1778. Objective junior synonym of Cidarideae Claus,
1880.
Cidaridaria Haeckel, 1896. Proposed as an Order or Suborder. Cidaris Leske,
1778. Objective junior synonym of Cidarideae Claus, 1880.
Diademaria Haeckel, 1896. Proposed as an Order or Suborder. Diadema Gray,
1825. Objective junior synonym of Diadematoida Duncan, 1889.
Anthosticha = Clypeastronia [sic] Haeckel, 1896. Proposed as a Legion or
Order. Clypeaster Lamarck, 1801. Objective junior synonyms of
Clypeastridae A. Agassiz, 1873.
Conoclyparia = Holectypida [sic] Haeckel, 1896. Proposed as an Order or
Suborder. AHolectypus Desor, 1842. Objective junior synonyms of
Holectypoida Duncan, 1889.
Scutellaria Haeckel, 1896. Proposed as an Order or Suborder. Scutella
Lamarck, 1816. To be added to Official List as Suborder Scutellina.
Petalosticha = Spatangonia [sic] Haeckel, 1896. Proposed as a Tribe or
Order. Spatangus Leske, 1778. Objective junior synonyms of
Spatangidea Claus, 1876.
Cassidularia or Cassiduloidea [sic] Haeckel, 1896. Proposed as an Order or
Suborder. Cassidulus Lamarck, 1801. Objective junior synonyms of
Cassidulideae Claus, 1880.
Spatangaria Haeckel, 1896. Proposed as an Order or Suborder. Spatangus
Leske, 1778. Objective junior synonym of Spatangidea Claus, 1876.
508 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Palaeo-echinoidea Parker and Haswell, 1897. Proposed as an Order.
Palaechinus M°Coy, 1844. Objective junior synonym of Perischoechinida
MCoy, 1849.
Calycina Gregory, 1900. Proposed as a Suborder. Salenia Gray, 1835. To be
added to Official List as Suborder.
Diademina Gregory, 1900. Proposed as a Suborder. Diadema Gray, 1825.
To be added to Official List as Suborder.
Arbacina Gregory, 1900. Proposed as a Suborder. Arbacia Gray, 1835. To be
added to Official List as Order-name Arbacioida and as name of its
nominate Suborder.
Echinina Gregory, 1900. Proposed as a Suborder. Hchinus Linnaeus, 1758.
To be added to Official List as Suborder.
Holectypina Gregory, 1900. Proposed asa Suborder. Holectypus Desor, 1842.
To be added to Official List as Suborder.
Clypeastrina Gregory, 1900. Proposed as a Suborder. Clypeaster Lamarck,
1801. To be added to Official List as Suborder-name Clypeasterina.
Asternata Gregory, 1900. Proposed as a Suborder. Cassidulus Lamarck,
1801. Objective junior synonym of Cassidulideae Claus, 1880.
Sternata Gregory, 1900. Proposed as a Suborder. Spatangus Leske, 1778.
Objective junior synonym of Spatangidea Claus, 1876.
Gnathostomata Lambert, 1900 (non Zittel, 1879). Proposed as a Subclass.
Echinus Linnaeus, 1758. Objective junior synonym of Euechinoidea
Bronn, 1860. Homonym of Gnathostomata Zittel, 1879.
Plagiocysta Lambert, 1900. Proposed as an Order. Echinocystites Wyville
Thomson, 1861. Objective senior synonym of Echinocystoida Jackson,
1912.
Pileatoida Lambert, 1900. Proposed as a Suborder. Holectypus Desor, 1842.
Objective junior synonym of Holectypoida Duncan, 1889.
Exocysta Lambert, 1900. Proposed as an Order. Clypeaster Lamarck, 1801.
Objective junior synonym of Clypeastridae A. Agassiz, 1873.
Stereodermata Lambert, 1900. Proposed as an Order. EHchinus Linnaeus,
1758. Objective junior synonym of Echinideae Claus, 1880.
Kchinidia Delage and Heérouard, 1903. Proposed as a Class. Hchinus
Linnaeus, 1758. Objective junior synonym of Echinus Leske, 1778.
Regulariae Delage and Hérouard, 1903. Proposed as a Subclass. Echinus
Linnaeus, 1758. Objective junior synonym of Endocyclica Bronn, 1860.
Irregulariae Delage and Hérouard, 1903. Proposed as a Subclass. Spatangus
Leske, 1778. Objective junior synonym of Exocyclica Bronn, 1860.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 509
Echinothurida Delage and Hérouard, 1903. Proposed as an Order. Echino-
thuria 8S. Woodward, 1863. Objective junior synonym of Echino-
thurideae Claus, 1880.
Cidarida Delage and Hérouard, 1903. Proposed as an Order. Cidaris Leske,
1778. Objective junior synonym of Cidarideae Claus, 1880.
Diademida Delage and Hérouard, 1903. Proposed as an Order. Diadema
Gray, 1825. Objective junior synonym of Diadematoida Duncan, 1889.
Diademina Delage and Hérouard, 1903. Proposed as a Tribe (below Order).
Diadema Gray, 1825. Objective junior synonym of Diademina Gregory,
1900.
Salenina Delage and Hérouard, 1903 (as Salelina in Contents). Proposed as a
Tribe (below Order). Salenia Gray, 1835. Objective junior synonym of
Calycina Gregory, 1900.
Cyphosomina Delage and Hérouard, 1903. Proposed as a Tribe (below Order).
Cyphosoma L. Agassiz, 1838 (non Mannerheim, 1837) = Phymosoma
Haime, 1853. Invalid senior objective synonym of Phymosomina
Mortensen, 1904.
Holectypida Delage and Hérouard, 1903. Proposed as an Order. Holectypus
Desor, 1842. Objective junior synonym of Holectypoida Duncan, 1889.
Clypeastrida Delage and Hérouard, 1903. Proposed as an Order. Clypeaster
Lamarck, 1801. Objective junior synonym of Clypeastridae A. Agassiz,
1873.
Spatangida Delage and Hérouard, 1903. Proposed as an Order. Spatangus
Leske, 1778. Objective junior synonym of Spatangidea Claus, 1876.
Endobranchiata Meissner, 1903. Unnamed category “A I” equivalent to
Order. Cidaris Leske, 1778. Objective junior synonym of Cidarideae
Claus, 1880.
Phymosomina Mortensen, 1904. Proposed as a Suborder. Phymosoma Haime,
1853. To be added to Official List as Order Phymosomatoida.
Protosternata Mortensen, 1907. Proposed as a Suborder. Collyrites Des-
moulins, 1835. To be added to Official List.
Meridosternata Mortensen, 1907. Proposed as a Suborder. Holaster L.
Agassiz, 1836. To be added to Official List.
Amphisternata Mortensen, 1907. Proposed as a Suborder. Spatangus Leske,
1778. To be added to Official List.
Echinocystoida Jackson, 1912. Proposed as an Order. Echinocystites Wyville
Thomson, 1861. To be added to Official List as Echinocystitoida (to
conform with stem of name of type-genus).
510 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Centrechinoida Jackson, 1912. Proposed as an Order. Diadema Gray, 1825.
Objective junior synonym of Diadematoida Duncan, 1889.
Aulodonta Jackson, 1912. Proposed as a Suborder. Diadema Gray, 1825.
Objective junior synonym of Diademina Gregory, 1900.
Stirodonta Jackson, 1912. Proposed as a Suborder. Phymosoma Haime,
1853. Objective junior synonym of Phymosomina Mortensen, 1904.
Camarodonta Jackson, 1912. Proposed as a Suborder. Echinus Linnaeus,
1758. Objective junior synonym of Echinina Gregory, 1900.
Exocycloida Jackson, 1912. Proposed as an Order. Spatangus Leske, 1778.
Objective junior synonym of Exocyclica Bronn, 1860.
Brachygnata Lambert, 1915. Proposed as an Order. Echinoneus Leske, 1778,
by monotypy. Objective senior synonym of Echinoneina Clark, 1925.
Globatoroida Lambert, 1915. Proposed as a Suborder. Echinoneus Leske,
1778, by monotypy. Objective senior synonym of Echinoneina Clark,
1925.
Nodostomata Lambert, 1915. Proposed as an Order. Amblypygus L. Agassiz,
1840, by monotypy. Subjective junior synonym of Cassidulideae
Claus, 1880.
Procassiduloida Lambert, 1918, ex Lambert, 1915, (nomen nudum). Proposed
as a Suborder. Procassidulus Lambert and Thiéry, 1918. Subjective
junior synonym of Cassidulideae Claus, 1880.
Nucleolitoida Hawkins, 1920. Proposed as an Order. Nucleolites Lamarck,
1801. To be added to Official List.
Echinoneina H. L. Clark, 1925. Proposed as a Suborder. Echinoneus Leske,
1778. To be added to Official List.
Melonechinoida Mortensen, 1934. Proposed as an Order. Palaechinus M°Coy,
1844. Objective junior synonym of Palechinida Haeckel, 1866.
Lepidocentroida Mortensen, 1934. Proposed as an Order. Echinocystites
Wyville Thomson, 1861. Objective junior synonym of Echinocystoida
Jackson, 1912.
Pseudoechinoidea Mortensen, 1935. Proposed as a Subclass. Bothriocidaris
Eichwald, 1859. To be added to Official List.
Hemicidarina Beurlen, 1937. Proposed as a Suborder. Hemicidaris L. Agassiz,
1838. To be added to Official List as Order Hemicidaroida.
Megalopoda Macbride and Spencer, 1938. Hothuria Macbride and Spencer,
1938, which is not certainly an echinoid.
Aspidodiademina Mortensen, 1939. Proposed as a Suborder. Aspidodiadema
A. Agassiz, 1879. To be added to Official List.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 511
Pedinina Mortensen, 1939. Proposed as a Suborder. Pedina L. Agassiz, 1838:
To be added to Official List.
Orthopsina Mortensen, 1942. Proposed as a Suborder. Orthopsis Cotteau,
1864. To be added to Official List.
Temnopleurina Mortensen, 1942. Proposed as a Suborder. Temnopleurus
Duncan, 1889. To be added to Official List as Order Temnopleuroida.
Cassidulina Mortensen, 1948. Proposed as a Suborder. Cassidulus Lamarck;
1801. Objective junior synonym of Cassidulideae Claus, 1880.
Conoclypina Mortensen, 1948. Proposed as a Suborder. Conoclypus L.
Agassiz, 1839. To be added to Official Last.
Laganina Mortensen, 1948. Proposed as a Suborder. Laganum Link, 1807.
To be added to Official List.
Scutellina Durham, 1955. Proposed as a Suborder. Scutella Lamarck, 1816.
Objective junior synonym of Scutellaria Haeckel, 1896.
Rotulina Durham, 1955. Proposed as a Suborder. Rotula Schumacher, 1817.
To be added to Official List.
Holasteroida Durham and Melville, 1957. Proposed as an Order. Holaster
L. Agassiz, 1836. To be added to Official List.
Alphabetical List of Names in the Order/Class-Group
in the Class Echinoidea ;
Abranchiata Ludwig, 1882 Branchiata Ludwig, 1882
Adelostella T. and T. Austin, 1842 Brachygnata Lambert, 1915
Amphisternata Mortensen, 1907 Calycina Gregory, 1900
Anocysti Parkinson, 1811 Camarodonta Jackson, 1912
Anocysti Fleming, 1828 Cassidularia Haeckel, 1896
Anthosticha Haeckel, 1896 Cassidulideae Claus, 1880
Apomesostomi Parkinson, 1822 Cassidulina Mortensen, 1948
Arbacina Gregory, 1900 Cassiduloidea Duncan, 1889
Aspidodiademina Mortensen, 1939 Catocysti Leske, 1778
Asternata Gregory, 1900 Catocysti Parkinson, 1811
Atelostomata Zittel, 1879 Catocysti Fleming, 1828
Aulodonta Jackson, 1912 Centrechinoida Jackson, 1912
Autechinida Haeckel, 1866 Cidarida Delage and Hérouard, 1903
Bothriocidaridae Zittel, 1879 Cidaridaria Haeckel, 1896
Bothriocidaroida Duncan, 1889 Cidaridea Claus, 1883
512 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Cidarideae Claus, 1880
Cidaroida Duncan, 1889
Cidaronia Haeckel, 1896
Cirrhi-Spinigrada Forbes, 1841
Clypeastrida Delage and Hérouard,
1903
Clypeastridae A. Agassiz, 1873
Clypeastridea Claus, 1876
Clypeastrina Gregory, 1900
Clypeastroida Duncan, 1889
Clypeastroidea Ludwig, 1886
Clypeastroideae Claus, 1880
Clypeastronia Haeckel, 1896
Columnidae T. and T. Austin, 1842
Conoclyparia Haeckel, 1896
Conoclypina Mortensen, 1948
Cyphosomina Delage and Hérouard,
1903
Cystechinida Haeckel, 1896
Cystocidaridae Zittel, 1879
Cystocidaroida Duncan, 1889
Cystoechinoidea Haeckel, 1896
Desmosticha Haeckel, 1866
Diademaria Haeckel, 1896
Diadematoida Duncan, 1889
Diademida Delage and Hérouard,
1903
Diademina Gregory, 1900
Echinata Fischer.de Waldheim, 1823
Echini Goldfuss, 1820
Echinida Fleming, 1822
Echinidae Fleming, 1828
Echinidae T. and T. Austin, 1842
Echinidea Blainville, 1834
Echinidea Haeckel, 1896
Echinideae Claus, 1880
Echinides Stark, 1828
Echinidia Delage and Hérouard, 1903
Kchinina Gregory, 1900
Echinocystoida Jackson, 1912
Echinoderma Latreille, 1825
Echinodermata Leske, 1778
Echinodermata Wad, 1803
Echinodermia Rafinesque, 1815
Echinoida Latreille, 1825
Kchinoidea d’Orbigny, 1842
Echinoneina H. L. Clark, 1925
Echinothurida Delage and Hérouard,
1903
Echinothurideae Claus, 1880
Echinus Leske, 1778
Ectobranchiata Ludwig, 1886
Emmesostomi Parkinson, 1822
Endobranchiata Meissner, 1903
Endocyclica Bronn, 1860
Entobranchiata Ludwig, 1886
Eocidarida Haeckel, 1866
Euechinoidea Bronn, 1860
Eumelonaria Haeckel, 1896
Eurypalmaria Haeckel, 1896
Exocyclica Bronn, 1860
Exocycloida Jackson, 1912
Exocysta Lambert, 1900
Globatoroida Lambert, 1915
Gnathostomata Zittel, 1879
Gnathostomata Lambert, 1900
(non Zittel, 1879)
Hemicidarina Beurlen, 1937
Holasteroida Durham and Melville,
1957
Holectypida Haeckel, 1896
Holectypida Delage and Hérouard,
1903
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 513
Holectypina Gregory, 1900
Holectypoida Duncan, 1889
Trregulares Zittel, 1879
Trregularia Carus, 1863
Trregulariae Delage and Hérouard,
1903
Laganina Mortensen, 1948
Lepidocentroida Mortensen, 1934
Megalopoda MacBride and Spencer,
1938
Melonechinoida Mortensen, 1934
Melonitida Haeckel, 1866
Meridosternata Mortensen, 1907
Neoechinoidea Perrier, 1893
Nodostomata Lambert, 1915
Nucleolitoida Hawkins, 1920
Orthopsina Mortensen, 1942
Palaeoechinida Perrier, 1893
Palaeo-echinoidea Parker and
Haswell, 1897
Palechinida Haeckel, 1866
Palechinida or Palaeoechinoidea or
Perischoechinoidea Haeckel, 1896
Palechinoidea Zittel, 1879
Pedicellata Griffith and Pidgeon,
1834
Pedinina Mortensen, 1939
Perischoechinida MCoy, 1849
Perischoechinidae Zittel, 1879
Perischoechinoidea Bronn, 1860
Petalosticha Haeckel, 1866
Phymosomina Mortensen, 1904
. Pileatoida Lambert, 1900
Plagiocysta Lambert, 1900
Plesiocidaroida Duncan, 1889
Pleurocysti Leske, 1778
Pleurocysti Parkinson, 1811
Pleurocysti Fleming, 1828
Procassiduloida Lambert, 1918
Promelonaria Haeckel, 1896
Protosternata Mortensen, 1907
Pseudoechinoidea Mortensen, 1935
Radiaria Rafinesque, 1815
Regulares Zittel, 1879
Regularia Carus, 1863
Regulariae Delage and Hérouard,
1903
Rotulina Durham, 1955
Salelina Delage and Hérouard, 1903
Salenina Delage and Hérouard, 1903
Scutellaria Haeckel, 1896
Scutellina Durham, 1955
Spatangaria Haeckel, 1896
Spatangida Delage and Hérouard,
1903
Spatangidea Claus, 1876
Spatangideae Claus, 1880
Spatangoida Duncan, 1889
Spatangoidea Ludwig, 1886
Spatangoidea Duncan, 1889
Spatangoideae Claus, 1880
Spatangonia Haeckel, 1896
Stenopalmaria Haeckel, 1896
Stereodermata Lambert, 1900
Stereosomata Duncan, 1889
Sternata Gregory, 1900
Stirodonta J ackson, 1912
Streptosomata Duncan, 1889
Temnopleurina Mortensen, 1942
Typica Carus, 1863
514 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Available Names in the Order/Class-Group in Echinoidea
Class
Echinoidea Leske, 1778 (as Echinus). Objective junior synonyms EKchini
Goldfuss, 1820, Echinida Fleming, 1822, Echinata Fischer von Waldheim,
1823, Echinoida Latreille, 1825, Echinidae Fleming, 1828, Echinides
Stark, 1828, Echinidea Blainville, 1834, Cirrhi-Spinigrada Forbes,1841,
Adelostella T. and T. Austin, 1842, Echinoidea d’Orbigny, 1852,
Kchinidia Delage and Hérouard, 1903.
Subelass
Endocyclica Bronn, 1860. Objective junior synonyms Regularia Carus, 1863,
Desmosticha Haeckel, 1866, Regulares Zittel, 1879, Regulariae Delage
and Hérouard, 1903.
Euechinoidea Bronn, 1860. Objective senior synonym, Echinidae T. and T.
Austin, 1842. Objective junior synonyms Typica Carus, 1863, Aute-
chinida Haeckel, 1866, Neoechinoidea Perrier, 1893, Gnathostomata
Lambert, 1900 (non Zittel, 1879).
Exocyclica Bronn, 1860. Objective junior synonyms Irregularia Carus, 1863,
Petalosticha Haeckel, 1866, Irregulares Zittel, 1879, Irregulariae Delage
and Hérouard, 1903, Exocycloida Jackson, 1912.
Perischoechinoidea M¢Coy, 1849 (as Perischoechinida). Objective junior
synonyms Perischoechinoidea Bronn, 1860, Palechinoidea Zittel, 1879,
Palaeoechinida Perrier, 1893, ‘‘ Palechinida or Palaeoechinoidea or
Perischoechinoidea ’’ Haeckel, 1896.
Pseudoechinoidea Mortensen, 1935.
Superorder
Atelostomata Zittel, 1879
Diadematacea Duncan, 1889 (as Diadematoida)
Echinacea Claus, 1880 (as Echinideae)
Gnathostomata Zittel, 1879.
Order
Arbacioida Gregory, 1900.
Bothriocidaroida Zittel, 1879 (as Bothriocidaridae). Objective junior synonyms
Bothriocidaroida Duncan, 1889, Stenopalmaria Haeckel, 1896.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 515
Cassiduloida Claus, 1880 (as Cassidulideae). Objective junior synonyms
Cassiduloidea Duncan, 1889, Cassidularia Haeckel, 1896, Asternata
Gregory, 1900, Procassiduloida Lambert and Thiéry, 1921 ; subjective
junior synonym Nodostomata Lambert, 1915.
Cidaroida Claus, 1880 (as Cidarideae). Objective senior synonyms Anocysti
Parkinson, 1822 and Fleming, 1828, Emmesostomi Parkinson, 1822 ;
objective junior synonyms Abranchiata Ludwig, 1882, Cidaridea Claus,
1883, Entobranchiata Ludwig, 1886, Cidaroida Duncan, 1889, Desmo-
sticha Haeckel, 1896, Cidaronia Haeckel, 1896, Cidaridaria Haeckel,
1896, Cidarida Delage and Hérouard, 1903, Endobranchiata Meissner,
1903.
Clypeasteroida A. Agassiz, 1873 (as Clypeastridae). Subjective senior synonyms
Catocysti Leske, 1778, Parkinson, 1811 and Fleming, 1828 ; objective
junior synonyms Clypeastridea Claus, 1876, Clypeastroideae Claus, 1880,
Clypeastroidea Ludwig, 1882, Clypeastroida Duncan, 1889, Anthosticha
Haeckel, 1896, Clypeastronia Haeckel, 1896, Exocysta Lambert, 1900,
Clypeastrida Delage and Hérouard, 1903. |
Diadematoida Duncan, 1889. Objective junior synonyms Diademaria Haeckel,
1896, Diademida Delage and Hérouard, 1903, Centrechinoida Jackson,
1912.
Echinocystitoida Jackson, 1912 (as Echinocystoida). Objective senior synonyms
Cystocidaridae Zittel, 1879, Cystocidaroida Duncan, 1889, Promelonaria
Haeckel, 1896, Cystechinida-Cystoechinoidea Haeckel, 1896, Plagiocysta
Lambert, 1900 ; Objective junior synonym Lepidocentroida Mortensen,
1934.
Echinoida Claus, 1880 (as Echinideae). Objective junior synonyms Branchiata
Ludwig, 1882, Ectobranchiata Ludwig, 1886, Stereosomata Duncan,
1889, Stereodermata Lambert, 1900.
Echinothurioida Claus, 1880 (as Echinothurideae). Objective junior synonyms
Streptosomata Duncan, 1889, Echinothurida Delage and Hérouard, 1903.
Hemicidaroida Beurlen, 1937.
Holasteroida Durham and Melville, 1957.
Holectypoida Duncan, 1889. Objective junior synonyms Conoclyparia Haeckel,
1896, Holectypida Delage and Hérouard, 1903, Pileatoida Lambert,
1900; Subjective junior synonyms Brachygnata Lambert, 1915,
Globatoroida Lambert and Thiéry, 1921.
Megalopoda MacBride and Spencer, 1938.
Nucleolitoida Hawkins, 1920.
516 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Palaechinoida Haeckel, 1866 (as Palechinida). Objective junior synonyms
Eocidarida Haeckel, 1866, Perischoechinidae Zittel, 1879, Eurypalmaria
Haeckel, 1896, Palaeo-echinoidea Parker and Haswell, 1897, Melon-
echinoida Mortensen, 1934.
Phymosomatoida Mortensen, 1904 (as Phymosomina). Objective senior
synonym Cyphosomina Delage and Hérouard, 1903 ; objective junior
synonym Stirodonta Jackson, 1912.
Plesiocidaroida Duncan, 1889.
Spatangoida Claus, 1876 (as Spatangidea). Objective senior synonyms
Pleurocysti Leske, 1778, Parkinson, 1811, Fleming, 1828, Apomesostomi
Parkinson, 1822 ; objective junior synonyms Spatangideae Claus, 1880,
Spatangoideae Claus, 1880, Spatangoida Duncan, 1889, Petalosticha
Haeckel, 1896, Spatangonia Haeckel, 1896, Spatangaria Haeckel, 1896,
Sternata Gregory, 1900, Spatangida Delage and Hérouard, 1903.
Temnopleuroida Mortensen, 1942.
Suborder
Amphisternata Mortensen, 1937.
Aspidodiademina Mortensen, 1939.
Calycina Gregory, 1900. Objective junior synonym Salenina (“ Salelina ”’)
Delage and Hérouard, 1903.
Cassidulina sensu stricto (Mortensen, 1948).
Clypeasterina sensu stricto (Gregory, 1900, as Clypeastrina).
Conoclypina Mortensen, 1948.
Diademina sensu stricto (Gregory, 1900). Objective junior synonym Aulodonta
Jackson, 1912.
Kchinina sensu stricto (Gregory, 1900). Objective junior synonym Camarodonta
Jackson, 1912.
Kchinoneina H. L. Clark, 1925. Objective senior synonyms Brachygnata
Lambert, 1915, Globatoroida Lambert, 1915.
Holectypina sensu stricto (Gregory, 1900).
Laganina Mortensen, 1948.
Meridosternata Mortensen, 1907.
Orthopsina Mortensen, 1942.
Pedinina Mortensen, 1939.
Protosternata Mortensen, 1907.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 517
Rotulina Durham, 1955.
Scutellina Haeckel, 1896 (as Scutellaria).
REFERENCES
AGASSIZ, A., 1873. Revision of the Echini, Part III
AUSTIN, T. & AUSTIN, T., 1842. “Proposed arrangement of the
Echinodermata, particularly as regards the Crinoidea and a subdivision
of the Class Adelostella (Echinidae) ” Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., 10 : 106-113
BELL, F. J., 1892. Catalogue of the British Echinoderms in the British Museum
(Natural History), I
BERNARD, T., 1895. Eléments de Paléontologie
BEURLEN, K., 1937. ‘ Revision der Seeigel aus dem nordwestdeutschen
Jura, II Teil, Die regularen Seeigel.” Abhandl. Preuss. geol.
Landesanstalt (N.F.) 174 : pp. 1-149, pl. 1
BLAINVILLE, D., de, 1834. Manuel d’ Actinologie ou de Zoophytologie
BRONN, H. G., 1860. Klassen und Ordnungen des Thier- Reichs, Erster Band,
Amorphozoen 434 pp., 48 pls.
CARUS, J. V., 1863. in Carus, J. V. & C. E. A. Gerstaecker. Handbuch der
Zoologie. Vol. 2, pp. i-vii, 1-642
CLARK, H. L., 1925. A Catalogue of the Recent sea-urchins (Echinoidea) in the
collection of the British Museum (Natural History)
CLAUS, ©., 1876. Grundziige der Zoologie. 3rd ed., vol. 1
, 1880. Grundziige der Zoologie. 4th ed., vol. |
, 1883. Lehrbuch der Zoologie. 2nd ed.
DELAGE, Y. & HEROUARD, E., 1903. Traité de Zoologie concréte. Vol. 3,
‘““ Les Echinodermes ’’, pp. i-x, 1-495, pls. 1-53
DUNCAN, P. M., 1889. ‘A revision of the genera and great groups of the
Kchinoidea ” J. linn. Soc. Lond. (Zool.), vol. 23
DURHAM, J. W., 1955. ‘‘ Classification of Clypeasteroid Echinoids ’’ Univ.
Calif. Publ. Geol. Sci. 31 : 73-198, pls. 3-4, 38 figs.
FISCHER von WALDHEIM, G., 1823. Enchiridion Generwm Animalium.
pp. 1-32
FLEMING, J., 1822. The Philosophy of Zoology. Vol. 2, 618 pp.
, 1828. History of British Animals. pp. i-xxiii, 1-565
518 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
FORBES, E., 1841. A history of British Starfishes and other animals of the
Class Echinodermata. 270 pp.
GOLDFUSS, G. A.. 1820. Handbuch der Zoologie. Vol. 1, pp. i-xlvi, 1-696
GRAS, A., 1848. Description des oursins fossiles du Département de l’Isére
GREGORY, J. W., 1900. Echinoidea in ‘“‘ A Treatise on Zoology, Part III,
The Echinoderma”’. Ed. E. Ray Lankester
GRIFFITH, E. & PIDGEON, E., 1834. The Animal Kingdom by the Baron
Cuvier, vol. 12, ‘‘ The Mollusca and Radiata”. viii, 601 pp.
HAECKEL, E., 1866. Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Zweiter Band :
“Allgemeine Entwickelungs-Geschichte der Organismen’’. 462 pp., 8 pls.
, 1896. Systematische Phylogenie, vol. 2, ‘“ Systematische Phylogenie der —
Wirbellosen Thiere (Invertebrata). pp. i-xviii, 1-720
HAWKINS, H. L., 1920. ‘‘ The morphology and evolution of the ambulacrum
in the Echinoidea Holectypoida”’ Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. (B),
209 : 377-480, pls. Lxi-Ixix
JACKSON, R. T., 1912. ‘‘ Phylogeny of the Echini, with a revision of
Palaeozoic species *’ Mem. Boston Soc. nat. Hist. 7 : 1-443, pls. 1-76
LAMBERT, J., 1900. ‘‘ Etude sur quelque échinides de |’Infra-Lias et du
Lias ”’ Bull. Soc. Sci. Hist. nat. Yonne, Ann. 1899, 53 (pt. 2) : 1-57, pl. 1
, 1915. “ Description des échinides des terrains Néogénes du Bassin
du Rhone ”’, Fasc. IV. Mém. Soc. Paléont. Suisse, 44
, 1915. ‘ Echinides néogénes des Antilles anglaises ’’. Mem. Soc. Acad.
de l’ Aube, 79
, 1918. ‘‘ Considérations sur la classification des Echinides Atélostomes ”’.
Mém. Soc. Acad. de lV’ Aube 82 : 1-48
LAMBERT, J. & THIERY, P., 1909-1924. Essai de nomenclature raisonnée
des Echinides. 607 pp., 15 pls.
LATREILLE, D., 1825. Familles naturelles du régne animal. 570 pp.
LESKE, N. G., 1778. Additamenta ad J. T. Klein naturalem dispositionem
Echinodermatum
LUDWIG, H., 1882. ‘‘ Ueber Asthenosoma varium Grube und ueber ein
neues Organ bei der Cidariden’”’. Z. fiir wiss. Zool. 34 : 70-86, pls. ii, iti
, 1886. Synopsis der Thierkunde by J. Leunis. 3rd ed. vol. 2, pp. i-xv,
pp. 1-1231
MACBRIDE, E. W. & SPENCER, W. K., 1938. ‘Two new Echinoidea
Aulechinus and Ectinechinus, and an adult plated Holothurian,
Eothuria, from the Upper Ordovician of Girvan, Scotland”. Phil.
Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. (B), 229
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 519
M°COY, F., 1849. ‘‘ On some new Palaeozoic Echinodermata”. Ann. Mag.
nat. Hist. (2) 3 : 244-254
MEISSNER, M., 1903. ‘‘ Systematik ” in Ludwig, H., Hamann, O., Meissner,
M. and Przibram, H. Dr. H. G. Bronn’s Klassen und Ordnungen des
Thier-Reichs, vol. 2, Part 3, Book 4, pp. 13821-1406
MORTENSEN, Th., 1904. “The Danish expedition to Siam 1899-1900.
II. Echinoidea (1)”’. Kongl. Dansk. Vidensk. Selsk. Skrift. (7), vol. 1
, 1907. The Danish Ingolf-expedition. Vol. 4, 2, Echinoidea (2)
, 1928-52. “* A Monograph of the Echinoidea’’, vol. 1, 1928; vol. 2, 1935;
vol. 3, 1, 1940 ; vol. 3, 2, 1943 ; vol. 3, 3, 1943; vol. 4,1, 1948: vol. 4,
2, 1948 ; vol. 5,1, 1950; vol. 5, 2, 1951; Index, 1952
ORBIGNY, A. d’, 1852. Cours élémentaire de Paléontologie et de Géologie
stratigraphique. 3 vols.
PARKER, T. J. & HASWELL, W. A., 1897. A teat-book of Zoology. Vol. 1,
pp. i-xxv, 1-779
PARKINSON, J., 1811. Organic remains of a former World. Vol. 8 : i-xv,
1-479, pls. 1-22
, 1822. Outlines of Oryctology. An introduction to the study of fossil
organic remains. pp. i-vii, 1-346, pls. i-x
PERRIER, E., 1893. Traité de Zoologie, fasc. 1-2, pp. 1-364
POMEL, A., 1869. Revue des Echinodermes et de leur classification
RAFINESQUE, C. S., 1815. Analyse de la nature ou tableau de univers et des
corps organisés. 224 pp.
SCHMIDT, F., 1874. ‘‘ Miscellanea Silurica IL”. Mém. Acad. imp. Sci.,
St. Petersburg, Ser. 7, vol. 21, no. 11
STARK, J., 1828. Elements of Natural History. Vol. 2, pp. 1-515, pls. 5-9
WAD, G., 1803. Begyndelsesgrunde i Dyrhistorien af George Cuvier. Vol. 2,
512 pp. 7 pls. [Index in Danish, French and Latin]
WRIGHT, T., 1857. ‘‘ A Monograph on the British fossil Echinodermata of the
Oolitic formations, part 1’, pp. 1-154. Palaeont. Soc.
ZITTEL, K. A., 1879. Handbuch der Palaeontologie. 1 Band, Palaeozoologie,
(1 Abth.) : 308-560 (Echinodermata)
520 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 25/3
Proposed type genera for higher taxa within the Sub-Phylum
Ciliophora (Phylum Protozoa)
By JOHN O. CORLISS
(Department of Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.)*
(Enclosure to a letter dated 14th December 1957)!
Acting within the spirit of the Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological
Nomenclature (Hemming, 1953) and appreciating the need to stabilize the higher
zoological taxa by fixation of type genera, the present paper considers the
problem of selecting such types in a subphylum of “ lower organisms ”’, the
ciliated protozoa.
2. Before types can be designated, or even suggested, another nomen-
clatural problem should be resolved as satisfactorily as possible: clarification
of the standing of names of the taxa themselves in the Order/Class-Group
within the subphylum Ciliophora. Classificational schemes are also involved
to the extent that various groups have been shifted in their rank and
relationship to each other by different authors. Strictly nomenclatural aspects
of ciliate systematics, however, are for the most part unaffected by the
taxonomic position of the various groups, if proposed changes in rank have
not been too drastic.
3. Various classificational schemes are currently in use for the ciliates.
One very recent revision has just been published (Corliss, 1956, 1957), based
principally upon proposals made by Fauré-Fremiet (1950). Several major
differences exist between conventional schemes and the latest rearrangement.
The suggested alterations are based upon analyses and interpretations of new
information or of data considered more reliable (i.e., more fundamental in
nature) from a phylogenetic point of view than those generally employed.
* The investigation described in this paper was carried out under Grant G-3887 from
the National Science Foundation.
1 This case has an associated Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1302.
Bull. zool. Nomencel. Vol. 15, Double-Part 16/17. March 1958.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 521
4, The propositions of the Copenhagen Decisions related to nomenclatural
procedures for higher taxa have been applied to group names within the
Ciliophora (Corliss, 1957). This has revealed that most of the existing confusion
stems from past failures to recognize priority at the higher taxonomic levels.
Plenary Powers of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
must be invoked to resolve cases of homonomy and to preserve several time-
honored names.
5. A more detailed proposal of type genera for the higher ciliate groups
will be made to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
in proper form at a later date; but the following list of suggested names is
essentially a condensation of the information to be included in such a petition.
Thus the present paper is not an attempt to offer formal designation of types.
Shifting various systematic groups to higher or lower ranks in the classificational
scheme in general need not affect the relationship of a taxon to its type genus ;
thus a worthwhile degree of stability can be achieved by suggesting type genera,
even though the scheme adopted here as a framework may undergo subsequent
change. The thirty taxonomic units recognised below involve twenty-one
different genera of ciliates as types. The genera chosen are generally quite
central taxonomically to the collection of subunits involved. In addition the
selected genera, with two exceptions, are also types of representative families
within the orders or suborders concerned.
6. For conciseness the following plan of presentation is used below: the
name of a given taxon includes only the (original) author, not the date ; this
information is separated from the full name of the type genus by a colon. Names
of authors are abbreviated following their first usage.
7. Subphylum Ciliophora Doflein: Paramecium O. F. Miller, 1773;
same type genus for the single class Ciliata Perty, and for the subclass
Holotricha Stein. Order Gymnostomatida Biitschli: Holophrya Ehrenberg,
1831; suborder Rhabdophorina Fauré-Fremiet: same as for the order ;
suborder Cyrtophorina F-F: WNassula Ehrbg., 1833. Order Suctorida
Claparéde & Lachmann: Acineta Ehrbg., 1833. Order Chonotrichida
Wallengren : Spirochona Stein, 1852. Order Trichostomatida Biit.: Colpoda
O.F.M., 1773. Order Hymenostomatida Delage & Hérouard: Paramecium
O.F.M., 1773; suborder Tetrahymenina F-F: Tetrahymena Furgason, 1940 ;
suborder Peniculina F-F: same as for the order; suborder Pleuronematina
F-F : Pleuronema Dujardin, 1841. Order Astomatida Schewiakoff :
Anoplophrya Stein, 1860. Order Apostomatida Chatton & Lwoff : Foettingeria
Caullery & Mesnil, 1903. Order Thigmotrichida Ch. & Lw.: Hemispeira
Fabre-Domergue, 1888; suborder Arhynchodina Corliss: same as for the
order ; suborder Rhynchodina Ch. & Lw.: Ancistrocoma Ch. & Lw., 1926.
Order Peritrichida Stein: Vorticella Linnaeus, 1766; suborder Sessilina
Kahl: Urceolaria Lamarck, 1801; suborder Mobilina Kahl: same as for the
order.
JJ
522 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
8. Subclass Spirotricha Biit. : Huplotes Ehrbg., 1831. Order Heterotrichida
Stein: Condylostoma Bory, 1826; suborder Heterotrichina Cor.: same as for
the order ; suborder Licnophorina Cor.: Licnophora Claparéde, 1867. Order
Oligotrichida Biit.: Halteria Duj., 1840. Order Tintinnida Kofoid &
Campbell : Tintinnus Schrank, 1803. Order Entodiniomorphida Reichenow :
Entodinium Stein, 1858. Order Odontostomatida Sawaya [replacing Cteno-
stomatida Kahl, preoccupied] : Saprodinium Lauterborn, 1908. Order Hypo-
trichida Stein : Huplotes Ehrbg., 1831.
9. Rather detailed discussion of certain choices of generic names used
above is warranted but is beyond the scope of the present abbreviated report.
It may be interesting to note in passing that no genus of ciliates was listed
in Linnaeus’ 10th edition of the Systema Naturae, although Hill (1752) had
published the name “ Paramecium ” six years earlier. Rarely have types been
designated for any of the ciliate taxa; the relationship of such cases to the
proposals made above also will be considered in a fuller paper to be published
elsewhere at an appropriate later date.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 523
DOCUMENT 25/4
Questions arising in connection with the naming of Orders and taxa
of Higher Rank
By ELLSWORTH C. DOUGHERTY
(University of California, Department of Parasitology, Berkeley,
California, U.S.A.)
(Editorial Note: In a letter dated 20th November 1957 Dr. Dougherty
explained that, in conjunction with Dr. Benjamin G. Chitwood, he had recently
been engaged on work on a re-classification of the Nematodes and that in the
course of this work Dr. Chitwood and he had found themselves in disagreement
on certain questions relating to the naming of Orders and taxa of higher rank.
Dr. Dougherty explained that he had set out his views in a series of documents
which had formed enclosures to a letter which he had recently addressed to
Dr. Chitwood. These papers, he suggested, might be published in the Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature. It has been judged that the most convenient course
would be to present this documentation to the London Congress for consideration
in connection with Section 1 of Article 12 of the Draft Régles (1957, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 14 : 92). The following extract from Dr. Dougherty’s letter, together
with the enclosures to that letter, has accordingly been allotted the Congress
Number Document 25/4 and is reproduced below. (Intl’d. F.H. 23rd January
1957)
(Extract from a letter, with enclosure, dated 20th November 1957)
Dr. Chitwood and I have reached a fundamental impasse with respect
to the criteria by which names of higher taxa of the Order/Class and Phylum
Groups are to be reckoned for the purposes of the Law of Priority. I am
enclosing some appendices (II-V) to a recent letter to Dr. Chitwood. If any
of this material seems suitable for the Bulletin (with appropriate recasting, of
course), please let me know.
In the first appendix of my letter to Dr. Chitwood (of which an extra copy
was not made), I indicated that I planned to send you copies of Appendices
II and III ; subsequently to writing that, however, I recast the material a bit
so that it came to be four appendices, instead of but two. A copy of this letter
goes to Dr. Chitwood by way of explanation of this fact.
Bull, zool. Nomencl. Vol. 15, Double-Part 16/17. March 1958.
524 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
APPENDIX I
(not furnished to the Office of the Commission by Dr. Dougherty)
APPENDIX II
Determination of Names for Higher Zoological Taxa
A. Present Rules
In our recent letters we have been wrestling with problems that, in
important respects, Copenhagen left unsolved. The volume Copenhagen
Decisions (1953) has a Section D (pp. 38-43), which is entitled: ‘ Proposed
adoption of rules for the naming of Orders and Higher Taxonomic Categories ”.
One thing is immediately evident: the scheme for arriving at lists of
recommended names for taxa of the Order/Class- and Phylum-Groups in the
Animal Kingdom, as outlined in Decision 62 (pp. 38-40), has yet to be
implemented. Certainly the suggestion (Decision 62(6)) that “ Specialist
Committees’ have such lists ready and published before “the Linnean
Bicentenary in 1958” was hopelessly optimistic. No one at the Copenhagen
Colloquium gave any indication of understanding the enormity of the problems
involved. (Certainly I did not realize it ; only through our joint efforts, in fact,
have I come to appreciate fully this situation.) The fact that, to my knowledge,
Francis Hemming has not actively sought to have ‘‘ Committees of Specialists ”
formed is, I feel, partly due to the intrinsic difficulties involved! No doubt
another factor has also played a critical role: he has, I believe, been over-
whelmed with a flood of problems of all sorts, whose extent the Colloquium
also failed to recognize. The implementation of the Copenhagen provisions
with respect to names of higher taxa (i.e., those above the Family-Group) has,
I surmise, been forced to a position of relatively low priority by the imperative
nature of more urgent problems. The participants of the forthcoming London
Colloquium will, I am sure, have a more realistic understanding of the time
necessary for the realization of the goals set at Copenhagen (some of which will,
I believe, be modified).
But, if I start with the body of law enacted in 1953 for deciding on names
of higher taxa, I can, I feel, illuminate some of our problems rather more
adequately than has been done so far by either of us.
1 See Document 25/1, paragraph 3.
7 ee
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 525
As regards higher-taxon names already proposed, I draw your attention
first of all to main Decisions 63 (p. 38) and 62(1) (pp. 31-34) and quote from the
following: “‘ [Decision 62] The Colloquium recommends . . . Decision 62(2).. .
[that the] Commission should be asked to invite the Committees of Specialists,
when selecting names to be included in the recommended lists, to give first
consideration to weight of current usage, and, when usage affords no clear
basis for choice, to other considerations, such as priority ...”. This is the
ruling on which I base my preference for Nematoda as a Class or Phylum
name. It implies, of course, a “ popularity contest ”, of which you have been
bitterly critical. If enough other zoologists feel as you do, this rule can be
changed. I happen to agree with it on principle ; but I fully realize that its
application has many pitfalls.
Let us, for the sake of argument, decide that this is not a good rule—that,
instead, some rule based on the Law of Priority should be substituted for it.
Now we are faced with the problem of just what way in which to formulate
such a rule.
Over the past months you have gradually clarified your thinking on these
issues—partly, I am sure, under pressure from me. I believe that you have
been primarily drawn to your present position by your desire to preserve
Nemata as the phylar name for the nemas (nematodes) and that most other
aspects of the problem have been subordinated to this aim.
B. Your Proposal for a Rule on Acceptanee of Names of Higher Taxa
In your last letter (of Nov. 14th) you enunciated a principle (hereinafter
referred to as “ [your] Rule ”’) that is quite clear—I quote : ‘‘ The only formula
we can arrive at is that the stem of the name used by the man who made the
final logical exclusions should be accepted if he used that name at the rank
we use today’. At first glance, this would seem a fair enough rule, but, if
ever formalized, it could lead to endless confusion as I can immediately show.
Before going into the more important objections, I should point out that,
from your standpoint, it would have one effect that you may not have
perceived and would, I believe, not wish: namely, it would ensure the
preservation of a name with the stem aphasmid-, whether at the Subclass or
Class level, for certainly Aphasmidia (subclass) and Aphasmidea (class) are
the first names used for taxonomically rational taxa at those levels (Adenophori
having followed Aphasmidia at the Subclass level and Anenophorea being far
junior to the Aphasmidea at the Class level). (Secernentea as a Class name
would, on the other hand be valid under your Rule since it would be a
replacement for the homonymous name Phasmidea.)
526 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
The difficulties with your Rule are more deep-seated than this, however ;
they derive from two main facts. First, its implementation would require an
intrusion of taxonomy into nomenclature far more than any formal provision
of the Rules now provides for—with the all-important exception that,
fundamentally, the “ popularity contest ’’ provision, of which you are so
critical, would allow full operation of taxonomic (or systematic, if you will)
ideas to operate in reaching ultimate decisions on nomenclature. (Incidentally,
this principle is also extended to names of the Family-Group—see Decision
45 [p. 33].) Second, your Rule would require junking what I should call the
“ Principle of Co-ordination ” of taxa of the Order/Class- and Phylum-Groups
(see Decision 66 [pp. 41-42)).
C. Nomenclature vs. Taxonomy
One of the most difficult problems in the nomenclatural aspect of
systematics at the level of higher taxa is that of deciding to what extent use of
names should vary according to taxonomic concepts. Given the Reégles as
amended at Copenhagen and general zoological traditions in nomenclature,
going far back of Copenhagen, I contend that one should strive, in settling on
rules of nomenclature for higher taxa, to minimize the obtrusion of taxonomic
concepts.
Your Rule could, however, embroil zoology in an endless ‘confusion in
many cases. In effect, it would abolish the fundamental usefulness of the type
system for higher taxa (type genera in these cases). You may be inclined, I
should anticipate, to dispute that it in any way would interfere with the type
system, but I think that it can be fairly shown that it would. Types are useful
primarily as anchors for names when there are, as is inevitable in our growing
state of taxonomic knowledge, changes in taxonomic systems.
Let us examine what would be the full implication of a rule requiring that
that name be used that was first applied to a group after ‘‘ logical exclusions ”
[= a “natural” group] had been made. This brings us full-tilt into taxonomic
issues that I feel strongly should be left out of nomenclature.
Look what would happen in an extreme case if it were necessary (as it
would be in the strict application of your Rule) to accept any name change
associated with a change of content in a given taxon; in such cases, it is
obvious that the type would stand for little. Let us imagine a higher taxon
X of a given rank that, when originally named, contained subordinate taxa
(orders, families, genera—it doesn’t matter much for the sake of this discussion
which they were) ; let us call these subordinate taxa A, B, C, D, E. Now, by
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 527
your Rule, any of the following would result in a condition in which a different
name, if proposed, would be binding :
(1) A, B, C, D, with E removed (with name change of group to Y) ;
(2) A, B, C, with D and E removed (with name change to group to Z) ;
(3) and so on through many permutations.
A worker accepting concept (1) would be bound by name Y ; a worker accepting
concept (2) would be bound by name Z; etc. Similarly, the introduction of
any other subordinate taxon (F, G, etc.) into X would require that any name-
change undergone by X be binding. The ultimate consequences of this are
ridiculous. And what is a valid group anyway ? In fact, who are we to say
that a group is valid ?
No, I think we need the type system for higher taxa, just as we do for
species, genera, and families and taxa subordinate to these. We need to keep
names that were originally proposed for largely reasonable groups and to
follow the same system of restriction as we do for names in the Species-, Genus-,
and Family-Groups.
The one escape mechanism is the “ popularity contest ” provision. With it»
totally irrational groups can be ignored and, in general, prevailing usage
maintained.
D. Coordination of Taxa
I admit that I have been critical of the idea of coordination of names of
the Family-Group and that, to be consistent, I should also object to this
principle at higher levels. The Botanists in their Code eschewed coordination
from the very first—from the species level up. Concomitantly with this,
however (and perhaps with wisdom) they have steadfastly refused to legislate
the application of the Law of Priority for taxa above the level of order ; they
_ have gone so far as to exclude such taxa explicitly from Priority. In many
ways it is clear that the Botanists are twenty years ahead of the Zoologists
in the perfection of their Code—although it is perhaps not fair to judge the
two Codes in this way, for the plants strike me (on the basis of my recent
studies of their evolutionary interrelationships) as posing less difficulties of
classification than the animals. However, it may well be that, all this admitted,
the Botanists have been more unified and clear-headed ; and their rejection of
coordination strikes me as a good example of clear thinking. The fact is that
they do have a better Code than we in Zoology. (In fact we have been
essentially without a Code—in the sense of codification—since the revolutionary
528 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
changes of 1948 at Paris, for, at that time and subsequently, much vital
innovation has been made [as in the Copenhagen volume and also as published
in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and in various of the Opinions,
Declarations and Directions published by the International Commission in the
series Opinions and Declarations Rendered . . .]}.)
I have done some soul-searching the last few weeks and especially the
last few days, and have decided that, since the Principle of Coordination, as
applied to species and genera, was a part of zoological nomenclature with the
earliest official Code (1900) and since this concept has already been legislated
for higher taxa as well, at Copenhagen, it perhaps serves best the interests of
nomenclatural stability in zoology to accept this extension of the concept
in question all the way up the hierarchy of taxa. So I am now prepared to
accept it at the Family-Group level too. If, however, the Principle of
Coordination is to be reversed at the Family-Group level, the same should be
done at the Order/Class- and Phylum-Group levels as well. But you will, I
hope, see that, in your Rule, you are asking for a reversal of this long standing
zoological tradition.
E. Summary and Conclusions
I pointed out that I regard your Rule as contravening two basic principles
of zoological nomenclature—that of the type concept and that of coordination.
It is ironical that, at present, at least, you must look in the Code to the very
ruling of which you appear to disapprove most strongly, for a source of support.
As far as I can see, every other provision is designed to keep taxonomic (or
systematic, if you prefer) ideas out of nomenclature as much as possible.
Frankly, I think that the most undesirable feature of your Rule lies in the
fact that, at the same time that it demands radical departures from much past
nomenclatural tradition, it relies basically on another nomenclatural tradition.
Thus, on the one hand, it would, in effect : (1) circumvent the type concept
(type genus in the case of families and higher taxa); and (2) at the same
time, reject the time-honored process of exclusion, which has traditionally
not affected the names of species, genera, and families, and whose application, as
a result of the 1953 legislation, would appear to have been extended to higher
taxa. On the other hand, your Rule rests squarely on the Law of Priority. In
other words, you propose sweeping aside certain important traditions and yet
at the same time requiring that the essentially new concepts be supported by
the Law of Priority.
Well, all this is possible, but I doubt that it is desirable. Personally, I
should prefer not to indulge in radical departure from current rules, but rather
to work with them insofar as I can in good conscience. It is a strange
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 529
predicament. On the one side I support the Régles as they are constituted,
with full appreciation that the “ popularity contest’ provisions for higher
taxa run counter to many of the traditional concepts of the earlier Code (but
I accept the “ popularity contest ’’ provision because I realize that the Régles
before 1953 did not have any explicit provisions for determining the names of
higher taxa; except a few for families and subordinate categories thereto.
Thus the very promulgation of such rules was a radical departure ; and it does
not disturb me if, in their promulgation, essentially new concepts are
introduced). On the other side you would, in effect, replace the legislation of
1953 with concepts that are, in their way, as novel as the “ popularity
contest ” provisions. :
I am willing for the sake of our paper to go along, in the main body of the
text, with your Rule and to express my demurrals in footnotes. But I hope
that after reading and digesting what has been written in this appendix you
will abandon some, at least, of your position. There are certainly many
moral points to back you; but, as I have said to you often, nomenclature
as it has generally evolved has operated in certain vital respects independently
of taxonomy and systematics. It has traditionally been a means of getting
stable names—not of honoring people. The adding of author’s names and
dates has been (properly) regarded as an abbreviated bibliographic device. You
are highly ambivalent on this matter—at one time you state that authors’
names should be left off of higher taxa in order to discourage the incentive
for personal glory ; another time you say that, for a given taxon, that name
should be used that was applied to it at the time the group was first accurately
characterized at the level accepted by you and that this is only right because
it honors the person responsible (von Linstow and Cobb being two of your
heroes in this connection]. I can only say that, to me, these are scarcely
consistent viewpoints.
But I say what I said before—to me this is a non-Aristotelian world.
Therefore, I do not object to multiple logical systems ; but I do like to know
what I am doing and to be able to recognize where I am applying one set of
logic and where another. I want you to do the same. Otherwise you will not
be adequately prepared to meet the challenge of those whose systems of logic
differ from yours.
APPENDIX III.
Conditions Causing Homonymy between Names of Higher Taxa
At the outset, let me explain what I believe the International Congress of
Zoology means with respect to homonymy of names of higher taxa (see
Copenhagen Decisions . . ., p. 42, Decision 68). In the Copenhagen volume it is
stated that [in addition, by implication, to the fact that two names are
530 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
homonyms when they are of identical spelling] two names that differ only in
“ termination ” are also homonyms. You in effect raised the question of how
this ruling is to be interpreted—in your letter of the 7th. Having been at
Copenhagen, I can say that a lot of discussion went into the rulings later
published as the Copenhagen Decisions . .. , but that in some cases the published
version fails to do full justice to those discussions. In the particular case before
us I can say that it is quite clear to me that what the Colloquium had in mind
with respect to ‘terminations’? were only the common neuter pleural
adjectival endings -a, -ea, -ia, -ida, -ina (-oidea is a special case, which I discuss
further on).
By contrast with the foregoing, when a compound word is made by
combining the appropriate parts of two latinized Greek words (or two Latin
words, or a Latin plus Greek or Greek plus Latin word in hybrid combination),
a different word is formed, and the second part cannot be considered as a
“termination ” in the sense of the Copenhagen decision in question. Instead
the stem (or root) of the compound word consists of both parts up to the
declensional (usually adjectival) ending (i.e., -a, -ea, etc.). [Since I first wrote
the foregoing paragraph, it has become evident that you independently arrived
at the point of view there expressed (vide P.S. to your letter of Nov. 9th).]’
As an example, let us take the case exemplified on the one hand by the
series that, in Pearse’s system (1942), ran Spiruria-Spirurida-Spirurina. Here
the difference lies in the -ia, -ida, -ina suffixes, which are merely adjectival in
force and do not contribute any other meaning to the word than indication
of the rank for the respective taxa. But, on the other hand, take the word
Spiruromorphina, which I have suggested as a replacement for Spirurina :
this consists of combinations of three Greek words, oveipa odpa, and popd7y,
plus the Latin adjectival ending -ina. To be more exact, the word is made up
as follows—from :
(1) owetpx—the stem spir- ;
(2) odpathe stem wr- ;
(3) the conecting vowel -o- ;*
2 The letter here referred to was not furnished to the Office of the Commission by Dr.
Dougherty.
* This is normal for Greek when two words are combined to give a compound word and the
stem of the first one and the derivative of the second one begins with a consonant. For
compound Latin words in the same situation the proper vowel is -i-. With hybrid (Greek-Latin
or Latin-Greek) words the connecting vowel is -o- if the first part is Greek and -2- if the first
part is Latin. (This last rule explains why nematocide [Greek-Latin] is to be preferred to
nematicide [where the Latin combining vowel is used with a Greek stem]. Despite Cobb’s
contention, it did not usually make any difference, in the best Classic Latin, if a word had already
been adopted from Greek ; it still kept its “-o-” connecting vowel in hybrid compounds. A
good classic example is thermd-pato [< Mepuds, hot; and poto, to serve drinks—hence, to refresh
with hot drinks].
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 531
(4) popda—the stem morph- ;
(5) and, finally, the adjectival ending -ina.
Result : Spir-ur-o-morph-ina. The stem of this new compound word is
spiruromorph-, and names based on the new stem sptruromorph- should pose no
problems of homonymy with words based on the old stem spirur-. The
contrary view, to my way of thinking, does violence to good linguistic sense.
I must admit, however, that the suffix -oidea is an embarrassment here.
It is the neuter plural of Latin -oideus, -oidea, oideum, which in turn derives
from the uncontracted Greek adjectival suffix -oc16ys, which in its turn
derives from the Greek word eldos (form). Viewed in this light, it might be
held to have as much right to conferring independent status as should (I
believe) -morph(ina). There igs this difference, however: -oidea has been
adopted in an adjectival sense for superfamilies and made homologous with the
endings -idae and -inae, which apply, of course, to families and subfamilies
respectively. (As indicated in an earlier letter [Nov. 4th—sent Noy. 7th],?
-tdae is a Latin noun suffix [masculine plural] and -inae a Latin adjectival
suffix [feminine plural]). But I believe that the neo-Latin usages of all these
endings have reduced them to the same function (adjectival in force) as those
of higher categories and that, for purposes of determining homonymy, they
should not usually count as parts of stems. I think that exception should be
made, however, where the Greek word eidos is specifically given as the basis
of word formation (just as I should propose in the case ofwopd7).
No doubt the International Commission needs to go over these points
and spell them out more clearly.
With respect to the ending -acea and your contention about it in your letter
of the 5th, yes—I know that it is adjectival in force, being a Latin adjectival
ending (like -inae, etc.) and that it has been used in Botany in the feminine
[sic] plural form, -aceae [sic] (agreeing in number and gender with the kingdom
Plantae), for families of plants. However, I doubt that it will find a place
that Gordiea is a better emendation than Gordea. (Contraction of vowels
was, of course, done in both Greek and Latin, but in the case of the neo-Latin
names for the Family-Group, it has become the rule that the endings -idae,
-inae, etc., should be added to the complete stem—thus the family GORDIIDAE.
eee ea a
® The letter here referred to was not furnished to the Office of the Commission by Dr.
Dougherty.
532 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
The same rule has been applied to the higher taxa of plants. It therefore would
seem logical to follow this practice for names of higher zoological taxa—at
least in making emendations where a stem of a higher taxon has already been
established—as gordi- in Gordiacea.
My discussion of the status of compound words that include, as a suffix, a
derivative of »op¢7 should, I feel, explain why I hold that it is improper to
create a word Archescoleca or Archaeoscoleca and attribute it to Huxley.
The name of Huxley’s taxon Scolecida was derived only from oxwAné; your
alternative names are derived from dpxe- or dpyaios and oxwAné€. Linguistically
they are hardly equivalent to Scolecida; nor can they reasonably be so
nomenclatorially.
APPENDIX IV
A Summary of My Personal Views on Determining Names of Higher Taxa
1. General Principles
(1) I believe that the first consideration to be given to deciding the name
of a higher taxon is universality and stability of usage; to me—as in the
present Régles—this takes precedence over considerations of priority, etymology,
etc. if it appears to me that a given name is important and most widely used
as between two or more contenders, I don’t give a hoot or holler whether it is
historically etymologically, or philologically legitimate ; where there is no
overriding consideration of usage, however, I feel that priority is the best
guide ;
(2) I believe that, once a name is decided upon, its documentation should
be determined : I hold that, as much as possible, this should be accomplished
as an exercise of nomenclature, with minimal obtrusion of taxonomic concepts ;
(3) I subscribe to the following further principles with respect to deciding
the author and date of the name of a given higher taxon :
(a) the author of a higher taxon (i.e., of the Order/Class- or Phylum-
Group) is the first person to use the name at any level above the Family-
Group (and for this purpose the adjectival group-endings can be ignored—
it is the stem [or root] that counts); the date is that of first usage ; it
makes no difference whether the original grouping was unnatural, as
long as it held a genus that would fit as a modern type genus of the taxon ;
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 533
(b) where the original nominal group was taxonomically unnatural,
I do not believe that, from the point of view of nomenclature, any
recognition of the restricting author need be extended by analogy with
the treatment of lower taxa (promotion or demotion of rank can, however,
usefully be indicated by the device of parentheses; and changes in
spelling [of the ending and, to a limited extent, of the stem] can be indicated
by the device of square brackets) ;
(c) if, however, it were desired to indicate that some other than
the original author were responsible for the taxonomic concept of a given
nominal group, this could be indicated by using “ sensu” followed by
author and date.
2. The meaning of §, #, and {, of another symbol { and of the word “ partim ”’
(1) By § I mean that a name, as originally used, contained groups not
now in the group bearing the name, or, in the case of a synonym, not in the
group with which it is synonymized; from the nomenclatural standpoint,
however, I regard such groups as more or less co-extensive and as having the
same type genus ;
(2) by # I mean that a name, as originally used, did not contain a group
or groups known at the time the name was proposed and now included in the
group bearing the name, or, in the case of a synonym, now in the group in which
the synonym is listed ; from the nomenclatural standpoint, I again regard such
groups as more or less co-extensive and having the same type genus ;
(3) by ¢ I mean that a name, as originally used, applied to a group now
entirely included within, but comprising only a part of, the group with which
it is synonymized ; such groups have a type genus different from that of the
group with which the included group is submerged, but the type genus of the
included group is considered as not being separable, at least for the time being,
from that of the including group ;
(4) with “‘ partim”’ I had wished to convey a quite different concept
(I now feel I should abandon this proposal) ; what I had intended was that,
where two or more groups were originally united under a name, but would at
present be regarded as not belonging together and where no one had restricted
the name to one of the natural group originally included and, furthermore, I
should not wish to restrict it, I should list the name in the synonymy of each
of the originally included groups, but qualify it in each case with “ partim” ;
this was meant to indicate immediately that the name in question would be
found in the synonymy of more than one group (you have, I believe, misunder-
stood this ; the fault is, however, mine for not being clear) ; I now think that
another symbol should be used and propose + (which, appropriately enough,
also means dead) ;
534 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(5) I now have decided that ‘‘ partim”’ should be restricted to the sense
in which it is usually applied in generic synonymies—viz., to qualify a group
name that, when first proposed, included that nominal group (or members
of that group) in whose synonymy the name is being listed, but that, as now
treated, does not or should not contain the former (or members of the former).
All these symbolic devices are designed to convey taxonomic concepts
in what is otherwise a formalistic nomenclatural system.
3. Possible Modification and Amplification of Existing Rules
I have given what I consider the most reasonable analysis of the Régles
as they apply to higher taxa. However, I am not strongly wedded to any one
nomenclatural system. I can see some virtue in the argument that nomen-
clature and taxonomy should be brought somewhat more into line and that
the rules for crediting authorship for higher taxa might be somewhat different
from those used for families, genera, and species—or, what is implied more
basically, that the choice of a name for a given taxon should be governed by
considerations of systematic naturalness of the Group. But this, I feel, would
be an exceedingly difficult thing to implement as an explicit provision of the
Régles, requiring, as it would, a new departure in nomenclature, with, I am sure,
unpredictable ramifications.
It may be admitted, however, that considerations such as the taxonomic
naturalness have obviously played a decisive role in deciding in many
zoological groups the names that are generally used. By consequence, such
names will doubtless find their way on to the lists of names for zoological taxa
such as are called for by the Copenhagen decision in this connection. Therefore,
from this standpoint, the departure, mentioned in the immediately preceding
paragraph, from past nomenclatural practices will, after all, play an inevitable
role. But I believe that the Copenhagen provision that results in what you
call a “ popularity contest ” handles this problem neatly and avoids a most
difficult impasse—viz., the obtrustion of taxonomic considerations into
nomenclature to an extent that would greatly reduce nomenclatural stability.
I am sure that it is precisely because of this difficulty (which was perceived,
but not exhaustively discussed) that the Copenhagen Congress on Zoological
Nomenclature decided to have “lists’’ of names for the higher taxa of
organisms prepared by “ panels of specialists”. The issue of applying priority
was specifically by-passed in this situation, although priority was declared
binding in determining the status of names for higher categories created in the
future. The effect of this is that experts in each group have a chance to express
preference for a given name or set of names on any basis they desire. This the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 535
taxonomic problem tends to be divorced from the nomenclatural; for
nomenclature would be fixed only after experts had decided the names in each
group on whatever grounds they regarded as suitable.
A further effort to avoid, as much as possible, the intrusion of taxonomy
into formal nomenclature was the Copenhagen decision to require type genera
for higher taxa. Such type genera are meant to anchor names (i.e.,
nomenclatural entities) into taxonomic systems.
In essence, the points that we have been arguing back and forth these
past months are ones in which we have failed to agree on the relative roles of
nomenclature and taxonomy (or systematics, if you will) in determining the
choice of names.
I repeat—I hold that a nomenclatural system that depends as little as
possible on taxonomic concepts—.e. is ‘‘ automatic ’—is the best. Otherwise
one is continually beset with problems of whether a given name should or
should not be used because the taxonomic concept originally embraced by it
is not that accepted today.
But what we have been arguing over is certain to reach the International
Commission. We could no doubt serve a valuable function by organising our
thinking, including our conflicting views, and presenting all for the
Commission’s consideration.
APPENDIX V
Application of the “‘ Régles ’’ to the names
Nemata vs. Nematoda, etc.
With the background of Appendices II-IV we can now conclude with a
discussion of the relative status of Nemata and of Nematoda and its variants.
First of all, let us make clear the taxonomic (and systematic) problems.
Both of us recognize that, in the nemas and horse-hair worms, we have two
groups of independent phyla. We obviously need names for these taxonomic
entities. So far there is, I am sure, no disagreement.
I believe we also agree on the essential historical facts—the earlier ones at
least. Originally the name Nematoidea was given to an order containing both
nemas and horse-hair worms—though primarily the former. This nominal]
order was, we feel, unnatural. Subsequently the Nematoidea (and various
536 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
linguistic equivalents : Nematodes, Nematoda, etc.) fluctuated from the level
of Order down to that of Family and up to that of Phylum, in accordance with
the views of various investigators. Although the horse-hair worms were taken
out of the nominal group Nematoidea by von Siebold in 1843, certain nemas
(especially mermithids) were confusedly placed with the horse-hair worms
until Vejdovsky in 1886 clearly distinguished between the two groups and
segregated the latter (as in the order Nematomorpha) from the former.
A point that we have never discussed is that Vajdovsky, at the same time as
he made a logical grouping for Nematomorpha, restricted the vernacular
term “Nematoden”’ to an “ Ordnung” for the nemas and thus created a
completely natural nemic taxon. I do not know who was the first person to
translate Vejdovsky’s concept into a formal neo-Latin word, but it is to be
noted that Grobben (1909) had “ Ordnungen ”’ Nematodes and Nematomorpha
in his Klasse Aschelminthes. So it seems clear that at least one variant of the
word “‘ Nematoda ”’ was validly restricted to the nemas before Cobb created
his phylum for them in 1919.
Now it appears that, under your Rule, the correct name for the Phylum
of nemas would be Nemata. But what do the present Régles require ?
Insofar as they provide a guide, the following are the interpretations that
appear to me to fit the Régles most closely :
(1) Nematoidea Rudolphi, 1808, is coordinate with all taxa of that name
above the level of the Family-Group ;
(2) Nematoda Diesing, 1861, an orthographic variant of Nematoidea, is
the name that would win, hands down, under the Régles “‘ popularity
contest” provision; B. G. Chitwood is almost alone in favoring
Nemata ;
(3) Nematoda as a taxon was validly restricted to the nemas—at least by
Grobben (1910) and probably earlier ;
(4) in its promotion to phylar rank it must be reckoned as having main-
tained the same priority that it had at a lower level (see Copenhagen
Decisions .. . , 1953, Decision 66 [pp. 41-42]) ; at the phylar level
it therefore has priority over Nemata Cobb, 1919, even though it
was promoted subsequently by Potts.
Now, I don’t hold that all these rules are necessarily good ones. I tend to
question, for example, that a promoted name should have priority over another
name if the promotion was done after the latter was proposed. This is a point
that the International Commission should, I think, re-examine. If they
reverse themselves on it, then, of course, Pott’s promotion of Nematoda would
not affect Nemata Cobb, 1919.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 537
However, we are still left with Lankester’s phylum Nematoidea. By
designation of a nemic genus as type, this would automatically become the
name of the phylum of nemas under the Law of Priority even if coordination
were done away with. To invalidate Lankester’s group, the type system for
higher taxa would have to be junked also.
In sort, I now conclude that I must point out in a demurring footnote in
our paper that Nemata can only be validated either by changing the present
Regles drastically, or by appealing for its preservation under the “ popularity
contest ’’ provision.
My position is, as I have stated consistently, that Nematoda is the name
of choice. If we accept this merely for the sake of argument, then how should
it be documented ? Using the device of parentheses to allow indication of the
person to promote it to the rank in which I accept it and of square brackets to
fix responsibility for the spelling now used, one would have :
Nematoda ({Rudolphi, 1808] Diesing, 1861) Lankester, 1877.
Now, if it were to seem desirable to indicate also the sense in which this
name is being used—.e., the person responsible for the taxonomic concept
associated with the name, this could be indicated with the device of “ sensu ’’.
One should then have :
Phylum Nematoda ([Rudolphi, 1808] Diesing, 1861) Lankester, 1877,
sensu Potts, 1932.
An even more extended version, which would indicate the fact that Lankester
did not use the spelling Nematoda, would be :
Phylum Nematoda [([Rudolphi, 1808] Diesing, 1861) Lankester, 1877]
Potts, 1932.
By this one would know that Rudolphi was responsible for the original word
but did not spell it Nematoda, Diesing was the first one to use the present
spelling, Lankester was the first to use it for a phylum, but not with the spelling
Nematoda, and Potts was the first to use the spelling Nematoda at the phylar
level. All of these are primarily nomenclatural facts and are not meant to
document the historical sequence of taxonomic concepts that have been meant
by Nematoda and its variants. The one taxonomic fact that would have to
underly all, however, is that, in all its permutations, nomenclatural and
taxonomic, Nematoda would be conceived as having the same type genus.
I realize that this leaves Cobb out, but to me the purpose of giving names
and dates is, first and foremost, to document the nomenclatural facts. The
taxonomic concepts are subordinate to these nomenclatural facts. It would, I
KK
538 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
believe, be incorrect to put Cobb’s name in the foregoing series because his
word Nemates (or, emended, Nemata) is of different classic origin and thus
should be treated as nomenclaturally different from Nematoidea and its
variants, including Nematoda.
Lists of author’s names such as follow Nematoda in the foregoing examples
would obviously not be used except in places where detailed nomenclatural
documentation would be needed. In most cases, one could write merely the
‘Phylum Nematoda Rudolphi, 1808” or possibly the ‘ Phylum Nematoda
Rudolphi, 1808, sensu Potts, 1932”.
In finishing this difficult discussion, I might cite a few examples of the way
in which I should apply the symbolism—§, #, { and +. The examples can
appropriately center around Nemata, etc. Since I have agreed that in the long
paper your views should prevail in the text, I must assume first of all that the
phylar name Nemata is to be used for the nemas. I believe that the main
entry should be :
Phylum Nemata [Cobb, 1919] Pearse, 1936
The synonymy would be as follows :
+ Intestina Linn., 1758 (Ordo-p. [n.v.]) [here { is used in the sense proposed
in this letter ; ‘“‘ | Intestina ” would also need to be listed in the synonymy of
the subkingdom Amera.]
§ Nematoidea Rud., 1808 (Ordo—pp. 197, 198) [here the § means that
organisms (viz., certain horse-hair worms) were originally in Rudolphi’s order,
but we exclude them; it also means, however, that the type of genus of
Rudolphi’s order is reckoned as the same as that of the phylum Nemata)].
. . . [sundry names].
Gordiacea von Siebold, 1843 (Ordnung—pp. [362], 303), partim [here
“‘ partim” is used in the sense in which it is redefined earlier in this letter ;
Gordiacea is included in this form in the synonymy of Nemata because it
originally included certain nemas (mermithids), but no longer does].
+ Nematalmia Vogt, 1851 (Klasse—pp. 174, 175) [here the f is used instead
of “ partim ” in accordance with the revision proposed earlier in this letter].
+ Nematoidei Vogt, 1851 (Ordnung—p. 181) [here the # is used because
Vogt’s order did not include all nemas (i.¢., the mermithids were excluded)].
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 539
The foregoing examples should serve, I feel, to indicate how the symbols
would function. I think, however, that using them for names in the Family-
Group would be too complicated (at least at this time) for an enormous amount
of checking would be required. I therefore propose that, if we are to use these
symbols for the higher taxa, we nevertheless not use them for names in the
Family-Group (except perhaps for t) and that this fact be specifically stated.
540 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 25/5
The relative merits of the Class names “ Polyzoa’’ and “ Bryozoa ”’
By D. A. BROWN
(Senior Lecturer in Geology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand)
(Letter dated 24th November 1953)?
As it seems likely, from my reading of recent numbers of the Bulletin
of Zoological Nomenclature, that the Commission will soon make pronouncements
on the naming of Taxonomic Categories above the Family level, I am prompted
to make some observations in regard to the relative merits of the names Polyzoa
and Bryozoa (Reference: Document 4/3, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 10:3). As an
active worker on the group, I may say, from the outset that I firmly support
the late Sir Sidney Harmer’s preference for the term ‘“ Polyzoa ” for reasons
that will appear below.
First, there is no question as to the priority in time of J. Vaughan
Thompson’s “ Polyzoa’”’. This point was fully dealt with by Harmer during
the discussion on the two names by the Linnean Society of London in 1910
(Proc. linn. Soc. Lond. Session 123, esp. pp. 70-71).
Second, it is quite clear that Thompson recognized the Polyzoa as a
distinct type of structure in the Animal Kingdom and his term “ Polyzoa ”
may, therefore, quite fairly be used as that of a Class or Phylum.
In all the arguments over the relative merits of the terms Polyzoa and
Bryozoa it has often been contended that because of the quaint wording
employed by Thompson in his memoir (Zoological Researches, Memoir V,
“On Polyzoa, a new animal discovered as an inhabitant of some Zoophites,
with a description of the newly instituted Genera of Pedicellaria and
Vesicularia ’’, December, 1830), the value of his term ‘“‘ Polyzoa”’ was never
1 This case has an associated Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1310.
Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 15, Double-Part 16/17 March 1958.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 541
quite certain, being sometimes employed in the singular, sometimes in the
plural, ‘‘ Polyzoae’’. In fact, one famous controversialist strongly suggested
that Thompson regarded the term as of generic value, a contention immediately
dispelled by the wording of the title to Thompson’s paper which shows that it is,
in fact, a group term.
A close examination of the various arguments that were put forward
at the aforementioned meeting of the Linnean Society of London in 1910, shows
that although Thompson’s Memoir was attacked vigorously on the grounds
of bad syntax and grammatical construction, there was no denying the praise
given to Thompson for the thoroughness of his researches and for his clear
understanding of the group of animals that he was studying. It was not what
he did but what he said that provided the proponents of the term “ Bryozoa ”
with their chief arguments.
Oddly enough, it was never suggested that any critical examination be
given to the work of the originator of the term “ Bryozoa”’, probably a mere
coincidence. The term was first introduced by C. G. Ehrenberg in a portion
of the “‘ Symboliae Physicae ” dated March 1831, a publication of much wider
distribution and availability than Thompson’s Memoir. (Incidentally, the late
Sir Sidney Harmer in his application, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 230-231, was
mistaken in thinking that the term “ Bryozoa ” did not occur in this work.)
Ehrenberg defined his Circulus Bryozoa in the following terms: “ Ore
anoque distinctis, tubo cibario perfecto. (Vibratio aperta ciliorum ope, an
omnibus? Ovipara et gemmipara, sponte nunquam dividua)”. This is
scarcely a precise diagnosis, but then let us see what Ehrenberg ascribes to his
Bryozoa. Not only what we call the Polyzoa but also a goodly portion of the
Corals, the Sertularian Hydroids, and probably some of the other Coelenterata.
So, although Ehrenberg’s definition does give the more important characters
of the Polyzoa, he had not, unlike Thompson, really discovered that they
were unique. It is even more surprising to find that eight years later (Phys.
Abhandl. K. Akad. Wiss., Berlin (1838), pp. 59-120, 1839), when Ehrenberg
brought out a fresh classification of the invertebrates, excluding insects, he
included in his Order Bryozoa not only the groups mentioned above, but also
added the Foraminifera, Thus, we may criticize Ehrenberg not only for what
he did but also for what he said.
While it may be argued that, in general, the term ‘‘ Bryozoa ” has been
employed more widely, geographically speaking, than the term “ Polyzoa ”’, it
is important to note that a large proportion of the work on the Phylum has
been done by workers who have spoken of these animals as Polyzoa (Busk,
Allman, Hincks, Norman, Kirkpatrick, MacGillivrary, Maplestone, Gray,
Johnston, Lang, and in our own time, Miss Hastings and, most famous of
all, the late Sir Sidney Harmer).
542 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
I believe that Vaughan Thompson's term “ Polyzoa ” should be universally
adopted, not only because of its clear priority in time, but also as @ tribute
to a scientific worker of great merit. (See Harmer, Bull. zool. Nomenel. 1 + 230-
931.) The obscurity of his published work should not be allowed to deprive
him of his right to recognition.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 543
DOCUMENT 25/6
Question of the name to be used for the Class typified by the genus
** Chiton ’’ Linnaeus, 1758
By L. R. COX
(British Museum (Natural History), London)
(Enclosure to a letter dated 23rd October 1956)?
It may be recalled that the nomenclature of higher taxonomic categories
was discussed in 1953 at the Copenhagen Colloquium, and that it was decided
that Committees of Specialists should be asked to make recommendations to the
‘Commission regarding the names to be adopted for taxa belonging to the
Order/Class-Group and to the Phylum-Group, it clearly not being the view
of the Colloquium that acceptance of such names should be determined
entirely by considerations of priority. No Committee of Specialists on the
Mollusca is, however, at present in existence, and the formation and operation
of such a Committee would appear likely to present considerable difficulties.
The applicant has, therefore, decided to submit the present case direct to the
Commission, making a definite recommendation in the hope that all workers
with views on the subject will express them in writing for the guidance of
members of the Commission.
2. There is much discrepancy in standard works of reference in the name
applied to the Class* of the Phylum Mollusca which is typified by the genus
Chiton Linné, 1758, and it is important that a decision should be reached as to
which name shall receive official acceptance.
3. The following are the names which have been proposed for this Class.
Loricata C. F. Schumacher, 1817, Essai d’un nouveau Systéme des habitations
des vers testacés, pp. 23, 35. Name applied to the “ divisio secunda ” of
the “‘ subsectio secunda ” of the Monothalami, which name was applied
* Or Order, in some systems of classification.
1 This case has an associated Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1110.
Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 15, Double-Part 16/17 March 1958.
544 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
to the “‘ premiére section générale ” of the “‘ Vers testacés’’. Chiton L.
was the sole genus mentioned and no diagnosis of the Loricata was
given.
Crepidopoda G. A. Goldfuss, 1820, Handbuch der Zoologie, Teil 1, pp. xiii,
624. Proposed as an Order of the Class Mollusca with Chiton L. as the
sole included genus. The characters of the Order were described.
Polyplacophora J. E. Gray, 1821, London Medical Repository, Vol. 15, p. 234.
Proposed, with a formal diagnosis, for an Order of the Class
Gasteropodophora of the Sub-Kingdom Mollusca equivalent to the
Linnean genus Chiton, three species of which were mentioned but
included in what appear to be intended as new genera Acanthochitona,
Lepidochitona and Cryptoplax.
Polyplaxiphora M. H. D. de Blainville, 1824, Dict. Sci. nat., Vol. 32, p. 380.
Regarded as a Class of the Mollusca co-extensive with the genus
Chiton L.
Placophora H. von Ihering, 1876, Jahrb. deutsch. malak. Ges., Jahrg. 3, p. 137.
Proposed for a Class of the newly erected Phylum Amphineura, the
Class being co-extensive with the family Chitonidae. A diagnosis was
given.
Polyplaciphora W. H. Dall, 1878, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., Vol. 1, p. 300, emenda-
tion of Polyplacophora.
Polybranchiata J. W. Spengel, 1881, Zeits. wiss. Zool., Vol. 35, p. 356.
Proposed for the chitons as an alternative name to Polyplacophora.
Lepidoglossa J. Thiele, 1893, in F. H. Troschel, Das Gebiss der Schnecken,
Vol. 2, p. 353. Proposed for the chitons as an alternative name to
Polyplacophora, referring to the characters of the radula.
The name Amphineura was proposed by H. von Ihering (1876, Jahrb. deutsch.
malak. Ges., Jahrg. 3, p. 136) for a Phylum founded to include the Classes
Aplacophora (= families Chaetodermata and Nemeniadae) and Placophora,
and excluded from the Mollusca. It was thus not synonymous with the series
of names under consideration, and further reference need not be made to it.
4. Of the above names for the chitons, all except Loricata, Polyplacophora
and Placophora have been generally disregarded and may be rejected without
further discussion. Of the three names just mentioned, I list below those
employed in (a) standard works of reference, (b) titles of a number of papers
by modern authors :—
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 545
(a) In standard works of reference
P. Fischer, Manual de Conchyliologie (1880-7)
K. Zittel, Handbuch der Palaeontologie (1881-5)
H. A. Pilsbry, Tryon’s Manual of Conchology
Vol. 14 (1892)
A. H. Cooke, “‘ Molluses ” in Cambridge
Natural History (1895)
H. A. Pilsbry, Eastman’s edit. of Zittel’s
Textbook of Palaeontology (1900)
H. Simroth and H. Hoffman in Bronn, Klassen
und Ordnungen des Tierreichs (1929)
T. J. Parker and W. A. Haswell,
Text Book of Zoology (1940)
J. Thiele, Handbuch der Systematischen
Weichtierkunde (1929-31)
R. Winckworth, The British Marine Mollusca,
Journ. Conch. Vol. 19 (1932)
C. Dechaseaux in Piveteau, T'raité de
Paléontologie (1952)
A. M. Jakovleva, Tab. anal. Fauna U RSS,
No. 45 (1952)
S. Hirase and Isao Taki, Illustrated Handbook
of Shells (1954)
Zoological Record for 1953 (1955)
Polyplacophora
Placophora
Polyplacophora
Polyplacophora
Polyplacophora
Polyplacophora
Placophora
Loricata
Loricata
Polyplacophora
Loricata
Polyplacophora
Polyplacophora
(b) Titles of papers (taken from the ‘* Zoological Record ’’)
Iredale and Hull (1927), Loricata; Hull and Risbec (1931), Loricata ;
V. Fretter (1937), Polyplacophora; H. Leloup (1937-1952 numerous papers),
Polyplacophora; J. R. M. Bergenhayn (1930-2), Loricata; J. R. M.
Bergenhayn (1937 and 1946), Polyplacophora ;
C. M. Yonge (1939),
Loricata (Placophora) ; Cotton and Weeding (1940), Loricates (vernac.) ;
L. Arvy and M. Gabe (1949), Polyplacophora ; M. Gabe and H. Prenant
(1949), Polyplacophora; Z. A. de Castellanos (1952), Polyplacophora ;
P. Kaas (1953), Loricata ; J. R. M. Bergenhayn (1955), Loricata.
5. Although use of the name Loricata has increased in recent years,
probably because of the importance which has been attached to priority,
Polyplacophora still appears to be the most widely accepted name for the
546 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
chitons. An objection to Loricata lies in the fact that this name has been also
used both in Mammalia and Reptilia, although it should be mentioned that
authorities who have been consulted do not favour its adoption in either of these
groups.
6. In view of the foregoing considerations I now make application to the
Commission :—
(1) To accept the name Polyplacophora as the valid name for the
Molluscan Class typified by the genus Chiton Linné and to place
it on the Official List of Names in the Order|Class Group in Zoology.
(2) To place the names Loricata, Crepidopoda, Polyplaxiphora, Placophora,
Polyplaciphora, Polybranchiata and Lepidoglossa, for each of
which the genus Chiton Linné, 1758, is here designated as type genus,
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in the Order|Class
Group in Zoology.
(3) To place the generic name Chiton Linné, 1758, on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology.
(4) To declare that the species Chiton tuberculatus Linné, 1758, shall be
accepted as type species of the genus Chiton Linné, 1758, in
accordance with the designation of W. H. Dall (1878, Proc. U.S.
nat. Mus., Vol. 1, p. 297), thereby setting aside any prior designation
of any of the other three original Linnean species that may have
been made.*
(5) To place the specific name Chiton tuberculatus Linné, 1758, on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
(6) To place the family name currontpaz C. F. Rafinesque, 1815 (published
in the form curTTon1a and emended to currontmaz by J. E. Gray,
1834) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology.
* Dodge (H.), (1952), Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist., Vol. 100, p. 19, states that “in the
Tenth Edition Linnaeus listed only four species in this genus : hispidus, tuberculatus,
and punctatus. Of the four only one, tuberculatus, has been identified ”’.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 547
DOCUMENT 25/7
Order/Class Group Names in Zoology with special reference to the
name to be used for the Order of Insects comprising the Fleas
By G. H. E. HOPKINS
(British Museum (Natural History), The Zoological Museum,
Tring, Herts., England)
(Enclosure to a letter dated 8th August 1957)!
In 1953 (Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature, Decisions
56-69) provision was made for the first time concerning the methods to be used
in determining what names shall be applied to taxa above the Family-Group
level. Such names are to be fixed (‘‘ defined ’’) by selection of a type genus for
each, and the mode of procedure proposed is that a Committee of Specialists
in each major group of the Animal Kingdom should draw up lists of
recommended names and of objectively invalid names within the field of their
speciality ; in drawing up these lists first consideration is to be given to weight
of usage, other considerations (such as priority) being set aside unless usage
affords no clear basis for choice.
2. The decision that priority is not to be the main consideration in choice
of names is most wise and necessary, but the procedure suggested seems to
me to be hopelessly cumbersome, and the prospects of arriving at a conclusion
by following it seem to be well indicated by the fact that no committees of
specialists have been set up in the four years since it was decided upon.
Moreover, an attempt to find out what names must be taken into account
in the case of the fleas (Hopkins, 1951, Entomologist 84 : 208-214) has
convinced me not only that there is a strong probability that there are many
names in the Order/Class group which have been entirely overlooked ever since
their publication, but that it is extremely undesirable that objective invalidity
should be the only criterion for declaring names in this category to be
SS a Ses oh ae ee 8 a eee
* This case has an associated Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1309.
Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 15, Double-Part 16/17 March 1958.
548 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
unavailable. In the groups of insects on which I work the Order/Class group
of names includes few, if any, objective synonyms because few, if any, selections
of a type genus have been made, and it is most undesirable that any such
selections should be made hastily lest unwanted names in one major group of
animals should be much-wanted by workers in another field of zoology. Taking
the fleas as an example, several names in the Order/Class group which have
been applied to them also applied originally to other orders of insects, and to
select as type genus of such taxa a genus of fleas would preclude their use by
workers on any of these other orders.
It seems to me that a much simpler procedure would be more likely to be
effective, and that, since my suggestions involve the substitution of an
individual for the Committee of Specialists, it is essential that in the early stages
any action taken by him must be provisional. I also think that the rejection
of priority as the main criterion by which names are to be accepted or rejected
makes it possible and desirable to set a time-limit in considering whether a
given name is, or has been, in general use. My suggestions are as follows :—
(1) A single specialist in each major group of the Animal Kingdom should
be invited (or may volunteer) to draw up, for the group of animals
with which he is concerned, a list of names in the Order/Class-Group
which are in general use, or have been in general use within the last
25 years, together with his recommendations as to which of them
should be accepted (with his reasons for the recommendations) and
as to the genus which should be selected as the type of each. These
recommendations and selections of type genera to be provisional,
having no validity until endorsed by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.
(2) The list to be published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature to
permit any interested specialist to put forward objections to any of
the recommendations or suggestions for additions to the list of
recommended names.
(3) After a suitable period, which I suggest might be six months, all
proposals to which no objection has been made to be automatically
accepted. All disputed proposals to be decided by the members
of the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature through
the ordinary voting procedure. Names decided upon in this way
to be dealt with as follows :—
(a) Accepted names to be placed on the Official List ;
(b) A declaration to be made that all other names in the Order/Class-
group, which have been proposed, prior to the date of the
declaration, for taxa within the group of the Animal Kingdom
dealt with in the list concerned are to be regarded as invalid for
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 549
all purposes within the group of the Animal Kingdom with
which the list in question is concerned.
ANNEXE TO DOCUMENT 25/7
(Communicated to the Office of the Commission under cover
of a letter dated 9th July 1957?)
An annotated list of the Order/Class-group names which have been
proposed for the fleas seems desirable, since its publication will afford an
opportunity for workers on the group to inform me of their opinions as to
names which should be adopted. A special complication is that the fleas
form so homogeneous a group that they are now universally regarded as an
order divisible directly into superfamilies without the intervention of suborders ;
this raises the question whether names proposed for supposed suborders and
based on characters now known to be fallacious ought to be preserved or
abolished. Readers will find that the list differs considerably from that of
Costa Lima and Hathaway (1946, Pulgas, p. 89) as regards some of the early
references, particularly to works by French authors. This is because Costa
Lima and Hathaway, who evidently did not have access to some of the rare
books concerned, inevitably accepted the statements of later authors about these
names ; the statements were, however, often incorrect, since many of these
names were only put into Latin by the later authors and were originally
published as vernacular words and have no validity (note, e.g., that Lamarck,
1801, referred to Aptéres and not Aptera). The list is arranged by date.
Aptera Linn., 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1, p. 608. First restricted to the fleas
by Leach (1815, Brewster’s Edinburgh Encyclopaedia (ed. 1) 9 : 76,
126). This restriction is much earlier than Shipley’s action (1904, Zool.
Anz. 27, p. 260) in formally confining the name to another group of
insects, but the name has been used extensively for the latter group
and does not seem to have been employed for the fleas for at least a
hundred years.
Saltatoria Retzius, 1783 and Suctoria Retzius, 1783, Caroli... De Geer...
Genera et Species Insectorum, pp. iv, vi. ‘‘ Subordo 4. Saltatoria ”’ (p.iv)
and “Classis 11. Suctoria’” pp. iv, vi) both comprise only the fleas and
have definitions reasonably diagnostic of the order. Saltatoria, which
has page-precedence, has never been used again for the fleas but is in use
for one of the main divisions of the Orthoptera. Suctoria is one of the
three main claimants to be the correct name for the fleas.
* For a note explaining the origin of the present paper see paragraph 7 in the Secretary’s
introductory note (Document 25/1) on page 493 of the present volume.
550 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Rophoteira [Schellenberg & de Clairville], 1798, Entomologie Helvetique
1:44. The definition accompanying this name is by no means
diagnostic but could apply to the fleas. It has never been employed
for them, but Wagner (1939, Aphaniptera, p. 1) may be considered to
have restricted it to them by placing it in the synonymy of Aphaniptera.
(Siphonata “Illiger, 1807” Jordan, 1948, in Smart, Insects of medical
importance (ed. 2), p. 211). There is no such name, merely a remark
by Illiger “Hoc genus cel. Fabricio peculiarem ordinem praebebit,
cui nomen Siphonatorum est. I.’’. The supposed name is probably a
translation of the “‘Suceurs”’ of the early French writers, and is in
Latin merely because the whole work is in that language. Siphonata
has never been employed for the fleas, but Retzius used it in 1783
for the Homoptera. As applied to the fleas it dates from Jordan, 1948.
Medamoptera [Leach], [1815], in Brewster’s Edinburgh Encyclopaedia (ed. 1)
9:76. Leach defines “Century II. Medamoptera” in a way that
fits many insects besides the fleas, but it comprises only ‘‘ Order X.
Aptera”’, with which it is, therefore, synonymous. The definition of
Aptera given by Leach is also most unsatisfactory, but on p. 126 of
Leach’s work there is a definition which is diagnostic of the fleas and .
Suctoria Latreille is given as a synonym. The name Suctoria was
apparently first published by Retzius in 1783 and is discussed above,
but it was used by Latreille in 1805. Medamoptera has not been adopted
by any subsequent author.
Aphaniptera Kirby and Spence, 1815, Introduction to entomology (ed. 1) 1 : 69.
The date of this name has been variously given as 1816, 1818, 1822 and
1826, partly owing to a very natural confusion as to the actual date of
publication (new editions of the first two volumes of Kirby and Spence’s
work were published before the first editions of vols. 3 and 4) and partly
because of doubt as to whether it was anything but a nomen nudum
before 1826. However, the statement “consisting of the flea genus ”
is apparently a sufficient definition according to the new rules, and this
was published in 1815. The first definition was published in 1826
(Z'.c., vol. 4, p. 367) where it is explained that the name is based on the
belief (now known to be erroneous) that fleas have rudimentary or
vestigial wings. The fact that the name perpetuates an erroneous
belief is a main reason why many entomologists have refused to use it in
spite of claims that it had priority. It is, however, one of the chief
claimants to be the correct name of the order.
Siphonaptera Latreille, 1825 Fam. nat. Régne anim., p.334. The name was
published with a definition and the only complication is Latreille’s claim
that he had used the name earlier. If this was in a published work, the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 551
reference has never been traced. This name is one of the principal
claimants be the correct name for the fleas.
Suctoridea Walker, 1851, Insecta Britannica 1:4. Used again by Walker in
1856 (7c. 3, p. 1) and apparently never afterwards.
Proboscidea Walker, 1851 and Eproboscidea Walker, 1851, l.c., p. 4. These
names were proposed for fleas with the legs “ close side by side’ and
“ distant ” respectively. No examples are mentioned, the character is an
illusory one, and it is impossible to suggest to what groups of fleas
they were meant to apply. Nevertheless, the latter name is of some
importance because it could be used (by anyone who may in the future
consider the fleas to be divisible into suborders) on the grounds that
names based on non-existent characters are less objectionable than the
next senior subordinal names for the fleas, which are based on misleading
characters. They have never been used again.
Integricipita Oudemans, 1908, and Fracticipita Oudemans, 1908, Tijdschr.
Ent. 51 : 92. These names, like Proboscidea and Eprobiscidea, are
in a different category from all those used previously, since they
were proposed for suborders whereas all the previous names which
applied to the fleas to the exclusion of other insects were employed
for the whole order and are synonymical. Oudemans’ two names are
now disused, partly because no prominent worker on fleas now considers
it desirable to divide them into suborders, and partly because they are
based on a character now known to be of such trivial phylogenetic
importance that instances occur in which the male of a species is
fracticipit and the female integricipit. These four names seem to be
the only ones which were applied to supposed suborders of fleas, certain
others proposed by Oudemans which have the appearance of Order/Class
group names (Solitothoracica and Brevithoracica Oudemans, 1908,
Posttuberata, Intuberata, Longiclavata, Breviclavata, Dolichothoraca
and Brevithoraca Oudemans, 1909) applying to Family-group taxa.
Integricipita and Fracticipita were widely used at one time and were
employed as recently as 1946 in Costa Lima and Hathaway’s Pulgas,
though it is not clear whether these authors accepted them. They are
extremely objectionable because they convey the incorrect suggestion
that the fracticipit or integricipit nature of the head is of fundamental
importance.
Psyllomorpha Eysell, 1913, in Mense, Handb. Tropenkr. 1:81. Apparently
never used by any other author.
Siphonata Jordan, 1948, in Smart, Insects of medical importance (ed. 2) : 211.
This name has already been discussed under its erroneous attribution to
Illiger, 1807.
552 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
It seems to me that the simplest and most satisfactory method of dealing
with this problem would be for the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature to declare either Siphonaptera or Aphaniptera (according to the
wishes of the majority of specialists on fleas) to be the valid name of the Order
and to declare all other names which have been proposed for the Order or for
Suborders within it to be unavailable for this Order or for any taxon contained
within it, thus not affecting their availability, if required, for any other group
of the Animal Kingdom. It is not clear, however, whether this method would
be permissible under the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature at
present in force.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 553
DOCUMENT 25/8
Question of the Rules for the naming of Orders and taxa of higher rank
Views expressed by HENNING LEMCHE!
(Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen)
(a) Letter dated 13th July 1957 from HENNING LEMCHE
On certain occasions I have worked with problems concerning systematic
matters of taxons higher than the Family-Group level. During such work, it is
my experience that it is imperative to be able in some way or other to compare
different views set forth by different authors, and to discuss their value. In all
such cases, it is almost prohibitive to a lucid discussion if the same names are
to be applied to different contents in different systematics, whereas discussion
is easy if the names used in the conflicting views are all different.
For these reasons, I hereby make the formal proposal to the I.C.Z.N. that
a paragraph be inserted in the Rules that
(1) Names of taxons of higher order than the Family-Group level are sub-
ject to the Rule of Priority only if they are used to designate the same complex
of taxons of lower order.
Similarly, I ask that a Recommandation is adopted that
(2) In cases where a revision of some group necessitates the introduction
of new and strongly deviating taxons of higher rank than the Family-Group
level, authors are requested not to change the contents of the old names but to
introduce new ones for their new ideas, in order that discussion of the relative
value of the old and new systematic views may go on with as little confusion
as possible.
The central thing is that, as long as we are on the specific or generic levels, a
change of a name means that those acquainted with the old name is at a loss
when confronted with a new one. On the Family-Group level, already, this
1 While the present Part was passing through the press, a further communication in regard
to this problem was received from Dr. Lemche. This has been allotted the Document
Number 25/10, and will be published in the next available Part of the present volume.
Bull. zoob. Nomencl. Vol. 15, Double-Part 16/17 March 1958.
554 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
is no more the case, since the family-name is based on a generic name which
should be familiar—or at least identifiable—to the specialist. Names of higher
categories stand exclusively for systematic ideas, and changes in their content
deprive them of every value, as nobody will know what idea is behind the name
in each single case when he meets it. Thus, stability obtained by giving
priority to names of higher taxons means stability to empty names, whereas
the ideas behind are left in the utmost confusion.
(b) Letter dated 19th July 1957 from FRANCIS HEMMING
to HENNING LEMCHE
I agree with you that the Principle of Priority is one which should be applied
to Order/Class names with the greatest care, even if it is to be applied at all.
Your letter, however, places me in a difficult position because, under the
Copenhagen Decisions, such names are not at present subject to priority at all.
Accordingly, as it seems to me, your proposal, that names of this type should
be subject to priority only in certain circumstances, represents a new departure
in the sense that if adopted it would bring these names to some extent under
the Law of Priority. I have a feeling that this is not the intention of your
proposal, your idea being rather to limit them to extend the application of the
Priority Principle at this level. Before I take any further action, I shall be
grateful to receive your comments on the point raised above. I take it that
I am right in concluding that you accept the view adopted by the Copenhagen
Congress that no progress can be made with stabilising Order/Class names
until type genera have been designated for the taxa in question.
(c) Letter dated 14th August 1957 from HENNING LEMCHE
As you correctly suppose it was never my intention to raise this question
but only to safeguard the freedom in systematic work on higher levels. Hence,
I should like to have my proposals regarded as subsidiary, only, i.e., to be used
as soon as any proposal to introduce priority on these levels is appearing, and
that my letter of July 13th should rest until such a situation arises.
Yes, I agree that no progress in stabilising these names can be made
without indicating type genera, but even then it is difficult to see how stabilisa-
tion of these names could avoid being stabilisation, and hence paralyzation, of
systematic work on higher levels.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 555
DOCUMENT 25/9
Petition requesting clarification of the date and authorship of the
Order/Class name “ Monoplacophora ”’
By
J. BROOKES KNIGHT
(Honorary Research Associate, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C., U WA.)
HENNING LEMCHE
(Universitetets Zoologiske M: useum, Copenhagen, Denmark)
and
ELLIS L. YOCHELSON
(United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)*
(Enclosure to a letter dated 16th September 1957)!
The Order/Class name Monoplacophora has come into usage for
patelliform mollusks, the soft anatomy of which has not undergone torsion.
Because of the phylogenetic importance of this group, the name will probably
be cited frequently in the future and a prompt opinion by the International
Commission of Zoological Nomenclature on the matter discussed below is
requested.
2. The first usage of the name is in an article by Wenz, 1940 (Arch. Moll.
72 : 5) as follows: “... als sich bei einem Besuche N. Hj. Odhner herausstellte,
* Publication authorized by the Director, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington 25, D.C.
1 This case has an associated Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1258.
Bull. z ool. Nomencel. Vol. 15, Double Part 16/17 March 1958.
556 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
dass er zu einer ahnlicher Auffasung gekommen war und meinte, mann kénnte
die Tryblidiacea geradezu als Monoplacophora bezeichnen ...”. A free
translation is as follows: “‘... during a visit N. Hj. Odhner stated that a
similar concept had come to him, and frankly he thought one might designate
the Tryblidiacea as Monoplacophora ...”. This is the only mention of
Monoplacophora in the entire paper. There is neither description, diagnosis, or
any other form of indication. The sentence quoted appears under a section
headed ‘“‘ Die Tryblidiacea’”’. So far as it is known the name Monoplacophora
was never used in any subsequent papers by Wenz or in any paper by Odhner.
8. The second usage of Monoplacophora is in a formal classification by
Knight, 1952 (Smiths. Misc. Coll. 117 : 47) where the taxon is considered an
order and diagnosed. Authorship of the term is attributed by Knight, 1952
(Smiths. Misc. Coll. 117: 5) to Wenz. From the text it seems clear that
Knight refers to the 1940 paper by Wenz. The third significant usage is a
formal definition of Monoplacophora as a Class by Lemche, 1957 (Nature
179 : 413-414). Authorship of the taxon is attributed by Lemche to Odhner,
1940. Except for a mention of the name by Kaestner, 1952 (Lehrb. Speziellen
Zoologie, Teil 1, Wirbellose (Lief. 2) : 229) so far as it is known, Monoplacophora
has not been formally used in other publications.
4. It is clear that ambiguity surrounds the first usage of Monoplacophora
and that the wording is subject to several different interpretations. We
request that date and authorship of the taxon Monoplacophora be decided
by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in accordance
with the Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature, Decision 114(3).
(1) The Commission is asked to choose among the three possibilities
given below as to authorship and date of the Order/Class name Monoplacophora :
(a) Wenz, 1940
(b) Ohdner in Wenz, 1940
(c) Knight, 1952
(2) The Order/Class name Monoplacophora with approved authorship
and date be placed on the Official List of Order|Class-Group Names in Zoology.
(3) Either (a) or (b) or both, depending on the decision of the Commission
be placed on the Official Index af Rejected and Invalid Order|Class-Group
Names in Zoology.
PURCHASED
3 1 MAR 1958
CONTENTS
(continued from front wrapper)
THE LONDON AGENDA PAPER
New Proposals
Case No. 25: Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 12, Section 1 : Names for taxa of the
Order/Class and Higher Categories
Page
D.25/1 Explanatory Note by Francis Hemming. . es ae =. a8
D.25/2—D.25/7 Problems arising in connection with particular groups
D.25/2 Class Echinoidea. By J. Wyatt Durham & R. V. Melville 497
D.25/3 Sub-Phylum Ciliophora. By John O. Corliss oe, a eee
D.25/4 Class Nematoda. By Ellsworth C. Dougherty .. «626
D.25/5 Classes Polyzoa and Bryozoa. By D. A. Brown .. .. 540
D.25/6 Group comprising the genus Chiton Linnaeus, 1758.
By L. R. Cox sf a es af vr .. 6543
D.25/7 Group in the Class Insecta piesa s e the Fleas. By
G. H. E. Hopkins .. eee
D.25/8 Question of the Rules for the naming of Orders and taxa of
higher rank. By Henning Lemche ie me .. 553
D.25/9 The Order/Class name Monoplacophora. By J. Brookes
Knight, Henning Lemche & Ellis L. Yochelson 35 555
© 1958. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Printed in England by METCALFE & Cooper LimiTeD, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2
VOLUME 15. Double-Part 18/19 9th April 1958
pp. 557-620
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
The Official Organ of
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
CONTENTS
Eighth Instalment of the London Congress Agenda Paper
(continued outside back wrapper)
aSED
s | 4 AP J
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
1958
Price Two Pounds
(All rights reserved)
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
A. The Officers of the Commission
Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jorpan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological
Museum, Tring, Herts, England)
President: Professor James Chester BrapuEy (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(12th August 1953)
Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMarat (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953)
Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemmine (London, England) (27th July 1948)
B. The Members of the Commission
(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent
re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)
Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
(ist January 1947)
Senor Dr. Angel Casrera (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948)
Mr. Francis Hemane (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)
Dr. Henning Lemcue (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948)
Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950)*
Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)
Mr. Norman Denbigh Ritey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950)
Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaczewsk1 (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw,
Poland) (15th June 1950)
Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt
a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950)
Professor Dr. Erich Martin Hrrine (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin,
Germany) (5th July 1950)
Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amanat (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President)
Professor J. R. Dymonpv (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953)
Professor J. Chester BRaDLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
(President) .
Professor Harold E. Voxzs (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana,
U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
Professor Béla Hanxé (Mezégazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)
Dr. Norman R. Srouu (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(12th August 1953)
Mr. P. C. SytvesteR-BraDbey (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953)
Dr. L. B. Hoxruuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th
August 1953)
Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra,
A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954)
Dr. Alden H. Mier (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California,
U.S.A.) (29th October 1954)
aT a Ferdinand Prantt (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October
)
Professor Dr. William Ktunext (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th
November 1954)
Professor F. S. BopennEmeER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954)
Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954)
Professor Enrico TortonEsE (Museo di Storia Naturale “ G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th
December 1954)
* Professor Esaki died on 14th December 1957, while the present Part was passing through
the Press.
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Volume 15, Double-Part 18/19 (pp. 557-620) 9th April 1958
- — ech
( Le os
BZ” ie eth)
CASE No. 26 Ge)
ST4L Histo“
DRAFT “ REGLES ” : PROPOSED SCHEDULE GIVING GUIDANCE
AS TO TRANSLITERATION OF WORDS FROM THE CYRILLIC
ALPHABETS TO THE LATIN ALPHABET WHEN SUCH WORDS
ARE USED AS ZOOLOGICAL NAMES
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 310)
DOCUMENT 26/1
On the problems involved in giving effect to the decision by the
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, for the
addition to the ‘‘ Régles ’’ of a Schedule giving guidance as to the
transliteration into the Latin alphabet of words normally written in
Cyrillic characters when such words are used as zoological names
By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
(Report dated 1st February 1958)
The purpose of the present Report is to give a brief account of the action
which has been taken for the purpose of drawing up a scheme for the
transliteration into the Latin alphabet of words normally written with Cyrillic
characters, when such words are used as zoological names. The immediate
purpose of drawing up such a scheme is to provide the material needed by the
forthcoming Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting to be
held in London in July of this year when it comes to consider the measures
needed to give effect to the decision by the Thirteenth International Congress
at Paris in 1948 that a Schedule giving such guidance be added to the Régles
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 229).
LL
558 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
2. At a very early stage it became apparent that the difficulties involved
in giving effect to the foregoing project were much more formidable than they
had appeared in Paris in 1948. Of these the most intractable is that there is
no general agreement of an international character as to the principles which
should be followed in transliterating words from Cyrillic characters into the
Latin alphabet. Not only is this so, but in addition there are two sharply
differentiated schools of thought as to the manner in which Cyrillic characters
having no counterpart in the Latin alphabet should be transliterated, the first
of these schools considering that such characters can best be transliterated by
adding diacritic marks to letters properly belonging to the Latin alphabet, the
second holding on the contrary that the better way is to indicate such
characters by combining two or more letters of the Latin alphabet. Thus, if a
Schedule of the kind contemplated is to be added to the Régles, it will be
necessary to make a choice as to which of the above approaches to the subject
is to be preferred, a matter on which it is too much to hope that complete
agreement will be easy to secure.
3. Second, the problem is considerably broader in scope than was realised
in Paris, for we are here concerned not with the transliteration of words
belonging to a single language using an alphabet very different in many ways
from the Latin alphabet, but with the transliteration of words belonging to
Slav languages using no less than five different alphabets, each written in
Cyrillic characters. If a generally acceptable basis could be devised for
transliterating the Cyrillic characters employed in the Russian language, the
difficulties involved by the foregoing complication would no doubt be capable
of solution. It would, however, be necessary to take account of the fact that
in some cases a particular letter does not have the same meaning in all the
Slav languages and that in some cases the same letter is pronounced differently
in different Slav languages. Moreover, a comprehensive scheme covering the
characters in all the Slav languages would substantially increase the number of
Latin-alphabet equivalents which would need to be found, the total number
required in that event being forty-eight.
4. The problem involved in the present case was given a new turn by the
decision by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen,
1953, to ban the use of diacritic marks over letters in words when used as
zoological names and to require that, where on the first publication of a
zoological name a diacritic mark was attached to one of the letters included
in the word of which that name was composed, the diacritic mark in question
was to be replaced by a combination of letters to be prescribed in a Schedule
to be attached to the Régles (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 57-58,
Decision 101). The immediate effect of this decision was, as will be appreciated,
to rule out of court all those systems for transliterating Cyrillic characters
which rely upon the use of diacritic marks (paragraph 2 above). Accordingly,
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 559
the only system of transliterating Cyrillic characters that would be consistent
with the foregoing decision by the Copenhagen Congress would be one by which
the Cyrillic characters not possessing equivalents in the Latin alphabet would
be rendered by specified combinations of letters belonging to the Latin alphabet.
5. At this point the consideration of the complicated and highly technical
problems involved was greatly assisted by the receipt from Drs. Alexey Almasov
and Estaban Boltovskoy (Buenos Aires, Argentina) of a communication
discussing the present problem and submitting provisional proposals for a
unified scheme of transliteration. These correspondents were at that time
unaware that the Copenhagen Congress had banned the use of diacritic marks
for zoological names and on their being notified of this decision it was necessary
for them to modify their scheme in respect of the one case where they had
recommended the use of a diacritic mark over a letter of the Latin alphabet
to denote a particular Cyrillic character. On receipt of the foregoing minor
amendment it was decided to put forward the scheme submitted by Drs.
Almasov and Boltovskoy as the basis for the discussion of the problems raised
by the Paris decision of 1948. That Plan was accordingly published in the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature on 31st January 1955 (Almasov (A.) &
Boltovskoy (E.), 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 7-18, 2 figs.). This fundamental
contribution to the consideration of the present subject is being reprinted for
inclusion in the London Agenda Paper where it appears as Document 26/2.
6. The plan prepared by Drs. Almasov and Boltovskoy was preceded by a
note prepared by myself as Secretary (Hemming, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencel.
11 : 4-7) in which I appealed to specialists to furnish comments on the scheme
thus thrown open for discussion. In view of the peculiar nature of the present
problem, the interest of which extended far outside the field of zoological
literature, it was decided that steps of an altogether exceptional character
should be taken by means of direct approaches to seek the views not only of
leading zoological institutions but also of institutions concerned with philology,
of great libraries on whose work also the present problem impinges, and also of
leading specialists likely to be interested. In pursuance of this decision four
hundred copies of the Plan drawn up by Drs. Almasov and Boltovskoy were
made available to the Office of the Commission by the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature. Part of these supplies was distributed direct from
the Office of the Commission, while the remainder was transmitted to the authors
of the Plan, who made themselves responsible for the distribution of the copies
so supplied to them. In view of the paramount interest of this question to
institutions and specialists inthe U.S.8.R. and other countries using Slav
tongues, the list of institutions to be consulted in those countries was drawn
up on an extremely comprehensive basis, the number of letters so issued
amounting to between eighty and ninety. The text of the letter issued in these
cases, together with particulars of the Institutions so consulted, is shown in the
Appendix attached to the present Report.
560 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
7. When at the time of its publication in 1955 the Plan prepared by
Drs. Almasov and Boltovskoy was thrown open for discussion by being
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature it was arranged that
comments on that Plan might be sent either to the Office of the Commission
or direct to Dr. Almasov, to whom also copies of comments received by the
Office of the Commission would be forwarded for information. It was then
contemplated that at the close of the investigation a comprehensive Report
would be prepared by Dr. Almasov covering the comments received from all
sources. Unfortunately, circumstances have prevented this arrangement from
being carried into effect. Im consequence, it is possible now only to present
those comments which were addressed to the Office of the Commission direct.
8. In all nine communications were received in regard to the present
matter ; in addition, consideration was given to the Scheme in respect of
certain of the Slav languages drawn up by the Royal Society in 1953 for use for
bibliographical purposes. Four of the specialists who submitted comments
expressed varying degrees of interest in, and support for, the principles
underlying the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan but indicated disagreement with
certain of its provisions. The specialists concerned were: (1) Professor Dr.
E. M. Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt Universitat zu Berlin)
(Document 26/3); (2) Dr. G. Witenberg (Department of Parasitology, The
Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (Document 26/4); (3) Professor Dr.
Tadeusz Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw,
Poland) (Document 26/6); (4) Dr. Leo Sheljuzhko (Zoologische Sammlung
des Bayerischen Staates, Entomologische Abteilung, Miinchen, Germany)
(Document 26/9). Another zoologist, Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky (United States
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research
Branch, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.), while not commenting on the technical
issues involved in the Plan, expressed support for the principle that the use of
diacritic marks should be avoided which was embodied in it (Document 26/5).
Another zoologist, Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.)
took issue with the authors of the Plan on their adoption of an orthographic,
rather than a phonetic, basis for their scheme (Document 26/7). Dr. H. S.
Bushell (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London), after enumerating
the four conditions which a transliteration plan should satisfy, expressed the
view that one only of those conditions was met by the Almasov/Boltovskoy
Plan; Dr. Bushell commented particularly upon the difference in meaning
attaching to certain Cyrillic characters in various Slav countries and referred
to the consultations undertaken by the Royal Society when it drew up its plan
for “‘ The Transliteration of Russian, Serbian and Bulgarian for bibliographical
purposes ”’ (Documents 26/12 and 26/13) ; he believed that it was a weakness in
the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan that it attempted to provide for the needs not only
of zoological nomenclature but also for those of bibliography and was of the
opinion that it should be possible to devise a simpler and more satisfactory
scheme, if its purpose were to be strictly confined to zoological nomenclature
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 561
(Document 26/10). In November 1956 two letters on this subject were
received from P. J. M. Geelan who, after drawing attention to the schemes for
the transliteration of Russian and Bulgarian Place Names drawn up by the
Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use
(Document 26/14), added the personal opinion that the best course would
be for the International Congress of Zoology to adopt one or other of the national
transliteration systems for use in zoological nomenclature (Document 26/11).
9. Finally, and, in my opinion, of outstanding importance in the present
connection is a letter dated 5th September 1955 which was received from Dr.
D. M. Steinberg, Vice-Director of the Zoological Institute of the Academy of
Sciences of the U.S.S.R., covering a statement signed by Dr. A. A. Reformatsky
on behalf of the Institute setting out the opinion of the Bureau of the Section
of General and Comparative Linguistics of the Institute of Linguistics of the
Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R. (Document 26/8). In this latter
document objection was raised to the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan and a method
of transliteration involving an extensive use of diacritic marks was advocated.
In the covering letter from the Institute of Zoology the foregoing Plan was
examined not from a purely linguistic point of view but from the standpoint
of zoological nomenclature. As regards this, the Institute of Zoology found
the Plan, so far as it was related to the Russian alphabet “ quite acceptable
with the exception of the letter No. 39 ('b), which we think more desirable
to succeed by the sign (”), when used in the middle of words, and omit when
used at the end of words”. As regards letters used not only in the Russian
alphabet, but also in the Ukrainian and Belorussian languages, the Institute
of Zoology expressed the view that it was desirable, if possible, that the views
should be sought of the Academies of Sciences of the Ukrainian and Belorussian
8.8.R. respectively.
10. As regards the point raised in the second part of the reply received
from the Institute of Zoology of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., it
must be recalled at this point that, as shown in the Appendix to the present
paper, the Academies of Sciences of the Ukrainian and Belorussian $8.8.R. were
invited to submit observations on the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan in April 1955
at the same time that similar invitations were issued to the Academy of Sciences
of the U.S.S.R. and to the Academies of Sciences of other Republics in the
Soviet Union. No replies were, however, received either from the Academy
of Sciences of the Ukrainian S8.S.R. or from the Academy of Sciences of the
Belorussian §.8.R.
11. Looking at the comments received as a whole, it seems reasonable to
conclude :—
(a) that the various systems (such as those discussed in paragraph 8 above),
e.g., in Documents 26/12 and 26/14 which involve at least some use of
diacritic marks are unsuitable for use for zoological nomenclature ;
562
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(b) that the system which is required for zoological nomenclature is one
based on the principles embodied in the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan
under which the Cyrillic characters which have no direct equivalent
in the Latin alphabet would be rendered in that language (as used
for zoological nomenclature) by combinations of letters, the use
of diacritic marks being avoided ;
(c) that, as pointed out in a number of the documents submitted (e.g.,
in Documents 26/6 and 26/11), it would be undesirable to adopt
for zoological nomenclature any system, however technically
ingenious, that represented the views of individuals only and that
what is required is a scheme which will both be suitable for
zoological nomenclature (by reason of the avoidance of diacritic
marks) and will command the support of important national bodies
concerned generally with the present problem ;
(d) that, having regard to the fact that the subject under consideration
is the transliteration of characters from the Cyrillic alphabets,
particular weight should be given to the views expressed by
Institutions in the U.S.8.R. and other countries, the mother tongue
of which is written in Cyrillic characters ;
(e) that the communication received from the Institute of Zoology of the
Academy of Sciences of the U.S.8S.R. (Document 26/8) justifies the
conclusion that, so far as the Russian alphabet is concerned,
the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan, would be acceptable to zoologists
in the U.S.8.R., subject to the adoption of the suggestion made
by the Institute of Zoology in regard to Letter No. 39 ;
(f) that, as the Academies of Sciences of the Ukrainian and Belorussian
8.8.R. did not respond to the invitation that they should comment
on the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan, it may be assumed that no objection
is felt by those bodies towards those parts of that Plan which specially
concerns the transliteration of words belonging to the Ukrainian and
Belorussian languages respectively.
12. In the circumstances the following propositions are submitted for
consideration :—
(1) that, subject to the amendment as regards Letter No. 39 recommended
by the Institute of Zoology of the Academy of Sciences of the
U.S.S.R., the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan relating to the transliteration
of Cyrillic characters into the Latin alphabet be approved for the
purposes of zoological nomenclature ;
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 563
(2) that a Section embodying the foregoing portion of the Plan be inserted
in the First Schedule to the Régles as the method which zoologists
are recommended to follow when transliterating from Cyrillic
characters to letters of the Latin alphabet words intended to be used
as Latinised zoological names.
APPENDIX TO DOCUMENT 26/1
(a) Copy of a letter despatched by the Office of the Commission on
2nd February 1955 to certain institutions in the U.S.S.R. and
in other countries using Slav languages
Transliteration of words normally written in Cyrillic characters
for the purpose of forming zoological names
On behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
I write toseek the views of your Institution on the question of the method
to be adopted for transliterating words normally written in Cyrillic characters
for the purpose of forming zoological names.
In this connection I have to refer to two decisions taken by the
International Congress of Zoology which bear upon this matter. First, the
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, decided to attach
to the Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique a Schedule giving
advice as to the manner in which words normally written in Cyrillic characters
should be transliterated for the purposes of zoological nomenclature. Second,
the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, decided
(a) to abolish the use of diacritic marks over letters of words when used as
zoological names, and (b) for the purpose of forming zoological names to
prescribe methods for indicating by means of the addition of a supplementary
letter, a letter which would otherwise have borne a diacritic mark, for example
by adding the letter “e” to denote, in the case of a German word a modified
letter “u’”’ in place of using an umlaut.
In view of the decisions indicated above, the system of transliteration
to be embodied in the Régles Internationales for the formation of zoological
names based upon words derived from languages using one or other of the
564 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Cyrillic alphabets will necessarily differ in certain respects from any of the
transliteration systems hitherto devised.
In order to make a start with the study of this important problem, the
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature has published in its Bulletin
of Zoological Nomenclature a paper by MM. Alexey Almasov and Esteban
Boltovskoy containing proposals for a scheme of transliteration for use when
forming zoological names. It will be noted that this scheme covers five alphabets
using Cyrillic characters and that in consequence forty-eight letters are involved.
The International Commission is anxious to devise the best system of
transliteration obtainable within the limits laid down by General Directive
issued to it by the International Congress of Zoology banning the use of diacritic
marks. For this purpose special arrangements have been made for an
exceptionally wide canvass of opinion among both zoological and philological
institutions as a preliminary to the taking by the Commission of a final decision
in this matter.
At the request of the International Commission I enclose herewith for
the consideration of your Institution a copy of the paper containing the plan
drawn up by MM. Almasov and Boltovskoy. It is the hope of the International
Commission that your Institution will co-operate in this important enterprise
by furnishing comments on the foregoing plan or otherwise.
Comments prepared in response to the present invitation should be
addressed to Francis Hemming at the address shown at the head of the present
letter. It would be a great convenience if such comments could be furnished
in duplicate. Comments should, if possible, reach this office not later than
15th October 1955.
(b) List of Institutions in the U.S.S.R. and other countries speaking
Slav languages to which the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan was
communicated for observations on 2nd February 1955 (see (a)
above)
(i) U.S.S.R.
1. Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R.,
B. Kaluzhskaja 14, Moscow, U.S.S.R.
2. Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R.,
Department of Biological Sciences, B. Kaluzhskaja 14, Moscow,
US.S.R.
i
10.
at.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Pi.
18.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R.,
Department of Literature and Language,
Volkhonka 18/2, Moscow, U.S.S.R.
. Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R.,
Institute of Language and Thought,
Universitetskaja Naberezhnaia 5, Leningrad, U.S.S.R.
Academy of Sciences of the Armenian §.8.R..,
Department of Social Sciences, Erevan, U.S.S.R.
Academy of Sciences of the Azerbajdzhanian S S.R.,
Department of Social Sciences, Baku, U.S.S.R.
Academy of Sciences of the Belorussian 8.8.R.,
Department of Social Sciences, Minsk, U.S.S.R.
Academy of Sciences of the Estonian S.S.R.,
Department of Social Sciences, Tallin, U.S.S.R.
Academy of Sciences of the Georgian 8.8.R.,
Department of Social Sciences, Tbilisi, U.S.S.R.
Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh S.S.R..,
Department of Social Sciences, Alma Ata, U.S.S.R.
Academy of Sciences of the Latvian 8.8.R.,
Department of Social Sciences, Riga, U.S.S.R.
Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian 8.8.R.,
Department of Social Sciences, Vilnius, U.S.S.R.
Academy of Sciences of the Tadzhik S.S.R.,
Department of Social Sciences, Stalinabad, U.S.S.R.
Academy of Sciences of the Turkmenian S.8.R..,
Department of Social Sciences, Ashkabad, U.S.S.R.
Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian S8.8.R.,
Department of Social Sciences, Kiev, U.S.S.R.
Academy of Sciences of the Uzbek, 8.8.8.R.,
Department of Social Sciences, Tashkent, U.S.S.R.
Library of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R.,
Birzhevaja linija 1, Leningrad, U.S.S.R.
State Public Library,
Nevskij Prospekt and ul. 3-go Ijulja, Leningrad, U.S.S.R.
565
566
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
dl.
32.
33.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Lenin State Library,
Mokhovaja 3, Moscow, U.S.S.R.
State Library of Foreign Literature,
Stoleshnikov per. 2, Moscow, U.S.S.R.
Belorussian State Library,
Minsk, U.S.S.R.
Korolenko State Library,
Khar’kov, U.S.S.R.
Moscow State University, Faculty of Biology, Chair of General Zoology,
Mokhovaja 11, Moscow, U.S.S.R.
Moscow State University, Faculty of Philology,
Mokhovaja 11, Moscow, U.S.S.R.
Leningrad State University, Faculty of Biology, Chair of General Zoology,
Universitetskaja nab. 7/9, Leningrad, U.S.S.R.
Leningrad State University, Faculty of Philology, Chair of Slav Languages,
Universitetskaja nab. 11, Leningrad, U.S.S.R.
Leningrad State University, Faculty of Philology, Chair of Romano-
Germanistic Languages,
Universitetskaja nab. 11, Leningrad, U.S.S.R.
Leningrad State University, Faculty of Philology, Chair of West European
Literatures,
Universitetskaja nab. 9, Leningrad, U.S.S.R.
Belorussian State University, Faculty of Philology,
University City, Minsk, U.S.S.R.
Belorussian State University, Faculty of Biology, Chair of General Zoology,
University City, Minsk, U.S.S.R.
Central Asian State University, Faculty of Philology,
Ul. K. Markas 35, Tashkent, U.S.S.R.
Central Asian State University, Faculty of Biology, Chair of General
Zoology,
Ul. K. Markas 35, Tashkent, U.S.S.R.
Kaunas State University, Faculty of Philology,
Kaunas, U.S.S.R.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
41.
42.
43.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 567
Kaunas State University, Faculty of Biology, Chair of General Zoology,
Kaunas, U.S.S.R.
Kazan’ State University, Faculty of Philology,
Ul. Chernyshevskogo 18, Kazan’, U.S.S.R.
Kiev State University, Faculty of Philology,
Vladimirskaja 58, Kiev, U.S.S.R.
Kiev State University, Faculty of Biology, Chair of General Zoology,
Vladimirskaja 58, Kiev, U.S.S.R.
Kazan’ University, Faculty of Biology, Chair of General Zoology,
Ul. Chernyshevskogo 18, Kazan’, U.S.S.R.
Chernovithy State University,
Universitetskaja 16, Chernovithy, U.S.S.R.
Latvian State University,
Bul’var Rainisa 9, Riga, U.S.S.R.
Lvov State University,
Marshalovskaja 1, Lvov, U.S.S.R.
Tartu State University,
Tartu, U.S.S.R.
Vilnius State University,
Vilnius, U.S.S.R.
Odessa State University, Faculty of Philology,
Ul. Petra Velikogo, Odessa, U.S.S.R.
Odessa State University, Faculty of Biology, Chair of General Zoology,
Ul. Petra Velikogo, Odessa, U.S.S.R.
Uzbek State University,
Bul’var Gor’kogo 15, Samarkand, U.S.S.R.
Uzhgorod State University,
Pl. Gor’kogo 1/3, Uzhgorod, U.S.S.R.
Voronezh State University,
Prospekt Revoluthii 24, Voronezh, U.S.S.R.
Khar’kov State University,
Ul. Svobodnoj Akademii 16, Khar’kov, U.S.S.R.
568
50.
dl.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Gor’kij State University,
Sovethkaja Pl. 8, Gor’kij, U.S.S.R.
Academy of Sciences of the Armenian 8.8.R.,
Department of Biological Sciences, Erevan, US.S.R.
Academy of Sciences of the Azerbajdzhanian S.S.RB.,
Department of Biological Sciences, Baku, U.S.S.R.
Academy of Sciences of the Belorussian S.S.R.,
Department of Biological Sciences, Minsk, U.S.S.R.
Academy of Sciences of the Estonian 8.8.R.,
Department of Biological Sciences, Tallin, U.S.S.R.
Academy of Sciences of the Georgian 8.8.R.,
Department of Biological Sciences, Tbilisi, U.S.S.R.
Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh 8.8.B.,
Department of Biological Sciences, Alma Ata, U.S.S.R.
Academy of Sciences of the Latvian S.8.R.,
Department of Biological Sciences, Riga, U.S.S.R.
Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian S.8S.R..,
Department of Biological Sciences, Vilnius, U.S.S.R.
Academy of Sciences of the Tadzhik, 8.S.R.,
Department of Biological Sciences, Stalinabad, U.S.S.R.
Academy of Sciences of the Turkmenian S.8.R.,
Department of Biological Sciences, Ashkhabad, U.S.S.R.
Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian S.S.R.,
Department of Biological Sciences, Kiev, U.S.S.R.
Academy of Sciences of the Uzbek, 8.8.8.R.,
Department of Biological Sciences, Tashkent, U\S.S.R.
(ii) Poland
Polish Academy of Sciences, Section of Social Sciences,
Warsaw, Poland.
Polish Academy of Sciences, Section of Biological Sciences,
Warsaw, Poland.
65.
81.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Library of Jagellonian University,
Al. Mickiewicza 22, Cracow, Poland.
Library of Warsaw University,
Krakowskie Przedmescie 26-28, Warsaw, Poland.
National Library,
Rakowiecka 6, Warsaw, Poland.
Uniwersytet Warszawski,
Krakowskie Przedmescie 26-28, Warsaw, Poland.
Unywersytet Lodzki, Lodz, Poland.
Uniwersytet Poznanski, Poznan, Poland.
(iii) Bulgaria
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Section of Biological Sciences,
7th November Street, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Section of Social Sciences,
7th November Street, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Central Library,
7th November Street, Sofia, Bulgaria.
“ Vassil Kolarov ” State Library,
Boulevard Tolbukhin 11, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Sofijski Universitet, Sofia, Bulgaria.
(iv) Yugoslavia
Srpska Akademija Nauka,
Knez Mihailova ulica 35, Belgrad, Yugoslavia.
Slovenska Akademija znanosti in umetnosti,
Postni predal 323, Ljubljana, Yugoslavia.
People Library,
Knez Mihailova 56, Belgrad, Yugoslavia.
Narodna in universitetna knjiznica,
Ljubljana, Yugoslavia.
University of Belgrad,
Belgrad, Yugoslavia.
University of Ljubljana,
Ljubljana, Yugoslavia.
569
570
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
Bulletin of Zoological N omenclature
(v) Czechoslovakia
Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences,
Narodni Tr. 5, Prague 1, Czechoslovakia.
Czechoslovak Standards Bureau,
Vaclavske nam. 19, Prague, Czechoslovakia.
Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences Fundamental Library,
Narodni Tr. 5, Prague I, Czechoslovakia.
State Comenius Library,
Mikulandska, Prague, Czechoslovakia.
Charles University, Faculty of Philosophy,
Parizska tr. 27, Prague, Czechoslovakia.
Masaryk University,
Brno, Czechoslovakia.
Slovak University of Bratislava,
Ul. Paulinyho 1, Bratislava, Czechoslovakia.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 571
DOCUMENT 26/2
A Plan for the treatment of words written with Cyrillic characters for
the purposes of zoological nomenclature published in 1955 as a basis
for discussion in relation to the Schedule giving guidance in the above
matter, the addition of which to the “ Régles ’’ was agreed upon, in
principle, by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris,
1948
By ALEXEY ALMASOV and ESTEBAN BOLTOVSKOY
(Buenos Aires, Argentina)
{Editorial Note : The present paper was published with the title “‘ On
the Treatment of Words written with Cyrillic Characters, for the
purposes of Zoological Nomenclature, Bibliography, Reference
Indices, Etc.’’ on 3ist January 1955 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 7-18)]
Several works on zoology have raised lately the problem of transcription
of words from languages using the Cyrillic alphabets. The aim of the present
paper is to analyse the difficulties which confront scientists and those who are
working in libraries and publishing houses and have to face the chaos existing
in this domain. We attempt to show the defects of transliteration methods now
in use and propose a new system which could be applied equally to all the
five principle languages using Cyrillic alphabets, and would thus contribute to
the establishment of a scientific nomenclature. Our proposals are set out in
the table in the present paper.
2. Strange as it may seem, there is at present no unified and generally
accepted transliteration system from the Cyrillic alphabets. On the other
hand, all the individual systems in use today have, from the point of view
of zoological nomenclature, one major defect, caused by their authors having
set out from the phonetic relationship between the various Slav languages
and their mother tongues. Thus, a single Russian river figures as “ Tschir ”
in a German work, whilst an Englishman refers to it as “Chir.”’. There is
therefore no need to emphasise the difficulties confronting a scientist about
to compile a reference index on the basis of scientific literature in the various
‘ languages read by him. Furthermore, even translators into one and the same
language are often guided by their own taste in transliterating names, so that
one English work cites the name of a Russian town as “ Eysk”’, whereas
572 Bulletin of Zoological cs aprer8
No. Cyrillic Proposed Cyrillic Proposed
letters Latin letters Latin
alphabe alphabe
equival equivalent
iAa a sun
0.b 6 O (4 |
3B B Vv ctr FF
poreg sehr
‘Vib the de dee
sAa a sKh kK &
ihh dj was t
‘. 6°. ODE
9G e seh aMmM m
kis @ PH IN ea ae
Kx zh 3lbm 1
12.3 3 x 400 O
Fig and 2: pis for the transliteration into the Latin a passes of words 0) sane tile
that thea abor e(orany 0 see pb ape ae ahould hewhan ndatory. baud roposed is that an appro ved
forming names based o ormally written n in Cyrillic ¢ ma
we.
>
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 573
No. Cyrillic Proposed : No. Cyrillic Proposed
letters Latin letters Latin
sliin p 37lim sh
62Dp r 38illm shch
WoC S39 Dob swe
eTtTr € «ablbp y
ohh chi abo |
0Yy u wDBb fe
3¥ ¥ uh 399 eh
322Dp Ff wlOw fu
3X xX kh 561HA9a sa
zu th «00 fF
sU u ch 47VvV it
a I NH dzh 46 mm Yh
Cyrillic ae ria pte used fo cal n sat aah It is not proposed
‘ie nsliteration system ae anne a the "tiple tee the | ance of zoologists when
574 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
in another English work it figures as “ Yeisk”. As a result, even such an
authoritative bibliographical guide as the Zoological Record uses different
characters for the same Cyrillic letter. One of the favourite objects of the
translators’ ‘“‘ freedom of imagination” is the transcription of the most
frequent termination for Russian and Bulgarian names, which is variously
99 ee 29 ee
cited as “ -ov ’’, “ -ow ”, “‘ -off’ or even “ -of ”’.
3. We could give many examples of confusion created by such discrepancies
as far as zoological and botanical names are concerned, but we shall quote
here only one, which has been already generally discussed in the specialist
press. Actually, one such case was taken as a subject by Dr. Helen Muir-
Wood (1951 : 91) for her interesting article where she put forward the suggestion
that the International Congress of Zoology should take a decision concerning
the transliteration of words from languages using Cyrillic Alphabets, and that
such a provision ought not to take the form of a recommendation but should
be a binding directive.
4, Another zoologist, Dr. Paclt, who has published several papers on the
problem of transliteration, expressed himself even more drastically (1950 : 998)
by proposing to incorporate the transliteration system in the form of Appendix
“H ” in Article 19 of the Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique.
It is self-understood that this provision would then have to be adhered to as
strictly as all the other Articles of the Régles.
5. Finally, the International Congress of Zoology has decided to include
in the forthcoming revised text of the Régles a Schedule setting out the manner
to be observed in transliterating words from the Cyrillic alphabets into the
Latin alphabet when used as, or as part of, zoological names. We would,
however, go even further by suggesting the necessity of including the standard
transliteration system not only in the Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, but
also in the Botanical Code and in Editorial Rules. It is desirable to unite the
greatest possible number of publishers and periodicals in the use of a standard
transliteration system, as only then can the chaos at present reigning in the
transcription field be remedied. We do not think it necessary to enlarge on this
subject, as sufficient matter has been already written on it, and we assume
that no doubts are left on this account.
6. Of greater importance is the question of what form this standard system
should take. All systems employed up to the present can be divided into
two groups, in accordance with the way in which they transliterate those
characters of the Cyrillic alphabets which have no counterpart in the Latin
alphabet. The first of these systems is based on the principle of using of Latin
letters surmounted by diacritic signs. The second is based on the principle of
combining several letters of the Latin alphabet.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 575
7. Viewed from a purely philological point of view, the two systems are
equal in merit and in practice, most of the modern languagesusing the Latin
alphabet employ both systems for the rendering of sounds which do not exist
in Classical Latin. When dealing with the transliteration of languages using
the Cyrillic alphabets, we cannot help but realise that the system of diacritic
signs presents considerable advantage in that it is not bound to the phonetics
of any particular non-Slav-language. Therefore it is usually employed in
works on Slav literature and Slav philology written in non-Slav languages.
Is it then to be wondered at if the Czechoslovak zoologist Dr. Paclt became
an ardent adherent of this system, in view especially of the fact that the
diacritic signs—the “hateks’—are nearest to his psychology, being
constantly used in his native tongue? The transliteration system adopted
by the Vatican library is based on the same principle.
8. Nonetheless, diacritic signs are seldom used in scientific works, and
Dr. Paclt’s assertion that “‘ manche diackritische Zeichen (z.B. é, 8, Z) ... zur
Romanisierung der kyrillischen Namen bereits offiziell benutzt werden ”
(1952 : 359) does not correspond with actual facts. As proof of this we could
cite a long list of the most important bibliographical reference guides of various
countries. In all of them the Cyrillic words have been transliterated without
the use of diacritic signs. The following are a few examples of such publica-
tions: Zoological Record (Great Britain), Bibliography and Index of Geology
Exclusive of North America (U.S.A.); Bibliographie des Sciences Géologiques
(France) ; Zentralblatt fiir Paldontologie (Germany); Boletin del Centro de
Documentacién Cientifica y Técnica (Mexico) ; Scientiae Naturalis Bibliographia
(Holland); Boletin Bibliograéfico Argentino (Argentina). Russian authors
also, if transcribing Cyrillic words into Latin characters, prefer with rare
exceptions to avoid diacritic signs. This applies to the Doklady and Izvestija
published by the Academy of Science as well as to other publications which
appeared before 1947, in which year Soviet publications ceased to insert
summaries and titles in foreign languages.
9. Moreover, Dr. Paclt’s proposals appear to us dangerous insofar as by
defending the general use of diacritic signs they route the quest for a standard
transliteration system into the wrong channels. In fact, we completely fail to
understand how Dr. J. Paclt, who recommends the replacement of diacritic
signs by supplementary letters in the Hungarian, German and Scandinavian
languages, can consider the same process as unsuitable for the Slav languages.
And yet there are weighty practical reasons in favour of substituting letter-
combinations for diacritic signs also in the Slav tongues.
10. It is evident that most printers do not possess the type for diacritic
signs, and writers who wish to use such signs would normally not be in a
position to do so. Such authors would then be forced to invent their own
transliteration schemes ‘“‘ ad hoc’’. Is there a question of a universal system ?
576 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Dr. Paclt’s phrase “ Darum ist es immer zu wiinschen, dass méglichst viele
Druckereien die verschiedenen diakritischen Zeichen auf eine oder andere
Weise reproduzieren kénnen” (Ibidem) sounds altogether too optimistic.
Unfortunately, neither the most ardent wish of one zoologist nor even the
verdict of a Zoological Congress carries weight with the owners of printing
works.
11. In this connection the following fact is of significance. The library
of the United States Congress have worked out their own transliteration
system and although the “hateks’ does not figure in it, other diacritical
signs are employed. Nevertheless, when a large bibliographical work by
R. Smits, namely the Serial Publications of the Soviet Union 1939-1950 was
published, these signs were omitted, and the book appeared without them.
This example shows clearly that, in spite of all the theoretical arguments
which can be brought forward in defence of the transcription of letters of the
Cyrillic alphabets by means of diacritic signs, this system can only be employed
for special publications which have the corresponding printing types at their
disposal. In all other cases (especially taking into account the additional
inconvenience of using this system on typewriters) this method is quite unusable
and cannot be accepted as a method for the creation of a standard international
system.
12. But the most powerful argument against the system of diacritic signs
is the decision of the Fourteenth Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, to
ban the use of diacritic signs in zoological names. It seems obvious that,
if even in the practice of zoological nomenclature this system has to be banned,
there is still more reason to drop it in library practice and in editorial work
in general.
13. As regards the system of combining several Latin letters, up to the
present its sole disadvantage lay in the fact that these combinations were made
liberally and sometimes, as for instance in German, were exceedingly
cumbersome (the rendering of one Cyrillic letter—the letter No. 38 of our
table—demanded the use of seven Latin letters: “‘ schtsch”’). However, this
one fault caused by striving to render the phonetic relationship between the
Slav languages and those using the Latin alphabet, is easy to remedy by taking
a letter without its own phonetic meaning (for instance, the letter “h”’) and
using it in the place of a diacritic sign, in order to change the phonetic meaning
of the preceding letter. This solution is all the more adequate as it is already
used in English transliteration practice where the combinations ip? s Sas
“gh”, and “kh” are employed.
14. For this reason, the transcription systems elaborated for the English-
speaking countries, are fairly close to what ought to be the international system.
The size and the aim of the present paper do not allow an extensive analysis
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 577
of such systems from the philological standpoint. In practice, even the best
among them, as for example that created by the Library of the U.S. Congress,
are unfit for the present purpose because, while striving to adapt Slav phonetics
to English sounds, they are compelled to introduce additional signs or to use
the same Latin letter for several different Cyrillic letters. On the other hand,
owing to the constant effort to be exact phonetically, the same Cyrillic letter,
when it corresponds to different sounds in different Slav tongues is transcribed
by means of different Latin letters, according to the phonetic requirements of
the language concerned. For this reason, instead of one transliteration table
one would have to prepare five tables, the use of which would be impossible
for persons who are not acquainted with those languages. We have also
noticed the inadequacies of the many transliteration methods now in use
in scientific practice as well as the illogical ways in which these methods are
applied. A superficial glance to the Russian quotations in the Geophysical
Abstract prove this very convincingly.
15. Thus, in order that a transliteration system may actually become
universal, it must, in our opinion, satisfy the following demands :—
(1) The system must be orthographic and not phonetic, i.e. each letter
(and not sound) of the languages using the Cyrillic Alphabets must
have its corresponding letter or combination of letters in the Latin
Alphabet. This consideration is particularly important as its
adoption will enable librarians and printers who have no knowledge
of Slav languages to transcribe accurately words written with Cyrillic
characters and thus to build up accurate card indexes. It is well
known that at present even for the most elementary tasks connected
with the Cyrillic alphabets the co-operation of persons knowing
Slav tongues is required. Furthermore, the acceptance of this
requirement will provide the possibility of an “inverted trans-
literation ”’, i.e. it will make it possible to establish the exact form
in the Slav languages of names written with Latin letters and to
locate them in alphabetical reference books in the original language.
At present this process is at times very difficult.
(2) The system must be a system applying equally to the five Slav languages
using the Cyrillic alphabets. Dr. Paclt asserts that “ il est impossible
de faire usage “‘ en bloc” d’un seul tableau de romanisation servant
& tous les alphabets slaves cyrillics’ (1950 : 996). This assertion
might have been correct, had it been our aim to render phonetically
the letters of these languages. But, as our plan is to render them
graphically, the preparations of such a table for the use of all five
languages is quite feasible.
(3) The system ought to be international. The pronunciation for the
characters used ought also to be definitely settled. Although the
phonetic side of the problem appears to be of secondary importance,
578 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
nevertheless it is necessary to take as the basis the phonetic
similarities with some one existing language. We have decided to
choose English for this purpose as being the most suitable.
(4) Diacritic signs ought to be avoided on practical grounds.
16. The system which we have elaborated and which is represented on
the annexed table, seems to meet satisfactorily all the above requirements.
The most important divergence from systems now in use is that a single Latin
letter or groups of letters is proposed for each Cyrillic letter, even where that
letter has a different meaning in different Slav languages. For instance,
Letter No. 4 in the annexed table has a different meaning in the Ukrainian and
Belorussian languages from that in the other Slav languages. Similarly,
Letter No. 8 has a different meaning in the Ukrainian and Serbian languages
from that in the other Slav languages. Letter No. 13 is different in the
Ukrainian language from the same letter in the other Slav languages. Letter
No. 38 is pronounced differently in Russian and Ukrainian from the way used
in Bulgarian. Letter No. 19 presents wide variations in different languages and
dialects.
17. Nevertheless, these phonetic differences need not worry us, as they
represent no difficulty to a person having a knowledge of the respective
languages and are a matter of complete indifference to a person who does not
know the language concerned. In different languages using the Latin alphabet
the same letter also frequently has a different phonetic meaning, and yet
nobody suggests that the name “ Churchill ” should be spelt as “‘ Tschortschill ”
in German, or the name ‘“‘ Schumann ”’ be spelt “ Choumane”’ in French. On
the other hand, the method which we recommend possesses the definite
advantage that it enables anybody to transliterate a word correctly without
knowing to which Slav language the word in question belongs.
18. As we have explained, we are keeping generally to the English language
phonetics. We do this mainly because in practice the English method of
transliteration affords a considerable economy in the use of letters for the
forming of the combinations (almost everything is reduced to one “h’”’).
Besides, it must be taken into account that the English language is so widely
spoken at present that the English manner of writing Slav words has become
well known and customary even for those people who do not possess a
knowledge of that language. For example, this method of transliteration is
very widely adopted in the Spanish-speaking countries. Actually, our only
deviation from English phonetic rules is that we give the letter ‘‘ j ’ the phonetic
meaning which it has in German and the Slav languages using the Latin alphabet;
it corresponds in phonetic value to the English letter “y”. In this way we
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 579
succeed in avoiding the use of diacritic signs ; a result which the system of the
US. Library of Congress failed to achieve owing to the effort which it made to
adhere strictly to English phonetics.
19. The foregoing decision may seem inconsequent at first glance, as the
letter “j”’, corresponding to real Letters No. 16 and No. 17 in the table, has
on the other hand the function of a ““ supplementary sign ”’ when it is combined
with “a”, “e” and “u’”’. Such criticism would be justified if such double
usage would be a handicap for “inverted transliteration’. Hovever, in all
five Slav languages corresponding sounds are represented in an absolutely
definite way, thus eliminating the possibility of confusion. Analogous
considerations are valid for the letter “ w’”’ which represents the Cyrillic letter
No. 39 and enters in combination with “e ” for rendering Letter No. 10. In
this case also confusion is impossible because of the fact that the Letter No. 39
can never be preceeded by a vowel.
20. But such a confusion would be unavoidable if we were to represent
Letter No. 34 by “ts” according to methods now in use, for Letter No. 28 is
quite frequently followed by Letter No. 27 in Slav languages. We have
therefore preferred to take “th” thus keeping “h” to its function of a
supplementary sign.
21. Letter No. 41 does not correspond to any sound, it merely draws
attention to a slight change in the pronunciation of the preceding sound.
Therefore, while transliterating, this letter generally will not be designated
at all in every-day routine, and among the scientific systems it is indicated
at most by an apostrophe. It could readily be rendered by any Latin letter,
for instance by “q’”’, but in this case already known geographical names,
such as Kuban, Kharkov, would assume a rather puzzling and unusual look ;
Kubanq, Khargkov. In order to avoid a result of this kind, we decided to
keep to the generally accepted method and to recommend the use of the
apostrophe.
22. Finally, we would like to stress that, while elaborating our scheme,
we were striving to keep it as simple as possible, transliterating the more
frequent Cyrillic letters with the smallest practicable number of Latin
characters.
23. The table which we submit comprises all letters existing in the Russian,
Ukrainian, Belorussian,* Serbian and Bulgarian languages. Letters existing
only in certain of these languages are placed in accordance with the order
* ‘This language is usually designated as ‘‘ White-Russian”’. We prefer the term “ Belorussian ”
in order to avoid undue confusion in identifying an ethnical section of the Russian people
with a purely political group. :
580 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
in which they are to be found in each of the alphabets of the langugages
concerned. Thus, Letters Nos. 7, 17, 20, 23, 29 and 36 exist only in the Serbian
language ; Letters Nos. 9 and 15, only in Ukrainian; Letter No. 31, only in
Belorussian ; Letter No. 48, only in Bulgarian ; Letters Nos. 46 and 47, only
in the old Russian orthography ; Letters Nos. 10, 40 and 43 exist in Russian
and Belorussian and the sign over Letter No. 10 is generally omitted in the
Russian practice. Letter No. 5 is used only in Ukrainian and Belorussian ;
Letter No. 39 only in Russian and Bulgarian ; Letter No. 42 only in the old
Russian orthography and in Bulgarian; Letter No. 38 only in Russian,
Ukrainian and Bulgarian ; Letter No. 14 only in Ukrainian, Belorussian and
the old Russian orthography. Letters Nos. 16, 41, 44 and 45 do not exist in
Serbian.
24. In scientific routine it is usual to employ the Croat Latin alphabet
for the transliteration of Serbian words, but we think it more suitable to include
Serbian in the general system in view of the following considerations: (1) The
Croat alphabet appears to us unsuitable, as it is based on the use of diacritic
signs. (2) In journalism and every-day routine Serbian, words are often
transcribed in accordance with phonetic similarities with the German, Italian
and even English or Spanish languages. Thus, the situation of the Serbian
language in practice differs little from other languages using Cyrillic alphabets.
25. In the case of all languages, except Russian, only the modern
orthography is taken into account. The exception made in the case of Russian
may be explained by the fact that the abolition of certain letters has taken
place only a relatively short time ago (1919), and outside the Soviet Union,
books are still being published using all or some of the abolished letters.
26. The following supplementary notes are added in regard to certain of
the letters shown in the annexed table :—
Letter No. 10. In transliterations from the Russian language it is recommended
that the letter ““ W ” be omitted, as the sign “ -: ” is omitted
in the majority of original works.
Letters Nos. 14 and 42. These letters were abolished in the Russian ortho-
graphy by the 1919 reform and should consequently be
replaced by “i” and “e” respectively, always providing
that the person who does the transliteration is sure that the
word in question is Russian and not Bulgarian, Ukrainian
or Belorussian.
Letter No. 17. This letter represents the way in which Serbs indicate the
sound, which is indicated in the other Slav languages by
the Letter No. 16.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 581
Letter No. 39. This letter should be reproduced only in the middle of a word.
It should be omitted if it figures at the end of the word in
the original version. In some of the Soviet works (usually
prior to 1929) this letter was replaced by the sign “’”
and it should therefore be rendered also by “W”.
Letters Nos. 46 and 47. Both these are letters of the former Russian ortho-
graphy, which are very rarely used. Thus, there is no
need whatever to create special signs for rendering them,
since even in Russian texts following the old orthography
they are often replaced by Letters Nos. 32 and 13
respectively.
27. We give below a list of names of the Cyrillic letters arranged according
to our scheme. Russian alphabet names are treated as being basic, the names
in the other Slav languages are quoted only in the three following cases :
(1) when a letter does not exist in Russian ; (2) when the phonetic value of a
given letter differs from the Russian ; (3) when the name of a letter used in
another language is substantially different from the name in Russian. Less
important variations (as for instance “fe” for “ef” or “ khe” for “ kha ”’)
are left out of consideration. The abbreviations used are the following
70? = Ukrainian: “BR” — Belorussian; “B” — Bulgarian; “S” =
Serbian ; “ ORO” = old Russian orthography.
(1) a; (2) be; (3) ve; (4) ge, U, BR—he; (5) U, BR—ge ; (6) de;
(7) S—dje ; (8) je, U, S—e;: (9) U—je; (10) jo; (11) zhe; (12) ze; (13) i,
U—y, ORO—double i; (14) U, BR—i, ORO—single i; (15) U—ji; (16) brief
i, U—ij ; (17) S—j; (18) ka; (19) el ; (20) S—Ij ; (21) em; (22) en; (23) S—
nj; (24)0; (25) pe; (26) er; (27) es ; (28) te ; (29) S—chje ; (30) u; (31) BR
—brief u; (32) ef; (33) kha; (34) the ; (35) che; (36) S—dzhe ; (37) sha ;
(38) shcha, B—sht ; (39) hard sign, B—big jer; (40) y; (41) soft sign, B—
small jer; (42) ORO—jat’, B—double je; (43) e; (44) ju; (45) ja; (46)
ORO—fita ; (47) ORO—izhitha ; (48) B—yh. Note: The letter “<j? thas
the phonetic value of the English “ wr.
28. Appeal to interested specialists : The creation of a logical and practicable
transliteration system is of common interest to all parts of the international
scientific world. It is very important therefore that any such system should
enjoy the widest possible measure of support. It is accordingly very desirable
that comments on our proposals should be as numerous as possible. It is
important also that such comments should be furnished as promptly as possible,
for a decision on the present matter must be taken by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature before the revised text of the Régles
Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique can be promulgated, since under
582 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
the decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology,
Copenhagen, 1953, the rules relating to the transliteration of words from the
Cyrillic alphabets are to be incorporated in one of the Schedules to be annexed
to the revised text of the Régles. The Secretary to the International
Commission has invited us to act as a centre for the reception and collation
of comments on, and suggestions regarding, the transliteration scheme submitted
in the present paper, and for this purpose, on his recommendation, the
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature has made available to us a
large supply of copies of the present paper for distribution. It is our particular
hope, therefore, that as many interested specialists as possible will furnish
us with statements of their views on our proposals. Statements so furnished
may be written in any of the following languages: English ; German ; French ;
Italian ; Spanish ; Portuguese ; any Slav language. All such communications
should be addressed to Alexey Almasov (the senior author) at the following
address : Avda. de Mayo 665, Piso 6, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Bibliography
Muir-Wood (H.M.), 1951. ‘‘ On the question whether any two generic names
or trivial names, each based upon the same surname of a person, whose
name is normally written in some alphabet other than the Latin alphabet,
and each having the same termination, but differing from one another
in the transliteration of the portion of the name representing the person’s
name, are to be regarded as homonyms of one another.’ —Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 6 : 90-92
Paclt (J.), 1950. ‘‘ Les profit que la nomenclature zoologique pourrait tirer
du schéme international de translitération appliqué aux noms cyrilliques.”
—Proc. VIIIth int. Congr. Ent., Stockholm 1948, 8 : 995-998
Paclt (J.), 1952. Ueber die Behandlung der diakritischen Zeichen.—
Senckenbergiana 33 : 357-361
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 583
DOCUMENT 26/3
Comment on the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan relating to the trans-
literation of Cyrillic characters into the Latin alphabet
By ERICH M. HERING
(Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin)
(Statement received on 14th February 1955)
Es ist sehr begriissenswert, dass die in die kiinftigen revidierten Regeln
fiir die Zoologische Nomenklatur aufzunehmenden Vorschlage der Trans-
literation der cyrillischen Schriftzeichen so ausfiihrlich zur Diskussion gestellt
worden sind. Es ware zu wiinschen, dass sich auch alle Herausgeber wissen-
schaftlicher Zeitschriften einer solchen Regelung, sobald sie einmal vorliegen
wird, anschliessen, damit eine weitgehende Einheitlichkeit in der Umschreibung
solcher Namen durchgefiihrt wird. Es erscheint mir zweckmassig, das dabei
noch einige Punkte hervorgehoben werden.
1. Die vorgeschlagene Transliterations-Empfehlung soll in keinem Falle
riickwirkend angewendet werden, um die Stabilitaét der Nomenklatur nicht
zu stéren. Wo frither anstelle der nun einzufiihrenden Transliterations-
Methode “‘ diacritic signs ’’ verwendet wurden, sollten diese kiinftig nur weg-
gelassen werden, ohne dass Buchstabenveranderungen eintreten.
2. Die Transliterations-Vorschriften sehen die Wiedergabe cyrillischer
Schriftzeichen in lateinischen Buchstaben oder Buchstaben-Kombinationen
vor, mit deren phonetischem Wert in der englischen Sprache. Da nicht alle
Sprachen in solcher Wiedergabe beriicksichtigt werden kénnen, ist die englische
Sprache wegen ihrer Weltverbreitung dazu besonders geeignet, wenn diese
Wiedergabe auch in der franzésischen und einigen germanischen Sprachen
zunichst fremdartig wirkt. Da Transliteration in dieser Form in der Ver-
gangenheit vielfach beniitzt worden ist, werden sich auch Angehérige von
Nationen mit anderen Sprachen bald an sie gew6hnen.
3. Wichtig erscheint es mir aber, fiir die Umschreibungs-Vorschlage ein
Prinzip zu betonen: Es ist in fast allen Fallen unmoglich, eine vollstandig
laut-getreue Wiedergabe der betreffenden Charactere zu erreichen, da diese
mit allen Feinheiten doch nicht zu erzielen ist, daher auch entbehrlich ist.
Es braucht also bei der Transliteration nur ein Annaherungswert in phonetischer
Hinsicht erhalten zu werden. Deshalb kénnen meiner Meinung nach gewisse
Buchstaben-Kombinationen in dem Entwurf bei der kiinftigen endgiiltigen
584 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Regelung weggelassen werden. Ich glaube, dass es nichts schadet, wenn
verschiedene cyrillische Schrift-zeichen auch durch eine gleiche Kombination
von lateinischen Buchstaben wiedergegeben werden, wodurch eine wesentliche
Vereinfachung fiir den Benutzer erzielt wird. Es geniigt wohl doch, wenn die
vorgeschlagene Umschreibung dem cyrillischen Lautwert nahe kommt ; ihn
vollstandig zu erreichen, ist ja doch nicht méglich.
4. Unter Bezugnahme auf diese Ausfithrungen mache ich die folgenden
Abanderuns-Vorschlage :
In der Transliterations-Tabelle mégen die durch die Ziffern bezeichneten
cyrillischen Schriftzeichen wie folgt abgeandert werden :
No. 8. Dieses Schriftzeichen mége durch “je” wiedergegeben werden,
da (im Gegensatz zu No. 43) bei der Aussprache deutlich ein j-Laut dem e
vorangeht, so namentlich bei Stellung des Schriftzeichens am Beginn eines
Wortes.
No. 10. Dieses Schriftzeichen muss unbedingt durch “jo” wiedergegeben
werden, da das é im Slavischen niemals als e gesprochen wird ; zudem wirkt
die Wiedergabe des é mit ‘‘ew”’ irrefiihrend besonders dann, wenn auf das é
noch das cyrillische Schriftzeichen folgt, das in der deutschen Sprache als
w (im Entwurf mit v wiedergegeben) umgeschrieben wird.
No. 13 und 14 klingen so ahnlich, dass in der Transliteration die Wiedergabe
durch das eine zeichen i fiir beide Schriftzeichen ausreichend erscheint.
No. 39. Fiir das ‘‘ Harte-Zeichen ”’ schlage ich die vollstandige Weglassung
vor, da es ja auch in den slavischen Sprachen nicht ausgesprochen wird, sondern
nur den vorhergehenden Konsonanten in einer Weise beeinflusst, dass er mit
dem Klang erscheint, den er ohnehin in der englischen Sprache hat.
No. 41. Fiir das “‘ Weichheits-Zeichen ” schlage ich die Umschreibung mit
““j”’ vor, das hinter den betreffenden Konsonanten zu stellen ware. Das
entspricht am besten dem phonetischen Wert dieses Zeichens. Die Ver-
wendung eines’ halte ich fiir ungeeignet ; dieses Zeichen kann dann leicht mit
einem Apostroph verwechselt werden, so namentlich bei der Transliteration
von Personen-Namen.
No. 43. Dieses Zeichen ist zweckmassig mit einem einfachen e zu
umschreiben, da bei seiner Aussprache (im Gegensatz zu Zeichen No. 8) niemals
ein j-Anlaut zu horen ist.
Zusammenfassend méchte ich empfehlen, dass man sich bei den Trans-
literationsvorschriften nicht scheuen soll, fiir sehr ahnlich klingende cyrillische
Schriftzeichen einen gleichen lateinischen Buchstaben oder eine solche Buchs-
taben-Kombination zu verwenden, um eine leichtere Handhabung der
Empfehlungen zu gewihrleisten und leichteres Verstandnis der Umschreibung
zu erreichen. Es erscheint mir nicht wiinschenswert, in die Buchstaben-
Kombinationen willkiirlich Zeichen wie h oder w einzufiigen um anzudeuten,
dass geringere phonetische Verschiedenheiten bestehen. Die Erreichung
eines phonetischen Annéherungs-Wertes erscheint mir ausreichend.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 585
DOCUMENT 26/4
Comment on the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan for the transliteration of
Cyrillic Characters
By G. WITENBERG
(Department of Parasitology, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel)
(Letter dated 15th March 1955)
In response to your appeal! concerning the transliteration of Cyrillic
transcriptions into the Latin alphabet, published in Part 1, vol. 11 of the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature I wish to express some views on this question,
and I would be grateful if you could bring them to the notice of Dr. Almasov.
By proposing his thoroughly elaborated but rather revolutionary system of
transliteration, it seems to me that Dr. Almasov did not follow the recom-
mendation of the International Congress of Zoology to set up a method of
transliterating words (that means sounds) written originally in the Cyrillic
alphabet. Instead, his system implies the transliteration of the Cyrillic
alphabet, not always exactly considering the sounds it represents. It seems
to me that the transliteration should primarily be concerned with phonetics,
while the original transcription should be of secondary value.
As pointed out by Dr. Almasoy, pronunciation of some Cyrillic letters is
different in various Slavic languages. It is evident, therefore, that their
transliteration according to a rigid key common to all these languages might
bring about distortion of their true characteristics. It seems, thus, that no
such common key would be practicable. What we badly need is a system of
transliteration of Cyrillic transcriptions for every Slavic language. I am not
conversant with all of the Slavic languages, but I may judge the methods
of transliteration of Russian transcriptions, and here I see a few difficulties
in the system proposed by Dr. Almasov.
? See paragraph 6 in Document 26/1.
586 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(1) The transliteration of the Russian E by “ew” would be misspelled
by all who do not know that this letter is pronounced in English like “ yaw ”’.
Considering the Russian ‘“‘ approach’, the leters “yo” or “jo” would be
more appropriate.
(2) Transliteration of the Russian I] by “th” instead of “ts” as is
customary, would confuse all English speaking readers for whom “th” has
a quite different sound ; “‘ ts ” or “ tz’ seem to be more correct.
(3) Similarly, “tsh ’ seems to be more suitable than the proposed “ ch ”’
for transliteration of the Russian 4.
I presume that similar confusing interpretations of the original pro-
nunciation may be met in the transliteration of other Slav transcriptions,
should a common key be accepted. I would, therefore, propose that a system
of transliteration on the basis of pronunciation in every particular Slavic language
but not transcription be worked out. This would possibly require efforts of
experts in several Slavic languages, but such efforts would be worthwhile.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 587
DOCUMENT 26/5
Comment on the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan for the transliteration
of Cyrillic Characters
By CURTIS W. SABROSKY
(U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,
Entomology Research Branch, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)
(Letter dated 21st March 1955)
The article by Almasov and Boltovskoy on transliteration from languages
using Cyrillic characters was indeed interesting. I cannot comment on it from
a technical standpoint, but I certainly approve and applaud the idea of a
system which would avoid the use of diacritic marks,
588 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 26/6
Comments by Professor TADEUSZ JACZEWSKI (Warsaw) on the
Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan for the transliteration of Cyrillic Characters
(a) Letter dated 29th March 1955
In connection with your ‘“ Notice to Zoologists and Palaeontologists ”
concerning the future schedule relating to the transliteration of words from the
Cyrillic alphabets into the Latin alphabet (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 4-7, and
with the communication of Drs. A. Almasov and E. Boltovskoy (ibid. : 7-18),
I would like to express the following opinion.
I think the matter is very important and serious not only because the
whole question requires urgently uniform regulation, but also as it is connected
with effective international co-operation in the field of zoological nomenclature.
I think, therefore, that it is absolutely impossible to take any decisions con-
cerning these matters without a previous consultation with competent scientific
institutions in those countries which use Cyrillic alphabets, i.e. the U.S.S.R.,
Bulgaria and Yugoslavia!. I think the Secretariat of the Commission should
address corresponding letters to the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., to
the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, to the Yugoslavian Academy of Sciences
and to the Serbian Academy of Sciences, asking their opinion as well as the
opinion of their zoological institutions.
The proposals of Drs. A. Almasov and E. Boltovskoy are both very
interesting and valuable, but I do not think it would be wise and even fair to
decide these questions on the base of individual opinions only. It should not
be forgotten that Cyrillic alphabets are used by over 200 million people and
by thousands of zoologists. Moreover, it is not only the question of the five
Slavonic languages, i.e. Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian, Bulgarian and
Serbian, but also of many other languages on the vast territories of the U.S.S.R.,
which were able to develop their literature since the Revolution of 1917 and
which use alphabets based to a greater or smaller extent on the Cyrillic alphabet.
1 For the action taken by the Office of the Commission with a view to eliciting the views of
the leading institutions concerned in the Slav-speaking countries see paragraph 6 of Document
RR/1 and the list of Institutions given in Part (b) of the Appendix to the paper so numbered.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 589
(b) Letter dated 29th April 1955
I was very glad to learn that you quite agree with me as to the consultation
with competent scientific institutions in the U.S.S.R. and other interested
countries in questions concerning transliteration from the Cyrillic into the
Latin alphabet.
Personally I have also some technical remarks in connection with the
schedule proposed by Drs. A. Almasov and E. Boltovskoy (Bull. zool. Nomencl.
11 : 7-18), which I would like to communicate to you and to put under
discussion. They are as follows :—
(1) Letter 8 should be transliterated in Russian words je and not e ; it has the
phonetic value of e only in Ukrainian, but not in Russian and in Bjelorussian.
(2) Letter 10 should be transliterated jo ; in both these cases, i.e. letters 8 and
10, j has the phonetic value which it has in German or in the Slavonic languages
using the Latin alphabet (as Polish, Czech, etc.).
(3) Letter 34 should be transliterated simply by c, giving to it the phonetic
value which it it has in such German words (names) as Cacilie, Casar, or in the
Slavonic languages using the Latin alphabet, i.e. the phonetic value of ts.
(4) The letter 39 can be simply omitted in all Russian words ; it is used only
to indicate that the preceding consonant is not palatized, and there will be no
such danger when the word will be transliterated into the Latin alphabet.
NN
590 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 26/7
Comment by Dr. JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr. (San Diego, California,
U.S.A.) on the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan for the transliteration of
Cyrillic Characters
(Letter dated 7th May 1955 addressed to Dr. Alexey Almasov)
Your very thorough and carefully thought out article in the Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature (11 : 7 et seg.) concerning the transliteration of words
from languages using the Cyrillic alphabets is very thought-provoking. The
need for a standard method of transliteration is quite obvious, not only for
words taken from the Slavic languages, but for the languages of Western
Europe which use the Latin alphabet supplemented by additional letters
which do not occur in Latin.
I find myself in rather fundamental disagreement with you, however,
when you recommend that the system should be orthographic rather than
phonetic. Most of the spoken languages of Europe (all of those with which I
am familiar, except English) are phonetic, which is a great help to anyone
who has to use them. The one exception is English, in which etymological
spelling is used. Since so many words in common use in English have come
originally from other languages, the use of orthographic spelling has brought
- about the representation of many different sounds by the same letter or
combination of letters, and also of the representation of the same sound by
different letters or combination of letters, with a most unsatisfactory resulting
confusion. It would be most disastrous if such a condition were allowed to
develop in modern scientific Latin, but this is almost sure to happen, if the
system of transliteration adopted by the International Commission should be
orthographic rather than phonetic.
The only advantage that I can see in using an orthographic system is that
the letters of all five Cyrillic alphabets can be entered in one column, whereas
in a phonetic system each alphabet would need a separate column. But this
would offer no insuperable difficulty. As a matter of fact, the most important
of all the Cyrillic alphabets was not used in compiling the tables in your article.
I refer of course to the Greek alphabet. It might be maintained that since the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 591
Greek alphabet had been in use for many centuries before the birth of Cyril,
that it should not be called a Cyrillic alphabet, but that is an academic
argument. When Cyril invented the alphabet that bears his name he used the
characters of the Greek alphabet as far as he could to designate the usual
sounds associated with them, and going to the old Phenican alphabet to get
signs, to represent sounds that did not occur in Greek, so that the Greek and
Cyrillic alphabets consist largely of the same letters.
In Greek the letter @ is always transliterated by TH so that the sound
may be preserved. The same letter occurs in the Cyrillic alphabets, and if the
system of transliteration is to be orthographic the same digraph should be used.
But your scheme provides that 6 be represented by F. This is not an
orthographic but a phonetic equivalent. I agree with you completely that 6
in Slavic languages should be transliterated by F in order to preserve the
sound, but I think it should be transliterated by TH in Greek words for the same
reason. It would be quite impractical to change TH to F in all words of Greek
origin in scientific Latin. The use of TH must be considered a fixture.
Consequently I must also disagree with your recommendation to use TH
as the orthographic equivalent of I] the sound of which is altogether different.
The latter letter should be rendered as TS in order to preserve the sound. Your
objection to the use of TS on the ground that many Slavic words contain
this digraph which would be transliterated in the same way seems immaterial
to me, but if it is a legitimate objection it might be satisfied by the use of TZ
for I.
Again, the Greek letter X has always been transliterated by CH in Latin. I
agree with you that the digraph KH is more logical, but to change the spelling
of every Latin word of Greek origin to comply with this would be quite
impractical. I therefore, recommend the use of CH in Slavic words as well
as in Greek words, since the sound is the same in both cases. If the sound were
different I would recommend KH for Slavic words.
If this suggested change is accepted it will be necessary to abandon the
digraph CH as the equivalent of U. It would better be represented by the
trigraph TSH. I may say that I do not like the digraph CH because it is
ambiguous. In English C may be either a mute or a sibilant. The following
vowel always determines which, so there is no confusion. H following C is
used both to fricatize the mute and to dentalize the sibilant. Any vowel may
follow the digraph in either case, so that it is impossible to tell in which sense
itis used. That is why I prefer TSH for the dentalized sibilant.
The letter B in the Cyrillic alphabets is orthographically the same letter
in Greek, which is transliterated as B. But it has not the same sound. I
agree with you that in the transliteration of Slavic words it would be better
to represent it by V but this is its phonetic, not its orthographic, equivalent.
592 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
The difference in sound of the myakhy-znak and the tvyordy-znak is so
slight that I would recommend dropping these altogether in transliteration.
There are some other details which I think capable of improvement, but
all of them have come about by the attempt to make the transliteration
orthographic instead of phonetic. After all, a word is a sound pronounced
by a speaker ; it is not a collection of symbols on a printed page. The object
of the printed symbols is to represent the spoken sounds. When they cease
to do this, their value disappears.
The advantage of writing scientific terms in Latin is that this is supposed
to be something of a universal language, understood by scientists all over the
world. The practice of scientists of pronouncing Latin words in accordance
with the orthography of their own language is not to be recommended, as it
frequently makes it impossible for scientists who speak different languages
to understand each other. Ifa phonetic system of transliteration were adopted,
the original pronunciation would be preserved, and would be universally
understood.
Of course, the important thing to achieve is a system of transliteration, the
rules of which will be simple enough to be remembered so that any one can
understand it, whether it is orthographic or phonetic. For my own part, I
would much prefer a phonetic system, but of course I shall abide by the decision
of the Commission. I hope you do not mind my having expressed myself so
vigorously.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 593
DOCUMENT 26/8
Views of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R. on the Almasov/
Boltovskoy Plan for the transliteration of the Cyrillic Characters
(Letter dated 5th September 1955 from D. M. Steinberg,
Vice-Director of the Zoological Institute of the Academy of
Sciences of the U.S.S.R.)
As it is rather difficult for zoologists to discuss the question of trans-
literation of words written in Cyrillic characters we sent over your letter and
the paper of M. M. Almasov and Boltovskoy to the Institute of Linguistics
of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R. so as to have the opinion of this
special Institution on behalf of the project.
We have the pleasure to enclose herewith a copy of the answer we received
a few days ago, which we hope may be of some use to you.
As to what concerns the opinion of the Zoological Institute of the Academy
of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., we find the scheme proposed by M. M. Almasov
and Boltovskoy, in the part concerning the Russian alphabet, quite acceptable
with the exception of the letter No. 39 ("b), which we think more desirable
to succeed by the sign (‘‘), when used in the middle of words and omit, when
used at the end of words.
At the proposals of M. M. Almasov and Boltovskoy concern letters used
not only in the Russian alphabet, but also in the Ukrainian and Belorussian
languages we would think it very desirable if you would find the possibility
to send a request to the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Kiev, the Ukrainian
S.S.R.) and the Belorussian Academy of Sciences (Minsk, the Belorussian
8.8.R.).
594 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
ANNEXE TO DOCUMENT 26/8
Opinion of the Bureau of the Section of General and Comparative
Linguistics of the Institute of Linguistics of the Academy of
Sciences of the USSR (Mossow) on the project of the System of
transliteration of words normally written in Cyrillic characters
proposed by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.
l.- The project of transliteration proposed by MM.Almasov and
Boltovskoy cannot be recommende in view of the following:
1) it runs contrary to the international project worked out by the
Iso (the latest vegzsion we know of is of May 1954); -
2) in &ts character it is not international but regional,as it is
chiefly based on the anglo-american system of RGS;
2.- The divergencies with the ISO system come up to the fol-
lowing :
1) the use of digraphs for hissing consonents: No 1l zh -x* ,
No 35 ch -4 ,No 37 sh - w and No 34 th-=- 4 as well;
2) the use of trigraphs : No 29 chj -h No 36 dzh - ¥ -
3) the use of tetragraphs : No 38 shch - q_ ;
4) the symbols : No 5 gh-F ,NoQ jeh- € ,NolOew-€ ;
No 14ih-t ,No 3luh=- 4 , No 39w-*t = # (evidently not
only for Russian,but for Bulgarian texts as well) , No 42 je -&
No 43 eh - 9 , - res
Altogether 15 cases out of 48.
3.- These discrepancies reveal complete disregard for the tra=
ditions of Latin transliteration of Slavonic texts (for exen
No 34 th-4 ,Nol0ew-€@ ,Nol4ih- 4 , No 3luh-g ,
No 43 eh -9 , No 39w-3).,
4,- The fact that the linguistic and graphic treatment of
the matter is not thorough in the proposed system is revealed,for
instance,in the following cases :
1) No 39 w-% 3; in the Russian language,the “separating symbol"*®”
in the middle of words marks the "j-like"™ beginning of the fol:
lowing vowel (thus 06%€m - objom , etv..) It would be difficult
to conceive transcriptions with "w" instead of " 6" and " ew’*
for # € 2 (obwewm). On the other hand,in Bulgarian texts "8°
stands for "> “,which is a separete vowel. according to the
ISO transliterations sbheme,it should be rendered as "@" .
2) The symmetrical and parellel symbols for occlusive palatal con-
sonants in the Serbian language, % - voised ani fh - voice-
less,become unsymmetrical : No 7% - aj , No 29 % = chj.:'
3) The proposal of using “h* and “wt as diacritic signs in digraphs
« and trigraphs is quite inconsistant : No Sluh-y (why not «
"uw", which might be used provided digraphs were generally accept:
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 595
No 34th -4 , No 43 eh-9 ,No14ih-& , No 48 yh- and
No 9 yeh -€ on one hand,and No 10 ew = € on the other.
5.- The Institute of Linguistics of the academy of Sciences of
the USSR,basing itself on the traditions of the Czech Latin alphabet
(*latinitsa") widelyemployed for Latin transcription of sounds of
the Slavonic languaged in the linguistic literature,as well as on
the traditions of the "Academical transcription of Russian proper
names with Latin letters” of 1906 (improved version of 1925 in accor-
dance with the new Russien orthography),hes proposed its own project
of Latin transliteration of languages using the Cyrillic alphabet.
This project in the main features coincides with the ISO project and
aiffers from it only in the following points:
The Institute of Linguistics of the aAce-
ee lagi demy of Sciences of the USSR
Fr Ukrainian and Byelo-
russian - g h
x h (and optionally ch,
kh ) ch
e -after consonants;
E always e je - at the beginning,after vowels,
after ® ande.
* _ ‘o - after consonants;
E E jo - at the beginning,after vowels,
after B® and @.
‘u - after consonants;
hid always ju ju - at the beginning,after vewels,
after'3} and 6 .
‘a - after consonants; vowels,
& always je ja - at the beginning,after baie “2
after’%®° and 6,
u alweys & i - at the beginning;after consonants
and vowels;
ji - after 6.
Yo
Russien :
"or"-in the middle always omitted
omitted at the end
‘ 7
b or at the end and before consonents;
omitted before vowels.
fo Serbian ij as
tbe nj n! :
After a perusal of the second version of the ISO project (May,
1954) and in connection with the above mentioned divergencies, the
596 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Institute of Linguistics forwarded in September 1954 its suggestions ©
to the ISO through the Committee for Standardization attached to the
State planning Commission of the USSR.
6.- The Institute of Linguistics is of opinion that it would
be very desirable if the International Commision would take acquain-
tance with the latest project of IS0 (Geneva,39,Route de Malagnon)
and would coordinate the conclusions,which should have internatio -
nal significance,with the International Orgenization for Standardi-
zation (ISO).
Signed (A. A.Reformatsky )}
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 597
DOCUMENT 26/9
Comment on Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan relating to the transliteration of
Cyrillic Characters
By LEO SHELJUZHKO
(Zoologische Sammlung des Bayerischen Staates, Entomologische Abteilung,
Miinchen, Germany)
(Letter dated 9th December 1955)
Besten Dank fiir Ihr freundliches Schreiben vom 17.XI., wie auch fiir
die Zusendung des Sonderdruckes des Artikels von Dr. Almasov und Boltovskoy
mit den Vorschligen zur Transkription des cyrillischen Alphabet. Leider
kann ich mich manchen Ansichten der genanten Autoren nicht anschliessen.
Deshalb habe ich einen Artikel verfasst, in dem meine entsprechenden Ansichten
dargelegt sind und habe diesen, Ihrem Vorschlag entsprechend, Dr. Almasov
zugesandt. Hine Abschrift davon erlaube ich mir diesem Brief beizulegen.
Uber die internationale Transkription russischer Worte
(Zum Artikel von A. Almasov und E. Boltovskoy: ‘‘On the treatment of
words written with cyrillic characters, for the purposes of zoological
nomenclature, bibliography, reference indices, etc.” (Bull. zool. Nomencl.,
Vol. 11, Part 1, 1955)).
1. Allgemeine Bemerkungen
1. Im vorliegenden Artikel wird die Transkription nur russischer Worte
beriicksichtigt. Die anderen slavischen Sprachen, die sich des cyrillischen
Alphabet bedienen, sind mir nicht geniigend bekannt, um iiber deren
Transkription zu diskutieren; auch wage ich nicht zu entscheiden, ob sie
alle bei der Transkription auf einen Nenner gebracht werden kénnen. Gewiss
ware dies an und fir sich erwiinscht, doch, meiner Meinung nach, nicht
unbedingt erforderlich, jedenfalls nicht auf Kosten einer falschen Aussprache
der transkribierten Worte.
Wenn sich Almasov und Boltovskoy fiir eine einheitliche Transkription
der cyrillischen Buchstaben aller 5 slavischen Sprachen einsetzen, so sehen
sie doch selbst ein, dass hier eine absolute Konsequenz nicht gut méglich ist
und dass man schliesslich doch gewisse Eigentiimlichkeiten der verschiedenen
Sprachen beriicksichtigen muss. Das betrifft (/.c., p. 16, Nr. 26) die russischen
Buchstaben : “é’’, “‘i’’, ““b’’ und ‘“b’’. Nun glaube ich, dass dieser Weg unver-
meidlich ist. Meiner Meinung nach miisste man also fiir die fiinf in Frage
kommenden slavischen Sprachen entsprechende Transkriptionsschemen aus-
598 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
arbeiten und dann diese Schemata miteinander vergleichen und die Eigent-
umlichkeiten jeder Sprache beriicksichtigen. Die Unterschiede werden nicht
gross sein und nur einzelne Buchstaben betreffen. Es liese sich dann ein allge-
meines Schema aufbauen, in dem die Abweichungen der einzelnen Sprachen
notiert waren. Obwohl dies die Sache auch etwas komplizieren wiirde, ware
in solcher Weise ein wirklich gut gebriiuchliches Schema geschaffen, anstatt
eines einfacheren, da alle Eigentiimlichkeiten der Sprachen nivelliert und daher
unverstandlich und kaum gebrauchlich ware. Wenn die erwihnten Autoren
die Vorteile eines allgemeinen Schemas fiir die Bibliotheken hervorheben, da
solch ein Schema die Méglichkeit geben wiirde, die in cyrillischen Schrift
geschriebene Worte zu transkribieren, ohne die entsprechenden Sprachen zu
kennen (l.c., p. 13, Nr. 15 (1)), wire dagegen einzuwenden, dass man wohl
annehmen muss, dass eine Bibliothek mindestens wissen sollte, in welcher
Sprache eine Schrift verfasst ist (was ja eine minimale Forderung wire!) und
wenn dies bekannt ist, so hiitte es auch keine Schwierigkeiten, in der Tran-
skription dem entsprechenden Schema zu folgen.
2. Vollkommen einverstanden bin ich mit den erwaihnten Autoren in
der Ablehnung der diakritischen Zeichen. Erstens aus dem Grunde, da diese
nicht ohne Weiteres verstindlich waren, zweitens darum, da die meisten
Druckereien tiber solche Zeichen nicht verfiigen und also deren Anwendung,
praktisch genommen, nur in den wenigsten Fallen méglich wire, wodurch das
ganze Transkriptionssystem zu Fall gebracht ware.
3. In diesem Artikel geht es also darum, russiche Worte durch lateinische
Buchstaben zu transkribieren, wobei als Grundlage dieser Transkription die
Empfehlung aufgefast wird, die als ““Anhang G” der Zoologischen Nomen-
klaturregeln (Richter, 1948, p. 210) angefiihrt ist: “Man driicke . . . még-
lichst genau die 6rtliche Aussprache der Namen aus, ohne jedoch eine voll-
standige Wiedergabe der gehérten Laute in Anspruch zu nehmen”’.
Bei einer Transkription miissen wohl vor allem die Interessen der
Internationalen Nomenklatur beriicksichtigt werden und hier geht es in erster
Linie um die Wiedergabe von Eigennamen, sei es Personennamen oder
geographische Bezeichnungen. Ks ist verstaéndlich, dass diese Namen auch in
phonetischer Hinsicht der Originalaussprache méglichst genau entsprechen
sollen und nicht durch eine primitive, alles nivellierende Schreibweise
verunstaltet werden.
Es handelt sich also nicht nur darum, russische Buchstaben durch
lateinische zu ersetzen, sondern auch darum, die Phonetik nach Méglichkeit
zu bericksichtigen. Dies widerspricht den Ansichten von Dr. Almasov und
Boltovskoy (l.c., p. 13, Nr. 15 (1)), die behaupten, dass ‘“‘The system must be
orthographic and not phonetic’. Diese Behauptung steht nicht im Einklang
mit der Empfehlung der Nomenclaturregeln, die oben zitiert wurde.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 599
Wenn die erwahnten Autoren die Phonetik auch ablehnen oder ihr jeden-
falls eine zweitrangige Bedeutung zumessen, sagen sie doch (I.c., p. 14, Nr. 15 (3) :
“ . . nevertheless it is necessary to take at the basis the phonetic similarities
with some of existing language. We have decided to choose English for this
purpose the most suitable”. Das wire eine Ansicht, die keinesfalls einlauchtend
ist. Es ist gewiss klar, dass man die Aussprache der cyrillischen — lateinisch
transkribierten — Worte an die Aussprache einer bestimmten Sprache binden
muss, ebenso klar ist es aber, dass diese Sprache nur die lateinische sem kann—
eine neutrale Sprache, die in der Nomenklatur eine weitgehende Verwendung
findet und die es auch jedem erméglichen wird, die lateinisch transkribierten
Worte ohne Kenntniss der slavischen Sprachen richtig auszusprechen. Es ware
aus manchen Griinden durchaus nicht angebracht, eine moderne Sprache
hier zu benutzen, da jede von diesen ihre Eigentiimlichkeiten hat, die
nicht im Einklang mit der lateinischen stehen. Ganz besonders abwegig
ware die Anwendung der englischen Sprache, die besonders viele Eigentiimlich-
keiten in der Aussprache besitzt, die weder mit den slavischen Sprachen, noch
mit der lateinischen Sprache etwas gemeinsames haben.
Es wire zu bedenken, dass die Eigentiimlichkeiten der englischen Aus-
sprache nicht nur einige umstrittene Buchstaben, sondern auch viele andere
betreffen. Sollte man die englische Transkription fiir einige Buchstaben
annehmen, so wiire damit die Tendenz gefordert, auch die iibrigen in englischer
Leseart auszusprechen, womit die Originalaussprache ginzlich verunstaltet
wire. Manche Englinder und Amerikaner haben freilich auch jetzt die
Gewohnheit, lateinische Namen auf englische Art auszusprechen, doch muss
man zugeben, dass dies eine schlechte Gewohnheit ist und man sich diesem
Fehler unméglich anschliessen kann, geschweige den ihn zum Prinzip zu
erheben !
Diese Entgegnung gilt selbstverstindlich auch dem Vorschlag von Almasov
und Boltovskoy (l.c., p. 12, Nr. 13): ‘This solution is all more adequate as
it is already used in English transliteration practice where the combinations
‘ch’, ‘sh’, ‘zh’, and ‘kh’ are employed”. Meine Einwinde beschrinken sich
hier auf zwei Falle, nimlich auf die Kombinationen “ch” und “kh”. Das
“ch” ist in der lateinischen Sprache gebrauchlich, kann also in transkirbierten
Worten nur in einer Weise verwendet werden, die der lateinischen Aussprache
entspricht, also als russisches “x” und keinesfalls als russisches ‘“‘4”, wie das
von den genannten Autoren vorgeschlagen wird. Wenn in englischen Worten,
die selbstverstindlich ihre Originalschreibweise beibehalten, dies ‘“‘ch” als
russisches “4”? ausgesprochen wird, und in der franzdsischen als russisches
“m1”, so ist es etwas ganz anderes und macht auch keine Schwierigkeiten bei
der Aussprache, vorausgesetzt, dass man weiss, dass es sich um ein englisches
oder franzésisches Wort handelt.
Das “kh” ist, wie es auch in den Nomenklaturregeln angegeben wurde
(Richter, 1948, p. 210) ein weicher arabischer Kehllaut, der etwa einem ‘“‘gh”’
600 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
entspricht. Es wiirde sehr verwirrend wirken, sollte man plétzlich dieses
“kh” dem russischen “‘x”’ gleich stellen.
Wegen den zwei weiteren Kombinationen hatte ich keine Einwande.
Das “zh” ist weder in der lateinischen noch in der englischen Sprache
gebrauchlich ; seine Anwendung fiir das russische “” ist kiinstlich und
bedingt, womit man sich jedoch abfinden muss, zumal wir in der lateinischen
Sprache keinen entsprechenden Aquivalent finden. (Dasselbe gilt auch fiir
die Anwendung des ‘“y”’ fiir das russische “‘s1’’). Auch gegen die Anwendung
von “‘sh”’ fiir das russische “m1” ware nichts einzuwenden: das “sh” kann
wohl kaum anders als ‘“‘sch” ausgesprochen werden, ist also allgemein verstind-.
lich und hat sich auch seit langer Zeit in der Transkription fest eingebiirgert.
Wenn sich die genannten Autoren fiir die englische Sprache so einsetzen,
so ware es nur logisch, die englische Transkription als internationale
anzunehmen — ein Vorschlag, der aus vielen Griinden kaum eine allgemeine
Anerkennung finden kénnte und bei dessen Durchfiihrung man schon wegen
der weitgehenden Eigentiimlichkeiten der englischen Aussprache auf uniiber-
widliche Schwierigkeiten stossen wiirde.
4. Es ware wohl angebracht, bei der Aufstellung einer internationalen
Transkription nach Méglichkeit das beizubehalten, was in dieser Hinsicht
bereits getan wurde und dies jedenfalls nicht einfach zu ignorieren. Man
muss bedenken, dass die Fragen der lateinischen Transkription russischer (und
iiberhaupt cyrillischer) Worte nicht erst heute aufgetaucht sind. Es sind
vielmehr Fragen, mit denen man sich schon Jahrzehnte befasst hat und die
Ergebnisse dieser Arbeit miissen wenigstens genau untersucht und nicht ohne
schwerwiegende Griinde einfach verworfen werden, schon deshalb nicht, da
manche dieser Ergebnisse sich inzwischen in der Praxis fest eingebiirgert haben
und jede Anderung eine Umwilzung zur Folge hatte, die nicht gerade wiin-
schenswert ware, besonders dann nicht, wenn sie keiner Notwendigkeit
entspricht.
Sollte man sich die Miihe geben, die russische wissenschaftliche Literatur
des letzten Jahrhunderts durchzusehen, so kénnte man die Evolution feststellen,
die die Transkription russischer Worte erfahren hat. Es ist gewiss hier nicht
der Platz auf die Einzelheiten einzugehen und diese Evolution zu verfolgen.
Ich beschrinke mich auf die Erwahnung der Arbeit von N. Kusnezov (Faune
de la Russie, Insectes Lépidoptéres, Vol. I, Livr. 2, p. CCCLXXXXVII.
Leningrad. 1929), in der u.a. die lateinische Transkription von mehreren
russischen Buchstaben angefiihrt ist, naimlich: “B= v, at = zh, x = ch,
y= tz, 1=tsh, 11 =—sh, nm] =stsh, O =ju, A=ja’. Es ist dabei zu
betonen, dass diese Schreibweise nicht von Kusnezov ad hoc erfunden wurde,
sondern nur eine Zusammenfassung dessen darstellt, wozu die russischen
Autoren im Laufe von Jahrzehnten gelangt sind. Nach dem Erscheinen
dieser Arbeit haben sich wohl die meisten russischen Autoren an diese Tran-
skription gehalten und man kann wohl annehmen, dass sie jetzt eine allgemeine
Anerkennung findet. Diese Transkription hat sich gut bewahrt, widerspricht
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 601
keinesfalls den Forderungen der N omenklaturregeln und es besteht durchaus
kein Grund sie umzustossen und durch eine andere, der englischen Sprachweise
entsprechende zu ersetzen.
Nach diesen allgemeinen Bemerkungen gehe ich jetzt zur Transkription
einzelner Buchstaben iiber, insofern ich mit den entsprechenden Vorschlagen
der Herrn Dr. Almasov und Boltovskoy nicht einverstanden bin.
II. Transkription der einzelnen Buchstaben
1. Das russische “e”’ entspricht nicht genau dem lateinischen (oder
deutschen) “‘e”. Es handelt sich vielmehr um einen jotierten Laut, der wohl
am besten durch ein “je” wiederzugeben wire. J edoch kommt diese
Jotierung nicht immer gleich deutlich zum Vorschein. Besonders fallt die
Jotierung auf, wenn das Wort mit einem “e” beginnt, oder auch wenn es
inmitten des Wortes, aber vor einem Vokal steht. In diesen Fallen wiirde
es sich empfehlen, es durch ‘je’ wiederzugeben, so z.B. : “Jegorov, Jermo-
lajev, Jershoy, Dostojevskij, Jelabuga, Jeletz, Kijev” (nicht : “Egorov,
Ermolaev, Ershov, Dostoevskij, Elabuga, Eletz, Kiev”). Dagegen braucht
die Jotierung inmitten des Wortes vor einem Konsonanten nicht hervorge-
hoben zu werden, kann also in diesen Fallen dem lateinischen “e” gleich
gestellt werden, wie z.B. : “Tsherskij” (nicht “Tshjerskij’’).
2. Das verhaltnismissig seltene russische “é” entspricht recht gut dem
lateinischen “jo” und wire am besten so wiederzugeben, z.B. “Orjol”. Da
sich aber die Schreibweise dabei bedeutend verandert (es kommt ein ‘‘o”
anstatt des “e”), erscheint es ratsam auch die zweite Schreibweise in
Klammern beizufiigen, also : “Orjol (Orel). Der Vorschlag das “é” dem
“e” gleich zu stellen widerspricht der Aussprache. Da aber, wie bereits
erwahnt, das “é” in der russischen Sprache nur eine seltene Erscheinung ist,
hat die Differenz keine grosse Bedeutung.
3. Dem Vorschlag das russische “¢” durch “‘s’” wiederzugeben, kann
man gewiss nur zustimmen, jedoch mit einer Einschrankung. Es entstehen
namlich in den Fallen Bedenken, wo das russische “c” zwischen zwei Vokalen
steht. In diesen Fallen besteht die Gefahr, dass das “s” als russisches “‘3”
ausgesprochen wird. Um das zu vermeiden erscheint es ratsam, es hier zu
verdoppeln, so miisste man schreiben : “Lomonossov”, “Ossa” (anstatt :
“Lomonosoy’’, “Osa’”’).
4. Wie es bereits im allgemeinem Teil erwahnt wurde, entspricht das
russische “x” yollkommen dem lateinischen “ch” und kann naturgemass nur
602 Bulletin of Zoological N omenclature
in dieser Weise wiedergeben werden. Den Vorschlag es durch “kh” wieder-
zugeben, méchte ich als villig abwegig bezeichnen, da dies mit der Aussprache
durchaus nicht iibereinstimmt, wie auch mit den Empfehlungen der Nomen-
klaturregeln. Also: Cholm, Charkov, Cherson (nicht: ‘“‘Kholm, Kharkov,
Kherson’’).
5. Das russische “11” ist eigentlich eine Kombination zweier Buchstaben :
‘“"”? und “3”, dementsprechend miisste es so transkribiert werden, wie man
diese Buchstaben transkribiert, also “tz”, Die vorgeschlagene Transkription
“4h” ist absolut unannehmbar. Sie kann weder mit der russischen noch mit
der lateinischen Aussprache in Binklang gebracht werden und auch die
englische Aussprache entspricht der russischen nicht genau. Wenn wir z.B.
“Paritzin’” oder “Tzarevokokshajsk”’ schreiben, so ist dies allgemein verstand-
lich, dagegen aber ware “Tharithin” oder ‘“Tharevokokshajsk” iiberhaupt
kaum lesbar und sogar fiir einen Russen unverstindlich.
6. Das russische “4” ist auch nichts weiter als eine Kombination von
zwei Buchstaben, namlich von “T” und “m1” uns soll dementsprechend als
“tsh” wiedergegeben werden, was auch gebrauchlich ist. Der Vorschlag es
durch “ch” zu schreiben, ware absolut unannehmbar, wie ich es bereits
erwahnt habe. Erstens, schon deshalb, da das lateinische ‘“‘ch’’ dem russichen
“x”? entspricht ; zweitens, da eine englische Leseart durchaus unangebracht
und verwirrend wirken wiirde. Also: ‘Ishetverikov, Tshitsherin, Tshita,
Tsheljabinsk” (nicht : “Qhetverikov, Chicherin, Chita, Cheljabinsk’”’).
7. Das russische “ty” ist wieder eine Kombination zweier Buchstaben,
namlich bon “m1” und “4” und miisste dementsprechend als “shtsh”’ geschrieben
werden. In der Praxis aber wird eine Abkiirzung gebraucht und wird dieses
“qy’ als “stsh” transkribiert. Gegen diese Abanderung wiire nichts ein-
zguwenden, zumal sie die Aussprache nicht betrifft: ‘‘shtsh” und “‘stsh”
kénnen nur nahezu identisch ausgesprochen werden. Der Vorschlag, das
“ny? als “‘shch” wiederzugeben beruht auf der nicht annehmbaren Trans-
kription von “a? durch “ch” und ist daher zu verwerfen. Also, hatten wir :
“Stshegolkov, Stshogolev, Stshelkanovtzev’’ (nicht: ““Shchegolkov, Shchogolev,
Shchelkanovtzev ’).
8. Das russische harte Zeichen “¢” kommt far die Transkription nur in
den seltenen Fallen in Frage, wo es inmitten der Worte steht. (Am Ende
der Worte ist es stumm und braucht nicht transkribiert zu werden. Auch
wird es nach der neuen Grammatik hier nicht mehr gebraucht). Es ist
gebrauchlich und erscheint auch zweckmissig das ““b” inmitten der Worte
durch einen “’” wiederzugeben. Der Vorschlag es durch “w”’ zu transkribieren
(l.c., p. 17, Nr. 26) ist unverstandlich, wirkt verwirrend und erscheint véllig
zwecklos. Was das bulgarische “a” hetrifft, so scheint seine Leseart etwas
anders zu sein und miisste man sich iiberlegen, ob man hier nicht eine andere
Schreibweise anwendem miisste.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 603
9. Das russische weiche Zeichen “‘b”’ macht gewisse Schwierigkeiten und
zwar darum, da seine Wiedergabe nicht in allen Fallen notwendig erscheint.
Dort aber, wo seine Anwendung notig ist, wire es wohl am besten, es durch
a. zu transkribieren, was auch der Praxis entspricht. Dies soll wie am Ende
der Worte, so auch inmitten derselben geschehen, so z.B.: “Kazanj, Permj,
Obj, Gorjkij” (anstatt: ‘‘Kazan, Perm, Ob, Gorkij” wie es oft geschrieben
wird). In manchen Fallen aber — nach einem “‘l’’ — scheint das weiche
Zeichen iiberfliissig zu sein und kénnte wegbleiben, so z.B.: “Olga, Olgopol,
Olviopol, Jelisavetpol, Jaroslavl” (anstatt: Oljga, “Oljviopolj, Jelisavetpolj,
Jaroslavlj’’). Wenn aber das weiche Zeichen ‘“‘b”’ zwischen dem ‘‘l” und
einem Vokalen steht, so wire es unbedingt zu beriicksichtigen, z.B.: ‘“Tjinskij,
Iljitshev” (nicht: “‘Ilinskij, Ilitshev’’?). Der Vorschlag das weiche Zeichen
durch ein “’”’ wiederzugeben ist schon deshalb nicht annehmbar, da das “‘’”’
gewohnlich das harte Zeichen ersetzt und diese Transkription nur eine
unnotige Konfusion hervorrufen wiirde.
10. Was nun die Transkription des russischen ‘“b’’ betrifft, so ware es
wohl angebracht, es dem russischen ‘“‘e” gleichzustellen, dass heisst also, es
durch ‘“‘e” oder durch “je” zu fe iesiten (am Beginn der Worte und vor
einem Vokal). Freilich, auch in manchem anderen Fallen besoders nach
einem russischen “H’’ macht sich das “6” gut bemerkbar und wird auch
gewohnlich durch ‘‘je’ wiedergegeben, wie z.B. ““Dnjepr’’, ‘““Dnjestr’? — eine
Schreibweise die sich bereits ziemlich eingebiirgert hat. In anderen Fallen
aber kommt die Jotierung nur wenig zum Vorschein und entspricht hier das
“5” dem “‘e’’, wie z.B. “Medvedev” (anstatt ““Medvjedev’’). Der springende
Punkt ist aber, dass das ““b” in der neuen russischen Grammatik gestrichen
oder genauer gesagt durch das “‘e” ersetzt wurde. Es ware daher anzunehmen,
dass im Weiteren auch die nA i Russen nicht mehr wissen werden, welche
Worte mit ‘“b’”’ geschrieben wurden. Es erscheint daher am zweckmiAssigsten,
wenigstens fiir unsere praktischen Zwecke, auf die schliesslich gering Aus-
sprache-Unterschiede des ““b”’ zu verzichten und es dem russischen “‘e’’ gleich
zu stellen.
“ny
11. Das russische ‘a’? entspricht der Aussprache nach ziemlich genau
dem lateinischen “‘e” und ne ohne Weiteres durch ‘“‘e”’ wiedergegeben werden.
Der Vorschlag es Otc “eh” zu transkribieren ist unverstindlich, da der
dadurch entstehende Laut dem ‘‘a”’ nicht entspricht. Wenn wir das russische
Wort “exo” als “Echo” schreiben, so erscheint seine Leseart recht deutlich
und der russischen Leseart hahe, dagegen ““Ehcho”’ ist eine unndtige Kompli-
zierung der Schreibweise, die dei Aussprache nur unniitz verwirrt.
12. Wegen dem russischen “1”, d.h. wegen seiner Gleichstellung dem
russischen ‘“‘m’”’ und ees haa dem lateiischen “‘i’’ bin ich mit den
Ansichten der genannten Autoren (I.c., p. 16, Nr. 26) PaIbGe tes einverstanden.
604 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
III. Vergleichstabelle der Transkription der
russischen Buchstaben laut meinen Vorschlag
und dem von Almasov & Boltovskoy
Russisches Lateinische Transkription
Alphabet
Mein Vorschlag von
Vorschlag Almasov &
Bolt ovskoy
tke Ce ee eeoeeres08 A
@s@e00e0e@e288 680 ®eeseeeoeeeee8
eeoeave0evr60 868 e®eeéeaovee8se
eeevest? 038 @ ®eeoaogveeesees
2A do ®
e@eoenere0e28080 @eeeeoe2nvue8ee¢e0
w ashe witiea git) Bate fore vies
2 e ee do
@eeeeeoe eee jo e@eeoeeoeded
SS
=
e0eee8828080080 AY Gia wink ecece oe
eoeeeveen see 0 GB eceeeeercas
©@ee@o0e0 P9288 vee Se Sere ae See
@eszeeene202808@
eeeee8 O08 @ @seo0eeeeoe6 6
bi ck th be
eee2eeo7800 0 1 “@eeoeee0e28088
ecoocsevecese Wh econevercee
<x 2 S pe OO) pe s G & SB D0Cn DW ow 4
F Be Rao eFE eH SS
ecoeconcsvcce TL eeeseseeee
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 605
Russisches Lateinische Transkription
Alphabet
Mein Vorschlag von
Vorschlag Almasov &
Bolt ovskoy
erie Ee ie Oar ee oe a ee
ccoeonsee¢oe DP eveoseoenees
cocoon vtes LF ercevevnrve
ecceoersse Sg SE eeevrve
eeeoovoe © @6 @ G egeoeoeceascee @
eg ahs Ub 0.6 0.4 @ 6 4.6.88
obs de teres “Cl giaws. « vialate
o
D
B
S
G
u
Da ne Uae ae wn Coe: vieereal
kh
th
See ee ee Mae eee Pe
Sete e eee. PELL. eae.c.8.0.0-0,, Gcl
egrty erga: |: reer re wearer tee sie)
Vnugiivies es (BURRS wee eeee SHOR
Seay oa Ce NE TOR CK Sie
sueosecee. F eesrenace
cece cnee g vosevesee
Pee ee Be 16 eewe eS
evcoe 0200 BS seoussecse eh
rete ome FR SM ROSS DSS OC
Sea g ROKe ie ee ee eles ju
JZ coves e808 ja ~eoere6eo ja
oo
606 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 26/10
Comment on the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan for the transliteration
of Cyrillic Characters
By H. S. BUSHELL
(Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London)
(Letter dated 21st February 1956)
This scheme is proposed both for the needs of zoological nomenclature (as
specified by the Commission) and for the more varied needs of bibliography,
indexes, etc. It seems to me, however, that these two sets of needs are different
in character, and that any scheme designed to satisfy both cannot completely
satisfy either. I will, therefore, comment on the two aspects separately.
Bibliography and Indexing
The needs that a scheme for this purpose has to satisfy are set out on
page 4 of the transliteration system published by the Royal Society in 1953.
I may recall that, in order of importance, they are
(1) Avoid ambiguity completely even for those who do not know any
of the languages from which transliteration is made (demonstrated
by back-transliteration).
(2) Make names that can be indexed and can be found in an index.
(3) Do not use diacritics not available to English printers.
(4) Indicate pronunciation, so far as may be possible after requirements
1-3 have been fulfilled.
The Almasov-Boltovsky scheme fulfils the third of these requirements
completely, but it does not fulfil the first, second or fourth. It does not fulfil
the first, because many of its diagraphs (or other combinations of letters are
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 607
made up of letters that are also used singly for other letters. Most (but not all)
of these diagraphs include the letter j, and as regards the ones that do, the
authors write (p. 15, para. 19) ‘‘ such criticism would be justified if such double
usage would be a handicap for ‘inverted transliteration’. However, in all
five Slav languages corresponding sounds are represented in an absolutely
definite way, thus eliminating the possibility of confusion”. This means that
there is no confusion for those who know the practices of the five languages,
but complete confusion for those who do not, and the latter include the great
majority of scientific workers in western Europe.
The scheme does not fulfil the second requirement (indexing) because it
introduces a number of letters that are not to be pronounced but function only
as “supplementary signs”’. These letters would cause words to occupy
unexpected positions in an index and hence be difficult to find. The scheme
does not fulfil the fourth requirement (pronunciation) because some of its
diagraphs and other combinations are obviously used to show pronunciation
completely (e.g. sh [no. 37]), some show pronunciation in part (e.g. chj [no. 29]),
some show it for one language but not another (shch [no. 38] is correct for
Russian, but is sht in Bulgarian), and some do not show it at all (e.g. ew
{no. 10] or th [no. 34]). The use of th for no. 34 is also unfortunate in a special
way : no. 34 is a common Russian letter, pronounced ts as in “bits” or
“tsetse ’—it is the first letter of the word tsar. When the Royal Society’s
system was being prepared, its transliteration (and the avoidance of resulting
ambiguity) was discussed with the Russians, the Yugoslav embassy and
Sir Ellis Minns of the British Academy, and they all refused to accept any
alternative to ts.
Zoological Nomenclature
The desiderata for the name of a genus or species appear to be that it
should be latinised so as to be easy to print and pronounce and should not be
made longer than need be. Back-transliteration (of ‘‘ Cyrillic-derived ’ names)
is not necessary and not possible. It is not necessary because, for example,
one does not need to know in whose honour a species was named in order to
find its original description. [What one does need to know is the name of its
author, and this should therefore be transliterated by an unambiguous biblio-
graphical system.] It is not possible, because the Commission does not propose
any change in existing names that do not include diacritics, and as such names
(e.g. tschitscherint or latyschewi) have been transliterated by a variety of
systems, they could not be back-transliterated by any one system. It is not
desirable to base zoological names on bibliographical transliteration systems,
because those would make the names too complicated. The Royal Society’s
system would be unsuitable because it contains a few diacritics, and the
scheme of Drs. Almasov and Boltovskoy would increase the length and com-
608 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
plexity of many names and render them difficult to pronounce, because it
would introduce into them additional letters intended to be mute and to act as
supplementary signs. It may perhaps be pointed out that the ew in the
latyschewi mentioned above is the German transliteration of the two letters
that we represent by ev, whereas the ew of the scheme represents a single
letter with w as a supplementary sign. A far simpler system could be devised
for zoological nomenclature, provided that its use were strictly confined to this
purpose (it would be disastrous for bibliography). In this connection, the
Commission’s proposals have to be considered under two heads :—
(1) Names that have already been published. Here the zoologist has to
modify a name that is already in Latin letters, because some of them
have diacritics. It is of little use to tell him what to do with Cyrillic
letters, because it may not be possible to back-transliterate the name
and so know what the Cyrillic letters were. He needs to be told
what to do with the Latin letters that have diacritics ; the instruction
should be something like “ change é into ch, § into sh, etc.”. The
diacritic letters to consider are those given in the table on the last
page of the Royal Society’s system, but there would not be so many
of them if the obsolete letters were omitted. Moreover the trouble-
some digraph 8é¢ (Russian) and &t (Bulgarian) need not be dealt with
at all, because the right alteration, to shch (Russian) and sht
(Bulgarian), will result if the instructions for 8 and é as individual
letters are followed.
(2) Names to be made for the future. A transliteration system is needed
here, and it needs to be simpler than published ones. A simple one
could be devised provided that it was agreed that possibility of back-
transliteration is not a factor. It could be based primarily on the
use of y with all the sounds it has in English, e.g. Yugoslavia
(consonantal), Lysenko (vowel) and Boltovskoy (component of
diphthong like English “ boy ’’).
Finally it seems to me that the Commission must decide which alphabets
it should cover before it decides details of transliteration. The modern alpha-
bets in which the Cyrillic letters are used are Russian, Bulgarian, Serbian,
Ukrainian, Belorussian and Macedonian. The Royal Society’s system was
restricted to the first three of these six, because it was thought that these were
the only ones in which matter of scientific importance was likely to be published,
and additional alphabets meant additional complexity. Drs. Almasov and
Boltovskoy include all except Macedonian, but if scientific matter were to be
published in any of the last three languages, it would perhaps be more likely,
for political reasons, to be in Macedonian, which the Yugoslavs wish to encourage,
than in Ukrainian or Belorussian, which Soviet Russia apparently does not.
I do not, of course know which Cyrillic alphabets the Commission will wish to
consider, but a further point that troubles me somewhat is whether it has
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 609
considered the problem of the alphabets of the Slav countries that use Latin
letters but have diacritics on or under some of them. This is of course not a
problem of Cyrillic transliteration but solely one of diacritics,. The Slav-Latin
alphabets are Croat, Slovenian, Czech, Slovak and Polish. The first two
would present little difficulty, but the last three have a number of diacritics
additional to, and more difficult than, those that are concerned in Cyrillic
transliteration. I should think that it is much more likely that a species will
be named after, and in the Latin alphabet of, a Czech or Pole than that it will
be named after, and also in the transliterated alphabet of, a native of the
Ukraine or Belorussia.
610 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 26/11
Comment on the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan for the transliteration
of Cyrillic Characters
By P. J. M. GEELAN
(London)
(a) Letter dated 20th November 1956
The Cyrillic alphabets most likely to be involved in zoological names are,
I imagine, Russian, Bulgarian and Serbian. The systems recommended by
my Committee for the transliteration of Russian and Bulgarian are identical
with those used officially in the United States. These were developed princi-
pally with the idea of the romanization of geographical names in mind, and
you will notice that they employ a minimum of diacritical marks (in practice
the umlaut can be omitted from Russian é in transliteration, leaving only
Bulgarian ii, in which the short sign should be retained. Anglo-American
official practice is also uniform in the treatment of Serbian : this is to trans-
literate it into the Croat roman alphabet, which has a one-to-one correspondence
with Serbian Cyrillic. I would draw your attention here to the dangers of
using any other method of transliterating Serbian ; for all practical purposes
Serbo-Croat is a single language which may be written in either roman or
Cyrillic letters. The existence of two roman forms of Serbian names can only
lead to complete confusion.
With regard to your particular problem, one’s first thought is that the
International Congress of Zoological Nomenclature should consider adopting ~
an internationally accepted system of Cyrillic transliteration, such as that
recommended by the International Standards Organization (details of this are
obtainable from the British Standards Institute), which deals with Ukrainian
and White Russian as well as the three languages mentioned above.
The difficulty about the I.S.O. transliteration from your point of view,
however, is that it involves extensive use of diacritical marks (¢, 8, Z, etc.).
It would of course be possible to accept the I.S.0. system without its diacritics,
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 611
but the omission of diacritics in transliterated scripts is not at all comparable
with the ignoring of them in a roman alphabet, and I would strongly advise
against this course.
The best chance of resolving your problem satisfactorily seems to me to
lie in getting the Congress to accept for international zoological use one or other
of the national transliteration systems of member countries. The choice
would presumably lie between French, German and Anglo-American systems.
Allowing that the desideratum is the least possible use of diacritical marks,
then the flexibility of the English alphabet in general permits a more precise
and less ambiguous romanization than does French or German.
(b) Letter dated 28th November 1956
I read Almasov’s paper on the transliteration of Cyrillic with great interest.
The system he proposes is of course open to many objections (to apply it to
Serbian, for instance, would be dangerously misleading), but it demonstrates
quite clearly the difficulty of finding one general scheme for transliterating all
Cyrillic alphabets. However, given the three impossible requirements of
clerical applicability to all Cyrillic alphabets, the non-use of diacritical marks,
and reversibility (to the original), then it seems to me that the authors have
produced what is probably as good a solution as could be devised.
612 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 26/12
The System for the transliteration of Cyrillic Characters recommended
by the Royal Society in its publication entitled “‘ The Trans-
literation of Russian, Serbian and Bulgarian for
Bibliographical Purposes ”’
TABLE I
THE RECOMMENDED SYSTEM ~ CYRILLIC- ENGLISH
No. | Letter} Language |} li No.
se ae ae 24
24" BO 25
3) BSB (25+24)
rls aa ey 26
oh el 27
6] f 4 28
7] Ee 29
s| Bé 30
9| KX 31
10; 33 32
a Mi Oe 33
Dh ek 34
13| Ai 35
14] J j 36
Io K 37
116) Ia 38 R
17} ba 39 R
18} MM 40 R
19; HH 4l R
20| bw 42 R
242) D0 43 R
}22) In 44 R
23 7.8.0 45 R
46
If a foreign name that has already been transliterated into Cyrillic.
letters has to be re-transliterated into English letters, the transliter-
ated name should be followed by its original form in square brackets,
e.g. Uittinkhem [Whittingham }.
1 The tables given in the present Document are reproduced by kind permission of the Royal
Society.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 613
TABLE IJ
THF RECOMMENDED SYSTEM — ENGLISH - CYRILLIC
English Languages Cyrillic |} English Languages Cyrillic}
Letters itis Letters Letters
= GL Shes Lines |
ec g
ao
“McC™MI“M 4 gl
Notes.
The use of |’, n’ and t’ in Russian and Bulgarian (where they are
not translitesations of a single letter, bet mereiy 1, a or t followed by
the soft sign) is included to emphasize the fact that they are used for
single letters only in Serbian.
Shch and sht javariably represent the letter Ijin Russian and Bul-
garian respectively, since the pairs of letters (MU in Russian and
WT in Bulgarian) seem never to occur consecutively in the respective
languages.
614 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
TABLE Ill
THE SERBO-CROATIAN LATIN (CROAT) AND
ALPHABETS CYRILLIC GEREN)
>
©
zz &
a SS be oe OSS bts oe es
tis Ae el Et = Se — eae ©)
B
I
y
h
A
q
A
E
¢
c
X
a
J
K
ie ae ee
a
bad
The order of letters in the Latin form of Serbo-Croatian is that given
above; the order in the Cyrillic form is that given for the Serbian letters
in Tablel.
Amplifications of the Croat Alphabet.
Russian and/or Bulgarian letters that do not occur in Serbian Cyrillic are
6, i, 4, W, b, H, b, B, 9,0, 8,0, Vv, &.
Transliterations adopted for these in International Systems include :-
o, jooré
i ori
. v
jor.
sc (Russian) and &t
( Bulgarian)
’ or ’’(Russian )and a
( Bulgarian)
¥:
or j
’
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 615
DOCUMENT 26/13
Letter dated 25th February 1958 from the Royal Society
(Reference : Document 26/12)
In 1953 the Royal Society and the British Academy drew up a system
for the transliteration of Russian, Serbian and Bulgarian and this has been
adopted by a number of scientific organizations in this country. At the time
of drawing up this system there were, in use in the United Kingdom, a great
number of systems of various kinds and it was in order to obtain some
standardization among the scientific community that the Royal Society
published its scheme.
Recently discussions have been held with the British Standards Institution
and these are resulting in the publication by that Institution of a British
Standard for the Transliteration of Cyrillic and Greek. This Standard will
contain what, in effect, is the first agreed British system for transliteration of
Cyrillic. This system is not yet published although it is hoped that it will be
within the next two or three months. The transliteration of the Russian alphabet
is based upon that of the Royal Society and I enclose a copy of the Royal
Society system duly modified. As you will see the modifications concern only
two characters. One of these is the hard sign in the Russian and the other is
the obsolete letter 6 which is not now in current use in Russia.
The Serbian transliteration has been altered to be in accordance with
the Royal Society recommendations given in Table III of the pamphlet.
When the Royal Society originally promoted its scheme there was a general
feeling that a straight latinization of Serbian was to be recommended. However,
since 1953 the Serbian alphabet has been more and more written in Yugoslavia
in the form recommended in our Table III and in consequence the British
Standard is recommending this kind of transliteration in order that confusion
may be avoided.
As far as Bulgarian is concerned I am awaiting full details from the British
Standards Institution and will let you have these as soon as possible.
616 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Note by the Secretary to the Commission (intld. F.H. 28th February 1958):
The enclosure to the Royal Society’s letter of 25th February 1958 is nor
reproduced here because the Tables concerned are identical with those already
given in Document 26/12, except for the insertion therein of the following
modifications :—
(a) Table I, letter 36, last column: The single symbol [’] given in the
original table has been replaced in the revised table by a double
symbol [’’].
(b) Table I, letter 44, last column: The transliteration “th” there
suggested has been replaced by the symbol “ gs
(c) Table II: This is a Latin alphabet equivalent of Table I and the
changes noted under (a) and (b) above have been included in it in the
revised version now furnished by the Royal Society.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 617
DOCUMENT 26/14
Transliteration system for Russian and Bulgarian geographical names
prepared by the “ Permanent Committee on Geographical
Names for British Official Use ”’
(Communicated by the Permanent Committee)
TABLE 1
TRANSLITERATION OF BULGARIAN GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES
The following system for the transliteration of Bulgarian, devised by the
ted States Board on Geographic Names (BGN) and published by them in May, 1949,
accepted for British official use by the Committee in September, 1952, and
wld be referred to as the BGN/PCGN System.
Bulgarian Transliteration Bulgarian Transliteration
Aa a Ext Pp
B 6 b Pp r
BB Vv ofr «: Ss
he iy g fe t
Aa da v ¥. u
Ee e © @ f
Ex zh X x kh
3 3 zZ Uy ts
wou os ua ch
nu y Ia sh
Kk k Tq sht
A x + bs u
Mm m b * (apostrophe)
Hu n 0 vp yu
0-0 fo) Ha ya
In transliteration from sources written in the orthography which
was official before February, 19/5:
1. Word-final & should be omitted in transliteration.
2. The obsolete letter x » now replaced by & , should be
transliterated by &
3. The obsolete letter & , replaced in February 1345 by E or fl
according to local pronunciation, should be transliterated by ye,
if sources written in the new orthography are not available.
Names transliterated with ye resulting from ®& should be corrected
to agree with the new Bulgarian spellings as they become available.
618 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
TABLE 2
TABLE FOR THE TRANSLITERATION OF RUSSIAN
GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES
RUSSIAN TRANSLITERATION RUSSIAN TRANSLITERATION
Aa a Pp r
Bo b €c s
Bs Vv a t
Pr g ey u
AA d @ f
Ee ye, xX kh
2K OK zh 7 lly ts
6 Zz a ch
iu i Il w sh
Yi it y HI wy shch
Kk k bs »
Jin ] BI pr y
Mm m bps 3
Hu n 29 e
Oo ° ¥O 10 yu
Iln p A a ya
1 ye initially, after vowels, and after », 1; e€ elsewhere; when
- written as é in Russian, transliterate as yé or é.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 619
DOCUMENT 1/51
(continued from page 350)
The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “‘ Parataxa Plan ’’ :
Note of Support supplementary to Document 1/43
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)
By JOHN S. HAMPTON
(Bromley, Kent, England)
(Enclosure to a letter dated 7th December 1957)
(for Document 1/43 see 1958, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 245-246)
The Holothuroidea differ from all other Echinoderm classes in having a
greatly reduced calcareous skeletal system. External plates are typically
absent and usually a peripharyngeal crown, anal plates, madreporite, and
sclerites are present. Of these the endoskeletal sclerites (or ossicles) formed in
the superficial dermal layers constitute the outstanding character of the class,
they are of microscopic size and occur in an endless variety of shapes ; an
association of several types being usual in individual specimens. Their shapes
are of paramount importance in the species identification of Recent forms, each
of which is characterised by its sclerites (Hyman, 1955 : 134).
2. As explained in my note of 12th November 1957, dissociated fossil
sclerites are the only basis for an understanding of the palaeontology of the
class Holothuroidea. They are widely distributed in marine sedimentary
strata, but areseldom common. The study of fossil sclerites, however, presents
an almost completely unexplored field in micropalaeontology, as no method
has been provided, other than the dual nomenclature outlined below, for
applying names to them without reference to the whole-animals which they
represent. The present classification of fossil Holothuroidea proposed by
Frizzell & Exline (1955: 56), is based completely on disjunct components
(sclerites) and, although, as in any classificatory system based on form and
structure, it unavoidably follows to some extent the pattern of natural (genetic)
relationship, is completely artificial. The arrangement of families is based
620 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
on the development of sclerites in Recent holothurians ; a family being erected
to include all those sclerites of a general morphological type. Genera, in turn,
are grouped on more restricted features, and similarly species are based ideally
on suites of nearly identical sclerites (Latin binomial names being applied).
Markedly unlike sclerites are found within Recent biospecies, and apparently
identical sclerites are reported to exist in relatively unrelated forms. No rule
can be given for recognising variable sclerites, unless coherent variation can be
shown, of a single biospecies, as opposed to similar sclerites belonging to
distinct forms, and in micropalaeontological studies ontogenetic stages in
sclerite associations of a biospecies must be ignored as their relationships
cannot be determined (see Frizzell & Exline, op. cit.). The relationship of
disjunct fossil sclerite ‘‘ species, genera and families’’, to their respective
biospecies is, therefore, usually obscure (Hampton, 1957a). It appears obvious,
therefore, that fossil holothurian sclerites are best fitted only for “‘ Parataxa ”’,
Frizzell & Exline recognise the categories of their classification (1955) as
“ Parataxa’”’ (Frizzell, 1957). Such recognition of fossil holothurian sclerites
as ‘“‘ Parataxa’’ would make the study of these discrete fragments of con-
siderable value in stratigraphic-micropalaeontological research.
3. In recent micropalaeontological studies (Hampton, 1957, b, c, d and e)
several new “ genera, subgenera and species’”’ of holothurian sclerites have
been proposed. The artificial nature of these categories was recognised, as
was the need for a separate classification (Hampton, 1957a), and as they were
proposed within the classification of Frizzell & Exline (1955), they are best
considered as ‘“‘ Parataxa’”’.
4, It is for the foregoing reasons that, as I have said in my communication
of 12th November 1957, I strongly support the proposals of Moore & Sylvester-
Bradley (1957) to Nis in the study of these discrete fossil fragments.
puRCH earn
14 APR 958
Frizzell (D.L.), 1957, Personal Communication to the Autho
& Exline (H.), 1955, Bull. Missouri Sch. Mines & Met., No.
Hampton (J.8.), 1957a, Personal Communication to Professor Don. L. Frizzell
—., 1957b, Geol. Mag. (in press)
——, 1957c, Micropaleont. (in press)
——., 1957d, ibid (in press)
——, 1957e, MS. submitted to Journ. Paleont.
Hyman (L.H.), 1955, The Invertebrates, Vol. IV : New York
Moore (R.C.), & Sylvester-Bradley (P.C.), 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : Case 1,
Document 1/1
References
CONTENTS
(continued from front wrapper)
LONDON AGENDA PAPER
(a) New Proposals
Case No. 26: Draft “‘Régles’’: Proposed Schedule giving guidance ©
as to transliteration of words from the Cyrillic Alphabets to the
Latin Alphabet when such words are used as zoological names
Page
D.26/1 Introductory Note by the Secretary to the Commission .. 557
D.26/2 Plan prepared by Alexey Almasov and Esteban Boltovskoy 571
D.26/3—D.26/7 Comments by :—
D.26/3 Erich M. Hering .. un - a cts -. p8s
D.26/4 G. Witenberg ue se a ae .% .. 6585
D.26/5 Curtis W. Sabrosky as i ve oe ee
D.26/6 Tadeusz Jaczewski . . 2 - ie + .. 588
D.26/7 Joshua L. Baily, Jr. ee ote ae hie ow Doe
D.26/8 Views of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R. .. . ae
D.26/9-D.26/11 Comments by :—
D.26/9 Leo Sheljuzhko ie fe a ap os Som
D.26/10 H. S. Bushell ay ae a 3 de .« © G0G
D.26/11 P.J.M.Geelan.. oye om Se a a. Cle
D.26/12 Transliteration Tables prepared by the Royal Society .. 612
D.26/13 Letter from the Royal Society i si wr «soya
D.26/14 Transliteration Tables prepared by the Permanent
Committee on Geographical Names for British Official
ae 2°) ie aie a ah ou ae ;. Oa
(b) Comments on previously published proposals
Case No. 1: Proposed recognition of the “ Parataxon ’’ concept
D.1/51 John S. Hampton... a we si ee > oe
© 1958. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Printed in England by METCALFE & Cooper LiMiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2
VOLUME 15. Part 41
17th November 1958
Pp. 620a-620f, T.P, (Section A)—XXVIII
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
The Official Organ of
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN CLATURE
Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING C.M.G., C.B.E.
CONTENTS
Title Page and Indexes of Section A of the present volume
PURCHASED
~ 3 DEC 1958
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 Publicati
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.
1958
ons Office,
Price One Pound
(All rights reserved)
eee thes oR od B
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Oe
Volume 15, Part 41 pp. 620a—620f, 17th November 1958
T.P. (Section A)—XXVIII ‘
eo... ee
INDEX
OF
AUTHORS OF COMMUNICATIONS INCLUDED IN THE
FIRST SECTION (SECTION A) OF THE AGENDA PAPER FOR THE
COLLOQUIUM ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE,
LONDON, 1958
(Authors of papers included in the present Section (Section A)
of Volume 15 of the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ?)
(For the list of authors of communications included
in Section B of the Agenda Paper of the Collo-
quium, see page 1261 of the present volume.)
Page Page
Almasov, Alexey ne EN ULEG tS. Branson, Carl C. ¥ .. 169
ake) WJ... 71-75, 78, 121- Brown,D. A. .. -. 640-542
122, 151
Bulman, O. M. B. a .. 176
Australian Museum, Sydney,
Scientific Staffof .. 160-161 Bump, James D. ws ss 126
Bushell, H.S. .. -- 606-609
Baily, Jr., Joshua L. 77, 590-592
Basse, Eliane .. a Bees Corliss, John O. -- 620-522
Bassler, R.S. .. -- 162-163 Cox, L. R. wa 125, 543-546
Boltovskoy, Esteban .. 571-582
Donovan, D. T. =r Rr <1
Bradley, J. Chester 95-96, 167-168,
196-198, 199-200, 201-202, dos Passos, Cyril F. 142, 285-292,
205-206, 242-244, 249-254, 353, 355
257-259, 284, 315-320, 331-
333 Dougherty, Ellsworth C. 523-539
620b Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Page
Durham, J. Wyatt 497-519
Dusenbury, Jr., Arthur N. 303-304
Easton, W.R. .. ae Meee! bz 4
Ellerman, Sir John es eg bets:
Ellison, Jr., Samuel P. .. goat20
Entomological Society of
America, Committee on
Etomological | Nomen-
clature of 138, 194-195
Evans, J. W. 160-161
Fay, Robert O. 170-171
Fleming, C. A. Ne -., 137
Follett, W. I. 139-140, 141
Frizzell, D. L. 79, 118-119
Frizzell, Harriet 79, 118-119
Furnish, W. M. 155, 182
Geelan, P. J. M. 610-614
Geographical Names for
British Official Use,
Permanent Committee
on ae oe ae 617-618
Glaessner, M. F. - ee i,
Graham, Joseph J. wi « ZS
Green, Morton % Petes! WPA:
Page
Grensted, L. W. 267-269, 334-336
Gries, John Paul a .. 16
Hampton, John 8. 245-246, 619-620
Haas, Wilbert H. ae . ee
Hemming, Francis 76-77, 88, 89,
91, 99-102, 107-111, 146—-
150, 187-193, 203-204, 207-
209, 212-215, 260-262, 263-
269, 270, 273-280, 281-284,
293-295, 322, 324, 326-327,
329-330, 339-340, 343-344,
489-496, 557-570
Hering, Erich Martin 184, 583-584
Hopkins,G.H.E. — 185-186, 247-
248, 255, 547-552
Hornibrook, N.de B. .. pee
Howarth, M. K. 349-350
Hubbs, Carl L. .. he .. V4
Jaczewski, Tadeusz 153, 588-589
Keen, Myra .. 128, 129, 142-143
Klots, Alexander B. 285-292
Knight, J. Brookes 81, 555-556
Koenig, John W. 158-159
Lemche, H. .. 558-554, 555-556
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 620c
Page
MacDonald, J. R. by van Eg
McIntosh, Allen 90, 92-95, 96-98
Mayr, Ernst 143-144, 270, 270-271
Melville, R. V. 164-166, 497-519
Mertens, Robert 152-153
Miller, A. K. 155, 182
Moore, Raymond C. 5-13, 14-34,
35-70, 86, 90-91, 91, 102-
106, 116-117
Miller, Klaus J... 296-297
Muller, Siemon .. 128, 129
Nomenclature Discussion Group,
Washington, D.C. 216-219
Parasitologists, American
Society of .. ee ta SO
Pokorny, Vladimir 223-227
Reid, R. E. H. .. 298-302
Rhodes, F. H. T. 305-312
Roger, J... 172-174
Royal Society, The 615-616
’ Sabrosky, Curtis W. 131-135, 140-
141, 141-142, 210-211, 216-
219, 321, 323, 325, 328, 337-
338, 341-342, 587
Page
Sailer, R. I. Areas (it
Schindewolf, O. H. 178-181
Schmidt, H. 82-84, 156-157
Sheljuzhko, Leo 272, 597-605
Slater, James A. 4 Par 3
Son, G. van 354, 356
Stainforth, R. M. ae .. 136
Steinberg, D. M. . .. 593
Stormer, Leif .. ~ ve mee
Stubblefield, C. J. hes se LOA
Swain, Frederick M. .. oat he
Sylvester-Bradley, P. C. 5-13, 14-34,
35-70, 111-116, 228-229
Systematic Zoology, Society of,
Nomenclature Committee of 139
Teichert, Curt .. es <a, "85
Thalmann, HansE. ... voy LS
Trauth, Friedrich 230-241
van Son, G., see Son, G. van
Voigt, E. nag amas
Ubaghs, G. ie i ay Le
620d Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Page
U.S.S.R., Academy of Sciences
of a _ 593-596
Usinger, RR. L. .. ae a2 Las
Walton, A.C... ee .. 89
Whittard, W. F. ne .. 154
Wilson, Ann
Witenberg, G.
Wright, C. W.
Yochelson, Ellis L.
Page
360-488
585-586
. -77, 345-348
216-219, 313-
314, 555-556
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 620e
VOLUME 15, SECTION A: PARTICULARS OF DATES OF PUBLICATION
OF THE SEVERAL PARTS IN WHICH THE PRESENT SECTION (SECTION A)
OF VOLUME 15 OF THE “ BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ”’
WAS PUBLISHED
Part No. Contents of Part Date of Publication
(pages)
1/4 1—120 11th September 1957
5/6 121—184 31st October 1957
7/8 185—256 8th January 1958
9/10 257—320 11th February 1958
ll 321—356 11th February 1958
12/15 357—488 18th February 1958
16/17 489—556 21st March 1958
18/19 557—620 9th April 1958
[Parts 20 to 38 form the opening portion of
Section B of the present volume]
39 i—vili 7th July 1958
40 ix—xxxvi 14th July 1958
41 620a—620f,
T.P.— XXVIII 17th November 1958
[Part 42 forms the concluding portion of
Section B of the present volume.]
620f Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDERS
The present volume (Volume 15, Section A) should be bound up as follows :—
T.P. (Section A)—XXVIII, i—xxxvi, 1—620, 620a—620f.
Note :—The wrappers (covers) of the eleven units in which the twenty-two
Parts of this volume were published should be bound in at the end of the
volume.
IMPORTANT NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS
Instructions to Binders
Owing to the fact that the decision to divide this volume into two self-
contained sections (Sections A and B) was not taken until near the completion
of the volume, the arrangements for the provision of the Title-Pages, Tables
of Contents, etc. needed for the separate portions so brought into existence
presented special bibliographical problems. These problems have been solved
by the introduction of two series of pagination additional to that in Roman
Capital Numerals which it had originally been planned to employ for the
Title-Page and preliminary matter for this volume and which has now been
reserved for the Title-Page and preliminary matter for Section A. The list of
authors of papers included in Section A appears immediately after page 620
(the last page of that Section), the pages containing this matter being numbered
620a, 620b, etc. The Title-Page and preliminary matter for Section B has
been allotted pages numbered in Roman Capital Numerals enclosed in round
brackets (parentheses) to distinguish them from the corresponding pages in
Section A. The list of authors of the papers included in Section B appears at
the close of the volume. The pages so introduced have therefore been given
pages numbers consecutive with those of the last portion of the main text.
The page numbers accordingly run straight on from page 1260.
Detailed instructions for Binding the present Section are given on page 620f
in the present Part, to which particular attention is invited.
Se ee ee ee ee ht aes ee ee ee ee
© 1958. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Printed in England by METCALFE & CoopER LIMITED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C2
ac tige ditt
Caters sietas
1 phy
5
ac . ; eA :
ys?
ate M cent io
TF a
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11