Full text of "Opinions and declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature"

See other formats

+4
AVE ith

ake eat UF Mian *
bids My
i Mey ig Ms ‘
one 1 J iy te ‘Ng Dont at iile ah
ia “ite uni ny a Lite Bay, ak in mites Hf

¢ iy "tide al Mh 46.4 48

Weis a atin’
Vuk bd

nf (2 works

ss oo i
epee, MnP

a « " , t if a i ut ‘e] .
a ) : me yt A Hp is ; ; a ce b ;
- weit a qe}ey, eh ot Ht afi ;
is { ‘ 4 ;»! ath oh ret teh
: ‘ ' Mi LA" fetal “REPT Ea
f \ “a ahs kan} § ; at a
} ty ibe | ie te in me ! i
ea yd at Wigan hy i Anas
i de ge it ayy lees une Nii TT
‘i bei deay : ee Ht IO WeAe dada ae
iit a ii va et : Vf
it, tag fiat HOT GMT Ray
5 ‘ ' i wht * ERS Rove on Bs
da ih it
i! ¥ h ee it i : pf ie iy i
4 ae t ele * ef ; ( ie
t 4 1 sae » i Hiatt gree yk! *
' j ie bab rani Sah bi Hae te
‘ 7 " Ny Hie f ;
we “3 4 3 iti
{ ie et i FEL a ihe a
4 ity } ih An ! i a ; ist
2 De a tH ight eed '
aT cial iS) SUS hetaa Ras i ae Fi
tan } : iy ie i by iy { L y :
ve 5 | Hat tal i A i t w ‘i > th B th
’ na bith i rt 4 in) Ye alaghht snag cad
ts Wot litt} 7 5 PN areata
: HSE NM i aati
\ 4 j ath Muth ae gars at”
4 inh! TENA Uae)
‘hy bh a Ait is AY Ss y
AC era Ault bis] tann ar hi
Nt ae en
A i i* y “bebe: : ri
m9 : Ate t Hit) Va Y aM
‘ m4 “a , J 5 ; uy ih ke F 1, ‘i ane)
A bie ADE CLUs UNAM dads pteie eet Eam
rie { Feet ea Pia Aifiote MOR Ep
h | Hy 4a} ne my Munky, sit Na ety yt phe
ae ; ane pf ti te Wut Nt nite My i a
: teat) Vii 4) ii i erat mie Pah ge ;
“4 ied tga
. a hi te Tet? eid : i
ie vein : ; e 4)
4 ’ i wat i yin ie # ; :
Le . a fe iM "4 . f
’ aE) Hiceit ae i da ates
“f , ei Pit 1h a ae
ame ies 4c 0 ans ee
i fs “ht DN ark AP A
a A i F eRe
3 ) a I ' Hi A 14! an
ieee ; sata Silt
‘ Gea eee tk rida
ie, 3 “ 4 Rei
ch j f (iat a no pt ee ROMY
P Ay UM ae Vay r P ea
hae ; Diy weet Ht HAE ;
fied ! yy 4 tH he one a isu By }
Bias. » i 4 thd { aay a '
i e de : BAEr TE ea” het
aT ae Pane Hii tar sas,
ish ee thie ahy a ALAA AE RIT aD | aan me eit atin pate Bee igh
ite TY ee ae Amb beri eee) iA SRIEL Peg IB Fade bis) Sn Fey eh basins siriunta
tt sd sae bale phi) ; yy aki fi vee Thi aan Be i nt ; s1int au tut Hh ie ae o false Aine h 1a
ot Fiat Mae sag NE TPP OR : Vid terdid it Yeah tens wee (i an Hey tH ag ine ‘ns te it RE Hit np halt eels Uy '
,+* we, a peieitae a RAR ‘ p si a ' r ; } vats tu ty ‘5 rita aah ; t 4
es Pas ae tee A dL j 21) Be UH au Ashita! } ) Paty Beran Miho ‘ we
4 Mw. Sapo ‘3 K ee oe 713) i at Eee ea “arth , yea ft tate : 4
1 ab ay te Pat ee! ; HL) rn tant hy i
| Hi fd fips Pate ii f a i Het mashayigi sales
> an wy Reena Bs eh hy eae ) Bate a
ee iki fa ity BH
W ii t ah) ey » Rr ae
eens
ee

i Ae fi
FTAA duit) i)
iat fyi ais th iit vig

aM
+ yaaa a4, Hoh
i" Ay Ai a
ab hale Seti Hae y
f

ibd ant
ny We Ep
PN
Hey ie 2
iy vd

mat vis ve 0 in wait HD
at iM +f Hs i iti heh
Dae ve iM i hi
iti Hi ue ahi
anne thay ih at :
Te ae
te matey ait iene $ Minas it
Ri ar i a ma 4 Wy Meas PEAT HY Peas i
‘a tt PAYOR ATU Uh pe i
| Rai Hill i
NE ie ea ys, ee

ik i Bet
ft in REA
i Gees irieh Y)
pri fen fe ee aie By A. Gaye ih

i Be we oe Sak ent Hae ‘
i a ee init nae bh a Han rl ah wigs o

: 1 i

ay tye Aesth $i re)
4 wh hte rear t 2 0)

it
eects
habs

’ Fae sth F ;
( HAT ina et LenatanpE
yes A debed iy ya, yf

neat a

tal

fi
He raat nit . yy ay
a nity ve eas aeRO ea
“ ty ste ‘ yeh ork 38 iat ho eid AN fa bie
Ri it i RR i is ee A
iA Bite Hi!

ist
HA

gk
i i nett a aha pues se pant
aad este be Wy

4 aa
4 Vu
ine quips iti tai. Ae coho aap ideas

ig bi ‘ Thee \ fe hee 2 mt
; t . Vim ‘
| re F Pa
i
|
y
i |
4
| ‘
ou
)
\
1
1
|
5
) i
! ; |
1
- ;
4!
{
tan as
¥ w
|
c Bs A
¢ : ,
: >
"
j s
; {
|
j 4
‘ a
i Y
:
PAL i
tee
as
S f
e
.
4
i

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

VOLUME 3

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

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
and
Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
1944-1954

0) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
| ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
OPINIONS PUBLISHED IN THE PRESENT VOLUME

A. The Officers of the Commission

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

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

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

B. The Members of the Commission
Class 1949

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

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

Dr. Karl JORDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum,

Tring, Herts, England) (President of the Commission).

Dr. Th. MorRTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia).

Class 1952

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Harold E. Voxes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.,
U.S.A.).

| Class 1955

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

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

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

Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary).

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

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

C. Alternate Members of the Commission at the Session held in Paris
in 1948
Professor Enrique BELTRAN (Instituto. Mexicano de Recursos Naturales
Renovables A.C., Mexico City, Mexico).
Dr. Edward HINDLE (Zoological Society of London, London, England).
Dr. Arturo Ricardo JoRGE (Museu Bocage, Lisbon, Portugal).
Professor Harold Kirpy (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.).
Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Kgl. Veterinzr- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologisk Labora-
torium, Copenhagen, Denmark).
Professor Kamel MANsour (King Fouad University, Cairo, Egypt).
Professor Z. P. METCALF (North Carolina State College of Agriculture and
. Engineering, University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.).
Mr. N. D. RILey (British Museum (Natural History), London, England).
Professor Ragnar SpARCK (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen,
Denmark).
Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de
Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium).
Weusky L. UsinGcer (University of California, Berkeley, California,

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

(continued)

D. The Staff of the Secretariat of the Commission

Honorary Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Honorary Personal Assistant to the Secretary : Mrs. M. F. W.
Hemming

Honorary Archivist : Mr. Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A.
Administrative Officer : Mrs. S. C. Watkins, M.A.
{Mr J. H. Newman
Secretariat : Mrs. Prudence Goldman
Mrs. E. M. Lewis

Indexer : Miss Joan Kelley, B.Sc.
Translator : Mrs. R. H. R. Hopkin

INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL TRUST
FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Chairman : The Right Hon. Walter Elliot, C.H., M.C., F.R.S.,
M.P.

Managing Director and Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G.,
C.B.E.

Publications Officer : Mrs. C. Rosner

ADDRESSES OF THE COMMISSION AND THE TRUST

Secretariat of the Commission : 28 Park Village East, Regent’s
Park, London, N.W.1. |

Offices of the Trust : 41 Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.

FOREWORD

The present volume—the third of the series entitled Opinions
-and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature—was begun in the year 1944 as a means
for securing the publication of Opinions on questions on which
decisions had been taken by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature after the close of its Lisbon Session in
1935. In all, thirteen Opinions were published in this way in the
period 1944-1947. No more decisions requiring Opinions were
taken by the Commission until its Session held in Paris in 1948.
Those decisions were set out in detail in the Official Record of
its Paris Session (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4), but no steps were
then taken to embody those decisions in formal Opinions. This
was not because it was thought that this was unnecessary but was
the result of a considered decision that it was better at that time to
devote the limited resources of the Commission in staff and money
to pressing on with those parts of its work on which no action had
hitherto been taken rather than to use those resources for the
purpose of preparing and publishing Opinions embodying
decisions which had already been set out in detail in the Official
Record of its Paris Session. The situation in regard to this matter
was materially changed in 1953 when the resources of the
Commission were greatly increased as the result partly of the
retirement of the Honorary Secretary from the United Kingdom
Civil Service, which made it possible for him to devote the whole
of his time—instead of, as formerly, only his spare time—to the
work of the Commission and, partly, of a substantial (but non-
recurrent) gift received at the end of 1953, which made it possible
to engage staff to assist the Secretary by relieving him of those
parts of the work which could be done for him by others. The
improvement in the general situation of the Commission so
secured made it possible at the end of 1953 to resume the
preparation of Opinions on individual cases on which decisions
had been taken by the Commission but which had not been
formally placed on record in this way. The concluding portion of
the present volume—consisting of sixteen Opinions—represents
the first instalment of the Opinions so prepared.

2. A number of decisions taken by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, affect both the scope and the
form of the Opinions which the International Commission is
authorised to render. Of these decisions the following may
be cited :—(1) As from the Paris Congress of 1948 the Commission
is no longer to render in its ‘“‘ Opinions ”’ Series decisions of a
general character relating to the interpretation of the Régles, all
such decisions in future to be made public in the Commission’s
** Declarations’’ Series; the object of this decision was to
segregate sharply all decisions taken by the Commission on
general questions of principle (which were of interest to all
zoologists) from decisions relating to individual names and to
the status of individual books (which by their nature were of
direct interest only to more limited groups of zoologists). (2)
Every name validated under the Plenary Powers or declared
to be available by the Commission is in future to be placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology or, as the case may be,
on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (this latter List
having been expressly established for this purpose by the Paris
Congress). Similarly, every name suppressed by the Commission
under its Plenary Powers or otherwise rejected as invalid is in
future to be placed on the appropriate Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Names (these two Indexes having. been established
by the Paris Congress for the recording of such names). (3) Every
entry of a name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
is in future to include a statement giving the gender of that name.

3. The Opinions rendered since the Paris Congress have been
prepared in accordance with the decisions described above and, in
accordance with a further Directive given to the Commission
by the Paris Congress, steps have been taken to apply the second and
third of the decisions outlined above to Opinions rendered prior
to 1948. This has been done through the issue by the Commission
of Directions containing the requisite decisions on the questions
concerned. So far as concern Opinions 182 to 194, the first
thirteen Opinions included in the present volume, action has
been taken through Direction 1, which is published as Part 30.
This Direction disposes of all outstanding questions arising in
connection with the foregoing group of Opinions with the
exception of the following which have been reserved for separate
consideration as follows :—

Vil

(1) File Z.N.(S.) 799 : question of placing Clymenia Minster,
1832, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
The codification of the Ruling given in Opinion 182 has
been postponed until a decision has been taken on the
foregoing question.

(2) File Z.N.(S.) 800 : status of generic,names as published in
Martini & Chemnitz, Conchylien-Cabinet. This is a
matter with which it was not possible for the International
Commission to deal in a substantive fashion at the time
when it adopted its Opinion 184, because it depended
upon the meaning to be attached to Proviso (b) to Article
25 of the Régles, a matter which was at that time sub
judice, because awaiting review by the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology.

(3) File Z.N.(S.) 801 : question whether the name Rhynchonella
Fischer de Waldheim, 1809, should be placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. This question
arises in connection with Opinion 190.

4. Of the twenty-nine Opinions included in the present volume,
two are concerned with questions of the interpretation of the
Régles which, if the Paris decisions had been in existence at the
time of the adoption of the Opinions concerned, would have been
dealt with not in Opinions but in Declarations. The Opinions
concerned are Opinions 183 and 191.

5. The present volume, which comprises 464 pages (T.P.—XVI,
1—448), includes twenty-nine Opinions and one Direction. Of
the applications dealt with in the foregoing Opinions one was
submitted jointly by three specialists. When account is taken
of this fact, the total number of applicants is seen to be thirty-one.
Leaving aside the two Opinions which dealt with the interpretation
of the Régles, twenty-four of the remaining twenty-seven Opinions
are concerned with individual names and three with the status
of books. Seventeen (70 per cent.) of the twenty-four cases
concerned with individual names involve the use of the Plenary
Powers. The use of these Powers is involved also in one of the
three Opinions relating to the status of individual books.

vill

6. The twenty-four applications relating to individual names
dealt with in the Opinions published in the present volume, when
grouped by reference to the Classes of the Animal Kingdom to
which the genera or species concerned belong, are distributed
as shown in the following table. In the same table the applications
concerned are arranged so as to distinguish those which involved
the use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers from those which do
not.

TABLE 1

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

Number of applications

Name of

Class Involving the

use of the Others Total
Plenary Powers

Rhizopoda
Graptolithina
Nematoda
Ciliophora
Crustacea
Insecta
Gastropoda
Pelecypoda
Cephalopoda
Brachiopoda
Asteroidea
Echinoidea 4
Reptilia 1

|
OBR RK NNNNN HH We

bo
aS

Totals 17 7

7. When the thirty-one applicants are arranged by reference to
the countries in which they are resident, applications are seen to

have been received from the following countries (arranged in
alphabetical order) :—

TABLE 2

Distribution of applicants by country of residence

Country of Residence | Number of applicants

Australia
Denmark
Germany
Netherlands
United Kingdom
United States of
America i3

SWN NS

Total 31

8. Under the Rulings given in the twenty-four Opinions
dealing with individual names published in the present volume, as
supplemented by the Ruling given in Direction 1, 18 names were
added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and 28
names to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. In the
same Opinions and Direction, 37 names were placed on the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology
and 10 names were placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. Under the Rulings given
in the three Opinions dealing with the status of books, as
supplemented by the Ruling given in Direction 1, the titles of two
works were placed on the Official List of Works Approved as
Available for Zoological Nomenclature and the titles of three
works were placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Works in Zoological Nomenclature.

9. The twenty-four Opinions dealing with individual names
published in the present volume contain 125 comments received

from interested specialists. These comments were in a number
of cases—notably those concerned with names in the Class
Echinoidea—were in many cases joint comments from a number
of specialists. When account is taken of this consideration, the
number of specialists who contributed comments on the
applications dealt with in the foregoing block of Opinions is
found to number 295.

10. If the comments relating to individual names are grouped
according to the Class of the Animal Kingdom to which the genus
or species concerned belong, the distribution of the comments
is found to be as follows :—

TABLE 3

Distribution of comments on applications relating to individual
names, by Classes of the Animal Kingdom

Name of Class Number of Comments
Rhizopoda 23
Graptolithina 2S
Nematoda l
Ciliophora 2
Crustacea 5
Insecta
Gastropoda 10
Pelecypoda 14
Cephalopoda 16
Brachiopoda 3
Echinoidea 181
Reptilia 10

Total 295

11. When the authors of the comments on individual names
dealt with in the Opinions published in the present volume are

grouped by reference to their country of residence, the
distribution is found to be as follows :—

TABLE 4

Distribution of authors of comments on applications relating to
individual names, by country of residence of the authors
concerned

Country of Residence | Number of comments
Australia 10
Brazil l
Denmark 20
France 21
Germany 30
Italy 5
Japan 8
Netherlands 1
Norway 4
Portugal 4
Sweden 12
United Kingdom 60
United States of

America 99
U.S.S.R. 20
Total 28)

12. In view of the decision taken in Paris in 1948 that, hence-
forward the decision given in an Opinion rendered by the
International Commission is to be looked for only in the brief
passage placed at the head of each Opinion and hitherto styled the
“Summary” of that Opinion, the expression “ Summary ”’, if
continued in use, would be very misleading. Accordingly, as
from the first of the Opinions rendered since the Paris Congress,
the obsolete expression “‘Summary”’ has been replaced by the
expression “ Ruling ’’, an expression which correctly indicates the
subject matter of the passage in question.

XII

13. For the preparation of the indexes published in the
concluding Part of the present volume the Commission is once
again indebted to Miss Joan Kelley, B.Sc. In style these annexes
follow the model laid down for volumes of the Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature, to the usefulness of which the
Commission has received tributes from many sources.

14. At the time of writing the present Foreword, over three-
quarters of the Opinions which will together constitute volume 4
of the present series have already been published and the Opinions
which will appear in volumes 5 and 6 are now in the hands of the
printers. That it has been possible to make such rapid progress
during the last five months is due very largely to the fact that
during that period the Secretary to the Commission has had
at his disposal a skilled staff of assistants. The thanks of the
Commission and of zoologists generally is due to these assistants
for the long hours of hard work which they have devoted to their
duties and for the meticulous care which they have shown in its
discharge.

FRANCIS HEMMING

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

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

2\st April 1954.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINION 182 On the status of the names published by
Gumbel (C. W.) in 1863 for subdivisions of the genus
Clymenia Minster, 1832 ie arena Order
Ammonoidea)

OPINION 183 On the principles to be observed in inter-
preting Article 8 of the International Code in relation
to the form in which generic and subgeneric names
are to be published

OPINION 184 On the status of the names first published
in volumes 1 to 11 of Martini (F. H. W.) and
Chemnitz (J. H.), Neues systematisches Conchylien-
Cabinet, Nurnberg, 1769—-1795 me &,

OPINION 185 Suppression of Bohadsch (J. B.), De
quibusdam Animalibus marinis, 1761, and of the
German translation thereof DPunrone by Leske a G. Y
in 1776

OPINION 186 Suspension of the rules for ae
Fabricius (J. C.), 1787 (Class Crustacea, Order
Stomatopoda) abe Ae = Ai oe

OPINION 187 On the type of the genus Hypselopus
Burmeister, 1835 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). .

OPINION 188 Suppression of the name Cobra Laurenti,
1768, and suspension of the rules for Bitis ae 1842
(Class Reptilia, Order Squamata)

OPINION 189 Suspension of the rules for Arca Linnaeus,
1758 (Class Pelecypoda, Order Filibranchiata)

OPINION 190 On the status of the name Rhynchonella
alta (Class Brachiopoda, Order Telotremata) com-
monly attributed to Samuel Calvin and treated as
having been published in or about 1878

XIII

Page

109

XIV

OPINION 191 On the question whether the use of a new
name in explanation of a photograph or other illus-
trations distributed by an author to students of
colleagues constitutes “‘ publication’’ within the
meaning of proviso (a) to Article 25 of the Inter-
national Code

OPINION 192 Suspension of the rules for Nummulites
Lamarck, 1801 (Class Rhizopoda, Order Foraminifera)

OPINION 193 On the status of the name Procheneo-
saurus Matthew, 1920 ea ica Order Orni-
thischia) oF oh

OPINION 194 On the status of the name Ophiceras

Griesbach, 1880 ian Can eee Order Ammo- |

noidea)

OPINION 195 Designation, under the Plenary Powers,
of a type species for the genus Venus Linnaeus, 1758
(Class Pelecypoda) in harmony with accustomed usage

OPINION 196 Designation, under the Plenary Powers,
of a type species for the genus Bulla Linnaeus, 1758
(Class mcubeua in harmony with accustomed
usage

OPINION 197 Suppression, under the Plenary Powers, of
the generic name Graptolithus Linnaeus 1768 (Class
Graptolithina) and of the specific name scalaris
Linnaeus, 1768, as published in the combination
Graptolithus scalaris

OPINION 198 Suppression, under the Plenary Powers,
of the generic names Lomatoceras Bronn, 1834, and
Monoprion Barrande, 1850 (Class Graptolithina), and
validation of the generic name Monograptus Geinitz,
1852 ; : bes ie ve

Page

129

137

161

175

191

199

207

217

OPINION 199 Suppression, under the Plenary Powers,
of the generic name Gladiolites Barrande, 1850, and
validation of the name Refiolites Barrande, 1850
(Class Graptolithina)

OPINION 200 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of

- the accumstomed usage of the generic names Tethys
Linnaeus, 1767, and a and, Linnaeus, 1767 aaa
Gastropoda)

OPINION 201 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of
the generic name Necator Stiles, 1903 (Class Nematoda)
(correction of an error in Opinion 66) . .

OPINION 202 Addition of Diplodinium Schuberg, 1888
(Class Ciliophora), to the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology with Entodinium dentatum Stein,
1858, as type species

OPINION 203 Validation under the Plenary Powers, of
the specific name vulgaris Schmeil, 1897, as published
in the combination Diaptomus vulgaris (Class Crus-
tacea, Order Copepoda)

OPINION 204 Determination of the species eligible to
be selected as the type species of the nominal genera
established by Koch (C. L.) in the portions of the work
entitled Deutschlands Crustaceen, Myriapoden und
Arachniden published in the period 1835-1842

OPINION 205 Rejection of the generic name Phoran-
thella Townsend (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), as
published in 1915, as a nomen nudum .. ne Bue

OPINION 206 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of
the generic name Diadema mae 1825 ok Echi-
noidea) We wy

OPINION 207 Designation, under the Plenary Powers,
of type species in harmony with accustomed use for
the genera Echinocyamus van Phelsum, 1774, and
Fibularia Lamarck, 1816 (Class Echinoidea). .

Page

229

239

267

DIS

287

297,

309

319

339

XVI

OPINION 208 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of
Phyllacanthus Brandt, 1835, and ie cc
Brandt, 1835 (Class Echinoidea)

OPINION 209 Validation of, and designation of type
species for, Brissus Gray, 1825, Echinocardium Gray,
1825, and Spatangus Gray, 1825 (Class Echinoidea),
under the Plenary Powers, and designation, under
those Powers, of a type species for Schizaster Agassiz
(L.), 1836, and, in so far as necessary, for Moira
Agassiz (A.), 1872 As

OPINION 210 Addition of the specific name ciliaris
Philippi, 1837, as published .in the combination
Asterias ciliaris (Class Asteroidea) to the Official
List of Specific Names in Pat Pos hae
mentary to Opinion 129) ;

DIRECTION 1 Addition to the Official Lists and Official
Indexes of certain scientific names and of the titles of
certain books dealt with in Opinions 182 to 194

DIRECTION 3 _ Determination of the gender to be
attributed to certain generic names placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in age by the
Rulings given in Opinions 182—194 ..

Corrigenda

Index to Authors of Applications dealt with in Opinions 182
to 210 and Direction 1 and of comments on those
applications

Subject Index ..

Particulars of dates of publication of the several Parts in
which the present volume was published

Instructions to Binders

Page

353

367

203

401

417

429

431
433

447
448

at,

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

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

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 3. Part 1. Pp. 1-12.

OPINION 182.

On the status of the names published by Gumbel

(C. W.) in 1863 for subdivisions of the genus

Clymenia Munster, 1832 (Class Cephalopoda,
Order Ammonoidea)

LONDON:

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1944
Price three shiilings

Issued 17th October, 1944

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).
Assistant Secretary : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). — '

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A,).

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).

Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany) .’

Class 1952

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).
Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).
Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).
Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).
Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

-e SEs te

_
a _ - "ae,
- - — ee,
ow ——~attA Ar # >
Pa Tay iy. og yy
, 4 tM 4 ‘ Sea # ~=™ %
g hmm acs #4 ee a
/ % Clee &f sf ‘
iA a» %& os \
/ % > if s™%
. + 44 ‘

OPINION 182.

ON THE STATUS OF THE NAMES PUBLISHED BY GUMBEL
(C. W.) IN 1863 FOR SUBDIVISIONS OF THE GENUS CLYMENIA

MUNSTER, 1832 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMO-

NOIDEA).

SUMMARY.—The names published in the nominative plural
by C. W. Gitimbel in 1863 for subdivisions of the genus
Clymenia Munster, 1832 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea),
are not available as subgenerie names as at that date. These names
are available as at 1883, when they were published by Hyatt in the
nominative singular. Hyatt is to be treated as the author of
these names.

I1—THE STATEMENT OF CHE CASE:

This case was submitted to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature by Professor Dr. O. H. Schindewolf of
the Preuss. Geolog. Landesanstalt, Berlin, in the following letter,
dated 2nd February 1934 :—

Die Zusammenstellung eines Kataloges der palaozeischen Ammoneen,
mit der ich zur Zeit beschaftigt bin, erfordert eine Klarung der sehr ver-
worrenen Nomenklatur der.Clymenien (Cephal.). Ich erlaube mir daher,
der Nomenklatur-Kommission die folgende Frage zur Entscheidung
vorzulegen :

1832 wurde vom Grafen G. zu Miinster das Genus Clymenia ! aufgestellt,

1 This name is normally spelt Clymenia and attributed to Minster, 1832,
im Goldfuss, Naturh. Atlas 4: 489. Scudder (1882, Nomencl. zool. Suppl.
List : 78), however, spelt this name Clymenea, dated it “‘ 1830,’ and
attributed it to Minster in ‘‘ Bemerk. Belemn.’’ Atthe end of the reference,
Scudder added the word “ Agassiz,” thereby signifying that he had not
himself consulted the work by Minster cited but had taken the reference
second-hand from Agassiz. In the most modern Nomenclator (Neave,
1939, Nomencl. zool. 1: 771), the name with the spelling Clymenea is given
as by Minster, 1830, on the strength of Scudder, 1882, and the later spelling
Clymenia Minster, 1832, is treated as an error for Clymenea Minster, 1830.

As it was clearly desirable that all doubts regarding the correct spelling
of this generic name should be removed before the present Opinion was
published, Commissioner Hemming on 21st August 1943 wrote to Dr.
L. R. Cox, British Museum (Natural History), asking him to investigate
the matter. In his reply, dated 31st August 1943, Dr. Cox stated :—

We have a copy of Minster’s Bemerkungen zur nahern Kenntniss der Belemiten
(Bayreuth, 1830), which is a quarto pamphlet of 18 pages and 1 plate. I have read
through it carefully and can find no trace of the word Clymenea or anything like it. I see
that Sherborn in his Index Animalium, Pars secunda : 1367, gives Clymenea G. von
Muenster, Bemerk. Belem., 1830, only on the authority of Scudder, having apparently
failed (like myself) to find it in Miinster’s work. Scudder apparently had not seen the
reference himself, or he would have cited the exact page. I think that you may regard
Clymenea Minster, 1830, as a myth.

In these circumstances, the spelling Clymenia and not Clymenea has been
adopted for this name in the present Opinion, and the name is treated as
having been published by Miinster in 1832 and not in 1830.

4 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

das heute in eine Reihe selbstandiger und wohlbegriindeter Gattungen
zverfallt. Es ist dabei unklar, wem die Autorschaft einiger der spater
aufgestellten Gattungen zuzuschreiben ist und wie dementsprechend
Inhalt, Definition, Genotypen usw. dieser Gattungen zu fassen sind. Der
geschichliche Tatbestand ist der folgende :

Als erster erkannte C. W. Giimbel, 1863 (Palaeontographica 11: 116 ff),
dass die Gattung Clymenia Minster in verschiedene “ Gruppen oder
Untergattungen ’’ zerfallt, und er gab (pp. 118-119) die nachstehende
Gliederung :

I. Euclymenieae II. Nothoclymenieae
1. Cyrtoclymeniae 1. Sellaclymeniae
(a) Sublobatae Clymenia angulosa
Clymenia angustisetiata 2. Conioclymeniae
flexuosa Clymenia speciosa
annulata : subarmata
spinosa : intermedia
(b) Longilobatae ‘ beaumont
Clymenia binodosa ?3. Discoclymentae

2. Oxyclymeniae Clymenia planorbiformis
(a) Adscendentes
Clymenia undulata

(b) Incumbentes
Clymenia striata

3. Cymaclymeniae
Clymenia bilobata

Die auf -ieae endigenden Hauptgruppen Euclymenieae, Nothoclymenieae
und Cycloclymenieae werden von Giimbel auf pp. 116-118 wiederholt als
Gruppen oder Untergattungen ’ oder auch geradezu als ‘ Untergattungen ’
bezeichnet. Fir die mit -iae endenden Untergruppen der Cyrtoclymeniae,
Oxyclymeniae, Sellaclymeniae usw. dagegen ist die Bezeichnung als
Untergattung vermieden worden und wiirde auch sinnwidrig gewesen sein.
Im Singular, also etwa als ‘ Euclymenia,’ ‘ Cyrtoclymenia,’ ‘ Oxyclymenia ’
usw., ist keiner der N amen verwendet worden, und es ist mir daher zwetfelhaft,
ob diese Pluvalbezeichnungen tiberhaupt als giiltige Gattungsnamen gelien
konnen. Wenn das mdéglich ist, sollten wohl in erster Linie die Namen
“ Nothoclymenia ’ und ‘ Cycloclymenia’ erhalten werden, die von Giimbel
selbst als Untergattungen bezeichnet wurden. Fiir ‘ Euclymenia’ hatte
Clymenia Minster s.stv. einzutreten, die Giimbels Gruppe der Oxyclymeniae
incumbentes entspricht. Es entsteht weiterbin die Frage, ob etwa ausser
den Namen dieser Haupigruppen auch die von Gimbel fiir die Untergruppen
gegebenen Bezeichnungen, Cyrtoclymeniae, Cymaclymeniae usw., die also
etwa Sektionen entsprechen, als giiltige Gattungsnamen beibehalten werden
k6nnen, bezw. ob die Autorschaft der heute gebrauchlichen Gattungen
Cyrtoclymemia, Cymaclymenia usw. Giimbel zugeschrieben werden darf.
Oye ee ies bey in diesen Falle als Synonym von ‘ Euclymenia’ =
menia Minster, s.stv., gelten und Sellacl }
Nothoclymenia fallen manecer Nene
Im Jahre 1883 gab dann A. Hyatt (Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist. 22 : 312
ff.) eine neue und etwas eingehendere Gliederung der ‘ Clymeninae.’ ‘“‘ The
author [Hyatt] has spent considerable time in the study of this group and
divided them into genera, but these can only now serve as the basis of

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 182. 5

appreciative criticism for the elaborate work of Dr. Giimbel, Uber Clym.
(Palaeontog. vol. 11, p. 83, 1863). This author’s sub-groups are equal to
our genera, and most of his varieties are what we should call species. We,
therefore, use his names in this value without making any claim to the
credit of having originated them ”’ (p. 313). Diese Gliederung, soweit sie
uns hier angeht, lautet folgendermassen :

I. Cyrtoclymenidae II. Cymaclymenidae III. Gonioclymenidae
1. Cyrtoclymenia I. Cymaclymenia 1. Cycloclymenia
2. Oxyclymenia 2. Sellaclymenia 2. Gontioclymenia

3. Discoclymenia

Der Inhalt dieser Gattungen deckt sich im allgemeinen mit dem der
entsprechenden Untergruppen bei Giimbel. Dagegen ist nach der Wahl
der Genotypen Oxyclymenia Hyatt verschieden von Oxyclymeniae Giimbel
und Cymaclymenia Hyatt verschieden von Cymaclymeniae Giimbel. Der
Entscheidung, welcher der beiden Autoren, Giimbel oder Hyatt, als
Urheber der heute benutzten Gattungen Oxyclymenia, Cymaclymenia usw.
zu gelten hat, kommt daher grosse Bedeutung zu.

Es ist nach obigem klar, dass Giimbel der eigentliche Schdpfer der
Clymenien-Systematik und -Nomenklatur ist und Hyatt lediglich eine
Erhohung der einzelnen Kategorien Giimbels zu Familien und Gattungen
unter Benutzung der von jenem gewahlten Wortstamme durchgefiihrt hat.
Er hat sich der Einteilung Giimbels auf das engste ausgeschlossen, und
wo er davon durch Nennung nicht entsprechender Genotypen abwich, ist
es offenbar irrtiimlich geschehen. Dem MRechtsemfinden nach wiirde
man daher Giimbel die Autorschaft der Gattungen zuschreiben; vom
formalen Standpunkt aus dagegen wird Hyatt als Autor gelten missen.
Eine Reihe von nomenklatorischen Anderungen ist in jedem Falle unver-
meidlich, sodass unter diesem Gesichtspunkte keine der Entscheidungen
einen Vorzug verdient.

Auf Grund der vorstehenden Ausfiihrungen bitte ich die Nomenklatur-
Kommission um ein Urteil :

(rt) Ob die von Gtmbel fiir Untergattungen bezw. Sektionen ges-
chaffenen und stets nur im Plural angewandten Bezeichnungen
_ Cyrtoclymeniae (Oxyclymeniae), Cymaclymeniae, Nothoclymeniae
(Sellaclymenieae), Gonioclymeniae, Discoclymeniae und Cyclo-
clymenieae als giiltige Gattungsnamen im Singular verfiigbar sind
und
(2) ob dementsprechend Gimbei als Autor bei Hyatt gleichlautenden
Gattungsbezeichnungen gelten muss.

Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

2. In March 1934 this case was referred to the Members of the
Commission for observations. The following comments were
received by Commissioner Karl Jordan and Commissioner Rudolf
Richter :-—

(a) Comments by Commissioner Karl Jordan.

As Gimbel did not employ any of the names in the singular form, they
should be dated 1883 when Hyatt published his classification.

If we do not insist that a new generic (or subgeneric) name must be pub-
lished in the singular, Latin taxonomic terms such as ‘‘ Sphingiformes ”’
might be construed as names and lead to much confusion.

6 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(b) Comments by Commissioner Rudolf Richter.

(1) Die Giimbel’schen Gruppen-Namen (1863) kommen als Gattungs-
namen nicht in Betracht, da sie—entgegen dem Art. 8—in dev Mehrzahl
und nicht in dey Finzahl angewandt worden sind.

(2) Als Autor der von Giimbel (1863) in der Mehrzahl und von Hyatt
(1883) in der Einzahl angewandten, sonst aber gleichlautenden Namen hat
daher Hyatt 1883 zu gelten.

In Gemeinschaft mit Dr. Rob. Mertens.

3. In March 1935 Commissioner C. W. Stiles included this case
as one of the items which he suggested should be considered by the
Commission at the Session arranged to be held at Lisbon later
that year. When, however, the Commission met at Lisbon in
September 1935, they found themselves confronted with an
exceptionally long agenda and this was one of the cases with
which in the limited time available they were unable to deal on
that occasion. It was accordingly arranged that this matter
should be settled by correspondence after the close of the Lisbon
Congress.

4. In, February 1936, Dr. Stiles, as Acting Secretary “re ome
Commission, invited Commissioners to vote on a proposal that the
Commission should render an Opinion on the lines suggested in
the comments received from Commissioners Jordan and Richter
(paragraph 2 above).

5. By October 1936 a sufficient number of Commissioners had
recorded their votes in favour of the proposed Opinion in order
to secure its adoption as an Opinion of the Commission. The
papers relating to the present case were among the first to be
transferred from Washington to London after the election (on 6th
October 1936) of Commissioner Francis Hemming to be Secretary
to the Commission and on 31st December 1936 Commissioner
Hemming, acting in virtue of the powers conferred upon him in |

that behalf by Article 7 of the By-Laws, closed the ballot in this
case.

Ill.— THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION.

6. The decision taken by the Commission in the present case
is :—

(a) that the names published in the nominative plural by
Gumbel in 1863 for subdivisions of the genus Clymenia
Minster, 1832, 7m Goldfuss, Naturh. Atlas 4: 489 (Class

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 182. a7)

Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) are not available as

subgeneric names as at that date;
(b) that the names referred to in (a) above are available as at

n882- (Pyoc, Boston Soc. nat. Hist, 22: 312), when they
were published in the nominative singular by Hyatt; and

7. The following twelve (12) Commissioners oe in favour of
the present Opinion :—

Cabrera; Calman; Chapman; Esaki; Fantham; Hemming;
Jerdan: (Pellesrm; Peters; Richter; Stiles; and Stone.

8. One (1) Commissioner voted against the present Opinion,
namely :—Stejneger.

g. The following three (3) Commissioners did not vote on the
present Opinion :— 3

Apstein; Bolivar y Pieltain; and Silvestri.

ro. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion
there were two vacancies in the membership of the Commission.
These were due to the death of Commissioner Handlirsch and
the resignation of Commissioner Horvath.

II. The following three (3) Commissioners attached notes to
their votes on this case amplifying their attitude towards the
_ general question of the interpretation of Article 8 of the Interna-
tional Code necessarily involved in any vote, whether affirmative
or negative, on the present case :— :

Cabrera; Hemming; and Peters.

This general question is dealt with in the next ‘succeeding
Opinion (Opinion 183), in which the notes referred to above are
quoted. |

aU LHORITY, FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

ge the By-Laws of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving
the suspension of the rules, an Opinion is to have been deemed
to have been adopted by the said International Commission as
soon as a majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to

8 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

say ten (10) Members of the said Commission, have recorded their
votes in favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed
Opinion involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the
Commission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence
of at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the
same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted
by the Commission; and

/
WHEREAS the present Opinion, as set out in the summary
thereof, neither requires, in order to be valid, the suspension of
the rules, nor involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered
by the Commission; and

WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have signified
their concurrence in the present Opinion :

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the
International Commission, acting for the International Congress
of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Eighty Two (Opinion 182) of the said
Commission.

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
have signed the present Opinion.

Done in London, this fifteenth day of December, Nineteen
Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain
deposited in the archives of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION TO2: 9

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenelature.
This journal has been established by the International Com-
mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for
the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
International Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the
Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the
Bulletin under (a) above; and

The Bulletin was established in 1943, in which year three Parts
were published. Part 4 has been published in 1944 and Parts 5
and 6 are in the press.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature. |

The above work is being published in three volumes con-
currently, namely :—

Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which
have never previously been published) and Ofinions 1-133 (the
original issue of which is now out of print). Parts I-15 (contain-
ing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions 1-6) have now been published.
Further Parts will be published shortly.

Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising
all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their

meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with
_ Roman pagination) and Opimions 134-181 (with Arabic pagina-
tion). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume.
Parts 1-26, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-156,
have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly.

Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182,
will contain the Opinions adopted by the International Com-
mission since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-4 (con-
taining Opinions 182-185) have now been published. Erte
Parts will be published « as soon as possible.

I0 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

APPEAL FOR FUNDS

The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions
and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen-
clature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s
Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required
to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting
printing, donations amounting to £773 13s. 7d. were received up
to 30th June 1944. Additional contributions are urgently needed
in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without
interruption. Contributions of any amount, however small, will
be most gratefully received.

Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at
their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and
made payable to the ‘“ International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed ‘‘ Account payee. Coutts
& Co.’’.

e yer.

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

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

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 3. Part 2. Pp. 13-24.

OPINION 183

On the principles to be observed in interpreting

Article 8 of the International Code in relation

to the form in which generic and subgeneric
names are to be published

LONDON:

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1944

Price three shillings

Issued 17th October, 1944

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).
Assistant Secretary : Dr. James L. Peters (U.5S.A.).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A.).

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).
Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).

Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952

Senhor Dr. Afranio da AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).

Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :

41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

Her,

OPINION 183.

ON THE PRINCIPLES TO BE OBSERVED IN INTERPRETING
ARTICLE 8 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE IN RELATION TO
THE FORM IN WHICH GENERIC AND SUBGENERIC NAMES
ARE TO BE PUBLISHED.

SUMMARY.—The provision in Article 8 of the International
Code that a generic name is to consist of a noun / in the nominative
singular is to be interpreted as prescribing that no name is to be
aecepted as a generic name until it has been published in the
nominative singular. A name first published in some number or
case other than the nominative singular and later published in the
nominative singular is, under Article 25 of the International Code,
available as a generic name only as from the date on which it is
for the first time published in the nominative singular. In virtue
of Article 7 of the International Code, the foregoing provisions
apply also to the form in which subgeneric names are to be pub-
lished. |

I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

The question whether, in order to comply with the requirements
of Article 8 of the International Code, a generic (or subgeneric)
name must be published in the nominative singular was submitted
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in
February 1934 when Professor Dr. O. H. Schindewolf,? Preuss.
Geolog. Landesanstalt, Berlin, presented for decision a particular
example of this problem in connection with the name Clymemia
Munster, 1832, Naturh. Atlas 4: 489? (Class Cephalopoda, Order
Ammonoidea). In this case the question for decision was

1 The French text of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
is the sole authentic text, the English, German, and Italian texts being only
Official Translations of the French text. In the case of Article 8, it may be
noted that the French noun “ substantif’’ is incorrectly translated as
“ substantive ’’ in the English text. The correct translation of this word
is, of course, ‘‘ noun.’’

2 The text of the petition submitted by Professor Schindewolf is repro-
duced in full in paragraph 1 of Opinion 182 (see pp. 3-5).

3 For the evidence on which this name is here spelt Clymenia and not
Clymenea and is treated as having been published by Miinster in 1832,
Naturh. Atlas 4: 489 and not in 1830, Bemerkungen zur nahern Kenntniss
dev Belemiten, see footnote 1 to Opinion 182 (p. 3).

I6 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

whether the names in the nominative plural published by Gtimbel
in 1863 for subdivisions of that genus were to be accepted as
having status as subgeneric names as from that date or whether
those names should be deemed to have no status in nomenclature
until 1883, the year in which they were published for the first time
in the nominative singular.

II.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE,

2. The question of principle relating to the interpretation of
Article 8 and the particular case of the group names published by
Giimbel in 1863 were considered by the Commission concurrently.
During the preliminary examination of these questions in the
years 1934 and 1935, the following comments were received from
Commissioner Karl Jordan and Commissioner Rudolf Richter :—

(a) Comments by Commissioner Karl Jordan

As Gimbel did not employ any of the names in the singular form, they
should be dated 1883 when Hyatt published his classification.

If we do not insist that a new generic (or subgeneric) name must be
published in the singular, Latin taxonomic terms such as ‘‘Sphingiformes’”’
might be construed as names and lead to much confusion.

(b) Comments by Commissioner Rudolf Richter

(1) Die Giimbel’schen Gruppen-Namen (1863) kommen als Gattungs-
namen nicht in Betracht, da sie—entgegen dem Art. 8—in der Mehrzahl
und nicht in der Einzahl angewandt worden sind.

(2) Als Autor der von Giimbel (1863) in der Mehrzahl und von Hyatt
(1883) in der Einzahl angewandten, sonst aber gleichlautenden Namen hat
daher Hyatt 1883 zu gelten.

In Gemeinschaft mit Dr. Rob. Mertens.

3. In 1936 the Commission took a vote on a proposal that they
should render an Ofinion on the lines suggested by Commissioners
Jordan and Richter (paragraph 2 above), that is to say that the
Commission should declare that under Article 8 of the Interna-
tional Code the names published in the nominative plural by
.Giimbel in 1863 had no status in nomenclature until they were
republished in the nominative singular by Hyatt in 1883.

4. At their Session held at Lisbon the Commission had been
confronted with an application which, like that submitted by
Professor Schindewolf, involved both the status of a particular
name (Uvothoe Dana) and the interpretation of a particular
Article (Article 4) of the International Code. In that case the
Commission decided that their proper course would be to dispose
of this application by rendering two Opinions, the first dealing

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, OPINION LOR. 17

with the name Uvothoe Dana 4 and the second with the interpreta-
tion of Article 4 of the Code ® (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting,
Conclusions 6 and 7). Later at the same meeting, the Commission
had under consideration a similar problem of procedure in con-
nection with an application relating to the interpretation of
Article 34 of the Code. In this case the Commission had already
taken a decision on the question of principle when deciding upon
the status of certain names which had been submitted to them for
an Opinion.* In the course of the discussion of this case it was
pointed out that it was difficult for working zoologists to detect
decisions on questions of principle when these were published
only incidentally in Opinions dealing with particular cases. The
decision then taken by the Commission on the general question of
procedure involved (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 15)
was as follows :— ’ .

On the general issue involved the Commission was unanimously of the
view that, when the Commission reached a decision of interest to the
- general body of zoologists, it was of the greatest importance that that
decision should be presented in such a way as to ensure that it was readily
available to all concerned.

5. In accordance with the procedure laid down by the Com-
_ mission at their Lisbon Session (as set out in the preceding para-
graph), separate Opinions have been prepared for the two ques-
tions submitted by Professor Schindewolf, namely the status of
the names published by Giimbel in 1863 and the interpretation
of Article 8 of the Code which governs the status of those names.

6. The decision of the Commission in regard to the status of
Gumbel’s names has been given by the Commission in Opinion
182 as follows :—

The names published in the nominative plural by Gimbel in 1863 for
subdivisions of the genus Clymenia Minster, 1832 (Class Cephalopoda,
Order Ammonoidea) are not available as subgeneric names as at that date.
These names are available as at 1883, when they were published by Hyatt
in the nominative singular. Hyatt is to be treated as the author of these
names.

7. In addition to the comments from Commissioners Jordan
and Richter quoted in paragraph 2 above, the following com-

4 See Opinion 133.

5 See Opinion 141 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2: 55-66).

6 The Opinion here referred to had been agreed upon by the Commission
prior to the Lisbon Session but at that time was as yet both unnumbered
and unpublished. It was published as Opinion 125 in October 1936. The
names dealt with were Borus Agassiz, 1846, Boros Herbst, 1797, and Borus
Albers, 1850.

* For the full text of Conclusion 15, see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 40-41.

I8 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

ments on the interpretation of Article 8 were received from
Commissioners Cabrera, Stejneger, Peters and Hemming during
the voting on the proposal referred to in paragraph 3 above :—

(a) Comments by Commissioner Angel Cabrera

I think this question is not open to discussion as Art. 8 of the Code
clearly lays down that generic terms must be names in the singular.

(b) Comments by Commissioner Leonhard Stejneger

My reason for dissenting is that I do not consider that the wording of
Article 8 demands that a generic or subgeneric name must have been pro-
posed in the nominative singular in order to become available from the date
of its publication. Gimbel’s names were proposed as “ Untergattungen ”’
and when so employed are to be put in the nominative singular.

I concur with the Opinion as set forth in Circular Letter 330,° with the
reservation that nothing therein shall be construed as affecting the validity
of names of Merrem, 1786, or Sundevall, 1857, written in the accusative
case under the requirements of correct classical grammar.

(d) Comments by Commissioner Francis Hemming

I agree with Commissioner Cabrera that the question before the Com-
mission is a question which, in view of Article 8 of the International Code,
is not one that is open to discussion. That Article states categorically that
a generic name (or, through Article 7,a subgeneric name) must be a noun
in the nominative singular. The wording of this Article in the authorita-
tive French text is as follows :—

Art. 8. Le nom générique consiste en un mot unique, simple ou composé, écrit par

une premiére lettre capitale et employé comme substantif® au nominativ singulier. |

Exemples: Canis, Perca, Ceratodus, Hymenolepis.

2. A name published in the nominative plural (such as those published
by Gimbel) does not comply with the above requirement and accordingly
has no status in nomenclature until it is published in a manner that complies
with the provisions of Article 8, z7.e. until it is published in the nominative
singular.

3. This is a wise and indeed essential provision both from the theoretical
and from the practical standpoint. From the theoretical standpoint, it is
essential, because in the case of most pseudo-latin nouns (such as are the
majority of modern generic names), it is impossible to determine with
certainty what would be the correct nominative singular from an inspection
of a word which purports to be either a different case of the same number

8 The Circular Letter here referred to contained the petition submitted
by Professor Schindewolf (which is quoted is fullin paragraph 1 of Opinion
182), the comments thereon received from Commissioners Jordan and
Richter (quoted in paragraph 2 of Opinion 182) and Commissioner Stiles’s
proposals regarding the action to be taken in this case (see paragraph 4 of
Opinion 182). :

® For the correct translation in English of the French noun
stantif,’’ see footnote I.

“ sub-

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 163. I9

(e.g. an accusative singular) or the same or a different case of a different
number (e.g. a nominative plural or an accusative plural). Even in the
case of a genuine classical noun, there may be room for similar doubts.
Any uncertainty as to the correct form of the nominative singular of a
word published as a generic name would not only be a source of embarrass-
ment to the specialists in the group concerned but would also cause serious
inconvenience (and confusion) in other groups where a similar word had
been published as a generic name, since there would be no means of deter-
mining whether under Article 34 the name in question should be rejected
as a homonym of the doubtful name first published in some case or number
other than the nominative singular.

4. From the practical standpoint this provision of the Code is a wise one,
for, if it were not for it, the very large number of group names in some
Orders published in the nominative plural would become available as
generic names, for example in the Lepidoptera in the family RIODINIDAE
by Stichel (Lepid. Cat. 38, 40, 41, 44). It is also an equitable provision,
since to recognise such names as having status as subgeneric names would
not only cause the utmost confusion but would also be manifestly contrary
to the intention of the authors concerned.

5. Aname clearly published as a generic name but printed only in some
case other than the nominative singular (say the accusative singular) in a
work written in latin is open to the same objection as are names published
in the nominative plural, for they fail to satisfy the requirements of Article
8 that a generic name must be a noun in the nominative singular. It is
equally desirable that this rule should apply to this class of case, since
here also it is often just as difficult to determine from an inspection of an
_accusative singular what would be the form of the nominative singular as
it is in the case of a nominative plural. A good example of this kind of
difficulty is provided in the work of Mabille in the order Lepidoptera
(family HESPERIIDAE). In 1883 this author published a new generic name
(Bull. Soc. ent. Belg. 1883 : 53) in the genitive singular, the word being
given as Brachycorynae. From this indication it would have been reason-
able to infer that Mabille considered the nominative singular (and therefore
the generic name) to be Brachycoryna. In fact, however, when he next
published this name (1904, Gen. Ins. 17(B) : 81), Mabille spelt it Brachy-
covyne. If the publication of a new generic name in any case and number
other than the nominative singular were permissible under the Code, it
would have been necessary in the example quoted to determine whether
Bvrachycorinae was the genitive singular of Brvachycoryna (as one would
naturally expect) or of Brachycoryne (as Mabille later showed to be his
view). The difficulties inherent in zoological nomenclature are quite
sufficient without adding quite unnecessary ones of this kind.

6. It may well be however that in some groups a particular generic name
published otherwise than in the nominative singular has come to be
‘generally accepted by the specialists concerned as having status as from
the date on which it was so published and that difficulties would arise if it
became necessary to treat that name as having been first published at some
later date. It would seem to me reasonable in such a case that the Com-
mission should be asked to use their plenary powers to secure that, notwith-
standing the provisions of Article 8 of the Code, the name in question should
rank for purposes of priority from the date on which it was published for
the first time in any case and number instéad of only from some later date
on which it was first published in the nominative singular. In view,
however, of the fact that the publication of a generic name in any group
invalidates as a homonym any identical generic name published at a later
date in any other group, it would be necessary for the Commission, in
considering a proposal to validate a given generic name, to consider also
whether the use of their plenary powers in this way would have objection-
able repercussions on the nomenclature of any other group.

20 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

8. The other nine (9) Commissioners who voted on the double
proposition submitted (paragraph 3 above) voted affirmatively
without any comment.

g. As explained in paragraphs 3 to 5 above, the vote on the
interpretation of Article 8 of the International Code was taken
concurrently with that on the status of the names published
in the nominative plural by Gtimbel for subdivisions of the
genus Clymenia Minster, 1830 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Am-
monoidea). A decision on either of these cases necessarily in-
volved a decision on the other and, when therefore on 31st
December 1936 the Secretary to the Commission, acting in virtue »
of the powers conferred upon him in that behalf by Article 7 of the
By-Laws, closed the ballot on the case of the names published by
Giimbel (see paragraph 5 of Opinion 182), he closed also the
ballot on the present case.

Ill—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION.

10. The decision taken by the Commission in the present case
1S :-—

(a) that the provision in Article 8 of the International Code
that a generic name is to consist of a noun in the nominative
singular is to be interpreted as prescribing that no name is
to be accepted as a generic name until it has been published
in the nominative singular ;

(b) that a name first published in some number or case other
than the nominative singular and later published in the
nominative singular is, under Article 25 of the International
Code, available as a generic name only as from the date on
which it is for the first time published in the nominative
singular ; |

(c) that, in virtue of Article 7 of the International Code,.the
provisions set out in (a) and (b) above apply also to the
form in which subgeneric names are to be published.

11. The following eleven (11) Commissioners voted in favour of
the present Opinion :— )

Cabrera; Calman; Chapman; Esaki; Fantham; Hemming;
Jordan; Pellegrin; Richter; Stiles; and Stone.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 183. 21

12. The following two (2) Commissioners voted against the
present Opinion :—

eters; and Stejneger.

13. The following three (3) Commissioners did not vote on the
present Opinion :—

Apstein; Bolivar y Pieltain; and Silvestri.

14. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion
there were two vacancies in the membership of the Commission.
These were due to the death of Commissioner Handlirsch and the
resignation of Commissioner Horvath.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
| OPINION.

WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving
the suspension of the rules, an Ofinion is to have been deemed to
have been adopted by the said International Commission as soon
as a majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten
(10) Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes
in favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion
involves a reversal of any former Ofinion rendered by the Com-
mission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of at
least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the
same before such Ofinion is to be deemed to have been adopted
by the Commission; and

WHEREAS the present Opinion, as set out in the summary
thereof, neither requires, in order to be valid, the suspension of
the rules, nor involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered
by the Commission; and

WHEREAS eleven (11) Members of the Commission have signified
their concurrence in the present Opinion :

Now, THEREFORE,

22 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

International Commission, acting for the International Congress
of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Eighty Three (Opinion 183) of the
said Commission.

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
have signed the present Opinion.

DoneE in London, this fifteenth day of December, Nineteen
Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain
deposited in the archives of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 183. 23

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
| Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.
This journal has been established by the International Com-
mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for
the publication of :— :

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
International Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the
Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the
Bulletin under (a) above; and

The Bulletin was established in 1943, in which year three Parts
were published. Part 4 has been published in 1944 and Parts 5
and 6 are in the press.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The above work is being published in three volumes con-
currently, namely :—

Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which
have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the
original issue of which is now out of print). Parts I-15 (contain-
ing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions 1-6) have now been published.
_ Further Parts will be published shortly.

Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising
all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their
meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with
Roman pagination) and Opinions 134-181 (with Arabic pagina-
tion). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume.
Parts 1-26, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opimions 134-156,
have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly.

Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Ofimion 182,
will contain the Opinions adopted by the International Com-
mission since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-4 (con-
taining Opinions 182-185) have now been published. Further
Parts will be published as soon as possible.

24 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

APPEAL FOR FUNDS

The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions
and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen-
clature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s
Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required
to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting
printing, donations amounting to £778 13s. 7d. were received up
to 30th June 1944. Additional contributions are urgently needed
in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without
interruption. Contributions of any amount, however small, will
be most gratefully received.

Contributions should be sent to the ineernaiianell Commission at
their Publications Office, 44, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and
made payable to the “ International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed ‘‘ Account payee. Coutts
& Co.’’.

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND Company, LTp.,
UNGAY, SUFFOLK.

mer

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

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

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 3. Part 3. Pp. 25-36.

OPINION 184

On the status of names first published in volumes

1 to 11 of Martini (F. H. W.) and Chemnitz

(J. H.), Neues systematisches Conchylien-
Cabinet, Nurnberg, 1769-1795

LONDON:

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission ~
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1944

Price three shillings

Issued 17th October, 1944

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).
Assistant Secretary : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dr. Norman RK, STOLE (U:S.A:).

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).

Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952

Secretariat of the Commission :

British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :

41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

pp OE ee ae
Ao ANY ¢ ~
LAK KSUNIAN WW Of ly
at “ts | ~~
ae ON

= AAT 7 Ac 8 6Zé\\
JANI 11945 =)
a |

OPINION 184.

ON THE STATUS OF NAMES FIRST PUBLISHED IN VOLUMES
1 TO 11 OF MARTINI (F. H. W.) AND CHEMNITZ (J. H.),
NEUES SYSTEMATISCHES CONCHYLIEN-CABINET, NURN-
BERG, 1769-1799.

SUMMARY.—For so long as generic names published by authors
using a system of nomenclature, which, though not binominal, is
of the type hitherto accepted as falling within the definition of
binary nomenclature, are accepted as complying with the require-
ments of Article 25 of the International Code, any new generic
name published in volumes 1 to 11 of Martini (F. H. W.) and
Chemnitz (J. H.), Neues systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet,
Niirnberg, 1769-1795, is to be accepted as available nomenclatori-
ally, provided that individually it satisfies the requirements of
the International Code. Thus, in order to be available as a generic
or subgenerie name, every such name (1) must be accompanied by
an indication as defined in Opinion 1 or by a definition or by a
description, (il) if a name originally published before 1758, must |
satisfy the requirements of Opinion 5, (iii) must not have been used
by Martini & Chemnitz as an intermediate term of the kind
rejected by Opinion 124, and (iv) must have been published in the
nominative singular (Opinion 183). No new specific or subspecific
trivial name published in these volumes has any status in nomen-
clature. The position as respects generic names published in
these volumes will need to be re-examined if later it is decided to
reject generic names published by authors not applying the
binominal system.

I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

The present case was submitted to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature by Dr. D. L. Frizzell, Dr. A. Myra
Keen and Dr. Hubert G. Schenck, Department of Geology,

1 The question of the meaning to be attached to the term “ binary
nomenclature”’ is at present sub judice as it was expressly referred by the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Lisbon in
1935 to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for
deliberation and report. See paragraph (2) (i)—(ili) of the note reproduced
in paragraph 5(b) of the present Opinion and 1943, Bull. zool. Nomenel.

145, 55-

28 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Stanford University, California, in the following letter dated 14th
May 1935 :—

The undersigned students of the Mollusca feel that the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should render an Opinion on the
following question :

Shall the names proposed by Chemnitz (1769-1795) stand ?

It is agreed generally among conchologists that volumes later than
volume eleven of the classic work of Martini and Chemnitz entitled ‘“‘ Con-
chylien Cabinet ’’ contain names that are available. There is, however, no
Opinion to cover Volumes I to 11, inclusive, as far as we are aware.

The arguments in favour of accepting as available the names in Volumes
1 to II, inclusive, are as follows :

(x) In many instances in these volumes, Chemnitz was both binary and
binominal.

(2) Other accepted authors, such as Bolten,? are not consistently bi-
nominal.

(3) Because of his masterly presentation of data, many subsequent
writers have referred to Chemnitz, and acceptance of his names
would obviate much juggling of synonymy.

(4) In Volume 11, it is certain that he had accepted the Linnean system
of nomenclature, and it is possible that he used it in earlier volumes.

The arguments against accepting Volumes 1 to 11, inclusive, are as
follows :—

(1) Dall (1902 : 339) and others claim that Chemnitz is not consistently
binominal in Volumes 1 to 11, inclusive.

(2) R. B. Stewart (1930 : 29) claims that Opinion 89? might be an
analogous case. _

(3) Acceptance would cause much label-changing.

2 A comparison of the Museum Boltenianum (which in Opinion 96 has
been accepted by the International Commission as available nomen-
clatorially) with Martini and Chemnitz shows that, unlike the latter, almost
all the specific names used in the Museum Boltenianum consist of binominal
combinations of generic and trivial names, as required by Article 2 of the
International Code. Mr. R. Winckworth (London) has reported to the
International Commission as follows (in litt., 20th May 1944) :—

I examined every page of-the Museum Boltenianum last night and found
only 27 (out of 2,099) specific names, in whichthe trivial name was appar-
ently two words. Most of these are phrases such as Lambis pes pelecani
and Serpula clava Herculis, which are exactly paralleled by Linnaeus’ Bulla
auris Midae (1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 728) and Cypraea caput serpentis
(1758, 1bid. (ed. 10) 1: 720), etc.; there are also a few adjectives, in which
the component parts are printed apart as Nevita nigvo cincta and Cypraea
quingue fasciata; it seems reasonable in a book in which the printing is
poor and many misprints occur to treat these names as equivalent to
Nerita nigrocincta and Cypraea quinquefasciata. Two names only remain
which seem to be really lapses from a binominal nomenclature, viz., Nevita
schmideliana sinistrorsa, fossilis and Nerita fascia lata (nude).

$ In Opinion 89 the International Commission, acting under their plenary
powers, suspended the rules in order to suppress six early zoological works.
This action was taken without prejudice to the question whether any, or ~
all, of these works were by authors who had not applied the principles of
binary nomenclature and were therefore already invalid under proviso (b)
to Article 25 of the International Code.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 184. 29

The literature covering the above case is as follows :—

Martini, F. H. W., and Chemnitz, J. H., Neues systematisches Conchylien-
Cabinet, vols. I-11, 1769-1795.

Stewart, R. B., ‘‘Gabb’s California Cretaceous and Tertiary Type Lamelli-
branchs,”’ 1930, Spec. Publ. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 3: 1-313, pls. 1-17.

Bolten, J. F., Museum Boltenianum, Pars secunda, Hamburg, 1708.

Dall, W. H., ‘‘ Synopsis of the Family Veneridae and of the North American
Recent species,’’ 1902, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 26 : 335-412.

II—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

2. The present case was communicated by Commissioner C. W.
Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, to the members of the Com-
mission for consideration in June 1935, with a suggestion that the
Commission might find it possible to deal with the issues involved
at their meeting due to be held at Lisbon in September of that
year. This suggestion did not prove practicable and accordingly
it was arranged that this case should be settled by correspondence.

3. In the following year a slightly different aspect of this case
was raised in the following letter dated 23rd April 1936 from Miss
Lois M. Schoonover, Palaeontological Research Institution, 126
Kelvin Place, Ithaca, New York :—

Would you please give me your opinion as to whether the names used
by J. H. Chemnitz in the Neues systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet, vol. 6,
1782 and vol. 7, 1784, are valid binominal names? ‘The particular refer-
ences in question are as follows :—

Vol. 6, 1782, page 217. ‘“‘ Mactra cygnea testa triangulari, gibba,
tumida, candida, antice quasi abscissa et truncata, leviter rugosa, ano
cordiformi et tenuiter striato.”’

Vol. 6, 1782, page 318. ‘‘ Venus divaricata Guinaica, testa cordata,
diversimode bifariam striata, antice striis transversalibus postice longi-
tudinalibus, margine crenulato.’’

Molt 6, 1782, page 317. Venus divaricata, teste cordata ex albo et
fusco variegata, decussatim striata, striis a natibus bifariam ad utrumque
latus divergentibus; rima lanceolata, obliterata, ano ovata rufo, margine
crenulato.”’ : .

Vol. 7, 1784, page 61. ‘‘ Venus plumbea Oceani Australis ad littus
Guineae novae nuper inventa, testa subcordata, valde crassa, convexa,
ponderosa, cinerea, inaequilatera antice gibbosiore, parum effusa, sub-
angulata,; postice angustata et rotundata in superficie imprimis penes
marginem ambitus et in unbonum apicibus concentrice seu arcuatim rugosa,
parte intermedia ad splendorem usque glaberrima; . . .”

From these I most wish to know whether you would consider’ that
“ Venus plumbea Chemnitz ”’ is to be accepted as binominal.

4. In June 1936, Commissioner Stiles, then Acting Secretary to
_ the International Commission, invited the members of the Com-
mission to vote on an Opinion declaring that, if new generic names
were contained in volumes 1 to 11 of Martini and Chemnitz’s
Conchylien-Cabinet, they were to be considered under the rules,

30 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

but that no new specific trivial name in those volumes was to be
accepted. In amplification of this proposal, Commissioner Stiles
added the following note :—

Dr. Bartsch and the Acting Secretary concur in the view that these
volumes represent a typical instance of binary * but not binominal nomen-
clature, similar to the cases for which the rules were suspended in Opinion
89, namely, the authors designate genera by a single name but there is no
consistency in the designation of the species, some of which are either
intentionally or unintentionally binominal and others polynominal. Thus
the authors use a binary system, naming two things, but are thoroughly
inconsistent in the specific names.

It will be noticed that the volumes were published during the years of
transition from the polynominal to the strictly binominal system. .

Under this opinion if any new generic names occur, they must be con-
sidered nomenclatorially, but all new specific designations can be ignored.

If the application of the rules results in greater confusion than uni-
formity, it will be necessary for some one to request a suspension of the rules
similar to action in Opinion 89. Inexamining the volumes, Dr. Bartsch did
not notice any new generic names which would produce confusion.

5. In returning their votes on the proposed Opinion, only two
Commissioners offered any special comments thereon :—

(a) Comment by Commissioner Rudolf Richter

Der Opinion wird nicht zugestimmt.. Da die Gattungs- und Art-Namen
den gleichen Nomenklatur-Regeln unterworfen sind, erscheint es wider-
sinnig, in einem Werk nur die Gattungsnamen, nicht aber auch die Art-
namen fir yetfigbar zu erklaren. Wie wir schon am 23. Juli 1935 °
schrieben, ist es empfehlens wert, alle in Martini & Chemnitz, 1769-1795
enthaltenen Namen zu verwerfen. Bei wichtigen Namen kdonnte von Fall
zu Fall eine Suspension der Regeln erfolgen. In Gemeinschaft mit meinem
Kollegen Dr. Mertens.

(b) Comment of Commissioner Francis Hemming

Jointly with Commissioners Jordan and Calman, I have carefully examined
the copies of volumes 1-11 of the Conchylien-Cabinet of Martini and Chem-
nitz at the British Museum. The result of this examination may be
summarised as follows :—

(i) In these volumes the authors accept the concept of a ‘ genus’ and
that of a ‘ generic name’ as those concepts are now understood,
though in citing the names of species they sometimes omit the
generic name.

(11) In none of these volumes do the authors use the Linnean system of
binominal nomenclature.

(i111) In some cases a species is cited under a binominal name but this is
accidental in the sense that these authors clearly did not consider
that a name, in order to be valid, must be formed in this way.

4 See footnote 1.

° In the letter here referred to, Commissioner Richter had written :—
Es ist zu empfehlen, alle in Chemnitz, 1769-1795, enthaltenen Namen zu
verwerfen, da das Werk. nicht ganz eindeutig binar und binominal ist.
Bei wichtigen Namen kénnte von Fall zu Fall eine Suspension der Regeln
erfolgen.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 184. 31

(iv) Martini and Chemnitz use a complicated system for grouping the
species which they discuss. Names are given to groups of species
within a given genus and these group-names are usually cited in the

: nominative plural, either with or without a qualifying adjectival
phrase. Sometimes, however, these group-names are cited in the
nominative singular as part of the names of species. The following
are examples of these two latter types of case :—

(a)

In Volume 4 the species assigned to the genus Buccinum Linnaeus,
1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. TO) 1: 734, are divided into named groups
of which one is called “‘ Buccina ore caniculato et vostrato Fusi.’
This group is itself divided into sub-groups, the second of which is
called ‘‘ Fusi longi, clavicula longiove et vostvo elongato.” In the
table given on p. 147 Six species are placed in this sub-group. Of
the names there used for these species, five are polynominal in
form and one is binominal. For the first, third, fifth and sixth of
these species, the word Turris is the first word used, while the
word Classicum is the first word used for the second species and
the word Murex is the first word used for the fourth species.
Volume 11 approaches much more closely to the binominal system
than the earlier volumes and contains no cases such as that cited
in (a) above. Nevertheless, in this volume also there are some
group-names which might be mistaken for generic names. In
the account, for example, of the genus Helix nearly all of the
species are correctly cited with a name of which the first word
is given as Helix. In two cases, however, this is not so. On p.
2606, one species is given as ‘ Nux denticulata. Helix sinuata
major’ and on p. 267 another is given as‘ Gallina Sultana.’ Later,
however, each of these species is correctly cited with the word
Helix as the first word of its name, as ‘ Helix Nux denticulata,
Helix sinuata major, and ‘ Helix Gallina Sultana.’

(2) The sourelnefieme to be drawn from the ATE EONS examination are as

follows :

(i)

(iii)

Martini and Chemnitz should be regarded as having ‘ applied the
principles of binary nomenclature’ in volumes 1-11 of the Con-
chylien-Cabinet, if the meaning to be attached to that expression is
the meaning adopted in Opinion 20 rendered by the International
Commission in the period 1908-1910 and published in1tg10o. Under
this interpretation of the expression ‘ binary nomenclature,’ any
new generic name published by Martini and Chemnitz in these
volumes is available nomenclatorially, provided that in -other
respects it satisfies the requirements of the Code; but no new
specific trivial name published in those volumes is available nomen-
clatorially even if it is binominal in form.

If, however, the expression ‘ binary nomenclature ’ is interpreted as
having the same meaning as ‘ binominal nomenclature,’ then Martini
and Chemnitz in these volumes did not accept the principles of
‘binary nomenclature’ and in consequence new generic names
published in these volumes fail to satisfy the requirements of
proviso (b) to Article 25 of the International Code and therefore
have no availability (hence no validity) in zoological nomenclature
as from the date of being so published.

The question which of the above interpretations of the expression
“binary nomenclature’ is the correct interpretation of that ex-
pression is at present sub judice, since at Lisbon in 1935 it was -
expressly referred to the International Commission on Zoological

32 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL
Nomenclature by the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology for
deliberation and report. Until the International Commission
submits its report and a decision on that report has been taken by
the next (Thirteenth) International Congress of Zoology, no final
decision can be given by the International Commission on the
status of new generic names published in volumes 1-11 in the
Conchylien-Cabinet. In these circumstances, clearly the only
logical course for the International Commission to adopt in this case
is to follow the precedent which they set at Lisbon in 1935 when
dealing with the strictly analogous case of the Introductio ad
Historiam naturalem published by Scopoli in 1777 (Lisbon Session,
4th Meeting, Conclusion 11),® that is to say to take the line that,
until a final decision: has been taken on the question of the inter-
pretation of the expression ‘ binary nomenclature,’ any new generic
name published in volumes 1-11 of the Conchylien-Cabinet of
Martini and Chemnitz should be accepted, if otherwise available,
but that this question should be re-examined if later it is decided
to reject generic names published by authors not applying the
binominal system.

(iv) If in this case the Commission proceed as indicated in (ili) above,
it will nevertheless be necessary to exercise considerable care in
determining which are the generic (or sub-generic) names in volumes
I-11 of the Conchylien-Cabinet which may properly be regarded as
satisfying the requirements of Article 25 of the Code. In this
connection, it will be necessary to bear in mind the following
considerations :—

(a) no name has any status as a generic or sub-generic name, unless it
is accompanied by an indication as defined in Opinion 17 or a
definition or a description ;

(b) names originally published before 1758 only acquire status in
nomenclature when, on being republished, they are re-inforced by
being adopted or accepted by the author who republishes them
(Opinion 5 8);

(c) the mere citation in a post-1757 work of a bibliographical reference
ee pre-1758 name confers no status upon that name (Opinion

Die)

(d) the inclusion in a synonymy given in a post-1757 work of a pre-
1758 name confers no status upon a name so cited (Opinion 5 8) ;

(e) where a not-strictly binominal author places an intermediate
term between the generic name and the specific trivial name (as
Linnaeus did in 1758 in some parts of the roth edition of the
Systema Naturae), no subgeneric status is thereby accorded to the
intermediate term so used (Opinion 124) ;

(f) a generic or sub-generic name takes priority only from the date
on which, for the first time, it is published in the nominative
singular (Opinion 183 °).

~*~

° See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 37-38. The case here referred to
was concerned with the status of the name Anguina Scopoli, 1777 (Class |
Nematoda) and has since been dealt with by the International Commission
in Opinion 160.

* See NoTE 5 to Opinion 1 (1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1: 79-82).

® See 1944, Opinions and Declarations vendered by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 115-126.

® See 1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 3 : 13-24.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, OPINION 184. 33

(v) In order to secure availability under Article 25, any manuscript
’ generic name published by Martini and Chemnitz in volumes 1-11
of the Conchylien-Cabinet will need to be accompanied by an indica-
tion (as defined in Opinion 1 1°) or by a definition or by a description.

(vi) Of the points enumerated in (iv) above, point (a) eliminates all

- names for which no indication, definition or description is given;
point (e) eliminates such names as Nuw and Gallina (see paragraph
1(b) above); and point (f) eliminates from consideration a name
such as Fusus where that name is used as a group-name in the
nominative plural only (see paragraph 1(a) above).

(vii) An inspection of volumes 1-11 of the Conchylien-Cabinet suggests
that, after the principles set out in (iv) above have been applied—
as they must be—to any new generic or sub-generic name published
in that work, the number of such names which will be found to be
available under the Code will be very small.

6. By October 1936 a sufficient number of Commissioners had
recorded their votes in favour of the proposed Opinion in order to
secure its adoption as an Opinion of the Commission. The papers
relating to the present case were among the first to be transferred
from Washington to London after the election (on 6th October
1936) of Commissioner Hemming to be Secretary to the Com-
mission and on 31st December 1936 Commissioner Hemming,
acting in virtue of the powers conferred upon him in that behalf
by Article 7 of the By-Laws, closed the ballot in this case.

fit HE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION.

7. The decision taken by the Commission in the present case
is :—

(a) that, for so long as generic names published by authors using a system
of nomenclature which, though not binominal, is of the type hitherto
accepted as falling within the definition of binary nomenclature, are
accepted as complying with the requirements of Article 25 of the
International Code, any new generic name published in volumes 1
to 11 of Martini (F. H. W.) and Chemnitz (J. H.) Neues systematische
Conchylien-Cabinet, Niirnberg, 1769-1795, is to be accepted as avail-
able nomenclatorially, but that the position should be re-examined if
later it is decided to reject generic names published by authors not
applying the binominal system ; ie
before a new name published by Martini and Chemnitz in the volumes
referred to above is accepted as available as a generic or sub-generic
name as from the date of such publication it will be necessary to
establish that it satisfies the provisions of the Code in all respects, for

example:
(i) that it was accompanied by an indication as defined in Opinion 1

or a definition or description ; :
(ii) that, if a pre-1758 name, it complies with the provisions of

Opinion 5 ;

10 See 1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1: 73-86.

34 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(iii) that it was not used by Martini and Chemnitz as an intermediate
term in the manner declared in Opinion 124 as affording no status
as a sub-generic name as from the date on which it was so pub-
lished ;

(iv) that the name was published in the nominative singular (Opinion

Os).

(c) that, in view of the fact that Martini and Chemnitz did not apply the
system of binominal nomenclature in the volumes referred to above,
no specific or subspecific trivial name published therein has any status
in nomenclature, even when such a name is published respectively as
the second or third term in a binominal or trinominal combination.

8. The following ten (10) Commissioners voted in favour of the
present Opinion :—
Calman; Chapman; Esaki; Fantham; Hemming; Jordan;
Peters; Silvestms ‘Stiles sand Stone:

g. One (1) Commissioner, namely Commissioner Richter, voted
against the present Opinion. .

10. The following five (5) Commissioners did not vote on the
present Opinion :—

Apstein; Bolivar y Pieltain; Cabrera; Pellegrin; and Stejneger.,

11. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion
there were two vacancies in the membership of the Commission.
These were due to the death of Commissioner Handlirsch and the
resignation of Commissioner Horvath.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving
the suspension of the rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have
been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a
majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten (10)
Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in
favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion
involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com-
mission, such proposed Ofinion shall obtain the concurrence of
at least fourteen Members of the Commission voting on the same
before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been a eae by the
Commission ; and

WHEREAS the present Opinion, as set out in the summary
thereof, neither requires, in order to be valid, the suspension of

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 184. 35

the rules, nor involves a reversal of any former Ofinion rendered
by the Commission ; and

WHEREAS ten (10) Members of the Commission have signified
their concurrence in the present Opinion : -

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Ofinion on behalf of the Inter-
national Commission, acting for the International Congress of
Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Eighty Four (Opinion 184) of the said
Commission.

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
have signed the present Opinion.

Done in London, this fifteenth day of July, Nineteen Hundred
and Forty Four, in a single copy, which Shall remain deposited in
the archives of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s
Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal has been established by the International Commission as
their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the International
Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary with,
zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above;
and

The Bulletin was established in 1943, in which year three Parts were
published. Part 4 has been BESS in 1944 and Parts 5 and 6 are in the
press.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Hens
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The above work is being published in three volumes concurrently,
namely :—

Volume 1t. This volume will contain Delcarations 1-9 (which have never
previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue of which
is now out of print). Parts 1-15 (containing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions
1-6) have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly.

Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising all the
decisions taken by the International Commission at their meeting at
Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with Roman pagination) and
Opinions 134-181 (with Arabic pagination). Part 52 will contain the
index and title page of the volume. Parts 1-26, containing Declarations
1o-12 and Opinions 134-156, have now been published. Further Parts
will be published shortly.

Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182, will
contain the Opinions adopted by the International Commission since their
meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-4 (containing Opinions 182-185) have
now been published. Further Parts will be published as soon as possible.

APPEAL FOR FUNDS

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD.,
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
H.. ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

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

Secretary to the Commission
VOLUME 3. Part 4. Pp. 37-52.

OPINION 185

Suppression of Bohadsch (J. B.), De quibusdam

Animalibus marinis, 1761, and of the German

translation thereof published by Leske (N. G.)
in 1776

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1944
Price four shillings

|__|
Issued 17th October, 1944

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).
Assistant Secretary: Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A.).

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).

Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).
Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).
Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).
Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission).
Dr Harold, VOKES| (iis Ac).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41,,Queen’s Gate; London, SWa7.-

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

ce eI,
_ = me

AN Lea
Ps Ta: AY Vath Thy Lye SS ~
ie m te % : J “Wy

JK mr® of 2 ‘
} a % Af, \
1; Sa if iho : A Ns ome \\
jos 3 I Al 4 | iGA Bi “— 1}
JAN 1 1 194 }}
w/i

YAY ee ft

OPINION 185.

SUPPRESSION OF BOHADSCH (J. B.), DE QUIBUSDAM
ANIMALIBUS MARINIS, 1761, AND OF THE GERMAN TRANS-
LATION THEREOF PUBLISHED BY LESKE (N. G.) IN 1776.

SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules Bohadsch (Joannes
Baptista), 1761, De quibusdam Animalibus marinis, and the
German translation thereof published by Leske (Nathaniel Gott-
fried) in 1776 are hereby suppressed for all nomenclatorial
purposes.

I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

In 1933 Dr. H. Engel, Conservator, Zoologisch Museum, Amster-
dam, submitted to the International Commission a request that
the Commission should suspend the rules under their plenary
powers for the purpose of suppressing the work published in 1761
by Joannes Baptista Bohadsch under the title De quibusdam
ammalibus marinis. The following is the petition submitted by
Dr. Engel :—

ARE THE GENERA AND SPECIES OF BOHADSCH, 1761, TO BE ACCEPTED?

by
Dr. H. Engel,

Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam

Joann. Bapt. Bohadsch, Philos. et Med. Doctoris, suae $.C.R.A. Majestatis
in Commercialibus Consiliarii, in Universitate Pragensi Histor.
Natur. Professoris, Facult. Med. Decani, nec non Academiae Botan.
Florentinae Sodalis. DE QuIBUSDAM ANIMALIBUS MARINIS, eorumque
proprietatibus, orbi litterario vel nondum vel minus notis, Liber cum
nonnullis tabulis seri incisis, ab auctore super vivis animalibus deline-
atis. Dresdae 1761. Apud Georg. Conrad. Walther.

Studying the status of the generic names Aplysia and Tethys, I found in
Pilsbry’s paper on this subject (‘“ On the Status of the Names Aplysia and
Tethys,” in Proc. Acad. nat. Sct. Philad. 1895, pp. 347-350), that Bohadsch’s
name fimbria (first given in the opus cited above, for the Mediterranean
Nudibranchiate Mollusc known as Tethys leporina L.) had to be rejected,
as its author did not use binary nomenclature.+

1 At Lisbon in 1935 the Permanent Committee of the International
Zoological Congresses referred the question of the meaning of the expression
“ binary nomenclature ’’ to the Chairman of the Section on Nomenclature
of the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, by whom this question
was in turn referred to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature for deliberation and report. This invitation was accepted by the
International Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 3(b))
(for the text of which see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 45,55). In accord-
ance with that decision, a report on this subject will therefore be submitted
by the International Commission to the International Congress of Zoology
at its next meeting. At the present time, therefore, the meaning of the
expression “‘ binary nomenclature ”’ is sub judice.

40 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

In 1926 however O’Donoghue (‘‘ A List of the Nudibranchiate Mollusca
recorded from the Pacific Coast of North America,” in Trans. R. Canadian
Institute, No. 34, Vol. 15, Pt. 2, p. 226) observed that Bohadsch is not
strictly speaking a binominalist, but in his descriptions, as he stated, he was
dealing with genera.

This remark led me to the study of the book of Bohadsch, with the aim
to make out whether his generic names had to be rejected or had to be
accepted. My opinion is that Bohadsch intended to use the rules then
newly laid down by Linnaeus in his Fundamenta Botanica (and later on
explained more explicitly in his Philosophia Botanica, 1790, from which I
have quoted one of these rules below). The tenth edition of Linné’s
Systema Naturae was received by Bohadsch when his manuscript was ready
(as he informs us p. 52). It was in this edition that Linnaeus for the first
time consistently used binary nomenclature,” trying to sum up in a specific
name the specific characteristics of the animal. Till then this short
‘‘ diagnosis ’’ consisted of as many (or better, as few) words as were neces-
sary to characterise the species, and so often consisted of two, three or more
words. Linné’s specific name, most often not sufficing to give a full
characteristic of the species, was followed since the said roth edition by a
short diagnosis. Now a difficulty arises when Bohadsch, like other authors
of the period, e.g. Miller, Zool. danic. Prodr., gives, as the first word of the
short diagnosis, a word that can easily be regarded as the specific name.
Often this word is followed by a comma or simply placed apart; it often
seems to emancipate itself in a certain sense from the rest of the diagnosis.
We may ask, was it the intention of Bohadsch and his colleagues in such
cases to regard this first name as the specific name? The answer can be
“yes’”’ and “no.” Sometimes the animal is designated by its generic
name plus the short diagnosis, sometimes by the first word only, followed
by “ etc.’’, sometimes again the species are designated by their number
(e.g. ‘‘ altera Tethy1 species ’’) and lastly in some cases one specific name is
given to each species and this name is further used to designate the species.
It is my opinion that we must take into account the fact that the authors
wanted some time to adapt themselves to Linné’s rules. Especially,
Bohadsch, who, as said above, got the roth edition of the Systema Naturae
while preparing his manuscript for the printer, cannot be expected to use
binary nomenclature 7 as we doit now. It was not yet an iron law to him.
But when we see that he often quotes one of Linné’s rules and tries to adapt
his nomenclature to it, and in many cases uses binary nomenclature as he
ought to,” we must forgive him his little transgressions. In any case we
cannot neglect the cases where Bohadsch behaves like a good binominalist !

It is only in the monospecific genera that Bohadsch omits the specific
designation, thereby following again Linné’s rule “ Nomen specificum
nullum, speciei in suo genere solitariae, imponi potest’’ (I quote from Phil.
BOtaps 230)

Our conclusion must be that, although the case is doubtful, there are
many reasons to regard Bohadsch’s names as valid. If this be done,
however, it will lead to “‘ greater confusion than uniformity ”’ and therefore
it is proposed that the Commission on Nomenclature shall decide that
Bohadsch, 1761, is mot valid. This seems best, though it were a poor
recognition of Bohadsch’s eminent zoological work.

In a certain sense the Commission has already given an Opinion which,
though not intentionally, invalidated one of Bohadsch’s generic names.
The name Hydva Bohadsch, 1761, has priority over Holothuria L., 1767,
which name was placed in the Official List. See Opinions 77 and 80,
where Bohadsch’s name is not mentioned, probably because the appellants
regarded him as a non-binominalist. A revision of the case is, happily, not
necessary; as Hydva Bohadsch, 1761, as preoccupied by Hydra L., 1758

2 See footncte 1.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 185. AI

(for the Coelenterate genus) and because, as said, the name Holothuria L.,
1767, was placed in the Official List.

In the following I give some quotations from Bohadsch’s work, proving
that he can be regarded as a binominalist :—

In his Praefatio Bohadsch remarks on the third page: ‘‘ Nam juxta Cl.
Linnaeum sepia nomen genericum est, sub quo Polypus, loligo et sepia
proprie dicta continentur.”’

In Caput I he describes Lervnaea (1.e., our Tectibranchiate Mollusc
Aplysia auct.), and, as Blochmann, in “* Die im Golfe von Neapel vorkom-
menden Aplysien,”’ in Mutth. a. d. Zool. Stat. z. Neapel, v. 1884, p. 41,
remarks, he used for his description the two Mediterranean species, A.
depilans auct. and A. fasciata auct. In § II (pp. 2-3) Bohadsch discusses
the use of the name Levnaea (which was given by Linnaeus in the earlier
editions of the Systema Naturae, including the 9th, Lugduni Batavorum,
1756), in preference to the older name Lepus marinus. I quote this para-
graph in extenso :—‘‘ Placuit hocce minus notum animal sub nomine
lernaeae, quod a Cl. Linnaeo accepit, describere, quam nomen leporis marini,
quo Veteris illud insignivere, ei adjicere. Idque ideo vel maxime, quia
simpliciter /epus illud appellare consultum non erat, ne quis crederet, de
lepore terrestri me verba facere. Ly|sic] mavinus vero addere vetat lex a
Cl. Linnaeo in fundamentis botanicis sanccita, qua nomina generica ex
duobus vocabulis integris ac distinctis facta veleganda esse statuit. Novum
vero nomen ei adjicere pro incongrui habui: cum animal non ignotum, sed
imperfecte duntaxat notum naturae curiosis esset, et nomen suum jam
haberet. Plura enim nomina eidem rei assignata confusionem pariunt, et
memoriam per se labilem inutiliter agravant deteruntque. Unde quemad-
modum haecce denominandi libido apud Botanicos minime placet, ita apud
Zoologos illam nunquam exoriri plurimum opto. Jam vero ipsam levnaeae
historiam aggrediar.”’

So Bohadsch knows the rules laid down by Linnaeus and applies them.
As pointed out, we must take into account the fact that they were quite
new then, and we cannot expect Bohadsch to regard them as intrans-
gressible laws !

The name Lervnaea itself was preoccupied by line in the roth edition of
the Systema Naturae, p. 655, for the well-known parasitic Copepod, as
Bohadsch, who in preparing his paper had used the “ VIth edition, Parisii
1744’ (not mentioned by Linné in the roth ! in his “ Ratio Editionis ’’),
notes himself at the end of this first Caput :—‘‘ De Lernaea.’’ He gives
vent to his annoyance over Linné’s frivolous handling of names in a more
or less sarcastic remark. I quote from pp. 52-53 :—‘ Dum manuscriptum
praesentis opusculi Typographo exhibere voluerim, ab eodem Cl. Linnaei
_decimam systematis naturae (p. 53) editionem accepi. Nolens itaque ut
opus qualecumque meum praelo subjiceretur, priusquam dictam systematis
editionem perlustrarem, mirabundus in ea conspexi Cl. Virum Tethyos
nomen lepor1 marino adjecisse, sub levnaeae vero nomine pediculum salmonis
etc. collocasse. Cupiebam primo hocce aspectu nomen meae lernaeae
permutare, quia vero ex charactere generico Tethydi apposito simul intellexi,
quod gravissimus Vir neque sub Jervnaeae editionis Parisiensis, neque sub
Tethydis nomine editionis decimae leporvem mavinum bene noverit; con-
sultis esse censui, assumptum nomen relinquere, et Cl. Linnaeo amatam
occasionem concedere; ut in undecima editione alio rursum nomine hocce
animal insigneret. Nam Tethydem illud haud deinceps appellabit, cum
lernaea mea, quae proprie Lepus marinus Veterum est, in medio nullum
Corpusculum cartilagineum oblongum habeat, neque tentaculis cuneiformi-
bus, minus denique foraminibus spivantibus instructa sit. Ut quidem Cl.
Linnaeus ex aliis auctoribus pro charactere generico erronee assumit.’’
So the diagnosis of Tethys L., 1758, is wrong! There are more reasons to
reject this name and use the well-known name Aplysia L., 1767.

In Caput II Bohadsch describes Fimbria (1.e., as stated above, the Medi-

42 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

terranean Nudibranchiate Mollusc, with the great mouth-veil, known as

Tethys leporina L.). In §§ VII, VIII and IX, the author discusses this new _.

genus as being quite distinct from the other animals till then united with
it under the name Lepus marinus. On pp. 62-63 he states :—‘‘ Liceat
mihi... Fimbriae . .. ac lernaeae . . ., utramque tanquam distinctum
Zoophytorum genus proponere,’ which can only be interpreted as the
description of a new genus in the sense of Linnaeus !

If the rules are strictly applied, and 7f Bohadsch is regarded as valid,
this name Fimbria has to be used for the said Tethys leporina auctorum.
According to Opinion 46 we get the name of the species by tautonymy,
Fimbria fimbria, as O’ Donoghue already used it (l.c.).

As I hope that the Commission will give an Opinion that the names
Aplysia and Tethys, as they were used by Linnaeus, 1767, have to be placed
on the Official List, I propose to use the name Tethys leporina as it has been
used till now by authors in general, pending action upon possible suspension
of the rules in this case.

The third animal described by Bohadsch is Argus (1.e., our Platydoris
argo). On p. 65 he quotes Linnaeus: ‘“‘Quaecunque genere conveniunt,
eodem nomine generico designanda sunt. Quaecunque genere differunt,
diverso nomine designanda: sunt. Nomina generica, quae characterem
essentialem vel faciem rei exhibent, optima sunt. Qui novum genus con-
stituit, eidem nomen etiam imponere tenetur,’’ and he continues: ‘‘ Hae
et sexcentae aliae regulae a Cl. Linnaeo (vide Fundamenta ejus Botanica)
naturae curiosis praescriptae sunt. His insistens et ego a nemine spero
reprehendar, quod nunc describendo animali Avgz, monstri illius Poetarum
centum oculis praediti, nomen imposuerim; quod etsi characterem ani-
malis genericum ex integro non designet, unam saltem ejus notam evidenter
denotat .. .’’ and p. 66 :—‘ Verum quia Cl. Linnaei systema hac in parte
potissimum sequor, hic vero nulli animali avgi nomen adjecerit, spero nullam
inde nascituram confusionem, si in ordine Zoophytorum novum genus
collocetur, quod avgi nomine insignitum est.’ And § VI, p. 71 :—“ Ex
hac attamen qualicunque Avg: historia patet: illum cum nullo Zoophy-
torum genere a Cl. Linnaeo descripto convenire. Hinc liceat quasdam ejus
notas characteristicas sequenti definitione exprimere ...’’ He then
proceeds to give the reasons why he does not unite this genus with Limax
nor with Lervnaea, and he always speaks of Argus as a genus.

When a man quotes the rules of Linnaeus, tries to use them, discusses
their application, it is my opinion that his work has to be regarded as valid,
unless it be invalidated by an Opinion of the Commission on Nomenclature:

As Linné’s Rules asked no specific name in a monospecific genus, it is
quite clear that Argus argus is the type-species of the genus Argus (which
later on, by Bergh, 1877, Jahrb. d. D. Malakozool. Ges. iv. p. 73, has been
named Platydoris). In the case that Bohadsch is valid, the name Argus
has to replace Platydoris. There seems to be no serious objection to this
change, as the name Platydoris seldom occurs in general zoological literature.
The specific name argus is in use and only changes its author from Linnaeus
to Bohadsch.

Chapter IV deals with Hydva. This is the animal now known as Holo-
thuria tubulosa Gmelin. The name Hydra was used by Linnaeus in the
earlier editions of the Systema Naturae for animals with ‘‘ Corpus cylindri-
cum. Tentacula ad circumferentiam capitis ’’ (I quote from the edition of
1756, Lugduni Batavorum, cited in the roth edition as the 9th per Grono-
vium), which diagnosis was changed in the roth edition, p. 816, and re-
stricted to the Coelenterate species. As I already remarked, Bohadsch
says he used the 6th edition of the Systema Naturae, Parisii, 1744 (not
mentioned in the “‘ Ratio Editionis ”’ in the roth edition). As his work was
ready, he received the roth edition and he says, pp. 75-76 :—‘‘ Cl. vero

Linnaeus (vide Systema Naturae, edit. VI.) Hydrae nomen nostro Zoophyto

imposuit, quod quidem nomen genericum est, comprehendens: Mentulam

De ne

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 185. 43

et polypum paludosum tanquam species. Meo videre polypus palusiris
proprium genus constituit, et ob singulares suas proprietates, diversamque
formam, ad Hydram reducendus non est. Haec enim juxta Cl. Linnaeum
(vide Systema Naturae, edit. VI.) corpus habet cylindricum, tentacula plura
im civcumferentia capitis, qui character optime Mentulae Veterum, minime
vero omnibus polypi palustvis Recentiorum speciebus convenit. Unde
optarem, ut sola deinceps Mentula et hujus detegendae species Hydra
nomine intelligerentur. Contrarium tamen huic meo voto Cl. Linnaeum
fecisse in systematis naturae editione decima (vide p. 816) observo; qui
sub Hydra genere varias duntaxat polypi paludosi species locavit, mentulae
vero marinae in toto systemate animali oblitus est.”’

, We see that here Bohadsch is the good zoologist, who clearly describes a
genus Hydra for our Sea-Cucumbers and a genus Polypus for the Coelenter-
ates. And after describing the genus, Bohadsch, as a good binominalist,
gives an enumeration of the species belonging to it (pp. 92-93) : ‘““ Sicorporis
magnitudo et colorum varietas in denominandis animalium speciebus
locum habeat, sequentes Hydvae species enumerari possunt : Hydva major,
ex fusco, albo, et rufescente variegaia; Epipetrum auctorum. Hydra tota
fusca, Hydra minor ex fusco lutea. Hae quidem et non aliae toto eo tem-
pore, quo Neapoli degebam, in manus meas venere.”’

We could criticize the use of a diagnosis the first two words of which
constitute the name. But here Linnaeus gave the example. The name
tota-fusca is printed in two words, but these two are much closer to each
other than any of two other following or foregoing words in the book, and
we have to regard them as belonging together as long as we regard as valid
such specific names as wyville-thomsoni or albo-fusca, or to use a more closely
allied example: tota-cinevea (Muraena, Forskal, Descr. Anim. 1775, p. 22).

As I remarked above, we have, applying the rules, to use Hydra L., 1758, —
for the Coelenterates, as this name antedates Hydva Bohadsch, 1761.
Further, Opinion 80 places Holothuria L., 1767, on the Official List for
the sea-cucumbers. So this case gives no more difficulties as regards the
generic names involved.

-But the specific names used by Bohadsch—major, totafusca, and minorv— |
have to be used, if Bohadsch is valid and if these species can be identified.
In the 12th edition Linnaeus, p. 1090, quotes :—‘‘ Bohadsch, Mar. 75, t
6 Hydra’’ under “ Holothuria tremula,” together with “‘ Gunn. Act.
Stockh. 1767,’ “‘ Habitat in Oceano Norvegico,”’ while Bohadsch clearly
stated that he fished his animals near Naples! In the 13th edition,
Gmelin (p. 3138) names the animal of Gunnerus: Holothuria frondosa,
while the Holothuria tremula L., 1758, is united with many other quotations,
and with “‘ Bohadsch anim. mar. p. 75, t. 6 et t. 7 f. 1-5 Hydra,’ under
Holothuria tubulosa, which name has since then been used. It is not easy
to make out if the three species of Bohadsch correspond to three different
species of the Neapolitan coasts, but it seems most probable that they all
three belonged to the species known as H. tubulosa (cf., for example, Koehler,
‘Les échinodermes des mers d’Europe,’ ii. Doin, Paris, 1927, pp. 231-234).
So if Bohadsch is regarded as valid, the rules ask us to change the well-
known name AHolothuria tubulosa Gmelin, 1791, to Holothuria major
Bohadsch, 1761.

Caput V describes the genus Syvinx (1.e., our Sipunculus, and the species
Bohadsch examined was nudus L. 1767, p. 1078). Here again we have the
description of a genus as Bohadsch clearly states (p. 96: “‘ novum genus
ex eo Creaverim ”’ and p.97: “‘ novum Zoophytorum genus’’). Butas it is
a monospecific genus, Bohadsch gives only one name. If Bohadsch is
regarded as valid, and the rules are strictly applied our well-known Sipun-
culus nudus L., 1767 has to receive the name Syvinx syrinx Bohadsch, 1761.

The next, Caput VI, gives a description of the genus Penna, now known
as Pennatula L., 1758 (p. 818). Bohadsch prefers the name Penna, because
he sees no reason for Linné’s diminutive Pennatula. From his § II, p. 100,

44 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

we may again quote a passage in favour of our standpoint :—‘‘ Quum plures
Pennae species curiosorum oculis praeponere possim, necessum est, et
’ quidem contra receptum ordinem, characterem ejus genericum vel generalem
definitionem praemittere.’’ And as the species belonging to this genus he
names: ‘‘ Penna vubva, pennis falciformibus, tentaculis in pinnarum facie
concava positis. Seu Penna stirpe vachi utrinque pennato. Vel Penna
Phosphorea Linn. (Syst. Nat. edit. 10, p. 818). Penna grisea, pinnis
convexo planis tentaculis in pinnarum facie convexa positis. Penna rubes-
cens, pinnis carens, tentaculis in corporis tvunco positis, Penna vamosa,
pinnis carens tentaculis in ramis positis.”

The first of these species, Penna rubra, is a synonym of P. phosphorea L.,
1758, as Bohadsch himself informs us, and, like the generic name Penna, it
is invalidated by Linnaeus, 1758. Penna grisea was cited by Pallas, 1 766,3
in his ‘ Elenchus zoophytorum,’ p. 367, as P. gvysea and from thence passed
under that name (P. gvisea) in literature. It is now known as Pieroides
gvisea. The third species, P. vubescens, is known as Funiculina quad-
vangularis; the trivial name was given by Pallas (l.c. p. 372). It is
difficult to decide whether Bohadsch proposed (p. 101) vubescens as a
specific name! He gives a short diagnosis there (cited above) of which the
first word is vubescens. In the description of this species (p. 112 seq.) he
only says :—‘‘ cum lingua vernacula Penna del pesce pavone illam vocitent.”’
This seems to be a point against Bohadsch’s binominalism ! He does not
definitely propose a name, neither does he use the first word of the diagnosis
in the further description!’ It may bea point of discussion whether this
species has to be called P. vubescens Bohadsch or keep its well-known name
P. quadvangularis Pallas. The fourth species is described by Pallas (l.c.
Pp. 349) as Alcyonium palmatum. He quotes the short diagnosis of Bohadsch
which we quoted above. Again, here we may ask whether the first word
of Bohadsch’s diagnosis (yvamosa) has to be regarded as the specific name ?

In the description of the animal he says, p. 114 :—“‘a me vero Penna vamosa,
pinnis carens, tentaculis in vamis positis appelatur,”’
“quartam Pennae speciem seu manum marinam.”’ So, like the third

species, the fourth forms a point of doubt against Bohadsch’s binominalism.

The last chapter, VII, deals with the genus Tethyum being a synonym
of Ascidia Linnaeus, ed. xii. 1767, p. 1087. Bohadsch discusses the name
Tethyum, gives a generic diagnosis, and then names the following species
(p. 130) :—‘‘ T. vulgare, coriaceum, gelatinosum, membranaceum.”’ In § II,
he describes Tethyum coriaceum, in § III Tethyum gelatinosum, and in § IV
Tethyum membranaceum, which he there proposes to call T. fasciculatum,
under which name he already mentioned it onep. 78.

Linnaeus in the 12th edition, p. 1087, mentions under A scidia six species,
of which the first three are founded on the three species described by
Bohadsch. The first, T. coviaceum Bohadsch, he names Ascidia papillosum,
the second Ascidia gelatinosum, which is T. gelatinosum Bohadsch, and the
third, Ascidia intestinalis, is identified with T. fasciculatum Bohadsch.
The last species Linnaeus regards as synonym of “‘ Baster, subs. 2, p. 84, 6
10.1.5?” and’*‘ Act. nidros,* 1. p. 81, t. 3. 1.3, 4. Tethyum “andigeobaiaigg
therefore, gives: ‘“‘ Habitat in Oceano Europaeo,” though Bohadsch found
his animal at Naples.

Gmelin, in the 13th edition (p. 3123), copies this all, omits the point of
interrogation after Baster, and under his 13th species canina (p. 3125), he
again quotes ‘“‘Bohadsch anim. mar. p. 132, t. 10. f. 4,5. Tethyum fascicu-
latum,’’ a somewhat careless proceeding; but, in fact, he was right, for,
as Hartmeyer, in Bronn’s ‘ Klassen und Ordnungen’ (1908), informs us
(p. 1414), the two species A. intestinalis and A. canina are identical and are
now known as Czona intestinalis (L.).

* = Det Tronghjemske Selskabs Skrifter, iii. (1765).
3 This species was cited by Pallas as Pennatula grysea.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 185. 45

In 1908 Hartmeyer published in the Zoologische Annalen, ui. pp. I-63,
“ Zur Terminologie der Familien und Gattungen der Ascidien,’’ and there
he gives (p. 9) a chronological history of the names, and on p. Io he says of
our Bohadsch’s name Tethyum: “‘ Es kann kein Zweifel dariiber obwalten, —
dasz dieser Gattungsname durchaus im Sinne der binaren Nomenklatur
gebildet ist und demnach zu Recht bestehen bleibt.’”’ Then he deals with
the history of the name Tethyum and how it is divided in different genera,
till (p. 13) he comes to the conclusion that it is (after elimination of the
other species) used for T. vusticum and T. quadridentatum of Linnaeus, 1767.
These belong to the genus Styela Fleming, 1822. Accordingly, Hartmeyer
used in his edition of Bronn, 1908, p. 1357, the name Tethyum for Fleming’s
Styela. Later on, preparing Apstein’s “‘ List of Nomina conservanda ”’
(Sitz. Ber. Ges. Naturf. Freund. Berlin, no. 5, Mai 1915), he replaces this
name again by Styela Fleming, 1822. In his “‘ Ascidiarum Nomina Con-
servanda ” (in ibidem, Jahrg. 1915, no. 6) he says no more about this.

If Bohadsch is valid, the name Tethyum must be used for one of his three
species. If the first is chosen it has to replace Halocynthia Verrill, 1870, if
the third is chosen (because the binary use of the second is doubtful) it has
to replace the well-known Ciona Fleming, 1822. Such a change were the
more to be regretted, as Tethya is a well-known genus of Sponges !

The three species of Bohadsch are now bearing the following names :—
T.coviaceum = Halocynthia papillosa (L.); T. gelatinosum = perhaps identi-
cal with Phallusia mentula (Mill.), 1776; T. fasciculatum = Ciona intesti-
nalis (L.).

As we remarked above, Bohadsch first designated the first species as T.
coviaceum, asperum, coccineum, organorum orificiis setis exiguis munitis.
In the description in § II he speaks of the species “‘ T. coviaceum, etc.”’
The second species is first designated in the same way, later on (§ III) he
speaks of ‘‘ altera Tethyi species.’’ The third species is like the others,
first designated with a short diagnosis, which begins with “ T. membrana-
ceum,”’ but later on (§ IV, p. 132) he says :—‘‘ Unde Tethyum fasciculatum
non inepte diceretur.’”’ So, be it that in his designation of the first two
species Bohadsch seems to be no binominalist, we will have to replace the
well-known name Ciona intestinalis by Tethyum fasciculatum Bohadsch, if
the Commission is of the opinion that Bohadsch’s names are valid.

So our conclusion is that in many of the cases considered Bohadsch’s
names may be regarded as valid. But, since the change involved would
result in greater confusion than uniformity, it is proposed to the Commission
on Nomenclature to declare Bohadsch’s names invalid.

Summary.
If Bohadsch is regarded as valid :—

Fimbrnia fimbria Boh. has to replace Tethys leporina L. auctorum.

Argus argus Boh. has to replace Platydoris argo (L.) auctorum.

Holothuria major Boh. has to replace Holothuria tubulosa Gmel. auctorum.

Syvinx syvinx Boh. has to replace Sipunculus nudus L. auctorum.

Pieroides grisea (Boh.) has to replace Pieroides grisea (Pallas) auctorum.

Perhaps F.. rubescens (Boh.) has to replace Funiculina quadrangularis (Pall.)
auctorum.

Perhaps Alcyonium vamosus (Boh.) has to replace Alcyonium palmatum
Pall. auctorum.

Lethyum Boh. has to replace Halocynthia Verrill or Ciona Fleming.

Perhaps Tethyum coriaceum Boh. has to replace Halocynthia papiliosa (L.)
auctorum.

Tethyum fasciculatum Boh. has to seplace Ciona intestinalis (L.) auctorum.

This would include the change of so many old and well-known names
that “ greater confusion than uniformity ”’ would ensue. So an Opinion
is asked declaring Bohadsch’s names invalid.

46 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

II—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

2. Owing to the length of the petition submitted by Dr. Engel,
the resources then at the disposal of the Commission were not
sufficient to permit of the reproduction of copies for distribution
to each member of the Commission.*— Accordingly arrangements
were made for Dr. Engel’s petition to be published,° so that thereby
his proposals might be made accessible for study. As soon as
separates of Dr. Engel’s paper were available (June 1935), such
copies as were supplied were distributed to the members of the
Commission for consideration. : |

3. Both the original edition of Bohadsch’s work published in
1761 and also Leske’s German translation published in 1776 were
examined in the spring of 1936 by Commissioner C. W. Stiles
(then Acting Secretary to the Commission). In the same period
Commissioner Stiles conferred by correspondence with the Presi-
dent of the Commission (Commissioner Karl Jordan) in regard
to this case and also with Commissioner James L. Peters. Com-
missioner Stiles discussed it also with Dr. Henry A. Pilsbry,
Curator, Department of Mollusks and Marine Invertebrates,
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, and with Dr. Paul
Bartsch, Curator of Mollusks and Cenozoic Invertebrates, United
States National Museum, Washington. In the light of these dis-
cussions, Dr. Stiles prepared the following note which in June
1936 he circulated for the consideration of members of the Com-
mission :— , .

Both the original of 1761 and the translation by Leske, 1776, have been
examined by the Acting Secretary and this examination leaves no doubt in
the mind of the Acting Secretary that Bohadsch considers that he is dealing
with genera in the Linnean sense, as becomes especially clear from his
discussion on p. 53 of the 1761 edition. ‘

As Engel points out, this work appeared in the transitional period between
polynomial and binomial nomenclature.

The conclusion of the Acting Secretary is that it is difficult to deny that
Bohadsch recognizes a binary® (not clearly binomial) system, but
that the work is certainly not consistently binomial and that, if adopted
under the rules, it will furnish a distinct possibility for long and expensive

discussions, the ultimate outcome of which is exceedingly doubtful and
will result in much confusion.

* This type of difficulty will fortunately not recur in view of the decision
of the Commission to establish its own journal, the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature, in which in future all proposals submitted to the Commission
will be published. ;

° Dr. Engel’s petition was published in May 1934, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist.
(10) 18 : 529-540.

6 See footnote I.

ee.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 185. 47

Accordingly; on the foregoing premise, the Acting Secretary recommends
that the rules be suspended, and that Bohadsch, 1761, and 1776, be ex-
cluded from all consideration, under the rules, on the ground that its
adoption will produce greater confusion than-uniformity.

ik At the same time Commissioner Stiles circulated to members

_ of the Commission voting papers in favour of the adoption of an
Opinion in the sense indicated in his note quoted above.

5. In July 1936, this case was duly advertised in the manner
prescribed in proviso (a) to Article 1 of the Plenary Powers
Resolution ’ adopted by the Ninth International Congress of
Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913.

6. By September 1936 a sufficient number of affirmative votes
had been received to secure the adoption by the Commission of the
proposed Opinion, provided that the advertisement referred to in
the preceding paragraph did not evoke any serious objection to
that course.

7. The only Commissioner to add any observations when record-
ing his vote on this case was Commissioner Francis Hemming, who
wrote :—

I have examined, jointly with Commissioners Jordan and Calman, the
copy of Bohadsch’s De quibusdam Animalibus marinis in the library of the
British Museum and I have no doubt that, although Bohadsch was not a
strictly binominal author in this work, he did endeavour to follow the rules
of nomenclature enjoined by the Linnean system. Whether in this work
Bohadsch can be considered as having applied “ the principles of binary
nomenclature ’’ within the meaning of Article 25 of the International Code
must remain a matter of doubt until, on the presentation of the report
which the International Commission have been requested to furnish, the
Thirteenth International*Congress of Zoology reaches a final and authorita-"
tive decision as to the meaning to be attached to the term “ binary nomen-
clature.”’ ® Fortunately, these doubts as to the status of Bohadsch’s work
in no way prevent the use by the International Commission of their plenary
powers for the purpose of directing that it is to be suppressed for all
nomenclatorial purposes; for such a decision in no way prejudges the question
whether, apart from the use of the Commission’s plenary powers, this book
would or would not be available under the Code.

I consider that Dr. Engel has established a case for the complete sup-
pression of Bohadsch’s book for all nomenclatorial purposes and I accord-
ingly vote in favour of the proposed Opinion. If this Opinion is adopted
by the Commission, the effect will be to place the De quibusdam Animalibus
in the same position as that in which the so-called “ Erlangen List ’’ was
placed by the decision taken by the Commission at Lisbon (Lisbon Session,
2nd Meeting, Conclusion 13) ® that is to say that, where any subsequent
author published a genus having the same name as one of the genera
proposed in Bohadsch’s work, the later published name is not to be rejected

7 See Declaration 5. (See 1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40.)

8 See footnote 1.

® For the text of this Conclusion, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 13-14.

48 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

as a homonym by reason of the earlier publication of that name in the De
quibusdam Animalibus.?

8. No communication of any kind objecting to the suspension
of the rules for the purpose of suppressing Bohadsch’s De quibus-
dam Animalibus was received by the Commission within the
prescribed period of twelve months following the issue of the
advertisement required under the Plenary Powers Resolution.
That period expired on 31st July 1937. Accordingly, on 30th
November 1937, Commissioner Hemming, Secretary to the Com-
mission, acting in virtue of the power conferred upon him in that
behalf by Article 7 of the By-Laws, closed the ballot in this case.

III.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION. , ;

g. The decision taken by the Commission in the present case
iS :— |

under suspension of the rules to suppress Bohadsch (Joannes

Baptista), 1761, De quibusdam Animalibus marimis, and the

German translation thereof published by Leske (Nathaniel

Gottfried) in 1776.

10. The following twelve (12) Commissioners voted in favour of
the present Opinion :—

do Amaral; Calman; Chapman; Esaki; Fantham; Hemming;
Jordan; Peters; Richter; Silvestri; Stiles; and Stone.

11. No Commissioner voted against the present Opinion. _
12. The following six (6) Commissioners did not vote on the
present Opinion :—

Arndt; Bolivar y Pieltain; Cabrera; von Hanké; Pellegrin ;
and Stejneger.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

*0 See Opinion 145 (See 1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2: 99-108).

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 185. 49

where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the said rules would clearly result in greater confusion than
uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the
possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should
be given in two or more of five journals named in the said Resolu-
tion and provided that the vote in the Commission was unani-
mously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and

WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid
force to the provisions of the present Opinion ; and

WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus-
pension of the rules as applied to the present case has been given
to two or more of the journals referred to in the Resolution
adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Monaco in March 1913; and

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission on the present case was
unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms of
the present Opinion :

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the
International Commission, acting for the International Congress
of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Eighty Five (Opinion 185) of the said
Commission.

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
have signed the present Opinion.

Done in London, this seventeenth day of July, Nineteen
Hundred and Forty Four, in a single copy, which shall remain
deposited in the archives of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

50 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. |

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal has been established by the International Com-
mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for
the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
International Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the
Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the
Bulletin under (a) above; and

The Bulletin was established in 1943, in which year three Parts
were published. Part 4 has been published in 1944 and Parts 5
and 6 are in the press. |

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature. |

The above work is being published in three volumes con-
currently, namely :—

Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-g (which
have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the
original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-15 (contain-
ing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions 1-6) have now been published.
Further Parts will be published shortly.
Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising
all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their
meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with
Roman pagination) and Opinions 134-181 (with Arabic pagina-
tion). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume.
Parts 1-26, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-156,
have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly.
_ Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182,
will contain the Opinions adopted by the International Commission
since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-4 (containing
Opinions 182-185) have now been published. Further Parts will
be published as soon as possible.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 185. 51

APPEAL FOR FUNDS

~ be most gratefully received.

Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at
their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and
made payable to the “ International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed “ Account payee. Coutts
& Co.’’.

aa a! ath ee

SE ier 1 Sige ole Meh ae Dee Rae Res
See a oat ke Se ae
peace he ea

Pe,

A ia
ay na

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

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

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 3. Part 5. Pp. 53-64.

erecenerenicen apes A i i a ae NE VS re

OPINION 186
Suspension of the rules for Squilla Fabricius
(J. C.), 1787 (Class Crustacea, Order Stomato-
poda)
.
| LONDON:

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1945
Price three shillings

(All rights reserved)
®

Issued 17th April, 1945

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).
Assistant Secretary : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.5.A.).

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).

Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952
Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).
Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).
Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).
Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).
Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

OPINION 186.

SUSPENSION OF THE RULES FOR SQUILLA FABRICIUS
(J. C.), 1787 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER STOMATOPODA).

SUMMARY.—The following action is hereby taken under
suspension of the rules : (i) the name Squilla Gronovius, 1760, and
the name Squwilla as used by O. F. Miller, 1776, by Scopoli, 1777,
by Otto Fabricius 1780, and by any other author prior to J. C.
Fabricius, 1787, are suppressed ; (ii) the name Squilla Fabritius
(J. C.), 1787, is validated ; (iii) all type designations for Squilla
Fabricius, 1787, made prior to the date of this Opinion, are set
aside; and (iv) Cancer mantis Linnaeus, 1758, is designated as
the type of Squilla Fabricius, 1787 (Class Crustacea, Order Stoma-
topoda). The name Squilla Fabricius, 1787, with the type indi-
cated above, is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology as Name No. 619.

1.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

This case was submitted to the International Commission by
Dr. Robert P. Bigelow, Professor of Zoology and Parasitology,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., in the
following statement dated 13th August 1931-:—

A PETITION FOR THE SUSPENSION OF THE RULES IN FAVOR OF
DE TGENUS SOUILLA fi. C. 1ABRICIUS, 17981 OR 1787

The genus Sguilla J. C. Fabricius or Chlovidella Miers is not only, as
stated by Kemp, 1913, the oldest established, hut also the most numerous
in species and the most typical genus of the Crustacean order Stomatopoda.
As established by J. C. Fabricius in 1787, it contained exclusively all the
Stomatopoda then known, including as the first species the common
European form that had been described in 1778 by de Geer under the name
Squilla mantis.

The genus Sguilla of Fabricius was accepted by Lamarck in 1801 and by -
Latreille in 1802, and this name for the typical genus of Stomatopoda had
remained unquestioned for more than a century when in 1899, Miss M. J.
Rathbun (J. Inst. Jamaica 2 : 628 footnote) called attention to the use of
this name by O. F. Miller (1776) for an amphipod. Later, Sherborn (1902 :
926) cited L. T. Gronov (1760) as the first to apply the name to a genus of
animals after rst January 1758. Gronov described a genus that he called
Squilla and one species with a figure, which is identified by Stebbing
(1888 : 19 and 1910 : 405) as an amphipod, Proto veniricosa (O. F. Miller).

Early Use of the Name ‘

The use of the name Squilla may be traced back to the Greek of Aristotle
and to the Latin of Pliny (a.p. 79). From early times the name Squilla

56 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

or its equivalent, Ja squille, etc., seems to have been applied by fishermen
to various shrimp-like animals.

The first modern use of the name is by Bellon, 1553, ‘‘ Squilla fluviatilis
pavva,”’ the gamarella of the Romans, not an amphipod (Stebbing 1888 : 2).
The general 1 usage of the time is reflected by Rondelet (1558) who describes
and figures under the generic name Sguzlla several species of decapod
shrimps and prawns, and also (: 396-398) the mantis-shrimp, “ la quille
nomené partis, With a good figure of the form now known as S. mantis de
Geer.

In his use of the name for decapod shrimps and prawns, Rondelet was
followed by Mattioli (1565), Sachs (1665), Résel van Rosenhof (1746:
310-313 pl. 63), Baster (1762), and others. Linnaeus recognized this usage
by the application of sguilla as a trivial name for the edible prawn, Cancer
squilla (Linn., 1735, and 1758), later called Palaemon squilla Fabr. The
mantis shrimp he named (1758) Cancer manits.

Squilla, a genus of Amphipoda

Of the two species included in Résel van Rosenhof’s genus Sguilla, one,
his S. fluviatilis, is an amphipod, probably the first use of the name for a
member of this group. Seba (1761) not binomial (Sherborn, 1902 :.xlix)
made of Sguilla a comprehensive group including two amphipods.

In 1760 Gronov (: 38) gave a definition of the genus Squilla, the first
application after 1757 (Sherborn, 1902 : 926), and he cited one species
(: 39) ‘“‘ Squilla acaudata pedibus quatuordecim,’”’ evidently non-binomial.
According to Stebbing (1888 : 19) the accompanying figures (figs. 8, 9, 10)
represent very well the small caprellid amphipod later known as Proto
ventricosa (O. F. Miller). In 1764 Gronov again described the genus, and
mentioned two species, different from the first, apparently amphipods.
But according to Stebbing (loc. cit: 27) his descriptions are so indefinite.
and his references so inconsistent that it is impossible to identify them.

The genus of Gronov was adopted by O. F. Miller (1776 and 1788),
Scopoli (1777), and Otto Fabricius (1780). Miller (I 776) gives two species
(accepted by Sherborn, 1902 : 548, 1035)—No. ‘2359 Squilla lobata
pallida pellucida,”...(syn.) “Canc. linearis — . . Wimne eee ee
“2360 Squilla ventricosa rubra depressa,’’ with reference to Gronov’s first
paper. Later Miller (1788 : 20, 21; “‘ unquestionably binomial,” M. J. R.)
gives the same two species with figures, but in reversed order, and renames
No. 2350 Squilla quadrilobata. Scopoli (1777) gives a list of the genera of
Gronov with definitions, but without species. O. Fabricius (1780) merely
mentions S. lobata Miiller.

Squilla, a genus of Stomatopoda

Following Rondelet (1558) the name Sguilla was applied by several
authors to collective groups that included stomatopods. Among the first
oi these was Rumphius (1705), who applied the name to four species of
Crustacea, which he described and figured—two under Squilla avenaria are
stomatopods, and two under Squilla lata are decapods of the family .
SCYLLARIDAE.

Seba, whose great atlas furnished a wealth of illustrations for his con-
temporaries, 1s utterly confused in his nomenclature. Under Sguzila he in-
cludes in vol. 3 (1761) three stomatopods, five decapods, and two amphipods.

De Geer (1778), probably under the influence of Gronov, gives a defini-
tion of Squilla that includes three isopods, two amphipods, and Squilla
mantis (name accepted by Sherborn (: 583) ; = Cancer mantis Linn.).

« The name Sguilla was restricted for the first time to stomatopods when
J. C. Fabricius (1781) used the generic name Squilla exclusively for four
species, three of which he had previously (1775) classed under Astacus.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 186. 57

The first on the list is Squilla mantis de Geer. Each species is defined with
references, but there is no definition of the genus. The definition of the
genus is supplied by Fabricius in 1787 and is followed by the same list of
species with the addition of a fifth. For his first (type) species Fabricius
has adopted the name used by de Geer (1778), who in turn cites Aldrovandi
(ca. 1602) and Rondelet (1558) as his authority. So, perhaps, it may be
assumed that Fabricius was following the law of priority as understood in
his time.

The acceptance of the genus Squilla of J. C. Fabricius

The genus Squilla of J. C. Fabricius was accepted by Lamarck (1801 :
160), and he gave a new generic name, Caprella (Sherborn, 1922 : 1068),
instead of Squilla, to the two species of amphipods placed under the latter
name by O. F. Miller (1788). The second of these was afterwards separated
from Caprella by Leach (1814) to become the type of his genus Proto.

Latreille’s (1802-1803) acceptance of the revision of Fabricius was
enthusiastic. After discussing the previous usage, he says (1803 : 271,
freely translated)—‘‘ De Geer includes in the squilles not only the Crustacea
to which we restrict the name, but also the crevettes and our family of
asellotes. Fabricius has finally removed this confusion, and the genus of
the squilles is now circumscribed in convenient limits, being perfectly
natural.’”’ He then goes on to quote with approval de Geer’s unusually
exact description of the most common species, Squilla mantis. Then
follows a list with short descriptions of all the species mentioned in the
latest work of Fabricius (1798), changing the order to place S. mantis first,
as Fabricius had it originally (1781 and 1787).

Of the nine species included in the genus by Fabricius in 1708, the first,
S. maculata, has been placed in the genus Lysiosquilla Dana, 1852; the
second and third remain in the genus Squilla, viz.: S. mantis (type:
Latreille, 1810) and S. vaphidea; the sixth S. scyllavus, and the eighth, S.
chivagva, were placed by Latreille (1825) in his new genus Gonodactylus ;
the seventh, S. ciliata, was added under another name by Dana (1852) to
his genus Pseudosquilla; while the remaining species, S..phalangium, S.
ichneumon, and S. vitrvea (a larval form?) are now indeterminate (Kemp,
IQ13 : 205).

In the recite, other species have been added to the genus Sguilla, of
which S. mantis remains the type. In 1841 Eydoux and Souleyet proposed
the generic name Chlorida for several species with very smalleyes. Finding
this name preoccupied, Miers (1880) changed it to Chloridella. But Brooks
found (1888) that these forms are linked to the typical species of Squilla
by intermediate types.

In his monograph of the Stomatopoda, Kemp (1913 : 3) gives a list of
fifty-four known species and varieties of Squilla. In spite of the addition
of many new species, the limiting characteristics of this genus have remained
practically unchanged ‘since the publication of the Challenger Report
(Brooks, 1888); and in nearly all important monographs and other papers
from Fabricius, 1793, to the present time, the name Squzlla has represented
a genus of Stomatopods that contains the common European mantis
shrimp, the type species; while the various unrelated eighteenth century
species associated with this name had been discarded into the synonymy
or placed in other genera before the second year of the nineteenth century.

Since that date, so far as your petitioner is aware, the name Squilla
had represented a genus of Stomatopoda with absolute uniformity, until
Miss Rathbun in 1899 1 and again in 1902 published the statement that
the name is preoccupied and should be replaced by the next available name,

1 For Dr. Rathbun’s attitude towards the present application, see
paragraph 2 below.

58 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL
,

Chloridella Miers, 1880. This was disputed by Stebbing (1910), and the
older name has continued to be used by the great majority of zoologists,
notably Stanley Kemp in the two most important monographs (1913 and
1915) published since Brooks. Among fifteen papers that have dealt with
this genus after 1902, there are four only in which the name Chloridella has
been substituted for Squilla Fabr., viz.: J. G. de Man (1907), M. J. Rath-
bun (1910), H. Liiderwaldt (1919) and W. L. Schmitt (1924).

If the judgment of Miss Rathbun be accepted, Squilla Gronov takes the
place of Capvella Lamarck, or perhaps of Proto Leach, while Squilla
Fabricius is suppressed in favor of Chlovidella Miers. In other words, two
genera of century-long standing change names, and any student reading
in the literature of the nineteenth century must remember that Squilla
then is not the same as Sguilla now, but must be looked for under another
name. What could be more confusing ?

Moreover, it is still open to question whether Squilla Gronov will hold
under a strict application of the Rules. Gronov (1760) and O. F. Miller
(1776) are not strictly binomial. O. F. Miller does not become unquestion-
ably binomial until 1788, and the use of Squilla for Stomatopoda was
begun by J. C. Fabricius in 1781 and 1787. That leaves, as a basis for the
acceptance of the genus Squilla of Gronov, only the work of Scopoli (1777),
who gives merely a list of the genera of Gronov, with definitions but no
mention of species.

In this case a strict application of the frégles serves no useful purpose
whatever, and in fact only introduces confusion where for a hundred years
perfect uniformity has prevailed. It involves the names of at least two
genera that are typical of certain well-defined groups of Crustacea and that
under these names have been well-known to zoologists for a century.
Familiar names are now to be substituted one for the other, and one of
them perhaps suppressed as a nomen nudum in favor of an unfamiliar name
resurrected from the synonymy.

From the facts set forth above, many of which have been supplied very
kindly by Miss Rathbun in personal communications, it seems evident that
the substitution of the generit name Chloridella Miers, 1880, for Squilla
Fabricius, 1787, is a case “‘ where the strict application of the Régles will
clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity.”’

Therefore the undersigned respectfully prays that the Commission will
suspend the Régles and place Squilla Fabricius, 1781 or 1787, in the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology.

R. P. Bigelow.
Woods Hole, Mass. .
AMietish 13. nos tT:

Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE:

2. Immediately upon receipt of the foregoing communication,
Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, invited the opinion
of Dr. Mary Rathbun as the author who had first pointed out that
Squilla Fabricius was preoccupied. Dr. Rathbun replied (25th
August 1931): “‘ In view of the fact that exceptions to the rules
are permitted, I believe that Sguilla should be restored.”

3. In December 1931, the case submitted by Professor Bigelow,
together with the text of the supporting letter received from Dr.
Rathbun, was communicated to each member of the Commission

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 186. 59

for observations. In February 1935 Dr. Stiles suggested that this
case, on which only a small number of votes had by that time
been received, should be settled by the Commission at their
Session due to be held at Lisbon in September of that year. At
the same time Dr. Stiles reported that the late Commissioner F. A.
Bather had at his request made a special study of the points
involved in this case and shortly before his death had submitted
the following report: ‘“‘ This is pre-eminently a case in which
adherence to the rules leads to confusion. I support Professor
Bigelow and Miss Rathbun.” At the same time Dr. Stiles
recommended that the Commission should grant the relief sought
in the present petition and drew attention as follows to the
similarity between this case and that dealt with by the Com-
mission in Ofimion 89: ‘‘ On an earlier occasion (Opinion 8g) the
Commission suspended the rules in the case of Gronow, 1763,
because the application of the rules to the case involved would
produce greater coniusion than uniformity. The present case
involves a suspension of Gronow, 1760, on similar grounds.”

4. Owing to the exceptionally heavy agenda and the short time
available for meetings at Lisbon, the Commission were unable to
deal with this case during their Lisbon Session and it was accord-
ingly arranged that a decision thereon should be taken by a
postal vote.

5. In May 1936 this case was duly advertised in the manner
prescribed in proviso (a) to Article 1 of the Plenary Powers
Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of
Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913.2. No
communication of any kind objecting to the suspension of the
rules in favour of Squilla Fabricius was received by the Com-
mission within the period of one year prescribed by the said
Resolution.

6. Owing to an insufficiency in the number of votes received,
this case was still open when on roth June 1938 Commissioner
Stiles, who had by that time vacated the Office of Secretary to the
Commission, notified his successor that he had received a letter
(dated 15th February 1938) from Dr. Waldo L. Schmitt, U.S.
National Museum, Washington, expressing apprehension at the
prospect of the suspension of the rules in favour of Squilla Fabri-
clus and at the consequential displacement of the name Chloridella

* For the text of the Plenary Powers Resolution, see Declaration 5

(1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40).

60 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Miers, the use of this latter name being, in his (Dr. Schmitt’s)
judgment, “‘ fully justified under the rules.”’ Dr. Stiles added
that he had recently had a conference with Dr. Schmitt on this
subject and had asked him “ to reduce his views to paper and to
send the letter to the Secretary to the Commission.”’

7. In order to afford Dr. Schmitt ample opportunity to place
his views before the Commission, notwithstanding the fact that
the prescribed period within which, under the Plenary Powers
Resolution, objection might be lodged had already expired, the ©
Secretary to the Commission decided that the case should remain
open for a further period of six months, 7.e. until roth December
1938. No communication was, however, received on this subject
during the additional period so made available.

8. In recording his vote in favour of the proposal submitted by
Professor Bigelow, Commissioner Francis Hemming, as Secretary
to the Commission, entered: the following note in the record
relating to this case :—

In dealing with XVIIIth century names, it is extremely difficult to make
sure that, as regards any given name, every relevant reference in the
literature has been detected. As regards the procedure to be adopted in
recording the decision of the Commission in this case, it would be well
therefore to follow the precedent set by the Commission at Lisbon in 1935
when dealing with certain similar cases in the Order Hymenoptera (Class |
Insecta) submitted by Professor James Chester Bradley (Lisbon Session, 3rd
Meeting, Conclusion 2),? that is to say, to use their plenary powers first
(a) to suppress all uses of the word Squilla as a generic name prior to its
publication by J. C. Fabricius for a genus of the Order Stomatopoda (Class
Crustacea) and (b) to set aside all type designations for Squilla Fabricius
made prior to the date of the present Opinion. Having done this, the
Commission can use their plenary powers (i) to validate Squilla Fabricius
and (ii) to designate Cancey mantis Linnaeus, 1758, as the type of that
genus. The name Squilla Fabricius, so validated and with the above
species as its type, can then be added to the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology as proposed.

As regards the question of the date as from which Sguilla Fabricius
should rank, there is no doubt that this should be 1787, Mantissa Ins. 1:
333, when Fabricius first published this name in conditions which satisfy
proviso (a) to Article 25 of the International Code. His publication of the
name Sqguilla in 1781, Spec. Ims. 1: 514 is invalid, since on that occasion he
neither gave a description or a definition of this genus nor did he give an
“indication ’’ for it within the meaning of that expression as defined in
Opinion 1 (see 1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclatuve 1: 73-86). All that he did was to
place in this genus four species, none of which he specified as the type.

Fortunately. in the present case, the Commission are asked to suppress
certain early uses of the name Sguzl/a and not to express an opinion whether -
those early uses are valid under the Code. If the reverse had been the
case, it would not have been possible to give more than a provisional
decision, since the status of some of the works concerned depends on the

’ For the text of the Conclusion here referred to, see 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1 : 27-30.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I86. 61

66 2

interpretation to be given to the expression ‘‘ binary nomenclature ”’ in
proviso (b) to Article 25 of the International Code. That question is at
present sub judice, the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology having
requested the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to
furnish a report thereon at the next meeting of the Congress.*

g. The position as regards the present case was reviewed on
roth December 1938, the date to which (as. explained in paragraph
7 above) had been extended the period within which grounds of
objection against the proposed action could be lodged with the
Commission. By that date no grounds of objection had been
lodged by any author; further, the number of votes cast by
Commissioners in favour of that action already exceeded the
minimum prescribed by paragraph (1) of Article 6 of the By-Laws
of the Commission as the number required to secure the adoption
of an Opinion by the Commission. Accordingly on 11th December
1938, the Secretary to the Commission, acting in virtue of the
power conferred upon him in that behalf by Article 7 of the By-

"q Laws, closed the ballot in this case.

pete CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION.

ro. The decision taken by the Commission in the present case
1S :— :

(a) under suspension of the rules :—

(i) to suppress the name Squilla Gronovius, 1760, and the name
Saua as used by ©. EF. Muller, 1776, by Scopoli, 1777,
by Otto Fabricius, 1780 and by any other author prior to
JCs Pabricius, 1787;

) to validate Sguilla Fabricius (J. C.), 1787, Mantissa Ins.1 : 333;
(iii) to set aside all type designations for Squilla Fabricius, 1787
made prior to the date of the present Opinion ;

(iv) to designate Cancer mantis Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed.
10) 1 : 633 as the type of Squilla Fabricius, 1787;

(b) to add the name Squilla Fabricius, 1787 (validated as in (a) (11) above),
and with the type specified in (a) (iv) above, to the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology.

11. The following twelve (12) Commissioners voted in favour of
the present Opinion :—

+ This invitation was accepted by the International Commission at their
meeting held on Wednesday, 18th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 5th
Meeting, Conclusion 3, for the text of which’see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
1: 45) and this acceptance was recorded by the Commission in paragraph
14 of the report which they submitted to the Twelfth International Congress
of Zoology at the final Concilium Plenum held at Lisbon on 21st September

- 1935 (see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1:55). A further discussion of this
subject will be found in paragraph 16 (d) and (e) of Opinion 160, where it
arises in connection with Scopoli, 1777, Introd. Hist. nat. (see 1945, Opinions
and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature 2 : 301-302).

62 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Commissioners :—Apstein ; Bather ; Calman: Fantham ;
Hemming; Jordan; Peters; Richter; Silvestri; Stephen-
son; Stiles; and Stone.

12. No Commissioner voted against the present Opinion.
13. The following six (6) Commissioners did not vote on the
present Opinion :— ;

Commissioners :—Bolivar y Pieltain; Cabrera; Chapman; Esaki;
Pellegrin; and Stejneger.

14. In addition, Commissioners do Amaral and von Hanko,
who, near the close of the voting on this case, were elected members
of the Commission in succession respectively to Commissioners
A. Handlirsch (deceased) and A. Horvath (resigned), did not take
part in its consideration.

IV.—AUTHORIFY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE ie
OPINION.

WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid
force to the provisions of the present Opimion as set out in the
Summary thereof; and *

WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus-
pension of the rules as applied to the present case has been given ~
to two or more of the journals referred to in the Resolution adopted
by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting
held at Monaco in March 1913; and

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 186. 63

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission on the present case was
unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms of
the present Opinion :

Now, THEREFORE,

I, Francis Hemminc, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the Inter-
national Commission, acting for the International Congress of
Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Eighty Six (Ofmion 186) of the said
Commission. :

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Opinion.

Done in London, this fifteenth day of August, Nineteen
Hundred and Forty Four, in a single copy, which shall remain
deposited in the archives of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS ‘HEMMING

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s
Gate, London, 5.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal has been established by the International Commission as
their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the International
Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary
with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a)
above; and

The Bulletin was established in 1943, in which year three Parts were
published. Part 4 was published in 1944. Parts 5 and 6 are in the press.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The above work is being published in three volumes concurrently,
namely :—

Volume tr. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have never
previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue of which
is now out of print). Parts 1-20 (containing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions
I-11) have now been published. Further parts will be published shortly.

Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising all the
decisions taken by the International Commission at their meeting at
Lisbon in 1935, namely Declavations 10-12 (with Roman pagination) and
Opinions 134-181 (with Arabic pagination). Part 52 will contain the
index and title page of the volume. Parts 1-30, containing Declarations
1o-12 and Opinions 134-160, have now been published. Further Parts
will be published shortly.

Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182, will con-
tain the Opinions adopted by the International Commission since their
meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-5 (containing Opinions 182-186) have
now been published. Further Parts will be published as soon as possible.

APPEAL FOR FUNDS

The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions
and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen-
clature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s
Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required
to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting
printing, donations amounting to £819 8s. 7d. were received up to
31st December 1944. Additional contributions are urgently needed
in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without
interruption. Contributions of any amount, however small, will
be most gratefully received.

Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at
their Publications Office, 44, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and
made payable to the “ International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed ‘*‘ Account payee. Coutts
& Co.’’.

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY. LTD..
BuUNGAY, SUFFOLK

VeSWA
[ef

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

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

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 3. Part 6. Pp. 65-76.

OPINION 187

On the type of the genus Hypselopus Bur-
meister, 1835 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera)

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological ‘Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1945
Price three shillings

Issued 26th July, 1945

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ‘ON
/ ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE »

| COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of’ ‘the Commission

President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).

ie
ae

The Members of the Commission
Class 1946
Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). |
Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).
Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A.).

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).
Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commicciony
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).

Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).

Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.).

Secretaviat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.
\» ‘Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

OPINION 187.

ON THE TYPE OF THE GENUS HYPSELOPUS BURMEISTER,
1835 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA).

SUMMARY.—Hypselopus gigas Burmeister, 1835, is hereby
designated as the type of Hypselopus Burmeister, 1885 (Class
Insecta, Order Hemiptera) and the generic name Hypselopus
Burmeister, so defined, is hereby added to the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 620.

I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

This case was submitted to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature by Dr. H. C. Bléte of the Rijksmuseum
van Naturlijke Historie, Leiden, in the following statement
received under cover of a letter dated 25th February 1935 :—

In 1835 was described a genus H ypselopus by Burmeister in his Handbuch
dey Entomologie 2° Bd., 1° Abt. pag. 328, including two species: H. gigas
n. sp. and H. spinosus “ Kl.” (in manuskr.).1

In 1843 was described the genus Meloza by Amyot & Serville in their
Histoive Naturelle des Insectes Hémipteres, pag. 221, including their species
'M. villosipes. The description of the genus, however, makes it possible to
include H. gigas Burm., but not H. spinosus Burm.

In 1865 was described the genus Nariscus by Stal in his Hemiptera
Africana 2 pag. 8 & 100, including Hypselopus cinctiventris Germ. In this
genus H. spinosus Burm. can be included, H. gigas Burm. not.

In 1873 Stal restricts H. gigas Burm. to Hypselopus, brings H. spinosus
Burm. to his genus Nariscus, and considers Méloza a subgenus of Hypselopus
(Enumevatio Hemipterorum 3 pag. 95-96).

In 1913 Bergroth (Supplementum Catalogi Heteropterorum Bruxellensis
2) (Mémowes de la Société entomologique de Belgique 22) restricts Hypselopus
to H. spinosus Burm..,.considers Nariscus Stal synonymous with Hypselopus
and uses the name Meloza Amyot & Serville for gigas Burm., villosipes
Amyot & Serville and a number of other species hitherto assigned to
Hypselopus.

Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

2. The foregoing statement was circulated for consideration to
the members of the International Commission in July 1935. At

* Volume 2 of Burmeister’s Handbuch der Entomologie is continuously
paged throughout. It is therefore misleading to insert such an expression
as “1 Abt.” after the volume number. If in a given case there is some
special reason which makes it desirable that the Part Number should be
indicated, that number should be placed within round brackets and cited
immediately after the volume number. Both the volume number and the
number of the Part should be cited in Arabic numerals.

68 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

the same time Dr. Stiles suggested that this case should be con-
sidered by the Commission at their meeting due to be held at
Lisbon in September of that year.

3. In July 1935 the following comment on this case was received
from Commissioner Rudolf Richter :—

Uber die nomenklatorisch richtige Anwendung des Namens Hypselopus
Burmeister, 1835, entscheidet lediglich sein Genotyp. Ist ein Genotyp
von Hypselopus noch nicht bestimmt, so ware ein solcher unter den beiden
Arten, gigas und spinosus auszuwahlen. Nach Art. 30(III)(k) ware der
Art gigas als Genotyp von Hypselopus Burmeister, 1835, der Vorzug zu
geben.

4. It was not found possible for the Commission to deal with
this case at their Session held at Lisbon in September 1935 and it
was accordingly arranged that a decision on this case should be
taken by a postal vote.

5. In June 1936, Dr. Stiles, as Acting Secretary to the Com-
mission, notified the Commission that he had examined at
Washington the literature involved in this case and recommended
that “‘ unless arguments not thus far presented to the Commission
indicate some other action ’’’ Hypselopus gigas Burmeister, 1835,
should be designated under Article 30 of the International Code as
the type of Hypselobus Burmeister, 1835. In making this
recommendation, Dr. Stiles made the following observations on
the literature involved :-—

According to Burmeister (1835, vol. 2, p. 329) Hypselopus n.g. contained
at that date eight species from Africa, but he mentions only two, namely
H. gigas n.sp. and H. spimosus Kl. Only these two species come into
consideration in selecting the type.

Amyot & Serville (1843, p. 221) do not refer either to H. gigas or to
H. spinosus under Meloza (monotype: M. villosipes).

Stal (1865, vol. 2, pp. 98-100) accepts Hypselopus (with Meloza as
synonym) and (p. 99) quotes H. gigas. On p. 101 he quotes H. spinosus
Sign. in Thoms., Avch. Ent., 1858, as synonym of Nariscus cinctiventris
Germ., but he does not seem to quote H. spinosus KI.

Stal (1873, Part 3) definitely transfers H. spinosus Burm., 1835, to
Nariscus and (p. 96) he retains H. gigas Burm. in Hypselopus.

Lethierry & Severin, 1894, follow the procedure of Stal, 1873.

Bergroth (1913, Part 2, p. 162) considers Naviscus a synonym of Hyp-
seélopus and cites “‘ (sbinosus Burm., Nubia).”

6. In his letter of 25th February 1935, covering the statement
of the case quoted in paragraph 1 above, Dr. Bléte had observed :
“The main question seems to me to be whether the description
and diagnosis [of Meloza] by Amyot & Serville can be regarded
as constituting a choice of a type species [for Hypselopus Bur-
meister].’’ On this question, which raises the interpretation to

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 187. 69

be given to Opinion 6 of the Commission, Dr. Stiles made the
following observations :—

In Opinion 6 the Commission laid down the following principle : ‘““ When
a later author divides the genus ‘ 4,’ species ‘ A b * and ‘A
c ’ leaving genus ‘ A ’ only species Al b ’ and genus ‘C’

monotypic, with species ‘ C. Cc * the second author is to be con-
strued as having fixed the type of genus ‘A.’” (See Article 30).

The question arises whether Opinion 6 should be applied to Stal’s action
of 1873, thus establishing H. gigas as type by removing H. spinosus from
the a It will be noticed that in Opinion 6 the second species, namely
mA ” was definitely made the monotypic genotype of the genus
me” Atta in the present instance the species H. spinosus was reclassified
in another genus.

From a nomenclatorial point of view, therefore, the two cases are nee

identical.
_ Opinion 6 would naturally cover a much smaller number of cases (since
it refers to definite type designation of a new genus) than would be covered
by the enormous number of instances in which species have simply been
' reclassified in other genera.

7. Dr. Stiles’s proposal regarding the designation of Hypse-
lopus gigas Burmeister as the type of Hypselopus Burmeister
secured the general concurrence of the members of the Commission
(see paragraph 13 below). On the question of the applicability of ©
Opinion 6 to the present case, the oe See ainiae were
received from Commissioners :—

(a) Observations ‘by Commissioner Leonhard Steqneger

_ L agree with the conclusion that Hypselopus gigas be designated the type,
but would leave out of the text of the Opinion any reference to Opinion 6.

From the statement submitted it is clear that the present case is entirely
different from the one covered by Opinion 6. That Opinion must be con-
strued very strictly as applying only to an exceptional case which was not
covered explicitly in Article 30 of the Code. As such, Opinion 6 must not
be extended.

The present case is apparently one of the many which await, and are
solvable by, type designation, since no designation has previously been
made as far as is known. The Commission is plainly competent to make
such a designation in an Opinion, hence my affirmative vote.

(b) Observations by Commissioner Francis H emming

I agree that the correct course in the present case is for the Commission
to proceed in accordance with recommendation (k) in Article 30 of the
Régles Internationales and therefore itself to designate Hypselopus gigas
Burmeister, 1835, as the type of Hypselopus Burmeister, 1835.

2. On the more general question raised, it must be noted that the word-
ing of Opinion 6 is very precise and covers only a very limited class of
case. The position of this class of case was not clearly defined under
Article 30 of the Régles and it was for this reason that a declaratory Opinion
was given by the Commission. _ In order to fall within the scope of Opinion
6, it is Bere for a given case to present the following features :—

b
c——’’) must have been established without a type;

_ (i) a genus “‘ A,” containing two species (species ‘‘ A *” and

a6 A.

70 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(ii) at some time prior to the selection of either of these species as the
type under rule (g) in Article 30 of the Régles, some author must have
made one of the two originally-included species (say species ‘‘ A
c ’’) the type of another genus “‘ C ”’ either :—

(a) by monotypy (as in the example cited in Opinion 6); or

(b) by designating that species as the type of genus “ C”’ (“‘ type
by original designation ’’) under rule (a) of Article 30 of the
Régles.

3. Prior to the issue of Opinion 6, it was not clear whether under Article
30 of the Régles any change in the status of genus “‘ A ”’ resulted from the
designation of one of its two originally-included species as the type of genus
““C.’’ The two possible interpretations of Article 30 in this regard were
the following :—

(i) it was possible to argue that the selection of species “‘ A c

as the type of the genus “‘ C ” had no effect whatever upon the status

Oi yeenus 24.) since that genus still contained two nent

‘ included species (namely ‘‘ A b ? and yA

neither of which had been selected as the type of genus ‘ A> ’ under

rule (g) of Article 30 of the Régles; added force was lent to this

argument by the fact that the fégles expressly provide that the
expression ‘‘ select the type ”’ is to be “‘ rigidly construed ”’;

(11) it was possible on the other hand to argue that, when the later author
selected as the type of genus ‘“‘ C’”’ one of the two species (species
A ”) originally included in genus “ A,’”’ he could properly
be deemed at the same time to have designated as the type of genus
“A” the only remaining species (species “‘ A b——’’) originally
placed in that genus.

4. Confronted with this problem, the Commission decided in favour of
the second of the two possible alternatives and accordingly rendered
Opinion 6 which interpreted Article 30 of the Régles in this sense.

5. It will be seen therefore that Opinion 6 has no relevance whatever in
considering a case (such as Hypselopus Burmeister, 1835) where a genus
was published with two species, of which neither was spécified as the type,
where no later author selected either of these species as the type of some
other genus and where all that happened was that a later author reclassified
one of the two originally-included species in some other genus.

8. At the same time Commissioner Hemming added the follow-
ing explanatory note on the status of the name Hypselopus
spinosus at the time of its first publication by Burmeister in
1835 i—

In presenting the case of Hypselopus Burmeister, 1835, to the Com-
mission, Dr. Bléte stated it contained two originally- -included species, of
which he cited the second as “ H. spinosus ‘ Kl.’ (in manuskr.).” By
anyone who had not had an opportunity of studying the original work of
Burmeister’s, this might be taken as implying that Burmeister mentioned
for this genus two species by name, that for the first (H. gigas), a new
species of his own, he gavea description, but that the second (H. spinosus)
was only a manuscript name of the author “ K1.,”’ for which Burmeister
gave no description. If this had been the case, no problem would have
arisen in the case of Hypselopus Burmeister, since H. gigas Burmeister
would have been the only species included in the genus under a name which
complied with Article 25 of the Régles and the species H. gigas Burmeister
would have been the type of Hypselopus Burmeister by monotypy.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 187. 7x

The above is not however the position. What Burmeister really did—
and this is no doubt what Dr. Blote intended to convey—was to specify
for this genus two species, H. gigas and H. spimosus, for each of which he
published a description. The first of these species, H. gigas, Burmeister
indicated as a new species of his own; after the name of the second species,
he added the abbreviation ‘‘ K1.”’ , which, no doubt, stands for Klug, thereby
indicating that the name spinosus had first been proposed in manuscript
not by himself but by Klug.

9. Before there had been time for any votes to be received on
the proposal laid before the Commission by Dr. Stiles (paragraph
5 above), a letter (dated 24th June 1936) was received from Dr.
Blote drawing attention to the fact that in 1835, the year in
which Burmeister had published the name Hypselopus for his
genus belonging to the Order Hemiptera of the Class Insecta,
Wiegmann had published the same name for a genus belonging to
the Class Reptilia. It was possible, therefore, that the name
Hypselopus Burmeister was an invalid homonym. The principle
involved in the present case would not be affected, if this proved
to be so, but clearly it was a matter which must, if possible, be
cleared up before any Opinion was rendered, since as long as any
doubt remained on this subject there could be no question of
placing the name Hypselopus Burmeister on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology.

10. It was not until July 1939 that the evidence required to
resolve this doubt became available. This evidence is set out in
the following note prepared by Commissioner Hemming :—

ON THE RELATIVE PRIORITY TO BE ASSIGNED TO HYPSELOPUS BURMEISTER,
1835 (CLass INSECTA) AND HYPSELOPUS WIEGMANN, 1835 (CLASS
REPTILIA)

The name Hypselopus. was proposed by Wiegmann in 1835 (Arch.
Naturges. 1 (2) : 289) for a genus belonging to the Class Reptilia. On
page 219 of this volume there is the following note to a paper by an author
named Wagner: ‘“ Erlangen, im November 1835.” As Wagner’s paper
was printed before that by Wiegmann, the name Hypselopus Wiegmann
cannot have been published before November 1835 and, if actually pub-
lished in that year at all, was most probably published on some date in
December.

The name Hypselopus Burmeister (Class Insecta) was published in vol. 2
of that author’s Handbuch dev Entomologie. ‘This volume is divided into
two sections, which are however continuously paged. The first portion
consists of 25 signatures (pp. 1-396). The name Hypselopus was published
on the foot of page 328, the description being continued on page 329.
These pages form part of signature 21. On the title page the note “‘ ver-
satzt 1834 und 1835’ is printed in relation to the first portion of this
volume, i.e. to the portion relating to the “ Ordnung Rhynchota.”’ This is
not very helpful, since the individual signatures are undated. The most
that can be drawn from this evidence is the conclusion that, as Hypselopus
was published in the 21st of 25 signatures, it was published sometime in
1835. On the whole, it is more likely that it was published in the earlier

72 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

part of the year rather than the later but the indications in favour of this
conclusion are certainly not sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the
name Hypselopus Burmeister was published before Hypselopus Wiegmann.
Quite recently, definite evidence regarding the date of publication of the
first portion of vol. 2 of Burmeister’s Handbuch has been discovered by
Mr. F. J. Griffin, Archivist to the Commission, who has found a reference
in the Proceedings of the Entomological Society of London (Proc. ent. Soc.
Lond. 1885 ;: liii) which shows that volume 2, part 1, pp. 1-396, of Bur-
meister’s Handbuch was received by the Society’s library on some date prior
to 4th May 1835.

The above evidence shows that Hypselopus Burmeister was published in
1835 before May and that Hypselopus Wiegmann was published not earlier
than November of the same year. Hypselopus Burmeister is therefore
available nomenclatorially, while Hypselobus Wiegmann is an invalid
homonym.

11. The discovery in July 1939 of the evidence set out in the
preceding paragraph made it possible to review the position as
regards this case and this review disclosed that a majority of the
Commissioners had already signified their concurrence in the
adoption of an Opinion in the sense proposed. Accordingly, on
6th July 1939 the Secretary to the Commission, acting in virtue
of the powers conferred upon him in that behalf by Article 7 of

the By-Laws, closed the ballot in this case.

IfI.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION.

12. The decision taken by the Commission in the present case

is :—

(a) that Hypselopus gigas Burmeister, 1835, Handb. Ent.
2 (1) : 329 is hereby designated as the type of Hypse-
lopus Burmeister, 1835, Handb. Ent. 2 (1) : 328 (Class
Insecta, Order Hemiptera) ; ; 3

(b) that the generic name Hypselopus Burmeister, 1835,
defined as in (a) above, is hereby added to the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 620.

13. The following twelve (12) Commissioners voted in favour of
the present Opinion :— |
Cabrera; Calman; Chapman; Esaki; Fantham; Hemming;

Jordan; Richter; Silvestri; Stejneger; Stiles; and Stone.

14. No Commissioner voted against the present Opinion.
15. The following four (4) Commissioners did not vote on the
present Opinion :— |

Apstein; Bolivar y Pieltain; Pellegrin; and Peters.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 187. 73

16. In addition, Commissioners do Amaral and von Hanko, who
were elected members of the Commission near the close of the
voting on this case, did not take part in its consideration.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving
the suspension of the rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have
been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a
majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten (10)
Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in
favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion
involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com-
mission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of at
least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the same
before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the
Commission; and

WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have signi-
fied their concurrence in the present Opinion ;

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FrRANcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the Inter-
national Commission, acting for the International Congress of
Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Eighty Seven (Opinion 187) of the
said Commission.

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
have signed the present Opinion.

74. OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Done in London, this first day of September, Nineteen Hundred
and Forty Four, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in
the archives of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

COMMISSION ‘ON ZOOLOGICAL: NOMENCLATURE: OPINION’ 187..: 79

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal has been established by the International Com-
mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for
the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
International Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments. received from, and correspondence by the
Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the
Bulletin under.(a) above; and

The Bulletin was established in 1943. Part 5 has now We3t
published. Parts 6 and 7 are inthe press. —

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenelature.
The above work is being published in three volumes con-
currently, namely :— 7

Volume 1. This volume will contain Daten I-9 (which
have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the
original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-20 (contain-
ing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions I-11) have now been published.
Further Parts will be published shortly.

Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising
all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their
meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with
Roman pagination) and Opimions 134-181 (with Arabic pagina-
tion). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume.
Parts I-35, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-165,
have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly.

Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182,
will contain the Opinions adopted by the International Com-
mission since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-8 (con-
taining Opinions 182-189) have now been published, Further
Parts will be published as-soon-as_possible.....

76 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

APPEAL FOR FUNDS

The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions
and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen-
clature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s
Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required
to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting
printing, donations amounting to £969 16s. 1d. were received up
to 30th June 1945. Additional contributions are urgently needed
in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without.
interruption. Contributions of any amount, however small, will
be most gratefully received.

Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at
their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and

made payable to the “ International Commission on Zoological —

Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed “ Account payee. Coutts |

& Co.’’.

ee ee
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN. BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD.,.
BuNGAY, SUFFOLK.

OPIN IONS AN D DECLARATION S
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

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

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 3. Part 7. Pp. 77-92.

OPINION 188

. Suppression of the name Cobra Laurenti, 1768,
and suspension of the rules for Bitis Gray, 1842
(Class Reptilia, Order Squamata)

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1945
Price four shillings

;
MS ng
Issued 26th July, 1945

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission
President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). |
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United ringer

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A.).

Class 1949.

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). |
Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).
Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).

Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.)

Secretariat of the Commission :
‘British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.
- Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

—

id
,

| OPINION 188.
SUPPRESSION OF THE NAME COBRA LAURENTI, 1768,

AND SUSPENSION OF THE RULES FOR BITIS GRAY, 1842
(CLASS REPTILIA, ORDER SQUAMATA).

SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules (i) the name Cobra
Laurenti, 1768, is hereby suppressed ; (ii) all type designations for
the genus Bitis Gray, 1842, made prior to the date of this Opinion
are hereby set aside ; and (iii) Vipera (Echidna) arietans B. Merrem,
1820, is hereby designated as the type of Bitis Gray, 1842 (Class
Reptilia, Order Squamata). The name Bitis Gray, 1842, so defined,
is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
as Name No. 621. |

I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

The problem presented by the name Cobra Laurenti, 1768, was
submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature by Dr. H. W. Parker, Assistant Keeper, Department of
Zoology, British Museum (Natural History) in the following

| statement forwarded under cover of a letter dated 30th December

Stejneger (1936, Copeia 3: 140) + has shown that the generic name Cobya
Laurenti, 1768, has priority over, and should be used instead of, the name
Bitis Gray, 1842. It is believed that, on account of the reasons set forth
below, the strict application of the rules of zoological nomenclature will
result in greater confusion than uniformity and it is requested that a sus-
pension be granted under the powers conferred on the Commission by the
oth International Congress of Zoology.

The generic name Cobva Laurenti, 1768 (Specimen medicum : 103), with-
out originally designated type, has not hitherto been used in zoological
homenclature; Stejneger (1936, Joc. cit.) has shown that it should be used
for the African viperine genus usually known as Bitis Gray, 1842.

_ But the word “ Cobra ”’ derived from the Latin “‘ coluber,”’ through the
Portuguese, has acquired a very different meaning, never being applied to
viperine snakes and in some languages, at least, being applied to a restricted
group of colubrine snakes :— é

(a) In Portuguese the word still means ‘‘ snake ” and do Amaral (1926,

Bol. Mus. nac. Rio de Janeiro 2 (2) : 4) lists 15 different snakes whose

common names are compounded from Cobra, e.g. Cobra-coral,
Cobra-lisa, Cobra-preta, etc. None of these snakes is a viper.

1 For the text of the note ‘published by Stejneger on this subject, see
paragraph 2 below. eat

80 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(b) In the English language the word has gained universal acceptance.
It is defined in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary (193 3; 1: 332): thus : —-

Cobra atts se. 1817. Short for next.

Cobra de Capello. .... CEOS se es The hooded or spectacled snake (Naja
tripudians), a venomous serpent found in India having the power of dilating the
head and neck when irritated, so as to produce the resemblance of a hood.

In specialist, and especially in medical, literature the word “cobra ”’
is almost universally used as an alternative group-name to designate
the proteroglyphous colubrine snakes of the genus Naja Laurenti,
1768

Cobra ou Cobra capello....n.m. Nom vulgaire des serpents venimeux du
genre Naja.

(d) In German the word has not, apparently, attained to such universal
usage, but is used in scientific literature in the same sense, e.g. :—

Ahl. 1930, Tabulae biologicae 6 Suppl. : 666 et seq. :-—
Wirkung des Giftes der Cobra (Naja tripudians) .. .
Schaumann, 1936, Behringwerk Mitteilungen 7 : 35 et seq. :—

Die Gifte der beiden afrikanischen Cobra-Arten, der Naja haje (Kleopatra-
schlange) aus Nordafrika und Naja flava (Kap-Cobra) aus Sudafrika .. .

(e) In Swedish also, the usage is similar to that in German, e.g. :—

Cyren, 1934 (Ormar 1 Fantasi och Verklighet, Stockholm : 193 et seq.) uses
‘ Kobran ”’ alone or in combination (e.g. Kungskobran) for snakes of the genus
Naja.

Instances such as the foregoing could be multiplied and probably found
in other languages, so that it can safely be claimed that “ cobra”’ as a
vernacular name has achieved a status so secure that the use of the same
name in a generic sense for the African Puff-adders must result in con-
fusion. The most serious consequences may well arise from any such
‘confusion, since Naja (= vernacular “ cobra’’) and Bitis (= Cobra Laurenti)
are genera of highly poisonous snakes belonging to different families whose
venoms are vastly different and require very different medical treatment
in cases of snake-bite. It is not too much to say that the identification of a
Puff-adder (Bitvs) as a Cobra might easily result in the administration of
the wrong antivenine with serious, if not fatal, results. Many of the anti-
venines are marketed under names or with instructions referring to ‘“‘ cobra,”’

e.g. -—

(1) The antivenine produced at the Kasauli Research Institute, Bombay,
C.R.I. 105 is described as polyvalent for Cobra and Russell’s viper.

(z) The Pasteur Inst., Paris, produces “‘ Sérum antivenimeux C ”’ which
“ est spécifique vis-A-vis des venins de Najas. (cobra capella princi-
palement, et Bungarus) de /’Inde et de l’Egypie.

(3) 1.G. Farbenindustrie Akt. Ges. In Behringwerk Mitteilungen, 1936,
7, part 4 (Schlossberger, Bieling und Demnitz) reference is frequently
made to a “‘ Cobra-Serum”’ specific against Naja haje and Naja Hee
whereas the antivenine specific against Bitzs (= Cobra Laurenti) is
known as “‘ Puffotter Serum.”’

2. The following is the text of the passage relating to the genus
Cobra Laurenti, 1768, published by Commissioner Stejneger in

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 188, 81

1936 (Copeia 8: 140) under the title ‘‘ Types of the Amphibian
and Reptilian Genera proposed by Laurenti in 1768”’ referred to
in the opening sentence of the petition quoted in the preceding
paragraph :—

Genus XXXII: Cobra, p. 103

Laurenti’s genus embraces three nominal species, viz., C. clotho, C.
lachesis, and C. atropos. The two former are based on figures by Seba
(Seba i 93 and 94.2) and are practically unidentifiable. Moreover, by
most authors they have been considered probable synonyms of the third
species, Linnaeus’s Coluber atropos. This view makes the latter type by
monotypy. But, in addition, Fitzinger (in 1826 Neue Classif. Rept. : 33)
established Cobra for Daudin’s Vipera atropos, which thus becomes type
of the genus by subsequent designation.?

Cobra is consequently the proper name for the genus commonly known
as Bits.

Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

3. Before any action had been taken on the present case, the
International Commission received a letter dated 3rd February
1938 from the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
(London) containing the text of a resolution relating to this case
that had been unanimously adopted by the Council of that Society
at their meeting held on 20th January 1938. This resolution was
as follows :—

The Council of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene views
with alarm the proposal to substitute the generic name Cobra Laurenti,
1768, for Bitis Gray, 1842. Having regard to the established meaning of
the word “‘ cobra ”’ in the English and other languages for proteroglyphous
colubrine snakes, the use of a similar generic name for a viperine snake must
result in great confusion which may have serious practical consequences in
medicine. They are of the opinion that this is an occasion when the strict
application of the Rules of Zoological Nomenclature will ‘“‘ result in greater
confusion than uniformity ”’ and that a suspension of the rules under the
power conferred on the Commission by the 9th International Congress of
Zoology is desirable,

4. Copies of the petition submitted in this case and of the
resolution in regard thereto received from the Royal Society of
Tropical Medicine and Hygiene were communicated to the
Members of the Commission on 14th February 1938, together with
the following note by Commissioner Karl Jordan, President of the
Commission :—

2 Commissioner Karl Jordan has pointed out (im litt., 19th March 1937)
that Fitzinger did not designate a type for Cobra Laurenti but for Cobra
Fitzinger. No type was designated for Cobra Laurenti until the publication
of the above paper by Stejneger in 1936.

82 “OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS ‘RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Cobra Laurenti was diagnosed by the “ author’ (Herr Winterl, I am
tald) and contains three species, all described and all previously figured,
Cobra clotho, Cobra lachesis and Cobra aivopos. The first two of these are
based on figures by Seba and are not identifiable with certainty, but have
been generally regarded as synonyms of the third species, the Coluber
atvopos of Linnaeus, which was designated as the type of Cobra by Fitzinger
(1826). The type of Coluber atropos Linnaeus is still in existence and is
identified by Anderson (1899, Svensk. Vet. Akad. Handl. 24 (No. 4) : 8)
as a Puff-adder..

Stejneger, therefore, is right in stating that the name Cobra Laurenti
applies to the Puff-adders and not to the Hooded Snakes almost universally
referred to in the vernacular as Cobras. The clash between the vernacular
and the scientific meaning of the same name would not be of great im-
portance, if the matter ended there; but the question of snake-serums
enters the argument, and for that reason the clash between the scientific
and the vernacular languages might lead to the gravest misunderstandings.

5. The comments received from Members of the International
Commission disclosed an overwhelming consensus of opinion in
favour of suspending the rules in order to suppress the name
Cobra Laurenti, 1768, and to validate Bitis Gray, 1842, in its
place :— |

(i) Comment by Commissioner W. T. Calman :

I wish to support very strongly Mr. Parker’s proposal for the
suspension of the rules and suppression of the name Cobra as a
generic name. ‘This is emphatically one of the cases where we
must consider the interests of people who are not systematic

specialists.

(ii é omment by Commissioner Leonhard Stejneger : *

I agree that the reinstitution of Cobra Laurenti, 1768, for Bitis
Gray would lead to greater confusion than stability. The argu-
ment advanced in the unanimous resolution of the Royal Society
of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene is convincing. Purely taxo-
nomically, the change might not cause much confusion, but in
biological science at large it certainly would. I vote for the
suppression of Cobra Laurenti.

(i111) Comment by Commissioner Rudolf Richter :

Die Suspension der Regeln zu Gunsten von Bitis Gray, 1842,
ist zweckmassig. Ich stimme dafir.

Dr. R. Mertens, als Herpetologe macht auf folgendes aufmerk-
sam: Nicht beizupflichten ist der Ansicht von Jordan ® und
Stejneger,® dass Cobra lachesis Laurenti, 1768, eine mit Sicherheit
nicht deutbare Art sei. Laurenti’s ‘Cobra lachesis ist aber auf

8 For a correction by Dr. Jordan of this statement, see footnote 2.

4 The present note sets out Commissioner Stejneger’ Ss views as to the
a¢tion which should be taken by the Commission on this case. For his
analysis of the position as it then stood under the Code, see paragraph 2
above.

. 5 The note by Commissioner Karl Jordan here referred to is quoted in
paragraph 4 above.

, & The note by Commissioner Stejneger here referred to is quotes) in
paragraph 2 above.

1. COMMISSION ‘ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 188: 83

. Fig. 2, Taf. 94, von Seba’s Thesaurus II begriindet, die ganz
eindeutig die gewOhnliche Puffotter darstellt. Auch das von
Laurenti in der Diagnose hervorgehobene Merkmal “ Fascia nigra
tvansvers per oculos”’ spricht fiir diese Art. In Ubereinstimmung
_ damit hat auch Boulenger in seinen Catalogue of Snakes (3 : 493)
(1896) Cobra lachesis in die Synonymen-Liste der gewohnlichen
Puffotter, Bitis arietans Merrem, 1820, aufgenommen.
Der richtige Name fiir diese Schange wirde also lauten—falls
_ die Regeln zu Gunsten von Bitis aufgehoben werden sollten—
Bitis lachesis Laurenti.
Hierdurch wird unsere Gosling fiir die Suspension nicht
beriihrt.
In Uberstimmung mit Dr. R. Mertens.

a Comment by Commissioner C. W. Stiles :

. Removed temporarily from literature, I cannot cae, the

; premises presented. Unless the two herpetologists on the

_ Commission can show that those premises are erroneous, I favor
suspension.

When fields other than zoology are affected (as Geology,
Medicine, Law, Agriculture, etc.), the Commission will do well to
be very cautious about applying Priority. When human life is a
possible factor—as represented in the premises—priority becomes
even more serious than usual. ;

(v) Comment by Commissioner A. do Amaral :

Stejneger’s standpoint is certainly quite correct. If considered
from a purely nomenclatorial angle, it is not objectionable. For
practical reasons, however, as set forth by Parker, it must not be
adhered to. I favour the ‘suspension of the rules as proposed by
Parker in this case.

(vi) Comment by Commissioner James L. Peters :

This appears to be just the type of case for which suspension of
_the rules should be granted, since there seem to be very definite
advantages to be gained by retaining Bitvs Gray, 1842. Where
a name relates to a species of considerable economic or medicinal
value, a large amount of literature dealing with these aspects
inevitably arises; the contributors. are not at all concerned with
taxonomy and have no knowledge of nomenclature and, having no
such knowledge, keep right on using the names to which they are
accustomed. Under these circumstances it would seem best to
grant suspension of the rules.

(vii) Comment by Commissioner Francis Hemming :

One of the most important functions of the International
Commission is to secure stability for the names of organisms of
importance in the applied sciences such as medicine and agri-
culture. It was largely for this purpose that the International
Congress of Zoology first established the Official List of Generic
Names im Zoology and later conferred upon the Commission
plenary power to suspend the rules in certain cases. The present,
in my opinion, is clearly a case where resort should be had to both
these remedies, that is to say the name Cobra Laurenti, 1768,
should be suppressed under. the plenary powers and. the name
Bitis Gray, 1842, should be placed. on the Official List.

84 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

6, At the same time seven other Commissioners intimated that
they also considered that the plenary powers should be used in this
case.

7. At the time when the vote was taken on this case, there were .
two vacancies on the Commission and of the 16 Members of the
Commission, 14 Commissioners voted in favour of granting the
petition, 1 Commissioner did not vote, and I Commissioner
expressed the view that the suspension of the rules was not
necessary, since, in his opinion, any danger to human beings
through confusion between the generic name Cobra Laurenti and
the vernacular word “ cobra’’ could be obviated through the
careful labelling and description of anti-venom remedies.

8. In view of the importance of the issues raised in this case
and of the fact that all but two of the Commissioners had promptly
and emphatically voted in favour of the suspension of the rules,
Commissioner Karl Jordan, as President of the Commission, ruled
in December 1938 that, as a preliminary to the issue of an Opinion
granting the relief asked for in the petition, the case should be
advertised in the manner prescribed in proviso (a) to Article r of
the Plenary Powers Resolution adopted by the Ninth International
Congress of Zoology at Monaco in March 1913,’ notwithstanding
the fact that one Commissioner (Witmer Stone) had expressed the
view that the suspension of the rules was not necessary in this case.

9. In view of the general feeling of the members of the Com-
mission in regard to this case, Commissioner Witmer Stone raised
no objection to this course and acquiesced in the arrangement that
he should be deemed not to have formally voted against the
action proposed to be taken by the Commission.

10. Before this case could be advertised in the manner indicated
in paragraph 8 above, it was necessary to determine the type
species of the genus Bitis Gray, 1842, since the determination of
this question was an indispensable preliminary to the placing of
that name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. In
response to a request by the Secretary to the Commission, Dr.
H. W. Parker furnished to the Commission the following note on
this subject (16th June 1939) :—

As regards the type of Bitis Gray, 1842, this name was proposed as a
subgenus or section of a genus § for five nominal species of which two are

7 See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40

8 Gray applied what he called “‘ Clotho Wagler (part) ’’ as the name of the
genus of which he regarded Bitis as a subgenus. The name Clotho was,

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 188. 85

species inquirendae; the first mentioned of the other three is ‘‘ Clotho
arietans. Echidna arietans, Merrem. Col. Bitis, Bonat. Vipera inflata,
Burchel. V. brachyura Cuv. Wagler Amp. t, 11. V. arietans, Schlegel,
no. t- 21, fig. 2; 3."

I take it that the citation as a synonym, of Col. Bitis makes the type by
absolute tautonymy, were it not for the unfortunate fact that there is no
such name; Bonnaterre actually has a Coluber Bitin based on Seba IT PI.
98 fig. 5 etc. What are your views on the point ?

_ Echidna anetans was proposed by Merrem in- 1820, and I notice
that he also includes, as one of its synonyms, ‘‘ Coluber Bitis Bonnat.
Oph. ps 22.’’

11. Jn further discussion with Commissioner Francis Hemming
(Secretary to the Commission), Dr. Parker stated that the works of
the old authors such as Seba were so difficult to interpret that he
could not affirm with absolute certainty that Coluber bitin Bonna-
terre (= Seba 2 pl. 98 fig. 5) was the same species as Vipera
(Echidna) arietans Merrem, 1820, the generally accepted type of
Bitis Gray, 1842.

12. This aspect of the present case was discussed at the meeting
of the Plenary Conference between the President of the Com-
mission and the Secretary to the Commission convened in London
on Monday, 19th June 1939, under the arrangement agreed upon
by the International Commission at their meeting held at Lisbon
on Wednesday, 18th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting,
Conclusion 10).9 At this meeting, the Plenary Conference

however, never published by Wagler and it must be attributed to Gray
himself, since he was the first author to publish it. He published it first in
1840, Syn. Contents Brit. Mus. (ed. 42) : 41, but the name there appeared
without an “ indication ’”’ within the meaning of proviso (a) to Article 25
and was therefore a nomen nudum. It was next published by Gray in
1842, Zool. Miscell.: 69, where a diagnosis was given but no type was
designated. This is the first valid publication of the name Clotho. Thus,
the name Bitis Gray, 1842, was published as the name of a new subgenus
of the genus Clotho, then alsoa new name. The type of Clotho Gray, 1842,
is, by absolute tautonymy, Cobra clotho Laurenti, 1768, which (as stated
by Stejneger in the passage quoted in paragraph 2 of the present Opinion)
is usually treated as being identical with Cobra atropos Laurenti, 1768,
which, in turn, is identical with Vipera (Echidna) arietans Merrem, 1820,
the species which (as explained by Dr. Parker in the passage quoted in
paragraph 1o of the present Opinion) is commonly accepted as the type of
Bitis Gray, 1842. Thus, the subgeneric name Bitis Gray, 1842, is a
synonym oi the generic name Clotho Gray, 1842. The name Bitis Gray is
not, however, invalidated on this account, since Clotho Gray is itself invalid
under Article 34 of the Code by reason of its being a homonym (1) of Clotho
Faujas de St. Fond, 1808, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat., Paris 11 (65) : 390, (2) of
Clotho Walckenaer, 1808, im Latreille, Gen. Crust. Ins. 4: 371, and (3) of
Clotho de Blainville, 1824, Dict. Sci. nat. 32 : 344.
® For the text of this decision, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 48.

86 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED, BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(Plenary Conference, Ist Uae Conclusion 16). noi

(a) took, note :—

(i) that V ipera (Echidna) arietans, Merrem, 1820 (Tent.. Syst.
Amph. : 152) was ee generally accepted “RE of Bitis Gray,
1842 (Zool. Miscel. : 69) ;

(ii) that the above species was accepted as the type of Bitis
Gray by absolute tautonymy (Article 30(I)(d) of the .Code)
through the citation by Gray of ‘“ Col. Bitis Bonat.” as a
synonym of Vipera (Echidna) arietans Merrem, the third of the
five nominal species placed by him in Bitis Gray, when.he first
published that name ;

(iii) that in fact, however, Bonnaterre never published the name
Coluber bitis but that he had published (1790, Ency. méth.
(Oph.) : 22) a name “‘ Coluber Bitin”’ based on fig. 5 on pl:
98 of volume 2 of Seba’s Thesaurus:

(iv), that, although it was probable that Coluber bitin Bonnaterre
was identical with Vipera (Echidna) arietans Merrem, this

identification could not be affirmed with certainty :

'(b), agreed :—

(i) that part of tHe object of the Commission in deciding to
suppress the name Cobra Laurenti, 1768, was to validate the
existing use of the name Bitis Gray, 1842, but that, having
regard to (a) (ii) to (iv) above, it was doubtful (r) whether
Vipera (Echidna) arietans Merrem could be regarded as the

_ type of Bitis Gray by absolute tautonymy and therefore (2)
whether under the Code the existing use of Bitis Gray was
correct ;

(ii) that in these circumstances the proper course to give effect
to the decision taken by the Commission would be to indicate
in the forthcoming advertisement of the proposed use of the
Commission’s plenary powers for the purpose of suppressing
the name Cobra Laurenti, 1768, that it was proposed also to
use those powers to set aside all type designations for the
genus Bitis Gray, 1842, made prior to the date of the Com-
mission’s Opinion thereon, and to designate Vipera (Echidna)
arietans Merrem, 1820, as the type of that genus;

(ili) that effect to the decision recorded in (ii) above should be
given in the advertisement of this case shortly to be issued.

13. Effect was given to the foregoing decision in the advertise-
ment (A. (n.s.) 1) which was despatched on 24th June 1939 to the
journals specified in proviso (a) to Article 1 of the Plenary Powers
Resolution referred to in paragraph 8 above.1

14. In the twelve months following the despatch for publication
of the advertisement referred to above, no communication of any
kind was received by the Commission objecting to the issue of an
Opinion in the terms proposed. In view, however, of the delays
in postal communications resulting from the existence of a state

10 For the full text of this Conclusion of the. mimates of the meeting of
the Plenary Conference, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 83-85.

11 For a bibliographical reference to. the Akers A Powers Resta, see
footnote 7. --

_. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 188. 87

of war in Europe, the Secretary to the Commission thought it
proper to direct that a further period of one year should be
allowed, to elapse in order that all reasonable opportunity should
be afforded for the lodging of objections to the course proposed;
should a zoologist in any country desire so to proceed. The period
of grace so extended expired on 24th June 1941.

15. The position as regards this case was reviewed by the
Secretary to the Commission at the close of September 1941.
The position then disclosed was that no objection had been raised
against the action proposed and that a unanimous majority of
the members of the Commission had voted in favour of that course.
Accordingly on 1st October 1941, the Secretary to the Commission,
acting in virtue of the powers conferred upon him in that behalf
by Article 7 of the By-Laws, closed the ballot in this case.

If. —THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION.

16. The decision taken by the Commission in the present case
is :— :
: (a) under suspension of the rules :—

(i) to suppress the name Cobra neeeaste 1768,
Specimen medicum: 103 (Class Reptilia,’ Order
Squamata) ; |

(ii) to set aside all type designations for the genus

_. Bitts Gray, 1842, Zool. Miscell. : 69 (Class Reptilia,
Order Squamata) made prior to the date of this
Opinion and to designate Vipera (Echnida)
artetans Merrem, 1820, Tent. Syst. Amph. : 152,
as the type of that genus;

(b) to add the generic name Bitis Gray, 1842, defined as in
(a)(ii) above, to the Official List oe Generic Names in
Zoology as Name No. 621.

“yy. The following fourteen (14) Commissioners voted in favour
of the present Opinion :—
do Amaral; Arndt; Cabrera; Calman; Chapman; von Hanko;
‘Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; Richter; eitvestn :
_ Stejneger; and Stiles.. 2 vis
38. No Commissioner voted against sie! present Omen:
Ig: The following two i ) Commissioners did not vote on the
present Opinion :— ae : | bee
Esaki; and Stone.

88 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

20. Inaddition, the following three (3) Commissioners, who were
elected members of the Commission after the vote on this case
was taken but before the ballot was closed, did not take part in its
consideration :—

di Caporiacco; Dymond; Jaczewski.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution
conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology,
Plenary Power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case,
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the said rules would clearly result in greater confusion than
uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the
possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should
be given in two or more of five journals named in the said Resolu-
tion and provided that the vote in the Commission was unani-
mously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and

WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid
force to the provisions of the present Opinion; and

WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus-
pension of the rules as applied to the present case has been given
to two or more of the journals referred to in the Resolution adopted
by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting
held at Monaco in March 1913; and

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission on the present case was
unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms of
the present Opinion ;

Now, THEREFORE,

I, Francis HeEmminG, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the Inter-
national Commission, acting for the International Congress of

- COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 188. 89

Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Eighty Eight (Opimion 188) of the
said Commission.

In faith whereof I, the ade ciened, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Opinion.

Done in London, this twelfth day of September, Nineteen
Hundred and Forty Four, in a single copy, which shall remain
deposited in the archives of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

90 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION..

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 4I,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. )

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal has been established by the International core
mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for
the publication of :— —

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
International Commission for deliberation and decision;

(b) comments received. from, and correspondence by the
Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the
Bulletin under (a) above; and

The Bulletin was established in 1943. Part 5 has now been
published. Parts 6 and 7 are in the press.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- |
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The above work is being published in three volumes con-
currently, namely :—

Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which
have never previously been published) and Ofimons 1-133 (the
original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-20 (contain-
ing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions I-11) have now been published.
Further Parts will be published shortly.

Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising
all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their
meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with
Roman pagination) and Ofintons 134-181 (with Arabic pagina-
tion). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume.
Parts I-35, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-165,
have now been published. Further Parts will be published
shortly.

Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182,
will contain the Opinions adopted by the International Commis-
sion since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-8 (containing
Opinions 182-189) have now been published. Further Parts will
be published as soon as possible.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 188. 91

APPEAL FOR FUNDS

The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions
and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen-
elature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s
Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required
to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting
printing, donations amounting to £969 16s. 1d. were received up
to 30th June 1945. Additional contributions are urgently needed
in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without
interruption. Contributions of any amount, however small, will
be most gratefully received.

- na 5
Ad erta ThA
a5 7
ity ey *) det $
« i if
] AGE ;
Fe ; {
: 5
| ; Rhevd?® be j
f a - “ 4 %
f s fire 5 Se Tt
ad .
: 1 : % y
ay beet ; a +
{ .
nM
)
4 taal som
P
‘4
| }
sy .
ry
J
}
'
; : ty ;
é
\
ene
1
Ve
ee
i
i ’
i
f
ye
,
7
|
i> he

: CSS pases Sear ah :

ny Wes 5S eee |
Par hie PRINTED EC
LS 7 Ry i
ICHARD CLAY |
+s o i Oe ge a
aS RY
{ ; RET ES, ;
Fe, See er rere % :
ot a. ee Fao on oe
eva Lit Ue rae on 5 reget!
. 4
F ‘ he eee i Yo RAs iv eae Bo
¥
Tae a
e ‘ f
hd f
5 a
Data eS
‘
) j She a
7.Y
he figs
va
| anne
3
4 (4
iS
\
&

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

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

Secretary to the Commission
VOLUME 3. Part 8 Pp. 93-108.

OPINION 189

Suspension of the rules for Arca Linnaeus, 1758 |
(Class Pelecypoda, Order Filibranchiata)

LONDON:
_ Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
1945

Price four shillings

(All rights reserved)
| ee
|
sued 26th July, 1945

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION ©

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary):

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.5.A.).

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).
Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the acs
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).

Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).

Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.)

Secretariat of the Commission 5
‘British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. a

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

|
|

OPINION 189.

SUSPENSION OF THE RULES FOR ACAR LINNAEUS, 1758
(CLASS PELECYPODA, ORDER FILIBRANCHIATA).

SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules (i) all type designa-
tions for the genus Arca Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pelecypoda, Order
Filibranchiata), made prior to the date of this Opinion are hereby
set aside and (ii) Arca noae Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated as
the type of that genus. The name Arca Linnaeus, with the type
designated above, is hereby added to the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology as Name No. 622. :

Pte STATEMENT. OF THE: CASE.

This case was submitted to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature by Dr. Philip W. Reinhart, Stanford
University, California, in the following letter dated 24th June

1932 :—

The purpose of this letter is to place before you the facts concerning the
designation of a pelecypod genus Avca, in the hope that the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature will take the step necessary for
the stabilization of the nomenclature of this genus, which is at present ina
confused condition, due to lack of agreement among systematists as to
whether Arca noae or A. antiguata should be regarded as the type of the

enus.

é Since 1847, Arca noae Linnaeus had been accepted almost universally as
the type species of Avca, following the designation of Gray (1847, Proc.
zool. Soc. Lond. 15 : 197). This same species had previously been designated
as the type of Arca by Schmidt (1818, Versuch Einricht. Conchyl.-Sammi. :
65, 178) but this designation seems to have been overlooked by most
systematists. At any rate, Gray’s designation, as mentioned above, was
almost universally accepted.

Within the last five years, however, there has been brought to light the
fact that two other species have been designated as the type of Arca
previous to 1847, one of these even before Schmidt’s designation of 1818:

(I) Cox (1927, Pal. Zanzibar : 93) pointed out that Children had desig-
nated A. tortwosa Linnaeus the type of Arca in 1823 (Lamarck’s Gen.
Shells : 46); and

(2) Stewart in 1930 (Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. Spec. Publ. 3: 83) and Grant
and Gale in 1931 (Mem. San Diego Soc. nat. Hist.1:1 37) disclosed
the fact that A. antiquata Linnaeus had been designated the type
species by Schumacher in 1817 (Essai nouv. Syst. Vers test. : E72):

Inasmuch. as Schumacher’s designation of A. antiquata antedates
Schmidt’s of A. noae by one year, A. antiquata (which since 1847 has been
regarded as type of the subgenus Anadara) has been accepted as the typical

96 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

species of Avca by Grant and Gale and by Stewart, although Stewart was
reluctant at the change, and expressed the hope (loc. cit. 3: 85) that the
International Commission would restore the genus Arca to its former well-
known status by arbitrarily establishing A. noae as the type species.

I shall now quote the reasons, as brought forward by Stewart, for restor-
ing A. noae as type species. Stewart (loc. cit. 3 : 84) :—

The first serious student of Arca, after Linné, seems to have been Martini (Beschrft
Berl. Ges. Naturf. EOS oR Fe Pp- 283-298), who recognised A. noae and A. barbata as)
the true arks—‘‘ wahren Archen ”—and separated them on the basis of the width of the
ligamental area into “‘ Die achte Noachsarche ’—A. noae—and ‘“ Die bartige Noach-
sarche ’’—A. barbata. Martini’s statement is practically a subsequent type designation
for Arca but the word type was not used. Chemnitz 1 also placed A. noae in his “ Arcae
verae’’ but not as the first species, retaining the first species of Linné as his first species
(Conch.-Cab. v. 7, 1784, p. 165, 177, pl. 53, fig. 529-531, pl. 54, fig. 532-533). In the
**Museum Boltenianum,” A. noae is the first species under the second division, called
“* Verae. Die wahren Archen ”’ (p. 174).

In 1799 and 1801 Lamarck cited A. noae as an example of Avca. As was
mentioned previously, Gray in 1847 (Pyvoc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 : 197)
designated A. noae type of the genus. This species was also used as type

by.

Woodward, Stoliczka, Kobelt, Dall, and Ce while K. and A. Adams, Tryon, Fischer,
and Bucquoy, Dautzenberg and Dollfuss placed A. noaein Arcas.s. Until the recent revival
of Children’s type designation (Cox, im Pal. Zanzibar, 1927, p. 93) it is doubtful if there has
been a single worker since 1847 who has not regarded A. noae as the typical Arca. (Stew-
art, loc. cit. 8: 85).

Stewart summarizes this matter as follows (: 85) :—

. The popularity of Arca noae as type species for Arca is due to two factors—the first,
its citation by Lamarck in 1799 and 1801 has undoubtedly influenced subsequent workers,
while the second factor, the obvious association of the name Avca with A. noae, influenced
18th century workers as well as modern students. The first subsequent type designation
yet found, seems so unfortunate that it may be reasonable to expect that for this case the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature will waive the rules. Avca noae
as type species for Arca has in its favor, virtual tautonymy and a long standing precedence
as well as a virtual type designation by Martiniin 1777. Against it is one type designa-
tion (1817) with but a year’s priority if Schmidt’s type designation be accepted (1818).
Disregarding Schmidt, there would be three type designations, each for a different species,
prior to the designation of A. noae. To arbitrarily establish A. noae as type species for
Arca would not be such a radical step as the Commission has already taken in favor of thé
generic name Spirifer (Opin. 100).

I hope that the Commission, on reviewing the above facts, will consider
it advisable to follow Stewart’s suggestion to establish A. noae as type of
Arca: such an action would stabilize the present unsettled condition. If
this step is not taken, much confusion will undoubtedly result, because
many systematists feel that the evidence in favor of A. noae as type is fully
as strong as, if not stronger than, that in favor of A. antiquata, and it
appears that only through a ruling oy the Commission will the matter be
definitely settled.

II—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

2. On receiving the application quoted in paragraph I above,
Dr. C. W. Stiles, as Secretary to the Commission, took steps to

1 For the ruling by the International Commission on the status of names
in volumes 1 to 11 of Martini (F. H: W.). and Chemnitz (J. H.), Neues
systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet, 1769-1795, see > Opinion 184 (pp. 25-36.
of the present volume).

“COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 189. 097

ascertain the views of representative specialists interested in this
- question. The following letters on this subject were received
by the Commission during the period from September 1932 to

January 193 5i—

(a) Comment by Dr. Paul Bartsch, Curator of M. ollusks and C enozoic
. Invertebrates, United States National Museum, Washington
(and September 1932)

Any one working with the genus Avca is thoroughly familiar with the
problem which has been very clearly presented by Dr. Stewart. Refer to
his statement which you will find in Reinhart’s letter.

When the genus Avca will have been re-monographed—that is the family
given a thorough modern overhauling—a number of changes will have to
be made and some of the things will have to be juggled about. At the
present time, it does seem to all of us who have worked in this field that it
would probably be best to suppress the older type designation and give
precedence to Gray’s type designation, Arca noae. If we do this, we have
another exception and personally I am disinclined towards exceptions, but
I would be ready to vote in favor of the exception had I a voice in the
matter.”

(b) Comment by Dr. Henry A. Pilsbry, Curator, Department of
Mollusks and Marine Invertebrates, Academy of Natural
Sciences of Philadelphia (9th January 1933)

i the case of Arca, I believe that the interests of science would be best
served by a decision in favor of using A. noae as the genotype. The arcas
of this type were commonly known as “‘ Noah’s ark shells ”’ in pre-Linnean
times. It appears to me that Linnaeus’ citation of ‘‘ Arca Noae’’ Rum-
phius in his synonymy of Arca noae should be a sufficient indication to
make this species type by tautonymy. See Syst. Nat. (10) p. 693.8

2 On 3rd February 1936 Dr. Bartsch wrote to Dr. Stiles (who was then
in Florida) asking whether it was the fact that the Commission were con-
templating “sanctioning and sponsoring an exception against Navicula.”’
Dr. Bartsch added: ‘“‘ Navicula is a splendid little group with a fine
geological history and beyond question creating no more confusion by
conservation than suppression. Hold on to it!’’ On his return to
Washington, Dr. Stiles replied on 21st February 1936 that according to the
records at his disposal it appeared that the case of Navicula had only come
before the Commission “‘ in connection with Arca.’’ With the same letter
‘Dr. Stiles enclosed a copy of the “‘ Circular Letter ’’ which in the meanwhile
he had issued to Members of the Commission in which he had quoted the
comments so far received from specialists in regard to the proposal for the
suspension of the rules in the case of Avca Linnaeus. Dr. Stiles added that
this case had not been dealt with by the Commission at their meeting held
at Lisbon in September 1935 and that it was therefore open to Dr. Bartsch
to furnish to the Commission any further observations that he might desire.
To this letter, Dr.. Bartsch replied on 11th May 1936 as follows: ‘“‘ The
maturer judgment of a year after and the fact that Navicula is involved
also in this case, of which Arca noae is the type, I would strike out the last
part of my dictum and say, ‘ Stick to the rules.’ ”’

3 In connection with this aspect of the case, see the observation »
Commissioners Jordan and. Richter quoted in paragraph 4 below.

98 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Any other course will introduce confusion by shifting the name Avca
to the genus now called Anadava. Both of these names are in general and
very wide use. If such confusion can lawfully be avoided, a decision now
would be particularly timely since the changes proposed by Cox aiid
Stewart have had scarcely any followers as yet.

(c) Comment by Dr. G. D. Hanna, Curator, Department of Palae-
ontology, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco
(4th February 1933)

Dr. Pilsbry tells me that the Commission has under consideration the
question of the type species of the genus Avca.. The name is involved with |
the name Navicula, and I hope that it will be possible for the species noae
to be designated as the type. ;

(d) Comment by Dr. W. P. Woodring, Geological Survey, tied
. States Department of the Interior, Washington (1st March 1933)

I am in favor of accepting Arca noae as the type of Arca.

(e) Comment by Dr. Mary J. Rathbun, United States National
Museum, Washington (3rd March 1933)

I feel peeney sure that the International Commission will abide by its
rules. That means that antiquata will be accepted as the type of Avca. .
The Commission is not allowed to choose one of two, as Martini’s noae and
barbata, and it insists on the word “ Pn Lamarck’s “‘ examples ”’ are
never construed as ‘ “ types.”’

(f) Comment by Mr. Re Gor, Department of Geta British
Museum (Natural History) (11th March 1933) |

I am not in favour of submitting cases for suspension of the rules to the
International Commission ad infinitum, but quite agree that this is a case
which should be submitted, since it is one in which the application of the
rules is ambiguous. ;

Schumacher’s alleged bye eaten ition is very unsatisfactory. He does

not say “‘ I take the species A. antiquata as type of the genus Avca”’ but
something to the effect that “‘ as type of the genus I take the figure of the
hinge of A. antiquata given by Chemnitz’’; in other words, he does not
use the word “‘ type ’’ in the sense “‘ genotype,’”’ but merely means that he
regards a certain type of hinge as characteristic of the genus. There also
seems to be an objection to Schmidt’s designation, namely, that he names
two types for Avca, one of which, however, is not in the original Linnean
list.
_ In the circumstances, therefore, I fully agree that it will be desirable to
apply to the International Commission for a definite ruling as to what
species shall be considered as genotype of Avca; and, of course, the species
which should be named is the one until recently accepted by most authors,
namely, A. noae.

(g) Comment by Professor P. Danes Musée N jhe aH istoive
Naturelle (a former member of the International C ommission) —
(dated 18th April 1933) i

Pour le nom générique Arca, je partage absolument Vavis du De R.
Stewart et je suis bien décidé a lui conserver le sens qui lui a été done
pendant plus d’un siécle par les malacologistes. Sx

14: COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 189. « 99

-Une application trop stricte de la loi de priorité a produit de résultats
désastreux. A mon avis; la loi de priorité quelque respectable qu’elle soit,
doit étre pratiqué avec circonspection et en tenant compte de la valeur re-
lative des oeuvres scientifiques. _Mais quelques naturalistes désirant de créer
du nouveau, ont recueillir des publications plus or moins estimables, les

-moyens de démoler des noms biens connus et universellement employés
en leur en substituant. d’autres qui ne méritent vraiment ppae d’étre res-
suscités,.

ie Wr. Kk. Apstein a fait paraitre en 191 5 une liste 4 de Nomina conservanda
a laquelle je me rallie sans restrictions. Le genre Ayca y figure avec A.
noae comme type. sie Ast Ms 9

‘(h) Comment by Conca: F. A. Bather, Keeper, Department
_ of Geology, British Museum (Natural History) (oth May 1933)

According to the information before me, I agree with Mr. Cox that

Schumacher cannot be considered to have selected A. antiquata as genotype.
Schumacher did not select a species as type, he did not even select.a speci-
men of a species,® or even the figure of a specimen of a species, but he
-merely referred to the figure of the hinge on a particular specimen. Ido
not see how, under the rules, this could be taken as a designation of the
type. Unless some stronger argument in favour of the change is put
forward, I should certainly vote in favour of retaining Avca noae as ee
? genotype. ;

(i) Comment by Dy. Hubert G. Schenck, Department of eat,

Stanford University, California (8th January 1935)

Recently while in Europe I began a study of certain Pelecypods, and’ I
completed a preliminary manuscript which I should like to enlarge for
publication in the near future. However it involves the question of what
is the type of Avca. Upon my return to this institution I was informed
that Dr. P. W. Reinhart had taken this matter up with you some time ago
and that it seems possible that the species noae will be taken as the type
of the genus. This is the sentiment that I have in the matter, and I hope
very much that the Commission will decide that thes

a3. in February 1935 Dr. Stiles issued a “Circular Letter ”
(no. 278) on this subject to all members of the International
Commission. This Circular Letter contained the text of Dr.
Reinhart’s application and the comments received from special-
ists quoted in paragraph 2 above. Dr. Stiles stated that, as he
had been unable to examine the original citations involved in this
case, he hesitated to draft an Opinion, but that the evidence
‘received seemed to favour “ noae as type of Arca.’ He accord-
‘ingly invited Commissioners to vote on this question. At the
same time he invited Commissioners to furnish supplementary .
observations on this case > for incorporation in the Opinion when
drafted.

4 The decision of the Commission « on the. i aan: List” is given in
I, Gas
8 Schumacher would have acted incorrectly (under the present Code) if
lie had selected a specimen rather ss a epee as eRe ee. of a 2 genus.
See Opinions 65 and 168.

I00 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

4. The following comments were received in response to the fore-
going invitation :— '

(i) Comment by Commissioner Karl Jordan :

According to the literature quoted by Linnaeus, the name Arca
noae was taken from Rumphius. The quotation of ‘“‘ Arca Noae ”’
under the second species is tantamount to a type designation.

(ii) Comment by Commissioner Rudolf Richter :

In Verbindung mit ‘‘ Avca’”’ hat “‘ noae’”’ den Sinn von “ Arca
noae.”’ Es besteht also eine Art von “‘involuierier Tautonymie.”’
Daher sollte die Art noae L. as Genotyp von Arca gelten. In
Gemeinschaft mit meinen zoologischen Kollegen Dr. Robert Mertens.

5. In March 1935 Dr. Stiles suggested that this case should be
settled by the Commission at their Session due to be held at
Lisbon in September of that year. Owing to the exceptionally
heavy agenda and the short time available for meetings, the
Commission were unable to deal with this case during their Lisbon
Session. It was accordingly arranged that a decision should be
obtained by means of the postal ballot which (as explained in
paragraph 3 above) had been opened in March of that year.

- 6. In May 1936 this case was duly advertised in the manner
prescribed in proviso (a) to Article 1 of the Plenary Powers
Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of
Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913.6 No
communication of any kind objecting to the suspension of the
rules in favour of Avca Linnaeus was received by the Commission
within the period of one year prescribed in the said Resolution.

7. Later the whole of the references involved in the case of
Arca Linnaeus were checked by Commissioner Francis Hemming
(Secretary to the Commission), with the kind assistance of Dr.
L. R. Cox, Professor Hubert G. Schenck, Dr. P. W. Reinhart,
Dr. A. Myra Keen, and Mr. R. Winckworth. This investigation
showed that in all five authors have designated types for this
genus or taken action which has since been interpreted as con-
stituting type designations. The relevant particulars are given
in the present paragraph and in-paragraph 8 below :—

ARCA Linnaeus, 1758
Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : (1) : 693.

8 For the text of the Plenary Powers Resolution, see Declaration 5 (1943,
Opinions and Declarations rendered by the I nternational COMMS Blea on
Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40). ee

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 189. TOL

The genus, as constituted by Linnaeus, contained fifteen species (or
nominal species) but (naturally) no type was specified. Of these species,
the following only are relevant for the present purpose :—

Species no.1. Avca tortuosa
: > 2. Arca noae

: 3. Arca barbata
: 6. Arca antiquata

8. The type designations and alleged type designations for this
genus are as follows :—

(r) Schumacher (C. F.), 1817, Essai d’un nouveau Systéme des
Hatitations des Vers testacés : 172

Pour le type du genre j’ai donné la fig. 2, Pl. xix, de la charniére
de l Avca antiquata Lin. qu’on trouve figurée dans Chemn. 7, pag.
201, Tab. 55, fig. 548.

(2) Schmidt (F. C.),.1818, Versuch uber die beste Einrichtung der
Conchylien-Sammlungen : 65, 178

Two types cited: Avca noae Linnaeus for Avca Lamarck (= Arca
Linnaeus, Lamarck) and Arca rvhomboidea Gmelin, 1789, a non-
Linnean species for Avca Megerle von Mihlfeld (= Avca Linnaeus,
Megerle von Mihlfeld).

(3) Children (J. G.), 1823, Lamarck’s Genera of Shells : 46

Ayca tortuosa Linnaeus, 1758, clearly designated as the type of Arca
Linnaeus.

(4) Anton (H. E.), 1839, Verzerchniss der Conchylien in der
Sammlung von H. E. Anton : 13

_ Arca barbata Linnaeus, 1758, designated as the type of the nomino-
typical subgenus Avca Linnaeus, 1758 (sensu stricto) of the genus
Ayca Linnaeus, 1758. ‘This designation was effected by the printing
of the name Arca barbata in capital letters, in accordance with the
system indicated by the author on p. vi of the Introduction, where
the following statement will be found: ‘“‘ Gattungen, deren
Typusart mit Versalbuchstaben gedruckt ist .. .”

(5) Gray (J. E.), 1847, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 (178) :.197

Arca noae Linnaeus, 1758, is cited as the type of Arca Linnaeus,
y 1758.

g. The conclusions to be drawn from the foregoing evidence are
as follows :—

(i) Schumacher, 1817

Rule (g) in Article 30 of the International Code directs that ‘‘ The
meaning of the expression ‘ select the type’ is to be rigidly con-
strued.”” Schumacher’s action does not comply with this require-
ment since (as observed by Calman im Hitt., 12th February 1943)
Schumacher on this-occasion was clearly using the word ‘‘ type ’’
as the equivalent of “‘ typical species ’’ in the morphological or
taxonomic sense, i.e. as the species in which the characters of the

TO2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(ii)

genus are most fully developed or clearly shown. In naming Avca
antiquata Linnaeus as the type of Avca Linnaeus, Schumacher had
not in mind—or at least did not make it sufficiently clear for the
purposes of rule (g) in Article 30 that he had in mind—to specify
the above species as the genotype in the nomenclatorial sense, i.e.
as the species to which the generic name Avca Linnaeus must
adhere in the event of that genus being subdivided. The alleged
type designation by Schumacher must therefore be rejected.

Schmidt, 1818

Schmidt specified a type for Avca Lamarck and another type for
Aryca Megerle. von Miihlfeld. Neither of these authors himself
erected a genus Avca and both must be regarded as having referred
(implicitly if not explicitly) to Linnaeus. If this had not been the
intention of these authors, the subsequent action of Schmidt could

_ have had no possible bearing upon the type of Avca Linnaeus, since

(111)

his action would have been concerned not with Avca Linnaeus but
with two genera having the same name (Avca) published by two
later authors. It is clear from Schmidt’s action that he, like
Schumacher, was using the term ‘‘ type ”’ to denote typical species
in the morphological or taxonomic sense and not to denote the
genotype of a genus. For this reason and because he designated
two types (instead of one only), Schmidt’s action does not con-
stitute a type designation in the “ rigidly construed ”’ sense required
by rule (g) in Article 30 of the Code, ‘The alleged type ae
by Schmidt must therefore be rejected.

Children, 1823

Children clearly designated as the type of Arca Lignan a species,

. Aycatortuosa Linnaeus, 1758, which was one of the species included in
_ that genus by Linnaeus on the occasion (1758) when he first published

(iv)

the name Avca Linnaeus. Since, so far as is known, no other author
had selected one of those species as the type of this genus, Children’s
action is a valid designation of the type of Avca Linnaeus, 1758,
under rule (g) in Article 30 of the Code, and Arca tortuosa Linnaeus
is therefore the type of Avca Linnaeus under the Code (i.e. in the
absence of special action by the International Commission to
suspend the rules under their plenary powers), unless it can be
shown that some other species is the type of Avca Linnaeus under
any of the.earlier provisions of Article 30, i.e. under any of rules
Cc to (f). (On this aspect of the question, see paragraphs 10-12
below.) a ie ;

Anton, 1839 and Gray, 1847

The action of Anton (1839) under the Code in selecting Avca barbata
Linnaeus as the type of Avca Linnaeus would have been valid, if it
had not been for the prior (and, from the point of view of Article 30,

valid) action of Children (1823) in selecting Avca tortuosa Linnaeus aS
the type of this genus. Similarly, Gray’s action (1847) in selecting
Arca noae Linnaeus as the type of Avca Linnaeus would have been
valid, if Children (1823).had not selected Avca tortuosa Linnaeus as
the type of that genus and if Anton (1839) had not selected Avca
barbata Linnaeus as the type of that genus. In these circumstances,
the action both of Anton and of Gray is invalid under the Code.

10. It will be seen from the foregoing analysis that, so far
as rule (g) in Article 30 of. the Code is concerned, there is

.. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 189. 103

no doubt that under the Code Arca tortuosa Linnaeus, 1758, is
the type of Avca Linnaeus, 1758. At this point, however, it is
necessary to consider the bearing on the present case of the prior
rules in Article 30. The only one of those rules which might
have a bearing on the present case is rule (d), which relates to
the fixing of genotypes by. absolute tautonymy. This provision,
which takes precedence over all subsequent rules in this Article
of the Code, reads as follows :—
(d) If a genus, without originally designated (see (a)) or indicated (see
(b)) type, contains among its original species one possessing the
generic name as its specific or subspecific name, either as a valid

name or synonym, that species or subspecies becomes ipso facto type
of the genus (type by absolute tautonymy).

11. As far back as 1930 Dr. Stewart (see Acad. nat. Sci. Philad.
Spec. Publ. 8:85, quoted in the penultimate paragraph of the
application in the present case given in paragraph 1 of the present
Opinion) drew attention to the virtual tautonymy in the present
context of the words “ Avca’’ and “‘ noae.’’ The considerations
advanced by Dr. Stewart have since been emphasised by Dr.
Henry A. Pilsbry (see paragraph 2(b) above), by Commissioner
Karl Jordan (see paragraph 4(i) above) and by Commissioner
eo Richter (see paragraph 4(i1) above).

12. A certain degree of tautonymy is undoubtedly created by
ie use simultaneously of the generic name “ Avca’’ and the
specific name “ Arca noae”’ but, in the absence of an Opinion
‘by the International Commission, there is no means of determining
whether the degree of tautonymy so created is sufficient to con-
stitute ‘‘ absolute tautonymy ” within the meaning of rule (d) in
“Article 30 of the Code. |
_ 13. The position is therefore that, pending a decision by the
International Commission, it is, and must remain, a matter of
‘doubt whether the type of Avca Linnaeus, 1758, is :—

(i) Arca noae Linnaeus, 1758, by absolute tautonymy under
rule (d) in Article 30 of the Code; or

(ii) Avca tortuosa Linnaeus, 1758, by subsequent designation

(by Children, 1823) under rule (g) in Article 30 of the Code.

14. In the present application. the Commission were asked to
consider—and in fact have considered—whether the strict
application of the rules in the case of Avca Linnaeus, 1758, would
Tesult in greater confusion than uniformity and, if, in their judg-
ment, such confusion would clearly arise, how ‘best they should

I04 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

use their plenary powers to suspend the rules. The Commission
were not asked to consider—and in fact have not considered in
detail—the point relating to the interpretation of rule (d) in
Article 30 of the Code (relating to the fixing of the types of genera
by absolute tautonymy) discussed in paragraphs 10 to 12 above.
In reaching their decision, the International Commission have,
however, given due weight to the special considerations in regard
to the interpretation of the foregoing provision of Article 30 which
have been advanced in this case.

15. In recording his vote in favour of the proposal submitted
by Dr. Reinhart, Commissioner Francis Hemming, as Secretary
to the Commission, entered the following note in the record relating
to this case :—

In dealing with genera proposed by early authors without originally
designated or indicated type, it is often extremely difficult to determine
with certainty the work in which a type was first validly selected under
rule (g) in Article 30 of the Code. The difficulties so involved are
very well illustrated by the case of Avca Linnaeus. Until 1927 Gray’s
designation (1847) of Avca noae Linnaeus had been almost universally
accepted for over eighty years; Cox then drew attention to the prior
designation of Arca torvtuosa Linnaeus by Children (1823); but within three
years of the publication of Cox’s paper Stewart (1930) drew attention to a
still earlier work in which Schumacher (1817) had taken certain action which
was capable of being interpreted as constituting the designation of Avca
antiquata Linnaeus as the type. Even since the submission of the present
application to the Commission, attention has been drawn by Iredale to
still another type designation for the genus Avca Linnaeus, namely that of
Arca barbata Linnaeus by Anton (18309).

In cases of this kind there is clearly always a chance that some author
may detect in the literature some type designation of still earlier date than
any of those so far detected. This has already happened twice in the case
of Arca Linnaeus, first (as shown above) by Cox and later by Stewart, and
the possibility of it happening again cannot be altogether excluded. Con-
stant changes in the genotype of a genus lead to great confusion and are
open to strong objection. It is therefore very important that the Opinion
now to be issued by the Commission on this subject should be so drafted
as to obviate the possibility of any discussion, if later there is discovered
a type designation for Avca Linnaeus of older date than any so far known.
This object can best be secured by following the precedent set by the
Commission at Lisbon in 1935 when dealing with certain similar cases in
the Order Hymenoptera submitted by Professor Chester Bradley (Lisbon
Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2),? that is to say to use their plenary
powers first to set aside all type designations for Avca Linnaeus, 1758, made
prior to the date of the Commission’s decision in regard thereto. Having
done this, the International Commission can use their plenary powers to
designate Avca noae Linnaeus, 1758, as the type of the genus. The name
Arca Linnaeus, with the type so designated, could then readily be added to
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as proposed.

? For the text of the Conclusion here referred to see 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1 : 27-30. Eo eee

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 189. 105

16. At the time of the outbreak of war in Europe in September
1939, eight Commissioners had voted in favour of the suspension
of the rules in the present case and none had voted against that
course. Fora time it was impossible to make any further progress
in this matter, but in January 1943 Commissioner Hemming, as.
Secretary to the Commission, wrote to all those Members of the
International Commission who had not voted on this case and
who were resident in countries with which postal communications
were still open and urged them to record their votes in this case.
Asa result, four additional affirmative votes were received between
t4th February and 25th October 1943. The number of votes so.
received were more than sufficient to secure the adoption of the
present Opinion and accordingly on 25th October 1943 the Secre-
tary to the International Commission, acting in virtue of the
powers conferred upon him in that behalf by Article 7 of the By-
Laws, closed the ballot in this case.

III. _THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION...
17. The decision taken by the Commission in the present case
is :—
(a) under suspension of the rules :—
(i) to set aside all type designations for Avca Linnaeus,
ise, syste Nab (ed. 10) fs 693 (Class Pelecypoda,
Order Filibranchiata) made ee to the date of this
Opinion; and
(i) to designate Arca noae anna 1758, Syst. Nat.
(ed. 10) 1 : 693 as the type of Avca Linnaeus, 1758;
(b) to add the name Avca Linnaeus, 1758, with the type speci-
fied in (a)(ii) above, to the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology as Name No. 622.
18. The following twelve (12) Commissioners voted in favour of
the present Opinion :—
do Amaral; Apstein; Cabrera; Calman; Chapman; Dymond;
Paamenam, Hemming: Jordan; Peters: -Richter; and
Stiles.
19. No Commissioner voted against the present Opinion.
20. The following four (4) Commissioners did not vote on the
present Opinion :—
Esaki; Pellegrin; Stejneger; and Stone.

I06 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

21. In addition two (2) Commissioners, namely Commissioners
Bolivar y Pieltain and Silvestri, who were members of the Com-
mission at the time when the ballot on this case was opened,
resigned their membership of the Commission without having
voted on the present Opinion.

22. The following four (4) Commissioners, namely Com-
missioners Arndt, di Caporiacco, von Hank6, and Jaczewski, were
elected members of the Commission during the later stages of the
ballot on this case and did not take part in its consideration.

‘IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION. ,

WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid
force to the provisions of the present Opinion as set out in the
summary thereof; and

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission on the present case was
unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms of
the present Opinion ;

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of

-COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 189. 107

holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the Inter-
national Commission, acting for the International Congress of
Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Eighty Nine (Opinion 189) of the said
Commission.

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANcIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Opinion.

Done in London, this fifth day of October, Nineteen Hundred
and Forty Four, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited
in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

108 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE,

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s
Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. |

This journal has been established by the International Commission as
their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :—
(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the Internationa
Commission. for deliberation and decision ; “

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary
with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a)

above; and
_ (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic

theory and practice. : 7
The Bulletin was established in 1943. Part 5 has now been published.
Parts 6 and 7 are in the press.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature. ..
The above work is being published in three volumes concurrently,
namely :— : ~ 8
Volume t. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have never
previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue of which
‘is now out of print). Parts 1-20 (containing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions
I-11) have now been published. Further parts will be published shortly.
, Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising all the
decisions taken by the International Commission at their meeting at

Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with Roman pagination) and ~~:

Opinions 134-181 (with Arabic pagination). Part 52 will contain the
index and title page of the volume. Parts 1-35, containing Declarations
10-12 and Opinions 134-165, have now been published. Further Parts

will be published shortly.
Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182, will con-

tain the Opinions adopted by the International Commission since their
meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-8 (containing Opinions 182-189) have
now been published. Further Parts will be published as soon as possible.

APPEAL FOR FUNDS

*The International Cominission appeal earnestly to all institutions
and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen-
clature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s
Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required
to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting
printing, donations amounting to £969 16s. 1d. were received up
to 30th June 1945. Additional contributions are urgently needed
in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without
interruption. Contributions of any amount, however small, will
be most gratefully received. ,

Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at
their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and
made payable to the ‘ International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed ‘‘ Account payee. Coutts
& Co.’’.

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND Company, LTD
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

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

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

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 3. Part 9. Pp. 109-128, 2 Plates.

OPINION 190

On the status of the name Rhynchonella alta

(Class Brachiopoda, Order Telotremata) com-

monly attributed to Samuel Calvin and treated
as having been published in or about 1878

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature \
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1945
Price six shillings

Issued 21st August, 1945

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dey Normanvix= SOE UrSeAs)\:

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).

Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIWN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.5S.A.).

Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr Harold HV OK Sr ss\)

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, 5.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

(fer,

OPINION 190.

ON THE STATUS OF THE NAME RHYNCHONELLA ALTA
(CLASS BRACHIOPODA, ORDER TELOTREMATA) COMMONLY
ATTRIBUTED TO SAMUEL CALVIN AND TREATED AS HAVING
BEEN PUBLISHED IN OR ABOUT 1878.

SUMMARY.—(i) The name Rhynchonella alta as a name for a
species of the Class Brachiopoda has no status as from the date in
or about 1878 in which a printed note containing that name in
explanation of a photograph attached thereto was distributed by
Samuel Calvin to students attending his lectures or to colleagues or
was attached by Calvin to separates of his paper published in 1878
entitled ‘‘ Notes on Fossils from Devonian Limestones at Inde-
pendence, Iowa ’’ (Calvin, 1878, Bull. U.S. geol. geogr. Survey
4 (3) : 725-730), in which the name Rhynchonella alta did not
appear. (ii) The name Rhynchonella alta was first published
within the meaning of proviso (a) of Article 25 of the International
Code by Williams (H. S.), in 1890 (Bull. geol. Soc. America 1 : 495
pl. 12 figs. 5-7). The name of this species is therefore Rhyn-
chonella alta Williams (ex Calvin), 1890. The type-horizon and
locality of this species is the ‘* Iowa beds, Solon, Iowa.’’

1.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

This case was first brought to the attention of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by Professor G. Marshall
Kay, Columbia University in the City of New York, in a letter
with enclosure addressed by him on 2nd August 1928 to Com-
missioner C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission. After
explaining that he was concerned to determine the type of the
species known as Pugnoides alius, Professor Marshall Kay
proceeded as follows :—

This problem in nomenclature is concerned with the names of three
species of brachiopods of the genus Pugnoides } that occur in the Upper
Devonian of Iowa and New York. These three occur as follows: one at
Solon, lowa; one at Rockford and Independence, Iowa; and one in the
Ithaca beds at Naples, New York. The confusion seems to have arisen

from the distribution of specimens from the first two localities under the
cheironym Rhynchonella alta by Calvin prior to 1880.

1 Pugnoides Weller, 1910, Bull. geol. Soc. Amer. 21 : 512.

II2Z2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

2. After further correspondence with Commissioner Stiles in
August and October 1928, Professor Marshall Kay decided formally
to request the International Commission to give a decision on the
questions involved in this case. Accordingly, on 20th February
1929, Professor Marshall Kay submitted this case to the Com-
mission in the four following documents :—

(A)—-STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

Calvin, in or shortly after 1878, distributed a photographic plate? bearing
on one side illustrations of several fossils and on the reverse an attached
printed card with the names of the illustrated species, all but one of which
had been published previously. The one species, “ Rhynchonella alia,’
presents problems in nomenclature. The plate is referred to in biblio-
graphic references of the time, but the distribution was such that only one
copy of the plate is known today. This copy bears neither date nor piece
of publication.

Williams, in 1883, described a specimen from New York and called it
identical with the form “‘ Calvin described under the name Rhynchonella
alta from the Iowa beds.”’

Williams, in 1890, published a figure of an Iowa specimen with the
explanation “‘ R. pugnus var. called R. alta Calvin.”

Did the photographic plate with printed key distributed by Calvin in or
about 1878 constitute publication of the species? If it did not, did
Williams unknowingly name the New York species in 1883 by identifying
it with a cheironym of Calvin that Williams thought a described species
from Iowa? If not, is the author of the species Williams or Calvin on the
basis of the publication of 1890 ?

(B)—REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE BEARING ON THE CASE OF
RHYNCHONELLA ALTA.

By way of introduction, it may be stated that there are fossils from three
localities that are mentioned in the literature with respect to Rhynchonella
alta. Inasmuch as they are now considered as three species of the genus
Pugnoides Weller, 1910, it is necessary that it be determined which is the
typical R. alta. The species are from the Lime Creek beds, as at Rockford,
Iowa; from the State Quarry beds, at Solon, Iowa; and from the Ithaca
High Point beds, Naples, New York; all are of upper Devonian age.

In 1876, at the meeting of the lowa Academy of Science, Samuel Calvin
read a paper on “‘ New Species of Paleozoic Fossils.’’ An abstract in the
American Naturalist (1) states that he “‘ described seven new species of
Paleozoic fossils found mainly in Howard and Floyd counties, Iowa.”
Rhynchonella alta may have been one of the species, but inasmuch as the
article never was published, FR. alia Calvin, 1876, is a cheironym.

In 1878, Calvin published a paper on the Independence fauna (2) in
which he did not mention ft. alia. In distributing separates of this paper,
or at a somewhat later time, he sent out a card photograph ® illustrating
specimens of the species described in the paper, and he appended an illustra-
tion of the Solon form of Rhynchonella. The photograph bears illustrations
on one side, and on the reverse has a printed key titled ““ Forms from the
Dark Shales—at Independence—by Samuel Calvin,”’ including “ Rhyn-
chonella alta Calvin, Solon, Iowa.’’ This photograph seems to have reached
several paleontologists, for it is mentioned in contemporary bibliographic

2 See paragraphs 3—8 below and Plates 1 and 2.
eySee toormote 2.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION TOO. (hrs

references (3). However, the distribution was such that today only one
copy of the plate is known, that a copy received by Dr. T. H. MacBride at
the time, and now in the possession of Dr. A. O. Thomas of the State
University of Iowa.

In 1883, Williams (4) published an article containing the following
statements: * “ Rhynchonella pugnus Martin of the Kinderhook group
has not been recorded from the Lime Creek beds of Iowa, but the author
has lately examined specimens from beds of apparently the same horizon
in the central portion of Iowa [Solon] which are identical with the Ithaca
variety of Rk. pugnus Martin. In 1877 [1876] Calvin described under the
name fhynchonella alta a species from the Iowa beds. The representative
met with in the Ithaca beds offers varietal differences in which it approaches
the European forms called R. acuminata.” There follows a comparison of
the Ithaca species with the European species.

In 1890, Williams (5) published a figure of the Solon form with the
designation ‘“‘ Rhynchonella pugnus var. called FR. alia Calvin. Solon,
Iowa.”

References :

(1) [Anon.], in American Naturalist, vol. 11, 1876, p. 57; see also Thomas, A. O., Iowa
Acad. Science, vol. 29, 1923, p. 93.
(2) Calvin, S. Notes on Fossils from Devonian Limestones at Independence, Iowa:
Bull. U.S. geol. geogr. Survey, vol. 4, 1878, pp. 725-730.
(3) Williams, H.S. American Jour. Science, 3rd ser., vol. 25, 1883, p. 100;
Walcott, C.D. U.S. geol. Survey, monog. 8, 1884, p. 156;
Whiteaves, J. F. Contrib. Canadian Paleont., vol. 1, pt. 3, 1891, p. 231.
(4) Williams,H.S. American Jour. Science, 3rd ser., vol. 25, 1883, p. 99.
(5) Williams, H.S. Bull. geol. Soc. America, vol. 1, 1890, p. 495, pl. 12, figs. 5—7.

(C)—SYNONYMY OF THE SPECIES OF THE GENUS PUGNOIDES WELLER, IQI0,
INCLUDED IN THE LITERATURE INVOLVING THE NAME RHYNCHONELLA
ALTA.

(1) Lhe species from the State Quarry beds of Lowa as at Solon.

Rhynchonella alta Calvin, 1878 or later, distributed photographic plate with printed key.

Rhynchonella alta Calvin, Williams, 1883, American Jour. Science, 3rd ser., vol. 25, p. 101
(not described).

Rhynchonella pugnus Martin var. alta Calvin, Williams, 1890, Bull. geol. Soc. America,
vol. 1, p. 495, pl. 12, figs. 5-7.

Pugnax altus Calvin, Hall and Clark (part), 1894, Nat. Hist. New York, Paleont., vol.
8, pt. 2, pl. 60, figs. ioe

Pugnoides solon Thomas and Stainbrook, 1921, Science, n.s., vol. 54, p- 508.

peeotoides solon Thomas and Stainbrook, 1923, Iowa Acad. Science, vol. 29, p. 97, pl. 1,

gs. 17-32.

Pugnoides solon Thomas and Stainbrook, Fenton and Fenton, 192 5, Contr. Mus. Geol.,
Univ. Michigan, vol. 1, p. 125, pl. 25, figs. 1—8.

Pugnax pugnus Calvin, 1898, Iowa Geol. Survey, vol. 7, p. 78 (listed only).

(2) The species from the Lime Creeh beds of Iowa as at Rockford.

Rhynchonella alta Calvin, 1876, paper read before the Iowa Acad. Science, June 2 3, 1876;
abstract, American Nat., vol. 11, 1881, p. 57-8. Cheironym.

Rhynchonella subacuminata Webster, 1888, American Nat., vol. 22, p. IOI5.

Pugnax altus Calvin, Hall and Clarke (part), 1894, Nat. Hist. New York, Paleont., vol. 8,
pt. 2, pl. 60, figs. 4, 5.

Pugnoides altus (Calvin) Thomas and Stainbrook, 1923, Proc. Iowa Academy Science,
wol-295p:,95, pl. 1, figs. 1-16.

iG Ee

* In reading this article, one must not be confused by the face that
there are two localities named Rockford that are cited. Rockford, Ind.,
is a locality with Kinderhookian (L. Mississippian) rocks outcropping ;
Rockford, Iowa, has the Lime Creek shales (Upper Devonian).

II4. OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Pugnoides calvini Fenton and Fenton, 1925, Contr. Mus. Geol., Univ. Michigan, vol. r,
p- 125, pl. 25, figs. 1-8.
Pugnax altus Calvin, 1898, Iowa Geol. Survey, vol. 7, p. 167, (listed only).

(3) The species from the High Point beds of the Ithaca, as at High Point,
New York.

Rhynchonella pugnus Martin var. Williams, 1883, American Jour. Science, 3rd ser., vol.
25, P- 99-

Pugnax pugnus Martin, Hall and Clarke, 1894, Nat. Hist. New York, Paleont., vol. 8, pt.
2, pl. 60, figs. 6-10.

Rhynchonella pugnus Martin of authors, (listed only).

Pugnax pugnus (Martin) of authors (listed only).

(D)—PERSONAL OPINION OF G. MARSHALL KAY ON THE CASE OF
RHYNCHONELLA ALTA.

There can be no doubt that the name Rhynchonella alta Calvin, 1876, isa
cheironym if it ever existed; it seems that there is no evidence showing
that the name was even proposed in the paper that he read before the
Iowa Academy. Nevertheless, the very name alta is evidence that he
knew of its presence, for the other species are comparatively low-fold as
compared with the very high-fold Lime Creek form. The statement of
Williams (1) that ‘“‘ Rhynchonella pugnus Martin has not been recorded from
the Lime Creek beds of Iowa ”’ is evidence of that writer’s ignorance of its
presence, but Calvin probably knew of the presence of the form ten years
earlier. The fact that Calvin does not record it in a list published in the
same year as Williams’ (2) is evidence that he considered it to be an un-
described species; the list was of fossils ‘‘ as far as the species have been
described.”’

The card photograph of 1878 does make the species recognizable if one
has the card,* but there is considerable question in my mind that it is
“publication.’’ There is no way of determining how many of the photo-
graphs were distributed; the key may have been printed on a hand press,
and with the card, have been distributed to a few.of Calvin’s friends. It
seems to me a nomen nudum “‘ since authors who do not possess esoteric
information in regard to it are unable definitely to interpret it without
reference to later literature’’ (3). The very tact ‘thar @alyaaaeecer
writings consistently referred to the form as Pugnax pugnus would seem to
indicate that he did not consider that he had published the name.

As to the publication of Willams, (4) there can be no doubt that he
published a recognizable description of the New York form. His statement
that specimens of the form from the State Quarry beds are identical with
the Ithaca form means that he placed the Ithaca variety in the same
species as the State Quarry form; and he then states that Calvin had
described the Iowa form as Rhynchonella alia. The disposition of this
problem is a question. It would seem that inasmuch as he considered the
type locality to be Iowa, and he did not describe a specimen from Iowa,
one can hardly make his New York form take the name. However, he
lumped the two forms in one species, and then presumably described the
species. This is a question that is open to debate.

As to the publication of Williams in 1890 (5), there can be no doubt of its
validating the name, even though he does not seem to have selected the
form that Calvin considered to be typical of his cheironym. That this was
the case is evidenced in Calvin’s faunal lists (6), where he consistently
refuses to call the State Quarry form P. alius, but refers to it as P. pugnus ;
the Lime Creek form he always calls P. altus. Moreover, his own collections

4 See footnote 2.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION HOO, “EES

bear labels consistent with this. However, it is probable that Calvin sent
to Williams specimens from the State Quarry beds, inasmuch as the locality
was very near to his home, and he may have lumped the two forms under
the name R. alia until his later years. He evidently failed to admit that
‘" A specific name, once published, cannot be rejected, even by its author,
because of its inappropriateness’”’ (7). Inasmuch as Calvin did not in
publication disclaim Williams’ crediting him with the name, it would seem
that the name should be credited to him. The whole matter involves the
question as to whether one can credit another with a species without the
other scientist’s sanction; in the absence of statements to the contrary,
one has to assume that credit is correctly applied.
_ It is thus the opinion of the writer that the name of the species of the
genus Pugnoides occurring in the State Quarry beds at Solon, Iowa, should
be Pugnoides altus (Calvin) in Williams, 1890. The writer has rather
strong convictions on the first and last points involved, but questions his
Own opinion on the publication of Williams of 1883. :
References :

(1) Williams, H.S. American Jour. Science, 3rd ser., vol. 25) 1O53-5)- LOO:

(2) Calvin, S. American Jour. Science, 3rd ser., vol. 25, 1883, p. 432.

(3) Opinion 97, Intern. Comm. Zool. Nomencl.; Smithsonian misc. Coll., vol. 73, no. 4,
1926, p. I9.

(4) Williams, H.S. American Journ. Science, 3rd ser., Vol. 23, ser., 1883, p. gg.

(5) Williams, H.S. Bull. geol. Soc. America, vol. 1, 1890, p. 495, pl. 12, figs. 5-7.

(6) Calvin, S. Iowa geol. Survey, vol. 7, 1898, p- 78 and p. 167.

(7) International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, Art. 32.

Il.—THE “PHOTOGRAPHIC PLATES” DISTRIBUTED BY
SAMUEL CALVIN.

3. Commissioner Stiles, in replying (on roth August 1928) to

Professor Marshall Kay’s preliminary communication on this
case, stated that he had examined one of Calvin’s “‘ author’s
separates ’’ of his paper published in 1878 (Bull. U.S. geol. geogr.
Survey 4%: 725-730) (‘Notes on Fossils from the Devonian
Limestones at Independence, Iowa ’’) in the library of the United
States Geological Survey. Commissioner Stiles proceeded as
follows :—
. the separate I saw had a loose photographic plate without name of
author, undated, without scientific name and with no possible clues as to
its origin other than the fact that it was filed with the author’s reprint.
This is not publication in my opinion.

4. On the question of these photographs, Professor Marshall
Kay stated in a letter dated ist October 1928 :—

II6 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

IT am enclosing in this letter two plates,*> one of which, the larger, is
presumably ® the one that you saw in the Geological Survey Office; it is
the smaller one to which I referred. The plate of which I send you a
photographic copy is the only one of its kind now known to exist. At the
time that Thomas and Stainbrook wrote on the species of the genus in
Iowa (1923, Proc. Iowa Acad. Sci. 29 : 93-99), this plate was known to
exist only on this basis: Williams, but particularly Walcott (1884, U.S.
geol. Survey Monogr. 8 : 156) mention R. alta Calvin in synonymy as based
on a printed photographic plate; this plate could not have-been the large
one, one copy of which you have seen, for that plate does not have R. alta
figured, as you will readily see by comparing the two photographic copies.
Therefore Walcott and others must have been referring to the small card.

5. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Stiles (dated 17th
October 1928), Dr. Paul Bartsch, Curator of Mollusks and Cenozoic
Invertebrates, United States National Museum, Washington,
wrote (on 19th October 1928) :—

The small photograph you sent bears at its edge ‘“‘ Recd. from Dr.
T. [homas] H. [uston] Macbride.’’ He was the Professor of Botany’at the
University of Iowa, and later its President. . . . Like Calvin, he was one
of those most remarkable men that occur only about once in a century,
whose stimulating influence had left a lasting impression. upon the entire
student mass that passed through his hands.

May I add that these plates recall my work in geology with Calvin, for
plates of this kind were handed to his classes either as black prints or blue
prints, and my notebook in geology, which I still have, is full of them. I
made many such prints for him, from his negatives for my class use. This
is how I learned my photography, and I am sure all of his older students
have notebooks illustrated in the same manner.

As much as I would like to see a lasting status given to the names ’
here mentioned because they are Calvinian, I am sorry that I must agree
with you that they can only be considered as manuscript names and not as
published material.

6. Both the “ plates”’ furnished by Professor Marshall Kay
were among the papers relating to this case at the time of the
transfer of the Secretariat of the Commission to London, and,
when in 1943 it became evident that the Commission would shortly
render an Ofimion on this case, arrangements were made for a

5 The larger of these “‘ plates ’’ consisted of a print of a photograph of
29 fossils gummed on to a stout piece of cardboard. The smaller of these
“plates ’’ consisted of a piece of cardboard on either side of which was
pasted a print of a photograph; the first of these was a photograph of 33
fossils, the other was a photograph of a printed explanation of the first
photograph. On the right-hand edge of the print of which the present
example was a photograph, a later hand had written the legend: “ Rec’d
from Dry is BE Macbrde) ume 12 19238) .

6 In replying to Professor Marshall Kay (on 17th October 1928), Dr. Stiles
wrote: ‘‘ You are correct in the view that it was the larger plate that I
saw at the Geological Survey. Referring to the smaller plate: personally
I would not look upon this as a publication but would classify it as photo-
graphic manuscript.”

7 The only unpublished name included in the
back of the smaller “‘ plate’? was Rhynchonella alta.

6 Dep

“explanation ’’ on the

Opinions Decl. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 3. | Plate 1.

ORO GwWAPEIC PLATE Y DISTRIBUTED BY SAMUEL
CAILVION 12 SINUIDISINIS ION Ole AIBOWI S735

Facsimile (original size) of a photograph of 33 fossils pasted onto the
upper surface of the piece of cardboard, which constitutes the ‘ photo-
graphic plate.”

NOTE :—It will be observed that, after deciding upon the way in which
the fossils were to be arranged, Calvin wrote in very small figures upon the
piece of paper used as a background the number allotted to each fossil.
The fossils were then placed above (in some cases almost on top of) the
numbers before the photograph was taken. In the course of years, some
of these numbers have become so faint as to be difficult to decypher. The
following key is accordingly given for convenience of reference :—

I 2 3) 4 5)
6 Vi 8 9 10
et 503) 14 12
15 16
17 19 18
21 2B 20 24 22
25 26 27 28 2

39 31 32 33

Opinions Decl. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 8. Plate 2.

Woe aio, OF SOME
DEVONIAN FOSSILS. FROM DARK SHALE,
Recently discovered below the Limes
INDEPENDENCE, sons
By 8 CALVIN, |

. (Figures x 4)
Strophodonta variablils, Calvin

{~ dorsal, R49 ventral vie So
ews.
6, 14, a 20, interior of dorsal va
2, interior al vent :

Strophodonta eanace, “i. an -
(18 ventral, 14 dorsal view.
eee duadrata-

91, 22. yes ieh ‘and ve
_,Produetus Freda

o- 33 dorsal
| Pro Liu:

x PHOTOGRAPHIC PLATE ” DISTRIBUTED BY SAMUEL CALVIN
aac TO STUDENTS EN OK ABOUT (1378.

Facsittitte (original size) of printed note pasted onto the under surface of
the piece of cardboard, which constitutes the “‘ photographic plate,”
giving the names of the fossils illustrated in the photograph pasted onto
the upper surface of the “ plate.”’

The black circle which appears to the left of Calvin’s name in the title
is due to the fact that at some date a hole has been punched through the
reproduction of the ‘‘ photographic plate,’”’ in order to permit of its being
strung on a file of connected documents. The same black circle intersects
the reproduction of the fossil numbered ‘“ 10’’ on the photographic print
pasted onto the front of the ‘‘ photographic plate” (see pl. 1).

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I90. II7

block to be made reproducing the photographs pasted on either
side of the smaller of the two “ plates.’’ The two photographs in
question are accordingly reproduced on the plates (recto on
Plate r: verso on Plate 2) published with the present Opinion.

7. In his letter of 1st October 1928 8 Professor Marshall Kay
had made it clear that the “ plates ’’ which he then furnished to
the Commission in explanation of his petition were not originals
distributed by Calvin but were photographs of originals. He
indicated also that the photograph of the smaller “ plate ’’ was
taken from the only original copy distributed by Calvin known to
be still extant. As it was clearly desirable that in their Opmion
on this case the Commission should be in a position to record the
name of the Institution in which the original of Calvin’s plate was
preserved, Commissioner Francis Hemming (Secretary to the
Commission) wrote a letter on 5th October 1943 to Professor
Marshall Kay asking if he could throw any light upon this matter.
In his reply, dated 12th November 1943, Professor Marshall Kay
stated, znter alia :—

I have learned from Professor M. A. Stainbrook, Texas Technological
_ College, Lubbock, Texas, that he has the card that Calvin printed. This
card was presented by Dr. McBride, an associate of Professor Calvin, to
Professor A. O. Thomas. After the latter’s death in 1931, collections that
were transferred to Professor Stainbrook for study included the card.
Professor Stainbrook writes on November 6th 1943: “I still have the

Calvin collection here but will return them to the University [of Iowa]
when I have finished the fauna.”’

8. At the same time the International Commission considered
how the photographic copy of Calvin’s “ plate ’’ from which the
plates illustrating the present Opinion were prepared might best
be made available for consultation by future students. Accord-
ingly, after consultation with the Director of the United States
Geological Survey, the International Commission decided to offer
this “ plate’ to the United States National Museum. That
offer was accepted by the Museum, which undertook to preserve
the photograph in the files of the Department of Invertebrate
Palaeontology, and thus to make it accessible to students, along
with type specimens and other reference material.

eth SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE: CASE.

g. On receiving the present application, Commissioner Stiles
decided, as a first step, to ascertain whether a specimen regarded

8 See the passage from Professor Marshall Kay’s letter of 1st October
1928 quoted in paragraph 4 above.

I18 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

by Calvin as the type of what he considered to be Rhynchonella
alta was preserved in the Calvin collection. Accordingly, on
1gth April 1929 he wrote to Professor A. O. Thomas, Department
of Geology, State University of Iowa, Iowa City, asking whether
“among the specimens collected by Professor Calvin any par-
ticular specimen was labeled type.’’ In his reply, dated 13th
July 1929, Professor Thomas stated :—

I have very little to contribute, except to say that Dr. Calvin, to my
best knowledge, did not specify a type for this species [1.e. Rhynchonella
alta]. However, he labeled specimens under this name from Solon, from
Independence, and also from Rockford. In my opinion, his original alta
came from Rockford.

Calvin was a “‘ lumper,”’ rather than a “ splitter,’’ and he tried to make
the name alta include things that are quite clearly different. It is difficult
now to be certain, and especially to prove what he may have had in mind.

10. On receiving the foregoing information, Commissioner
Stiles prepared a Circular Letter dealing with this case for cir-
culation to the members of the Commission. Before furnishing
copies of this Circular Letter to the Commission, Commissioner
Stiles communicated a copy for observations to Professor Marshall
Kay, the petitioner in this case. Professor Marshall Kay replied
on 3rd December 1929, offering comments only on certain minor
points of presentation.

rz. At this stage, Commissioner Stiles forwarded the draft
Circular Letter, together with Professor Marshall Kay’s observa-
tions thereon, to Commissioner F. A. Bather for his observations.
With his reply, dated 29th April 1930, Commissioner Bather
enclosed the following memorandum setting out his views on this
case :—

RHYNCHONELLA ALTA

I agree that Calvin’s photographs were not publication. A. alta Calvin,
1876, seems to have no existence even as a cheironym.

fr. alta Calvin, July 1878 (or perhaps later), exists only as a cheironym
on an unpublished photograph.

Williams, 1883, was, strictly speaking, incorrect in stating that “ In
1877 Calvin described under the name Rhynchonella alta a species from the
Iowa beds.’’ ‘The description, or rather figure, dates, so far as the evidence
goes, from 1878 rather than 1876 [as intercalated]; but it was not published
and therefore was not entitled to citation as a “‘ description.”’

The name R. alta was first published in Williams, 1883, and attributed
to ‘‘a species from the Iowa beds.’’ It may be inferred that Williams’
reference to “‘ the central portion of Iowa ”’ includes the locality of R. alta,
but this is not absolutely certain from the immediate context.

Williams, 1883, states that specimens of this FR. alta “‘ are identical with
the variety of R. pugnus in the Ithaca beds.’’ He proceeds to discuss only
the Ithacan var. It is not clear to me that such a statement can count as
a description of fF. alta, especially as we are now told that f&. alta is not

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I90. IIQ

identical with the Ithacan var. Neither is it clear to me that Williams
adopted the name alta for the Ithacan var. in 1883. I should say that
Williams, 1883, merely advanced FR. alia from the status of a M.S. name to
that of a nomen nudum.

Williams, 1890, published the first description (1.e. figure) of FR. alta, but
appears not to have definitely accepted the name, since he used the curious
expression “‘ Rhynchonella pugnus var. called R. alia Calvin.’”?” Anyhow
this for the first time makes RF. alta precise, with a definite type-locality
‘“ Solon, Iowa.’’

If, as we are assured, the species from the Lime Creek beds is not the
same as that from the State Quarry beds, then the practical results of my
interpretation are the same as those of the Secretary.

I would alter the draft of point “2” to read—‘‘ Rhynchonella alta
Williams ex Calvin dates from Williams, 1890, with the Iowa beds, Solon,
Iowa, as type-horizon and locality.”’

12, The foregoing communication, together with the suggestions
made by Professor Marshall Kay in his letter of 3rd December
1929, was thereon incorporated by Commissioner Stiles in the
_ draft of the Circular Letter. In the Circular Letter, as communi-
cated to the members of the Commission in May 1930, Com-
missioner Stiles :—

(i) gave the text of three of the four documents submitted by Professor
Marshall Kay ; 1°
(ii) gave the substance of the information received from :—

(a) Dr. Paul Bartsch regarding Calvin’s habit of distributing
photographs of specimens to his pupils; 1!

(b) Professor A. O. Thomas regarding the material in the Calvin
collection labelled “‘ Rhynchonella alta”’ by Calvin; 1

(ii) described the two photographic “‘ plates’ distributed by Calvin, !8
photographic copies of which had been furnished by Professor
Marshall Kay 1% and expressed the view :—

(a) that the smaller of the two “ plates” 14 i.e. that reproduced on
Plates 1 and 2 of the present Opinion was ‘‘ an example of a
teacher’s pedagogic technique and is not to be considered
' publication: ”’; and

(b) that the larger of the two “ plates,’ a copy of which (he noted)
was also attached to an author’s separate of Calvin’s 1878
paper © preserved in the Library of the United States Geo-
logical Survey (although the photograph in question was not
reproduced in Calvin’s paper as published) was ‘‘ merely an
extension of Calvin’s pedagogic technique and does not con-
stitute publication ”’ ;

(iv) discussed the papers containing the name Rhvnchonella alta pub-
lished by Williams in 1883 and 1890, concluding that this name

® See paragraph 10 above.

*0 The documents here referred to are those quoted in paragraph 2 of
the present Opinion as documents (B), (C), and (D).

11 See paragraph 5 above.

12 See paragraph 9 above.

18 See paragraph 4 above and footnote 5.

‘4 See paragraph 6 above and footnote 5.

*° See paragraph 3 above and footnotes 5 and 6.

I20 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

could be accepted as from the first of these papers, that Calvin
and not Williams should be regarded as the author of this name
and that “‘ the Iowa beds,” Solon, Iowa, should be regarded as
the type locality ;

(v) drew attention to the view expressed by Commissioner Bather that
in his paper of 1883 Williams “ merely advanced F. alta from the
status of a manuscript name to that of a ‘ nomen nudum’’’; that
the name Rhynchonella alta was first published within the meaning
of the Code by Williams in 1890, and that, on the question of
authorship, the name should be attributed to “‘ Williams ex
Calvin 77.0%

(v1) proposed that the present case should be settled at the Session of
the International Commission due to be held at Padua three months
later (i.e. in August 1930) and suggested that any Commissioner
who did not expect to be present at the Padua Session should at
once vote by post on the question whether the distribution of
photographic prints (as by Calvin in the present case) constituted
“publication ’’ within the meaning of the Code and also on the
question whether the name fthynchonella alta should be attributed
to Calvin as from Williams’s paper published in 1883 (as recom-
mended by Commissioner Stiles) or whether that name should be
attributed to ‘‘ Williams, ev Calvin’’ as from Williams’s paper
published in 1890 (as recommended by Commissioner Bather) ;

(vii) added that, if the majority of the Commissioners were to agree with
Commissioner Bather rather than with himself on the second of the
questions indicated in (vi) above, he would “‘ gladly change his vote
to agree with Commissioner Bather’s view.”

13. This question was accordingly considered by the Interna-
tional Commission at their meeting held at Padua on 30th August
1930 (Padua Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 3), when it was
agreed that the case of Rhynchonella alta should be “ tabled
pending the discussion on ‘ publication.’’’ The last-named
question was discussed at later meetings during the Padua Session
but no final decision was reached thereon. Accordingly, no
further progress was achieved during the Padua Session in regard
to the case of Kkhynchonella alta.

14. This case was reviewed by Commissioner Stiles in January
1931 in the light of the postal votes received from Commissioners.
The position then was that seven (7) Commissioners (Bather,
Chapman, Handlirsch, Ishikawa, Jordan (K.), Stejneger and
Stone), in addition to Commissioner Stiles himself, had voted in
favour of the proposition that the distribution of photographic
prints with names attached thereto (such as the photographic
print with the name Rhynchonella alta distributed by Calvin) did
not constitute “‘ publication ’’ within the meaning of the Code.
As regards the second of the two questions on which Commissioners
had been asked to vote,!” five (5) Commissioners (Chapman,

16 See paragraph 11 above.
17 See paragraph 12(vi) above.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I9QO. I2I

banalirseh, jordan (K)), Stejneger and Stone) had voted in
favour of the view recommended by Commissioner Bather and
one (1) Commissioner (Ishikawa) had voted in favour of the view
recommended by Commissioner Stiles. In view of the foregoing,
Commissioner Stiles made the following note on the papers
relating to this case: “‘ The Secretary [i.e. Commissioner Stiles
himself] now changes his vote to concur with Commissioner
Bather’s opinion.’’ Commissioner Stiles’s alternative proposal
was thereby withdrawn and the vote in the Commission on this
case accordingly became unanimous.

15. Before proceeding to draft an Opinion setting out the view
accepted by the eight (8) Commissioners who had so far voted on
this case, Commissioner Stiles decided that it was desirable, if
possible, to determine with certainty the meaning of the expression
“ the Ithaca beds ’’ as used by Williams in his paper published in
1883, to which reference had been made by Commissioner Bather
ims memorandum of 29th April 1930.1° On this point Dr.
G. Arthur Cooper, United States National Museum, Washington,
stated in a letter dated 21st February 1931 :—

In Williams’s paper of 1883 he appears to use the term ‘‘ Ithaca”’ in the
sense of a geographical and stratigraphical term. It is my belief that he
refers to the horizon at Ithaca which is the equivalent of the High Point
Sandstone. The Ithaca formation or member, a stratigraphical term, is far
below the horizon of the High Point Sandstone.

16. No further progress was made before the Session of the
International Commission held at Lisbon in September 1935,
apart from a suggestion made by Commissioner Stiles in March
of that year that this case should be dealt with by the Commission
at their Lisbon Session. Unfortunately, this course was not
found to be practicable, since, owing to the absence of Com-
missioner Stiles through ill-health, the papers relating to this
case were not available at Lisbon for study by the Commission.
The resignation by Commissioner Stiles of the Secretaryship of
the Commission, which then took place, led to further delays, first
during the period in which the election of his successor was taking
place, and second owing to the need for the transfer of the records
of the Commission consequent upon the establishment of the
Secretariat of the Commission in London. This case had therefore
not been brought to a conclusion when in September 1939 the
outbreak of war in Europe led to the temporary suspension of the
work of the Commission.

18 See paragraph 11 above.

I22 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

17. When, however, circumstances made it possible in 1942 to
reopen the Secretariat of the Commission and to resume work on
outstanding applications, the case of Rhynchonella alta was re-
viewed by Commissioner Francis Hemming (Secretary to the
Commussion), who thereupon voted in the same sense as the eight
(8) Commissioners referred to in paragraph 14 above. At the
same time Commissioner Hemming addressed communications to
all Commissioners who had not yet voted on this case and who
were resident in countries at that time accessible by post. As the
result of these communications four (4) additional Commissioners
(do Amaral, Calman, Dymond, and Peters) had by 15th February
1944 voted in favour of the proposed decisions in this case. |

18. When the position as regards this case was reviewed by the
Secretary to the International Commission on 15th February
1944, the number of votes received from Commissioners already
exceeded the number required to secure the adoption of the
present Opinion, and accordingly the Secretary to the International
Commission, acting in virtue of the powers conferred upon him in
that behalf by Article 7 of the By-Laws, closed the ballot on the
issues raised in the case submitted by Professor Marshall Kay.

19. At their Session held in Lisbon in 1935 (Lisbon Session,
4th Meeting, Conclusion 15 1%), the International Commission
agreed “‘ that, when the Commission reached a decision of interest
to the general body of zoologists, it was of the greatest importance
that that decision should be presented in such a way as to ensure
that it was most readily available to all concerned.’”’ When
therefore on 15th February 1944 ?° the International Commission
reached decisions on the questions submitted by Professor Marshall
Kay, it was decided that those decisions should be rendered in two
Opinions, the first being concerned with the status of the name
Rhynchonella alta, the second with the general question of prin-
ciple settled by the decision taken on that case.

20. In accordance with the foregoing decision, the particulars
relating to the status of the name Rhynchonella alta, together with
the decision of the International Commission thereon, have been
embodied in the present Ofimion, while the decision of the Com-
mission on the general question of principle settled at the same
time as the decision on the above case has been embodied in
Opinion Tol.

19 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 3 40.
20 See paragraph 18 above.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I90. 123

IV.-_THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION. |

21. The decision taken by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature in the present case is :—

(i) that the name Rhynchonella alta as a name for a species
of the Class Brachiopoda has no status as from the date
in or about 1878 in which a printed note containing
that name in explanation of a photograph attached
thereto was distributed by Samuel Calvin to students
attending his lectures or to colleagues or was attached
by Calvin to separates of his paper published in 1878
entitled ““ Notes on Fossils from Devonian Limestones
at Independence, Iowa ’’ (Calvin, 1878, Bull. U.S. geol.
geogr. Survey 4& (3) : 725-730), in which the name
Rhynchonella alta did not appear ;

(2) that the name Rhynchonella alta was first published
within the meaning of proviso (a) of Article 25 of the
International Code by Williams (H. S.), in 1890 (Bull.
geol. Soc. America 1: 405 pl. 12 figs. 5-7) ;

(3) that the name of the species referred to in (2) above is
therefore Rhynchonella alta Williams (ex Calvin), 1890;

(4) that the type-horizon and locality of this species is the
“Towa beds, Solon, Iowa.’’

22. The following thirteen (13) Commissioners voted in favour
of the present Opinion :—

do Amaral; Bather; Calman; Chapman; Dymond; Handlirsch ;
Hemming; Ishikawa; Jordan (K.); Peters; Stejneger ;
Stiles; and Stone.

23. No Commissioner voted against the present Opinion.

24. The following four (4) Commissioners did not vote on the
present Opinion :—Cabrera; Esaki; Pellegrin; and Richter.
In addition four (4) Commissioners (Arndt, di Caporiacco, Hanko,
and Jaczewski), who were elected members of the Commission
during the concluding stages of the present case, did not take
part in its consideration.

25. During the discussion of the present case, three (3) Com-
missioners (Fantham, Jordan (D. S.), Stephenson) died, and

I24 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

five (5) Commissioners (Apstein, Bolivar y Pieltain, Horvath,
Silvestri and Warren) resigned, without having recorded their
votes.

V.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving
the suspension of the rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have
been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a
majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten (10)
Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in
favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion
involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com-
mission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of
at least fourteen Members of the Commission voting on the same
before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the
Commission; and

WHEREAS the present Opinion as set out in the summary thereof,
neither requires, in order to be valid, the suspension of the rules,
nor involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the
Commission; and

WHEREAS thirteen (13) Members of the Commission have signi-
fied their concurrence in the present Opinion :

Now, THEREFORE,

I, Francis Hemminc, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Ofimion on behalf of the Inter-
national Commission, acting for the International Congress of
Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Ninety (Ofinion 190) of the said
Commission.

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Ofimion.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I9QO. 125

DoNnE in London, this twentieth day of November, Nineteen
Hundred and Forty Four, in a single copy, which shall remain

deposited in the archives of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

I26 OPINIONS AND DEGLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal has been established by the International Com-
mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for
the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
International Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the
Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the
Bulletin under (a) above; and

The Bulletin was established in 1943, in which year three Parts
were published. Part 4 was published in 1944 and Parts 5 and 6

in 1945.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The above work is being published in three volumes con-
currently, namely :— |

Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which
have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the
original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-20 (contain-
ing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions I-11) have now been published.
Further Parts will be published shortly.

Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising
all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their
meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with
Roman pagination) and Opinions 134-181 (with Arabic pagina-
tion). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume.
Parts I-35, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-165,
have now been published. Further Parts will be published
shortly.

Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182,
will contain the Ofimions adopted by the International Commis-
sion since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-11 (containing
Opinions 182-192) have now been published. Further Parts will
be published as soon as possible.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I90. 127

APPEAL FOR FUNDS :

The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions
and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen-
clature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s
Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required
to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting
printing, donations amounting to £969 16s. id. were received
up to 30th June 1945. Additional contributions are urgently
needed in order to enable the Commission to continue their work
without interruption. Contributions of any amount, however
small, will be most gratefully received.

Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at
their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and
made payable to the ‘‘ International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature or Order’’ and crossed ‘ Account payee. Coutts
& Co.”’.

ey ut

CPdR ROL Le our RAIOMITO re a ioe

ne ¢ AW tis . vig oie i i a pe i f f 0
| esti TO BR ah. ah ase
Evijgaiy ni Asinea gets vino anal |
at ee ORT Wel oat OF habe
Ay. es oe ‘eof anibiadne at
Sine h |

aid

Re,

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

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

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 3. Part 10. Pp. 129-136.

OPINION 191

On the question whether the use of a new name

in explanation of a photograph or other illus-

tration distributed by an author to students or

colleagues constitutes “ publication ’’ within

the meaning of proviso (a) to Article 25 of the
International Code

LONDON:

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1945
Price one shilling and sixpence

Issued 21st August, 1945

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Vice-President: Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A.).

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). ;

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).

Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).

Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.) ;

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

ee Jen

CA ah
at \\ ar

. — “ OAT
on, ms +6) Pe 4 (} fi —
BES eras }

OPINION 191.

ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE USE OF A NEW NAME
IN EXPLANATION OF A PHOTOGRAPH OR OTHER ILLUSTRA-
TION DISTRIBUTED BY AN AUTHOR TO STUDENTS OR
#OLLEAGUES CONSTITUTES ‘* PUBLICATION ’’ WITHIN THE
MEANING OF PROVISO (a) TO ARTICLE 25 OF THE INTER-
NATIONAL CODE.

SUMMARY.—The use of a new name in a note (whether printed
or otherwise) in explanation of a photograph or other illustration
of an organism does not constitute publication within the meaning
of proviso (a) of Article 25 of the International Code, where the
author concerned does no more than distribute copies of the ex-
planatory note and of the photograph or other illustration (i) to
students attending his lectures or (ii) to his colleagues or (iii) than
attach copies of the note and of the photograph or other illustration
when distributing separates of a paper dealing with the subject
but not containing the new name in question.

Pha StALEMENT OF THE CASE.

The question whether the use of a new name in explanation of
a photograph or other illustration distributed by an author to
his students or to colleagues (either (i) with copies of separates
of a paper dealing with the subject but not containing the new
name in question or (11) otherwise) constitutes publication within
the meaning of proviso (a) to Article 25 of the International Code
was placed before the International Commission.on Zoological
Nomenclature on 20th February, 1929, by Professor G. Marshall
Kay, Columbia University in the City of New York.

2. The particular case with which Professor Marshall Kay was
then concerned was the name Rhynchonella alta which had been
used by Samuel Calvin for a species of the Class Brachiopoda in a
printed list of names pasted on to a piece of cardboard on the
other side of which was a photograph of a number of fossils, to

which numbers had been affixed and to one of which the name
Rhynchonella alta was applied.

Mette SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

3. At their Session held in Lisbon in 1935 (Lisbon Session, 4th
Meeting, Conclusion 15 4) the International Commission agreed

1 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 40.

I32 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

“that, when the Commission reached a decision of interest to the
general body of zoologists, it was of the greatest importance that
that decision should be presented in such a way as to ensure that
it was most readily available to all concerned.’’ When therefore
on 15th February 1944 the International Commission reached
decisions on the questions submitted by Professor Marshall Kay,
it was decided that those decisions should be rendered in two
Opinions, the first being concerned with the particular case of
Rhynchonella alta,* the second with general principle settled by
the decision taken on that case.

4. In accordance with the foregoing decision, the particulars
relating to the case of Rhynchonella alta, together with the
decision of the International Commission thereon, has been
embodied in Opinion 190.2 In the same Opinion, plates are given
illustrating the photographs pasted on to the piece of cardboard
which was distributed by Samuel Calvin, on which pee the
name RKhynchonella alta.

5. The present Opinion is concerned therefore solely swith the
question of principle raised by the case submitted by Professor
Marshall Kay.

6. As explained in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the vote on the
interpretation of proviso (a) to Article 25 in relation to the
question whether the use of new names in explanation. of photo-
graphs, etc., distributed by authors to students or colleagues
constitutes ‘“‘ publication ’’ was taken concurrently with the vote
on the question of the status of the name Rhynchonella alta as
used by Calvin in or about 1878 in explanation of a photograph of
a fossil brachiopod distributed by him to his students. A decision
on either of these cases necessarily involved a decision on the
other. When therefore on 15th February 1944, the Secretary to
the Commission, acting in virtue of the powers conferred upon
him in that behalf by Article 7 of the By-Laws, closed the ballot
on the case of Rhynchonella alta,® he closed also the ballot on the
present case.

IIJl.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION.

7. The decision taken by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature in the present case is :— |
2 See Opinion 190 (1945, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,3 : 109-128).
- See Lookaote 2:

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION IQI. 133

that the use of a new name in a note (whether printed or
otherwise) in explanation of a photograph or other illustra-
tion of an organism does not constitute publication within the
meaning of proviso (a) of Article 25 of the International Code,
where the author concerned does no more than distribute
copies of the explanatory note and of the photograph or
other illustration (1) to students attending his lectures or (ii)
to his colleagues or (ili) than attach copies of the note and of
the photograph or other illustration when distributing separ-
ates of a paper dealing with the subject but not containing
the new name in question.

8. The following thirteen (13) Commissioners voted in favour of
the present Opinion :—

do Amaral; Bather; Calman; Chapman; Dymond; Hand-
lirsch; Hemming; Ishikawa; Jordan (K.); Peters; Stej-
neger; Stiles; and Stone.

9. No Commissioner voted against the present Opinion.

10. The following four (4) Commissioners did not vote on the
present Opinion :—Cabrera; Esaki; Pellegrin; and Richter.
In addition four (4) Commissioners (Arndt, di Caporiacco, Hanko,
and Jaczewski), who were elected members of the Commission
during the concluding stages of the present case, did not take part
in its consideration.

iz. During the discussion of the present case, three (3) Com-
missioners (Fantham, Jordan (D. S.), Stephenson) died, and
five (5) Commissioners (Apstein, Bolivar y Pieltain, Horvath,
Silvestri and Warren) resigned, without having recorded their
votes.

ie UTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE. PRESENT
3 OPINION.

WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving
the suspension of the rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have been
adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a
majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten (10)
Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in
favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion
involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com-
mission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of at

I34 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

least fourteen Members of the Commission voting on the same
before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the
Commission; and

WHEREAS the present Ofimion, as set out in the summary
thereof, neither requires, in order to be valid, the suspension of
the rules, nor involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered
by the Commission; and

WHEREAS thirteen (13) Members of the Commission have signi-
fied their concurrence in the present Opinion :

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FrRANcis HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the Inter-
national Commission, acting for the International Congress of
Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Ninety One (Ofinion 191) of the said
Commission.

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Opinion.

Done in London, this twentieth day of November, Nineteen
Hundred and Forty Four, in a single copy, which shall remain
deposited in the archives of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION IOI. 135

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal has been established by the International Com-
mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for
the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
International Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the
Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the
Bulletin under (a) above; and

The Bulletin was established in 1943, in which year three Parts
were published. Part 4 was published in 1944 and Parts 5 and 6

» iM 1945.
Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The above work is being published in three volumes con-
currently, namely :—

Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising
all the decisioms taken by the International Commission at their
meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with
Roman pagination) and Ofimions 134-181 (with Arabic pagina-
tion). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume.
Parts 1-35, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-165,
have now been published. Further Parts will be published
shortly.

Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182,
will contain the Opinions adopted by the International Commis-
sion since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-11 (containing
Opinions 182-192) have now been published. Further Parts will
be published as soon as possible.

136 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

APPEAL FOR FUNDS

The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions
and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen-
clature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s
Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required
to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting
printing, donations amounting te £969 16s. 1d. were received
up to 30th June 1945. Additional contributions are urgently
needed in order to enable the Commission to continue their work
without interruption. Contributions of any amount, however
small, will be most gratefully received.

Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at
their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and
made payable to the ‘°‘ International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed ‘*‘ Account payee. Coutts
& Co.’’.

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD.,
BuNGAY, SUFFOLK

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

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

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 3. Part 11. Pp. 137-160.

OPINION 192

Suspension of the rules for Nummulites Lamarck,
1801 (Class Rhizopoda, Order Foraminifera)

LONDON:

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1945
Price six shillings

ATT TT IT A RE EIST GE SPORADIC A ET ERLE SL ESS
Ft
| Issued 21st August, 1945

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A.).

Class 1949

Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).

Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.). |

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

]

OPINION 192.

SUSPENSION OF THE RULES FOR NUMMULITES LAMARCK,
1801 (CLASS RHIZOPODA, ORDER FORAMINIFERA).

SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules (i) the name
Camerina Brugiére, 1789, is hereby suppressed for all purposes
other than Article 34 of the International Code and (ii) the name
Nummulites Lamarck, 1801 (Class Rhizopoda, Order Foramini-
fera) is validated with Camerina laevigata Brugiére, 1789, as type.
The name Nummulites Lamarck, 1801, so validated, is hereby
added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name
No. 628.

.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

This case, together with that of the names Lepidocyclina
Giimbel, [1879],1 and Cyclosiphon Ehrenberg, 1856, was submitted
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by
Commissioner Frederick Chapman, Commonwealth | Palaeon-
tologist, National Museum, Melbourne, Australia, in the following
letter dated 12th December 1928 :—

I would like to propose the suspension of the rule of priority on account
of two well-known genera—Lepidocyclina and Nummulites. They have
lately been superseded by J. J. Galloway and J. A. Cushman respectively.

The changes they propose would be against the best interests of rational
nomenclature.

Il.—_ THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

2. On receipt of the foregoing application, Dr. C. W. Stiles,
Secretary to the International Commission, decided as a first
step to consult certain specialists interested in this case either
directly from the point of view of systematic zoology or indirectly
from that of geological surveying. The replies in most instances
covered not only the present case but also the case of Lepido-
cyclina Giimbel and Cyclosipbhon Ehrenberg. The replies received

1 In Opinion 127 dealing with the name Lepidocyclina Giimbel, the date
of publication of that name was given as 1868, the year of the volume of
the Abh. bayer. Akad. Wiss., in which that name was published. It has

since been ascertained that the portion of that volume containing this name
was not published until 1870 (see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 9).

I40 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

in respect of the last-named case are quoted in full in Opinion 127
relating to that case, together with the replies which related both
to that case and to the present case. So much as is necessary of
the latter replies is quoted below, together with one communica-
tion which referred only to the present case :—

(a) Comment by Dr. Edward Willard Berry, Assistant State
Geologist, Maryland Geological Survey, Johns Hopkins
University, Baltimore, Md., dated 6th February 1929.

I understand that there is pending before the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature the decision whether to retain the generic use
of Nummulites and Lepidocyclina. I wish to go on record as being in favor
of retaining these two genera in the classification.

(b) Comment by Dr. George Otis Smith, Director of the U.S. Geo-
logical Survey, Washington, D.C., dated 11th February 1920.

The proposition for suspension of the rules in zoological nomenclature
for the purpose of retaining the two generic names Lepidocyclina and
Nummulites has been considered by all the Geological Survey palaeontolo-
gists now in Washington whose work involves the use of zoological names.
While the workers of this group subscribe to the rule of priority for general
use they are unanimous in their recommendation that the rule should be
suspended in its application to the two names above mentioned so that
they may be continued in use.

Enclosures to the letter received from Dr. George Otus Smith

(1) Comment by L. W. Stephenson

In the case of a generic name which has been in long and general usage there seems
nothing to be lost and much to be gained by retaining it, even though some one may
discover that an older, practically unknown name has priority over it. I therefore
recommend that Nummulites and Lepidocyclina be given validity by the International
Commission. I feel, however, that exceptions should be made only in extreme cases such
as the ones here presented.

(ii) Comment by T. W. Stanton
I concur in the above statement.

(111) Comment by Edwin Kirk, C. Wythe Cooke, W. G Mansfield, and Chas. Butts
Concur.

(iv) Comment by George H. Girty

Agreed, both as to making exceptions only in extreme cases and as applied here to
Nummulites and Lepidocyclina.

(v) Comment by John B. Reeside, Jr. (dated 25th January 1929)

I believe that the substitution of Camerina, almost entirely unused and unknown, for
Nummulites, extensively used for over a century, is a useless bit of hair-splitting legal
procedure. It will lead to more confusion than clarity. . . . I can see no profit whatever
in going back into the literature of the dim past to dig up names that have only the legal
show of validity and using them to replace widely used and well understood terms. Let
us keep Nummulites .. .

(vi) Comment by P. V. Roundy (dated 5th February 1929)
I agree with the above statement.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 192. I4I

(vii) Comment by Chas. Butts on note by John B. Reeside Jr., (see also (iii) above)
Amen and again Amen.

(viii) Comment by E. O. Ulrich (dated 29th January 1929)

In cases in which the confusion arising from the resurrection of an older name is
obviously to the disadvantage of the science, especially as in the case under consideration
in which no good save the questionably earned rights to Ehrenberg [in the case of Cyclo-
siphon] and Brugieére [in the case of Camerina] appear to offset the ill it would do the
science, I am opposed to replacing a well known and generally used name by an older
one that never attained common usage. Therefore I am in favor of retaining Lepido-
cyclina and Nummulites..

(c) Comment by Dr. Joseph A. Cushman, Cushman Laboratory
for Foraminiferal Research, Sharon, Mass., U.S.A. (for-
warded under cover of a letter dated 27th May 19209).

Camerina—Nummulites

~Camerina Brugiére, 1792

_ See Brugiére, Encyclopedie Méthodique, Histoire naturelle des Vers, Paris,
1792, PP. 395-400. !

Brugiére names four species under the genus, of which the first (p. 399),
Camerina laevigata Brugiere, should be taken as the genotype.?

The species Camerina laevigata Brugiere is definitely named and described
at length with numerous references to previous figures. Numerous
localities are given.

Camerina laevigata is figured by Héricart de Thury, Journ. Depart. Oise,
Ann. VIII, 1800, p. 83, pl., figs. 1. a-g, 4, 5.3

Nummulites laevigata Lamarck, Syst. Anim. sans Vert. &c., 1801, p. IoTr,
given below “ Nummulites laevigata Br.”’ and at the end of the synonymy
“ Camerina Br.’’ He uses Brugiere’s specific name, and places the earlier
genus Camerina as a Synonym under his Nummulites.

Nummutlites laevigata Lamarck, Ann. Mus. 1804, 5 : 241, notes ‘“‘ Camer-
ine lisse, Brug. No. 1’ and elsewhere in this paper refers to other species
of Brugiere and to his remarks on Camerina.

The species ““ Nummulites laevigata Lamarck ”’ is referred to and used as
a good species, but should be credited to Brugiere and not to Lamarck.
Lamarck recognized Camerina as a synonym of his Nummulites, but like
many early authors preferred for some reason to give a new name rather
than recognize the earlier generic name of Brugiere. In like manner,
d’Orbigny in 1826, Ann. Sci. nat. 1826, 7: 295, gave a new generic name
Nummulina and gives as the first species “‘ Nummulina laevigata’ credited
to Lamarck, placing in the synonymy ‘“‘ Nummulites laevigata Lamarck ”’
with references.

2 When later Dr. Stiles circulated this communication to the members
of the Commission (see paragraph 3 below), he drew attention to the fact
that Camerina laevigata Brugiere is not the type of Camerina Brugiére
by original designation.

3 As Dr. Stiles was unable to obtain a copy of this work in Washington,
he applied for further assistance to Dr. Cushman, who replied (3rd July
1929): ‘‘ Sherborn says in his Bibliography : ‘ Not seen: This Journal is
extremely rare: Particulars of the paper will be found in d’Archiac and
Haime.’ Herefers to Archiac and Haime, Description des Animauzx fossiles
du groupe nummulitique de l Inde, précéde d’un résumé géologique et d’une
Monographie des Nummulites. 2 vols. 4to. Paris, 1, 1853: 2, 1854.
373 pp., 30 plates. I have not seen the first work and do not know that
it can be obtained in America. If Sherborn did not see it, that is sure proof
that it is very rare.”

®
I42 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Of very definite importance in this connection is the review of this
whole problem of Camevina Brugiere, Nummulites Lamarck and Nummulina
d’Orbigny by Meek and Hayden in Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge,
172, 1864, Palaeontology of the Upper Missouri, where on pp. 11-13 they
discuss older names. They propose there the family name CAMERINIDAE.
They also give very good and sound reasons for using priority there.
Camerina was evidently used by Cuvier, 1798, and Lamarck, 1799 with
laevigata Brugiere before the name Nummulites was even proposed. It
seems a Clear case that there is no standing according to the rules for either
Nummulites or Nummulina. If the rules are to be set aside so that Num-
mulites based on the genotype of Camerina will take its place, I see no
particular use of the rules at all. If it were an obscure case as in Lepido-
cyclina and Cyclosiphon there might be some justification in retaining the
later name, but there is nothing but a very clear case. It simmers down to
whether or not the rules shall be suspended to conserve names from length
of usage alone.

It may be said in this connection that the older ““ Nummulites ” has been
split into numerous other genera at the present time, and the original name
covers only a part of the older generic concept at best. The change to the
older Camerina is therefore not so radical as might be thought by those
whose unfamiliarity with the group probably makes them suppose that the
whole group is still called “‘ Nummulites.”’ I favor the use of the rules and
the preservation of Camerina Brugiere as advocated by Meek and Hayden
in 1864 as noted above.

3. The petition in this case, together with the comments
thereon quoted in paragraph 2 above, was communicated to the
members of the Commission by Dr. Stiles in August 1929. To

these data, Dr. Stiles added the following note prepared by
himself :—

The essential bibliographic data in the case of Nummuzlites as verified by
the Secretary are as follows :—

Camerina Brugiere, 1792, Encyc. méth. Hist. nat. Vers, v. 1, 395-400.
No indication (‘‘ rigidly construed ’’) of type species but in the discussion
of the first species (Camerina laevigata) is found the statement “‘ Cette
espece est la plus commune de toutes et la plus généralement répandue ”’
(cf. Art. 30. h.j.n.); and in the synonymy of the second species (C.. stviata)
is found the statement “ elle est de celles qui portent communement lenom
de pierres lenticulaires’’ (cf. Art. 30.n.). The third species (C. tuberculata)
is described by comparison with the first and second (cf. Art. 30.r.), and the
statement is made that Guettard seems to have considered it only a
variety. The name of the fourth species (C. nummularis) is obviously
based upon one of the vernacular names, “‘ pierre numismale.”’

Nummulites Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. sans Vert,, 101, mt.4 Num-
mulites laevigata, quotes Camerina Brug. as a synonym. From this paper
alone the evidence is not quite clear whether Lamarck deliberately renames
Camerina or whether he simply eliminates ® laevigata from the genus
Camerina to Nummulites.

Lamarck, 1804, Ann. Mus. nat. Hist. nat., v. 5, 237-242, cites under

4 The expression “ Mt.’’ here placed in front of the name Nummutliies
laevigata signifies that that was the only species cited by Lamarck and
therefore that the genus Nummulites Lamarck is monotypical.

> The word “ eliminate’’ as here used has the same significance as
though the word “ transfer ’’ had here been used, as it is in fact so used in
the two succeeding paragraphs.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 192. 143

Nummulites four species, i.e., 1. laevigata, 2. globularia, 3. scabva (? =

synonym of Camerina tuberculata), 4. complanata (= Camerina nummularia
renamed). It is obvious that at least two of the original species (/aevigata
and nummularia) have now been transferred to Nummulites; the transfer,
of tuberculata appears probable. It is not clear to the Secretary that

globularia is intended as a synonym of striata. (The species stviata was
transferred to Nummulites by d’Orbigny, 1850, v. 2, 406; globulana is

syn. of laevigata, fide d’Archiac & Haime, 1853, 103). |.

Lamarck, 1822, Hist. nat. Anim. sans Vert. vol. 7, pp. 627-630, makes it
clear that his genus Nummulites is Camevina renamed and he quotes the
same four species which he quoted in 1804; Jaevigata, scabra, and compla-
nata retain the same status as in 1804, while it still remains apparently
impossible to identify Brugiere’s second species (globularia) with striata.
Accordingly the Secretary has no evidence that stviata was transferred by
Lamarck to Nummulites. The Secretary inclines to the view that Num-
mulites is Camerina renamed and since laevigata is monotype of Num-
mulites it becomes type of Camerina under Art. 30.f.

It is furthermore to be noticed that later authors have interpreted
Nummulites as a direct renaming of Camerina and the Secretary is not
inclined to contest this interpretation. For instance, Deshayes, 1830,
Encyc. méth. Hist. nat. Vers, vol. 2, p. 178, states definitely that Num-
mulites is Camerina renamed.

D’Orbigny, 1826, deliberately renamed Nummulites as Nummulina on
the ground that living species as well as fossils had become known, while the
name Nummulites was based upon the premise (cf. Lamarck, 1804) that all
known species of the genus were fossils. Thus, laevigata is by renaming
(Art. 30.f.) the type of Nummulina and the latter is an objective synonym
of Nummulites.

While authors generally have adopted Nummulites instead of Camerina,
Meek & Hayden, 1864, Smiths. Contr. to Knowl., no. 172, pp. 11-13 discussed
the synonymy and history of the generic names and gave preference to
Camerina on which they based the family name CAMERINIDAE.

Commissioner Apstein (1913, Nom. consevvanda : 121)® recommended the
acceptance of Nummulites, but did not cite a type species.

4. Dr. Stiles added also the following general observations on
the problems raised by the present case :—

The Secretary would suggest that, since this case is of such interest and
importance to geologists and palaeontologists, it would be well if the
Commissioners would find it convenient to consult specialists in these
fields in their own countries prior to their formulation of final opinion.

So far as the Secretary understands the case at present, this is:a clear
case of Law of Priority—but without transfer of names to type species not
originally included under the generic name. Therefore it is quite different
from cases like Tvichecus versus Manatus (Opinion 112), from Holothuria
(Opinion 80), and Simia (Opinion 114); but it appears to the Secretary to
be a case which involves the broad question of economics as applied to
nomenclature; i.e. when a name is in general use, especially in fields other
than strictly zoological, a change of name on basis of the Law of Priority
places allied subjects (as geology, medicine, law) at a disadvantage and
involves an actual financial loss as expressed in time, publication, records,
etc. resulting inconfusion. At the present day when because of the world’s
economic condition science finds itself at a distinct financial disadvantage

6 The paper by Commissioner Apstein here referred to is that which
forms the subject of Opinion 74.

I44 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

it would appear to the Secretary that the question of confusion becomes
doubly important.

At the same time, the first two sentences in the final paragraph in the
statement of Dr. Cushman appear to the Secretary to be very important.

5. On 5th November 1929 Commissioner Chapman addressed
a further letter to the Commission, with which he transmitted
the following note setting out the views on this case expressed by
other workers and specialists in Australia :—7

(a) Comment by Professor Walter Howchin, F.G.S., Hon. Prof.
Ementus, Geology and Palaeontology in the University of Adelaide

I am heartily in accord with you for the retention of the generic names
Nummulites and Lepidocyclina. These names have become so thoroughly
incorporated in the literature of Foraminifera that their substitution would
involve serious inconvenience and confusion, priority notwithstanding. I
hope that the exceptions you suggest will be agreed to.

(b) Comment by W. J. Parr, F.R.M.S., State Treasury, Victoria
(co-author on Foraminifera of the Mawson Expedition)

I think that the genera Nummulites Lamarck and Lepidocyclina Giimbel
should be retained as nomina conservanda in place of the earlier Camerina
Brugiere and Cyclosiphon Ehrenberg.

I am generally opposed to the suspension of the rules, but unlike the
other Foraminifera genera which have been superseded recently, Lepido-
cychna and Nummulites have been much used in general geological litera-
ture and a change to the older genera would certainly lead to much con-
fusion which it is desirable to avoid.

I am in thorough agreement with the retention of Nummulites and
Lepidocyclina. By doing so the literature becomes intelligible at a glance
and unconfused by the rules of nomenclature. Expressed in terms of time
saved, such has a true economic value; confusion and uncertainty must
obviously accompany a reversion to the strict order of priority.

There remains, then, the question of sentiment. Brugiere and Ehren-
berg, the aggrieved authorities, have long passed away, but there is no
question of depriving them of their priority. These unselfish pioneers
would not have condoned for a moment the waste of time and confusion
that would ensue in establishing their presumed right to priority.

(d) Comment by Miss Irene Crespin, B.A., Assistant Palaeonto-
logist, Commonwealth of Australia, National Museum, Melbourne

As far as the two genera, Nummulites and Lepidocyclina, are concerned,
I would emphatically support the retention of these names by a suspension
of the rules.

? For the reasons explained in paragraph 2 of the present Opinion, the
case of Nummulites Lamarck versus Camevina Brugiere was in its early
stages considered by the Commission concurrently with that of Lepido-
cyclina Giimbel versus Cyclosiphon Ehrenberg. MHence the references to
both these cases in,the document here quoted.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 192. 145

(e) Comment by A.C. Collins, Public W orks Department, Melbourne
(a student of the Victorian Tertiary Foraminifera)

I should like to express my personal opinion that the generic names
Lepidocyclina Gimbel and Nummulites Lamarck should be retained in
preference to earlier names. As these names are so widely used in strati-
graphic references, their alteration would, I think, create confusion amongst
non-specialists in the group, and I see no useful purpose to be served (in.
these cases) by the rigid application of the rules of nomenclature.

(1) Comment by Fredk. A. Singleton, M.Sc., Lecturer on Agricultural
Geology and Curator of the Geological Museum, Melbourne
University

My formal opinion concerning Nummulites and Lepidocyclina is that
both should be placed on the official list of nomina conservanda and it is
impossible to reject one and not the other, Cyclosiphon having stronger
claims than Camerina.

6. In February 1931 Dr. Stiles reported to the Commission
that ten (10) Commissioners had recorded their votes on this case
in response to the invitation contained in the document which in
August 1929 he had circulated to the members of the Commission
(paragraphs 3 and 4 above). Seven (7) Commissioners (Apstein,
Bather, Chapman, Handlirsch, Horvath, Silvestri and Warren)
had voted in favour of the suspension of the rules to preserve
Nummutites Lamarck ; three (3) Commissioners (Jordan, Stephen-
son and Stone) had voted against ‘that course. Two only of the
Commissioners concerned had furnished statements setting out
the grounds on which they based their position. These state-
ments were as follows :—

(a) Statement by Commissioner F. A. Bather (with his affirma-
tive vote) :

I could wish that the rules might take their course, if only Nummulites
could be retained somewhere in the system, as a group name or as an
omnibus name; such as Ammonites. Thus the textbook use and the
geological use, e.g. Nummuliten Kalk, would remain. If Dr. Cushman
had given the facts in his final paragraph, he might have strengthened his
position. The facts, as supplied by Prof. Morley Davies, incline me to
accept the view of the majority. Mr. Wrigley, who is working on the
Eocene of England, and Mr. Heron-Allen, an authority on the Foramini-
’ fera, would suspend: the rules to avoid confusion. Mr. C. P. Chatwin,
a palaeontologist of the Geological Survey, agrees with Dr. Cushman’s final
paragraph, and would keep to the rules. .

(b) Statement by C ommissioner Witmer Stone (with his negative
vote) : ;

The privilege of asking for a suspension of the rules is in danger of being
abused. I should advocate it only in cases (1) that are so involved that

146 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

various interpretations are possible or (2) that seriously affect fields and
activities outside of pure zoological nomenclature. With too much
leniency, our whole system will become utterly inconsistent. I regard Dr.
Cushman’s point of great importance. In ornithology it would appear to
be a very serious matter to overthrow or change the application of the
Linnean genus Picus but as a matter of fact there is, I believe, only one
woodpecker left in that genus today.

7. Up to this stage Dr. Stiles himself had not voted on this case,
but now in the hope of bringing the matter to a definite issue, he
ranged himself with those who favoured the suspension of the rules
for Nummulites Lamarck and brought forward a formal motion
that the Commission should render an Ofznion in that sense.

8. One of the authorities whom Dr. Stiles had consulted on
first receiving the application in the present case was Dr. T.
Wayland Vaughan, Director, the Scripps Institution of Oceano-
graphy of the University of California. At that time Dr. Way-
land Vaughan had been away from the United States but on his
return he wrote to Dr. Stiles a letter dated 10th May 1933 in
which he stated: ‘‘ Personally I should have preferred to use
Camerina, but I recognize the strength of the argument for
Nummulites. Therefore, I do not feel inclined to protest against
the decision in favor of Nummutites.’’ In a further letter dated
20th June 1933, Dr. Wayland Vaughan said: “ Personally I
should have preferred to follow the rules and adopt Camerina
but I think that no confusion will result if Nwmmulites is adopted.
It is a matter on which I have very little feeling and will gladly
abide by the decision no matter which name it [1.e. the Commission]
may favor.”’

g. In March 1935 Dr. Stiles notified the members of the Com-
mission that three further Commissioners had now voted on this
case: two (2) Commissioners (Ishikawa and Pellegrin) had voted
in favour of the suspension of the rules for Nummulhtes Lamarck ;
one (1) Commissioner (Cabrera) had voted against that course.
With his negative vote Commissioner Cabrera had furnished the
following statement of his views :

I cannot see the reason why we must suspend the priority law for a
genus of Foraminifera because geologists use such name more commonly
than such other, and we do not do the same for genera of other groups
because of frequent use of such or such name by other people. If we
retain Nummulites because it has been employed for many years in books of
Geology and Palaeontology, we must use in animals Dicotyles because
during many years it has been used in text books and in books on travel,
geography, zoogeography and sport. Audubon, De Kay, Burmeister,
Rengger, Lydekker, Brehm and many other authors made Dicotyles a well

known name for the peccaries, but, on priority grounds, this name has
been rightly rejected. It is the same with Semnopithecus, Chivomys, and

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 192. 147

many other names; also in birds, reptiles, etc. We must face in all these
cases the old problem; use versus priority. Now, priority is one of the
more solid bases of our present code of nomenclature. Of course it dis-
pleased many people, but laws are never made to please everybody. If
we suspend the rules for Nummuhites, we open a door for constant trans-
gression of law, as many other names in Palaeontology are in the same
position; and if we do so for fossil genera, the same thing must be done for
living genera. The next step will be to go back to the days before the
rules, when every one did as pleased him. The wisest words about this
matter are those of Witmer Stone when he says: “ The privilege of asking
for a suspension of the rules is in danger of being abused,”’ ® and those of
Cushman when he tells: “ If the rules are to beset aside so that Nummutlites
based on the genotype of Camerina will take its ae I see no particular
mse ot the rules at all.” ®

The case of Lepidocyclina is very different, the true meaning of
Cyclosiphon being not clear, and this name being based on a specimen not
well identified, as it appears from the opinion of specialists. But for
Camerina and Nummulites, there is not any doubt that they are synonyms,
with the same type species, and that Camerina is the oldest by nine years.
It is said that the use of Nummulites saves time; well, I think more
saving of time is attained by following strictly the rule of priority, than by
searching arguments to avoid it.

10. In the report referred to above, Dr. Stiles added that the
case was referred “* for further routine to the Commission for such
action as may be necessary or advisable at the Lisbon meeting ”’
due to be held later that year.

1x. At the Lisbon Session of the lee eaciiomeal Commission, the
available documents relating to this case were examined by Com-
missioner Francis Hemming, who, jointly with Commissioner
James L. Peters, had been charged with the duty of acting as
Secretary to the Commission during that Session, owing to the
/absence through ill-health of Dr. Stiles. The conclusions so
reached by Commissioner Hemming are set out in the following
note made in the records of the Commission :—

As submitted by Commissioner Chapman, this case raises only a single
issue, namely whether the strict application of the rules in relation to the
names Camerina Brugiere and Nummulites Lamarck would clearly result
in greater confusion than uniformity. In the course of the discussion of
this question, Commissioners Witmer Stone and Cabrera have raised the
wider issue of the circumstances in which the International Commission
should grant or withhold their approval of proposals submitted to the
Commission for the supension of the rules in certain cases. It is necessary,
therefore, to consider this latter question also.

2. The conclusions which I have reached after a study of the documents
in this case are as follows :—

(A) On the merits of the case viewed purely as a problem in the nomenclature
of the Order Foraminifera.
(1) Cancina Brugiére, 1789, is an available name in the sense that it
is not a homonym of an earlier identical generic name.

8 See paragraph 6(b) above. 9 See paragraph 2(c) above.
roSce Opinion 127.

148 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(11)

(iii

(vii

—

Nummulites Lamarck, 1801, is also an available name in the sense
that it is not a homonym of an earlier identical generic name.
Brugiere placed a number of species in Camevina Brugiére and did
not designate a type for that genus. There is no evidence in the
papers that any subsequent author selected in the rigidly construed
sense required by Article 30 of the Code either Camerina laevigata
Brugiere, 1789, or any of the other originally-included species to
be the type of the genus Camerina Brugiere.

If Nummulites Lamarck was proposed as a new genus (and not
merely as a nom.nov. for Camerina Brugiere), it is a monotypical
genus with Camerina laevigata Brugiere as its type.

It appears, however, that many authorities have taken the view
that Lamarck published the name Nummulites as a nom.nov. pro
Camerina Brugiere. If this is the case, the citation of a single
species (C. laevigata Brugiere) under Nummulites by Lamarck
would not make that genus a monotypical species with that species
as its type, for the type species of a genus proposed as a nom.nov.
pro another genus is necessarily the species (whatever it may be)
which is the type of the genus soreplaced. As stated in (ili) above,
it is not clear that any subsequent author has designated a type
for Camerina Brugiére under the procedure laid down in Article
30 of the Code. If, however, Lamarck, in addition to citing C.
laevigata Brugiere under Nummulites had designated that species
as the type and if he had proposed Nummulites as a nom.nov. pro
Camerina Brugiere, C. laevigata Brugiére (being one of the species
originally included by that author in his Camerina) would auto-
matically become also the type of Camervina Brugiere under rule
(f) in Article 30 of the Code.

Later authors appear to have treated Camervina Brugiére and
Nummulites Lamarck as identical genera and it is likely that a
search of the literature would disclose a paper in which some author
definitely stated that C. /aevigata Brugiere was the type of the first-
named genus as wellas of Nummulites Lamarck. Sucha statement
would comply with the requirements of rule (g) in Article 30 of the
Code and C. laevigata Brugiere would then become the type of both
genera, irrespective of whether Nummulites Lamarck was originally
proposed as a new genus or as a substitute for Camerina Brugiere.
In view of the considerations indicated in (11) to (vi) above, there
is, in the absence of additional evidence, a substantial doubt
regarding the identity of the type not only of Camervina Brugiere
but also of Nummulites Lamarck. There is thus a good prima
facie case for asking for an Opinion from the International Com-
mission in regard to this case, even if there were no question of
requesting a suspension of the rules for Nummulites Lamarck.

(B) On the principles which should govern the grant or rejection of applications

(viii)

(1x)

for the suspension of the rules in particular cases.

The present International Code was not published until 1905 but’
the zoological nomenclature to which it applies is recognised by the
Code as having started with the publication in 1758 of Linnaeus’s
Systema Natuvrae, ed. 10. Thus at the present time (1935) the
International Code applies to names published during the period
of 146 years (1758-1904) prior to its introduction and to names
published in the period of 31 years (1904-1935) since its intro-
duction.

As regards any name published in the period since the introduction
of the Code, the suspension of the rules is, as Commissioner Witmer

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 192. 149

(x)

Stone observes, a privilege and one which should be reserved for
wholly exceptional cases.

The position is quite different as regards names published before
the introduction of the Code. Retrospective legislation—for such
is what the Code is in relation to all names published before 1905—
however carefully it may be framed, cannot avoid being harsh and
inequitable in a certain number of cases. It was largely to meet
this self-evident consideration that in 1913 the International Con-
gress of Zoology conferred plenary power upon the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to suspend the rules
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of
the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity.
Where in the case of any name published before 1905 it can be
established that such confusion would ensue from the strict appli-
cation of the rules, the suspension of the rules under the plenary
powers cannot reasonably be regarded as a privilege which must
be hedged about with restrictive conditions. On the contrary,
in such cases there are strong prima facie grounds in favour of the
suspension of the rules.

In judging applications for the suspension of the rules in particular
cases, the International Commission is in the position of a trustee
for all the branches of science in which use is made of zoological
nomenclature. The chief of these is systematic zoology, but, as
has been cogently pointed out by Dr. Stiles,!1 it is necessary and
proper that the International Commission should take account
also of the legitimate interests of the applied sciences (such as
medicine, geology, agriculture, etc.) in which use is made of
zoological nomenclature. Due regard should be paid also to
economic and social considerations 11 where these involve questions
of zoological nomenclature.

(xii)

(xiii)

case of the names Camerina Brugiéve and Nummulites Lamarck.

The evidence shows that the name Nummulites Lamarck has been
used very extensively and over a long period of years both as a
generic name and (as pointed out by the late Commissioner Bather)
as a group name for Camerina laevigata Brugiére and its allies,
whereas the name Camerina Brugiere has only been used by a
limited number of authors. If this was the sole ground on which
suspension of the rules was requested in this case, I should be
inclined to take the view that, while inconvenience would certainly
result from the substitution of Camerina Brugiere for Nummulites
Lamarck, it had not been clearly established in the papers sub-
mitted that the strict application of the rules in this case would
clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, though with a
more adequate presentation of the history of these two names in
the XIXth century and in the present century, it might be that
the applicants could establish the likelihood of confusion to an
extent which would justify the suspension of the rules in this case.
The evidence submitted shows however that the application for
the suspension of the rules in this case does not rest solely or even
principally upon the effect on the systematics of the Order Fora-
minifera of the strict application of the rules as regards the names
Camerina Brugiere and Nummulites Lamarck. An important
part of the application rests upon the argument that, in view of the
importance of the name Nummulites from the point of view of

11 See passage quoted in paragraph 4 above.

I50 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

stratigraphy, the elimination of that name under the law of priority
and the substitution therefor of the name Camerina would clearly
result in greater confusion than uniformity. This view has the
unanimous support of all the geologists of the United States
Geological Survey by whom the question has been considered; all
the Australian and, with one exception, all the United Kingdom,
geologists who have expressed views on this subject share the view
expressed by their American colleagues.

(xiv) In the light of these considerations, I have reached the conclusion
that the applicants have succeeded in establishing the proposition
that the strict application of the rules in this case would clearly
result in greater confusion than uniformity.

(xv) I accordingly consider that the relief sought in this case should be
granted and therefore that the rules should be suspended for the
purpose of suppressing the name Camerina Brugiere and of
placing Nummuhtes Lamarck (with Camerina laevigata Brugiere
as type) on the Official List of Generic Names. I accordingly
recommend that this case should be dealt with under the procedure
prescribed in the second Article of the Plenary Powers Resolution
adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Monaco in 1913.7

12. Thus, when on Tuesday, 17th September 1935, the Com-
mission came to consider this case, fifteen (15) Commissioners had
voted on this case.

13, Eleven, (11) Commnicnoner had voted in favour of the
suspension of the rules to preserve the name Nummulites Lamarck,
namely :—

Apstein; Bather; Chapman; Handlirsch; Hemming; Horvath;
Ishikawa; Pellegrin; Silvestri; Stiles; and Warren.

14. Four (4) Commissioners had voted against the suspension
of the rules in this case, namely :—

Cabrera; Jordan; Stephenson; and Stone.

15. At the meeting referred to above, the Commission had
under consideration this case, jointly with that of Lepidocyclina
Gimbel, [1870], and, after taking note of the state of the voting
in each of these cases (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion
12) 13 :—

(b) agreed that in view especially of the long time that these cases had
been under consideration by the Commission, it was desirable to do
everything possible to secure a final settlement with as little further
delay as possible and that the proper course as regards the case of
Nummulites Lamarck, 1801, was to proceed under Article 2 of the
“Plenary Powers’’ Resolution #% adopted by the Ninth Interna-
tional Congress of Zoology in March 1913;

12 See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40).

For the full text of Conclusion 12, see 1943, Buil. zool. Nomencl.
de 3oa-8 O

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 192. I5I

(c) in view of (b) above, to report the case of Nummulhtes Lamarck,
1801, to the President of the Section of Nomenclature of the present
(Lisbon) Congress for action under the said Article 2 of the Resolution
of March 1913.

16. The decision recorded above was concurred in by the
twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon
Session of the International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
evens. and Stejmecen.

Altemmates :-—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki;
ipradiley) vice stone: Beier vice Handlirsch: Arndt vice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

17. In accordance with the foregoing decision, the case dealt
with in the present Opinion was immediately reported to the
President of the Section on Nomenclature of the Lisbon Congress.
In view of the fact that (as explained in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the
present Opinion) the case of Nummulites Lamarck versus Camerina
Brugiere had from its inception been considered in conjunction
with the case of Lepzdocyclina Gimbel versus Cyclosiphon Ehren-
berg, it was impossible to make available the documentation
relating to the case of the names Nummulites and Camerina until
after the close of the concluding stages of the case relating to the
names Lepfidocyclina and Cyclostphon. The President of the
Section on Nomenclature accordingly decided that it was not
practicable to proceed with the appointment of a Board of Three
Members for the purpose of reaching a final decision on the case of
the names Nummutlites and Camerina until such time as the docu-
ments in regard thereto were available, in consequence of the
adoption of the forthcoming Opinion in regard to the names
Lepidocychina and Cyclosiphon.

18. In October 1936 there was published Ofiznion 127 dealing
with the case of the names Lepidocyclina Giimbel and Cyclostphon
Ehrenberg. Dr. Stiles took the opportunity so presented to add
at the end of that Opinion a note showing the state of the vote
on the case of the names Nummultes Lamarck and Camerina
Brugiere, as it stood at the time of the opening of the Session of
the International Commission held at Lisbon in the previous year.
Notwithstanding the additional publicity for the last-named case
so afforded, no communication of any kind was received by the
International Commission, either at that time or subsequently,
objecting to the suspension of the rules in favour of Nummutites
Lamarck.

I52 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

19. Various causes, including the resignation of the Secretary-
ship of the Commission by Dr. Stiles and the consequent need for
the establishment of the Secretariat of the Commission at new
headquarters, combined to make it impossible to secure any
further progress in this case before the outbreak of war in Europe
in September 1939 put a temporary stop to the activities of the
Commission. When, however, it was found possible in the spring
of 1942 to arrange for the reopening of the Secretariat of the Com-
mission, this case was reviewed jointly by the President of the
Commission and the Secretary to the Commission, who agreed
that, having regard to the length of time which this case had
already been before the Commission, every effort should be made
to secure the services of a former member of the Commission who
had not expressed any public opinion on this case and thereby to
render possible the immediate appointment of the required Board
of Three Members for the purpose of deciding the action to be
taken in this case, in accordance with the procedure prescribed in
Article 2 of the Plenary Powers Resolution of March 1913.

20. On being approached, Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell,1* a former
member of the Commission who had expressed no public opinion
on this case, kindly consented to assist the Commission by serving
on the Board of Three Members. Accordingly, on 30th December
1942, Dr. Karl Jordan, President of the Section on Nomenclature
of the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, acting in virtue
of the powers conferred upon him in this behalf by Article 2 of the
Plenary Powers Resolution adopted by the Ninth International
Congress of Zoology at the meeting held at Monaco on 31st
March 1913, appointed for the consideration of this case a Board
of Three Members composed as follows :— ,

Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell A former member of the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, who had expressed
no public opinion on the present
case ;

Dr. Frederick Chapman A Commissioner who had voted in
favour of the suspension of the
rules in this case; and

14 Tt is with great regret that the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature have to record that, while the present Opinion was passing
through the press, the death of Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell occurred on
2nd July 1945 as the result of a street accident.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 192. 153

Dr. Karl Jordan A Commissioner who had voted
against the suspension of the rules
in this case.

21. The-terms of reference of the Board of Three Members
referred to above were as follows :—

(i) to review the evidence submitted to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature for and against the suspension of the
rules in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature in the
case of the names Nummulites Lamarck, 1801, and Camerina
Brugiere, 1789 (Class Rhizopoda, Order Foraminifera); and

(ii) to report whether an Opinion should be rendered :—

(a) suspending the rules :—

(1) to suppress the name Camerina Brugiere, 1789, Ency. méth.
(Vers) (1) : xvi for all purposes other than Article 34 of the
International Code;

and

(2) to validate the name Nummulites Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim.
sans Vert.: 101 (type: Camerina laevigata Brugiere, 1780,
Ency. méth. (Vers) (2) : 399); and

(b) placing the name Nummulites Lamarck, 1801, so validated, on
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

22. The following Reports on this case were received from the
members of the Board of Three Members constituted by the Presi-
dent of the Section on Nomenclature of the Twelfth International
Congress of Zoology in the manner specified in paragraph 20
above :—

(i) Report by the former Commissioner, Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell
(dated 13th November 1943) :

After having given careful consideration to the summary of evidence
given me by Commissioner Hemming and having been specially impressed
by his examination (in paragraph 11) of the individual case and of the
important discussion of the general principles of suspension, I have no
hesitation in reporting that an Opinion should be rendered (a) suspending
the rules (1) to suppress the name Camerina Brugiere, 1789, Ency. méth.
(Vers) (1) : xvi (Protozoa), and (2) to validate the name Nummuhiies

Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. sans Vert.: 101 (type: Camerina laevigata
Brugiere, 1789, Ency. méth. (Vers) (2) : 399) (Protozoa); and (b) placing
the name Nummulites Lamarck, 1801, so validated, on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology.

(11) Report by Commissioner Karl Jordan (dated 12th December
1943) :

In arriving at a vote in favour of Nummulites Lamarck, 1801, I have
been guided by the following considerations :—

(1) From 1758 to recent times the principle of priority v was not generally
applied. Its strict application to the literature of that period
frequently requires a change of names.

I54 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(2) The replacement of a familiar name by an older unfamiliar one is no
hardship for the specialist. Equally, the suppression (for some cogent
reason) of an older name in favour of a younger one is a small
matter for the systematist, unless he loses control of his temper
and forgets that a concept of complete justice must include equity.

(3) Therefore, if the application of strict priority is in an individual case
a real hardship for another field of knowledge, the claim of the
systematist should be set aside if nothing but priority is involved for
him, zoological nomenclature having the sole object to provide a
convenient universal means of reference to the animal named.

(4) The name Nummulites having almost universally been applied as a
generic term for leading fossils in certain geological strata, its
suppression would lead to confusion in teaching geology, in geological
research and in the application of geological knowledge. For which
reason I vote that the law of priority be suspended in the case of
Nummulites versus Camerina and that Nummulites be put on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the manner indicated in
part (i1) of the Board’s terms of reference.

III1—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION.

23. The decision taken by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature in the present case is :—

(a) under suspension of the rules :—

(i) to suppress the name Camerina Brugiere, 1789, Ency. méth.
(Vers) (1) : xvi (Class Rhizopoda, Order Foraminifera) for all
purposes other than Article 34 of the International Code; and

(ii) to validate the name Nummulites Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim.
sans Vert.:1o1 (type: Camerina laevigata Brugiere, 1789,
Ency. méth. (Vers) (2) : 399); and

(b) to add the name Nummulites Lamarck, 1801, validated as in (a)
above and with the type there specified, to the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology.
24. The foregoing decision was taken by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting through a Board of
Three Members constituted in accordance with the provisions of
Article 2 of the Plenary Powers Resolution of March 1913.16

25. The following two (2) members of the Board of Three
Members voted in favour of the adoption of the present Opinion :—

Mitchell ; Jordan.

26. No member of the Board of Three Members voted against
the present Opinion. No vote was received from the third member
of the Board (namely Commissioner Chapman), who died 1” after
having been appointed a member of the Board but before having
recorded his vote.

15 See paragraph 21 above.

Tey See fel Mote k2,

17 The death of Commissioner Frederick Chapman occurred on t1oth
December 1943.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 192. 155

he AUTHORITY HOK,.PMe ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution
conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, Plenary Powers to suspend the rules as applied to
any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the
strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater con-
fusion than uniformity, provided either that after the due adver-
tisement of the possible suspension of the rules as applied to the
said case the members of the Commission were unanimously in
favour of that course or that, in default of unanimity, a Board of
Three Members duly constituted in accordance with the provisions
of Article 2 of the Resolution of March 1913 referred to above
(veremmatter referred to as the Plenary Powers Kesolution ’’),
acting for the said International Commission, decided, either
unanimously or by a majority, in favour of the suspension of the
rules as applied to the case so referred to them for decision; and

WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid
force to the provisions of the present Opznzon as set out in the
summary thereof; and

WHEREAS in default of unanimity regarding the decision to be
taken as respects the names dealt with in the present Opinion,
the International Commission agreed unanimously at their Session
held at Lisbon in 1935 that this case should be decided by a Board
of Three Members constituted in accordance with the provisions
of Article 2 of the Plenary Powers Resolution ; and

WHEREAS the Board of Three Members duly constituted to
consider this case has agreed that an Opinion should be rendered
by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in
the sense of the present Opinion :

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the Inter-
national Commission, acting for the International Congress of

156 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Ninety Two (Ofimion 192) of the said
Commission.

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
have signed the present Opinion.

Done in London, this second day of January, Nineteen Hundred
and Forty Five, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in
the archives of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 192. 157

‘

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at AE
Queen’s Gate, London, 5.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal has been established by the International Com-
mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for
the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
International Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the
Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the
Bulletin under (a) above; and

The Bulletin was established in 1943, in which year three Parts
were published. Part 4 was published in 1944 and Parts 5 and

6 in 1945.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The above work is being published in three volumes con-
currently, namely :—

Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which
have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the
original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-20 (contain-
ing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions 1-11) have now been published.
Further Parts will be published shortly.

Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising
all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their
meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12. (with
Roman pagination) and Opimions 134-181 (with Arabic pagina-
tion). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume.
Parts I-35, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-165,
have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. |

Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182,
will contain the Opimions adopted by the International Commission
since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-11 (containing
Opinions 182-192) have now been published. Further Parts will
be published as soon as possible.

158 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

APPEAL FOR FUNDS

The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions
and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen-
elature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s
Special (Publications) Fund. Of-the total sum of £1,800 required
to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting
printing, donations amounting to £969 16s. 1d. were received up
to 30th June 1945. Additional contributions are urgently needed
in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without
interruption. Contributions of any amount, however small, will
be most gratefully received.

; tp
fe os
4 th 7
‘ a BAS
’
fi
io MEAN
J, yy o
a i
TK 2
i” \! '
;
if ‘ i
~ f} .

_ PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY
RICHARD CLAY ANO Company, LTD.
BunGAY, SUFFOLK.

(
*
Z é
in i
i
‘ rh
$ ‘
AlLat ey
_ t
‘ Gh 7
4 cette on

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

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

Secretary to the Commission
VOLUME 3. Part 12. Pp. 161-174.

OPINION 193

On the status of the name Procheneosaurus
Matthew, 1920 (Class Reptilia, Order Orni-
thischia)

LONDON :
‘Printed by Order of the International Commission on
) Zoological Nomenclature
and
Sold on their behalf by the International Trust for Zoological
Nomenclature at the Publications Office of the Trust
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1947

Price two shillings and one penny

Issued 28th February, 1947

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).

The Members of the Commission

° Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Theodor MORTENSEN (Denmark).

Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).

Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr, Harold E. VOKES (U:S.A.).

Class 1955
Professor Dr. Hilbrand BOSCHMA (Netherlands).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).
Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).
Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).
Dr. Norman R,. STOLL (U.S.A.).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3,

OPINION 193.

_ ON THE STATUS OF THE NAME PROCHENEOSAURUS
MATTHEW, 1920 (CLASS REPTILIA, ORDER ORNITHISCHIA).

SUMMARY.—The name Procheneosaurus Matthew, 1920 (Class
Reptilia, Order Ornithischia) is available under the Régles, since it
satisfies the requirements of Article 25 of the Réegles Internationales
as respeets names published prior to ist January 1931. Matthew
included in this genus a single (then unnamed) species, which Lull
& Wright (1942) have identified under Opinion 46 as Tetragono-
saurus praeceps Parks, 1931. That species is accordingly the
type of Procheneosaurus Matthew, 1920, by monotypy. The name —
Procheneosaurus Matthew, 1920, as defined above, is hereby added
to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 624.
The name Tetragonosaurus Parks, 1931, is not available as from
the date of its publication in 1931, since, as then published, it does
not satisfy the requirements of Article 25 of the Code as respects
names published on or after 1st January 1931.

I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

This case was submitted to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature by Dr. Richard S. Lull, Director, Pea-
body Museum of Natural History, Yale University, in the follow-
ing letter dated 4th October 1935 :—

A group of trachodont dinosaurs, known as cheneosaurs from the Belly River
and Edmonton formations of Alberta and the Two Medicine formation of
Montana.

First described by L. M. Lambe in 1917 (Ottawa Naturalist 30 (10) : 127-
133, 2 plates) as Cheneosaurus tolmanensis from the Edmonton Formation,
Red Deer River, Alberta. The holotype consists of a nearly perfect skull,
no. 2246 G.S.C., including some skeleton material; paratype no. 2247
eoC;,. a second skull, less perfect, of what is evidently an adolescent
individual of the same species.

Beth description and types are in every way adequate to define the
generic characters in so far as they may be seen in the skull alone.

In 1920 W. D. Matthew proposed the name Pyvocheneosaurus for a
cheneosaur from the Belly River formation of Alberta; but his definition,
published in Natural History 20 (5) : 542, is very brief and consists of the
following words: ‘‘ A small kind with little bill and short round head. A
fine skeleton on exhibition in the American Museum.”’

Even that brief description would enable one conversant with the Belly

164 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

River trachodonts to separate the animal from any other genus of these
dinosaurs, and the specimen which is catalogued as Procheneosaurus, no.
5340 in the American Museum, is remarkably perfect and can form a basis
for a complete description, not only of the skull but of the entire skeleton.
In other words, there is no question whatever of what Dr. Matthew had in
mind and of the identity both of the genus and of the very adequate type.
He gave the form no specific name.

In 1931 Dr. W. A. Parks gave a new generic name Tetragonosaurus (Univ.
of Toronto Studies (Geol. Ser.) 31 : 1-11, pls. 1-3) to Belly River cheneo-
saurs, which cannot be distinguished generically from Matthew’s Procheneo-
sauyus, on the ground that Matthew’s description was inadequate and
therefore his name had no standing. The type material is again adequate,
consisting of two skulls and other skeletal material, no. 3577 at Royal
Ontario Museum and no. 3578 at R.O.M. These were designated as the
holotypes of Tetvagonosaurus praeceps and T. evectofrons respectively, the
former being in all probability not only congeneric but conspecific with
Matthew’s type specimen.

Of the validity of Lambe’s Cheneosaurus there can be no question. The
point I wish to lay before the Commission for decision is whether Parks’
Tetvagonosaurus with its adequate description should stand as the name of
the Belly River genus of cheneosaurs, or whether Matthew’s name of
Procheneosaurus, which has priority of publication, should hold. |

Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE GAS

2. In June 1936 copies of the application in this case were
communicated to the Members of the Commission by Dr. C. W.
Stiles, at that time Acting Secretary to the Commission, together
with a note in which Dr. Stiles set out the conclusions which he
had reached, after, jointly with Dr. C. W. Gilmore, Curator,
Division of Vertebrate Palaeontology, United States National
Museum, he had examined the papers referred to in the applica-
tion. In this note Dr. Stiles expressed the view that the type of
Procheneosaurus Matthew was the sole species referred to it by
Matthew, namely the unnamed species to which Specimen No.
5340 in the American Museum was referable.. Dr. Stiles then
continued as follows :—

The generic diagnosis of Procheneosaurus Matthew is very brief, but
according to the premises, ‘‘there is no question whatever of what Dr.
Matthew had in mind and of the identity both of the genus and of the very
adequate type.” Accordingly, Procheneosaurus Matthew is available under
the rules unless this name is preoccupied as a homonym. M |

3. Dr. Stiles accordingly invited the Commission to render an
Opinion stating that the name Procheneosaurus Matthew, 1920,
was available under the rules.
_ 4. As a result, eight (8) Commissioners at that time recorded
their votes on this case.

1 It has been verified that the name Procheneosaurus Matthew, 1920, is
not a homonym of any previously published generic name.

- COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 193. 165

Bee The following seven (7) Commissioners voted in favour of the
Commission rendering an Opinion in the sense proposed :—

Chapman - Esaki; Fantham; Peters; Silvestri; Stiles; and
Stone.

6. One (1) Commissioner (Commissioner Richter) voted against ~
this proposal. In doing so, he submitted the following statement
of his views :—

Der Opinion wird nicht zugestimmt. Das Verfahren, ein Individuum
nur mit dem Gattungsnamen zu bezeichnen entspricht weder den Grund-
satzen der heutigen Systematik noch denen der binaren Nomenklatur.
Wie das Individuum die Grundlage fiir den Artbegriff darstellt, so ist die Art
(und nicht das Individuum) in jedem Fall die Grundlage fiir den Gattungs-
Begriff. Gattungen ohne Arvien kann es in unserm System nicht geben;
Gattungs-Namen fiir Arten, die nicht aufgestellt oder nicht vorhanden sind,
sind daher zu verwerfen.

Aus diesem Grunde ist auch Opinion 46 z.T. als verfehlt zu betrachten.

Ausserdem gibt es noch einen andeyvn Grund, weshalb ein Gattungs-
Name Ohne einen Art-Namen keine Giiltigkeit hat: Zur Kennzeichnung
einer Gattung ist die Bestimmung einer typischen Art erforderlich. Nach
Artikel 30Ile diirfen Arten, die ‘‘ bei der urspriinglichen Verdffentlichung
der Gattung nicht in den Gattungsnamen eingeschlossen wurden,’ als
Gattungs-Typen nicht in Betracht kommen. Einen Gattungs-Namen, bei
dessen Aufstellung (wie bei Procheneosaurus) iberhaupt noch keine Arten
bekannt waren, (und daher auch in den Gattungs-Namen nicht eingeschlos-
sen werden konnten) fehilt also die eigentliche Gattungs-Kennzeichnung, der
Typus. Solche Gattungs-Namen sind daher als nomina nuda zu_ be-
handeln; sie k6nnen erst von dem Augenblich an einen nomenklatorischen
potas haben, in dem sie durch eine oder mehrere Arten gekennzeichnet
werden.

7. At this stage this case was put on one side, since clearly in
any Opimion which the Commission might render thereon, it was
essential they should indicate what species was the type of the
genus Procheneosaurus Matthew, 1920.2 The identity of that
species had been clearly established by Matthew, but the species so
identified was at that time either unnamed, or if the species had
been named, the name so given had not been identified with
specimen no. 5340 in the American Museum of Natural History.

8. This case was further considered in 1943, when Commissioner
Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Commission, wrote a further
letter (dated znd October, 1943) to Dr. Lull with the object of
clearing up outstanding points and so of preparing the way for
the issue by the Commission of an Opinion on this case. The

2 In view of the clear indication given by Dr. Matthew, the procedure
laid down in Opinion 46 is not applicable in this case, for the type species of
this genus is clearly recognisable from the original description. The only
question which was in doubt was the name of that species.

166 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

following is an extract of the relevant portions of the letter referred
to above :— |

The point involved is this: A generic name, to be valid, must, if published
after 31st December 1930,? be accompanied both by an adequate diagnosis
or a reference to such a diagnosis (or more extended description or reference
thereto) and by an unambiguously designated type species. As the name
Procheneosaurus was published by Matthew before that date, these stricter
rules do not apply; but even a name published before the amendment of
the Code referred to above, cannot be regarded as effective for ordinary
purposes until a type possessing a name under the Linnean system has been
designated for the genus. According to the data supplied in your letter
Matthew clearly indicated that the name Procheneosaurus which he then
proposed was intended to be the generic name for the unnamed species of
which there was “ a fine skeleton on exhibition in the American Museum.”’
This is, you further state, the specimen “‘ which is catalogued as Procheneo-
saurus, NO. 5340 in the American Museum.”’ ‘

What I shall be grateful if you will inform me is whether any author has
yet published a binominal specific name for the species, of which specimen
5340 in the American Museum is an example. If so, what is that name,
who gave it, and when and where was it published ?

The reason why the Commission needs to be in possession of this informa-
tion is, of course, that, if there is a named species which (by monotypy) is
the type of Procheneosaurus Matthew, then it is possible to compare the
nomenclatorial status of that genus (and to form a conclusion thereon) in
relation to the later genus Tetvagonosaurus Parks, 1931.

As regards the last-named genus, I note that it was based upon two skulls
and other skeletal material, to which two names (T. praeceps and T.
evectofyons) were given by Parks. I shall be grateful if you will inform me

3 At its meeting held at Budapest in 1927 the Tenth International Con-
gress of Zoology decided considerably to stiffen up the provisions in Article
25 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature regarding the
conditions with which a new generic name must comply before it can
acquire any status under the Law of Priority. In order, however, to
provide zoologists with ample opportunity of acquainting themselves with
the new provisions in Article 25, the International Congress at the same
time decided that those provisions should not become operative until mid-
night (Greenwich Mean Time) 31st December 1930/1st January 1931.
The changes decided upon at Budapest were effected by the insertion of
a new proviso (proviso (c)) in Article 25, which provided, imtery alia, that no
generic name published after 31st December 1930 should have any status of
availability (hence also of validity), unless and until it is published with a
“definite and unambiguous designation of the type species.’’ Names
published before the above date remained, however, subject to the provi-
sions of Article 25, as they existed prior to the adoption of the Budapest
amendment, that is to say, names published before 1st January 1931 are
not automatically invalidated by reason of having been published without
a “‘ definite and unambiguous designation of the type species.’”’ In deter-
mining whether a generic name published without a designated type is an
available name, it is, therefore, now necessary first to ascertain whether the
name in question was published on or before 31st December 1930 or whether
it was published on or after 1st January 1931.

For full particulars relating to the amendment to Article 25 of the
International Code adopted at Budapest in 1927 (including the text of that
Article so amended), see NoTE 3 to Opinion 1 (1944, Opinions and Declara-
ae: Be ES by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

: 76-78).

+. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 193. 167

whether Parks designated one or other of these species as the type of the
genus Tetvagonosaurus, and, if so, which. If he did not do so, the name
Tetvagonosaurus, being a name published after 31st December 1930,* is
invalid, quite apart from any decision which may be taken by the Inter-
national Commission as regards the status of Procheneosaurus Matthew.

g. On 4th November 1943, Dr. Lull replied as follows :—

Matthew’s description of Procheneosaurus, such as it is, refers to the genus
only as no species was either named or described. However, he clearly
indicated a type specimen (No. AMNH 5340) which is recognizable without
question and ample for description.

In 4931 Parks described two species under Tetvagonosaurus, praeceps and
evectofvons, and, while he designated neither as the genotype in so many
words, he heads his description of praeceps, “‘ Tetvagonosaurus praeceps
gen. et sp. nov.,”’ and for that of evectofrons, ‘‘ Tetvagonosaurus evectofrons
sp. nov.” «

Lull and Wright (1942, Geol. Soc. Amer., Special Papers 40 : 178)
identified Matthew’s type of Procheneosaurus No. AMNH 5340 as pertaining
to Parks’ first species and called it Procheneosaurus praeceps (Parks),
which they designated as the genotype.

ro. The information so received showed :—

(a) that Tetragonosaurus praeceps Parks, 1931, was the type of
Procheneosaurus Matthew, 1920, having been so designated
by Lull and Wright in 1942;

(b) that, when describing the genus Tetvagonosaurus Parks,
1931, Parks had described two new species as belonging to
this genus and that he had headed the description of the
first of these species as follows: “ Tetragonosaurus praeceps
gen. et sp. nov.” ; he :

(c) that, as the use of the formula quoted in (b) above complies
with the requirements of Opfimion 7, the type of Tetragono-
saurus Parks, 1931, would have been Tetragonosaurus
praeceps Parks, 1931, if the name Tetragonosaurus Parks
had been published in the period which ended on 31st
December 1930, the last day of the period of grace preceding
the coming into operation of the amendment to Article 25 of
the International Code, adopted by the Tenth Interna-
tional Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Budapest
iesepvember 1927-° but

(d) that, in view of the fact that Parks did not give a“ definite
unambiguous designation of the type species’ of the genus
Tetragonosaurus Parks, as required by the amendment to
Article 25 of the Code, which came into operation as from
midnight 31st December 1930/1st January 1931 (Green-
wich time),° the generic name Tetragonosaurus has no status

4 See footnote 3. 5 See footnote A) i

168 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

under the Law of Priority (Article 25) and therefore no
status of availability or validity) as from the date of its
publication by Parks in 1931.

Ir. On receipt of this information, two (2) additional Com-
missioners (Commissioners Jordan and Hemming) voted in favour
of the adoption of the proposed Ofinion. This case, together
with the information summarised in paragraph 10 above, was
thereupon brought to the attention of all the available Commis-
sioners who had not as yet voted thereon.

12. By 29th January 1944, the number of votes required by the
By-Laws of the Commission (Article 7) to secure the adoption of a
proposed Opinion (10 votes) ® had been received in favour of the
Opinion proposed to be rendered in the present case. At that
time, however, there were still two (2) Commissioners who were
resident in countries accessible by post but who had not as yet
recorded their votes in regard to this case. In view of the great
delays which at that time often occurred in the receipt of letters
from abroad, the Secretary to the Commission decided that it
would be proper to afford to the two Commissioners concerned a
further opportunity to vote on this case. He accordingly directed
that the closing of the ballot on this case should be deferred for a
further period of six months (z.e. until 29th July 1944) or until
votes had been received from each of the Commissioners con-
cerned, whichever date might be the earlier. On 7th June 1944,
the vote was received from the second of the two Commissioners
concerned, and on that day, therefore, the Secretary to the
Commission, acting in virtue of the powers conferred upon him
in that behalf by Article 7 of the By-Laws, closed the ballot in
this case.

IlJ.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN-
CLATURE.

13. The decision taken by the International Commission on —

Zoological Nomenclature in the present case is :—

(1) The type of Procheneosaurus Matthew, 1920 (Nat. Hist.
20 (5) : 542) (Class Reptilia, Order Ornithischia) is Tetra-

6 Since this case did not involve the use of the Commission’s plenary
powers, it does not require a unanimous vote, and ten affirmative votes
suffice to secure the adoption of the proposed decision as the Opinion of the
Commission.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 193. 169

gonosaurus praeceps Parks, 1931 (Univ. Toronto Stud. (Geol.
Ser.) 31 : 1-11 pl. 1-3), that species having been identified
by Lull & Wright (1942, Geol. Soc. Amer., Special Papers
40: 178) as the species on which Matthew founded the
monotypical genus Procheneosaurus Matthew, 1920, 1.e.
the species to which is referable specimen No. 5340 in the
American Museum of Natural History.

In view of the fact that the name Procheneosaurus Matthew
was published before Ist January 1931 (the date as from
which became operative the requirements of proviso (c)
added to Article 25 of the International Code by the
Tenth International Congress of Zoology at Budapest in
1927), this name is not invalidated by reason either of :—

(a) the scanty nature of the “indication ’”’ given for this
genus by Matthew in his original description; or of

(b) the absence in the original description of a “ definite
unambiguous designation of the type species.”’

(3) The name Procheneosaurus Matthew, 1920 (type: Tetra-
gonosaurus praeceps Parks, 1931) is therefore available
nomenclatorially and is hereby added to the Officzal List of
Generic Names in Zoology.

(4) The name Tetragonosaurus Parks, 1931 (Um. Toronto Stud.
(Geol. Ser.) 31 : 4) is not available nomenclatorially as from
1931, since, being published without a “‘ definite unambiguous
designation of the type species,’ it does not satisfy the
requirements of Article 25 of the Code as respects names
published on or after 1st January 1931.

14. The following twelve (12) Commissioners voted in favour of
the present Opinion :—
do Amaral; Calman; Chapman; Dymond; Esaki; Fantham;
Hemming; Jordan; Peters; Silvestri; Stiles; and Stone.
15. One (1) Commissioner (Commissioner Richter) voted against
the present Opinion.

16. The following two (2) Commissioners did not vote on the
present Opinion :—

Cabrera; and Pellegrin.
17. In addition one (1) Commissioner (Commissioner Bolivar y

Pieltain), who was a member of the Commission when the ballot
on this case was opened, resigned his membership of the Com-

I70 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

mission without having voted on the present case, and another
such Commissioner (Commissioner Stejneger) died without
having voted thereon. The following four (4) Commissioners,
namely Commissioners Arndt, di Caporiacco, von Hank6o, and
Jaczewski, were elected members of the Commission during the
later stages of the ballot on this case and did not take part in its
consideration.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving
the suspension of the Régles, an Opinion is to be deemed to have
been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a
majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten
(10) Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes
in favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion
involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com-
mission, such proposed Ofinion shall obtain the concurrence of at
least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the
same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by
the Commission; and

WHEREAS the present Opinion, as set out in the summary there-
of, neither requires, in order to be valid, the suspension of the
Régles, nor involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by
the Commission; and

WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have signi-
fied their concurrence in the present Opinion :

Now, THEREFORE,

I; Francis HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the
International Commission, acting for the International Congress
of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Ninety Three (Opinion 193) of the said
Commission.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I93. I7I

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have
signed the present Opinion.

DonE in London, this eighteenth day of April, Nineteen
Hundred and Forty Five, in a single copy, which shall remain
deposited in the archives of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING ©

I72 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION
ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

(obtainable at the Publications Office ‘of the Commission at 4I,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The above work is being published in three volumes con-
currently, namely :— |

Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which
have never previously been published) and Ofinions 1-133 (the
original issue of which is now out of print). In order that the
volume, when bound, may be of a convenient size for handling,
it has been decided to divide volume I into a series of Sections,
which will be continuously paged but will each be supplied with a
title page and index. The first of these Sections (Section A) will
comprise Declarations 1-g and Opinions 1-16. Part 17 containing
the index and title page for Section A will be published as soon
as possible. The publication of Parts of Section B will be started
immediately.

Parts 1-25 (comprising Declarations 1-g and Opinions I-16)
have now been published. Further Parts are in the press and
will be published as soon as possible.

Volume 2. This volume will contain Declarations 10-12 and
Opinions 134-181 and will thus be a complete record of all the
decisions taken by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature at their meeting held at Lisbon in 1935. This
volume will be published in two Sections, which will be con-
tinuously paged but will each be supplied with a title page and
index.

Section A, comprising Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-160
(published in Parts 1-30 and 30A), is now complete, price
£4 4s. Od. Individual Parts of this Section are also obtainable
separately at the prices at which they were originally published.

Section B will comprise Opinions 161-181 (to be published as
Parts 31-52). Parts 31-51 (containing Opinions 161-181) have

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 193. 173

now been published and it is hoped that Part 52 containing the
index and title page will be published at an early date.

Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182,
will contain the first instalment of the Opinions adopted by the
International Commission since their Lisbon meeting. Parts
I-13 (containing Opinions 182-194) have now been published.
Further Parts will be published as soon as possible.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal was established by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature in 1943 as their Official Organ in
order to provide a medium for the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
International Commission for deliberation and decision;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the
Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the
Bulletin under (a) above; and

Parts 1-10 of volume x have now been published. Further
Parts are in the press and will be published as soon as possible.

174. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

APPEAL FOR FUNDS

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature earnestly
appeal to all institutions and individuals interested in the develop-
ment of zoological nomenclature to contribute, according to their
means, to the Special (Publications) Fund established for financing
the publication of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature. Additional donations are urgently needed to enable
the Trust to secure that there shall be no interruption in the
Publications Programme of the International Commission.

Already since the ending of the war, there has been a noticeable
increase in the rate at which new applications have been received
by the International Commission from zoologists. The Commission
welcome this development and intend to do everything in their power
_to deal promptly with all such applications, but, if they are to succeed
in so doing, they will need to receive active assistance from all
institutions and individual zoologists who are in a position to
contribute towards the funds of the Commission.

Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most
gratefully received and should be sent to the International Trust
at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.
All such contributions should be made payable to the “ International
Trust for Zoological Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed *‘ Account
payee. Coutts & Co.’’.

SIGNED ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

FRANCIS HEMMING

Secretary to the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature.

International Trust for

Zoological Nomenclature,
Publications Office,
41, Queen’s Gate, LONDON, S.W.7.

1st February, 1947

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND Company, LTp., BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

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

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

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 3. Part 13. Pp. 175-190.

OPINION 194

On the status of the name Ophiceras Griesbach,
1880 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea)

LONDON :
Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
and
Sold on their behalf by the International Trust for Zoological
Nomenclature at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1947
Price two shillings and tenpence

i a EE a ee ee TR ea
Issued 28th February, 1947

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission
President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1949
Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).
Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission) .
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Theodor MORTENSEN (Denmark).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).
Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952
Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).
Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).
Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).
Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).
Dr. James L. PETERS (U.5.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.).

Class 1955

Professor Dr. Hilbrand BOSCHMA (Netherlands).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A.).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, 5.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

OPINION 194.

ON THE STATUS OF THE NAME OPHICERAS GRIESBACH,
1880 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA).

SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the Regles Internationales
(i) the name Ophiceras Suess, 1865, is hereby suppressed for all
nomenclatorial purposes and (ii) the name Ophiceras Griesbach,
1880 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), is validated with
Ophiceras tibeticum Griesbach, 1880, as type. The name
Ophiceras Griesbach, 1880, so validated, is hereby added to the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 625.

I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

The case of Opdiceras Griesbach, 1880 (Class Cephalopoda,
Order Ammonoidea) together with the case of Lytoceras Suess,
1865 versus Ophiceras Suess, June 1865 (Class Cephalopoda, Order
Ammonoidea), was submitted to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature by Dr. L. F. Spath, British Museum
(Natural History), through Commissioner F. A. Bather in March
1929. The statement so submitted by Dr. Spath is as follows :—

Ophiceras was proposed by E. Suess in June 1865 (Anz. Akad. Wiss.
Wien 2 (No. 17) : 112) for the “ fimbriati’’ group of Ammomites fimbriatus
Sowerby but was afterwards thought to clash with Ophiceras Barrande,
May 1865 (Syst. silur. centve Bohéme Rech. pal. 2: Atl. fasc. 1 Explic. pl.
45) (= Ophidioceras Barrande, 1867, 1bid. 2 (Text 1) : 174) and was re-
placed later in 18605 by Lytoceras Suess (Sitz. Bev. Akad. Wiss. Wien 52
(No. 1) : 78). This last has ever since been in universal*use.

A second Ophiceras was proposed in 1880 by Griesbach (Rev. geol. Surv.
Ind. 13 : 102, 109) for a Triassic group of ammonites, and, Suess’s original
-Ophiceras being forgotten, has now become universally accepted.

The resuscitation of the original Ophicevas according to the rules of
nomenclature would cause great palaeontological confusion. Lytoceras
and the family LYTOCERATIDAE are now given in every textbook, Lytoceras
being one of the two fundamental ammonite genera, persisting from the
base of the Lias to the Upper Cretaceous. Opsiceras, also recorded in most
textbooks, is Lower Triassic in age, so that from stratigraphical considera-
tions also, it would be advisable to secure stabilisation of the present use of
these two genera by the International Commission as follows :—

Genus Lytocevas Suess, 18651 (genotype: Ammonites fimbriatus
Sowerby, 1817, Min. Conchol. 2: 145 pl. 164)

Genus Ophiceras Griesbach, 1880 (genotype ?: Ophicevas tibeticum
Griesbach, 1880, Rec. geol. Surv. Ind. 13 : 109 pl. 3 (fig. 4)).

1 See Opinion 130.

2 In reply to an inquiry by Commissioner Francis Hemming, Secretary
to the Commission, Dr. Spath furnished the following supplementary note,
dated 27th October 1943 :—

Griesbach described three species but did not specify a type. The selection of O.
tibeticum is due to Diener (1897, ‘‘ The Cephalopoda of the Lower Trias,’’ Mem. geol. Surv.
Ind. Pal. indica (ser. 15) (Himalayan Fossils) 2 (Pt. 1) : ror).

178 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

2. In his covering letter submitting the foregoing application
to the Commission, Commissioner Bather said :—

I have gone into this case carefully and consider it to be eminently one
where adherence to the rules would produce nothing but confusion. I
therefore recommend as the Opinion of the Commission : That, to prevent
confusion, the law of priority be suspended as regards Lytocevas Suess,
1865 (genotype, Ammonites fimbriatus Sowerby) and Ophicervas Griesbach,
1880 (genotype, O. tibeticum Griesbach) and that these two names be added
to the Official List of Generic Names.

Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

3. On receipt of the foregoing application, Dr. C. W. Stiles,
Secretary to the International Commission, decided as a first step
to consult certain specialists interested in this case either directly
from the point of view of systematic zoology or indirectly from
that of geological surveying. The replies in most cases coveréd
not only the present case but also the case of Lytoceras Suess, 1865,
and Ophiceras Suess, 1865. The replies so received in respect of
the last-named case are quoted in full in the Ofzmion relating to
that case (Opinion 130), together with the replies which related
both to that case and to the present case. So much as is necessary
of the latter replies is quoted below, together with one communica-
tion which referred only to the present case :—

(a) Comment by Dr. W. C. Mendenhall, Acting Director of the U.S.
Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., dated 2nd May 19209,
containing the views of eight palaeontologists of the Geological

Survey then 1n Washington.

The proposition now before the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature to suspend the law of priority in the case of two generic
names of ammonites Lytocevas and Ophiceras has been considered by the
palaeontologists of the Geological Survey now in Washington who are
concerned with zoological names.

C. Wythe Cooke, George H. Girty, W. C. Mansfield, J. B. Reeside, jr.,
P. V. Roundy, T. W. Stanton and L. W. Stephenson state that they concur
in the recommendation of Dr. F. A. Bather that the two names Lytoceras
Suess and Ophicevas Griesbach should be added to the list of nomina
consevvanda under suspension of the law of priority. |

Edwin Kirk joins in this recommendation so far as Lytoceras is concerned
but thinks that the retention of Griesbach’s Ophicevas would be unfortun-
ate because Suess’s prior use of that name has been noted by Marshall in
1873 and by subsequent bibliographers.

(b) Comment by Dr. Rudolf Richter,? Senckenbergische Naturfor-
schende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M., dated 15th June 1929.

Suspension der Regeln soll eine sehr seltene Ausnahme bleiben, weil die
3 Dr. Richter was elected a member of the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature in 1930.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 194. 179

haufigere Anwendung dieses Rechtes zu schlimmen Folgen fiir die Nomen-

klatur fiihren wiirde.
Im Falle von Lytocevas Suess und Ophiceras Griesbach ist aber Suspension

das allein Richtige.

I beg to inform you that I have looked through the cases of Lytoceras
and Ophiceras. I absolutely recommend the proposition to suspend the
rule of priority in the case of the two above mentioned generic names. Dr.
Ravn, Head of the Department of Palaeontology, joins the recommendation
so far as Lytocevas is concerned, but is of opinion that the retention of
Griesbach’s Ophiceras would be unfortunate.

(d) Comment by Dr. Paul Bartsch, Curator of Mollusks and Cenozoic
Invertebrates, dated 4th February 1930. |

While I do not favour exceptions to the law of priority, this case
appears to be one in which abiding by the rules would produce greater
confusion than the suspension thereof. I therefore favor Dr. Bather’s
opinion.

(e) Comment by Dr. B. B. Woodward, London (undated).

I am of opinion that Lytocevas should be placed with ‘‘ nomina con-
servanda,”’ but that Ophicevas Griesbach, 1880, should not be accepted,
Suess’s earlier name having passed into literature.

4. The application in this case, together with the comments
thereon quoted in paragraph 3 above, was communicated to the
members of the Commission by Dr. Stiles in February 1931. In
doing so, Dr. Stiles pointed out that there was unanimity among
the experts consulted, so far as Lytoceras Suess, 1865, was con-
cerned, and that there was an overwhelming affirmative majority
in favour of suspending the Régles Internationales for Ophiceras
Griesbach, 1880. Accordingly, he recommended that the Régles
should be suspended for both these names and that they should
both be placed in the Official List of Generic Names, with the types
indicated in the petition quoted in paragraph I above.

5. Shortly after the circulation to the members of the Com-
mission of the document referred to above, Dr. Willward G. Van
Name, American Museum of Natural History, New York, who
had also been consulted by Dr. Stiles, replied as follows :—

I agree with the view expressed by Dr. Bather. The objection raised by
Dr. Kirk regarding the retention of Griesbach’s Ophiceras is a reasonable one
but I consider that it is outweighed by other circumstances of the case and
should not interfere with the retention of Griesbach’s genus.

6. In August 1932 the possible suspension of the Régles in this
case was duly advertised in the manner prescribed in proviso (a)

I80 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

to Article 1 of the Plenary Powers Resolution * adopted by the
Ninth International Congress of Zoology in March 1913. In the
period of twelve months following this advertisement, no com-
munication of any kind was addressed to the International Com-
mission objecting to the suspension of the Régles for Ophiceras
Griesbach. On the other hand, immediately after the appearance
of the advertisement in this case Dr. A. K. Miller, State University
of Iowa, wrote to the Commission (on 12th July 1932) supporting
the action proposed to be taken in this case. Dr. Miller stated :—

Recently, while studying nautiloid genera with similar names, I called
attention to the fact that the generic name Ophicevas Griesbach, 1880, was
a homonym of Ophiceras Suess, 1865, and I proposed the name Gveis-
bachocevas ® for it and designated Ophicevas tibeticum Griesbach as the
genotype (1932, Univ. Iowa Studies Nat. Hist. 14 (No. 4) : 16 nota). Iwas
of course unaware that the case was about to be presented to the Com-
mission, and I am writing you now to state that if it will serve the best
interests of all concerned, I sincerely hope that my recently proposed
generic name will be suppressed and Griesbach’s name will be established.

7. In February 1935 Dr. Stiles reported to the Commission that
twelve (12) Commissioners had recorded their votes on this case
in response to the invitation contained in the document which in
February 1931 he had circulated to the members of the Com-
mission (paragraph 4 above). Nine (g) Commissioners (Apstein,
Bather, Chapman, Horvath, Ishikawa, Pellegrin, Richter,
Stephenson and Stiles) had voted in favour of the suspension
of the Régles to preserve OpMiceras Griesbach; three (3)
Commissioners had voted against that course. At the same
time Dr. Stiles expressed the hope that the Commission
would dispose of this case at their meeting due to be held at
Lisbon later that year. In doing so, Dr. Stiles drew attention
to the procedure prescribed by the International Congress of
Zoology for dealing with cases involving proposals for the sus-
pension of the Régles where it had been found impossible to secure
a unanimous vote in the Commission on the action to be taken
under the Plenary Powers Resolution (Article 2). |

8. Prior to the opening of the Lisbon Session of the Commission,
Commissioner Karl Jordan voted in favour of the suspension of

4 For the text of this Resolution, see Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and
Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clatuve 1 : 31-40).

6 When first published, this name through some inadvertence was
printed as Greisbachocevas, but in view of the fact that this name was
intended to commemorate the name of Griesbach, the author in 1880 of the
name Ophicevas, the spelling intended was clearly Griesbachocevas. This

emendation was published by Dr. L. F. Spath in 1934 (Cat. foss. Ceph.
Brit. Mus. 43 72).

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I9Q4. 181

the Régles in this case, thereby bringing the voting to ten (10) in
favour to three (3) against.

g. At the Lisbon Session of the Commission, the available
documents relating to this case and to the related case of Lytoceras
Suess, 1865, were examined by Commissioner Francis Hemming,
who, jointly with Commissioner James L. Peters, had been charged
with the duty of acting as Secretary to the Commission during
that Session, owing to the absence through ill-health of Dr.
Stiles. The conclusions so reached by Commissioner Hemming
are set out in the following note made in the records of the
Commission :—

Of the 18 specialists who have expressed their view on the question
whether the name Ophiceras Suess, 1865, should be suppressed for the pur-
pose of (i) validating its synonym Lytocevas Suess, 1865, and (ii) validating
its homonym Ophiceras Griesbach, 1880, all have expressed themselves as
being in favour of course (i); 15 of these specialists (United States 11;
United Kingdom 2; Germany 1; and Denmark 1) were in favour also of
course (ii), while 3 (United States 1; United Kingdom 1; and Denmark 1)
hold the opposite view. Two of these specialists (United States 1; United
Kingdom 1) give as the ground for their view the fact that the name
Ophiceras Suess, 1865, has been noted in Nomenclators (e.g. in Marshall,
1873, Nomencl. zool. : 130) and so have passed into the literature. The
third (Danish) specialist merely states that, in his view, the suspension of
the Régles Internationales in favour of Ophiceras Griesbach ‘‘ would be
unfortunate.”

2. After studying carefully the evidence submitted in regard both to
this case and to that of Ophicevas Suess, 1865, and Lytoceras Suess, 1865,
I have come to the conclusion that the petitioner has established his case
that the strict application of the Régles for these names would clearly
result in greater confusion than uniformity and accordingly that the proper
course for the Commission to adopt is to use their plenary powers to sup-
press the name Ophiceras Suess, 1865, thereby (a) validating the name
Lytocevas Suess, 1865, at present invalid as a synonym, and (b) validating
Ophiceras Griesbach, 1880, at present an invalid homonym.

3. The only argument brought forward against this course is not an
argument directed to show that it would be reasonable and proper to
suppress Ophicevas Suess, 18605, for one purpose, while retaining it for
another. It is an argument which, if valid, would render the suspension
of the Régles to preserve Lytocevas Suess as unacceptable as the suspension
of the Frégles to preserve Ophiceras Griesbach, for the name Ophiceras Suess
is as much, or as little, embodied in the literature for one purpose as for the
other.

4. Quite apart from the effect which its application would have on the
two cases under consideration, the argument advanced against the sus-
pension of the Fégles in this case, if accepted as a general principle (as
would certainly be necessary), would have the effect of debarring the Inter-
national Commission from exercising their plenary powers to suppress any
name which, after publication, had appeared in a Nomenclator or Catalogue.
This would amount to the virtual abandonment of the power to suppress
names at all, since practically every name figures in one or more of the
catalogues of the group concerned. The Commission have already given
their answer to the general question here involved by unanimously agree-
ing during the present (Lisbon) Session to suppress a considerable number

182 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

of names in the Order Hymenoptera,® all of which figure in the principal
Nomenclators as well as in the catalogues of species of that Order. The
only argument advanced against the grant of the petition in this case 1s,
therefore, one which has already been rejected by the Commission.

5. I consider therefore that the present petition should be granted and,
in view of the fact that some of the Commissioners who have cast negative
votes are not present in Lisbon, I recommend that the Commission should
invoke the special procedure prescribed in the second paragraph of the
Plenary Powers Resolution.’

10. By the time, therefore, that on Tuesday, 17th September
1935, the Commission came to consider this case, fourteen (14)
Commissioners had voted on it.

ir. Eleven (11) Commissioners had voted in favour of the
suspension of the Régles to preserve Opliceras Griesbach, 1880,
namely :—

Apstein; Bather; Chapman; Hemming; Horvath; Ishikawa;
Jordan; Pellegrin; Richter; Stephenson; and Stiles.

12. Three (3) Commissioners had voted against the suspension
of the Régles in this case, namely :—

Cabrera; Silvestri; and Stone.

13. At the meeting referred to above, the Commission had
under consideration this case, jointly with that of Op/iceras Suess,
1865, and Lytoceras Suess, 1865, and after taking note of the voting
in each of these cases (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion
13) 8 :—

(b) agreed that the proper course as regards Ophiceras Griesbach was to
proceed under Article 2 ® of the Plenary Powers Resolution adopted
by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at Monaco in
March 1913;

(c) agreed, in view of (b) above, to report the case of Ophiceras
Griesbach, 1880, to the President of the Section on Nomenclature of
the present (Lisbon) Congress for action under the said Article 2 of
the Resolution of March 1973.

14. This case was accordingly reported to the President of the
Section on Nomenclature of the Twelfth International Congress of
Zoology immediately after the meeting of the Commission referred
to above.

15. Various causes, including the resignation of the Secretary-
ship of the Commission by Dr. Stiles and the consequent need for

6 See Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Con-
clusion 2 (1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 27-30).

7 See footnote 4.

8 For the full text of this Conclusion, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 39.

® See footnote 4.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I9Q4. 183

the establishment of the Secretariat of the Commission at new
headquarters, combined to make it impossible to secure any
further progress in this case before the outbreak of war in Europe
in September 1939 put a temporary stop to the activities of the
Commission. When, however, it was found possible in the spring
of 1942 to arrange for the reopening of the Secretariat of the
Commission, this case was reviewed jointly by the President of
the Commission and the Secretary to the Commission, who agreed
that, having regard to the length of time which this case had
already been before the Commission, every effort should be made
to secure the services of a former member of the Commission who
had not expressed any public opinion on this case and thereby
render possible the immediate appointment of the required Board
of Three Members for the purpose of deciding the action to be
taken in this case.

16. On being approached, Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell, a
former member of the Commission who had expressed no public
opinion on this case, consented to assist the Commission by
serving as a member of the proposed Board of Three Members.
Accordingly on 30th December 1942, Dr. Karl Jordan, President
of the Section on Nomenclature of the Twelfth International
Congress of Zoology, acting in virtue of the powers conferred upon
him in this behalf by Article 2 of the Plenary Powers Resolution
adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Monaco on 31st March 1913, appointed a Board of
Three Members composed as follows :— )

Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell Former member of the Inter-
national Commission on Zoo-
logical Nomenclature, who had
expressed no public opinion on
the present case ;

Dr. Karl Jordan A Commissioner who had voted

| in favour of the suspension of
the Régles Internationales in
this case; and

Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera A Commissioner who had voted
against the suspension of the
Régles Internationales in this
case.

17. The terms of reference given to the foregoing Board of
Three Members were as follows :—

184 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(i) to review the evidence submitted to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for and against
the suspension of the Régles Internationales in the case of
the name Op/iceras Griesbach, 1880; and

(11) to report whether or not an Opinion should be rendered :—
(a) suspending the Régles :—
(rt) to suppress the name Op/iceras Suess, 1865,
and
(2) to validate the name Ophiceras Griesbach, 1880
(type: Ophiceras tibeticum Griesbach, 1880)
(Mollusca) ; and
(b) placing the name Op/iceras Griesbach, 1880, so
validated, on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology.

18. The following reports on this case were received from the
members of the Board of Three constituted by the President of
the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology in the manner
specified in paragraph 16 above :— .

(1) Report by the former Commissioner, Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell

(dated 13th November 1943) :
_ After having given careful consideration to the evidence and arguments
adduced by the many specialists of whose opinion Commissioner Hemming
has given me a clear summary, I report that an Opinion should be rendered
(a) suspending the rules (i) to suppress the name Ophiceras Suess, 1865,
and (ii) to validate the name Ophicevas Griesbach, 1880 (type: Ophiceras
tibeticum Griesbach, 1880) (Mollusca); and (b) placing the name Ophiceras
Griesbach, 1880, so validated, on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology.

(2) Report by Commissioner Karl Jordan (dated 12th December
| 1943) :

The case of Ophicevas has been considered again by me and I see no
argument which would change my vote given at Lisbon. I agree therefore
that the rules be suspended, Ophicevas Suess be suppressed and Ophiceras
Griesbach, 1880 (type: O. tibeticum Griesbach, 1880) be validated and
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

19g. Under Article 2 of the Plenary Powers Resolution, a Report
by a Board of Three Members set up under the procedure pre-
scribed in that Resolution may be either unanimous or taken by
an affirmative vote of any two of the members of such a Board.
Accordingly, as from the date of receipt (14th December 1943) of
the second of the two votes cast in favour of the suspension of the
Reégles Internationales for the purpose of validating the name

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I94. 185

Ophiceras Griesbach, 1880 (1.e. as from the date of receipt of
Commissioner Jordan’s vote), an effective decision had already
been taken by the Board of Three Members in favour of that course.
The present case was not, however, closed on that date, since the
Secretary to the Commission judged it better to allow ample time
for the receipt of the vote of the third Member of the Board, even
though (for the reasons explained above) that vote could not in
any circumstances alter the decision already taken by the Board.
At that time, there was, owing to war conditions, great delay in
postal communications between the United Kingdom (the seat of
the Secretariat of the Commission) and Argentina (the place of
residence of Commissioner Cabrera, the third Member of the
Board). Accordingly, the Secretary to the Commission directed
that this case should not be finally closed until after the expiry
of a period of eighteen months calculated from 31st October 1943,
the date on which the evidence relating to the present case was
despatched to each of the Members of the Board. No reply was,
however, received from Commissioner Cabrera during the fore-
going period. On ist May 1945, the day following the expiry of
that period, this case was, therefore, reviewed by the Secretary
to the Commission, who concluded that the communication
addressed to Commissioner Cabrera must have been lost in the
post owing to war conditions. At the same time, the Secretary
to the Commission took note that under the procedure prescribed
by the Plenary Powers Resolution a final decision had been
reached in this case as far back as 14th December 1943, the date
on which, by reason of Commissioner Jordan’s vote, two votes
in favour of the suspension of the Régles Internationales in the
present case had been received in the Secretariat from Members
of the Board of Three Members. Accordingly, on 1st May 1945,
Commissioner Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International
Commission, acting in virtue of the powers conferred upon him
in that behalf by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to
the Commission, closed the ballot in this case.

ITl.—THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

20. The decision taken by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature in the present case is :—

(a) under suspension of the Régles Internationales :—

186 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(i) to suppress for all nomenclatorial purposes the name
Opbhiceras Suess, 1865, Anz. Akad. Wiss. Wien
2 (No. 17) : 112 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammo-
noidea) ; and

(ii) to validate the name Op/iceras Griesbach, 1880. Rec.
geol. Surv. Ind. 18:102, 109 (type: Ophiceras
tibeticum Griesbach, 1880, Rec. geol. Surv. Ind.
18: 109 pl. 3 fig. 4) (Class Cephalopoda, Order
Ammonoidea) ; and

(b) to add the name Ophiceras Griesbach, 1880, validated as
in (a) above and with the type there specified, to the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology.

21. The foregoing decision was taken by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting through a Board
of Three Members constituted in accordance with the provisions
of Article 2 of the Plenary Powers Resolution of March 1913.1

22. The following two (2) members of the Board of Three
Members voted in favour of the adoption of the present Opinion :—

Mitchell; Jordan.

23. No member of the Board of Three Members voted against
the present Opinion. No vote was received from Commissioner
Cabrera, the third member of the Board.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
: OPINION.

WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution
conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, Plenary Powers to suspend the Reégles Internationales
de la Nomenclature Zoologique as applied to any given case where,
in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the
Regles would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity,
provided either that after due advertisement of the possible
suspension of the Régles as applied to the said case the members of
the Commission were unanimously in favour of that course or
that, in default of unanimity, a Board of Three Members duly
constituted in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the
Resolution of March 1913 referred to above (hereinafter referred
to as the “ Plenary Powers Resolution ’’), acting for the said

10 See footnote 4.

COMMISSION ON ZOOWOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION IQ4. 187

International Commission, decided, either unanimously or by a
majority, in favour of the suspension of the Régles as applied to
the case so referred to it for decision; and

WHEREAS the suspension of the Reégles is required to give valid
force to the provisions of the present Ofinion as set out in the
summary thereof; and

WHEREAS in default of unanimity regarding the decision to be
taken as respects the names dealt with in the present Opinion,
the International Commission agreed unanimously at their
Session held at Lisbon in 1935 that this case should be decided by
a Board of Three Members constituted in accordance with the
provisions of Article 2 of the Plenary Powers Resolution; and

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the
powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of holding the
said Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby
announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Com-
mission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and
direct that it be rendered and printed as Ofinion Number One
Hundred and Ninety Four (Opinion 194) of the said Commission.

In faith whereof I, FRANcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have signed
the present Opinion.

Done in London, this twenty-ninth day of October, Nineteen
Hundred and Forty-Five, in a single copy, which shall remain
deposited in the archives of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

FRANCIS HEMMING.

I88 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the International Trust
for Zoological Nomenclature at 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.)

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The above work is being published in three volumes con-
currently, namely :—

Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which
have never previously been published) and Ofimions 1-133 (the
original issue of which is now out of print). In order that the
volume, when bound, may be of a convenient size for handling,
it has been decided to divide it into a series of Sections, which
will be continuously paged but will each be supplied with a title
page and index. It is at present contemplated that the first
of these Sections (Section A) will comprise Declarations 1-9 and
Opinions 1-16. Part 17 containing the index and title page for

Section A will be published as soon as possible. The publication —

of Parts of Section B will be started immediately thereafter. -

Parts 1-25 (comprising Declarations I-g and Opinions I-16)
have now been published. Further Parts are in the press” and
will be published as soon as possible.

Section A, comprising Declarations 10-12 and Opinions. 134—
160 (published in Parts 1-30 and 30 A), is now complete, price
£4 4s. od. Individual Parts of this Section are also obtainable
separately at the prices at which they were originally published.

Section B will comprise Opinions 161-181 (to be published in.
Parts 31-52). Parts 31-51 (containing Ofimions 161-181) have
now been published and it is hoped that Part 52 containing the
index and title page will be issued at an early date.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I94. 189

Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182,
will contain the first instalment of the Opzmions adopted by the
International Commission since their Lisbon meeting. Parts 1—
13 (containing Opinions 182-194) have now been published.
Further Parts will be published as soon as possible.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal was established by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature in 1943 as their Official Organ in
order to provide a medium for the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
International Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the
Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the
Bulletin under (a) above; and

Parts I-10 of volume 1 have now been published. Further
Parts are in the press and will be published as soon as possible.

| a PRINTED IN GR
r ; RICHARD CLAY AND

(et

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

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

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 3. Part 14. Pp. 191—198

OPINION 195
Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a type
| species for the genus Venus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class
Pelecypoda) in harmony with accustomed usage

4 )
a
IBRARL

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
and 3
Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
1954

Price Three Shillings
(All rights reserved)

Issued 27th January, 1954

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 195

A. The Officers of the Commission

President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural History),
Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England).
Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cam-
bridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London, England).

B. The Members of the Commission

Class 1949

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

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

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

Dr. Th. MorTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark).

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

Class 1952

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. eae E. VoKes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.,
U.S.A.).

Class 1955

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

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

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

Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologisk Labora-
torium, Copenhagen, Denmark).

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

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

Mr. N. D. Rivey (British Museum (Natural History), London, England).

Professor Ragnar SPARCK. (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen,
Denmark)

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

Professor Robert L. UsiNGer (University of California, Berkeley, California,

OPINION 195

DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF
A TYPE SPECIES FOR THE GENUS ‘° VENUS ”
LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS PELECYPODA) IN
HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED USAGE

RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers all selec-
tions of type species for the genus Venus Linnaeus, 1758
(Class Pelecypoda) made prior to the present Ruling are
hereby set aside and Venus verrucosa Linnaeus, 1758, is
hereby designated to be the type species of the foregoing
nominal genus. (2) The name Venus Linnaeus, 1758
(gender of name: feminine), with the type species
designated in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 626.
(3) The specific name verrucosa Linnaeus, 1758, as
published in the combination Venus verrucosa, is hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology
as Name No. I.

I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On 23rd May 1945 the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature received from Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (Natural
History Museum, Balboa Park, San Diego, California, U.S.A.)
a letter dated 6th April 1945, in which Dr. Baily raised two
questions, the first concerned with the type species of the genus
Venus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pelecypoda), the second with the
type species of the genus Bulla Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Gastropoda).
These two problems were given separate Registered Numbers,
the first being assigned the Number Z.N.(S.)189, the second
the Number Z.N.(S.)190. Thereafter these two problems were
treated as constituting separate applications. The following
is an extract from that part of Dr. Baily’s letter which is concerned
with the name Venus Linnaeus, 1758 :—

Please give me the benefit of your assistance on the following cases.

194 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

1. Venus Linnaeus, 1758

According to Stewart (1930, Spec. Publ. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad.,
No. 3) the earliest type designation for this genus was Venus dione
Linnaeus. In the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae, Rumphius is
quoted as having designated this species as “‘ die rechte Venus ”’, etc.
and later Miiller and also Chemnitz both referred to it as ‘“‘ die aechte
Venus ”’, and throughout the 18th century this usage was consistently
followed. But in 1799 Lamarck (Mém. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris 1799 : 84)
cited Venus mercenaria Linnaeus as an example, and in 1801 (Syst.
Anim. s. Vert.) he cited Venus verrucosa Linnaeus. These two species
differ widely from Venus dione, but they are fairly closely related to
each other.

Neither of these citations by Lamarck can be considered a type
designation, but so great was the weight of Lamarck’s authority
that the earlier designation of Venus dione has been completely neg-
lected by all subsequent writers. Today the family VENERIDAE is
divided up into several sub-families, and the name Venus is universally
applied to a group of species of a different sub-family from that to
which Venus dione belongs. To restore the name Venus to the group
typified by Venus dione would result in so much confusion that no
systematic malacologist would recommend such a step, so far as
I know.

If the original designation of Venus dione as type should be invali-
dated by the International Commission, the question will then arise
as to what species of Venus is the type. The next valid designation
was by Gray, 1847 (Proc..zool. Soc. Lond., 1847 : 183) who chose
Venus verrucosa. In the meantime, several other types have been
designated, but according to Stewart (/oc. cit. : 217) these designations
are allinvalid. Finally, in 1886 Fischer (Man. de Conchyl.) designated
Venus mercenaria, and this usage was followed by Dall (Trans. Wagner
Free Inst. Sci. 3 (pt. 6) : 1306) in 1903. Most writers have followed
Dall, except that Stewart (/oc. cit. : 216) and Grant and Gale (Mem.
San Diego Soc. nat. Hist. 1 : 316) in 1931 have used Venus verrucosa
on the ground that Gray’s designation was older than Fischer’s.. If
these two species alone were involved there would be no question as
to the priority of Venus verrucosa as type, but as the designations of
both of them were subsequent to the older one of Venus dione, neither
Venus verrucosa, nor Venus mercenaria can be established as type
without the plenary suspension of the Rules by the International
Commission. Of the two my own personal preference would be for
Venus mercenaria, for the following reason :

In 1811 Megerle established the genus Chione. The type of this
group was designated by Gray (Joc. cit) as Venus dysira Chemnitz=
Venus cancellata Linnaeus, 1767 (Syst. Nat. (12th ed.) 1 : 1191).
No one has ever questioned either this genus or its type designation.
It is probably the largest genus (in the number of its species) in the
family. It is universally distributed. In many localities several
species are found living together. But the type species, Chione

OPINION 195 | 195

cancellata so closely resembles Venus verrucosa that they are probably
not more than sectionally distinct, and if Venus verrucosa be con-
stituted the type of Venus, that name must be used for the multiplicity
of species now called Chione.

On the other hand Venus mercenaria is well suited to be a type.
It is widespread, it is very plentiful, and probably the largest species
of the family. It is the basis of clam chowder, for which reason it is
widely known even among those who are not trained malacologists.

In view of the foregoing data, I would request that you exercise
your Plenary Powers of suspending the Rules to declare the designation
of Venus dione as type Venus invalid, and that you designate in place
thereof either Venus verrucosa or Venus mercenaria, as may seem
best to you.

I1—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE

2. On receipt of the present application, Mr. Francis Hemming,
Secretary to the International Commission, consulted the late
Mr. R. Winckworth (London) who, on 15th December 1945,
replied as follows, strongly supporting the acceptance of Venus
verrucosa Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of the genus Venus
Linnaeus, 1758 :—

Venus Linnaeus, 1758: Linnaeus does not quote the words “ die
aechte Venusmuschel’’ but merely gives the reference to Rumph’s
figure as ““Rumph. mus. t.48.f.4’’. If however this be considered
sufficient to make Venus dione Linnaeus the type species of Venus
Linnaeus, the resulting confusion in the nomenclature of the VENERIDAE
would be very great. Equally disastrous would be the choice of Venus
erycina Linnaeus as type species by tautonymy : Erycina was a name
of Venus under which she was worshipped at Rome.

I should strongly support taking the first valid type selection,
namely that of Venus verrucosa Linnaeus, 1758, made by Gray (1847),
which has been widely accepted.

3. On 14th November 1947 notice of the possible use, by the
_ International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, of the
Plenary Powers in the present case was issued to the serial
publications prescribed by the Ninth International Congress of
Zoology, Monaco, 1913. The publication of this notice elicited
no objections to the action proposed.

196 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

II—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

4. The present application was considered by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Eleventh Meeting
of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphithéatre
Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 0930 hours. The
following is an extract from the Official Record of the Proceedings
of the International Commission setting out the decision reached
by it in regard to this case at the foregoing meeting (Paris Session,
11th Meeting, Conclusion 28) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
4 : 304—305) ) :—

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to use their plenary powers to set aside all selections of
the type species of the genus Venus Linnaeus, 1758
(Class Pelecypoda, Order Eulamellibranchia), made
prior to the present decision and to designate Venus
verrucosa Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of this
genus ;

(2) to place the generic name Venus Linnaeus, 1758 (type
species : Venus verrucosa Linnaeus, 1758), on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ;

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

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

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

Venus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed.10) 1 : 684
Verrucosa, Venus, Linnaeus, 1758, ibid. (ed.10) 1 : 685

eee ee a ee hee

OPINION 195 197

6. The decision taken in the present case was reported to, and
approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Third
Meeting held on 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 94).

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

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

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

Paris Session.

9. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the
present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion
of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species
was the expression “ trivial name ”’ and the Official List reserved
for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific
Trivial Names in Zoology. Under a decision taken by the
Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen,
1953, the expression “ specific name” was substituted for the
expression “trivial name’’ and corresponding changes were
made in the titles of the Official List and the Official Index of
such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21).
The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in
the Ruling given in the present Opinion.

10. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in
dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accord-
ingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International
Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,

in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that
behalf.

198 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

11. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion One
Hundred and Ninety-five (195) of the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

Done in London this Ninth day of November, Nineteen
Hundred and Fifty-Three.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

FRANCIS HEMMING

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

e fed.

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

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

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 3, Part 15. Pp. 199—206

OPINION 196

Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a type
species for the genus Bulla Linnaeus, 1758 (Class
Gastropoda) in harmony with accustomed usage

LONDON :

Price Three Shillings

Issued 27th January, 1954

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 196

A. The Officers of the Commission

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

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

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

B. The Members of the Commission

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

Class 1952

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Harold E. Vokes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.,
U.S.A.).

Class 1955

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

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

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

Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologisk Labora-
torium, Copenhagen, Denmark).

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

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

Mr. N. D. RILEy (British Museum (Natural History), London, England).

Professor Ragnar SPARCK (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen,
Denmark).

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

Protest rae L. UsINGeR (University of California, Berkeley, California,
U,S.A.).

OPINION 196

DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF
A TYPE SPECIES FOR THE GENUS ‘* BULLA ”
LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS GASTROPODA)

IN HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED
USAGE

RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers all selections
of type species for the genus Bulla Linnaeus, 1758 (Class
Gastropoda) made prior to the present Ruling are hereby
set aside and Bulla ampulla Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby
designated to be the type species of the foregoing nominal
genus. (2) The name Bulla Linnaeus, 1758 (gender of
name: feminine), with the type species designated in
(1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology as Name No. 627. (3) The specific
name ampulla Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the
combination Bulla ampulla) is hereby placed on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 2.

I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On 23rd May 1945 the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature received from Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (Natural
History Museum, Balboa Park, San Diego, California, U.S.A.) a
letter dated 6th April 1945, in which Dr. Baily raised two questions,
the first concerned with the type species of the genus Venus
Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pelecypoda), the second with the type
species of the genus Bulla Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Gastropoda).
These two problems were given separate Registered Numbers,
the first being assigned the number Z.N.(S.)189, the second the
Number Z.N.(S).190. Thereafter these two problems were
treated as constituting separate applications. The first of these
cases has now been dealt with in Opinion 195, and the present
Opinion is concerned only with the name Bulla Linnaeus, 1758.
The following is an extract from the part of Dr. Baily’s letter
which is concerned with the present case.

Please give me the benefit of your assistance on the following cases.

202 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

2. Bulla Linnaeus, 1758

According to Dr. Harold E. Rehder of the U.S. National Museum,
the original type of this genus is Bulla naucum Linnaeus, following
Article 30, Rule (d) and Opinions 16 and 55. Linnaeus gives as
reference ““ Rumph. mus. t. 27 f. h. Bulla ”’.

In a letter to me, Dr. Rehder states as follows :

‘“* Referring to Rumphius we find that he used ‘ Bulla’ as a
specific name, including under it three forms, to one of which,
Linné, quite properly restricted it, citing it under Bulla naucum in
the sense of ‘the Bulla’. We have therefore a parallel to cases
cited in the opinions above, and the designation of Bulla naucum
as type is valid ”’.

The trouble with this designation is that it has been completely
ignored by all subsequent writers, and Bulla naucum has always been
considered the type of Atys Montfort, and Bulla has always been used
for the group typified by Bulla ampulla.

If the International Commission should suspend the type designation
of Bulla naucum the next designation was by Montfort, 1810 (Conch.
Syst. 2: 330—2), who chose Bulla ampulla astype. Some writers have
questioned the validity of this designation on the ground that Montfort
called the genus “‘ Bullus’’. If Montfort intended to establish a new
genus, as may have been his intention, his designation of a type for
Bullus cannot be construed as designation of a type for Bulla, but if
he was merely emending the name so that Bullus and Bulla are syno-
nyms, the first type designation for either one becomes the type of both,
and in this case Montfort’s designation of Bulla ampulla will hold.
Among my acquaintances there is divergency of opinion on this
point.

If the International Commission should decide that Montfort’s
designation is not valid, the next designation is that of Children 1823
(Quart. J. Sci. Lit. Arts 5: 232), who chose Bulla lignaria Linnaeus,
which species had already been made the type of Scaphander Montfort,
1810 (loc. cit.) by Montfort himself, and all subsequent writers have
followed this practice.

To accept as type of Bulla either Bulla naucum or Bulla lignaria
would necessitate the shifting of the name Bulla from a group for
which it has been universally used (even if wrongly) to a group which
has long been known by a different name and cannot result in anything
but confusion at first. But if such a change must be made, it can best
be done after the International Commission has issued an Opinion.

In view of the foregoing data I would request that you exercise
your plenary powers to suspend the Rules and declare the type of
Bulla to be Bulla ampulla. Such a course would not only avoid the
confusion that would result from the shifting of a familiar name, but
it would make Bulla and Bullus identical synonyms and so preclude
the possibility of having two genera, Bulla and Bullus, and consequently
two families called BULLIDAE within the same Sub-Order.

OPINION 196 | | 203
II.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE

2. On receipt of this application, Mr. Francis Hemming,
Secretary to the International Commission, placed the following
Minute on the File :—

Dr. Baily in his application is concerned only with the name Bulla

‘as used by Linnaeus (1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 725) for a genus of
Gastropoda and makes no mention of Linnaeus’ earlier use in the
same volume (: 427) of the term Bulla for a subdivision of the genus
Gryllus Linnaeus (: 425) (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera).

In so acting, Dr. Baily is perfectly correct, but, as it is likely that in
the discussion of the Gastropod name Bulla, reference may be made
to the earlier Orthopterid Bulla, it seems desirable that the position in
this matter should be placed on record as follows: In different parts
of the Tenth Edition of the Systema Naturae Linnaeus divided genera
into named sections. On the whole, these names have been ignored
by most subsequent authors, though certain of these names (e.g.
Mantis, Locusta) have been universally accepted. This lack of uni-
formity sprang largely from doubts among systematists on the question
whether Linnaeus intended that the terms which he applied to these
sections should be regarded as names, having regard to the fact that
the publication of the Tenth Edition of the Systema Naturae long
preceded the formulation of the concept of the sub-genus. In the
year 1928, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
was asked for a formal ruling on the question whether the terms under
consideration were to be accepted as being names of sub-generic status
as from Linnaeus, 1758. This question was answered in the negative
by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in its
Opinion 124 published in October 1936 (Smithson. misc. Coll. 73
(No. 8 : 1—2). In this Opinion, the Commission expressly cited, as
an example, the double use made by Linnaeus of the word Bulla,
pointing out that under the ruling then given the earlier of these uses
(in the Orthopterous genus Gryllus) was invalid, and therefore that
the name Bulla Linnaeus, 1758, in the Phylum Mollusca was an
available name.

3. As the next step, Mr. Hemming consulted the late Mr. R.
Winckworth (London) who, on 15th December 1945, replied as
follows, strongly supporting the use of the Plenary Powers for
the purpose of designating Bulla ampulla Linnaeus, 1758, as the
type species of the genus Bulla Linnaeus, 1758 :—

It may be noted that both Bulla ampulla L. and B. naucum L. have
references to Rumph’s figures (27G and 27H) and that both of these
are called “Bulla” by Rumph, though Linnaeus only quotes the
word Bulla from Rumph under B. naucum, which precedes B. ampulla
in Linnaeus, but is the second kind (tweede Sort) of Bulla in Rumph.

204 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

It would be disastrous to disturb the almost unbroken tradition of
binominal literature, which associates Bulla with the group typified by
B. ampulla, by accepting B. naucum as type. I strongly support the
proposal to place Bulla L., 1758 on the Official List with B. ampulla L.
as type.

4. On 14th November 1947 notice of the possible use, by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, of its
Plenary Powers in this case was issued to the serial publications
prescribed by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology,
Monaco, 1913. The publication of this notice elicited no
objections to the action proposed.

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

5. The present application was considered by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Eleventh Meeting
of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphithéatre
Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July. 1948 at 0930 hours. The
following is an extract from the portion of the Official Record of
the Proceedings of the International Commission setting out the
decision reached by it in regard to this case at the foregoing
meeting (12th Meeting, Conclusion 29 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
4 : 305) :—

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to use their plenary powers to set aside all selections of
the type species of the genus Bulla Linnaeus, 1758
(Class Gastropoda, Order Bullomorpha), made prior
to the present decision and to designate Bulla ampulla
Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of this genus ;

(2) to place the generic name Bulla Linnaeus, 1758 (type
species : Bulla ampulla Linnaeus, 1758), on the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology ;

OPINION 196 205

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

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

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

Ampulla, Bulla, Linnaeus, 1758, ibid. (ed. 10) 1 : 727
Bulla Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 725

7. The gender of the generic name Bulla Linnaeus, 1758,
referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 5 is feminine.

8. The decision taken in the present case was reported to, and
approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Third
Meeting held on 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.5 : 94).

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

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

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

11. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the
_ present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion

206 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species
was the expression “ trivial name ”’ and the Official List reserved
for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific
Trivial Names in Zoology. Under a decision taken by the
Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953,
the expression “ specific name ”’ was substituted for the expression
‘trivial name’ and corresponding changes were made in the
titles of the Official List and the Official Index of such names
(1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl.: 21). The changes
in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling
given in the present Opinion.

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

13. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion One
Hundred and Ninety-Six (196) of the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

Done in London this Ninth day of November, Nineteen
Hundred and Fifty-Three.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

FRANCIS HEMMING

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

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

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

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 3, Part 16. Pp. 207—216

OPINION 197

Suppression, under the Plenary Powers, of the
generic name Graptolithus Linnaeus, 1768 (Class
Graptolithina) and of the specific name scalaris
Linnaeus, 1768, as published in the combination

Graptolithus scalaris

LONDON :

Three Shillings and Ninepence

Issued 27th January, 1954

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON’
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 197

A. The Officers of the Commission

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

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

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

B. The Members of the Commission

Class 1949

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

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

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

Dr. Th. MORTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark).

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

Class 1952

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Harold E. Voxes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.,
U.S.A.).

Class 1955

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

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

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

Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Professor Harold Kirspy (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S. AR

Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohajskole, Zoologisk Labora-
torium, Copenhagen, Denmark).

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

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

Mr. N. D. Rivey (British Museum (Natural History), London, England).

Professor Ragnar SpArcK (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen,
Denmark).

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

Professor Robert L. UsINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California,

OPINION 197

SUPPRESSION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE
GENERIC NAME ‘** GRAPTOLITHUS ” LINNAEUS,
1768 (CLASS GRAPTOLITHINA) AND OF THE
SPECIFIC NAME ‘‘ SCALARIS ”? LINNAEUS,

1768, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION
** GRAPTOLITHUS SCALARIS ”.

RULING :—(1) The following names are hereby
suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the purposes
of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of
Homonymy : —(a) the generic name Graptolithus Lin-
naeus, 1768 (Class Graptolithina), and (b) the specific
name scalaris Linnaeus, 1768, as published in the com-
bination Graptolithus scalaris. (2) The name Grapto-
lithus Linnaeus, 1768, suppressed under (1) above, is
hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 1. (3) The
specific name scalaris Linnaeus, 1768, as published in
the combination Graptolithus scalaris, suppressed under.
(1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of
eee and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as Name

O45.

I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Under cover of a letter dated 3rd July 1930, Dr. O. M. B.
Bulman, Sc.D., F.R.S., then of the Imperial College of Science
and Technology (Royal School of Mines), South Kensington,
London, S.W.7, submitted to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature a memorandum containing several
requests for the use of the Plenary Powers in relation to the names
of Graptolites. One of the applications so submitted contained
a request for the suppression of the generic name Graptolithus
Linnaeus, 1768.

210 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

2. This application, as finally settled, was as follows :—

PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF THE NAME GRAPTOLITHUS
LINNAEUS, 1768 (CLASS GRAPTOLITHINA, ORDER
GRAPTOLOIDEA!)

By O. M. B. BULMAN, Sc.D., F.R.S.

(University Lecturer in Palaeozoology, Cambridge University)
(Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.)11)

The name Graptolithus was applied by Linnaeus in 1735 (Syst. Nat.
(ed. 1): [5]) and in 1768 (ibid. (ed. 12) 3 : 173) to what he regarded
as inorganic markings (such as dendritic incrustations and “ ruin-
marble ’’) simulating fossils, and when, in 1768, he included Grapto-
lithus sagittarius and G. scalaris, these were considered to be of
inorganic nature. The former species is possibly a fossil plant, and
the latter probably a graptolite.

Graptolithus scalaris Linnaeus, 1768, was believed by Wahlenberg
(1821, Noy. Act. Soc. reg. Sci., Upsala 8 : 92) to be a Cephalopod,
and was quoted under the generic title of Orthoceratites (Orthoceratites
Gesner, 1758, Tract. phys. Petrif.: 42). Wahlenberg was thus the
first to recognise its organic character.

The name Priodon was proposed, probably to include both Linnaeus’
species, by Nilsson (MS., see Hisinger, 1831, Esquisse Tabl. Petrif. sued.
(ed. 2): 29). This name, being preoccupied by Priodon Cuvier, 1829,
Régn. anim. (ed. 2) 2 : 225,? was later modified to Prionotus Nilsson
(MS., see Hisinger, 1837, Lethaea suec.: 113), which, however, was
also preoccupied (by Prionotus Lacépéde, 1802, Hist. nat. Poiss.
3 : 336). Prionotus Nilsson MS. seems to have been regarded as a
synonym of Lomatoceras Bronn, 1834, Lethaea geogn. 1(1) : 55 by
Bronn (ibid. : 56), but both Priodon and Prionotus are more properly
synonyms of Graptolithus Linnaeus, 1768, since they were employed
by Hisinger to include G. scalaris Linnaeus and G. sagittarius Linnaeus.
It is not clear why they were proposed, and they were never in general
use ; for further discussion of the question, see Elles and Wood, 1902,

1 The graptolites in the past have commonly been placed in the Class Hydrozoa
of the Phylum Coelenterata. The systematic position of the group is, how-
ever, obscure and it has here been thought better, while provisionally retaining
the graptolites in the Phylum Coelenterata, to treat this group as constituting
a separate Class, Graptolithina. (int’d) F. H. 31st January 1945.

2 Cuvier’s manuscript name Priodon was first published by Quoy & Gaimard,
1824, in Freycinet, Voy. “‘Uranie”’ et “Phys.” (Zool.) 1 : 377. In addition,
the name Priodon Berthold, 1827, Latreille’s Fam. Thierr. : 57, the name of
a genus in the Class Mammalia, has priority over Priodon (Nilsson MS.)
Hisinger, 1831.

OPINION 197 211

Monogr. Brit. Grapt. (2) : vii, and Tullberg, 1882, Bihang K. svensk.
Vet.-Acad. Handl. 6 (No. 13)-: 7.

Graptolithus scalaris Linnaeus was selected by Beck (1839), in
Murchison, Si/ur. Syst. 2 : 696) as the type of the genus Graptolithus.
Barrande (1850, Grapt. Bohéme : 34) considered it identical with
G. sagittarius Linnaeus, but this was denied by Hall (1868, 20th Ann.
Rep. N.Y. State Cab. nat. Hist. : 228) who adhered to G. scalaris
Linnaeus as the type.

It may probably be accepted that Graptolithus scalaris Linnaeus,
1768, was a real graptolite, and this was definitely selected as the type
by Beck, but there is considerable uncertainty about the form, and G.
scalaris Linnaeus is included only with a note of interrogation among
the synonyms of Climacograptus scalaris (His.) by Elles and Wood
(1906), Monogr. Brit. Grapt. (5) : 184). In view of the doubtful
nature of the genolectotype and the clearly expressed intention of
Linnaeus that the name was to denote inorganic objects, it is suggested
that its use as a generic name be officially abandoned and that Grapto-
lithus Linnaeus, 1768, be placed on the list of obsolete generic names.

IlL—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE

3. The memorandum furnished by Dr. Bulman in 1930 was
communicated in December 1931 to the members of the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the then
Secretary (the late Dr. C. W. Stiles) in Circular Letter No. 221.
This action led to the submission of the four comments on this
case set out in the immediately following paragraphs.

4. Comment by Lt. Col. J. Stephenson : The following comment
was furnished in a letter dated 5th March 1932 by Lt. Col. J.
Stephenson, a Member of the International Commission :—

The authority to whom I should naturally have submitted the cases
detailed in your Circular Letter 221 (Subject : Suspension, Monograptus,
Retiolites, Graptolithus) is Dr. Bulman himself, who works within
a stone’s throw of this Museum [British Museum (Natural History)}.
As he raises the cases, we may take it that we know his answer
beforehand. 7

Captain A. K. Totton, the Assistant Keeper here in the Museum in
charge of Coelenterata, informs me that he would himself have

212 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

no hesitation in taking Dr. Bulman’s opinion; and, having been
through the cases myself as they are presented in your letter, I beg to
give my own informal recommendation in the same sense also.

5. Comment by Dr. F. A. Bather: In a letter to Dr. Stiles,
dated 21st March 1932, the late Dr. F. A. Bather (Keeper,
Department of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History)) wrote :
“1 entirely agree with Bulman’s proposals ’’.

6. Comment by Dr. Gertrude L. Elles: Ina letter, dated 25th
February 1932 (communicated by Dr. Bather), Dr. Gertrude L.
Elles (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University) wrote :—

I am entirely in sympathy with Bulman’s proposals. . . The term
Graptolithus has for so long been regarded by all workers on the
Graptolites as a mere waste-paper basket term that the sooner it
disappears into oblivion the better !

7. Comment by Dr. Karl Jordan: Ina letter dated 22nd May
1932, Dr. Karl Jordan (Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts.)
wrote: “Graptolithus should be suppressed altogether as a name
in zoology ”’.

8. The present case was placed on the Agenda for the Session
of the International Commission then about to be held at Lisbon
in Circular Letter 309, issued to the Members of the Commission
in March 1935. Owing to the absence through ill-health of the
Secretary (Dr. Stiles) and the fact that in consequence the papers
relating to this case were not available in Lisbon, it was not
possible for the International Commission to deal with this
case on that occasion.

OPINION 197 213

in London was re-opened in 1942 and steps were immediately
taken to establish the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as a
means for bringing to the attention of zoologists applications
submitted to the International Commission for decision. Work
was at once started on outstanding applications with a view to
arranging for their publication in the newly established Bulletin.
After an exchange of correspondence between the Secretary and
Dr. Bulman the terms of the present application were finally
settled on 24th August 1944. This application was sent to the
printer in September 1944, but, owing to paper rationing, shortage
of labour at the printing works and similar causes it was not
until 26th June 1946 that this application was actually published
(Bulman, 1946, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 163—164). The
publication of this application in the Bulletin elicited the com-
ments set out in the three immediately following paragraphs.

10. Comment by Dr. Th. Mortensen: In a letter dated 20th
April 1947, the late Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets Zoologisk
Museum, Copenhagen) wrote as follows :—

Graptolithus. Though—perhaps—not be used as a generic name,
Graptolithus ought, I think, to be preserved as a more general term,
since it would be rather paradoxical to have an Order Graptolithoidea,
if we have not a name Graptolithus.

11. Comment by Dr. Charles E. Decker: On 13th June 1947,
Dr. J. Brookes Knight (Research Associate in Paleontology,
United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) at
that time Chairman of the Joint Committee on Zoological
Nomenclature for Paleontology in America, wrote: “As Chair-
man, I called these propositions to the attention of Dr. Rudolf
Ruedemann and Dr. Charles E. Decker, the two recognized
American authorities on the Graptolites. I enclose the originals
of their replies”. The comment by Dr. Decker (University of
Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.) on the present case was
given in a letter dated 2nd August 1946, the relevant portion of
which reads as follows: ‘In response to your enquiry I would
say that the name Graptolithus should be suppressed, as definite
generic terms have been given to all forms to which it was
formerly applied ”’.

214 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

12. Comment by Dr. Rudolf Ruedemann: In a letter dated
29th November 1946, Dr. Rudolf Ruedemann (Albany, N.Y.,
U.S.A.) wrote :—*‘ In answer to your question I may say that |
fully agree with the proposed suppression of the name Grapto-
Lithus: ae

13. On 14th September 1947 a notice of the possible use by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of
its Plenary Powers in the present case was issued to the serial
publications prescribed by the Ninth International Congress of
Zoology, Monaco, 1913. The publication of this notice elicited
no objections to the action proposed.

Iil—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

14. The present application was considered by the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the
Thirteenth Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in
the Amphithéatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at
17.30 hours. The following is an extract from the portion of the
Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Com-
mission, setting out the decision reached by it in regard to this
case at the foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Con-
clusion 21) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 377) :— |

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to use their plenary powers to suppress for purposes of
Article 25 but not for those of Article 34 or, as the case
might be, Article 35 :—

(a) the generic name Graptolithus Linnaeus, 1768
(Class Graptolithina) ;

(b) the trivial name scalaris Linnaeus, 1768 (as pub-
lished in the binominal combination Graptolithus
scalaris) ;

OPINION 197 215

(2) to place the name Graptolithus Linnaeus, 1768 on the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names
in Zoology and the trivial name scalaris Linnaeus,
1768 (as originally published in the binominal
combination Graptolithus scalaris) on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names
in Zoology ;

(3) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in
(1) and (2) above.

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

Graptolithus Linnaeus, 1768, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 3 : 173
scalaris, Graptolithus, Linnaeus, 1768, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 3 : 174

16. The decision taken in the present case was reported to,
and approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Fifth
Meeting held on 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
5: 106).

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

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

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

216 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

19. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the
present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion
of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species
was the expression “ trivial name ” and the Official List reserved
for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific
Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial’ appearing also in
the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and
invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the
Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen,
1953, the expression “specific name” was substituted for the
expression “trivial name” and corresponding changes were
made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such
names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The
changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the
Ruling given in the present Opinion.

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

21. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion One
Hundred and Ninety-Seven (197) of the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

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

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

FRANCIS HEMMING

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

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

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

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 3, Part 17. Pp. 217—228

OPINION 198

Suppression, under the Plenary Powers, of the

generic names Lomatoceras Bronn, 1834, and Mono-

prion Barrande, 1850 (Class Graptolithina), and

validation of the generic name Monograptus Geinitz,
1852.

LONDON :

Price Four Shillings and Sixpence
(All rights reserved)

Issued 27th January, 1954

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 198

A. The Officers of the Commission

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

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

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

B. The Members of the Commission

Class 1949

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

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

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

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

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

Class 1952
Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil).
Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.).
Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (University of Parma, Italy).
Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Canada).
Dr. James L. Prrers (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. Vokes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.,
U.S.A.).

Class 1955

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

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

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

Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Henning LemMcueE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologisk Labora-
torium, Copenhagen, Denmark).

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

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

Mr. N. D. Rivey (British Museum (Natural History), London, England).

Professor Ragnar SPARCK (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen,
Denmark).

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

Professor ae L. UsIncer (University of California, Berkeley, California,
U.S.A,). ‘

OPINION 198

: SUPPRESSION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE

GENERIC NAMES “* LOMATOCERAS ” BRONN, 1834,
AND ‘*“‘ MONOPRION ” BARRANDE, 1850 (CLASS
GRAPTOLITHINA) AND VALIDATION OF
THE GENERIC NAME ‘** MONOGRAP-

TUS ” GEINITZ, 1852

RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers the generic
names Lomatoceras Bronn, 1834, and Monoprion Bar-
rande, 1850 (Class Graptolithina) are suppressed for the
purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the
Law of Homonymy. (2) The name Monograptus (an

emendation of Monograpsus) Geinitz, 1852 (gender of

name: masculine) (type species, by selection by Bassler
(1915): Lomatoceras priodon Bronn, 1834) is hereby
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
as Name No. 628. (3) The specific name priodon Bronn,
1834, as published in the combination Lomatoceras
priodon) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology as Name No. 3. (4) The generic
names Lomatoceras Bronn, 1834, and Monoprion Bar-

- rande, 1850, as suppressed in (1) above, and the Invalid

Original Spelling Monograpsus Geinitz, 1852 are hereby
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 2 to 4.

I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Under cover of a letter dated 3rd July 1930 Dr. O. M. B.
Bulman, Sc.D., F.R.S., then of the Imperial College of Science
and Technology (Royal School of Mines), South Kensington,
London, S.W.7, submitted to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature a memorandum containing several
requests for the use of the Plenary Powers in relation to the
names of Graptolites. One of the applications so submitted

- contained a request for the suppression of the generic names

Lomatoceras Bronn, 1834, and Monoprion Barrande, 1850 (Class

220 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

Graptolithina) for the purpose of validating the name Mono-
graptus (emend. of Monograpsus) Geinitz, 1852.

2. This application, as finally settled, was as follows :—

PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE: REGLES FOR
MONOGRAPTUS GEINITZ, 1852 (CLASS GRAPTOLITHINA,
ORDER GRAPTOLOIDEA)}

By O. M. B. BULMAN, Sc.D., F.R.S.
(University Lecturer in Paleozoology, Cambridge University.)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)11)

The name Lomatoceras was erected in 1834 (Lethaea geogn. 1
(1) : 55), by Bronn with Lomatoceras priodon n. sp. (ibid. 1 (1) : 56),
as the genotype. In 1839, Beck (in Murchison, Silur. Syst. 2 : 696)
stated (but erroneously, as will be explained later) that the name was
preoccupied for a genus of insect, and cited Lomatoceras Bronn as a |
synonym of Graptolithus Linnaeus, 1768. The name Lomatoceras
Bronn was employed by Eichwald in 1840 (Ueber silur. Schichtensyst.
Esthland : 101), but not, apparently, by any other author, and it was
withdrawn by Bronn,? presumably in deference to Beck’s assertion,
in 1848 Undex palaeont. (1) Nomencl. palaeont. : 551, 667) when the
species was referred to Graptolithus Linnaeus.

Barrande, in 1850 (Grapt. Bohéme : 15), divided the genus Grapto-
lithus Linnaeus into two subgenera, Diprion Barrande and Monoprion
Barrande, the latter with fourteen genosyntypes (: 18) including
Lomatoceras priodon Bronn ; no type was selected. Geinitz used the
name Monograpsus [sic] in 1852 (Verstein. Grauwackenform. 1: 19, 32)
to cover the subgenus Monoprion and another of Barrande’s genera,
Rastrites Barrande, 1850 (Grapt. Bohéme : 64); Lomatoceras priodon
Bronn was one of twenty-eight genosyntypes. Geinitz asserted that
L. priodon Barrande was the species upon which the characters of
Monoprion Barrande were founded, and to this extent that species
becomes a genolectotype of Monoprion Barrande. Geinitz further
stated (Joc. cit. : 19) that the change in name from Monoprion to
Monograpsus was made with the object of securing uniformity with

u 1 The graptolites in the past have commonly been placed in the Class Hivgnonos.
of the Phylum Coelenterata. The systematic position of the group is, however,
obscure and it has here been thought better, while provisionally retaining the
graptolites in the Phylum Coelenterata, to treat this group as constituting
a separate Class, Graptolithina. (in’td) F. H. 31st January, 1945.

* Under the Reégles Internationales, it is not within the power even of the original
author of a generic or specific name to withdraw that name, once it is published.

OPINION 198 DOM

the name Diplograpsus McCoy, 1851, Brit. palaeoz. Rocks (1) : 3, 7,°
but it is clear that he had also enlarged the scope of the genus.

Later usage has changed Monograpsus to Monograptus.

Monograptus priodon (Bronn, 1834) was cited as an “‘example”’ of
the genus by Lapworth (1873, Geol. Mag. 10 : 500—504, 555—560)
in his table of the graptolite genera, but, although it would seem that
he intended his “‘examples”’ to be regarded as typical species (and
stated as much for the subgenera of Diplograptus* on page 557), he
did not definitely state a type for Monograptus, and this appears to
have been done first by Bassler in 1915 (Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 92 : 822)
with Lomatoceras priodon Bronn.

It may be remarked that Miller (1889, N. Amer. Geol. Palaeont. : 196)
attributed the authorship of the genus to Emmons, who mentioned it
in 1855 (Amer. Geol. 1 : 106) without quoting Geinitz’s name ;
Emmons’ species are considered by Ruedemann (1908, Grapt. New
York 2 : 450) to be indeterminate fragments of species of Didymog-
raptus McCoy, [1851],° in Sedgwick & McCoy, Syn. palaeoz. Rocks
2 (fasc. 1) : 9, and the matter need not be pursued.

In 1896, Gurley (J.Geol. 4 : 79) stated that he could find no trace
of the preoccupation of the name Lomatoceras and urged that this
name should stand by virtue of priority. Lomatoceras Bronn, 1834,
is the only genus of this name recorded by Sherborn (1927, Index
Anim. Pars. secund. (14) : 3637) and it would seem true that Beck’s
original statement was incorrect.®

Lomatoceras Bronn, 1834, with Lomatoceras priodon Bronn, 1834,
has clear priority over the name Monograptus Geinitz, 1852, with the
same type; but the latter name has become well established in an
extensive literature over a period of nearly 80 years. It is extensively
employed in stratigraphical geology, being perhaps the most important
and widely distributed single graptolite genus. Of the 23 standard
zones and subzones of the British Silurian (cited by Elles and Wood)
16 are named after species of the genus Monograptus and zones have

3 The name Diplograpsus McCoy, 1851, is an emendation of the name Diplo- |
grapsis McCoy, 1850, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 6 : 271.

4 The name Diplograptus Hall, 1865, Geol. Surv. Canad. Fig. Descr. Canad. org.
Remains 2 : 110, is an emendation of Diplograpsis McCoy, 1850. See pre-
ceding footnote.

>The name Didymograptus McCoy, [1851], is an emendation of the name
published by McCoy as Didymograpsus. This emendation was made by Hall,
1865, Geol. Sury. Canad. Fig. Descr. Canad. org. Remains 2 : 41.

6 It may be noted also that in the latest Nomenclator (Neave, 1939, Nomencl.
zool.2 : 987) the only genus with the name ““Lomatoceras ’’ cited is Lomatoceras
Bronn, 1834. There is, however, a genus of insects with the name Lomatocera,
of which Bronn was the author, but this was not published until 1848, Index
pal. : 667, i.e. fourteen years after the publication of the name Lomatoceras
Bronn, 1834. It is possible that Beck’s statement in 1839 that Lomatoceras
was preoccupied by an older name in insects may have been due to his having
been aware of the manuscript name Lomatocera Bronn and erroneously sup-
posed that it had priority over the name Lomatoceras Bronn, 1834.

222 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

been established on species of this genus not only throughout Europe,
but also in America, Asia and Australia. Moreover, the name appears
in nearly every elementary textbook of palaeontology and stratigraphy.
No useful purpose would be served by an insistence upon the re-
establishment of an almost forgotten name (Lomatoceras) originally
bestowed under the impression that the graptolites belonged to the
Cephalopoda ; and the name Monoprion Barrande, 1850, which,
apart from the work of Barrande, has also found no place in the
classic literature on graptolites, is equally undesirable.

In the opinion of the applicant, the strict application of the rules
to the present case would result in greater confusion than uniformity
and he therefore submits that under their plenary powers the Inter-
national Commission should suppress the names Lomatoceras Bronn,
1834, and Monoprion Barrande, 1850, and should validate Mono-
graptus Geinitz, 1852, (= an emendation of Monograpsus Geinitz,
1852) with Lomatoceras priodon Bronn, 1834, as type, and that the
name Monograptus Geinitz, 1852, so validated and with the above
species as type, should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology.

Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE

3. The memorandum furnished by Dr. Bulman in 1930 was
communicated in December 1931 to the members of the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the then
Secretary (the late Dr. C. W. Stiles) in Circular Letter No. 221.
This action led to the submission of the five comments on this
case set out in the immediately following paragraphs.

4. Comment by Lt. Col. J. Stephenson: The following com-
ment was furnished in a letter dated 5th March 1932 by Lt.
Col. J. Stephenson, a Member of the International Commission:—

The authority to whom I should naturally have submitted the cases
detailed in your Circular Letter 221 (Subject: Suspension, Mono-
graptus, Retiolites, Graptolithus) is Dr. Bulman himself, who works
within a stone’s throw of this Museum [British Museum (Natural
History)|. As he raises the cases, we may take it that we know his
answer beforehand.

OPINION 198 223

the names myself as they are presented in your letter, I beg to give my
own informal recommendation in the same sense also.

5. Comment by Dr. F. A. Bather: In a letter to Dr. Stiles,
@ated 2ist’ March 1932, the late Dr. F. A. Bather (Keeper,
Department of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History) ) wrote :
“T entirely agree with Bulman’s proposals ”’.

6. Comment by Dr. Gertrude L. Elles: In a letter dated 25th
February 1932 (communicated by Dr. Bather), Dr. Gertrude L.
Elles (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University) wrote :—

I am entirely in sympathy with Bulman’s proposals. . . I consider
very definitely that it would be a very great pity to attempt to re-
establish Lomatoceras for Monograptus, since the latter is so well
established in literature and perfectly well understood.

7. Comment by Dr. Karl Jordan: In a letter dated 22nd May
1932, Dr. Karl Jordan (Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts.) wrote :
*“* Lomatoceras has priority. Its re-introduction may be incon-
venient for present-day workers, but hardly leads to confusion.
If a large majority of specialists insists on retaining the junior

name Monograptus, | am willing to agree to a suspension of the
Rules ”’.

8. Comment by Mr. Frederick Chapman: In a letter dated
9th September 1932, Mr. Frederick Chapman (National Museum,
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) wrote as follows :—

My colleagues R. A. Keble, W. J. Harris and D. E. Thomas, grapto-
lite specialists in Victoria, with whom I entirely agree, are of the
opinion that it would be unfortunate to revive Lomatoceras Bronn,
1834, instead of retaining Monograptus Lapworth, 1873 (non Mono-
graptus Geinitz, 1852). Such reversion would cause great confusion
amongst present-day workers and therefore we would vote for the
suspension of the Rules in this case.

9. The present case was placed on the Agenda for the Session
of the International Commission then about to be held at Lisbon
in Circular Letter 309 issued to members of the Commission in
March 1935. Owing to the absence through ill-health of the
Secretary (Dr. Stiles) and the fact that in consequence the papers
relating to this case were not available in Lisbon, it was not
possible for the International Commission to deal with this case
on that occasion.

224 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

10. In 1938 the documents relating to this and other current
cases were transferred to the care of Mr. Francis Hemming, who
in October 1936 had been elected Secretary to the Commission
on the retirement of Dr. Stiles. On receipt the documents
relating to this case were given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.)11.
It had not been found possible to make any further progress with
this case when in September 1939 the records of the Commission
were evacuated from London to the country as a precaution
against the risk of destruction through air raids. The Secretariat
in London was re-opened in 1942 and steps were immediately
taken to establish the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as a
means for bringing to the attention of zoologists applications
submitted to the International Commission for decision. Work
was at once started on outstanding applications with a view to
arranging for their publication in the newly-established Bulletin.
After an exchange of correspondence between the Secretary
and Dr. Bulman, the terms of the present application were
finally settled on 24th August 1944. This application was sent
to the printer in September 1944, but, owing to paper rationing,
shortage of labour at the printing works and similar causes,
publication did not actually take place until 26th June 1946
(Bulman, 1946, Bull. zool. Nomencl.1 : 164—166). The publica-
tion of this application in the Bulletin elicited the comments
set out in the three immediately following paragraphs.

11. Comment by Dr. Th. Mortensen: In a letter dated 20th
April 1947, the late Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets Zoologisk
Museum, Copenhagen) indicated his support for this application
by writing the word “ Yes”.

12. Comment by Dr. Charles E. Decker: On 13th June 1947
Dr. J. Brookes Knight (Research Associate in Paleontology,
United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) at
that time Chairman of the Joint Committee on Zoological
Nomenclature for Paleontology in America, wrote: “As
Chairman, I called these propositions to the attention of Dr.
Rudolf Ruedemann and Dr. Charles E. Decker, the two recognized
American authorities on the Graptolites. I enclose the originals
of their replies”. The comment by Dr. Decker (University of
Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.) on the present case
was given in a letter dated 2nd August 1946, the relevant portion

OPINION 198 225

of which reads as follows : “‘ As regards the case of Lomatoceras
Bronn, and Monoprion Barrande, the later name Monograptus
Geinitz has acquired a definite meaning and is now generally
accepted. I think, therefore, that the older generic terms might
well be suppressed.”’

13. Comment by Dr. Rudolf Ruedemann: In a letter dated
29th November 1946, Dr. Rudolf Ruedemann (Albany, N._Y.,
U.S.A.) wrote: “In answer to your question I may say that I
fully agree with the proposed suspension of the Régles for
Monograptus. ...”

14. On 14th September 1947 a notice of the possible use, by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, of its
Plenary Powers in the present case was issued to the serial
publications prescribed by the Ninth International Congress of
_ Zoology, Monaco, 1913. The publication of this notice elicited
no objections to the action proposed. :

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

_ 15. The present application was considered by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Thirteenth
Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi-
theatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 1730 hours.
The following is an extract from the Official Record of the
Proceedings of the International Commission setting out the
decision reached by it in regard to this case at the foregoing
meeting (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 22) (1950,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 378) :—

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to use their plenary powers :—
(a) to suppress the generic names Lomatoceras Bronn,
1834 and Monoprion Barrande, 1850 for the

226 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

purposes of Article 25 but not for those of
Article 34 ;

(6) to validate the generic name Monograptus (emend.
of Monograpsus) Geinitz, 1852, with Lomatoceras
priodon Bronn, 1834, as its type species ;

(2) to place the generic name Monograptus Geinitz, 1852
(Class Graptolithina, Order Graptoloidea), emended
and validated as above and with the above species as
its type species, on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology and the trivial name priodon Bronn, 1834
(as published in the binominal combination Lomatoceras
priodon) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names
in Zoology ;

(3) to place the generic names Lomatoceras Bronn, 1834 and
Monoprion Barrande, 1850, on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ;

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

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

Lomatoceras Bronn, 1834, Lethaea geogn. 1(1) : 55

Monograpsus Geinitz, 1852, Verstein. Grauwackenform. 1 : 19, 32

Monograptus (emend. of Monograpsus) Geinitz, 1852, Verstein.
Grauwackenform. 1 : 19, 32

Monoprion Barrande, 1850, Grapt. Bohéme : 15

priodon, Lomatoceras, Bronn, 1834, Lethaea geogn. 1(1) : 56

The following is the reference for the type-selection for the genus
Monograptus (emend. of Monograpsus) Geinitz, 1852 :—Bassler,
1915, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 92 : 822.

17. The gender of the generic name Monograptus Geinitz,
1852, referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 15 is
masculine.

OPINION 198 DO

_ 18. Under the provisions relating to the Official Index of

Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, the International
Commission is required to place thereon every generic name which
it either rejects under the Plenary Powers or declares to be invalid.
In the present instance this requirement was duly complied with
in the Official Record of its decision, so far as the names
Lomatoceras Bronn, 1834, and Monoprion Barrande, 1850, were
concerned, but through some inadvertence not in the case of the
Invalid Original Spelling Monograpsus Geinitz, 1852, then
rejected by it in favour of the Emendation Monograptus. This
omission has been rectified in the Ruling given in the present
Opinion.

19. The decision taken in the present case was reported to, and
approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Fifth
Meeting held on 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
5 : 106).

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

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

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

22. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the
present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion
of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species
was the expression “ trivial name ”’ and the Official List reserved
for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific
Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial’ appearing also in
the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and

228 ‘OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

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

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

24. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion One
Hundred and Ninety-Eight (198) of the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

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

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

FRANCIS HEMMING

Printed in England by Metcatre & Cooper LimiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., Londoa EC 2%

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

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

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 3, Part 18. Pp. 229—238

OPINION 199

Suppression, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic
name Gladiolites Barrande, 1850, and validation of the
name Retiolites Barrande, 1850 (Class Graptolithina)

6, bbw tls ¥ {fA Se
; WN \ \ ot VE 1A, “,
7 YN |
AR8& 1954 }}
MAR > * a

LONDON :

Price Three Shillings and Ninepence

Issued 27th January, 1954

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 199

A. The Officers of the Commission

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

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

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

B. The Members of the Commission
Class 1949

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

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

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

Dr. Th. MorTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark).

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

Class 1952

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Has E. Voxes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.,
U.S.A.).

Class 1955

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

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

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

Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologisk Labora-
torium, Copenhagen, Denmark).

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

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

Mr. N. D. RILEy (British Museum (Natural History), London, England).

Professor Ragnar SpARcK (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen,
Denmark).

Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de

Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium).
Professor Robert L. UstnGer (University of California, Berkeley, California,
U.S.A.).

OPINION 199

SUPPRESSION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF
_ THE GENERIC NAME “* GLADIOLITES ”? BARRANDE,
1850, AND VALIDATION OF THE NAME
‘* RETIOLITES ’? BARRANDE, 1850 (CLASS
GRAPTOLITHINA)

RULING :—(1) The generic name Gladiolites Barrande,
1850, (Class Graptolithina) is hereby suppressed under
the Plenary Powers for the purposes of the Law of
Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy.
(2) The name Retiolites Barrande, 1850 (gender of
name : masculine) (type species, by monotypy : Gladio-
lites geinitzianus Barrande, 1850) is hereby placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No.
629. (3) The name Gladiolites Barrande, 1850, as sup-
pressed under (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology
as Name No. 5. (4) The specific name geinitzianus
Barrande, 1850, as published in the combination Gladio-
lites geinitzianus, is hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 4.

I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Under cover of a letter dated 3rd July 1930, Dr. O. M. B.
Bulman, Sc.D., F.R.S., then of the Imperial College of Science
and Technology (Royal School of Mines), South Kensington,
London, S.W.7, submitted to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature a memorandum containing several
requests for the use of the Plenary Powers in relation to the
names of Graptolites. One of the applications so submitted
contained a request for the suppression of the generic name
Gladiolites Barrande, 1850 (Class Graptolithina) for the purpose
of validating the name Refiolites Barrande, 1850.

Zao OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

2. This application, as finally settled, was as follows :—

PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES FOR RETIOLITES
BARRANDE, 1850 (CLASS GRAPTOLITHINA,
ORDER GRAPTOLOIDEA)!

By O. M. B. BULMAN, Sc.D., F.R.S.
(University Lecturer in Palaeozoology, Cambridge University)
(Commission’s Reference : Z.N.(S.)11)

Barrande in 1850 Grapt. Bohéme : 68, erected the genus Gladiolites
with the species Gladiolites geinitzianus Barrande as the genotype, by
monotypy. He addended a footnote (: 68) :—

Si Vaffinité entre le nom générique Gladiolites et Gladiolus,
désignant une plante, pouvait fair élever quelque objection contre
le premier, nous proposerions de lui substituer celui de Retiolites.

The name Refiolites Barrande was used in the following year by
Suess (1851, Naturw. Abhandl. Haidinger 4 (4): 91) and has been
adopted by all later authors with the exception of Gurley (1896,
J. Geol. 4: 79). There is no question of preoccupation, although it
may be mentioned that at that time a fossil Gladiolus would presumably
have been termed Gladiolites.?

As in the case of Monograptus Geinitz, 1852, the name Retfiolites
Barrande has been widely employed for a very considerable time, and
the continued use of this originally alternative name can here lead to
no supposed injustice, since Barrande is himself the author.

The name Refiolites Barrande, 1850, is widely employed in strati-
graphical geology. The “ Retiolites Shale’’ is a well-known, long-
established and important stratigraphical unit in the Upper Silurian
of Sweden and has been extensively quoted not only in Scandinavian
literature but also in correlation with Europe and America. The
name Retiolites Barrande figures also in nearly every elementary
textbook of palaeontology and stratigraphy. In the opinion of the
applicant, the strict application of the rules as applied to the present
case would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity.

The applicant, therefore, submits that the name Retiolites Barrande,
1850, with Gladiolites geinitzianus Barrande, 1850, as type, be placed

The graptolites in the past have commonly been placed in the Class Hydrozoa
of the Phylum Coelenterata. The systematic position of the group is, however,
obscure and it has here been thought better, while provisionally retaining the
graptolites in the Phylum Coelenterata, to treat this group as constituting a
separate Class, Graptolithina. (int’d.) F. H. 31st January, 1945.

Article 1(i) of the Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique) reads
(in the substantive French text) : ‘“‘ La Nomenclature zoologique est indépen-
dante de la Nomenclature botanique, en ce sens qu’un nom d’animal ne peut
€tre rejeté pour ce seul motif qu’il est identique a un nom de plante ”’.

OPINION 199 233

in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology under suspension of
the rules and that the name Gladiolites Barrande, 1850, be suppressed.

Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE

4. Comment by Lt. Col. J. Stephenson: The following
comment was furnished in a letter dated 5th March 1932
by Lt. Col. J. Stephenson, a Member of the International
Commission :—

The authority to whom I should naturally have submitted the cases
detailed in your Circular Letter 221 (Subject: Suspension, Mono-
graptus, Retiolites, Graptolithus) is Dr. Bulman himself, who works
within a stone’s throw of this Museum [British Museum (Natural
History)]. As he raises the cases, we may take it that we know his
answer beforehand.

Captain A. K. Totton, the Assistant Keeper here in the Museum
in charge of Coelenterata, informs me that he would himself have no
hesitation in taking Dr. Bulman’s opinion ; and, having been through
the names myself as they are presented in your letter, I beg to give my
own informal recommendation in the same sense also.

5. Comment by Dr. F. A. Bather: In a letter to Dr. Stiles,
dated 21st March 1932, the late Dr. F. A. Bather (Keeper,
Department of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History))
wrote : “I entirely agree with Bulman’s proposals ”’.

6. Comment by Dr. Gertrude L. Elles: In a letter dated
25th February 1932 (communicated by Dr. Bather), Dr. Gertrude
L. Elles (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University) wrote :—

I am entirely in sympathy with Bulman’s proposals .... I
consider very definitely that it would be a very great pity to attempt to
re-establish Lomatoceras for Monograptus, since the latter is so well
established in literature and perfectly well understood. I also feel the
same with regard to Retiolites.

234 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

7. Comment by Dr. Karl Jordan: In a letter dated 22nd May
1932, Dr. Karl Jordan (Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts.)
wrote: “* Retiolites versus Gladiolites. ‘The latter name has
priority, and its re-adoption can lead to no confusion’.

8. The present case was placed on the Agenda for the Session
of the International Commission then about to be held at Lisbon
in Circular Letter 309 issued to members of the Commission in
March 1935. Owing to the absence through ill-health of the
Secretary (Dr. Stiles) and the fact that in consequence the papers
relating to this case were not available in Lisbon, it was not
possible for the International Commission to deal with this case
on that occasion.

9. In 1938 the documents relating to this and other current
cases were transferred to the care of Mr. Francis Hemming,
who in October 1936 had been elected Secretary to the Commission
on the retirement of Dr. Stiles. On receipt, the documents
relating to this case were given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.)11.
It had not been found possible to make any further progress with
this case when in September 1939 the records of the Commission
were evacuated from London to the country as a precaution
against the risk of destruction through air raids. The Secretariat
in London was re-opened in 1942 and steps were immediately
taken to establish the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as a
means for bringing to the attention of zoologists applications
submitted to the International Commission for decision. Work
was at once started on outstanding applications with a view to
arranging for their publication in the newly established Bulletin.
After an exchange of correspondence between the Secretary and
Dr. Bulman, the terms of the present application were finally
settled on 24th August 1944. This application was sent to the
printer in September 1944, but, owing to paper rationing, shortage
of labour at the printing works and similar causes, publication
did not actually take place until 26th June 1946. (Bulman, 1946,
Bull. zool. Nomencl.1 : 166.) The publication of this application
in the Bulletin elicited the comments set out in the three imme-
diately following paragraphs.

10. Comment by Dr. Th. Mortensen: In a letter dated
20th April 1947, the late Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets

OPINION 199 235

Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen) indicated his es for this
application by writing the word “ Yes ”

11. Comment by Dr. Charles E. Decker: On 13th June 1947,
Dr. J. Brookes Knight (Research Associate in Paleontology,
United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) at
that time Chairman of the Joint Committee on Zoological
Nomenclature for Paleontology in America, wrote: ‘As
Chairman, I called these propositions to the attention of
Dr. Rudolf Ruedemann and Dr. Charles E. Decker, the two
recognized American authorities on the Graptolites. I enclose
the originals of their replies’. The comment by Dr. Decker
(University of Oklahoma, U.S.A.) on the present case was given
in a letter dated 2nd August 1946, the relevant portion of which
reads as follows : “ The name Refiolites Barrande is now clearly
understood and is in general use. In this case also, I think that
the older generic term Gladiolites might well be suppressed ”’.

12. Comment by Dr. Rudolf Ruedemann: In a letter dated
29th November 1946, Dr. Rudolf Ruedemann (Albany, N.Y.,
U.S.A.) wrote: “In answer to your question I may say that
I fully agree with the proposed suspension of the Régles for
Retiolites’’.

13. On 14th September 1947 a notice of the possible use, by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, of
its Plenary Powers in the present case was issued to the serial
publications prescribed by the Ninth International Congress of
Zoology, Monaco, 1913. The publication of this notice elicited
no objections to the action proposed.

lil—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

14. The present application was considered by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Thirteenth
Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi-
théatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 17.30 hours.

236 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

The following is an extract from the portion of the Official
Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission,
setting out the decision reached by it in regard to this case at the
foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 23)
(1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 378—379) :—

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to use their plenary powers :—

(a) to suppress the generic name Gladiolites Barrande,
1850, for the purposes of Article 25 but not for
those of Article 34 ;

(b) to validate the generic name Refiolites Barrande,
1850, with Gladiolites geinitzianus Barrande, 1850,
as type species ;

(2) to place the generic name Refiolites Barrande, 1850
(Class Graptolithina, Order Graptoloidea), validated
as above and with the above species as its type species,
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ;

(3) to place the generic name Gladiolites Barrande, 1850,
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology ; 3

(4) to place the trivial name geinitzianus Barrande, 1850
(as published in the binominal combination Gladiolites
geinitzianus) on the Official List of Specific Trivial
Names in Zoology ;

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

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

geinitzianus, Gladiolites, Barrande, 1850, Grapt. Bohéme : 68
Gladiolites Barrande, 1850, Grapt. Bohéme : 68
Retiolites Barrande, 1850, Grapt. Bohéme : 68

OPINION 199 237

16. The gender of the generic name Refiolites Barrande, 1850,
referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 14 is masculine.

17. The decision taken in this case was reported to, and
approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Fifth
Meeting held on 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
5 : 106).

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

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

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

20. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the
present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion
of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species
was the expression “‘ trivial name” and the Official List reserved
for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific
Trivial-Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial ”’ appearing also in
the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and
invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the
Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen,
1953, the expression “specific name’ was substituted for the
expression “trivialname” and corresponding changes were
made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such
names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl.:21). The
changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the
Ruling given in the present Opinion.

238 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS —

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

22. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion One
Hundred and Ninety-Nine (199) of the International Commission —
on Zoological Nomenclature.

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

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

FRANCIS HEMMING

SS ee Se eee ee SS re cn ere re
Printed in England by MretcaLFe & Cooper Limirep 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2

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

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, cM.c., CBE.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 3. Part 19. Pp. 239—266

OPINION 200

Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the accustomed
usage of the generic names Tethys Linnaeus, 1767, and
Aplysia Linnaeus, 1767 (Class Gastropoda)

Se,

eaena
GAN! HSON

“y \
‘4

Ke y |
LIBRARY
— Seek. eae
LONDON : mame a

Price Ten Shillings and Sixpence

Issued 27th January, 1954

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 200

A. The Officers of the Commission

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

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

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

B. The Members of the Commission

Class 1949

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

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

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

Dr. Th. MorTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark).

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

Class 1952

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Harold E. Vokes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.,
U.S.A.).

Class 1955

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

Dr William Thomas CALMAN (Tayport, Fife, Scathing):

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

Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologisk Labora-
torium, Copenhagen, Denmark).

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

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

Mr. N. D. RILEy (British Museum (Natural History), London, England).

Professor Ragnar SpARCK (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen,
Denmark).

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

Professor Sees L. UsInGEr (University of California, Berkeley, California ,

S.A).

OPINION 200

VALIDATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF
THE ACCUSTOMED USAGE OF THE GENERIC
NAMES “ TETHYS ” LINNAEUS, 1767, AND
‘‘ APLYSIA ”? LINNAEUS, 1767 (CLASS
GASTROPODA)

RULING :—(1) The name Laplysia Linnaeus, 1767, is
to be emended to Aplysia.

(2) The following action .is hereby taken under the
Plenary Powers :—(a)(i) The generic name Tethys Lin-
naeus, 1758, and (ii) all subsequent uses of the name
Tethys prior to the publication of the name Tethys
Linnaeus, 1767, are hereby suppressed for the purposes
both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy.
(b) The following specific names are hereby suppressed
for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those
of the Law of Homonymy :—(i) the name Jeporina
Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Tethys
leporina; (ii) all other uses of the name Jeporina in
combination with the generic name Tethys Linnaeus,
1767 ; (ii) the name /imacina Linnaeus, 1758, as pub-
lished in the combination Tethys limacina ; (iv) all other
uses of the name /imacina in combination with the generic
name Tethys Linnaeus, 1767. (c) The following specific
names are hereby suppressed for the purposes both of
the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy :—
(i) the name depilans Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the
combination Laplysia depilans ; (11) all other uses of the
name depilans in combination with the generic name
Aplysia (or Laplysia) prior to the publication of the
name depilans Gmelin, 1791, as published in the com-
bination Aplysia depilans. (d) The generic name Tethys
Linnaeus, 1767, is hereby validated. (e) The under-
mentioned specific names are hereby validated and are
to be used in preference to any other names for the
species respectively concerned :—(i) the name depilans
Gmelin, 1791, as published in the combination Aplysia
depilans; (11) the name fimbria Linnaeus, 1767, as

242 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

published in the combination Tethys fimbria. (f) All
type selections for Aplysia Linnaeus, 1767, and Tethys
Linnaeus, 1767, made prior to the present Ruling are
hereby set aside, and Aplysia depilans Gmelin, 1791, is
hereby designated as the type species of Aplysia Linnaeus,
1767, and Tethys fimbria Linnaeus, 1767, is hereby
designated as the type species of Tethys Linnaeus, 1767.

(3) The generic names Aplysia (emend. of Laplysia)
Linnaeus, 1767 (gender of name: feminine), and Tethys
Linnaeus, 1767 (gender of name: feminine), with the
type species severally designated therefor under the
Plenary Powers in (2)(f) above, are hereby placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos.
630 and 631.

(4) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology
as Names Nos. 5 and 6 :—(a) the name depilans Gmelin,
1791, as published in the combination Aplysia depilans ;
(b) the name fimbria Linnaeus, 1767, as published in
the combination Tethys fimbria.

(5) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 6 to 8 :—(a)
Laplysia (Invalid Original Spelling of Aplysia) Linnaeus,
- 1767; (b) Tethys Linnaeus, 1758 ; (c) Tethys, all uses of,
subsequent to Linnaeus, 1758, and prior to Linnaeus,
1767, the entries in respect of items (b) and (c) to be
subject to the conditions specified in (2)(a) above.

(6) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Specific Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 2 to 5, subject
to the conditions specified in (2)(b) above :—(a) the
name J/eporina Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the com-
bination Tethys leporina; (b) the name /Jeporina, all
other uses of, in combination with the generic name
Tethys Linnaeus, 1758 ; (c) Jimacina Linnaeus, 1758, as

OPINION 200 243

published in the combination Tethys limacina ; (d) the
name /imacina, all other uses of, in combination with the
generic name Tethys Linnaeus, 1758.

(7) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby
placed on the foregoing Official Index as Names Nos. 6
and 7, subject to the conditions specified in (2)(c) above :—
(a) the name depilans Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the
combination Laplysia depilans ; (b) the name depilans,
all other uses of, in combination with the generic name
Aplysia (Laplysia) subsequent to Linnaeus, 1767, and
prior to the publication of the name depilans Gmelin,
1791, as published in the combination Aplysia depilans.

(8) The applications submitted in regard to the specific
names fasciata Poiret, 1789, as published in the com-
bination Aplysia fasciata, and punctata Cuvier, 1803, as
published in the combination Laplysia [sic] punctata, are
hereby postponed for further consideration!.

I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The earlier records of the present case are incomplete, but it
appears from those which survive that on some date in 1934,
the late Dr. C. W. Stiles, then Secretary to the International
Commission, received from Dr. H. Engel (Zoologisch Museum,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands) a long and detailed application for
the use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of giving valid
force to the current usage of the names Tethys Linnaeus, 1767,
and Aplysia Linnaeus, 1767 (Class Gastropoda). It was beyond
the capacity of the Secretariat of the Commission to bring before
Commissioners so lengthy a paper, and this led to protracted
delays in the consideration of this case. Ultimately, as explained
in paragraph 10 below, an arrangement was made, in agreement
with Dr. Engel, under which the late Mr. R. Winckworth (London)

1 For the later consideration of these two names, see Hemming, 1952 (Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 7 : 212—215). It is anticipated that decisions on these names
will be reached by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
at an early date. (intl’d.) F.H. 16th November, 1953.

244 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

prepared a summary of Dr. Engel’s paper. This summary was
as follows :—

PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES TO RETAIN THE
NAMES “APLYSIA’”? AND “TETHYS ” AS GENERIC NAMES
IN THE SUB-ORDERS TECTIBRANCHIA AND NUDIBRANCHIA
RESPECTIVELY OF THE ORDER OPISTHOBRANCHIATA
(CLASS GASTROPODA)

By H. ENGEL i
(Conservator, Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam)
(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)22)

Introductory.

The present application was originally submitted to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature under cover of a letter
which I addressed on 10th January 1927 to the late Dr. C. W. Stiles,
then Secretary to the Commission. After some preliminary corres-
pondence Dr. Stiles informed me that the text of my application was
too lengthy for him to be able to arrange for the reproduction of
copies for circulation to the members of the Commission. In
agreement with Dr. Stiles (communicated to me in a letter dated
16th November 1934) I then arranged for this application to be
published in my own country, publication taking place in 1936 in
Temminckia 1 : 221—266. In the same year (27th June) I communi-
cated a number of separates of my paper to Dr. Stiles. Unfortunately,
however, no progress was made by the Commission in the consideration
of this case before the outbreak of war in 1939 necessarily involved
a further delay.

After the war I received a letter dated 14th October 1945 from
Mr. Francis Hemming, who had by then become the Secretary to the
Commission, informing me that the Commission had established a
journal of their own, the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, in
which in future all applications submitted to the Commission would be
published, in order to give zoologists generally an opportunity of
commenting upon such proposals before any action thereon was taken
by the Commission. At the same time Mr. Hemming informed me
that my application, as published in Temminckia, was too long for
re-publication in the Bulletin and that he had therefore asked Mr. R.
Winckworth to prepare a summary which he hoped I would agree
brought out clearly all the points which it was necessary should be
brought to the attention of the Commission to enable them to reach
a decision on the action to be taken. In due course Mr. Hemming
communicated to me the summary which Mr. Winckworth had
prepared. Subject to a few minor changes, the present paper is the
summary so prepared. I wish to express my thanks to Mr. Hemming
for all the work which he has done on this case.

OPINION 200 245

The animals called Sea Hares or Lepores marini have been known
at least since the days of Pliny. Linnaeus called them Tethys in 1758,
but in 1767 changed the name to Aplysia, under which name they were
universally known until 1895 and generally known to the present day.
In 1895 Pilsbry (Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1895 : 347) tried to restore
the name Tethys Linnaeus, 1758, but only a few systematists followed
him, as the Tectibranch genus of sea hares are so widely known under
the name Aplysia, while Tethys has been used since Linnaeus, 1767 for
a well known Nudibranch mollusc from the Mediterranean, con-
spicuous because of its very large mouth veil. The present paper
tries to show that it is desirable to place Aplysia Linnaeus, 1767 on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, because the strict application
of the Rég/es would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity.
This requires the suppression of the generic name Tethys Linnaeus,
1758, the specific names Aplysia depilans Linnaeus, 1767, A. fasciata
Poiret, 1789, and A. punctata Cuvier, 1803, and Tethys leporina are
also discussed.

The Genera and Species involved in the Case.

As some confusion has already risen, it seems best to indicate the
genera and species involved by reference letters. The animals are all
common Mediterranean species, some of which are also found in the
Atlantic.

Names generally used Names proposed by Pilsbry Letter
THE TECTIBRANCH MOLLUSCS

Aplysia L. Tethys L. A

A. limacina L. T. leporina L. a,
or A. fasciata Poiret |

A. depidans L. T. depilans L. A>

A, punctata Cuvier T. punctata Cuvier as

or rarely A. rosea Rathke

THE NUDIBRANCH MOLLUSCS

Tethys L. Tethis Lamarck or a new name B
T. leporina L. or sometimes
T. fimbria Bohadsch T. fimbria Bohadsch

Note.—For detailed descriptions and figures of the three Aplysiid
species see Pilsbry, 1895, Tryon’s Manual of Conchology 16 (62):
69—73, where they are described as Tethys depilans, T. leporina (with
Laplysia fasciata as synonym) and T. punctata.

No ambiguity can arise about the only known species of the
Nudibranch Tethys, fully described by Bergh, 1875, Sempers Reisen
im... Philippinen 2(9) : 345—362 as Tethys leporina.

246 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

Texts of Linnaeus.
Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae (ed. 10) 1 : 653.

254 TETHYS Corpus oblongum, bilabiatum : corpusculo medio
cartilagineo oblongo.
Tentacula duo, cuneiformia.
Foramina duo, spirantia.

limacina. 1.T. auriculis quatuor.
Habitat in Oceano Australi.
Corpus oblongum, antice quasi 4 auriculis acutis
instructum.

leporina. 2. T. corpore rubro, margine membranaceo, auriculis duabus.
Rond. pisc. 1. p. 520. Lepus marinus.
Bell. aquat. 437. Lepus marinus.
Gesn. aquat. 475. Lepus marinus.
Aldr. exsangu. 78. Lepus marinus 1.
Habitat in M. Mediterraneo.
Conf. Column. aqu. t. 26. f. 2, 3.

Linnaeus, 1767, Systema Naturae (ed. 12) 1(2) : 1072, 1082, 1089.
283 APLYSIA Tentacula 4. Anus supra postica.
289 TETHIS Foramina \ateralia, sinistra, gemina.

283 LAPLYSIA Corpus repens, obvelatum membranis reflexis.
Clypeo dorsali, membranaceo, pulmones obtegente.
Foramen \aterale, dextrum, pro gentialibus.
Anus supra extremitatem dorsi.
Tentacula quatuor, anterius sita.

depilans. 1. LAPLYSIA.

Syst. nat. 10. p. 653. Tethys limacina.

Rond. pisc. 1. p. 520. Lepus marinus.

Gesn. aquat. 475. Lepus marinus Rondeletii.

Bohads. mar. 3. t. 1, 2, 3. Lernea graphice.

Seb. mus..3.1.1.f.8, 9.

Habitat in M. Mediterraneo ;_ sanie depilans tactu.
(B.51) foetidissima ad nauseam usque.

289 TETHYS Corpus liberum, oblongiusculum, carnosum,
apodum.
Os proboscide terminali, cylindrica, sub labio
explicato. |
Foramina 2 ad latus colli sinistrum.

leporina. 1.T.labro ciliato.t
Column. aquat. 27.}.26. Lepus marinus major.
Rondel. pisc. 526. WLeporis marini tertia species.
Habitat in Mari Mediterraneo.

fimbria. 2.T.labro crenulato.
Bohads. mar. 54.t.5.f.1, 2. Fimbria.
Habitat in Mari Adritico.
Videtur a praecedentii distincta species.

OPINION 200 : 247

Consideration of the Texts of Linnaeus.

In the earlier editions of the Systema Naturae Linnaeus seems to
have known these animals from literature only, and there is con-
siderable confusion between Tethys, Tethya, Holothurium and Lernea.
In the tenth edition (1758), the last two names were emended to
Holothuria and Lernaea, while the Lepus marinus of Columna (B) is
now removed from Lernea and placed doubtfully under Tethys with
the word ‘ Conf,’ prefixed. The diagnosis of Tethys still contains the
inapplicable words *‘ Foramina duo spirantia’ surviving from earlier
editions, where they refer to the ascidian Tethya.

There were two species of Tethys named in 1758. The first, T.
limacina, seems to have been based on an animal in the possession of,
or at least known to, Linnaeus, which served as the basis for the
diagnosis of the genus and was a real sea hare (A).

The second, T. /eporina, is based on literature and is intended to be
the Lepus marinus of the older authors. The authors quoted are
Rondeletius, 1554, Libri de piscibus marinis: 520, Bellonius, 1553,
De aquatilibus : 437, Gesner, 1620, Historia animalium (ed. 2) 4 : 475
and Aldrovandus, 1606, De reliquis animalibus exanguibus: 78.
Of these the first refers to a species of the genus A, probably Aa, ;
on page 526 two other kinds of sea hare are figured, one being a
species of A and the other one of B. But the first animal may safely
be regarded as the subject of Linnaeus’ quotation, not only from the
page reference, but because his diagnosis is based on the description
of the first animal on page 521: hence the allusion to two tentacles
instead of four in Linnaeus’ diagnosis, for Rondelet mentions the two
dorsal tentacles, but the anterior tentacles are only indicated by the
remark that the front of the head resembles that of a hammerhead
shark. The reference to Bellonius seems to have been included simply
because the animal was called Lepus marinus : it is not a mollusc but a
Rhizostome jellyfish. Gesner’s work is compiled from those of
Rondelet and Bellonius. The reference to Aldrovandus is again to
Rondeletius’ first species.

Our conclusion about the use of these names in the tenth edition of
the Syst. Nat. must be that the name Tethys is here used for the
genus A, that the diagnosis curiously retains one character of the old
ascidian genus Jethya, while the species are: (1) an animal, T.
limacina which Linnaeus had himself seen, an Aplysia (A) from the
South Seas; (2) 7. leporina, being the first Lepus marinus of
Rondeletius, 1.e., probably Aplysis fasciata auct. (Aa,).

The twelfth edition, 1767, of the Systema Naturae shows the influence
of the work of Bohadsch, 1761, De quibusdam animalibus marinis, in
which there is an excellent description of Aplysia (A) under the name
Lernaea with figures of A..depilans (Aa,) on Tab. 1 and A. fasciata
(Aa,) on Tab. 2, fig. 1, which are not regarded as separate species or
named. Linnaeus changes the name Tethys to Aplysia (: 1072),
which by an error is mis-spelled Laplysia on page 1082. The diagnosis
is changed and corrected according to Bohadsch’s description. Of

248 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

the species, the first, Tethys limacina Linnaeus, 1758, is identified
with the second, the Lepus marinus of Rondelet, and they are united
under the name Laplysia depilans. ‘The list of references is corrected
by the omission of Bellonius ; a reference to Bohadsch is added,
and also one to Seba. What Seba’s animal was cannot be determined
from the figures or the text.

Thanks to Bohadsch’s chapter on Fimbria, which refers to the
Nudibranch which I have called genus B, Linnaeus recognised these
animals as a genus different from Aplysia (A). By a curious caprice
he names them Tethys. There are two species. The first, Tethys
leporina is based on Columna, 1616, Aquatilium . . . animalium
observationes, who figures the species Bb on pages 22 and 26 as Lepus
marinus major, and on the third Lepus marinus of Rondelet, 1554,
page 526, which is also Bb. The second species Tethys fimbria is
based on the Fimbria of Bohadsch, which he thinks seems to be
distinct. We now know that the two species are one (Bb).

To sum up, we have now established the following facts :—

Linnaeus, 1758: Tethys A with a mistake in the diagnosis.
T. limacina An indeterminate species of genus A.
T. leporina Aa, (probably).

Bohadsch, 1761 Lernaea Aa, and Aa,.
Fimbria Bb.
Linnaeus, 1767 ~— Aplysia A.
or Laplysia

L. depilans T. limacina and T. leporina L. 1758,
and Lernaea Bohadsch, 1761, see
above.

Tethys B.

T. leporina Bb.

T. fimbria Bb.

Thus we get Tethys for genus A. The species Aa, could be called
T. leporina Linnaeus, 1758 (based only on the fact that the figure of
Rondelet shows no shell foramen and has no broadly united parapodia ;
although it is probably Aa,, this is not certain). For Aa, we have
Tethys depilans (Linnaeus,), 1767, by exclusion of T. limacina and
T. leporina. For B we get some later name and for b the specific trivial
name fimbria Linnaeus, 1767. A strict application of the Régles
results in two certain names only, Tethys Linnaeus, 1758, for A and
the trivial name fimbria Linnaeus, 1767, for b.

The strict application of the Régles becomes the more undesirable
since there is an enormous literature on these animals in which the
names used are of Linnaeus, 1767, and not those of Linnaeus, 1758.

Further History of the Names up to 1823.

Poiret, 1789, Voyage en Barbarie 2:2, correctly describes the
species Aa, under the name Laplysia fasciata, saying that it differs
from L. depilans. 1 have shown above that L. depilans comprised both

OPINION 200 | 249

Aa, and Aa,. Here Poiret makes a choice and designates Aa, as
Laplysia fasciata nov., so that Aa, gets the name [L] Aplysia depilans.

Gmelin, 1791, Systema Naturae (ed. 13) : 3103, copies the diagnosis
of Laplysia Linnaeus, 1767, but gives the right name Aplysia. He
gives a diagnosis of A. depilans so that it is restricted to Aa, and adds
A. fasciata (Aa,) as Poiret gives it.

Barbut, 1794, Genera vermium : 31 gives two figures of Laplysia
depilans on plate 3. I have not seen this work, but according to
-Blochmann, 1884, Mitt. zool. Staz. Neapel 5 : 43, his Laplysia depilans
minor is Aa, from the English coasts, while his Laplvsia depilans major
is Aa,, the real A. depilans.

Rathke, 1799, Skr. nat. hist. Selsk. 5 : 85, gives a description of an
Aplysia from Christiansund (near the Trondhjemsfjord, not, as Pilsbry
says, near Christiania). In the explanation of Tab. 3, fig. 12 he gives
it the name Aplysia rosea. The Aplysia from the Norwegian coast is
Aa,, which, for the first time, receives a name.

The first good zoological treatise on the genus Aplysia after
Bohadsch is that of Cuvier, 1803, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat., Paris 2 : 287.
_ Cuvier describes three new species of Laplysia, of which the first two,

L. camelus and L. alba, both seem to belong to Aa,. The third,
however, Laplysia punctata, which is Aa;, the A. rosea Rathke, 1799,
is still known by Cuvier’s name, although the older name of Rathke
has precedence according to the Régles.

Renier, 1804, Prospetto della Classe det Vermi: 22, describes the
papillae of Bb under the name Hydatis varia, as worms attached to
Tethys leporina. This is the beginning of a curious discussion but
it was eventually proved that the so called “‘ parasites’ on the back
of Tethys (B) were not worms, but the easily detachable papillae of
this Nudibranch.

J. Sowerby, 1806, British Miscellany: 111, describes an English
Aplysia as A. hybrida. This is a synonym of A. punctata Cuvier and
A. rosea Rathke.

Cuvier, 1808, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris 12 : 257, in a memoir on
Tethys which he spells Thethys (B), points out that the two species of
Linnaeus are probably but one.

Rudolphi, 1819, Entozoorum synopsis: 573, gives Hydatis varia
Renier, 1804, which he mistakenly calls Hydatula varia, the new name
of Phoenicurus varius. Since the name of a part of an animal can be
used for the whole animal, Phoenicurus would replace Tethys (B) but
mae is antedated by Phoenicurus Forster, 1817, Syn. Cat. Brit.
miras © 106.

Otto, 1821, Conspectus animalium ...1: 294, gives a diagnosis
of these papillae under the name Vertumnus thetydicola, and a full
description with good figures in 1823, Nova Acta Acad. Caes. Leop.
11 : 294, pl. 41, where the name is spelled Vertumnus thetidicola in

250 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

the text and thethydicola on the plate. Vertumnus thus becomes the
first generic name available under the Régles.

It is now possible to give a list of the names of the animals under
discussion if the Régles are strictly applied, with the exclusion of
Bohadsch’s names, which have been suppressed by the Commission
in Opinion 185 (1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 3 : 37—S2).

A Tethys Linnaeus, 1758 (although the diagnosis contains a
mistake).

a, Laplysia fasciata Poiret, 1789 (Tethys leporina Linnaeus, 1758
is an uncertain species.

a, Laplysia depilans Linnaeus, 1767 (subsequent limitation by
Poiret, 1789, and Gmelin, 1791).

a, Aplysia rosea Rathke, 1799.
B- Vertumnus Otto, 1821.
b Tethys fimbria Linnaeus, 1767.

Subsequent History of the Names.

For the species of Aplysia, Cuvier, 1817, Régne animal 2 : 398,
seems to be the original from which the names Aplysia fasciata (Aa,),
A. depilans (Aa,) and A. punctata (Aa,) have come into general use.
Blochmann, 1884, Mitt. zool. Staz. Neapel. 5 : 28, in his excellent
monograph on the APLYSIDAE of the Gulf of Naples, unfortunately
changed the name of Aa, to A. limacina Linnaeus, which is an
indeterminate South Sea species. Consequently many (physiologists
and others) have wrongly used this name for A. fasciata.

In 1895 Pilsbry, who was preparing his beautiful monograph on the
APLYSIDAE (Pilsbry, 1895—96, Tryon’s Manual of Conchology 16
(62, 63) : 59—161) published a paper (Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad.
1895 : 347) in which he pointed out that Tethys Linnaeus, 1758,
was an older name for Aplysia Linnaeus, 1767, both being names for
the genus A. Apparently as a concession to tradition, he called the
family APLYSIIDAE. For the species a, he used the trivial name
leporina Linnaeus, 1758, instead of fasciata Poiret, 1789. We have
seen above that this name stood for Rondelet’s first Lepus marinus.
If this animal is a European animal—and there is some reason to suppose
it to be—and if his picture is right in showing no mantle foramen
and no broadly united parapodia, then, per exclusionem, we may
regard this animal as Ad, and therefore as Tethys leporina Linnaeus,
1758, only with a mark of interrogation. Moreover, the name Tethys
leporina Linnaeus, 1767, is so widely known and so generally used
for the species Bb that it seems a source of hopeless confusion to adopt
it for Aa,. Fortunately, in the forty years since Pilsbry’s publication,
although it is the leading monograph on the family, only a small
minority of taxonomists has adopted his names. I have examined the
literature and find that at least 412 authors (including 180 since 1895)

OPINION 200 251

have used Aplysia as the name for genus A, while only 36 authors
have used the name Tethys for that genus. At least 130 authors have
used Tethys for genus B. Most of the authors who use Tethys for
genus A still retain the familiar name APLYSIIDAE for the family.
Von Jhering at first followed Pilsbry but later (1922, Abh. Arch.
Molluskenk. 1: 1) used Aplysia for genus A and Tethys for genus B,
arguing that in a general publication it is necessary to use the names
as they are known to the general reader. Thiele too at first follows
Pilsbry, but in his important Handbuch der Syst. Weichtierkunde
1 (2) : 395, 447 published in 1931 he used Aplysia for genus A and
Tethys for genus B. Odhner, Pruvot and Eales are among the more
important recent writers who use Aplysia for A.

The species Aa, can only be called Tethys leporina Linnaeus, 1758,
if the first species of Rondelet is Aa,, about which there seems to be
some doubt, or rather, the certainty is not 100 per cent. There is
also the confusion that the name Tethys leporina Linnaeus, 1767, has
been widely used for the species Bb. If this name is rejected, the
species Aa, must be called Tethys (or Aplysia if this name is placed
on the Official List) fasciata Poiret, 1789. Blochmann and others
following him, as remarked above, have used the name Aplysia
limacina Linnaeus, 1758, which is certainly wrong. I have listed
61 authors who use A. fasciata Poiret, 1789, 51 authors who use the
erroneus A. limacina Linnaeus, 1758, and only 3, besides Pilsbry,
who use Tethys leporina Linnaeus, 1758, for the species Aa,.

As regards the species Aa,, we have seen that Aplysia depilans
Linnaeus, 1767, comprises all the species of that genus known to
Linnaeus, notably the two species included in Lernaea Bohadsch,
which are Aa, and Aa, respectively. Poiret, 1789, eliminated the
species Aa, by describing it as A. fasciata and Gmelin, 1791, restricted
the name A. depilans to the species Aa,. All subsequent authors
(111 publications) have accepted the name as thus restricted.

The third species (Aa,) was first named A. rosea Rathke, 1799 and,
by the Régles, should bear that name, but it is almost universally
known (92 publications) as A. punctata Cuvier, 1803 while A. rosea
has been used only in four publications since Rathke.

The controversy regarding the parasitic nature of the dorsal papillae
of Tethys (genus B) was settled when Vérany, 1842, Isis 4 : 252 and
Krohn, 1842, Arch. Anat. Physiol. Lpz.: 418 showed that they were
really papillae and not parasitic worms, as they had been regarded
previously. Strictly, the name Tethys Linnaeus, 1767, cannot be
applied to genus B and Vertumnus Otto, 1821, should be used.
Actually 130 authors who treat of the complete animal have used the
name Tethys and only 7 some other name. There is but one species
known (Bb), although Linnaeus, only knowing the animal from
literature, formed two species, T. leporina Linnaeus, 1767 (not of 1758)
and JT. fimbria Linnaeus, 1767. Both names are used, T. /Jeporina
being used for species Bb in 78 papers, while 38 authors prefer T.

252 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

fimbria (or fimbriata as sometimes wrongly written), presumably
because of Linnaeus’ earlier use of 7. /eporina for a species of genus A.

Conclusion and Recommendations.

The foregoing analysis shows very clearly that nothing but confusion
would arise if an attempt were made strictly to apply the Rég/es to
the two genera to which I have referred as genus A and genus B
respectively or to the four species to which I have referred as Aa,,
Aa,, Aa, and Bb respectively. It is perfectly clear also that the present
state of uncertainty and diversity of practice will continue unchecked
until such time as the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature puts a stop to these difficulties by using their Plenary
Powers to stabilise the generic and specific nomenclature of the species
concerned.

To the above end I now submit to the International Commission
the following recommendations :—

(1) that, under suspension of the Régles, the following names be
suppressed :—

(a) the generic name Tethys Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10)
1 : 653, and the use of this generic name by any author
prior to the publication of the 12th edition of Linnaeus’
Syst. Nat. ; |

(b) the following specific names :—

(i) Tethys leporina Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10)
1e7G33 : : ;
(ii) Tethys limacina Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10)
P6535
(iii) Laplysia depilans Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12)
1(2) : 1082 ;
(iv) all uses of the name depilans in the genus Aplysia (or

Laplysia) prior to such use by Gmelin in the 13th
edition of Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. ;

(v) Aplysia rosea Rathke, 1799, Skr. nat. Hist. Selsk 5 : 85 ;
(2) that the name Laplysia Linnaeus, 1767 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12)1(2) :
1082) be emended to Aplysia ;
(3) that, under suspension of the Régles :—

(a) the generic name Tethys Linnaeus, 1767 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12)
1(2) : 1089) be validated ;
(b) the following specific names be validated :—
(i) Tethys leporina Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12)
1(2) : 1089 ;
(11) Aplysia fasciata Poiret, 1789, Voy. Barbare 2:2;

OPINION 200 233

(iit) Aplysia depilans Gmelin, 1791, in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat.
fed-ai3)) 13 3103,5

(iv) Laplysia punctata Cuvier, 1803, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat.,
Paris 2): 310, ;

(c) all type selections for Ap/ysia Linnaeus, 1767, and Tethys
Linnaeus, 1767, made prior to the proposed Opinion to be
set aside and the types of these genera to designated as
follows :—

Aplysia depilans Gmelin, 1791, to be the pe of the genus
Aplysia Linnaeus, 1767 ;

Tethys leporina Linnaeus, 1767, to be the type of the genus
Tethys Linnaeus, 17672 :

(4) that the generic names Ap/ysia Linnaeus, 1767, and Tethys
Linnaeus, 1767, so validated and with the above species as their
respective types, be added to the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology.

II—THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE PRESENT CASE
PRIOR TO THE RECEIPT OF DR. ENGEL’S APPLICATION
IN 1934

_2. The problem dealt with in the present Opinion was first
brought to the attention of the International Commission through
the inclusion of Aplysia in a long list of ““ Nomina Conservanda ”’
submitted in August 1915 by the late Professor Carl Apstein
(Berlin), a Member of the Commission, for vahdation en bloc
under the Plenary Powers. This list had at that time recently
been published in Berlin (Apstein, 1915, SitzBer. Ges. naturforsch.
Freunde Berlin 1915 (No. 5) : 119—202). The proposal submitted
in regard to this particular case (: 182) was that the Commission
Should use its Plenary Powers to validate the generic name
Aplysia Linnaeus, 1767, with Laplysia depilans Linnaeus, 1767,
as type species.

3. In 1922 the International Commission in Opinion 74
(Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 1) : 32—34) rejected Professor
Apstein’s proposal on the ground that it had no power to use its

* For the subsequent modification by Dr. Engel of this proposal in the light
of the statement later furnished by the Nomenclature Committee of the
Malacological Society of London (paragraph 11), see paragraph 13.

aay OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

Plenary Powers, except in relation to individual cases for which
full data were supplied. At the same time the Commission
indicated its willingness to consider names included in Professor
Apstein’s list, if submitted separately with “‘ reasonably complete
evidence ”’.

4. In a different aspect this case was brought before the
International Commission again in March 1924 when the then
Secretary (the late Dr. C. W. Stiles) submitted to it—in Circular
Letter 78—a proposal by Professor Apstein for the validation
under the Plenary Powers of the names of a number of genera of
Molluscs. Although stated at the time to be derived from the
list submitted in 1915 (paragraph ‘2 above), the list submitted
in 1924 was much shorter than its predecessor and the proposals
submitted were not in all cases the same. In the list of 1924 the
name Aplysia Linnaeus was omitted, but the name Tethys
Linnaeus, 1758, made its appearance, the request in this case
being that the Commission should use its Plenary Powers to
designate Tethys leporina Linnaeus, 1758, as its type species.
In 1926 it was decided to give public notice of the possible use of
the Plenary Powers in relation to the generic names contained
in the list of 1924.

5. The publication of the foregoing notice in the serial
publication Nature elicited two comments in regard to the present
case, the first, from Miss Nellie B. Eales (Reading University,
Reading, England), the second, from Dr. H. Engel (Zoologisch
Museum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands). The general tenour of
these communications was the same: Miss Eales (letter of
17th June 1924) expressed the view that the name Aplysia
Linnaeus, 1767, should be retained for the Sea Hare, and so also
did Dr. Engel (letters of 8th September 1926 and 10th January
1927). In the second of these letters Dr. Engel wrote: “Strictly
applied, the Rules of Nomenclature require that the name
Tethys L., 1758, be used for the well known Tectibranch Molluscs,
the sea-hares of the Mediterranean (commonly called Aplysia L.,
1767). The equally well-known Nudibranchiate Molluse with
the mouth-sail (Commonly called Tethys L., 1767) has to be called
Vertumnus Otto, 1823. But the names Aplysia L., 1767, for the
Tectibranchiates and Tethys L., 1767, for the Nudibranchiates
are so generally used in all textbooks and manuals of zoology

cae

OPINION 200 255

and in all physiological and anatomical scientific contributions
! 99

that the change of names would cause great confusion !

6. On receipt of the first of these communications, Dr. Stiles

consulted Dr. Paul Bartsch (Curator of Mollusks and Cenozoic

Invertebrates, Smithsonian Institution, United States National
Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.), who on 12th August 1924

replied as follows :—

Pilsbry has so beautifully handled this subject in a paper entitled
“On the status of the names Aplysia and Tethys’’, in the Proceedings
of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1895, pages 347
to 350, that there is no room for further discussion.

Your correspondent is evidently quoting from memory and has
certain sentimental notions about these names, which have no status
in the Nomenclature.

7. This question was again placed by the Secretary before

Dr. Bartsch on receipt of Dr. Engel’s letter of 10th January 1927

(paragraph 5 above). Dr. Bartsch, in replying on 28th April

1928, expressed regret at the delay which had occurred and then

proceeded as follows :—

Again I wish to say that personally I am disinclined to tamper with
the rules. These groups are so small that it does not make a bit of
difference really what name is used. It is just a question of deciding
upon it and doing it. You cannot change the past synonymy. That
will always arrange itself under whatever ruling is adopted. Every
exception opens another door for more exceptions, and I am “‘agin”’ it.

Jil—THE HISTORY OF THE CASE SUBSEQUENT TO
THE RECEIPT OF DR. ENGEL’S APPLICATION

8. On some date in 1934 Dr. Engel’s lengthy application,
which (as has been explained in paragraph 1 of the present
Opinion) was later summarised by Mr. Winckworth for considera-
tion by the Commission was received in the Offices of the
Commission, and on 22nd October of that year Dr. Stiles, then
Secretary to the Commission wrote to Dr. Henry A. Pilsbry.
(Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) stating that he had received a sixty-one page

256 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

manuscript on this case from Dr. Engel, and asking for his views
on “a suspension of the rules in this case, in order not to upset
the literature too much”. Dr. Pilsbry on 25th October 1934
acknowledged Dr. Stiles’ letter as follows :—

I have received Engel’s exhaustive and learned paper on Aplysia vs.
Tethys and given it a cursory once-over. I am inclined to advocate
the suspension of the rules in such cases, in general ; but I do not see
the way clear to endorse all of the recommendations Engel makes for
generic and specific nomenclature of the two genera involved, as they
are all dead against the rules... However, I will give it careful
consideration.

9. It was not possible for the International Commission’s
Secretariat to deal with so long a paper as the submitted by
Dr. Engel, and accordingly on 16th November 1934 Dr. Stiles
advised Dr. Engel to arrange for the publication of his paper.
Acting on this suggestion, Dr. Engel submitted his paper to the
serial publication Temminckia in which it was published under
the title ““On the names of the genera Tethys and Aplysia” in
the early part of 1936 (Temminckia, 1 : 221—266). As so pub-
lished, this application was re-submitted by Dr. Engel on
27th June 1936.

10. This case was not included in the Agenda for the Session
of the International Commission held in Lisbon in 1935 and no
further action had been taken in regard to it at the time when,
following the election of Mr. Francis Hemming to be Secretary
to the International Commission, the papers relating to this and
other current cases were transferred to his care in 1938. On
receipt, the paper relating to this case was then given the Regis-
tered Number Z.N.(S.)22. It had not been found possible to
make any further progress with this case when in September 1939
the records of the Commission were evacuated from London to
the country as a precaution against the risk of destruction through
air raids. The Secretariat in London was re-opened in 1942 and
steps were immediately taken to establish the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature as a means for bringing to the attention of zoologists
applications submitted to the International Commission for
decision. Work was at once started on outstanding applications
with a view to arranging for the publication in the newly estab-
lished Bulletin. Even after the establishment of the Bulletin,

OPINION 200 257

the handling of this case presented serious difficulties, for it
would clearly have been impossible to devote nearly fifty pages
of that new periodical to the publication of a single paper at a
time when large numbers of much shorter applications were
awaiting publication and, owing to paper rationing, shortage of
labour at the printing works and similar causes, great delays in
publication were being experienced. This difficulty was finally
overcome by an arrangement under which, in agreement with
Dr. Engel, the late Mr. R. Winckworth, who was personally
interested to promote the reaching of a decision in this case,
kindly undertook to prepare a summary of Dr. Engel’s paper.
The summary prepared by Mr. Winckworth was, on its receipt,
submitted to Dr. Engel by whom it was approved. After
further correspondence between the Secretary and Dr. Engel
on questions of presentation and form, the terms of the application
were finally settled on 4th February 1948. The summary so
prepared by Mr. Winckworth was constituted the “* Statement
of the Case’ for the purposes of the International Commission
and has been given in paragraph | of the present Opinion.

11. When in 1944 he was first invited by the Secretary to
prepare for the consideration of the International Commission
a summary of the paper on this case which before the war had
been published in Temminckia, Mr. Winckworth considered it
desirable to seek the views of the Nomenclature Committee of the
Malacological Society of London on the recommendations
submitted to the Commission by Dr. Engel. Mr. Winckworth
accordingly prepared an abstract of those proposals which were
considered by the Nomenclature Committee of the Society at a
meeting held on 10th November 1944. On 19th November 1944
Mr. Winckworth communicated the following statement setting
out the conclusions reached by the Committee :—

THE NAMES APLYSIA AND TETH YS (CLASS GASTROPODA):

STATEMENT OF THE VIEWS OF THE NOMENCLATURE
COMMITTEE OF THE MALACOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF
LONDON.

(Communicated by R. Winckworth)

Dr. H. Engel’s paper on the names Tethys and Aplysia (Engel, 1936,
Temminckia 1 : 221—266) was considered by the Nomenclature

258 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

Committee of the Malacological Society of London on 10th November,
1944. An abstract of the questions at issue had previously been
circulated. Four members! of the Committee were present at the
discussion; Dr. N. B. Eales and Dr. K. White attended and gave

evidence.

With one exception (the use of Tethys leporina) Dr. Engel’s proposals
were unanimously supported by those present. It was resolved to
recommend :—

(i) the adoption of Aplysia Linnaeus, 1767, and Tethys Linnaeus,
1767, as nomina conservanda?; and the suppression of
Tethys Linnaeus, 1758 ; |

(ii) the adoption of Aplysia depilans Linnaeus, 1767 (as restricted
by Gmelin, 1791), A. fasciata Poiret, 1789, and A. punctata
Cuvier, 1803; and the suppression of Tethys leporina
Linnaeus, 1758, and Aplysia rosea Rathke, 1799 ;

(ii) the adoption of Tethys fimbria Linnaeus, 1767; and the
suppression of T. /eporina Linnaeus, 17673.

It should be added that the two members‘! of the Committee not
present at the meeting both dissent from resolutions (i) and (ii), but
agree to resolution (iit). They wrote recommending strict application
of the Régles and the use of Tethys Linnaeus, 1758, for Aplysia and
Vertumnus Otto, 1821, for Tethys Linnaeus, 1767.

12. On 14th September 1947 a notice of the possible use by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its
Plenary Powers in the present case was issued to the serial
publications prescribed by the Ninth International Congress of
Zoology, Monaco, 1913. The publication of this notice elicited
no objections to the proposed stabilisation of the names Tethys
and Aplysia for use in the sense commonly attached to those
names.

1 Dr. A. T. Hopwood (Chairman), Dr. L. R. Cox, A. S. Kennard, R. Winckworth
(Secretary).

2 Aplysia Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 1072 (Aplysia), 1082 (Laplysia
in error) is monotypical with type Laplysia depilans Linnaeus, 1767 (Gastropoda
Opisthobranchia, Order Aplysiomorpha). Tethys Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat.
(ed. 12) 1 : 1072 (Tethis in error), 1089 (Tethys), type T. fimbria Linnaeus, 1767,
designated by Gray, 1847, as 7. fimbriata (Gastropoda Opisthobranchia,
Order Nudibranchia). It is virtually monotypical, since the two original specific
names, 7. /eporina and T. fimbria refer to the same species.

For other references see Engel’s paper.

3 The use of the name Tethys leporina is likely to cause confusion, since it has
been applied to animals of two different Orders of Mollusca, not only by
Linnaeus, in 1758.and 1767, but also by recent authors.

4 A. E. Salisbury, J. R. le B. Tomlin.

OPINION 200 259

13. In November 1947 the Secretary to the Commission sent
to Dr. Engel a copy of the statement furnished by the Nomen-
clature Committee of the Malacological Society of London
(paragraph 11 above), asking him to consider the possibility of
modifying his proposals on the one question where he and the
members of the Committee were in disagreement, namely whether,
as advocated by Engel, the nominal species Tethys leporina
Linnaeus, 1767, should be designated as the type species of
Tethys Linnaeus, 1767, or whether, as advocated by the Nomen-
clature Committee, the nominal species Tethys fimbria Linnaeus,
1767, should be so designated. On 4th February 1948 Dr. Engel
replied as follows, giving his support to the course recommended
by the Committee :—

Although it is my opinion, as expressed in my paper published in
Temminckia in 1936, that the choice of the name Tethys leporina
Linnaeus, 1767, for the type species of the genus Tethys Linnaeus,
1767, is to be preferred to the name Tethys fimbria Linnaeus, 1767,
owing to its having been used by so many and such prominent authors,
I now adopt the suggestion of the Nomenclature Committee of the
Malacological Society of London that the latter name should now
be approved by the International Commission. The use of the name
Tethys leporina might, I agree, cause confusion in view of the fact that
Pilsbry (1896) used that name for the species known as Aplysia fasciata.
Moreover, I consider that the course now proposed is a due honour to
that eminent zoologist Bohadsch who in 1761 proposed the name
Fimbria, a name which, however, the International Commission found
it necessary (in Opinion 185) to suppress, in common with all other
names proposed in Bohadsch’s work, in order to avoid the confusion
which would have followed the acceptance of that work.

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

14. The present application was considered by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Eleventh
Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi-
théatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948, at 0930 hours.
The following is an extract from the portion of the Official
Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission

260 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

setting out (1) the discussion which took place on the present
application at the foregoing meeting, and (2) the decision then ©
reached on it by the Commission (Paris Session, 11th Meeting,
Conclusion 27) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 301—304) :—

THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal
(file Z.N.(S)22) submitted by Dr. H. Engel (Netherlands) that the
Commission should use their Plenary Powers to validate the long
established usage of the generic names Tethys and Aplysia (Class
Gastropoda), to designate the type species of those genera in a
manner which would eliminate all further possibility of confusion
in regard to the foregoing names, and take certain other action
incidental thereto.

In the discussion on this proposal, the view was generally
expressed that a decision on this case was long overdue, both
because of the importance of the names concerned and because
of the excessive delays which had occurred in the handling of
this case by the Commission.

COMMISSIONER H. BOSCHMA (NETHERLANDS) said
that he shared the general view that a decision ought now to be
taken by the Commission for stabilising the usage of the names
Tethys and Aplysia ; he pointed out however that the application
submitted asked also for decisions in regard to certain specific
trivial names which were not directly concerned with the main
problem at issue. He suggested that the Commission should
deal as proposed with the names Tethys and Aplysia but that they
should defer taking decisions regarding the portion of the
application which related to specific trivial names not directly
involved in the stabilisation of the foregoing generic names.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING)
said that it would be impossible to deal with the generic names
Tethys and Agzlysia without at the same time dealing with the
associated question of the trivial names of the species to be
designated as the type species of those genera. The question of
the trivial names of the other species dealt with in the present

OPINION 200 261

application could however be dealt with separately at a later
stage, although the adoption of this course would offend against
the canon suggested by Commissioner Boschma in another case
that the Commission should in future carefully abstain from their
former practice of giving answers to a part only of any given
application submitted to them for decision.

IN FURTHER DISCUSSION it was generally agreed that
the questions submitted in the present application in regard to
certain specific trivial names, other than those of the species to be
specified as the type species of the genera Tethys and Aplysia
might properly be deferred for later consideration, provided,
first, that these matters were brought to a decision as soon as
possible after the close of the present Session, and, second, that
the postponement of a decision on this part of the application
submitted should not be held available to be cited as a precedent
for similar action on any future occasion.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) that under Article 19 of the Régles the spelling of the
generic name Laplysia Linnaeus, 1767 was to be
emended to Aplysia ;

(2) to use their Plenary Powers :—

(a) to suppress for all purposes the generic name
Tethys Linnaeus, 1758, and any other use of that
name, prior to the publication of the generic
name Tethys Linnaeus, 1767 ;

(b) to suppress, for all purposes, other than those of
Article 35, the use of the genus Tethys Linnaeus
1767, of the specific trivial names /eporina and
limacina ;

(c) to suppress all uses of the specific trivial name
depilans in the genus Aplysia (emend. of Laplysia)
Linnaeus, 1767, prior to its publication in the
combination Aplysia depilans by Gmelin in 1791 ;

(d) to validate the generic name Tethys Linnaeus, 1767 ;

262 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

(e) to validate the undermentioned trivial names and
to direct that those names were to be used in
preference to any other trivial names for the
species respectively concerned :—

(i) the trivial name depilans as published in the
binominal combination Aplysia depilans by
Gmelin in 1791 ;

(ii) the trivial name fimbria as published in the
binominal combination Tethys fimbria by
Linnaeus in 1767 ;

(f) to set aside all type selections for the genera Aplysia
Linnaeus, 1767, and Tethys Linnaeus, 1767 made
prior to the present decision, and to direct that
the type species of these genera shall be the
species specified below :—

Name of genus Type species
Aplysia Linnaeus, Aplysia depilans
1767 Gmelin, 1791
Tethys Linnaeus, Tethys fimbria
1767 Linnaeus, 1767

(3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
the generic names Aplysia Linnaeus, 1767, and Tethys
Linnaeus, 1767 (Class Gastropoda, Order Opistho-
branchiata) with the type species severally specified
above, and on the Official List of Specific Trivial
Names in Zoology the specific trivial names depilans
Gmelin, 1791 (as published in the binominal combina-
tion Aplysia depilans) and fimbria Linnaeus, 1767 (as
published in the binominal combination Tethys fimbria ;

(4) without prejudice to the general principle that decisions
should be given by the Commission on all questions
raised in any given application and on the strict
understanding that the action now to be taken should
not be held available to be cited on any future occasion
as a precedent in favour of dilatory procedure, to
postpone for further consideration the question of
fixing, under the plenary powers, the identity of the
species to which the undermentioned specific trivial
names should apply :—
fasciata Poiret, 1789 (as published in the binominal

combination Aplysia fasciata Poiret, 1789 ;

OPINION 200 263

punctata Cuvier, 1803 (as published in the binominal
combination Laplysia | sic| punctata Cuvier, 1803 ;

(5) to request the Secretary to the Commission to re-submit
the portion of Dr. Engel’s application relating to the
names specified in (4) as soon as possible after the
close of the present Session, with a view to a decision
being taken by the Commission thereon without
further delay ;

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

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

Aplysia (emend. of Laplysia) Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12)
1) OS 2

depilans, Laplysia, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(2) : 1082

depilans, Aplysia, Linnaeus, 1791, in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13)
13103

fimbria, Tethys, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(2) : 1089

Laplysia Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(2) : 1082

leporina, Tethys, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 653

limacina, Tethys, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 653

Tethys Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 653

Tethys Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(2) : 1089

16. The genders of the generic names Aplysia Linnaeus, 1767,
and Tethys Linnaeus, 1767, referred to in the decision quoted in
paragraph 14 are feminine.

17. The decision taken in the present case was reported to,
and approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Third
Meeting held on 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.5 : 94).

264 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

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

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

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

20. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the
present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion
of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species
was the expression “ trivial name” and the Official List reserved
for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific
Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “trivial”? appearing also
in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected
and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by
the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen,
1953, the expression “specific name” was substituted for the
expression “trivial name’ and corresponding changes were
made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such
names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The
changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in
the Ruling given in the present Opinion.

21. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in
dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accord-
ingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International
Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in

virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that
behalf.

OPINION 200 265

22. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two
Hundred (200) of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

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

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

FRANCIS HEMMING

VARS hie Bi RRR

eee Es Pn RNS) oiihst vont wou iil Nine

<*>
_

; 5 *

| ar erN ae troy Ss agony dh ttgnne

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

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

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 3. Part 20. Pp. 267—274

OPINION 201

Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic
name Necator Stiles, 1903 (Class Nematoda) (correction
of an error in Opinion 66)

>
MAR 8 1954

LONDON :
Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature

and
Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office

41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
1954

Price Three Shillings

Issued 27th January, 1954

LipnpaRX 7
ve § ad TREE a
ee ed

ZAWSONI aS
AN ¢ “Y \

\
4
ie

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 201

A. The Officers of the Commission

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

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

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

B. The Members of the Commission

Class 1949

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

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

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

Dr. Th. MORTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark).

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

Class 1952

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. ae E. Vokes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.,
U.S.A.).

Class 1955

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

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

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

Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. N. D. RILEy (British Museum (Natural History), London, England).

Professor Ragnar SPARCK (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen,
Denmark).

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

es Ces L. UsINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California,

OPINION 201

VALIDATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE
GENERIC NAME ‘** NECATOR ” STILES, 1903 (CLASS
NEMATODA) (CORRECTION OF AN ERROR IN
‘* OPINION ”’ 66)

RULING :—(1) The generic name Necator Sclater &
Saunders, 1896, an emendation of the name WNicator
Finsch & Hartlaub, 1870 (Class Aves), is hereby suppressed
for all purposes under the Plenary Powers, and the name
Necator Stiles, 1903 (Class Nematoda) is hereby validated
under those powers. (2) The entry of the name Necator
Stiles, 1903 (gender of name: masculine), made in the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in accordance
with the directions given in Opinion 66 is hereby con-
firmed. (3) The name Necator Sclater & Saunders, 1896,
is hereby added to the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 9.

IL—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In December 1943, Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, dis-
covered, when checking the entries in the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology, that the name Necator Stiles, 1903 (Class
Nematoda) placed on that List in the Commission’s Opinion 66
was an invalid junior homonym of the name Necator Sclater &
Saunders, 1896 (Class Aves). The following is the Minute on
this subject placed by Mr. Hemming on the File (Z.N.(S.)366)
then opened for this subject :—

THE NAME “NECATOR” STILES, 1903, AN INVALID
JUNIOR HOMONYM OF “NECATOR” SCLATER &
SAUNDERS, 1896 -

It is evident that my recent decision that every entry on the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology will need to be checked in detail by
myself, with the assistance, where required, of specialists in the groups
concerned, before the Official List can be published in book form was
well justified, for already I have found in the first of the Opinions in

270 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

which names were placed on this List that a name which is invalid as
a junior homonym of another name consisting of the same word was
then placed on the Official List.

2. The invalid name placed on the Official List in Opinion 66 (1915,
Smithson. Publ. 2359 : 171—176) was the name Necator Stiles, 1903
(Class Nematoda). On checking the entry for this name in Neave
(1940, Nomencl. zool. 3 : 275), I find that the foregoing name is pre-
occupied by the name Necator Sclater & Saunders, 1896 (Ibis (7)
2 : 420) (Class Aves), an emendation of the name Nicator Finsch
& Hartlaub, 1870 (in Decken, Reisen Ost-Afrika 4 : 359).

3. It is not possible at this date to determine whether this erroneous
entry on the Official List was due to the existence of the name Necator
Sclater & Saunders, 1896, not being known to the applicant concerned
or to the Commission when it adopted Opinion 66 or whether the view
was then taken implicitly that, as the name Necator Sclater & Saunders
was an Emendation and not an Original Spelling, it did invalidate
the later use of the same word as an Original Spelling. Any doubts
on this latter question which may have existed in 1913 were, however,
removed by the Commission’s later Opinion 125 (1936, Smithson. misc.
Coll. 73 (No. 8) (Publ. 3395) : 3—4), which laid it down that a name
such as Borus Albers, 1850, is an invalid junior homonym of Borus
Agassiz, 1846, an emendation of Boros Herbst, 1797. It will be
remembered also that the present problem was considered again by
the Commission at its Lisbon Session in 1935 (Lisbon Session, Fourth
Meeting, Conclusion 15) (1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 40—41),
when it was decided to render an Opinion explicitly laying down in
general terms the principle stated implicitly in Opinion 125. The
Opinion rendered under this decision is Opinion 148 (1943, Ops.
Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 133—144).

4. There is thus no doubt whatever that the entry on the Official
List relating to the Nematode name Necator Stiles, 1903, is invalid.
It will be necessary to obtain from the International Commission a
decision as to the action to be taken in regard to this name before the
Official List can be published in book form. Before this case is
submitted to the Commission, it will be necessary, however, to ascertain
whether Sclater & Saunders’ emendation to Necator of the name
Nicator Finsch & Hartlaub is in general use among ornithologists.
If this is found to be the case, the Commission will need to consider
the relative advantages (1) of validating the name Necaitor Stiles, 1903,
by suppressing the name Necator Sclater & Saunders, 1896, under its
Plenary Powers, and (2) of allowing the name Necator Stiles, 1903, to
remain invalid and of removing it from the Official List, thereby leaving
undisturbed the earlier name Necator Sclater & Saunders. If, however,
it is found that the bird genus Nicator is still known by that name, the
Sclater/Saunders emendation to Necator not having won acceptance
among ornithologists, the way will be clear for the Commission to
suppress the name Necator Sclater & Saunders, 1896, under its Plenary
Powers, thereby validating the entry of the name Necator Stiles,
1903, on the Official List.

OPINION 201 — 271

Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE

2. In reply to an enquiry by the Secretary the late Mr. W. L.
Sclater reported as follows in a letter dated 21st April 1944 :—

I have looked into the matter of Nicator and Necator, and I find
that my father did propose very definitely the emendation of the original
Nicator to Necator, | do not doubt, quite without justification under
our present Rules. So far as I know, the emendation Necator was
never used or accepted by ornithologists.

3. At Paris in 1948 the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature suspended its By-Laws for the duration of that
Session (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 7—8), and it was in virtue
of that decision that the present case was brought before the
Commission later during that Session.

IIl—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

4. The present application was considered by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Eleventh Meeting
of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphithéatre
Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 0930 hours. The
following is an extract from the portion of the Official Record of
the Proceedings of the International Commission setting out the
decision reached by it in regard to this case at the foregoing
meeting (Paris Session, lith Meeting, Conclusion 26) (1950,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 300—301) :—

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to use their plenary powers :—

(a) to suppress for all purposes the generic name
Necator Sclater & Saunders, 1896 (Class Aves),
an emendation of the name Nicator Finsch &
Hartlaub, 1870;

o72 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

(b) to validate the generic name Necator Stiles, 1903
(Class Nematoda) ;

(2) to confirm the entry of the name Necator Stiles, 1903,
made in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
in accordance with the directions given in Opinion 66 ;

(3) to render an Opinion setting out the foregoing decisions.

5. Under the provisions relating to the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, the International Com-
mission is required to place thereon every generic name which it
either rejects under its Plenary Powers or declares to be invalid.
In the present instance the entry in this Official Index, under the
foregoing provisions, of the name Necator Sclater & Saunders,
1896, suppressed under the Plenary Powers in the decision quoted
in paragraph 4 above, was inadvertently omitted from the Official
Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission.
This omission has been rectified in the Ruling given in the present
Opinion.

_ 6. The following is the original reference for the name which
appears in the decision set out in paragraph 4 above :—

Necator (invalid emend. of Nicator Finsch & Hartlaub, 1870)
Sclater & Saunders, 1896, Ibis (7) 2 : 420

7. The gender of the generic name Necator Stiles, 1903, referred
to in the decision quoted in paragraph 4, is masculine.

OPINION 201 O73

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

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

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

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

12. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two
Hundred and One (201) of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

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

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

FRANCIS HEMMING

t
c

um es

ct HAN Ay x

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

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

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 3. Part 21. Pp. 275—286

OPINION 202

Addition of Diplodinium Schuberg, 1888 (Class

Ciliophora) to the Official List of Generic Names

in Zoology with Entodinium dentatum Stein, 1858,
as type species.

1954
vv Tr

LONDON :

Price Four Shillings and Sixpence

Issued 27th January, 1954

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 202

A. The Officers of the Commission

B. The Members of the Commission

Class 1949

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

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

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

Dr. Th. MorTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark).

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

Class 1952

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. fo E. VoxKes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.,
U.S.A.).

Class 1955

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

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

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

Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Henning Lemcue (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologisk Labora-
torium, Copenhagen, Denmark).

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

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

Mr. N. D. RILEY (British Museum (Natural History), London, England).

Professor Ragnar SpARCK (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen,
Denmark).

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

ieee L. UsINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California,
US.

OPINION 202

ADDITION OF ‘* DIPLODINIUM ”? SCHUBERG, 1888
(CLASS CILIOPHORA) TO THE °° OFFICIAL LIST
OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ” WITH
‘ENTODINIUM DENTATUM” STEIN,

1858, AS TYPE SPECIES

RULING :—(1) Having regard to the fact that, as the
International Commission is informed, it is no longer
considered by specialists in the group concerned that
Schuberg (1888) was in error when he identified with
Entodinium dentatum Stein, 1858, the species placed by
him under that name in the genus Diplodinium Schuberg,
_ 1888 (Class Ciliophora), Schuberg is to be treated as

having correctly cited under the specific name dentatum,
as published by Stein in 1858 in the combination Ento-
dinium dentatum, the sole species placed by him in the
genus Diplodinium Schuberg, of which that species is
therefore the type species by monotypy. (2) The
generic name Diplodinium Schuberg, 1888 (gender of
name: neuter) (type species, by monotypy : Entodinium
dentatum Stein, 1858, as determined by Schuberg (1888),
by Kofoid and MacLennan (1932) and by Wertheim
(1935), is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology as Name No. 632. (3) The specific
name dentatum Stein, 1858, as published in the com-
bination Entodinium dentatum and as determined by the
authors specified in (2) above, is hereby placed on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 7.

I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On 24th December 1930, the late Professor Charles A. Kofoid
submitted to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature the following application in which he asked for
a ruling on the question of the type species of the genus
Diplodinium Schuberg, 1888 (Class Ciliophora), a nominal genus

278 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

which at that time appeared to have been based upon a mis-
identified type species.

ON THE TYPE OF THE GENUS DIPLODINIUM
SCHUBERG, 1888 (CLASS CILIOPHORA)

By CHARLES A. KOFIOD
(Department of Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California)
(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)13)

In our revisions of the ciliates of the ruminant stomach we meet
with a type of difficulty in nomenclature for which we wish, if possible,
to have some precedent in its solution, and in any case to have your
advice as to the wisest mode of procedure, with a view to eliminating
further confusion by later workers in this field. I am anxious to
have this point settled on the soundest possible lines.

If you will refer to the paper of Schuberg published in 1888 in
vol. 3 of the Zoologische Jahrbticher fiir Systematik, page 404, you
will find that Schuberg therein establishes the genus Diplodinium for
those OPHRYOSCOLECIDAE having a second membranelle zone instead
of one only. This genus is readily recognised and segregated from the
other ciliates of the ruminant stomach by this character. The character
is a valid one.

For the single species in this genus he cites “‘ Entodinium dentatum ”’,
previously described by Stein, 1858, in Abh. d. Kais. Bohm. Ges. Wiss.
vol. 10, pages 69—70, without figures, stating : “‘ und die Stein weniger
iibersehen’’. In this statement he clearly takes upon himself the
assumption that Stein overlooked entirely the very prominent and
characteristic second membranelle zone. Stein’s protozoological
work is characterised throughout by meticulous care in the presentation
of details. It seems wholly improbable that Stein could have cver-
looked so prominent and so distinctive a character as the dorsal zone.
Personally, I doubt the accuracy of Schuberg’s assumption. Further-
more, we have the statement of Eberlein, Zeit. Wiss. Zool. vol. 59,
pages 269—270, that he had found species with six spines resembling
Stein’s ‘‘ dentatum’’, without the second membranelle zone and
therefore referable as originally placed by Stein in the genus Entodinium
Stein, 1858, Abh. Bohm. Ges. (5) 10 S.B. : 69. Schuberg, however,
uses the name “ dentatum’”’ in connection with the animal with the
dorsal membranelle zone which he assigns to the genus Diplodinium
Schuberg, 1888, and makes the assumption that this was the species
which Stein had before him.

Several of the genera in OPHRYOSCOLECIDAE run a series of ortho-
genetic pattern in which the spines increase in number from none to
at least six. It is therefore theoretically probable that Stein and
Eberlein were right, and that both saw a species of Entodinium Stein
with six spines, to which Stein gave the trivial name ‘‘ dentatum”’.

OPINION 202 279

Schuberg was unquestionably right in the case of a species of
Diplodinium Schuberg with six spines, and that was unquestionably
the animal which Schuberg had for which he used the name
** Diplodinium dentatum””.

The question now is: Are we safe in stating that “* dentatum”’ is
the type species of Diplodinium Schuberg, but that Schuberg was
wrong in assuming that this was the same as Stein’s dentatum? If the
trivial name deniatum is not available, may we designate some other
species as the type of Diplodinium Schuberg and thus preserve the
generic name ?

Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE

2. In March 1935 the then Secretary (the late Dr. C. W. Stiles)
submitted this case to the Commission in Circular Letter 290
with a suggestion that it might be found convenient to deal with
it at the Session which the Commission was to hold at Lisbon
in September of that year.

3. The circulation of the foregoing Circular Letter elicited the
following comment from Professor Rudolf Richter (Sencken-
bergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M., Germany)
and Dr. Robert Mertens in a letter written by the former on
18th July, 1935 :—

Der Gattungsname Diplodinium Schuberg, 1888, is untrennbar mit
den Artbegriff Entodinium dentatum Steinn, 1858, verbunden. Was
Stein unter Entodinium dentatum verstanden hat, ist eine rein
systematische Frage, von deren Entscheidung die Anwendung des
Gattungsnamens Diplodinium abhiangen wird.

4. Owing to the absence, through ill-health, of the Secretary
(Dr. Stiles) and the fact that in consequence the papers relating
to this case were not available in Lisbon, it was not possible for
the International Commission to deal with this case during the
Session which it held in 1935.

5. In 1938 the documents relating to this and other current
cases were transferred to the care of Mr. Francis Hemming, who

280 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

in October 1936 had been elected Secretary to the Commission
on the retirement of Dr. Stiles. On receipt the documents
relating to this case were given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.)13.
It had not been found possible to make any further progress
with this case when in September 1939 the records of the Com-
mission were evacuated from London to the country as a pre-
caution against the risk of destruction through air raids. The
Secretariat in London was re-opened in 1942 and steps were
immediately taken to establish the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature as a means for bringing to the attention of zoologists
applications submitted to the International Commission for
decision. Work was at once started on outstanding applications
with a view to arranging for their publication in the newly
established Bulletin. Work on the present case was resumed in
August 1944 and in the following month the present application
was sent to the printer.

6. When preparing this case for publication, the Secretary

(Mr. Hemming), in agreement with Dr. Karl Jordan (then

President of the Commission), came to the conclusion that, if
the Commission were to take the view that the nominal genus
Dipledinium Schuberg, 1888, was based upon a misidentified
type species, it would not be appropriate for it to confine its
decision to a statement to this effect, for the problem submitted
would still remain unsolved until a definitive ruling had been
given on the question of the species to be accepted as the type
species of this genus. Accordingly, on 24th August 1944, Mr.
Hemming addressed a letter to Professor Kofoid asking him for
the additional information required. On 3rd January 1945, a
letter dated 11th December 1944 was received by the Secretary
from the late Professor Harold Kirby (University of California,
Department of Zoology, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) stating that
Professor Kofoid, who by this time had retired, had handed to him
the letter which on 24th August 1944 the Secretary to the Com-
mission had addressed to Professor Kofoid ; Professor Kirby
added that, if a copy of Professor Kofoid’s original application
were to be sent to him, he would be glad to study the problem
and to furnish his views on the issues involved. This offer was
welcomed by the Secretary, and on 17th March 1945 Professor
Kirby wrote a long letter containing information which threw an
entirely new light upon this case, for it appeared that, during the

OPINION 202 281

period which had elapsed since the original submission of the
present application, further taxonomic work had satisfied leading
specialists that, contrary to what had previously been thought,
Schuberg, when describing his genus Diplodinium in 1888 had
not made an error of identification when he assigned the name
Entodinium dentatum Stein, 1858, to the only species which he
placed in this genus.

7. The relevant portion of Professor Kirby’s letter of 17th
March 1945 was at once sent to the printer for publication in
the Bulletin. This portion of Professor Kirby’s letter is as
follows :—

I do not know the date of Professor Kofoid’s communication to the
Commission but in his only published material on the subject Professor
Kofoid has taken exactly the opposite position to that indicated in his
communication to the Commission. In that communication he thought
it likely that Stein really had an Entodinium (with one membranelle
zone) ; that Schuberg was wrong in assuming that Stein overlooked
the second one and he (Schuberg) had before him the same ciliate ;
and that Eberlein (1895) found (and figured) the true Entodinium
dentatum studied by Stein. But Kofoid and MacLennan (1932 : 57)
in a section of their monograph on Diplodinium entitled “‘ Type species
of Diplodinium Schuberg ”’ wrote :—

Eberlein (1895) disputed the existence of the two membranelle
zones reported by Schuberg in Stein’s EL. dentatum and claimed
to have found only an adoral spiral in this species. Since none
of the many later workers has corroborated Eberlein’s findings,
but many times have found ciliates corresponding to Schuberg’s
description, we feel that Eberlein was mistaken, and that Stein’s
E. dentatum and Schuberg’s Diplodinium dentatum are identical.

Wertheim (1935 : 418) gave a discussion of “* Entodinium dentatum ”
which bears upon the question of whether or not the type species of
Diplodinium was erroneously determined by Schuberg. The discussion
is worthy of particularly careful consideration, because Wertheim’s
paper is a comprehensive monographic treatment of OPHRYOSCOLECIDAE
based on studies in ruminants in Europe where Stein and Eberlein
worked. Wertheim is emphatic in his opinion that the type species
of Diplodinium is properly named Diplodinium dentatum (Stein, 1858)
Schuberg, 1888. It is the ciliate that Stein studied and that Schuberg
had before him. The distinctive caudal structure of six spines is not
found in any other ophryoscolecid, and there is no doubt that Stein
and Schuberg were concerned with the ciliate that Fiorentini later
(and unnecessarily) named Diplodinium denticulatum. Eberlein was
clearly mistaken in supposing that he found an Entodinium correspond-

282 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

ing to Stein’s description. No one before or after Eberlein has seen
a true Entodinium with this caudal structure—not even in the same
host species, in the same regions, in the same material Stein studied.
(All these assertions are quoted from Wertheim.)

If the International Commission places Diplodinium on the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology, it seems to me that its type can
properly be given as Diplodinium dentatum (Stein, 1858) Schuberg,
1888, as in the monographs by Kofoid and MacLennan (1932) and
Wertheim (1935). The case for this name is reasonably clear cut,
and the exercise of the plenary powers should not be required. It was
the only named species included in Diplodinium when that genus
was established, and we are in a better position to know what organism
the early authors dealt with than we can reach in various other
protozoan groups. It may be of interest, however, that Schuberg
did not actually give the combination Diplodinium dentatum. It is
implied in his use of the name Entodinium dentatum and his assignment
of that ciliate to the new genus Diplodinium.

References

EBERLEIN, R., 1895. Uber dieim Wiederkiuermagen vorkommenden
ciliaten Infusorien Z. wiss. Zool. 59 : 233—304

FIORENTINI, A., 1889. Intorno ai Protisti dello stomaco dei
Bovini (Pavia, frat. Fusi)

KOFOID, C. A., and MACLENNAN, R. F., 1932. Ciliates from
Bos indicus Linn. II. A_ revision of Diplodinium Schuberg.
Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 37 + 53—152

SCHUBERG, A., 1888. Die Protozoen des Wiederkduermagens. I.
Biitschlia, Isotricha, Dasytricha, Entodinium. Zool. Jb. Syst.
3) 2 S548

STEIN, F., 1858. Uber mehrere neue im Pansen der Wiederkauer

lebende Infusoriensthiere Abh. Bohm. Ges. Wiss. 10 : 69—70

WERTHEIM, P., 1935. Infusoriji iz zeluca prezivaca s podrucja
Jugoslavije (etc.) Veterinarskog Arhiva 5 : 388—526

8. In addition, on the receipt of Professor Kirby’s letter of
17th March 1945, the Secretary prepared the following explanatory
note in regard to the present case for publication in the Bulletin :—

The application made to the International Commission by Professor
Charles A. Kofoid for a ruling as to the type of the genus Diplodinium
Schuberg, 1888 (Class Ciliophora) was contained in a letter dated
24th December 1930. This application was transferred to me by
my predecessor shortly before the outbreak of war in 1939, together
with the papers relating to certain other uncompleted cases then
before the Commission. Owing to wartime conditions it was not

OPINION 202 283

until 1944 that I was able to examine the papers relating to this and
other outstanding cases with a view to their publication in the Bulletin
of Zoological Nomenclature, which had been founded in the previous
year for the purpose of publishing documents of this kind. In preparing
Professor Kofoid’s application for the printer, it became apparent that
additional information was needed, for, if the Commission were to
take the view (suggested in Professor Kofoid’s application) that
Schuberg was in error when he identified as Entodinium dentatum
Stein, 1858, the species which he (Schuberg) took in 1888 as the type
of his monotypical genus Diplodinium, it would be necessary for the
Commission to indicate what was in fact the oldest nomenclatorially
available name for the species so misidentified.

I accordingly wrote to Professor Kofoid on 24th August 1944,
asking for information on this question. On 3rd January 1945 I
received a letter dated 11th December 1944 from Professor Harold
Kirby, Department of Zoology, University of California, stating that
in view of his age Professor Kofoid did not feel able to deal with this
matter and had asked him (Professor Kirby) to do so on his behalf.
Professor Kirby’s conclusions were embodied in a letter dated 17th
March 1945, in which he stated that, if it was ultimately concluded
that the name Entodinium dentatum Stein, 1858, did not apply to, and
therefore could not be used for, the species selected by Schuberg
as the type of the monotypical genus Diplodinium Schuberg, 1888,
the next name (and therefore in those circumstances the correct name)
for the type species of that genus was Diplodinium denticulatum
Fiorentini, 1889 (“‘Intorno ai Protisti dello stomaco dei Bovini”’.
Pavia, frat. Fusi). At the same time Professor Kirby added that he
had re-examined the premises upon which Professor Kofoid’s
application of 1930 had been based and drew attention to the different
conclusions on this subject which had later been formed by Professor
Kofoid (Kofoid and MacLennan, 1932) and by Wertheim (1935).

The additional information kindly furnished by Professor Kirby
on behalf of Professor Kofoid throws an entirely new light on the
application now before the Commission. The relevant portions of
Professor Kirby’s letter are published above, in order that all the
available data may be assembled for the consideration of this case.

9. Although, as already explained (paragraph 5) Professor
Kofoid’s application was sent to the printer in September 1944,
difficulties arising from paper rationing, shortage of labour at
the printing works and similar causes led to delays, as the result
of which publication did not take place until June 1946 (Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 1 : 167). When Professor Kofoid’s application
was published, it was accompanied both by Mr. Hemming’s
explanatory note (paragraph 8 above) (ibid. 1 : 168) and by
Professor Kirby’s letter (paragraph 7 above) (ibid. 1 : 169—170).

284 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

Ill—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

10. The present application was considered by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Thirteenth
Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi-
théatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948, at 1730 hours.
The following is an extract from the portion of the Official Record
of the Proceedings of the International Commission setting out
the decision reached by it in regard to this case at the foregoing
meeting (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 24) (1950,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 379—381) :—

THE COMMISSION :—

(1) took note that it was no longer considered by specialists in
the group concerned that Schuberg (1888) was in error
when he identified with Entodinium dentatum Stein,
1858, the species placed by him under this name in the
genus Diplodinium Schuberg, 1888 (Class Ciliophora).

(2) agreed that, in view of (1) above, the type species of the
foregoing genus was correctly cited by Schuberg under
the trivial name dentatum (as originally published by

Stein in 1858 in the binominal combination Entodinium

dentatum) ;

(3) agreed :—

(a) to place the generic name Diplodinium Schuberg,
1888 (type species by monotypy: Entodinium
dentatum Stein, 1858, as determined by Schuberg
(1888), by Kofoid and MacLennan (1932) and
by Wertheim (1935), on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology ;

(b) to place the trivial name dentatum Stein, 1858 (as
originally published in the binominal combination
Entodinium dentatum and as identified by the
authors specified in (a) above) on the Official
List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ;

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

OPINION 202 285

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

dentatum, Entodinium, Stein, 1858, Abh. Kais. Béhm. Ges. Wiss.
10 : 69
Diplodinium Schuberg, Zool. Jahrb. Syst. 3 : 369, 404

12. The gender of the generic name Diplodinium Schuberg,
1888, referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 10 above,
is neuter.

13. The decision taken in the present case was reported to, and
approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Fifth
Meeting held on 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
5 +.106).

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

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

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

16. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the
present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion
of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species
was the expression “‘ trivial name ’”’ and the Official List reserved
for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific
Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial’ appearing also in
the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and
invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the

286 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

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

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

18. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two
Hundred and Two (202) of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

DONE in London this Seventeenth day of November, Nineteen
Hundred and Fifty-Three.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

FRANCIS HEMMING

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

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

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

Secretary to the Commission
VOLUME 3. Part 22. Pp. 287—296

OPINION 203

Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the specific

name vulgaris Schmeil, 1897, as published in the

combination Diaptomus vulgaris (Class Crustacea,
Order Copepoda)

LONDON :

Price Three Shillings and Ninepence
(All rights reserved)

Issued 27th January, 1954

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 203

A. The Officers of the Commission

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

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

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

B. The Members of the Commission
Class 1949

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

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

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

Dr. Th. MorTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark).

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

Class 1952

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. aa E. Vokes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.,
U.S.A.). :

Class 1955

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

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

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

Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Henning LEMcCHE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologisk Labora-
torium, Copenhagen, Denmark).

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

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

Mr. N. D. Ritey (British Museum (Natural History), London, England).

Professor Ragnar SPARCK (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen,
Denmark).

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

eee a L. Ustncer (University of California, Berkeley, California,
U.S.A.).

OPINION 203

VALIDATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE
SPECIFIC NAME ‘** VULGARIS ” SCHMEIL, 1897,
AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION
**DIAPTOMUS VULGARIS ” (CLASS
CRUSTACEA, ORDER COPEPODA)

RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers (a) the
specific name coeruleus Miiller (O.F.), 1776, as published
in the combination Cyclops coeruleus, is hereby sup-
pressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not
for those of the Law of Homonymy, and (b) the specific
name vulgaris Schmeil, 1897, as published in the com-
bination Diaptomus vulgaris, ‘is validated for the species
of the Order Copepoda (Class Crustacea) so named. (2)
The specific name vulgaris Schmeil, 1897, as published
in the combination Diaptomus vulgaris, is hereby placed
on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name
No. 8. (3) The specific name coeruleus Miller (O.F.),
1776, as published in the combination Cyclops coeruleus,
as suppressed, under the Plenary Powers, under ( 1)
above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 8.

I1—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On 30th April 1929, the late Mr. Robert Gurney (Oxford)
submitted the following application to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature :—

ON THE QUESTION OF THE OLDEST AVAILABLE
TRIVIAL NAME FOR THE SPECIES RENAMED
DIAPTOMUS VULGARIS BY SCHMEIL IN 1897
(CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER COPEPODA)

By ROBERT GURNEY
_ (Oxford)
(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.) 8)

In 1853 (Bull. Soc. imp. Nat. Moscou 26 (No. 1): 75) Fischer

290 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

published a description under the name Cyclopsina coerulea and gave,
inter alia, as synonym Cyclops coeruleus O. F. Miiller, 1785.1

Fischer’s name was adopted by Richard, Schmeil and many other
authors for a species of the genus Diaptomus Westwood, 1836, in
Partington, Brit. Cyclop. 2:228. This species was very fully
described by Schmeil in 1896 (Bibliotheca zool. 21 : 59). Later (1897,
ibid. 21 : 168) Schmeil replaced the name used by Fischer, proposing
the name Diaptomus vulgaris on the ground that Miiller’s species is
unrecognisable. |Schmeil stated: “‘Da Fischer seine Cyclopsina
coerulea mit dem vollkommen unsicheren Cyclops coeruleus Miller
identifizierte, so musste ich leider—um den fiir die Mitarbeiter am
‘““'Tierreich’’ massgebenden “Regeln” etc. gerecht zu werden—
diese Art neu benennen.”’

Schmeil’s new name has been generally, but not universally,
adopted.

Now Schmeil’s action seems hardly permissible. It would be
correct if it could be shown that Fischer was wrong in his identification ;
but it just as probable that he was right as wrong—it is impossible
to say.

On the other hand, if Schmeil’s name should be dropped, what
would be the correct name? Diaptomus coeruleus (O. F. Miller) or
Diaptomus coeruleus (Fischer)? It can hardly be the former, since
Miiller’s species is unrecognisable, and I consider that no author’s
name should attach to a species unless he has given an adequate
description. On the other hand, Diaptomus coeruleus Fischer might
be invalidated by the rules.

On the whole, it would be more convenient to uphold Schmeil’s
name vulgaris, even if it is not strictly correct.

Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE

2. After himself having conducted certain preliminary investi-
gations into certain bibliographical aspects of this case, the then
Secretary to the Commission (the late Dr. C. W. Stiles) on
3rd January 1930 invited Miss Mary Rathbun (United States
National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) to express her
opinion on the proposal submitted by Mr. Gurney. After an
exchange of correspondence Dr. Stiles agreed to expand his
request to form an invitation to Miss Rathbun and Dr. C. Dwight
Marsh to furnish a joint statement of their views. This joint

1 This date is incorrect, this name having been published in 1776 (Zool. dan.
Prodr. : 200)

OPINION 203 — 291

statement was furnished in the following letter from Miss Rathbun
dated 25th February 1931 :—

Dr. C. Dwight Marsh has passed on the question raised by
Mr. Gurney, and both he and I are in agreement to that Diaptomus
vulgaris Schmeil is the correct usage.

3. In March 1935 Mr. Gurney’s application, with the comment
furnished by Miss Rathbun and Dr. Dwight Marsh, was sub-
mitted to the International Commission in Circular Letter 304.

4. In a letter dated 18th July 1935 Professor Rudolf Richter
(Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M.,
Germany) wrote the following letter on behalf of himself and
Dr. Robert Mertens of the same Institution :—

Einen Namen Cyclopsina coerulea Fischer, 1853, gibt es nicht, da
Fischer keine neue Art coerulea auftsellen wollte, sondern nur die
Art Cyclops coeruleus Miiller, 1785, in neue Verbindung mit dem
Gattungsnamen Cyclopsina gebracht hat. Dieser Teil der Anfrage
des Herrn Gurney is dadurch beantwortet.

Solange night Griinde daftir aufgezeigt werden, aus denen hervor-
ginge, dass Fischer’s Identifizierung seines Materials mit Miiller’s
Art falsch ist, muss angenommen werden, dass sie richtig ist. Es ist
nicht bewiesen, dass er sich nicht durch Untersuchung von Typen
oder Topotypen Unterlagen fiir seine Meinung geschaffen hat. Es
ware also ein Akt der Willkiir, auf Grund einer Behauptung ohne
Griinde die Identifizierung von Fischer als falsch zu bezeichnen und
daraufhin den Namen coeruleus Miiller, 1785, in der Auslegung von
Fischer, 1853, zu streichen. Der Name Diaptomus coeruleus (Miiller,
17857) besteht demnach zu recht.

Wenn aber die Fachleute aus Griinden der ZweckmAassigkeit den
Namen Diaptomus vulgaris Schmeil, 1897, vorziehen, so wiirde die
Kommission gut tun, diesen Namen durch Suspension der Regeln
fiir giiltig zu erklaren.

5. This case was not included in the Agenda for the Session of
the International Commission held in Lisbon in 1935 and no
further action had been taken in regard to it at the time when,
following the election of Mr. Francis Hemming to be Secretary
to the International Commission, the papers relating to this and
other current cases were transferred to his care in 1938. On the
reorganisation of the Secretariat this case was then given the
Registered Number Z.N.(S.)8. It had not been found possible

2 For the correction of this date, see footnote '.

292 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

to make any further progress with this case when in September
1939 the records of the Commission were evacuated from
London to the country as a precaution against the risk of
destruction through air raids. The Secretariat in London was
re-opened in 1942 and steps were immediately taken to establish
the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as a means for bringing
to the attention of zoologists applications submitted to the
International Commission for decision. Work was at once
started on outstanding applications with a view to arranging
for their publication in the newly established Bulletin. After
an exchange of correspondence between the Secretary and
Mr. Gurney, the terms of the present application were finally
settled on 15th August 1944. This application was sent to
the printer in September 1944, but, owing to paper rationing,
shortage of labour at the printing works and similar causes it
was not until 26th June 1946 that it was actually published.

6. At the time of the final consultation between the Secretary
and Mr. Gurney just before the present application was sent to
the printer, Mr. Gurney furnished a supplementary note which
he asked should be added to his application, in order to bring
that application up to date in certain respects. This note, which
was dated 15th August 1944, was accordingly annexed to the
original application and the two published together. This
supplementary note was as follows :—

Supplementary note by Mr. R. Gurney :—

Since the foregoing case was submitted to the Commission, the
question at issue has been discussed by Rylov (1930, Zool. Anz. 88 :
111) and by myself (1931, British Fresh-Water Copepoda 1: 158).
Rylov claims to have rediscovered Fischer’s species, which he finds
to be specifically the same as that described by Schmeil, though
differing in some details which might permit of the latter being regarded
as a variety or subspecies. He therefore adopts the name Diaptomus
coeruleus Fischer. I, on the other hand, have used the name Diaptomus
vulgaris Schmeil on the ground that no ambiguity attaches to it,
whereas Diaptomus coeruleus can only be used, according to the rules,
with Miiller’s name as author, although we do not know and never
can know what species Miiller had before him.

7. At Paris in 1948 the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature suspended its By-Laws for the duration of that

OPINION 203 293

Session (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 7—8), and it was in virtue
of that decision that the present case was brought before the
Commission later during that Session.

I1l—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

8. The present application was considered by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Thirteenth
Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi-
theatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948, at 17.30 hours.
The following is an extract from the portion of the Official
Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission
setting out the decision reached by it in regard to this case at the
foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 20)
(1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 375—377) :—

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

(a) to suppress the trivial name coerulus Muller (O.F.),
1785? (as published in the binominal combination
Cyclops coeruleus) for the purposes of Article 25,
but not for those of Article 35 ;

(b) to validate the trivial name vulgaris Schmeil, 1897
(as published in the binominal combination
Diaptomus vulgaris) for the species of the Order
Copepoda (Class Crustacea) so named ;

(2) to put the trivial name vulgaris Schmeil, 1897 (as
published in the binominal combination Diaptomus
vulgaris) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names
in Zoology and the trivial name coeruleus Miller (O.F.),
1785? (as published in the binominal combination

3 For the correction of this date see footnote }.

294 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

Cyclops coeruleus) on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ;

(3) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in
(1) and (2) above.

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

coeruleus, Cyclops, Miller (O.F.), 1776, Zool. dan. Prodr. : 200
vulgaris, Diaptomus, Schmeil, 1897, Biblioth. zool. 21 : 168

10. The decision taken in the present case was reported to,
and approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Fifth
Meeting held on 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
5 : 106).

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

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

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

13. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the
present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion
of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species
was the expression “ trivial name ”’ and the Official List reserved
for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific
Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial”? appearing also in
the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and

OPINION 203 5)

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

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

15. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two
Hundred and Three (203) of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

Done in London this Seventeenth day of November, Nineteen
Hundred and Fifty-Three.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

FRANCIS HEMMING

Be, pe ihe

ipab ff sabnil : (ga! on

fae xgoloaS, te, ae bbe
wT eahas iit ae Mae EON,

arity’ aw aiianoggonio.* bes,

Aah tie a: ange va a wit

va Ae ie 8%

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

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

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 3. Part 23. Pp. 297—308

OPINION 204

Determination of the species eligible to be selected as
the type species of the nominal genera established by
Koch (C.L.) in the portions of the work entitled
Deutschlands Crustaceen, Myriapoden und Arachniden
published in the period 1835-1842

LONDON :

Price Four Shillings and Sixpence

Issued 27th January, 1954

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 204

A. The Officers of the Commission

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

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

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

B. The Members of the Commission

Class 1949

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

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

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

Dr. Th. MORTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark).

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

Class 1952

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Harold E. VoKES (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.,
U.S.A.).

Class 1955 .

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

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

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

Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. N. D. RILEy (British Museum (Natural History), London, England).

Professor Ragnar SpARCK (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen,
Denmark).

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

eas L. USINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California,

S.A).

OPINION 204

DETERMINATION OF THE SPECIES ELIGIBLE TO BE
SELECTED AS THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE NOMINAL
GENERA ESTABLISHED BY KOCH (C.L.) IN THE
PORTIONS OF THE WORK ENTITLED ‘** DEUTSCH-
LANDS CRUSTACEEN, MYRIAPODEN UND
ARACHNIDEN ” PUBLISHED IN THE PERIOD
1835—1842

RULING :—(1) In accordance with the principle
illustrated by the decision given in Opinion 30, the generic
names published for the first time by Koch (C.L.) in
Hefte of the work Deutschlands Crustaceen, Myriapoden
und Arachniden during the period 1835—1842, when
forming new specific names for previously unnamed
species are available as from the date of being so pub-
lished and the type species of such a genus is determined
under Rules (b), (c) and (d) in Article 30, where, as the
case may be, an originally included species (i) bears the
specific name typus or typicus or (ii) is the sole species so
included, or (iii) bears a specific name which is tautony-
mous with the generic name, and, in other cases, under
Rule (g) in that Article. (2) The reference in the last
paragraph of the Vorwort to the Erste Abteilung of the
third volume (Drittes Heft) of the Uebersicht des Arach-
nidensystems (published in 1842) to the single species
figured in that volume for each genus as Typus dienend is
to be accepted as constituting a selection of that species
to be the type species of that genus under Rule (g) in
Article 30. (3) In the case of a genus, the name of
which was first published in the Deutschlands Crustaceen,
the type selection made for that genus by Koch in the
Uebersicht in the manner specified in (2) above is a valid
selection only (a) when the genus in question was not
monotypical when first named and did not contain a

300 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

species having, as a specific name, either the word typus
or typicus or a word which was tautonymous with the
generic name, and (b) when the species so selected was
one of the species referred to the genus in the Heft of the
Deutschlands Crustaceen in which the generic name was
first published, or, where two or more Hefte were pub-
lished simultaneously and the generic name appeared in
more than one of these Hefte, one of the species so
referred in any of these Hefte. (4) If, on applying the
foregoing decisions, specialists are of the opinion that the
adoption, as the type species of any given genus, of the
species so determined as such would lead to instability
and confusion in the nomenclature of the group con-
cerned, it will be open to those specialists to submit an
application to the Commission for the use of the Plenary
Powers. (5) The works by Koch entitled Deutschlands
Crustaceen and Uebersicht des Arachnidensystems referred
to in (1) and (2) above are hereby placed on the Official
List of Works Approved as Available in Zoological Nomen-
clature as Works Nos. 1 and 2.

OPINION 204 301

I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On 24th November 1928 the late Dr. Arthur P. Jacot (Shantung
Christian University, Department of Biology, Tsinan, Shantung,
China) submitted the following application, which, as explained
in paragraph 5 below, was published many years later in the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature :—

ON THE VALIDITY OF THE GENOTYPES DESIGNATED BY

KOCH (C.L.), 1837-1842, UBERSICHT DES ARACHNIDEN-

SYSTEMS, FOR GENERA, THE NAMES OF WHICH HAD

BEEN FIRST PUBLISHED BY THAT AUTHOR IN 1835-1842,

DEUTSCHLANDS CRUSTACEEN, MYRIAPODEN UND
ARACHNIDEN

By the late ARTHUR P. JACOT
(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.) 90.)

In 1835-1844* Carl Ludwig Koch published his ‘“‘ Deutschlands
Crustaceen, Myriapopen und Arachniden”’ at Regensberg, for the
exact dates of which see Sherborn, 1923, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (9)
11 : 566—568. This was immediately reprinted by George Wolffgang
Panzer as part of his “ Faunae Insectorum Germanicae initia oder
Deutschlands Insecten ”’.

In the above work are described many species under generic names
never before published.

Under date of 1837 to 1842, Koch in his ““ Ubersicht des Arachniden-
systems ’’ arranged these various species under the generic names,
describing and sub-dividing the genera and assigning one figured
species to act as type. This he clearly stated in the last paragraph
of the preface to volume 3 (“‘ Vorwort zum dritten Uebersichtheft ’’)
published in 1842, where the following passage occurs :-—

Die Gattungsbezeichnungen beschaftigen sich nur mit den
dusserlich sichtbaren Merkmalen, auch geben die solchen
beigefiigten Figuren, als Typus dienend, bloss ein getreues Bild
irgend einer Art der betreffenden Gattungen und der mit einfachem
Microscop zu erkennenden Charaktere.

* Koch’s Deutschlands Crustaceen, Myriapoden und Arachniden was published
in parts between 1835 and 1844. His Ubersicht des Arachnidensystems was
published in 5 Hefte between 1837 and 1850. The case submitted to the
International Commission relates only to the types of genera established by
Koch in the portion of the Deutschlands Crustaceen, Myriapoden und Arachniden
prior to the designation of types for those genera in 1842 in his Ubersicht des
Arachnidensystems. Accordingly, for the purposes of the present application
the terminal date of publication for both these works is 1842 and is so given
above.

302 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

Some authors have used as types the species first mentioned under
a generic name, as though the genus was monotypic. Koch evidently
had no intention of these species being so used but intended to
designate the types of the genera himself in the Ubersicht (as he
ultimately did do). As the genera were not defined or characterised
in the “‘ Deutschlands Crustaceen, Myriapoden und Arachniden ”
where the generic term was merely used for the species concerned as
part of the scientific name of the species concerned, the acceptance
of these genera as monotypic as from the date of their publication
in the above work hardly seems consistent with the author’s idea or
with customary usage.

I would therefore request the Commission to render an Opinion
on the validity of Koch’s types as appointed by him in the last para-
graph to the Foreword of his Ubersicht published in 1842.

Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE

2. In a letter dated 1st March 1929 the then Secretary (the late
Dr. C. W. Stiles) informed Dr. Jacot that he proposed to invite
the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature
to advise on this case. He added that in his view the problem
submitted was likely to give rise to a “‘ very close decision between
an anatomical norm and a nomenclatorial type ”

3. In response to the letter which Dr. Stiles had addressed to
him, as Chairman of the foregoing International Committee,
Dr. Karl Jordan (Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) in a
letter dated “‘ Easter 1929” expressed the view that the Com-
mittee of which he was the Chairman, having been appointed by
the International Congress of Entomology and being concerned
only with the names of insects, was not in a position to consider
Dr. Jacot’s application which related to a book dealing with
Crustacea, Myriapoda and Arachnida.

4. No progress had been made with the consideration of this
case by the time that in 1938 the papers relating to it and other
current cases were transferred to the care of Mr. Francis Hemming
who in October 1936 had been elected Secretary to the Commission
on the retirement of Dr. Stiles. On receipt, the documents

OPINION 204 303

relating to this case were given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.)90.
It had not been found possible to take any action on this applica-
tion when in September 1939 the records of the Commission
were evacuated from London to the country as a precaution
against the risk of destruction through air raids. The Secretariat
of the Commission in London was re-opened in 1942 and steps
were immediately taken to establish the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature as a means for bringing to the attention of zoolo-
gists applications submitted to the Commission for decision.
Work was at once started on outstanding applications with a
view to arranging for their publication in the newly established
Bulletin. ‘When work was resumed on the present case, the
Secretary (Mr. Hemming) placed the following note on the file :—

Dr. Jacot’s application on Koch’s ‘* Deutschlands Crustaceen ... ”’

Dr. Jacot raises two points, namely (1) Are the type selections
alleged to have been made by Koch in his Uebersicht des Arachniden-
systems of 1842 for genera previously established by himself in his
Deutschlands Crustaceen, etc., to be accepted as complying with the
requirements of Rule (g) in Article 30? (2) Where the species so
“selected? in the Uebersicht was not included by Koch when he
established the genus in question in the Deutschlands Crustaceen,
is that selection nevertheless to be accepted? Dr. Jacot argues in
favour of the acceptance of the “ selections ”’ in the Uebersicht, even
where the species so selected was not included in the genus in question
when it was first established.

_ It seems to me that it is essential that the two questions raised by
Dr. Jacot should be kept entirely distinct, for they raise quite different
issues. As regards his Question No. (1), it would seem to me to be
reasonable to agree that Koch’s action in the Uebersicht amounts to
a selection under Rule (g) in Article 30. As regards his Question
No. 2, it seems to me that the only possible answer is ““ No’. The
case is rather like that of the Swainson bird generic names dealt with
by the Commission in Opinion 30. In that case Swainson certainly did
not intend that his action in the Philosophical Magazine should be
taken as defining the species to be regarded as originally included
species for the new genera to which he then assigned the species there
described. Nevertheless, it was, in fact, the first place where these
generic names were published, and, as the Commission ruled in the
foregoing Opinion, the species there placed in the new genera are the
only originally included species for those genera. In the case dealt
with in Opinion 30, Swainson placed only one species each of his new
genera, and, under the ruling given in that Opinion, those species
therefore became the type species of the genera concerned, but the
principle involved is exactly the same in cases where, as in the case of

304 OPINIONS: AND DECLARATIONS

Koch, two or more species were cited on the first occasion on which
the generic name was used (i.e. in the Deutschlands Crustaceen) but
those species did not include the species later “‘ selected ’’ as the type
species in the Uebersicht.

It is implied by Dr. Jacot but not clearly stated that a ruling in the
foregoing sense would upset current nomenclatorial practice through
the changing of the type species of well-established genera. Such a
situation is always possible when workers have been following divergent
practices and an authoritative ruling is given declaring one of those
practices to be right and the other wrong. In order to minimise the
ill effects of such a disturbance, it would, I think, be well if the
Commission were to make it clear that it recognises the foregoing
possibility and is prepared to deal individually with hard cases under
its Plenary Powers on the submission by specialists of evidence of the
instability and confusion likely otherwise to arise.

5. Dr. Jacot’s application was sent to the printer in September
1944 but, owing to difficulties arising from paper rationing,
shortage of labour at the printing works and similar causes it was
not until 26th June 1946 that publication actually took place
(Jacot, 1946, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 161).

II—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

6. The present application was considered by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Thirteenth
Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi-
théatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 1730 hours.
The following is an extract from the portion of the Official
Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission
setting out the decision reached by it in regard to this case at the
foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 19)
(1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 372—375) :—

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) that, in accordance with the principle illustrated by the
decision given by the Commission in Opinion 30, the

OPINION 204 - 305

generic names published for the first time by Koch
(C.L.) in Hefte of the work Deutschlands Crustaceen,
Myriapoden und Arachniden during the period 1835—
1842, when forming new specific names for previously
unnamed species are available as from the date of
being so published and the type species of such a genus
is determined under Rules (b), (c) and (d) in Article 30,
where, as the case may be, an originally included
species (i) bears the trivial name typus or typicus, or
(ii) is the sole species so included, or (ii) bears a
trivial name which is tautonymous with the generic
name and in other cases under Rule (g) in that Article ;

(2) that the reference in the last paragraph of the ““Vorwort”’
to the Erste Abt eilung of the third volume (Drittes
Heft) of the Ubersicht des Arachnidensystems (published
in 1842) to the single species figured in that volume
for each genus as “ Typus dienend ”’ is to be accepted
as constituting a selection of that species to be the type
species of that genus under Rule (g) in Article 30 ;

_ (3) that, in the case of a genus, the name of which was first
- . published in the Deutschlands Crustaceen, the type
selection made for that genus by Koch in the Ubersicht
_ in the manner specified in (2) above is a valid selection
only (a) when the genus in question was not mono-
typical at the time when it was first named and did not
contain a species having as a trivial name either the
word typus or the word typicus or a word which was
tautonymous with the generic name, and (b) when the
species so selected was one of the species referred to the
genus in the Heft of the Deutschlands Crustaceen in
which the generic name was first published or, where
two or more Hefte were published simultaneously and
the generic name appeared in more than one of these
Hefte, one of the species so referred in any one of

these Hefte ;

(4) that if, on applying the foregoing decisions, specialists
are of the opinion that the adoption as the type species
of any given genus of the species so determined as such
would lead to instability and confusion in the nomen-
clature of the group concerned, it was open to those
specialists to submit an application to the Commission

306 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

for the use of the Plenary Powers and the Commission,
on receiving such an application supported by adequate
particulars relating to the name in question and the
grounds on which instability and confusion was
apprehended, could then judge whether or not the
Plenary Powers should be used to vary the type species
of the genus in question ;

(5) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified
in (1) to (3) above, reference being made at the same
time to the decision recorded in (4) above.

7. The decision taken in the present case was reported to, and
approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Fifth
Meeting held on 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
5 : 106).

8. At its meeting held at Copenhagen in August 1953, the
Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology decided to insert a
provision in the Rég/es establishing an “ Official List” to be
styled the Official List of Zoological Works Approved as Available
for Zoological Nomenclature and directing the insertion therein of
the title of any work which the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature might either validate under its Plenary
Powers or declare to be an available work, together with any
supplementary decisions which the International Commission
might take in regard to any aspect of the work in question (1953,
Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl: 24). Since the foregoing
decision applies to past, as well as to future, decisions by
the International Commission in cases of this kind, the oppor-
tunity presented by the preparation of the present Opinion has
been taken to record the insertion in the foregoing Official List
of the title (a) of Koch’s Deutschlands Crustaceen, Myriapoden
und Arachniden, together with particulars of the decision in
1egard thereto set out in the present Opinion, and (b) of the title
of the same author’s Uebersicht des Arachnidensystems.

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

OPINION 204 307

present at the Paris Session of the International Commission,
namely :—

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

vice Vokes.

10. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was dissented
from by no Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner present

at the Paris Session.

11. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the
present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion
of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species
was the expression “ trivial name”. Under a decision taken by
the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoclogy, Copenhagen,
1953, the expression “specific name’ was substituted for the

expression “ trivial name ”’.

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

behalf.

13. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two
Hundred and Four (204) of the International Commission on

Zoological Nomenclature.

Done in London this Eighteenth day of November, Nineteen
Hundred and Fifty-Three.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

; 4 if i ; P & 4 ele TES ri l Dey a ee a

‘Printed in England by MrEtTcaLFEe & Coorer Luuirep, 0.

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

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

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 3. Part 24. Pp. 309—318

OPINION 205

Rejection of the generic name Phoranthella Townsend
(Class Insecta, Order Diptera), as published in 1915
as a nomen nudum

HSON/4S

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
- | and
Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
1954

| \2 a
\

a ene Ee

Issued 27th January, 1954

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 205

A. The Officers of the Commission

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

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

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

B. The Members of the Commission

Class 1949

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

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

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

Dr. Th. MorTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark).

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

Class 1952

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. co E. VoKeEs (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.,
U.S.A.).

Class 1955

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

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

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

Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Henning LeMcHE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologisk Labora-_
torium, Copenhagen, Denmark).

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

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

Mr. N. D. RILey (British Museum (Natural History), London, England).

Professor Ragnar SpARCK (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen,
Denmark).

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

Seige fie L. UsINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California,

OPINION 205

REJECTION OF THE GENERIC NAME
‘* PHORANTHELLA ”? TOWNSEND (CLASS INSECTA,
ORDER DIPTERA), AS PUBLISHED IN 1915, AS A
**NOMEN NUDUM ”’

RULING :—(1) As published by Townsend in 1915,
the specific name Phoranthella morrisoni (Class Insecta,
Order Diptera) 1s a nomen nudum, and, consequently, as
at that date, the generic name Phoranthella Townsend,
1915, which depends for its recognition solely upon the
status of the name of its type species, is also a nomen
nudum. (2) The name Phoranthella Townsend, 1915, is
hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 10. (3)
The specific name morrisoni Townsend, 1915, as pub-
lished in the combination Phoranthella morrisoni, 1s
hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 9.

I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On 29th January 1931, the late Dr. J. M. Aldrich (United States
National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) submitted an
application to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, in which he asked for a ruling on the question
whether the generic name Phoranthella Townsend, 1915, and the
specific name Phoranthella morrisoni Townsend, 1915, had been
duly published with “indications” within the meaning of
Proviso (a) to Article 25 of the Régles. This application which,
as explained in paragraph 3 below, was many years later published
in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, was as follows :—

ON THE STATUS OF THE GENERIC NAME

*““PHORANTHELLA ” TOWNSEND, 1915
(CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA)

By J. M. ALDRICH
(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)103.)

Townsend, 1915, Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 18 : 23, has this :—

312 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

Phoranthella new genus

Genotype, Phoranthella morrisoni Townsend new name for
Phorantha (Hyalomyia) occidentis Coquillet p.p., 1897, Rev. Tach.
44 (nec Hyalomyia occidentis Walker, 1856 Diptera Saundersiana,
260)—Holotype labeled by Coqt. as above, loc. Georgia (Morrison).
Type No. 19139 U.S.N.M. 9.

Coquillet’s series included specimens from 12 localities, in probably
40 specimens.

Without stating that the whole series was misidentified by Coquillet
(note the “ p.p.’’), Townsend has taken out one specimen as mis-
identified and made it the type of a new species without further
description. In other words, there is no description of morrisoni
either by Townsend or Coquillet.

Question : Does morrisoni have any standing ?

Of course, without the “pro parte” this would have been an
ordinary case. But with it a new element comes in.

The genus, I think, falls if the species has no standing ; but the
status of the species interests me most.

I.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE

2. On 21st May 1932, the then Secretary to the Commission
(the late Dr. C. W. Stiles) wrote to Dr. C. H. T. Townsend (Rio
Tapajos, Parad, Brazil), the author of the names, the availability
of which had been questioned by Dr. Aldrich, and asked him to
furnish a memorandum stating his “interpretation in the
premises”. On 11th July 1932, Dr. Townsend replied as
follows :— :

I consider that Coquillet’s description functions for morrisoni TT.
To fix the species beyond doubt, I designated his Georgia specimen
as holotype and gave it a U.S.N.M. type number.

If morrisoni TT falls, then many of Coquillet’s Revision-of-Tachinidae
species fall with it! His descriptions will usually fit more than one
species and many of his species were mixed- -species.

3. No further progress had been made with the consideration
of Dr. Aldrich’s application by the time that in 1938 the papers
relating to it and other current cases were transferred to the care
of Mr. Francis Hemming who in October 1936 had been elected
Secretary to the Commission on the retirement of Dr. Stiles.
On receipt, the documents relating to this case were given the

~ OPINION 205: : 313

Registered Number Z.N.(S.)103. It had not been possible to take
any action on this application when in September 1939 the records
of the Commission were evacuated from London to the country
as a precaution against the risk of destruction through air raids.
The Secretariat of the Commission in London was re-opened
in 1942 and steps were immediately taken to establish the Bulletin
of Zoological Nomenclature as a means for bringing to the attention
of zoologists applications submitted to the Commission for
decision. Work was at once started on outstanding applications
with a view to arranging for their publication in the newly-
established Bulletin. The present application was sent to the
printer in September 1944, but, owing to difficulties arising from
paper rationing, shortage of labour at the printing works and
similar causes, publication did not actually take place until June
1946 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 171).

4. The publication of Dr. Aldrich’s application elicited the
following comment, which was received on 6th January 1948
from Professor L. di Caporiacco (University of Parma, Italy) —

~Townsend’s statement that Phoranthella morrisoni Townsend is a
new name for Phorantha (Hyalomyia) occidentis Coquillet p.p. means
only that this ““new”’ species differs in some way from Phorantha
occidentis Coquillet. Townsend does not, however, say in what way
it differs. In my opinion, the name Phoranthella morrisoni Townsend
is a nomen nudum, and the generic name Phoranthella falls with the
specific name. | |

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

_ 5. The present application was considered by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Thirteenth
Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi-
théatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 17.30 hours.
The following is an extract from the portion of the Official Record
of the Proceedings of the International Commission setting out
(1) the discussion which took place on the present application at
the foregoing meeting, and (2) the decision then reached on it

314 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

by the Commission (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 26)
(1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 382—383) :—

(1) THE COMMISSION had under consideration an applica-
tion submitted by the late Dr. J. M. Aldrich (U.S.A.)
(file Z.N.(S.)103) for a ruling on the question whether (a)
a specific name based upon a single specimen of a
previously named and described species, and (b) a generic
name based upon such a specific name, have any avail-
ability under the Régles, when no characters are given
for the species or genus so named, other than that the
type specimen of the species was one of the specimens
included in error by a previous author among the type
material of another species described by that author
(Aldrich, 1946, Bull. zool. Nomencl.1 : 171). Dr. Aldrich
had illustrated the problem which he had submitted by
citing the case of the nominal species Phoranthella
morrisoni Townsend, 1915 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera),
and the generic name Phoranthella then published by
Townsend for the first time. The above species was
designated by Townsend as the type species of the genus
Phoranthella and accordingly the generic name Phoran-
thella would be an available name, if the name of the
nominal species Phoranthella morrisoni Townsend could
be regarded as an available name. But the only statement
made by its author in regard to this species was that it
was based upon one specified example of the type series
of another species described by a different author
(Phorantha (Hyalomyia) occidentis Coquillet, 1897). Dr.
Aldrich had observed that Coquillet’s series of occidentis
consisted of some 40 specimens from 12 localities, and
that Townsend had taken out only one specimen as
misidentified ; no description of Phoranthella morrisoni
had been published by Townsend or Coquillet.

It was pointed out that under the ruling in Opinion 1
in no case could a museum label or specimen be accepted
as an “indication ” and therefore that the name Phoran-
thella morrisoni could not be regarded as having been
accompanied by an “indication” at the time when it

OPINION 205 Sf)

was first published (1915). As at that date, therefore,
the above name was a nomen nudum. It followed that,
as at 1915, the generic name Phoranthella was also a
nomen nudum, for its identity turned solely upon the
status of the nominal species designated as its type
species.

(2) THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) that, as published by Townsend in 1915, the specific
name Phoranthella morrisoni (Class Insecta, Order
Diptera), was a nomen nudum, and consequently,
as at that date, the generic name Phoranthella
Townsend, 1915, which depended for its recognition
solely upon the status of the name of its type
species, was also a nomen nudum ;

(2) that the name Phoranthella Townsend, 1915,
should be added to the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology and that the
trivial name morrisoni Townsend, 1915 (as pub-
lished in the binominal combination Phoranthella
morrisoni), Should be added to the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in
Zoology ;

(3) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified
in (1) and (2) above.

6. The following are the original references for the names which
appear in the decision set out in the immediately preceding
paragraph :—
morrisoni, Phoranthella, Townsend, 1915, Proc. biol. Soc. Wash.

18 : 23
Phoranthella Townsend, 1915, Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 18 : 23

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

316 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Fifth Meeting held on
26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 107). |

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

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

_ 9, The Ruling given in the present Opinion was dissented from
by no Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the
Paris Session.

10. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the
present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion
of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species
was the expression “ trivial name ” and the Official List reserved
for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific
Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial’? appearing also
in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and
invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the
Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen,
1953, the expression “ specific name” was substituted for the
expression “ trivial name ” and corresponding changes were made
in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names
(1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). . The changes
in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling
given in the present Opinion.

11. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the.
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing
with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly
hereby rendered in the name of the said International-Commission

OPINION 205 317

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

12. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two
Hundred and Five (205) of the International Commission on
_ Zoological Nomenclature.

Done in London this Nineteenth day of November, Nineteen
Hundred and Fifty-Three.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

FRANCIS HEMMING

4 ead SARE pre

‘ hah ee

tor MY ed

va!

. } :

Printed in England by METCALFE & Coorer I

Batted 8th March, 1954

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

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

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 3, Part 25. Pp. 319—338

OPINION 206

Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic
name Diadema Gray, 1825 (Class Echinoidea)

SARTO TT
ee

Pm mn rs
poo tah GO
WA \ \\ SA hte hae!

LONDON :

Price Seven Shillings and Sixpence

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 206

A. The Officers of the Commission

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

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

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

B. The Members of the Commission

Class 1949

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

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

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

Dr. Th. MORTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark)..

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

Class 1952

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Tos E. VoKES (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.,
U.S.A.).

Class 1955

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

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

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

Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. N. D. RiLEy (British Museum (Natural History), London, England).

Professor Ragnar SpArcK (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen,
Denmark).

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

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

OPINION 206

VALIDATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF
THE GENERIC NAME ‘“* DIADEMA ” GRAY, 1825
(CLASS ECHINOIDEA)

RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers (a) the
generic names Diadema Schumacher, 1817, and Diadema
Ranzani, 1817 (Class Crustacea, Sub-Class Cirripedia)
are suppressed for the purposes both of the Law of
Priority and of the Law of Homonymy, and (b) the generic
name Diadema Gray, 1825 (Class Echinoidea) is validated
with Echinometra setosa Leske, 1778, as type species.
(2) The generic name Diadema Gray, 1825 (gender of
name: neuter) with type species as designated in (1) (b)
above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology as Name No. 633. (3) The generic
names Diadema Schumacher, 1817, and Diadema Ranzani,
1817, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (1) (a)
above, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos.
11 and 12. (4) The specific name setosa Leske, 1778, as
published in the combination Echinometra setosa, is
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology as Name No. 9.

I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Under cover of a letter dated 17th November 1932, the late
Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen)
submitted, for the consideration of the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature, a paper of his which had just been
published (October 1932, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10) 10 : 345—368)
under the title ““ A Vote on some Echinoderm Names’. This
paper contained a discussion of eight disputed Echinoderm names
and gave the result of an extensive canvas of opinion among
Echinoderm specialists as to the action which it was desirable
should be taken. The seventh of the names discussed in this
paper was the name Diadema.

APR 2 - 19%

322 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

2. The recommendation submitted in regard to this case was
that the name Diadema Gray, 1825, should be declared a nomen
conservandum with Echinometra setosa Leske, 1778, as type
species (: 363). This proposal was supported by thirty-three
specialists and was opposed by six. The specialists who supported
this proposal were :—(1) F. A. Bather (British Museum (Natural
History), London); (2) A. G. Brighton (Sedgwick Museum,
Cambridge); (3) Austin H. Clark (United States National
Museum, Washington, D.C.) ; (4) J. Cottreau (Muséum National
d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris) ; (5) E. D. Currie (Hunterian Museum,
Glasgow) ; (6) A. M. Diakonov (Zoological Museum, Leningrad) ;
(7) L. Déderlein (Munich) ; (8) Sv. Ekman (Zoological Institute,
Uppsala) ; (9) A. Faas (Geological Committee, Leningrad) ; (10)
D. M. Fedotov (Zoological Laboratory, Leningrad) ; (11) T. Gislén
(Zoological Institute, Uppsala) ; (12) Seitaro Goto (Tokio) ; (13)
J. W. Gregory (Geological Department, University, Glasgow) ;
(14) J. A. Grieg (Zoological Museum, Bergen) ; (15) R. Hecker
(Geological Museum, Leningrad); (16) S. Heding (Zoological
Museum, Copenhagen) ; (17) Hérouard (Laboratoire de Zoologie,
La Sorbonne, Paris); (18) N. von Hofsten (Zoological Institute,
Uppsala) ; (19) F. Klinghardt (Museum f. Naturkunde, Berlin) ;
(20) L. Lieberkind (Zoological Museum, Copenhagen); (21)
Th. Mortensen (Zoological Museum, Copenhagen); (22) Aug.
Nobre (Zoological Institute, Porto, Portugal) ; (23) H. Ohshima
(Zoological Laboratory, Fukuoka, Japan); (24) A. Panning
(Zoological Museum, Hamburg) ; (25) L. P. J. Ravn (Palaeonto-
logical Department, University, Copenhagen) ; (26) A. Reichen-
sperger (Zoological Institute, Bonn); (27) W. E. Schmidt
(Preussische Geolog. Landesanstalt, Berlin) ; (28) W. K. Spencer
(Ipswich, England) ; (29) G. Stefanini (Geological Institute, Pisa) ;
(30) Dom Aurélien Valette (Saint-Léger-Vauban, France); (31)
C. Vaney (Laboratoire de Zoologie, Lyon); (32) J. Wanner
(Geological Institute, Bonn); (33) N. Yakovlev (Geological
Committee, Leningrad). The six specialists who were opposed
to the action recommended in the present case were :—_(1) H. L.
Clark (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Mass.) ;
(2) R. T. Jackson (Museum of Comp. Zoology, Cambridge, Mass.) ;
(3) E. Deichmann (Museum of Comp. Zoology, Cambridge, Mass.) ;
(4) W. K. Fisher (Hopkins Marine Station, Pacific Grove, Cali-
fornia) ; (5) H. L. Hawkins (Geological Department, University,
Reading) ; (6) J. Lambert (Paris).

OPINION 206 = 323

Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE

3. In December 1932 the then Secretary (the late Dr. C. W.
Stiles) reported Dr. Mortensen’s application to the Commission
in Circular Letter 220. On 20th December of that year, he wrote
also to the Director of the United States Geological Survey,
expressing the hope that arrangements might be made for these
proposals to be examined by the palaeontologists of the Survey.
On 19th January 1933 the Director replied, forwarding five
comments by members of the staff, of which one was signed by
two workers. These comments, so far as they relate to the present
case, were as follows :—

(a) Comment by L. W. Stephenson and C. Wythe Cooke :

I am in favor of codifying names concerning the strict validity
of which there may be some question, if they have been in generally
accepted use for long periods, but when it can be shown clearly that
some other name has priority over a later more generally used name...
is there not a danger of adding to, rather than subtracting from, the
confusion ? Will not some authors accept the rulings of the Inter-
national Commission, while others will continue stoutly to maintain
the validity of the names having priority ? Furthermore, will not such
rulings encourage a flood of demands for suspension of the rules ? ©

(b) Comment by Lloyd G. Henbest :

Dr. Mortensen’s petition to conserve and restore certain Echinoderm
names seems to be reasonable except in the cases of Diadema . . .

The effort to restore the name Diadema involves an issue which is
larger than that of the two generic names ; to wit, the arbitrary per-
petuation of a confused and invalid name merely for the sake of
convenience versus the principles of priority rights of the reviser and
also the value of clarifying our system of nomenclature through
individual effort that is directed along lines of well-established and
plainly legal procedure. It seems to me that the perspicacity of a

-reviser is more worthy of honor than the indolence or ignorance of
his predecessors.

A related issue is also involved. As presented, the solution of the
problem of Diadema is not only clear and self evident, but it has also
been effected by a procedure which is in complete accordance with the
International Code. If this is true, I believe that the International
Commission has no cause for action unless it act to uphold the valid
name Centrechinus.

I see no particular objection to placing all of the names on the List
of established names.

324 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

(d) Comment by Edwin Kirke :

I concur, except in the case of Diadema. Here I think that Centre-
chinus is valid.

(e) Comment (dated 16th January 1933) by W. P. Woodring :

I am not familiar with the usage of these Echinoderm names, but
as a general principle—other things being equal—I am in favor of
special protection for names of long-standing usage that are being
threatened.

4. In December 1933 Dr. Stiles reported to the Commission
(in Circular Letter 245) the comments received earlier that year
from the palaeontologists of the Geological Survey. In March
1935 Dr. Stiles reported to the Commission (in Circular Letter
291) that he had received no further comments on this or the other
proposals submitted by Dr. Mortensen and his colleagues, and
suggested that those proposals should be considered by the
Commission when it met at Lisbon in September of that year.

5. When the International Commission assembled at Lisbon
in 1935, it found itself handicapped in dealing with these proposals
through the absence of the Secretary through ill-health and the
fact that the documents relating to the name Diadema and the
associated cases were not available. At the Fourth Meeting
of that Session held in the Library of the Faculty of Sciences on
Tuesday, 17th September 1935 at 0930 hours, the International
Commission did, however, give preliminary consideration to the
case of Diadema. ‘The case in favour of the application was
presented personally by Dr. Mortensen who was present as an
Alternate Commissioner. In the discussion which ensued,
Commissioner Francis Hemming pointed out that the proposal
that the name Diadema should be validated as from Gray, 1825,
involved difficulties which, so far as he was aware, had not been
adequately examined, for the name Diadema of Gray, 1825, was
a junior homonym of Diadema Schumacher and Diadema Ranzani,
both names published in 1817 for genera of the Sub-Class
Cirrepedia (Class Crustacea), while the oldest use of the name
Diadema for the well-known Echinoid genus—namely Diadema
Humphrey, 1797—was not available, the Commission having,
in Opinion 51, pronounced against the acceptance of the work
entitled Museum Calonnianum, in which it had been published.

OPINION 206 525

Mr. Hemming added that, while, in view of the massive support
given to the proposal submitted in this case, he was, in principle,
in favour of its acceptance, he considered that it needed further
consideration in its technical aspects. This view was shared by
the International Commission. The following is an extract from
the Official Record of its Proceedings setting out the decision
then reached (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 1) (1943,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 32—33) :—

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(a) to postpone for further consideration the case of the
name Diadema Gray, 1825 (Echinodermata) ;

(b) to invite Dr. Mortensen and Commissioner Hemming to
confer together with a view to the submission to the
Commission of all the data required to enable a
decision to be reached.

6. Throughout the first half of 1936 extensive consultations
took place by correspondence between Dr. Mortensen and Mr.
Hemming on the problem referred to them by the Commission
at its Lisbon Session, these consultations culminating in a meeting
held in London on 22nd July 1936. Two problems were examined :
first, the question whether the name Diadema, as applied in
1817 to a genus of Cirripedia, was still in use by specialists in the
Crustacea ; second, if the name Diadema was to be preserved
by the Commission for the Echinoid genus, should this be done
(1) by validating Diadema Humphrey, 1797, or (2) by suppressing
the Cirripede names Diadema Schumacher, 1817, and Diadema
Ranzani, 1817? ‘The difficulty envisaged in the first of these
questions entirely disappeared when it was ascertained that the
name Diadema, as applied to a genus of Cirripedia by Schumacher
and Ranzani, was a dead synonym in the literature, being object-
ively identical with Coronula Bruguiére, 1792. Later, Professor

326 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

Hj. Broch (Os/o), the eminent authority on the Cirripedia,
informed Dr. Mortensen that the name Coronula was so generally
known that, even if Diadema Schumacher had priority over it,
it would only lead to confusion to change it. The first of the
two questions having been disposed of in this manner, Dr. Morten-
sen and Mr. Hemming turned to consider the remaining problem.
On this question, they took the view that, on balance, the most
satisfactory course would be to date Diadema for the Echinoid
genus from Humphrey, 1797, though this would involve the
withdrawal, in this instance, of the Commission’s condemnation
of the work entitled Museum Calonnianum. Yt was accordingly
decided that the revised application by Dr. Mortensen should be
framed on this basis. An examination by Dr. Mortensen of
Humphrey’s remarks about Diadema led him to maintain his
earlier proposal that the International Commission should be
asked to designate Echinometra setosa Leske, 1778, as the type
species of Diadema.

7, Dr. Mortensen’s revised proposal was submitted to the
Commission in April 1937. It was as follows :—

Proposed suspension of the °° Régles ’’ for the generic name
** Diadema ’?’ Humphrey, 1797 (Class
Echinoidea, Order Aulodonta)

By TH. MORTENSEN
(Universitets Zoologiske Museum, Kobenhavn)

In “A Vote on some Echinoderm Names” (1932, Ann. Mag. nat.
Hist. (10)10 : 360—365) I gave a full account of the history of this
name, Diadema, from its first appearance in literature in 1711 until
1912, when after having been in constant and unanimous use in the
whole echinological literature, zoological and palaeontological, it was
rejected by Jackson as being a synonym of the Cirripedian Coronula
Schumacher, 1817, and substituted by the name Centrechinus. With
the exception of Jackson, H. L. Clark, Deichmann, Fisher, and Hawkins,
all Echinologists sided with me in recommending that the name
Diadema (Order Aulodonta, Suborder Diademina) should be made a
nomen conservandum for the Echinoids, with genotype Echinometra
setosa Leske, the species that has always been regarded as such.

When at the International Zoological Congress in Lisbon, 1935,
I brought the case of the name Diadema before the Commission on
Nomenclature, Mr. Francis Hemming advised to have it adjourned

~s oe

OPINION 206 | 327

until the use of this name in the Museum Calonnianum, 1797,
had been made the object of a careful investigation. During a visit
to London in July 1936 I had the opportunity of undertaking such
investigation, the result of which I publish here.

In the said ““ Vote on some Echinoderm Names”’ | stated (: 361)
as follows :—‘“‘In the anonymous Museum Calonnianum, 1797
(: 64), the name Diadema is used as a genus-name for Echinoids, but
it is not possible to see which species should be regarded as the type
of this genus’’. It was on the authority of Jackson (“‘ Phylogeny of
the Echini”’ : 27)* that I gave this statement (I had at that time never
seen the Museum Calonnianum), but the statement is not correct, as
the following analysis will show.

The Museum Calonnianum (whose author has been shown to be
the London naturalist-dealer G. Humphrey) has under the “ Class II.
Echinus. Oursin de Mer—Sea Urchin” the following five genera :
Placenta, Scutum, Cor, Diadema and Cidaris. Although it is quite
possible to identify several of the species enumerated under these
genera, there is no reason for entering on a discussion of all of them.
It is only the genus Diadema that has any interest and needs a detailed
discussion. |

Under the genus Diadema Turban, the following species are
enumerated :—

1183. vulgatum. (a) with the spines on. L’Ordinaire—Common.
Normandy.

This no doubt must be the common N. Atlantic species
Psammechinus milaris (Miill.).

1184. orbiculatum. L’Orbiculaire—Orbicular. Normandy. Echinus
esculentus Linn.

This is clear enough. It is curious that Humphrey gives
new names to several species which he identifies with
Linnean species—e.g., Echinus orbicularis, Echinus rosaceus.

1185. depressum. Le Plat—Flatted. West Indies.
This species cannot be identified.

1186. (misprint 1116). virescens. Les Epines Vertes—Greenspined.
Newfoundland. Has the spines on.

This can clearly only be Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis.
(O.Fr. Miiller.)

* Jackson says here: ‘‘ There are 12 species listed under Diadema, but of these
only one is recognisable, as it is stated to be the same as Echinus esculentus
Linné. On this evidence, if this work should be accepted, which is very doubtful,
the genus Diadema would become a synonym of Echinus, as esculentus is the
type of that genus.” The fact that several of the species, not only the first one,
are recognisable does away with this argument for regarding Diadema as a
synonym of Echinus.

328

1187.

1188.

1189.

1190.

i) 2

192s

1193.

1194.

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

aciculatum. Les Epines Pourpres—(dark) Purple, (long) Needle-
spined. Mediterranean. Has the spines on. (The words
“dark” and “long” are handwritten additions in the copy
of the British Museum.)

This can clearly only be Paracentrotus lividus (Lamarck.).

ovatum. (a) Native colour, with the teeth and some of the
spines; (b) bleached; (c) opened to show the internal
structure. L’Oeuf—Egg. West Indies.

This may probably be Tripneustes esculentus (Leske).

rotundum. Le Circulaire—Circular. East Indies.
Unidentifiable.

limatulum. Les Epines en forme de Lime—Blunt file-like, spined.
West Indies.

This can very well be Diadema antillarum Philippi (1845,
Archiv f. Naturgesch. 1 : 355), as shown by the description
of the spines.

subulatum. Les Epines en forme d’Aléne—Awl-like, spined.
West Indies.

This may perhaps be Lytechinus variegatus (Lamarck).

maculatum. Les Epines Tachétées—Spotted red-spined. Medi-
terranean. Rare.

This must evidently be Sphaerechinus granularis (Lamarck).

striatum. Les Epines Longues Striées—Long striated spined.
Mediterranean. Rare. This has several of Serpula lumbricalis,
species 15, entwined round its spines.

This must be one of the Mediterranean Cidarids, either
Cidaris cidaris (Linn.) or Stylocidaris affinis (Philippi).

sceptiferum. Les Epines au Sceptre Couronné—Coronated
sceptre-spined. Tranquebar. M.P.3051. Extremely scarce.
M.P. is Museum Portlandianum, 3051: ‘‘ The coronated
sceptre-spined Echinus, extremely scarce, from the E. Indies,
Favanne, pl. 80. fig. L, the only specimen of its kind in
England’’.

De Favanne. Conchyliologie, 1780, pl. 80. fig. L, is
evidently Plococidaris verticillata (Lamarck).

Thus, among the identifiable species under Humphrey’s Diadema
is one species, limatulum, which may very well be the species always
understood as Diadema, the Diadema antillarum Philippi, and since all
the other identifiable species belong to long-established genera,
Humphrey’s Diadema limatulum would be the only suitable species to
select as the genotype of Diadema, :

OPINION 206 329

The Echinoid genus name Diadema thus originates from Humphrey,
1797, not from Gray, 1825 (“‘ An Attempt to divide the Echinida, or
Sea Eggs, into Natural Families’’, Annals of Philosophy 26), as is
usually stated, and very probably Gray did not mean to establish
Diadema as a new genus of Echinoids. It can hardly be doubted that
he knew the Museum Calonnianum, and that he took the name
from there. In general, he adds the name of the author to his genera,
and at the genera Echinanthus and Echinolampas he adds “ nob.’’, thus
directly indicating that here are new genera established by him. That
he does not add any author’s name to Diadema is quite natural, since
Museum Calonnianum, from where he probably took it, is anony-
mous. Unfortunately this argument is not conclusive, since he does
not add any “ nob.” either at Astropyga, which—so far as known—has
not been used before 1825. But in any case, Gray is not the first to
use the name Diadema for an Echinoid. The name dates from 1797
and thus has the absolute priority in the use for the Echinoids—even if
we do not count Schynvoet’s name from 1711 or Lamarck’s use of the
not latinised form “‘ les Diadémes ”’ in 1816—and the name accordingly
was preoccupied already when Schumacher in 1817 and Ranzani in 1820
used it for the Cirripedian Lepas diadema Linnaeus, for which Oken
had, in 1815, established the genus Coronula. Schumacher’s and
Ranzani’s Diadema is, of course, only a dead synonym of Coronula
Oken*, but the Echinoid name Diadema Humphrey remains unaffected
thereby.

Thus far there would seem to be no doubt of the validity of the name
Diadema, as an Echinoid genus name. But, again, there is a
complication.

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has had
a discussion about the Museum Calonnianum, resulting in the
Opinion 51, which says : ““ The Museum Calonnianum, 1797, is not to
be accepted as basis for any nomenclatorial work”. The object of
this Opinion was, of course, to prevent undesirable nomenclatorial
changes based on this very little known work. If the Commissioners
had known the case of the name Diadema, in which the Museum
Calonnianum serves to prevent the extremely undesirable change of
that name, they would hardly have given the Opinion 51 the quoted
wording, the more so since the Opinion 51 was not accepted unani-
mously by the Commissioners. But this wording necessitates separate
action in this case for declaring the Echinoid name Diadema a nomen
conservandum.

A few words must be said about the question: which species of
sea-urchin is to be the genotype of Diadema? If it were not already

* The eminent authority on Cirripedians, Professor Hj. Broch, Oslo, writes me
that even if Schumacher’s Diadema had priority before the name Coronula,
the latter is so generally known that it could only bring confusion to change it.
“TI think it out of question that the name Diadema could, on the whole, be
taken into consideration as a genus name of a Cirripedian. It is a ‘ dead
synonym’ of Coronula.”’

330 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

fixed, Humphrey’s species /imatulum would have to be selected as the
genotype, since it may be identical with the species now unanimously
named Diadema antillarum Philippi. But Gray, op. cit., already fixed
the species ‘* Echinometra setosa’’ of Leske as the genotype. In doing
so he actually was in conformity with the opinion of the present author
that the only species in the Museum Calonnianum that could be
made the genotype of Diadema is limatulum possibly=Diadema
antillarum Philippi, this latter being at that time (as a matter of fact
up till 1904) tegarded as identical with the Indo-Malayan “ Echino-
metra setosa”’ of Leske, the name /imatulum thus being apparently
synonymous with the older name setosum.

Having regard to the foregoing considerations, to the universal use
of the name Diadema for the Echinoids since Gray’s time (up till 1912),
and to the very unfortunate consequences (cf. ““ Vote on some Echino-
derm names’, 1932, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 10 (10) : 360—362) of
dropping this name—not because any other animal has a legitimate
claim to it, but, formerly, because it was erroneously thought to be
merely a dead synonym of the Cirripedian Coronula, now, because
Opinion 51 forbids the use of a name from the Museum Calonnianum
—I recommend that the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, acting in virtue of the Plenary Powers conferred upon
them by the International Zoological Congress, should issue an Opinion
in the following sense :—

Nothing in Opinion 51 shall be held to invalidate the use 08 the
generic name Diadema Humphrey (1797, Mus. Calonn. : 64) in
Echinoids (genotype, as fixed by Gray, 1825, Echinometra setosa
Leske, 1778), and that generic name is hereby ‘added to the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology.

P.S.—The manuscript of this note I submitted to Professor H. L.
Clark, asking for his opinion about it. He informs me that in his
opinion the description of the spines of Diadema limatulum rather
suggests the West Indian Cidarid Eucidaris tribuloides (Lamarck) than
Diadema antillarum. It had not occurred to me that the “ file-like ”’
spines could fit in with any other West Indian Echinoid than Diadema
antillarum ; but I have to agree that the spines of this Cidarid may, if
well preserved, very well be described as “ file-like’’, and, if special
weight is given to the word “ blunt ’’, it is more likely that the Diadema
limatulum of Humphrey was Eucidari tribuloides, the spines of
Diadema antillarum, if well preserved, being certainly not to be des-
cribed as “ blunt ’’. But if the spines are broken, as they would be sure
to be in such an old specimen (these spines are exceedingly brittle and
can only be kept tolerably intact on specimens treated very carefully,
which, of course, they never were in olden days), they may very well be
designated as blunt—as are actually the spines of the oral side, even
when intact—and they are very decidedly and conspicuously file-like.

Accordingly the Diadema limatulum of Humphrey may ese eeoh
either Eucidaris tribuloides or Diadema antillarum.

OPINION 206 331

- Anyhow, it is unquestionable that the name Diadema was first used
as a genus of Echinoids, including several recognisable species, one of
which may very well be identical with Diadema antillarum Philippi,
closely related with the species that Gray selected as the genotype of
Diadema. And since this name has been in unanimous use in the whole
of the zoological and palaeontological literature from 1825 till 1912,
and particularly in that literature which must for ever remain the basis
of echinological science—and has been used also in 1925 in a main
work like H. L. Clark's ‘* Catalogue of the Recent Sea-Urchins of the
British Museum ”’, and is used particularly in vol. 3 of my Monograph
of the Echinoidea—it will be impossible ever to get rid of the name
Diadema in the Echinoids. On the other hand, there is nothing to
be said in favour of the name Centrechinus, used only after 1912, and
not in a single work of primary importance ; it will rapidly share the
fate of the immense number of other useless synonyms. I may well
recall also the numerous (more than 25) valid names of recent and
fossil Echinoids composed of Diadema (cf. *“ Vote on some Echinoderm
names ”’ : 362), and the general use of the technical term ““diadematoid”’.
I can only find it an absurdity to drop the name Diadema and must
emphatically recommend to have it placed on the official list of generic
names as a nomen conservandum.

8. This case which, on the reorganisation of the Secretariat,
had been given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.)52, was considered
further at the Plenary Conference between the President (Dr.
Karl Jordan) and the Secretary to the Commission (Mr. Francis
Hemming, who had been elected to that office in 1936 on the
retirement of Dr. Stiles) held in London on Monday, 19th June
1939. The view then taken was that, although Dr. Mortensen’s
application in its revised form did not involve the use by the
International Commission of its Plenary Powers, it was desirable
that the Commission should be in a position to act under those
Powers in this case, if on examination of this application, that
were to appear to it to be the best course to follow. To this end,
the Plenary Conference decided that notices of the possible use
of the Plenary Powers in this case should at once be issued under
the procedure prescribed by the Ninth International Congress of
Zoology, Monaco, 1913 (Plenary Conference, Conclusion 17)
(1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 85). The prescribed notice agreed
upon by the Plenary Conference was duly issued on 27th June
1939:

9. The outbreak of war in Europe in September 1939 led to the
evacuation of the records of the International Commission from

332 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

London to the country as a precaution against the risk of destruc-
tion through air raids. The Secretariat in London was re-opened
in 1942 and steps were immediately taken to establish the Bulletin
of Zoological Nomenclature as a means for bringing to the attention
of zoologists applications submitted to the International Com-
mission for decision. Work was at once started on outstanding
applications with a view to arranging for their publication in the
newly established Bulletin. The present application was sent to the .
printer in October 1944, but, owing to paper rationing, shortage
of labour at the printing works and similar causes, publication did
not actually take place until June 1946 (Bull. zool. Nomencl.
1 : 172—175).

10. In the meantime two comments had been received as the
result of the notice which had been issued just before the outbreak
of war regarding the possible use by the International Commission
of its Plenary Powers in this case. Of these the first was from
Dr. Hubert Lyman Clark (Museum of Comparative Zoology at
Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) and was
dated 8th November 1944 (being a formalisation of a brief
notification in the same sense which Dr. Clark had addressed
to the Commission on 8th November 1939). The second comment,
which was dated 13th November 1944, was furnished by Dr.
Austin H. Clark (Curator of the Division of Echinoderms, United
States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.). Both these
specialists had participated in the comprehensive consultation
(paragraph 2 above) organised by Dr. Mortensen before the
submission of his original application, and each in 1944 maintained
the positions previously taken up, Dr. Hubert Lyman Clark
remaining opposed to the application, Dr. Austin H. Clark
continuing to give it his support. These supplementary statements
are given in the two immediately following paragraphs.

11. The statement furnished by Dr. Hubert Lyman Clark in |
1944 is as follows :—

Centrechinus vs. Diadema

The proposal to validate Diadema is unworthy of serious considera-
tion since it is based purely on emotion—the preference for a familiar
name to one that is less familiar. Every effort to stabilise nomenclature
which involves the giving up of a name with which some zoologist is
familiar meets this objection and since it is almost purely emotional,

OPINION 206 333

it ought not to receive the consideration often given to it. Dr. Morten-
sen’s great ability, his high standing as a zoologist, and his earnestness
in this relatively unimportant matter have given undue prominence to
the case of Diadema. It is true that Diadema was a universally used
name for the genus of tropical sea-urchins with long, black poisonous
spines, prior to 1912. It is further true that family and ordinal names
were based on it, and some generic names in other families of Echini
have ‘“‘ diadema’’ as an element in their composition. But there is so
little occasion for reference to these sea-urchins in technical literature
of other branches of science that it is doubtful if such reference can be
found. Moreover, while the name is used in Lang’s Comparative
Anatomy and some other widely known works, it does not occur in
Parker and Haswell’s Textbook of Zoology or in most other smaller
text-books in general use.

The above statements regarding the use of the name have little bearing
however on the question of its special validation by fiat by the Inter-
national Commission. It was not until 1912 that attention was called
to the impropriety of using Diadema for a sea-urchin. In that year,
Dr. R. T. Jackson in his great monograph “ Phylogeny of the Echini”’
(Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. 7, p. 27) pointed out the error in
using the name thus, and proposed the euphonious and satisfactory
name Centrechinus to replace it. This name has been accepted by
nearly all English-using workers on echinoderms during the past thirty
years but has been violently opposed by Mortensen merely because
Diadema is so much more “familiar”. But it is familiar only to
specialists in the group of Echinoderms and to many of us Centrechinus
is just as familiar now. The validating of such an incorrect name as
Diadema could only be justified if it were a name widely used for a single
genus in general text-books or popular literature. As shown by both
English and German Zoological *“* Nomenclators ’’, Diadema has been
used as a generic name in the groups Aves, Crustacea, Lepidoptera,
and Mollusks, as well as Echini. It is only by an arbitrary favouritism
that it can be restricted to Echini.

12. The statement furnished by Dr. Austin H. Clark in 1944
is as follows :—

The generic name Diadema Gray, 1825, was accepted by all students
of echinoderms until 1912, when Centrechinus was proposed as a
substitute by Jackson on the ground that Diadema Gray, 1825, was
preoccupied by Diadema Schumacher, 1817.

Diadema Schumacher, 1817, never came into general use, being
recognised as a synonym. of Coronula Bruguiére, 1792.

Diadema Gray, 1825, not only appears in a great number of technical
contributions, but also has been widely used in text books and more or
less popular treatises.

334 OPINIONS AND. DECLARATIONS

The name Centrechinus Jackson, 1912, has not as yet received general
recognition even among students of the Echinoidea.

Therefore as matters stand at present, the retention of the name
Diadema Gray, 1825, under a suspension of the rules is desirable, as
otherwise much confusion will result.

Since the earlier Diadema Schumacher, 1817, has never been used,
being very early recognised as a synonym of Coronula, there is no
possibility of confusion between this and Diadema Gray, 1825.

May I venture to remark that—a fact well known to all adminis-
trators—too rigid interpretation of many categories of law tends to
create a sentiment against them.

13. On 18th July 1946 Professor H. Engel (Zoologisch Museum,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands) submitted the following statement
of his views :—

Giving my opinion on Dr. Mortensen’s application on the Echinoid
name Diadema (Z.N.(S.) 52)—in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1(8), p. 172 seq.—
1 think that the best thing would be to act in accordance with Dr.
Mortensen’s advice and to add the name Diadema to the Official
List, for it would be nonsense to use such a well known name for a
Cirripede, in which group it is obviously not welcome at all. What
arguments are used is of little importance. I think that Dr. Mortensen
has found an ingenious and elegant solution which I hope may prove
to be acceptable.

14. In July 1947 Mr. F. Hemming paid a visit to Copenhagen,
and took the opportunity to discuss with Dr. Mortensen the
procedure best to be adopted in regard to the block of applications
on Echinoderm names which he had submitted, when those
applications came to be considered by the International Com-
mission in Paris in the following year. Dr. Mortensen and
Mr. Hemming agreed in the case of the name Diadema, to amend
the proposal published in the Bulletin in 1946 by substituting
for it a proposal that the name Diadema Schumacher, 1817, and
the name Diadema Ranzani, 1817 (Gf that name was, in fact,
distinct from that published by Schumacher) should be suppressed
by the Commission under its Plenary Powers and that the name
Diadema should be validated in the Class Echinoidea as from
Gray, 1825, the author and date commonly attributed to this
name, the type species of the genus, as previously proposed, to
be designated as Echinometra setosa Leske, 1778.

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

15. The case of the name Diadema was considered by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the
Thirteenth Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in
the Amphithéatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at
1730 hours. By this date, Dr. Mortensen was himself a Member
of the Commission, but on the advice of his medical attendants,
he had much to his regret felt bound at the last moment to cancel
the arrangements which he had made to visit Paris for the

purpose of attending the meetings of the International Commission
(1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 2). In the greatly regretted absence
of Dr. Mortensen, the case of the name Diadema was presented on
his behalf by Mr. Francis Hemming, the proposal actually sub-
mitted being in the revised sense agreed upon between Dr.
Mortensen and himself at their meeting in Copenhagen in 1947
(paragraph 14). The following is an extract from the portion
of the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International
Commission setting out the decision reached by it in regard to
this case at the meeting referred to above (Paris Session, 13th
Meeting, Conclusion 27) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 383—
385) :—

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to use their Plenary Powers :—

(a) to suppress the names Diadema Schumacher, 1817,
and Diadema Ranzani, 1817 (Class Crustacea,
Sub-Class Cirripedia) ;

(b) to validate the name Diadema Gray, 1825 (Class
Echinoidea) with Echinometra setosa Leske, 1778,
as type species ;

(2) to place the generic name Diadema Gray, 1825, validated
as above and with the above species as its type species,
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ;

336 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

(3) to place the generic names Diadema Schumacher, 1817,
and Diadema Ranzani, 1817, on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ;

(4) to place the trivial name setosa Leske, 1778 (as originally
published in the binominal combination Echinometra
setosa) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in
Zoology ;

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

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

Diadema Schumacher, 1817, Essai nouv. Syst. Habitations Vers
test. : 34, 90

Diadema Ranzani, 1817, Opusc. Sci., Bologna 1 : 276

Diadema Gray (J.E.), 1825, Ann. Phil. 26 : 426

setosa Echinometra, Leske, 1778, J. T. Klein Nat. Dispositio
Echinodermat. Addit. : 35, pl. 37, figs. 1—12 ; pl. 47, figs. 1—2

17. The gender of the generic name Diadema Gray, 1825,
referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 15 above, is
neuter.

18. The decision taken in this case was reported to, and approved
by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Fifth Meeting held on
26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 107).

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

Beltran vice Cabrera ; Boschma ; Bradley ; di Caporiacco ;
Hemming ; Hindle vice Jordan; Jorge vice do Amaral ;
Kirby vice Stoll; Lemche vice Dymond; Mansour vice
Hank6o ; Metcalf vice Peters; Riley vice Calman; Rode;
Sparck vice Mortensen ; van Straelen vice Richter ; Usinger
vice Vokes.

OPINION 206 337

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

21. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the
present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion
of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species
was the expression “ trivial name ” and the Official List reserved
for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific
Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial’? appearing also
in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected
and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by
the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen,
1953, the expression “ specific name’’ was substituted for the
expression “trivial name’ and corresponding changes were
made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such
names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The

changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in
the Ruling given in the present Opinion.

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

23. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two
Hundred and Six (206) of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

Done in London this Twentieth day of November, Nineteen
Hundred and Fifty-Three.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

FRANCIS HEMMING

‘ i Li Fite? a
t i
‘ = ive
: Ti ah
1
. ies i*
J M
who 4
i j
iS oy 40
i er
‘
r : i
oh ;
A i
, ¢
¢ : we
Li 5 4, hs
5 i
=
,
f :
y (
* hs
+ ' ! 5
\\ ; i \
4
1
Je 7 iy
i
. . ut iz
~
4%) i zy ‘
i ih eal
. : oe
4 Hyatt uf ;
“e? L we ie :
‘ , ‘ ¥,
Jats i)
e he
i

Printed in England by Metcatre & Cooper L

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

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

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 3. Part 26. Pp. 339—352

OPINION 207

Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of type species

in harmony with accustomed use for the genera

Echinocyamus van Phelsum, 1774, and Fibularia
Lamarck, 1816 (Class Echinoidea)

S—_ ; S q * - x;
, “~ ug” ¢ 7
a « — *y as
o ei 1h t ino hd Z Gi
{f/f ta”
i / opt
gf
Ff ADD 9AM FOr
i be eh)
‘ fe, By §
u\
~

LONDON :

Price Five Shillings and Threepence

Issued—8th March, 1954

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 207

A. The Officers of the Commission

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

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

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

B. The Members of the Commission

Class 1949

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

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

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

Dr. Th. MORTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark).

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

Class 1952

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Harold E. Voxes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.,
U.S.A.).

Class 1955

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

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

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

Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landboh@jskole, Zoologisk Labora-
torium, Copenhagen, Denmark).

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

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

Mr. N. D. Rivey (British Museum (Natural History), London, England).

Professor Ragnar SpArcK (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen,
Denmark). .

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

Professor Robert L. UsINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California,

S.A.).

OPINION 207

DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF
TYPE SPECIES IN HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED
USE FOR THE GENERA ‘°* ECHINOCYAMUS ”

VAN PHELSUM, 1774, AND °° FIBULARIA ”’
LAMARCK, 1816 (CLASS ECHINOIDEA)

RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers, (a) the
generic names Echinocyamus van Phelsum, 1774, and
Fibularia Lamarck, 1816 (Class Echinoidea) are hereby
validated, (b) all type selections for the foregoing nominal
genera made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set
aside, and (c) Spatagus pusillus Miller (O.F.), 1776, is
hereby designated as the type species of Echinocyamus
van Phelsum, 1774, and Fibularia ovulum Lamarck, 1816,
as the type species of Fibularia Lamarck, 1816. (2) The
generic names Echinocyamus van Phelsum, 1774 (gender
of name: masculine), and Fibularia Lamarck, 1816
(gender of name: feminine), as validated under (1)(a)
above and with the type species designated in (1)(c)
above, are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 634 and 635. (3) The
specific names pusillus Miller (O.F.), 1776, as published
in the combination Spatagus pusillus, and ovulum Lamarck,
1816, as published in the combination Fibularia ovulum,
are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology as Names Nos. 10 and 11.

I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The present is the fourth of the eight cases relating to disputed
Echinoderm names submitted to the International Commission

ApR 2 - 19!

342 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

on Zoological Nomenclature by the late Dr. Th. Mortensen
(Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen) under cover of
a letter dated 17th November 1932. The arguments in regard
to these cases were set out in a paper by Dr. Mortensen entitled
‘“A Vote on some Echinoderm Names ’’, which had been pub-
lished a month earlier (Mortensen, October 1932, Ann. Mag.
nat. Hist. (10) 10 : 345—-368). This application was concerned
with the names Echinocyamus van Phelsum, 1774, and Fibularia
Lamarck, 1816 (Class Echinoidea). Dr. Mortensen explained
that up to 1891 there had been complete agreement as to the
application of the names of these allied Clypestroid genera, the
name Echinocyamus van Phelsum having been applied to species
of the low type with internal radiating walls, and, since the
publication in 1846 of Agassiz and Desor’s Catalogue raisonné des
Echinides, Fibularia Lamarck to species of the high type without
internal radiating walls. In 1891, however, Lambert (Bull. Soc.
géol. France (3) 19 : 749) put forward the view that the figures
published by van Phelsum represented species of the high type ;
he accordingly transferred the name Echinocyamus van Phelsum
to the genus till then known as Fibularia Lamarck. Lambert’s
action had given rise—as Dr. Mortensen showed—to severe
criticism from other leading specialists. It was evident, however,
that order could not be restored in the nomenclature of this
group until an authoritative ruling had been obtained from the
International Commission. It was with the object of securing
such a ruling that the present application was submitted to the
Commission. The proposal so submitted was that the Com-
mission should rule in favour of the acceptance of Echinocyamus
van Phelsum, 1774, with Spatagus pusillus Miller (O.F.), 1776,
as type species, and of Fibularia Lamarck, 1816, with Echino-
cyamus craniolaris Leske, 1778, as type species, thereby, it was
hoped, standardising the first of these two names as the generic
name for the species of the low type with internal radiating walls,
and the second of these names as the generic name for species of
the high type without such internal walls.

2. As has been explained in Opinion 206 (paragraphs 1 and 2)
relating to the name Diadema Gray, 1825 (a case which was
submitted jointly with the present case) an extensive canvas of
the views of active workers in the Echinoderms had been under-
taken by Dr. Mortensen before the present case was submitted

OPINION 207 343

to the International Commission. Of the thirty-nine (39)
specialists who had taken part in this consultation Lambert alone
was opposed to the action recommended to the Commission,
which had the unanimous support of the whole of the remaining
thirty-eight (38) specialists concerned. The names and addresses
of the specialists taking part in this consultation have already
been given in Opinion 206 (Diadema).

Il.—_THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE

3. In December 1932 the then Secretary (the late Dr. C. W.
Stiles) reported Dr. Mortensen’s application to the Commission
in Circular Letter 220. On 20th December of that year, he wrote
also to the Director of the United States Geological Survey,
expressing the hope that arrangements might be made for these
proposals to be examined by the palacontologists of the Survey.
On 19th January 1933, the Director replied, forwarding five
comments by members of the staff, of which one was signed by
two workers. These comments, in so far as they relate to the
present case, were as follows :—

(a) Comment by L. W. Stephenson and C. Wythe Cooke :

I am in favor of codifying names concerning the strict validity of
which there may be some question, if they have been in generally
accepted use for long periods, but when it can be shown clearly that
some other name has priority over a later more generally used name...
is there not a danger of adding to, rather than subtracting from, the
confusion ? Will not some authors accept the rulings of the Inter-
national Commission, while others will continue stoutly to maintain
the validity of the names having priority ? Furthermore, will not such
rulings encourage a flood of demands for suspension of the Rules?

(b) Comment by Lloyd G. Henbest :

Dr. Mortensen’s petition to conserve and restore certain Echinoderm
names seems to be reasonable, except in the case of (Here are mentioned
certain names with which this Opinion is not concerned.)

I see no particular objection to placing all of the names on the List
of established names.

344 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

(d) Comment by Edwin Kirke :

I concur, except in the case of Diadema (See Opinion 206).

(e) Comment (dated 16th January 1933) by W. P. Woodring :

I am not familiar with the usage of these Echinoderm names, but as
a general principle—other things being equal—I am in favor of special
protection for names of long-standing usage that are being threatened.

4. In December 1933 Dr. Stiles reported to the Commission
(in Circular Letter 245) the comments received earlier that year
from the palaeontologists of the Geological Survey. In March
1935 Dr. Stiles reported to the Commission (in Circular Letter
291) that he had received no further comments on this or the
other proposals submitted by Dr. Mortensen and his colleagues,
and suggested that these proposals should be considered by the
Commission when it met at Lisbon in September of that year.

5. When the International Commission assembled at Lisbon
in 1935, it found itself severely handicapped in dealing with these
proposals through the absence of the Secretary through ill-health
and the fact that the documents relating to these cases were not
available. At a short discussion of the present case at the Fourth
Meeting of the Commission at its Lisbon Session held in the
Library of the Faculty of Sciences on Tuesday, 17th September
1935, it was decided that, in the absence of the necessary docu-
mentation, the only practicable course was to postpone the present
application for further consideration (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting,
Conclusion 3) (1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 33).

6. No further action had been taken in regard to this case at
the time when, following the election of Mr. Francis Hemming to
be Secretary to the International Commission in succession to
Dr. Stiles, the papers relating to this and other current cases were
transferred to his care in 1938. On the re-organisation of the
Secretariat, the applications submitted by Dr. Mortensen in 1932,
other than that relating to the name Diadema Gray, 1825, were
srouped together under the Registered Number Z.N.(S.)18.
Later, however, it was judged more convenient to register each
of these cases separately, the Number Z.N.(S.)318 being then
allotted to the present case. It had not been found possible to

OPINION 207 345

advance the consideration of this case when in September 1939
the outbreak of war in Europe led to the evacuation of the records
of the Commission from London to the country as a precaution
against the risk of destruction through air raids. The Secretariat
in London was re-opened in 1942 and steps were immediately
taken to establish the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as a
means for bringing to the attention of zoologists applications
submitted to the International Commission for decision. Work
was at once started on outstanding applications with a view to
arranging for their publication in the newly established Bulletin.
Unfortunately, however, it was not then possible to send the
present case to the printer, for the paper of 1932, in which it had
originally been submitted, did not deal with the matter in sufficient
detail, and the circumstances of the war at that time made it
impossible to communicate with Dr. Mortensen in Denmark.

7. Inthe summer of 1946 the conclusion of hostilities in Europe
restored opportunities for foreign travel, and Dr. Mortensen
paid a visit to London, largely for the purpose of discussing with
Mr. Hemming the arrangements to be made for the further
consideration of this, and of his other, applications by the Inter-
naticnal Commission. It was then agreed that, as a first step,
Dr. Mortensen should prepare, and should furnish to Mr. Hemming
as quickly as possible, separate applications of a somewhat
fuller kind in regard to each of the outstanding cases which in 1932
he had submitted collectively in his paper “‘ A Vote on Echinoderm
Names” (see paragraph 1). As regards the present case, Dr.
Mortensen intimated that he no longer proposed to ask the
Commission to designate Echinocyamus craniolaris Leske, 1778,
to be the type species of Fibularia Lamarck, 1816, for it had now
transpired that, contrary to the belief previously held, the
foregoing nominal species represented a species of the low
type with internal radiating walls, that is, a species of the genus
known as Echinocyamus van Phelsum, 1774; its designation as
the type species of Fibularia Lamarck would thus destroy an
important part of the purpose of his application by making
Fibularia a subjective junior synonym of Echinocyamus. He
proposed in his revised application to recommend the substitution,
for Echinocyamus craniolaris Leske, of Fibularia ovulum Lamarck,
1816, a nominal species which undoubtedly represented a species
of the high type without internal radiating walls, as the type

346 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

species of Fibularia Lamarck. At the same time, Mr. Hemming
expressed the view that, when considering this case, the Com-
mission would need to examine the question whether van Phelsum
could properly be regarded as having applied the principles of
binominal nomenclature in his Brief of 1774, if, as he hoped, the
Paris Congress were to make this a necessary condition for the
availability of a name by substituting the word “ binominal ”
for the extremely unsatisfactory word “ binary ’’ in Proviso (a)
to Article 25. If that Article were to be changed in this way, it
would not prejudice the chances of the Commission approving
Dr. Mortensen’s application, but it would make it necessary for
it to use its Plenary Powers to validate the name Echinocyamus
van Phelsum as well as for the purpose of designating the desired
type species for the genus so named.

8. Dr. Mortensen’s revised application in the present case was
received on 14th June 1947. It was as follows :—

On the status of the names ‘‘ Echinocyamus ’’ v. Phelsum and
‘* Fibularia ?’ Lamarck (Class Echinoidea, Order
Clypeastroida)

In December 1932, I submitted to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature a request that under their Plenary Powers
they should validate certain generic names in the Phylum Echinoderma
which under the Régles Internationales were either invalid, or had, as
their type species, other species than those universally attributed them.
In each case, I was of opinion that greater confusion than uniformity
would clearly result from the strict application of the Régles. In this
view I was supported by a large number of the leading specialists in
this group. Full particulars of these cases were given in a paper
entitled ““ A Vote on some Echinoderm Names ’’ published in October
1932 (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (10) 10 : 345—368). Owing to the ill-health
of the then Secretary of the International Commission, and for other
reasons, no progress was made with any of these applications except that
of Luidia Forbes, which has been settled by the Commission in Opinion
129. The need for decisions on these cases has increased in urgency in
the interval elapsed since 1932 and I now ask the Commission to take
each of these cases into immediate consideration.

Discussion of the case Echinocyamus—Fibularia.
The name Echinocyamus was given by Murk v. Phelsum, 1774, in

his “ Brief aan Cornelius Nozeman over de Gewelv-Slekken of
Zee-Egelen’’ p. 131. He describes and figures no less than fourteen

OPINION 207 347

species, giving them only Dutch names “ Kriekpit’’, ‘‘ Kersepit”’,
ete. The figures are exceedingly poor and not clearly referable to
any species. Of the five figures given of each “ species’, the two first
appear to represent a flat form, the three last a high, globose form,
evidence of the inability of the artist to draw recognisably these small
forms enlarged. V. Phelsum states that his specimens came from the
Adriatic (and America), where only the flat form, Echinocyamus pusillus,
lives—and is very commonly found on the beaches. The only thing
that can be said with certainty about v. Phelsum’s Echinocyamius species
is that the common Echinocyamus pusillus (O. Fr. Miiller) must be
among them, and, moreover, since all agree that all v. Phelsum’s
14 species are in fact one and the same species, they all represent
Echinocyamus pusillus. Leske in his Additamenta ad I. Th. Kleinii
Naturalis Dispositio Echinodermatum 1778, gave Latin names to
all v. Phelsum’s species. Accordingly all these species names of Leske
become simply synonyms of Echinocyamus pusillus (O. Fr. Miiller),
also those two of LesKe’s names which have been used to some degree,
angulosus and craniolaris.

Lamarck, in his Histoire Naturelle des Animaux sans vertébres
1816, 3. p. 17, does not use the name Echinocyamus, but creates a
new genus Fibularia under which he has three species : trigona, ovulum
and tarentina. ‘The first of these has never been figured, and is not
recognisable from the diagnosis. The second species, ovulum, is
sufficiently characterised by the words “ globoso-ovata, basi suban-
gustata’’. ‘This species accordingly is the type of the genus Fibularia,
as almost unanimously acknowledged.* The third species, tarentina
is—FEchinocyamus pusillus.

The first to recognise that the low, flat form and the high, globose
form represent two distinct generic types, Echinocyamus and Fibularia,
is L’Agassiz in his Monographie des Scutelles, 1841, and since then the
name Echinocyamus has unanimously been accepted as the name
of the low, flat forms, like the type Hchinocyamus pusillus, and
Fibularia has likewise been unanimously accepted as the name of the
high, globose forms, like the type Fidularia ovulum.

In 1891, however, Lambert, in his ‘‘ Note sur le genre Echinocyamus ”’
(Bull. Soc. géol. France (3) 29. p. 794) maintains that the figures
illustrating v. Phelsum’s book prove that his Echinocyamus was the

* H. L. Clark, in his ‘‘ Hawaiian and other Pacific Echini. Clypeastridae, ...
Laganidae, Fibulariidae, and Scutellidae’. Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool. 46.
1914, p. 57, declares the species trigona Lamarck= Echinocyamus craniolaris
Leske, the genotype of Fibularia, forgetting that there is no certainty at all
what trigona Lamarck really is, and that if it be =craniolaris Leske, that
means that it is —the flat Echinocyamus pusillus, which Clark would never
think of referring to the genus Fibularia. But this mistake of Clark has had
the unfortunate consequence that all authors after 1914 have uncritically
accepted Clark’s statement and changed the name ovulum Lamarck into
craniolaris Leske. In the forthcoming Vol. TV Part 2 of my Monograph of
the Echinoidea the matter will be set right and the name ovulum Lamarck
reinstalled,

348 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

high, globose form, and accordingly he interchanges the names
Echinocyamus and Fibularia, using Echinocyamus for the high, globose
forms, Fibularia for the low, flat forms, contrary to the hitherto
unanimous use of the two names. The change thus introduced was
met with protest by the foremost authorities on fossil Echinoids,
Cottreau and de Loriol, as well as by the present author, but Lambert
emphatically maintained his view; against the objection that van
Phelsum states his specimens came from the Adriatic, where only the
flat form occurs, he boldly says that v. Phelsum was in error, adding
“on sait d’ailleurs avec quelle facilité peuvent s’égarer des étiquettes
volantes ””!

Up till 1914, Lambert was alone in using the two names in this
sense, contrary to the otherwise unanimous use of both zoologists
and palaeontologists of Echinocyamus for the flat forms, Fibularia for
the high, globose forms. But in 1914 the interchange of the two names
was carried through in Lambert & Thiéry’s ‘“‘ Essai de nomenclature
raisonnée des Echinides’’, and since then several palaeontologists
have uncritically followed Lambert & Thiéry in using the two names in
the inverted sense, though others have protested ; even Thiéry himself
returned to the old use. The result of all this is the most deplorable
confusion. Impossible now to tell what these names mean—and very
many fossil species of these forms have been described since 1914.
It must be left to future palaeontologists to clear up the mess caused by
Lambert. Fortunately no student of the recent forms has condescended
to adopt the views of Lambert; but great harm has been done to
Palaeontology, a great number of these small forms being known from
all the Tertiary formations.

In order to avoid the confusion continuing in the future, I ask the
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting under the Plenary
Powers conferred upon them by the International Congress of Zoology,
to validate the two said names in the, apart from Lambert and his
followers, unanimous sense, namely

Echinocyamus van Phelsum—genotype (Spatagus) pusillus. O. Fr.
Miller, 1776. Zoologia Danicae Prodromus. p. 236.

Fibularia Lamarck—genotype Fibularia ovulum. Lamarck, 1816.
Histoire des Animaux sans vertebres. 3. p. 1.

The two names will be used in this sense in the forthcoming Vol. 4.
Part Il of my Monograph of the Echinoidea.

In my “ Vote on some Echinoderm names’ quoted above this
proposal was supported by: Bather, Brighton, A. H. Clark, Cottreau,
Currie, Deichmann, Diakonow, Déderlein, Ekman, Faas, Fedotov,
Fisher, Gislén, Goto, Gregory, Grieg, Hawkins, Hecker, Heding,
Hérouard, v. Hofsten, Jackson, Klinghardt, Lieberkind, Mortensen,
Nobre, Ohshima, Panning, Ravn, Reichensperger, Schmidt, Spencer,
Stenfanini, Valette, Vaney, Wanner and Yakowlew—viz. nearly all
the living specialists in Echinoderms, apart, of course, from Lambert.

OPINION 207 3 349

9. On 14th November 1947 a notice of the possible use by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its
Plenary Powers in the present case was issued to the serial pub-
lications prescribed by the Ninth International Congress of
Zoology, Monaco, 1913. The publication of this notice elicited
no objections to the action proposed in this case.

Il1.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

10. The present application was considered by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Fourteenth
Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi-
théatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 2030 hours. ©
The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Pro-
ceedings of the International Commission (1) summarising the
points made in the discussion at the foregoing meeting and (2)
setting out the decision then reached by the Commission in
regard to this case (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 34)
(1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 516—519) :—

IN DISCUSSION the view was expressed that this was a case
where confusion had arisen (or was calculated to arise) in the
main not through the strict application of the Régles but through
doubt as to how the Régles should be applied as the result of
differences of opinion on the taxonomic question of the identity
of the species included by van Phelsum in his genus Echinocyamus.
In addition, however, there were strictly nomenclatorial issues
involved, such as the doubt as to whether van Phelsum could
properly be regarded as a binominal author (and therefore
whether, without the use of the Plenary Powers, the name
Echinocyamus had any standing as from van Phelsum, 1774) and
the situation created by the selection by H. L. Clark (1914), as the

350 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

type species of Fibularia Lamarck, of the species Fibularia trigona
Lamarck, a species regarded by the present applicants as being
unrecognisable. There was general agreement, however, that
the Plenary Powers should be used in this case, in order to prevent
the confusion which would otherwise inevitably follow the transfer
of the name Echinocyamus to the genus now known as Fibularia,
and of the name Fibularia to the genus. now known as Echino-
cyamus.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to use their Plenary Powers to set aside all selections of
type species for the undermentioned genera and to
validate the generic names in question, with the species
specified below as respective type species :—

Species designated as
the type species of

Generic Name the genus specified
Validated in Col. (1)
(1) (2)
Echinocyamus van Spatagus pusillus Miller,
Phelsum, 1774 (O.F.), 1776
Fibularia Lamarck, 1816 Fibularia ovulum

Lamarck, 1816
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
the generic names Echinocyamus van Phelsum, 1774
and Fibularia Lamarck, 1816, with the type species
severally specified in (1) above ;
(3) to place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official
List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :—
pusillus Miller (O.F.), 1776 (as published in the
binominal combination Spatagus pusillus) ;
ovulum Lamarck, 1816 (as published in the binominal
combination Fibularia ovulum) ;

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

OPINION 207 351

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

Echinocyamus van Phelsum, 1774, Brief Gewelvy-Slekken Zee-

Egelen : 131
Fibularia Lamarck, 1816, Hist. nat. Anim. s. Vertébr. 3: 16
ovulum, Fibularia, Lamarck, 1816, Hist. nat. Anim. s. Vertébr.

S17
pusillus, Spatagus, Muller (O.F.), 1776, Zool. dan. Prodr. : 236

12. The genders of the generic names Echinocyamus van
Phelsum, 1774, and Fibularia Lamarck, 1816, referred to in the
decision quoted in paragraph 10 above, are masculine and feminine
respectively.

13. The decision taken in this case was reported to, and approved
by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Sixth Meeting held on
26th July, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 116),

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

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

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

352 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

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

17. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in
dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accord-
ingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International
Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,

in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that
behalf. |

18. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two
Hundred and Seven (207) of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

Done in London this Twenty-First day of November, Nineteen
Hundred and Fifty-Three.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

FRANCIS HEMMING

Printed in England by MrtcaLtFe & Cooper Limitep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2

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

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., CBE.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 3. Part 27. Pp. 353—366

OPINION 208

Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of Phyllacanthus
Brandt, 1835, and Strongylocentrotus Brandt, 1835
(Class Echinoidea)

ea ae
tre,

L- oe races As,
Gf wy ina devil f aA *
f eh Lise Vis 4 Peet
f/ Gea, V8” :
Fiore,

a
VA
~ 7 2
S. LIPRARN
= : > ah

fy .

Te ree amnce renee *

LONDON :

Price Five Shillings and Threepence

Issued—8th March, 1954

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 208

A. The Officers of the Commission

B. The Members of the Commission
Class 1949

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

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

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

Dr. Th. MorTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark).

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

Class1952
Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil).
Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.).
Professor Lodovico di CaporiAcco (University of Parma, Italy).
Professor J. R. DymMonpD (University of Toronto, Canada).
Dr. James L. PETERS (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr. ane E. Voxes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.,
USS.A.).

Class 1955

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

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

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

Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEwskKI (Polish Zoological Museum, Warsaw, Poland). ;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Kgl. Veterinzr- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologisk Labora-
torium, Copenhagen, Denmark).

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

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

Mr. N. D. Rivey (British Museum (Natural History), London, England).

Professor Ragnar SpARCK (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen,
Denmark).

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

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

OPINION 208

_ VALIDATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF
4 ** PHYLLACANTHUS ”? BRANDT, 1835, AND
‘* STRONGYLOCENTROTUS ”? BRANDT,
1835 (CLASS ECHINOIDEA)

RULING :—(1) The following action is hereby taken
under the Plenary Powers, in so far as the use of those
Powers is necessary therefor :—(a) The names Phylla-
canthus Brandt, 1835, and Strongylocentrotus Brandt,
1835 (Class Echinoidea), are hereby validated as of
_ subgeneric status as from the date on which they were

published in Brandt’s Prodromus ; (b) Cidarites (Phylla-
canthus) dubius Brandt, 1835, is hereby designated as
the type species of Phyllacanthus Brandt, 1835; (c)
Echinus drebachiensis Miller (O.F.), 1776, is hereby
designated as the type species of Strongylocentrotus
Brandt, 1835. -(2) The generic names Phyllacanthus
Brandt, 1835 (gender of name : masculine), and Strongylo-
centrotus Brandt, 1835 (gender of name: masculine),
validated as in (1)(a) above and with the type species
severally designated therefor in (1)(b) and (1)(c) above,
are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology as Names Nos. 636 and 637. (3) The following
specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 12 and 13:
(a) dubius Brandt, 1835, as published in the combination
Cidarites (Phyllacanthus) dubius, (b) drebachiensis Miller
(O.F.), 1776, as published in the combination Echinus
drobachiensis.

I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The present is the fifth of the eight cases relating to disputed
Echinoderm names submitted to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature by the late Dr. Th. Mortensen
(Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen) under cover of

APR 2 — 1954

356 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

a letter dated 17th November 1932. The arguments in regard
to these cases are set out in a paper by Dr. Mortensen entitled
“A Vote on some Echinoderm Names ’’, which had been pub-
lished a month earlier (Mortensen, October 1932, Ann. Mag.
nat. Hist. (10)10 : 345—368). This application is concerned with
the names Phyllacanthus Brandt, 1835, and Strongylocentrotus
Brandt, 1835. The point at issue was a simple one: The above
names had been accepted by Agassiz and subsequent workers
as having been published by Brandt as the names of subgenera,
the former, of Cidarites, the latter, of Echinus, but in 1909
Lambert & Thiéry had claimed that the manner in which these
names had been published by Brandt showed that he regarded
them not as names for new subgenera but as synonyms of
Cidarites and Echinus respectively. The purpose of Dr. Mortensen’s
application was to secure from the International Commission an
authoritative ruling that these names were to be accepted as
having been published by Brandt with subgeneric status.

2. As has been explained in Opinion 206 (paragraphs 1 and 2)
relating to the name Diadema Gray, 1825 (a case which was
submitted jointly with the present case), an extensive canvas of
the views of active workers in the Echinoderms had been under-
taken by Dr. Mortensen before the present case was submitted
to the International Commission. Of the thirty-nine (39)
specialists who had taken part in this consultation Lambert
alone did not sign the application to the Commission, which
had the unanimous support of all the remaining thirty-eight (38)
specialists concerned. Even Lambert appears to have felt some
hesitation in this matter, for he wrote (Mortensen, 1932 : 356) :
** Bien que regrettable je reconnais que ce changement peut étre
admis sans violer positivement le loi de priorité.”’ The names and
addresses of the specialists who took part in this consultation
have already been given in Opinion 206 (Diadema).

Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE

3. In December 1932 the then Secretary (the late Dr. C. W.
Stiles) reported Dr, Mortensen’s application to the Commission

OPINION 208 397

in Circular Letter 220. On 20th December of that year, he wrote
also to the Director of the United States Geological Survey,
expressing the hope that arrangements might be made for these
proposals to be examined by the palaeontologists of the Survey.
On 19th January 1933, the Director replied, forwarding five
comments by members of the staff, of which one was signed by
two workers. These comments, in so far as they relate to the
present case, were as follows :—

(a) Comment by L. W. Stephenson and C. Wythe Cooke :

I am in favor of codifying names concerning the strict validity of
which there may be some question, if they have been in generally
accepted use for long periods, but when it can be shown clearly that
some other name has priority over a later more generally used name...
is there not a danger of adding to, rather than substracting from, the
confusion ? Will not some authors accept the rulings of the Inter-
national Commission, while others will continue stoutly to maintain
the validity of the names having priority ? Furthermore, will not such
rulings encourage a flood of demands for suspension of the Rules ?

(b) Comment by Lloyd G. Henbest :

Dr. Mortensen’s petition to conserve and restore certain Echinoderm
names seems to be reasonable, except in the case of (Here are mentioned
certain names with which this Opinion is not concerned.)

I see no particular objection to placing all of the names on the List
of established names.

(d) Comment by Edwin Kirke :

I concur, except in the case of Diadema (see Opinion 206)

(e) Comment (dated 16th January 1933) by W. P. Woodring :

I am not familiar with the usage of these Echinoderm names, but as
a general principle—other things being equal—I am in favor of
special protection for names of long-standing usage that are being
threatened.

358 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

291) that he had received no further comments on this or the
other proposals submitted by Dr. Mortensen and his colleagues,
and suggested that these proposals should be considered by the
Commission when it met at Lisbon in September of that year.

5. When the International Commission assembled at Lisbon
in 1935, the Secretary was absent through ill-health and the
documents relating to this case were not available. The Com-
mission accordingly found itself unable to deal with the present
application.

6. No further progress had been made with this application
at the time when, following the election of Mr. Francis Hemming
to be Secretary to the International Commission in succession
to Dr. Stiles, the papers relating to this and other current cases
were transferred to his care in 1938. On the re-organisation of the
Secretariat, the applications submitted by Dr. Mortensen, other
than that relating to the name Diadema Gray, 1825, were grouped
together under the Registered Number Z.N.(S.)18. Later,
however, it was judged more convenient to register each of these
cases separately, the Number Z.N.(S.)319 being then allotted
to the present case. It had not been found possible to advance
the consideration of this case when in September 1939 the out-
break of war in Europe led to the evacuation of the records of the
Commission from London to the country as a precaution against
the risk of destruction through air raids. The Secretariat in
London was re-opened in 1942 and steps were immediately taken
to establish the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as a means
for bringing to the attention of zoologists applications submitted
to the International Commission for decision. Work was at
once started on outstanding applications with a view to arranging
for their publication in the newly established Bulletin. Unfort-
unately, however, it was not then possible to send the present case
to the printer, for the paper of 1932 in which it had originally
been submitted did not deal with the matter in sufficient detail,
and the circumstances of the war made it impossible at that
time to communicate with Dr. Mortensen in Denmark.

7. In the summer of 1946 the conclusion of hostilities in Europe
restored opportunities for foreign travel, and Dr. Mortensen paid
a visit to London largely for the purpose of discussing with Mr.

OPINION 208 359

Hemming the arrangements to be made for the further considera-
tion of this, and his other, applications by the International
Commission. It was then agreed that, as a first step, Dr. Mortensen
should prepare, and should furnish to Mr. Hemming as quickly
as possible, separate applications of a somewhat fuller kind in
regard to each of the outstanding cases which in 1932 he had
_ submitted collectively in his paper “‘ A Vote on some Echinoderm
Names ”’ (paragraph 1). |

8. Dr. Mortensen’s revised application in the present case was
received on 14th June 1947. It was as follows :—

On the status of the names ‘°° Phyllacanthus ’’ Brandt and
** Strongylocentrotus *’ Brandt (Class Echinoidea,
Orders Cidaroida and Camarodonta)

By TH. MORTENSEN, Ph.D.

In December 1932, I submitted to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature a request that under their Plenary Powers
they should validate certain generic names in the Phylum Echinoderma
which under the Régles Internationales were either invalid or had, as
their type species, other species than those universally attributed to
them. In each case I was of opinion that greater confusion than
uniformity would clearly result from the strict application of the Régles.
In this view I was supported by a large number of the leading specialists
in this group. Full particulars of these cases were given in a paper
entitled ““ A Vote on some Echinoderm names ”’ published in October
1932 (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (10)10 : 345—368). Owing to the ill-health
of the then Secretary of the International Commission, and for other
reasons, no progress was made with any of these applications except
that of Luidia Forbes, which has been settled by the Commission in
Opinion 129. The need for decisions on these cases has increased in
urgency in the interval elapsed since 1932 and I now ask the Commission
to take each of these cases into immediate consideration.

Discussion of the case of the two genera named above.

In his Prodromus descriptionis animalium ab H. Mertensio in orbis
terrarum circumnavigatione observatorum (1835), J. F. Brandt
established the subgenera Phyllacanthus and Strongylocentrotus res-
pectively under the genera Cidarites and Echinus, the former with the
‘species dubia Brandt, the latter with the species chlorocentrotus Brandt,
as the only species named and accordingly the genotypes. The two

360 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

subgenera of Brandt were accepted by Agassiz in his “‘ Revision of
the Echini’’, who referred to them, besides the two genotypes, a great
number of species, which have later on been shown (Mortensen,
‘* Ingolf ’? Echinoidea—I.) to belong to several different genera. But
the two names have constantly been used in echinological literature
and, particularly Strongylocentrotus, are well-known names in biological
literature in general.

In 1909, Lambert & Thiéry, in their “ Notes échinologiques.—IlI.
Sur les genres d’Echinides proposés par Brandt en 1835” (Bull. Soc.
Sci. nat. Haute-Marne, 4), maintain that the two said names are
simply synonyms respectively of Cidarites and Echinus, and proceed
to make a lot of rearrangements of Echinoid nomenclature, the more
extraordinary since, founding on their principle that classification of
recent Echini must be based solely on such characters as can also be
found in the fossil forms, they quite ignore the results of studies on
microscopical characters of Echini.

It is perhaps possible that, on a very strict interpretation, the two
names were really only meant as synonyms of Cidarites and Echinus,
but the two names were rightly established as generic names by Agassiz,
and, as they have since been generally adopted and are very generally
known, it would be quite absurd now to drop them because of a very
disputable interpretation of what was the original meaning of the author
of these names.

In order to avoid the confusion in Echinoid nomenclature resulting
from the highly disputable interpretation of Brandt’s work maintained
by Lambert & Thiéry, I ask the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, acting under the Plenary Power conferred upon them
by the International Congress of Zoology, to place the two said names
with genotypes, as specified, on the Official List of Generic Names :

Phyllacanthus Brandt, with genotype Phyllacanthus dubius Brandt
(Op. cit. p. 68)

Strongylocentrotus Brandt, with genotype Echinus chlorocentrotus
Brandt (Op. cit. 1835, p. 64). This species being a synonym of
Echinus drobachiensis O. Fr. Miiller (1776. Zoologia Danicae
Prodromus, p. 235), this latter eo ipso becomes the genotype of
Strongylocentrotus.

The two names are used in this sense in my Monograph of the
Echinoidea I. p. 500 and 3. Part III. p. 193.

In my “ Vote on some Echinoderm names” quoted above, this
proposal was supported by: Bather, Brighton, A. H. Clark, H. L.
Clark, Cottreau, Currie, Deichmann, Diakonov, Déderlein, Ekman,
Faas, Fedotov, Fisher, Gislén, Goto, Gregory, Grieg, Hawkins,
Hecker, Heding, Hérouard, v. Hofsten, Jackson, Klinghardt, Lieberkind,
Mortensen, Nobre, Ohshima, Panning, Ravn, Reichensperger, Schmidt,
Spencer, Stefanini, Valette, Vaney, Wanner, Yakovlev.

OPINION 208 361

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

10. The present application was considered by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Fourteenth
Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi-
theatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 2030 hours.
The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Pro-
ceedings of the International Commission (1) summarising the
points made in the discussion at the foregoing meeting and (2)
setting out the decision then reached by the Commission in regard
to this case (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 35) (1950,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 519522) :—

THE COMMISSION examined Commission File Z.N.(S.)
319, containing an application submitted by Dr. (now Com-
missioner) Th. Mortensen (Denmark) on his own behalf and on
that of a large group of other specialists in the Class Echinoidea
that the Commission should use their Plenary Powers to direct
that the names Phyllacanthus Brandt, 1835 (Class Echinoidea,
Order Cidaroida) and Strongylocentrotus Brandt, 1835 (Class
Echinoidea, Order Camarodonta) were to be treated as having
been published by the above author as subgeneric names with
Cidarites (Phyllacanthus) dubius Brandt, 1835, and Echinus
(Strongylocentrotus) chlorocentrotus Brandt, 1835, as respective
type species. Dr. Mortensen explained that the names Phylla-
canthus and Strongylocentrotus were accepted by Agassiz and by
all subsequent authors up to the year 1909. Both names, especially
Strongylocentrotus, had in this way become widely known, not

362 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

only in echinological literature, but also in biological literature
generally. In 1909, however, Lambert and Thiéry had advanced
the view that these names had not been published by Brandt as
new subgeneric names, but as synonyms, respectively, of Cidarites
Leske, 1778, and Echinus Linnaeus, 1758. On the basis of this
conclusion, these authors had then proceeded to make a con-
siderable number of consequential changes in the nomenclature ~
of the group of which these genera formed part. The conclusions
reached by Lambert and Thiéry in regard to Brandt’s intentions
when he published these two names were regarded as highly
disputable by echinologists generally, by whom the changes in
nomenclature suggested by Lambert and Thiéry had not been
accepted. While in Dr. Mortensen’s view, it was possible that
these two names had, in fact, been looked upon by Brandt as
synonyms (of Cidarites and Echinus respectively), the practical
application of this conclusion would, in his opinion and in that
of the large number of specialists associated with him in the
present application, lead to great confusion and could not possibly
be justified. The present application had been one of the eight
applications on which Dr. Mortensen had consulted 38 leading
specialists before (in 1932) he submitted his proposals to the
Commission. Of these specialists (the names of whom have been
given in Conclusion 32), 37 had voted in favour of the submission
of the present proposals to the Commission, the sole exception
being Lambert himself.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING)
said that the present case had been advertised but the advertise-
ment had elicited no adverse comment on the action proposed.
As regards the trivial name of the type species of the genus
Strongylocentrotus Brandt, the Acting President observed that
that species was invariably known by the trivial name drobach-
iensis Muller (O.F.), 1776, (as published in the binominal com-
bination Echinus drebachiensis) and that, in view of the fact that
it was proposed in any case to use the Plenary Powers to validate
the generic name Strongylocentrotus, and to designate its type
species, it would be desirable at the same time to designate the
foregoing nominal species to be the type species rather than the

OPINION 208 363

nominal species Echinus (Strongylocentrotus) chlorocentrotus
Brandt, 1835, the name under which the taxonomic species con-
cerned had been cited by Brandt, when he published the name
Strongylocentrotus.

IN DISCUSSION the view was expressed that it would clearly
be wrong to countenance the introduction of extensive and con-
fusing changes in the nomenclature of a group, on the strength
solely of an argument which (as here) rested upon a subjective
interpretation of the intention of a given author when publishing
a given name, when (as here) that interpretation was contested
by almost the entire body of interested specialists. In view of
the doubts arising from the interpretation by Lambert and
Thiéry of Brandt’s intentions when he first published the names
Phyllacanthus and Strongylocentrotus, tt would be necessary for
the Commission to use their Plenary Powers, in order to put an
end to further discussion. It would be desirable, however,
that, in this, as in previous similar cases, the Commission should
use those powers conditionally and to such extent (if any) as
might be necessary. In other words, the Commission should
make it clear that in using those powers for the purpose of valida-
ting the foregoing names as of subgeneric status as from Brandt,
1835, they did so only if and in so far as this course was necessary
to attain the desired end and that their action in this matter was
not to be construed as expressing an opinion on the question
whether (as alleged by Lambert and Thiéry) the names in question
had been regarded by their original author, not as subgeneric
names, but as synonyms of the generic names, with which these
names had been severally associated by that author.

364 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to use their Plenary Powers :—
(a) to such extent as might be necessary :—

(i) to validate the names Phy/lacanthus Brandt,
1835, and Strongylocentrotus Brandt, 1835
(Class Echinoidea, Order Cidaroida) as of
subgeneric status as from the date of being
so published ;

(11) to designate Cidarites (Phyllacanthus) dubius
Brandt, 1835, as the type species of
Phyllacanthus Brandt, 1835, |

(b) to designate Echinus drebachiensis Muller (O.F.),
1776, to be the types species of the genus
Strongylocentrotus Brandt, 1835 ;

(2)to place on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology the names Phyllacanthus Brandt, 1835, and
Strong ylocentrotus Brandt, 1835, validated as in (1)
above and with the type species there severally
specified ;

(3)to place the undermentioned trivial names on the
Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :—

dubius Brandt, 1835 (as published in the binominal
combination Cidarites (Phyllacanthus) dubius) ;
drobachiensis Muller (O.F.), 1776 (as published
in the binominal combination Echinus_ dro-
bachiensis) ;

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

di the following are the original references for the names
which appear in the decision set out in the immediately preceding
paragraph :—
drobachiensis, Echinus, Miller (O.F.), 1776, Zool. dan. Prodr. : 235
dubius, Cidarites (Phyllacanthus), Brandt (J.F.), 1835, Prodr.

OPINION 208 365

Descr. Anim. Mertens. Orb. Terr. Circumnay. obsery. 1 : 68

_Phyllacanthus Brandt (J.F.), 1835, Prodr. Descr. Anim. Mertens.
Orb. Terr. Circumnay. observ. 1 : 67

Strongylocentrotus Brandt (J.F.), 1835, Prodr. Descr. Anim.
Mertens. Orb. Terr. Circumnay. obsery. 1 : 63

12. The genders of the generic names Phyllacanthus Brandt,
1835, and Strongylocentrotus Brandt, 1835, referred to in the
decision quoted in paragraph 10 above, are both masculine.

13. The decision taken in this case was reported to, and approved
by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 at its Sixth Meeting held on
26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencil. 5 : 116—117).

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

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

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

16. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the
present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion
of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species
was the expression “ trivial name ”’ and the Official List reserved
for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific
Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “trivial”? appearing also
in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected
and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by
the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen,
1953, the expression “ specific name’ was substituted for the

366 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

expression “trivial name” and corresponding changes were
made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such
names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The
changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated i in the
Ruling given in the present Opinion.

18. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two
Hundred and Eight (208) of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

Done in London this Twenty-second day of November,
Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Three.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

FRANCIS HEMMING

Printed in England by Mrrcatre & Cooprr LimitEep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2

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

Edited by Va
FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.c., CBE. /
Secretary to the Commission [< 5

VOLUME 3. Part 28. Pp. 367—392 NG

OPINION 209

Validation of, and designation of type species for,
Brissus Gray, 1825, Echinocardium Gray, 1825, and
Spatangus Gray, 1825 (Class Echinoidea) under the
Plenary Powers, and designation, under those Powers,
of a type species for Schizaster Agassiz (L.), 1836, and,
in so far as necessary, for Moira Agassiz (A.), 1872

LONDON :

Issued 8th}March, 1954

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 209

A. The Officers of the Commission

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

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

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

B. The Members of the Commission

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

Class 1952
Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil).
Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.).
Professor Lodovico di CAporiacco (University of Parma, Italy).
Professor J. R. DYMOND (University of Toronto, Canada).
Dr. James L. PrTeERS (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr. ea E. VoKEs (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.,

Class 1955

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

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

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

Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landboh@jskole, Zoologisk Labora-
torium, Copenhagen, Denmark).

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

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

Mr. N. D. RILey (British Museum (Natural History), London, England).

Professor Ragnar SpARCK (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen,
Denmark).

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

“ei Le L. UsInNGer (University of California, Berkeley, California,

OPINION 209

VALIDATION OF, AND DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES
FOR, ‘‘ BRISSUS ” GRAY, 1825, ‘‘ ECHINOCARDIUM ”’
GRAY, 1825, AND ‘*SPATANGUS ” GRAY, 1825
(CLASS ECHINOIDEA) UNDER THE PLENARY
POWERS, AND DESIGNATION, UNDER
THOSE POWERS, OF A TYPE SPECIES
FOR ‘*SCHIZASTER’ AGASSIZ
(L.), 1836, AND, IN SO FAR AS
NECESSARY, FOR ‘* MOIRA ”’

AGASSIZ (A.), 1872

RULING :—(1) The following action is hereby taken
under the Plenary Powers: (a) The under-mentioned
generic names are, suppressed for the purposes both of
the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy :
(i) Brissus Miller, 1781; (i) Brissus Modeer, 1793 ;
(iii) Brissus Link, 1807; (iv) Brissus Oken, 1815; (v)
Brissus Dahl, 1823 (emend. of Bryssus Dejean, 1821) ;
(vi) Bryssus Dejean, 1821; (vii) Brissus, as used by any
other author prior to the publication of Brissus Gray,
1825 ; (viii) Echinocardium Leske, 1778 (in so far as that
name was published by that author as a generic name) ;
(ix) Spatangus Leske, 1778 ; (x) Spatangus Modeer, 1793 ;
(xi) Spatangus, as used by any other author prior to the
publication of Spatangus Gray, 1825. (b) The following
names are validated : (i) Brissus Gray, 1825, (i) Echino-
cardium Gray, 1825, (iii) Spatangus Gray, 1825 (Class
Echinoidea); (c) All type selections for the under-
mentioned genera made prior to the present Ruling are
set aside, and the following species are designated as
the type species for those genera :—(i) Echinus cordatus
Pennant, 1777, to be the type species of Echinocardium
Gray, 1825; (i) Spatangus brissus var. unicolor Leske,
1778, to be the type species of Brissus Gray, 1825 ;
(111) Spatagus [sic] purpureus Miller (O.F.), 1776, to be
type species of Spatangus Gray, 1825; (iv) Schizaster
studeri Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1840, to be the type species of
Schizaster Agassiz (J.L.R.), [1836].

APR 2 -

1954

370 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

(2) In so far as such action may be necessary, the
Plenary Powers are hereby used to designate Spatangus
atropos Lamarck, 1816, to be the type species of Moira
Agassiz (A.), 1872.

(3) The reputed generic name Brissus Leske, 1778,
possesses no status under the Law of Priority, having
regard to the fact that this term was published by Leske
in the nominative plural (as Brissi) instead of in the
nominative singular as required by Article 8.

(4) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
with the Numbers severally specified below :—(a) Brissus
Gray, 1825 (gender of name : masculine), Echinocardium
Gray, 1825 (gender of name: neuter), Spatangus Gray,
1825 (gender of name: masculine), as validated in (1)(b)
above and with the type species designated in (1)(c)(i)—(Gid)
above (Names Nos. 638 to 640) ; ‘(b) Schizaster Agassiz
(J.L.R.), [1836] (gender of name: masculine), with the
type species designated in (1)(c)(iv) above (Name No.
641); (c) Moira Agassiz (A.), 1872 (gender of name :
feminine), with the type species designated in (2) above
(Name No. 642); (d) Ova Gray, 1825 (gender of name :
feminine) (type species, by monotypy : Spatangus canali-
ferus Lamarck, 1816) (Name No. 643).

(5) The under-mentioned generic names or alleged
generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—(a)
the eleven names suppressed under the Plenary Powers in
(1)(a) above (Names Nos. 13 to 23) ; (b) the reputed but
non-existent name Brissus Leske, 1778, as rejected in (3)
above (Name No. 24); (c) Prospatangus Lambert, 1902
(Name No. 25); (d) Moera Michelin, 1855 (Name No.
26).

(6) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as
Names Nos. 14 to 19 :—(a) atropos Lamarck, 1816, as
published in the combination Spatangus atropos; (b)

OPINION 209 VA

canaliferus Lamarck, 1816, as published in the combination
Spatangus canaliferus ; (c) cordatus Pennant, 1777, as
published in the combination Echinus cordatus; (d)
purpureus Miiller (O.F.), 1776, as published in the
combination Spatagus [sic] purpureus ; (e) studeri Agassiz
(J.L.R.), 1840, as published in the combination Schizaster
studeri ; (f) unicolor Leske, 1778, as published in the
combination Spatangus brissus var. unicolor.

I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The present is the sixth of the eight cases relating to disputed
Echinoderm names submitted to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature by the late Dr. Th. Mortensen
(Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen) under cover of a
letter dated 17th November 1932. The arguments in regard to these
cases are set out in a paper by Dr. Mortensen entitled “ A Vote
on some Echinoderm Names’, which had been published a
month earlier (Mortensen, October 1932, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist.
(10)10 : 345—368). This application is concerned with the
complex of problems centreing around the well-known name
Spatangus. ‘The purpose of Dr. Mortensen’s application was to
secure from the International Commission decisions under its
Plenary Powers which would provide a firm basis for the use of
the following names attributed to the authors and dates shown
below and with types species in harmony with accustomed usage:—
Spatangus Gray, 1825, Echinocardium Gray, 1825, Brissus Gray,
1825, Schizaster Agassiz (J.L.R.), [1836], Moira Agassiz (A.),
1872, and Ova Gray, 1825.

2. As has been explained in Opinion 206 (paragraphs | and 2)
relating to the name Diadema Gray, 1825 (a case which was
submitted jointly with the present case), an extensive canvas of
the views of active workers in the Echinoderms had been under-
taken by Dr. Mortensen before the present case was submitted
to the International Commission. Of the thirty-nine (39)
specialists who had taken part in this consultation, thirty-six (36)
had voted in support of it, two (2) had not voted, and one (1)

372 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

had voted against it. The sole opponent (Lambert) had based
his objection on the entirely untenable ground that the first
author to revise the genus Spatangus had been not Gray, 1825,
but the pre-Linnean non-binominal author Klein.! The names
and addresses of the specialists who took part in this consultation
have already been given in Opinion 206 (Diadema).

Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE

3. In December 1932 the then Secretary (the late Dr. C. W.
Stiles) reported Dr. Mortensen’s application to the Commission
in Circular Letter 220. On 20th December of that year, he wrote
also to the Director of the United States Geological Survey,
expressing the hope that arrangements might be made for these
proposals to be examined by the palaeontologists of the Survey.
On 19th January 1933, the Director replied, forwarding five
comments by members of the staff, of which one was signed by
two workers. These comments, in so far as they relate to the
present case, were as follows :—

(a) Comment by L. W. Stephenson and C. Wythe Cooke :

I am in favour of codifying names concerning the strict validity of
which there may be some question, if they have been in generally
accepted use for long periods, but when it can be shown clearly that
some other name has priority over a later more generally used name...
is there not a danger of adding to, rather than subtracting from, the
confusion ? Will not some authors accept the rulings of the Inter-
national Commission, while others will continue stoutly to maintain
the validity of the names having priority ? Furthermore, will not such
rulings encourage a flood of demands for suspension of the Rules ?

(b) Comment by Lloyd G. Henbest :

Dr. Mortensen’s petition to conserve and restore certain Echinoderm
names seems to be reasonable, except in the case of [Here are mentioned
certain names with which this Opinion is not concerned. |

1 Lambert’s comment which was quoted by Mortensen (1932 : 360), was as
follows :—‘‘ Non, car c’est Klein et non Gray qui a le premier divisé les
Spatangues en plusieurs genres ”’.

OPINION 209 373
(c) Comment (dated 6th January 1933) by John B. Reeside, Jr. :

I see no particular objection to placing all of the names on the List
of established names.

(d) Comment by Edwin Kirke :

I concur, except in the case of Diadema [see Opinion 206].

(e) Comment (dated 16th January 1933) by W. P. Woodring :

I am not familiar with the usage of these Echinoderm names, but
as a general principle—other things being equal—I am in favour of
special protection for names of long-standing usage that are being
threatened.

4. In December 1933 Dr. Stiles reported to the Commission
(in Circular Letter 245) the comments received earlier in that year
from the palaeontologists of the Geological Survey. In March
1935 Dr. Stiles reported to the Commission (in Circular Letter
291) that he had received no further comments on this or the
other proposals submitted by Dr. Mortensen and his colleagues,
and suggested that these proposals should be considered by the
Commission when it met at Lisbon in September of that year.

374 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

of the Commission from London to the country as a precaution
against the risk of destruction through air raids. The Secretariat
in London was re-opened in 1942, and steps were immediately
taken to establish the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as a
means for bringing to the attention of zoologists applications |
submitted to the International Commission for decision. Work |
was at once started on outstanding applications with a view to
arranging for their publication in the newly established Bulletin.
Unfortunately, however, it was not then possible to send the
present case to the printer, for the paper of 1932 in which it
had originally been submitted did not deal with the matter in ~
sufficient detail, and the circumstances of the war made it
impossible at that time to communicate with Dr. Mortensen in
Denmark.

7. In the summer of 1946, the conclusion of hostilities in
Europe restored opportunities for foreign travel, and Dr.
Mortensen paid a visit to London, largely for the purpose of
discussing with Mr. Hemming the arrangements to be made for
the further consideration of this, and his other, applications by
the International Commission. It was then agreed that, as a first
step, Dr. Mortensen should prepare, and should furnish to Mr.
Hemming as quickly as possible, separate applications of a
somewhat fuller kind in regard to each of the outstanding cases
which in 1932 he had submitted collectively in his paper “A
Vote on some Echinoderm Names ” (paragraph 1).

8. Dr. Mortensen’s revised application in the present case
was received on 14th June 1947. It was as follows :—

On the status of the names ‘‘ Spatangus ’’ Gray, ‘*‘ Ova ’’ Gray,
** Echinocaedium ’’ Gray, ‘°° Schizaster ’’ L. Agassiz, ‘* Moira ”’
A. Agassiz and ‘‘ Brissus ’? Gray (Class Echinoidea, Order

. Spatangoida)

OPINION 209 375

would clearly result from the strict application of the Régles. In this
_ view I was supported by a large number of the leading specialists in this
group. Full particulars of these cases were given in a paper entitled
‘“A Vote on some Echinoderm Names” published in October 1932
(Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10) 10 : 345—368). Owing to the ill-health of
the then Secretary of the International Commission, and for other
reasons, no progress was made with any of these applications except
that of Luidia Forbes, which has been settled by the Commission in
Opinion 129. The need for decisions on these cases has increased in
urgency in the interval elapsed since 1932, and I now ask the Commis-
sion to take each of these cases into immediate consideration.

Discussion of the case of the genera named above.

In the old literature (Klein, Leske, Lamarck), the name Spatangus
is taken in a very wide sense, including forms now distributed in various
families and orders. Lamarck, in his “‘ Systéme des animaux sans
vertebres ’, 1801, p. 348, names under the genus Spatangus only one
species, Spatangus vulgaris, which, as seen from the figures to which he
refers (Klein, viz. Leske, Additamenta, tab. 48, figs. 4, 5; Encyclop.
Meth. pl. 158, fig. 11 ; pl. 159, fig. i is the same as that which he
names later on, 1816, in the “ Hist. nat. des animaux sans vertébres ”
p. 30, Spatangus carinatus evidently forgetting that he had already
in 1801 named it S. vulgaris. From the diagnosis of the genus and the
“ Nota’, “On connait beaucoup d’espéces dans l’état marin, et
beaucoup d’autres dans |’état fossile, qui appartiennent a ce genre ”’,
it is evident that his genus Spatangus is meant to comprise all the
Spatangoids known by that time. Nevertheless, as he names only one
species, that one ought—it would seem—to have been made the type
of the restricted genus Spatangus, which means again that the species
now named Brissus carinatus ought, according to a strict interpretation
of the Rule, to be the type of the genus Spatangus, and under the name
of S. vulgaris Lamk., since the species, although figured by Leske, is
not named by the latter author. This, however, has never been done
by any author on Echinoids.

The first author really to establish a genus Spatangus in the modern
sense is Gray, in his “‘ Attempt to divide the Echinidae, or Sea Eggs,
into Natural Families”, 1825, Ann. of Philos. 26. He has there
established a family Spatangidae, with the three genera Spatangus,
Echinocardium and Brissus. Under the first of these is named as only
species S. purpureus Leske, t. 43, ff. 3, 5, viz., figures of O. Fr. Miiller’s
Spatagus purpureus, Zoologia Danica, Tab. VI. Thus the genus
has been properly established, with its genotype, and it has been
accepted unanimously in this sense in the whole of the echinological
literature, and in zoological literature in general, until recently changed
by Lambert.

In 1902, Lambert (‘“‘ Description des Echinides fossiles de la Province
de Barcelone”’, Mém. Soc. Geol. France, 24. p. 54) protests in a
note against the correctness of Gray’s decisions, maintaining that,

376 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

according to Klein’s conception of the genus Spatangus, the type
generally understood as Spatangus does not rightly belong there and
he tentatively proposes to name these forms Prospatangus. In Lambert
and Thiéry’s ‘“‘ Essai de nomenclature raisonnée des Echinides ”’,
p. 459, this name Prospatangus is then definitely introduced instead
of the hitherto unanimously used name Spatangus, this latter name
now being transferred to Spatangus canaliferus Lamarck (Hist. nat.
des Animaux sans vertébres, 3, 1816, p. 31), the species hitherto generally
known as Schizaster canaliferus (Lamarck).

There is no doubt that Gray, in giving O. Fr. Miiller’s Spatagus
purpureus as the type (viz., the only named) species of the genus
Spatangus, does not follow Klein, who lets his Spatangus comprise the
species “‘insignem habentes lacunam in dorso . . . sulcosque in
vertice ’’ (ed. 1778, p. 27). But Gray was the first post-Linnean author
to establish the genus Spatangus properly, and then we cannot now
overthrow the century-old use of the name in this sense in order
to re-establish the name in the sense of the pre-Linnean non-
binominal author Klein, be his distinction of various genera of Echin-
oids ever so much beyond Linnaeus’ confusion of all Echinoids in the
single genus Echinus. That Blainville, in 1827 (Dictionaire d. Sciences —
nat. Tome 50, p. 92), has canaliferus in his third group of the genus
Spatangus cannot well, as seems to be the opinion of Lambert, do away
with the fact of Gray having in 1825 made purpureus the type of the
genus.

The species canaliferus Gray (Op. cit. 1825) made the type of his
genus Ova ; thus it is inadmissible now to make it the type of Spatangus.
The genus Ova has not been recognised until recently H. L. Clark
(Hawaiian a.o. Pacific Echini, Echinoneidae . . . Spatangidae, Mem.
Mus. Comp. Zool. 46. 1917, p. 192) revived it, restricting it to the
species canaliferus, which, from a taxonomic point of view, is justifiable.
The type of the genus Schizaster, established by L. Agassiz, 1836, in
his “*Prodrome d’une Monographie des Radiaires”, Mém. Soc.
Neuchdtel, 1, p. 18, is the fossil (Tertiary) species studeri Agassiz. This
is of the same type as the recent form /acunosus, which has always been
designated as Schizaster, and even by Lambert and Thiéry in their
‘* Essai de nomenclature raisonnée ”’ is allowed to remain in the genus
Schizaster (though erroneously referred to the subgenus Brisaster).
Thus—leaving canaliferus aside as the type of its own genus, Ova—
there is no discrepancy about the genus Schizaster and the genotype,
studeri Agassiz.

The genus Echinocardium* was established by Gray in his paper of —
1825 (p. 430), with the species atropos Lamk. as the first named, which
ought, accordingly, to have been accepted as the type of the genus. ~
L. Agassiz in his “ Prodromus”’ does not accept the name Echino-

* The name Echinocardium is first found in Leske’s Additamenta, p. 73, as a
translation of the Belgian ‘‘ Egelhart’’ used by van Phelsum.

OPINION 209 ST

cardium, but creates a new genus, Amphidetus, under which Echino-
cardium is mentioned as a synonym ; the species (Spatangus) arcuarius
Goldfuss is the first named, the species atropos Lamarck being trans-
ferred to his new genus Schizaster as the first species named, the second
being S. studeri Agassiz. In Agassiz and Desor’s “ Catalogue
raisonné”’ the first species named under Amphidetus is cordatus
(Pennant). In Desor’s “ Synopsis des Echinides fossiles ’’, p. 406, the
genus Echinocardium is again taken up, with Amphidetus as a synonym,
the species cordatum (Echinus cordatus, Pennant, 1777. British Zoology,
4. p. 69) being the first named ; the species atropos Lamk. had in the
meantime been made the type of another genus, Moera, by Michelin
(‘“ Notice sur un nouveau genre a établir dans la famille des Spatangoides
sous le nom de Moera’’, Rey. et Magaz. de Zool. 1855, p. 245). This
name was changed by A. Agassiz (Revision of Echini, 1872, p. 146)
into Moira, the name Moera being preoccupied. Since then the genera
Echinocardium and Moira have been unanimously accepted in the
sense adopted by Desor and Michelin, with the species cordatus and
atropos respectively as the genotypes. Whether Echinocardium should,
like the genus Ova, be confined to the species with the pores in the
frontal ambulacrum in close double series, viz., cordatum (and australe,
if the latter be maintained as a separate species) is a matter of no serious
nomenclatorial consequence, the other species generally referred to
Echinocardium would then have to be transferred to the revived genus
Amphidetus.

Under the genus Brissus, Gray names as first species ventricosus
Leske (tab. 26, fig. A), the following being unicolor Leske, carinatus
Leske and columbaris Seba. The species ventricosa has, however, later
on been transferred to the genus Meoma, established by Gray, 1851,
with the West Indian species grandis as the type ; the species unicolor
is thus left as the type of the genus Brissus, about which fact there is no
disagreement among the various authors.

All these names are so intricately connected that they cannot be
dealt with separately.

In order to avoid the very great, almost inextricable confusion which
would be the consequence of the strict application of the Régles in
these cases, I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, acting under the Plenary Power conferred upon them by the
International Congress of Zoology, under suspension of the Régles to
place the following names, with their genotypes, as specified, on the
Official List of Generic Names :

Spatangus Gray, with genotype Spatangus purpureus O. Fr. Miller,
1788. (Zoologia Danica Tab. VI.).

Ova Gray, with genotype Spatangus canaliferus Lamarck. (Hist.
anim. sans Vertébres. 3. 1816, p. 31).

Schizaster L. Agassiz, with genotype Schizaster studeri L. Agassiz.
(Sismonda. Echinidi fossili del contado di Nizza. 1843, p. 32. Tab. II.
fig. 4).

378 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

Echinocardium Gray, with genotype Echinus cordatus Pennant (1777.
British Zoology. 4. p. 69, Pl. XXXIV, Fig. 75).

Moira A. Agassiz, with genotype Spatangus atropos Lamarck
(1816, Hist. nat. des anim. s. Vertébres. 3, p. 32).

Brissus Gray, with genotype Spatangus brissus var. unicolor Leske.
(1778. Additamenta ad Kleinii Nat. Disp. Echinoid. p. 248. Tab. XXVI.
Fig. B, C.)

In my “ Vote on some Echinoderm names’ quoted above, this
proposal was supported by: Bather, Brighton, A. H. Clark, H. L.
Clark, Cottreau, Currie, Diakonov, Déderlein, Ekman, Faas, Fedotov,
Fisher, Gislén, Goto, Gregory, Grieg, Hawkins, Hecker, Heding,
Hérouard, v. Hofsten, Jackson, Klinghardt, Lieberkind, Mortensen,
Nobre, Ohshima, Panning, Ravn, Reichensperger, Schmidt, Spencer,
Stefanini, Valette, Vaney, Wanner, Yakovlev.

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

10. The present application was considered by the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Four-
teenth Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the
Amphithéatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 2030
hours. The following is an extract from the Official Record of
the Proceedings of the International Commission (1) summarising
the points made in the discussion at the foregoing meeting and
(2) setting out the decision then reached by the Commission
in regard to this case (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 36)
(1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 522—529) :—

OPINION 209 379

THE COMMISSION exarined Commission File Z.N.(S.)
317, containing an application submitted by Dr. (now Com-
missioner) Th. Mortensen (Denmark) on his own behalf and on
that of a large group of other specialists in the Class Echinoidea
that the Commission should use their Plenary Powers in various
ways to validate existing nomenclatorial practice in regard to
Six associated generic names in the foregoing Class, where, if the
Reégles were to be strictly applied, serious disturbance and con- —
sequential confusion would inevitably ensue. The generic names
in question were: Spatangus Gray, 1825; Ova Gray, 1825;
Schizaster Agassiz [1836]; Echinocardium Gray, 1825; Moira
Agassiz, 1827 ; Brissus Gray, 1825. The following is a summary
of the principal points made by Dr. Mortensen in regard to each
of the foregoing names :—

(1) Spatangus Gray, 1825: This name had been used by the
older authors (Klein, Leske) in a very wide sense under which
it covered species now included in different families and even
different Orders. Lamarck (1816) applied it to all the Spatangoids,
of which, however, he cited only one by name, the new nominal
species Spatangus vulgaris Lamarck (which had proved to be
the same species as that now known as Brissus carinatus). If
therefore Lamarck were treated as the author of the name
Spatangus, that generic name would replace Brissus Gray and
the species now known as Brissus carinata would have to be
known as Spatangus vulgaris Lamarck. No one had, however,
adopted this course. The true author of the generic name
Spatangus in the modern sense was Gray (1825), who had placed
in this genus only Spatagus purpureus Miller (O.F.), 1776. So
regarded, the genus Spatangus Gray was monotypical with the
above species as its type species. It was in this sense that the
generic name Spatangus had been used by all subsequent specialists
until in 1902 Lambert had advanced the view that this name should
be used not in the sense in which it had been employed by Gray
in 1825, but in the sense in which it had first been used by Klein ;
that on this basis this generic name was not applicable to the
species Spatagus purpureus Miller, which accordingly Lambert
placed in a new genus to which he appiied the name Prospatangus.
Dr. Mortensen agreed that Gray had used the name Spatangus
in a sense different from that of Klein. It would, however, in
Dr. Mortensen’s view, create the greatest confusion to abandon

380 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

the use of the name Spatangus for purpureus Miller and to apply
that name, as suggested by Lambert, to Spatangus canaliferus
Lamarck, 1816.

(2) Ova Gray, 1825: The type species of this genus by mono-
typy was Spatangus canaliferus Lamarck, 1816. Accordingly
under Lambert’s view Ova Gray was an objective synonym of
Spatangus as interpreted by that author. Dr. Mortensen asked
that, when the Commission validated the name Spatangus as
from Gray, 1825, and in consequence validated the designation
of Spatagus purpureus Miller as the type species of that genus,
they should also confirm the availability of Ova Gray, 1825, with
Spatangus canaliferus Lamarck as its type species.

(3) Schizaster Agassiz [1836]: The type species of this genus
was the fossil species Schizaster studeri Agassiz, 1840. This genus
had been accepted even by Lambert and Thiéry notwithstanding
their views on the generic position of Spatangus canaliferus
Lamarck (see (1) above), a species which had formerly been
referred to the genus Schizaster.

(4) Echinocardium Gray, 1825, and (5) Moira Agassiz, 1872:
Gray had placed in the genus Echinocardium three species, of
which the first was Spatangus atropos Lamarck, 1816. Agassiz,
the next author to deal with this subject, rejected the name
Echinocardium Gray, sinking it as a synonym of a new generic
name of his own (Amphidetus). At the same time Agassiz trans-
ferred Spatangus atropos Lamarck, 1816, to his new genus
Schizaster, in which also (as shown in (3) above) he placed the
new species Schizaster studeri. In their “‘ Catalogue raisonée ”
Agassiz and Desors cited Echinus cordatus Pennant, 1777, as the
first species of the genus Amphidetus Agassiz, 1836 (which, as
noted above, Agassiz had previously adopted in place of the
earlier name Echinocardium Gray, 1825). In a later paper
(“Synopsis des Echinides fossiles’’) Desors accepted Echino-
cardium Gray (sinking Amphidetus Agassiz as a synonym), citing
Echinus cordatus Pennant as the first species. In the meantime
Michelin had established the genus Moera Michelin, 1855, based
upon Spatangus atropos Lamarck, which was accordingly treated
by later authors as though it had been designated as the type
species of the genus Moera Michelin. Later it was found that

OPINION 209 381

this generic name was an invalid homonym, and Agassiz (1872)
accordingly altered it to Moira. Since that date all specialists in
the group had accepted the genera Echinocardium Gray, 1825,
and Moira Agassiz, 1872, treating Echinus cordatus Pennant, 1777,
as the type species of Echinocardium Gray, 1825, and Spatangus
atropos Lamarck, 1816, as the type species of Moira Agassiz,
1872. Dr. Mortensen and his colleagues asked that this practice
should be validated under the Plenary Powers.

(6) Brissus Gray, 1825: Gray had established this genus for
four nominal species. The trivial names of the first and second
of these species were ventricosus Leske and unicolor Leske res-
pectively. The species bearing the first of these names had later
been transferred to the genus Meoma Gray, 1851. Thereafter,
the species bearing the trivial name unicolor Leske had been treated
by all authors as the type species of the genus Brissus Gray.
Dr. Mortensen asked the Commission to validate this practice
under their Plenary Powers.

In conclusion, Dr. Mortensen had expressed the view that the
Six generic names covered by the present application were so
inextricably connected that they could not be treated separately.
He accordingly asked the Commission to use their Plenary
Powers to validate all the generic names in question, as from the
authors and dates of publication, and with the type species,
indicated in the application. This application had been one of
the eight applications on which, before submitting it to the Com-
mission (in 1932), Dr. Mortensen had consulted 38 leading spec-
ialists who were working on the group in various parts of the
world. Of these specialists, 35 had voted in favour of the sub-
mission to the Commission of the present application, two
(Bather ; Brighton) had not voted, while one only (Lambert)
had voted against the course proposed.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING)
said that the present group of applications had been advertised
but the advertisement had elicited no adverse comment.

382 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

IN DISCUSSION the view was expressed that it was evident
that the strict application of the Rég/es would completely change
the way in which these generic names would in future have to be
used. Great disturbance in nomenclatorial practice would be
involved and this would inevitably lead to widespread confusion,
in view of the very extensive literature, extending far beyond the
literature of systematic zoology, which had accumulated around
such names as Spatangus and Echinocardium. For these reasons
and, having regard also to the strong support for these proposals
expressed all but unanimously by the leading workers in this field
in both Hemispheres, it was generally agreed that the objects
sought by the applicants should be met by the Commission. On
the other hand, some of the arguments advanced in the application
were not of a character which could be entertained by the Com-
mission ; in particular, it was not possible either to ignore for the
purposes of Articles 25 and 34 the uses of a generic name prior
to a certain date (on the ground that the earlier authors had placed
discordant material in the genus concerned), or, under Article 30
to accord any right to be accepted as the type species of a genus
to a given species, on the ground only that it was the first of the
species to have been cited, among others, under the name of the
genus by its original author. In drawing up the conclusion of
the Commission on these applications, it would be necessary
to pay due regard to these considerations. Again in some cases
(for example, in the case of the names Schizaster Agassiz, [1836],
and Moira Agassiz, 1872 (as derived from the invalid homonym
Moera Michelin, 1855), it was not clear from the application how
the species there mentioned as type species of the genera concerned
had come to be recognised as such, whether that process had
been in accordance with the Rules specified in Article 30 and
therefore whether the use of the Plenary Powers was necessary or
not.

In further discussion it was agreed that the Plenary Powers
should be used, where this was necessary, to secure the ends
sought in the present application, but that, where it was doubtful
(for any reason) whether the use of those powers was necessary
to achieve the desired object, it should be expressly recorded that
the Plenary Powers were used for that purpose only to the extent
that might be necessary therefor. The Acting President, as
Secretary to the Commission, was accordingly invited to examine

OPINION 209 . 383

the present application from the foregoing point of view after the
close of the present Session and, in the light of that examination,
to draft the Conclusion on this matter in such a way as, in his
opinion, would meet fully the objects set out in the application
and also the points made in the discussion as recorded above.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to use their Plenary Powers :—

(a) to suppress the undermentioned generic names :—

(4) Brissus Muller, 1781 (Class Echinoidea)
(ii) Brissus Modeer, 1793 (Class Echinoidea)
(iii) Brissus Link, 1807 (Class Echinoidea)
(iv) Brissus Oken, 1815 (Class Echinoidea)

(v) Brissus Dahl, 1823 (emend. of Bryssus
Dejean, 1821) (Class Insecta, Order
Coleoptera)

(vi) Bryssus Dejean, 1821 (Class Insecta, Order
Coleoptera)

(vii) Brissus, as used by any other author prior
to the publication of Brissus Gray, 1825

(viii) Echinocardium Leske, 1778, in so far as
that name was published by that author
as a generic name

(ix) Spatangus Leske, 1778
(x) Spatangus Modeer, 1793
(xi) Spatangus, as used by any other author
prior to the publication of Spatangus
Gray, 1825 ;
(b) to validate the undermentioned generic names :—
(i) Brissus Gray, 1825 (Class Echinoidea)

384 ‘OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

(ii) Echinocardium Gray, 1825 (Class Echinoidea)
in so far as this name requires to be
validated by reason of the existence of the
prior name Echinocardium Leske, 1778,
suppressed, in so far as may be necessary,
in (a) (vii) above ;

(iii) Spatangus Gray, 1825 (Class Echinoidea) ;

(c) to set aside all selections of type species for the
undermentioned genera made prior to the present
decision and to designate the species severally
specified below to be the type species of the
genera concerned :—

(i) Echinus cordatus Pennant, 1777, to be the
type species of the genus Echinocardium
Gray, 1825, as validated, in so far as may
be necessary, in (b)(11) above ;

(11) Schizaster studeri Agassiz (L.), 1840, to be

| the type species of the genus Schizaster
Agassiz (L.) [1836] ;

(111) Spatangus brissus var. unicolor Leske, 1778,
to be the type species of the genus Brissus
Gray, 1825, as validated in (b)(1) above ;

(iv) Spatagus purpureus Muller (O.F.), 1776, to
be the type species of the genus Spatangus
Gray, 1825, as validated in (b)(i11) above ;

(d) in so far as the use of the Plenary Powers may be
necessary to secure that MSpatangus atropos
Lamarck, 1816, shall be the type species of the
genus Moira Agassiz (A.), 1872, to set aside all
selections of type species made for that genus
prior to the selection of the above species by
Clark (H.L.), 1917 :

(2) to place on record that the reputed generic name Brissus
Leske, 1778 (Class Echinoidea), has no existence under
the Régles, as interpreted in Opinion 183 (now, as
agreed upon at the meeting noted in the margin! (Paris
Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 12), to be incorporated
in the Régles), having regard to the fact that this term

! Not reproduced.

OPINION 209 385

was published by Leske in the nominative plural (as
Brissi) instead of in the nominative singular as required
by Article 8 ;
(3) to place the names of the undermentioned genera of the
. Class Echinoidea (Order Spatangoida), with the type
species severally specified below, on the Official List
of Generic Names in Zoology :—

Type species of genus
Name of genus specified in Col. (1)
(1) (2)
Brissus Gray, 1825 as vali- Spatangus brissus var. unicolor
dated in (1)(b)() above. Leske, 1778 (type species des-
ignated under the Plenary
Powers in (1)(c)(iii) above).
Echinocardium Gray, 1825, Echinus cordatus Pennant, 1777
as validated in (1)(b)(i1) (type species designated under
above. the Plenary Powers in (1)(c)(i)
above).

Moira Agassiz(A.), 1872. | Spatangus atropos Lamarck,
1816 (type species designated
under the Plenary Powers in
(1)(d) above).

Ova Gray, 1825 Spatangus canaliferus Lamarck,
1816 (type species by mono-

| typy).
Schizaster Agassiz (L.) Schizaster studeri Agassiz (L.),
[1836] 1840 (type species designated

under the Plenary Powers in
(1)(c)(41) above).

Spatangus Gray, 1825, as Spatagus purpureus’ Miuller
validated in (1)(b)(ii) (O.F.), 1776 (type species des-
above. ignated under the Plenary

Powers in (1)(c)(iv) above).
(4) to place the undermentioned generic names and reputed
generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—
(i) the eleven generic names suppressed under the
Plenary Powers, as specified in (1)(a)(i) to (xi)
above ;

386 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

(ii) the reputed but non-existent generic name Brissus
Leske, 1778, rejected under (2) above ;

(ii) Prospatangus Lambert, 1902 ;

(iv) Moera Michelin, 1855 ;

(5) to place the undermentioned trivial names on the Official
List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :—
atropos Lamarck, 1816 (as published in the binominal
combination Spatangus atropos)
canaliferus Lamarck, 1816 (as published in the
binominal combination Spatangus canaliferus)
cordatus Pennant, 1777 (as published in the bi-
nominal combination Echinus cordatus)
purpureus Muller (O.F.), 1776 (as published in the
binominal combination Spatagus purpureus)
studeri Agassiz (L.), 1840 (as published in the bi-
nominal combination Schizaster studeri)
unicolor Leske, 1778 (as published as a sub-specific
trivial name in the trinominal combination
Spatangus brissus var. unicolor)

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

11. In accordance with the invitation addressed to him by the
International Commission at its Paris Session—see the last

paragraph of the Official Record of the discussion on this case,
- quoted on page 382 of the present Opinion—Mr. Hemming, as
Secretary to the Commission, made a close examination, after
the Paris Congress, of the problems involved in the present
application with the object of determining precisely the limits within
which action by the Commission under its Plenary Powers was
necessary to give effect to the decision then taken by the Commis-
sion, namely to grant the relief sought in this case by Dr. Mortensen
and his colleagues. In conformity with a request made by the
Commission at the same time, the text of the decision (Conclusion
36) of the Commission in this case was drafted in the light of the
Report so made by the Secretary. That Report, which was dated
22nd August 1949, was submitted to, and approved by, the
International Commission by Postal Vote at the same time that

OPINION 209 387

the draft of the Official Record of its Paris Proceedings (1950,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : xiii—xv) was so submitted and approved.
Mr. Hemming’s Report, which was annexed to the Official Record
of the Proceedings of the International Commission in regard to
the present case (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 529—530), was
as follows :—

In accordance with the request of the Commission, I have re-examined
the application submitted in this case for the purpose of determining
how the objects set forth therein can be attained with the minimum use
of the Plenary Powers, those powers being used only in respect of those
purposes which can be achieved in no other way and being used
conditionally “‘ in so far as may be necessary ”’ in cases where such use
may be necessary to achieve the desired ends but that need is not clearly
established. In the course of this re-examination, I have had the benefit
of the advice of Dr. Mortensen. In addition, I have consulted a number
of the books and papers cited in the present application. The conclusions
which I have reached are as follows :—

(1) Brissus and Spatangus : If, as proposed, the generic names Brissus
and Spatangus are to be made available in the sense in which they were
respectively used by Gray in 1825, it will be necessary to use the Plenary
Powers to suppress all prior uses of these names, and to validate these
two names as from Gray, 1825. In view of the fact that Gray did not
publish the names Brissus and Spatangus as new names and each, in
order to acquire recognition under the Régl/es, requires the use by the
Commission of their Plenary Powers, the same powers should be used
to designate the type species of these genera. Quite apart from this
consideration, the Plenary Powers would be necessary to ensure that
the animal to which in 1778 Leske applied the trivial name unicolor
should be the type species of this genus, for, even if that was the first
of the originally included species to be selected by a later author to
be the type species of this genus (which appears probable from, but
is not clearly established in, the application submitted to the Commis-
sion), the type species of this genus would, under the Régles (Article 30,
Rule (d)), be Spatangus brissus Leske, 1778, by absolute tautonymy,
in view of the fact that the trivial name wnicolor was published by Leske
in the combination Spatangus brissus var unicolor. If it had not been
for the consideration indicated above, it would not have been necessary
to use the Plenary Powers to designate Spatagus purpureus Miller
(O.F.), 1776, as the type species of the genus Spatangus Gray, 1825,
for that nominal species (attributed, however, to Leske) was the sole
species then cited (: 430) by Gray under the generic name Spatangus
and would accordingly have been the type species by monotypy.

(3) Echinocardium Gray, 1825: This name is usually treated as
having been first published in 1825 by Gray (by whom it was doubtfully
attributed to van Phelsum), but, as pointed out in the application,
the term Echinocardium appears in Leske’s Additamenta of 1778 as a

388 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

translation of the Belgian expression ‘“‘ Egelhart ’’ used by van Phelsum.
In order, therefore, to obviate the risk of a claim later being advanced
that Leske used this word as a generic name and therefore that
Echinocardium Gray, 1825, is an invalid homonym, the conditional
use of the Plenary Powers under the formula “in so far as the use of
the Plenary Powers may be necessary ”’ is desirable to suppress the
name Echinocardium as used (and in so far as it was used) by Leske in
1778 as a generic name and to validate, in so far as necessary, the
generic name Echinocardium Gray, 1825. As regards the type species
of this genus, the Plenary Powers are certainly necessary to secure the
acceptance of Echinus cordatus Pennant, 1777, for that nominal species
was not cited by Gray (: 430) when he published the generic name
Echinocardium.

(4) Schizaster Agassiz (L.) [1836]: The name Schizaster Agassiz is
itself an available name, but the Plenary Powers are needed to secure
that Schizaster studeri Agassiz should be its type species, since although
that name (binominal combination) appears in Agassiz’s original
description of the genus Schizaster, it was then only a nomen nudum,
the trivial name in question not being published with an indication
until 1840 (Agassiz, 1840, Cat. Ect. Ech. : 3).

(5) Moira Agassiz (A.), 1872 : This name (which was published as a
substitute for the invalid homonym Moera Michelin, 1855), is an avail-
able name; the species, Spatangus atropos Lamarck, 1816, which is
commonly treated as its type species, is eligible for selection as such,
having been one of the species included by Michelin in his genus
Moera. Moreover, that species has certainly been selected as the type
species of this genus, e.g. by Clark (H.L.) in 1917 (Mem. Mus. comp.
Zool., 46 : 195). It is not clear, however, either whether this was the
first occasion on which this species was selected as the type species
or whether any of the other originally included species had previously
been so selected. In order to prevent any question being raised as to
the validity of the selection of this species as the type species of this
genus, it would be well, as in the case of the question of the availability
of the generic name Echinocardium Gray, 1825 (discussed in (3) above),
to use the Plenary Powers conditionally and “‘ to such extent as may be
necessary’ to set aside all selections of type species for the genus
Moira Agassiz, 1872, made prior to the selection of Spatangus atropos
Lamarck as such by Clark (H.L.) in 1917.

(6) Ova Gray, 1825: This name, wrongly attributed by Gray (: 431)
to van Phelsum, is an available name and the type species of the genus
so named is Spatangus canaliferus Lamarck, 1816, by monotypy.
The Plenary Powers are thus not required either to validate this name
or to secure that the species accepted as the type species of this genus
should in fact be its type species. This name was only included in the
present application because the type species of this genus had been
(erroneously) alleged by Lambert (1902) to be referable to the genus
Spatangus, as interpreted by that author.

OPINION 209 389

In the light of the foregoing conclusions, I have drafted the record
of the Commission’s decision in this case in the terms set forth in
Conclusion 36 of the Minutes of the 14th Meeting of the Paris Session,
at which it was discussed, those terms giving effect to the decision of
the Commission to meet the objects sought by Commissioner Mortensen
in the present application and at the same time involving, as desired
by the Commission, the minimum use of the Plenary Powers consistent
with securing the objects referred to above.

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

atropos, Spatangus, Lamarck, 1816, Hist. nat. Anim. s. Vertébr.
Bn: 3)

Brissus Leske, 1778, Addit. J. T. Klein Nat. Dispositio Echino-
dermat. : 29

Brissus Miller (O.F.), 1781, Zool. dan. (Danm. Norges Dyrs Hist.)
[Danish ed.] : 20

Brissus Modeer, 1793, K. Vet. Acad. Nya Handl., Stockholm 14 : 14

Brissus Link, Beschr..nat. Samml. Univ. Rostock 4 : 24

Brissus Oken, 1815, Lehrb. Naturgesch. 3(1) : 354

Brissus (emend. of Bryssus Dejean, 1821) Dahl, Col. u. Lepid. : 61

Brissus Gray (J.E.), Ann. Phil. 26 : 431

Bryssus Dejean, 1821, Cat. Coléopt. : 96

canaliferus, Spatangus, Lamarck, 1816, Hist. nat. Anim. s. Vertébr.
333

cordatus, Echinus, 1777, Pennant, Brit. Zool. (ed. 4) 4 : 58

Echinocardium Leske, 1778, Addit. J. T. Klein Nat. Dispositio
Echinodarmat. : 73

Echinocardium Gray, 1825, Ann. Phil. 26 : 430

Moera Michelin, 1855, Rev. Mag. Zool. (2)7 : 246

Moira Agassiz (A.), 1872, fll. Cat. Mus. Harvard 3(No. 7) : 146

Ova Gray (J.E.), 1825, Ann. Phil. 26 : 431

Prospatangus Lambert, 1902, Mém. géol. Soc. France (Pal.)9
No. 3)(Mem. 24) : 55

purpureus, Spatagus [sic], Muller (O.F.), 1776, Zool. dan. Prodr.
: 236

Schizaster Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1836, Mém. Soc. Sci. nat. Neuchatel
12185

Spatangus Leske, 1778, Addit. J. T. Klein Nat. Dispositio Echino-
dermat. : 230

Spatangus Modeer, 1793, K. Vet. Acad. Nya Handl., Stockholm
14:14

Spatangus Gray (J.E.), 1825, Ann. Phil. 26 : 430

390 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

studeri, Schizaster, Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1840, Cat. syst. Ectyp.
Echinodermat. Foss. Mus. Neocom. : 3

unicolor, Spatangus brissus var., Leske, 1778, Addit. J. T. Klein
Nat. Dispositio Echinodermat. : 248, pl. 26, figs. B, C.

13. The genders of the following generic names, referred to
in the decision quoted in paragraph 10 above, are :—
Brissus Gray, 1825 : masculine.
Echinocardium Gray, 1825 : neuter.
Spatangus Gray, 1825 : masculine.
Schizaster Agassiz (J.L.R.), [1836] ; masculine.
Moira Agassiz (A.), 1872 : feminine.
Ova Gray, 1825: feminine.

14. The decision taken in the present case was reported to, |
and approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Sixth Meeting
held on 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 117).

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

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

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

17. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the
present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion
of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species
was the expression “ trivial name ” and the Official List reserved
for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific
Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial’ appearing also in
the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and

OPINION 209 391

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

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

19. The present’ Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two
Hundred and Nine (209) of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

Done in London this Twenty-Third day of November, Nineteen
Hundred and Fifty-Three.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

FRANCIS HEMMING

Printed in England by Metcatre & Cooper L

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

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C™.G., CBE.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 3. Part 29. Pp. 393—400

OPINION 210

Addition of the specific name ciliaris Philippi, 1837, as
published in the combination Asterias ciliaris (Class
Asteroidea) to the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology (Opinion supplementary to Opinion 129)

a ae
shaadi
nner tts,

Oe LAO yy
oe, al } hb int OF y f Mt Noy
/ Gms" iy 1A,
/ od Sis NN
f, vy

( APR 29 1054
\\ VA i \ Med VU i _ - z

i
\
SS f 7 mn ry ary’ j
‘ ee RPE BD ‘ '

LONDON : —

Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
and
Sold on behalf of the International. Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
1954

Price Three Shillings

RR ARE St et SRN pO

Issued—8th March, 1954

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 210

A. The Officers of the Commission

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

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

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

B. The Members of the Commission

Class 1949

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

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

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

Dr. Th. MORTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark).

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

Class 1952

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Harold E. Vokes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.,
U.S.A.).

Class 1955

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

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

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

Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologisk Labora-
torium, Copenhagen, Denmark).

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

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

Mr. N. D. Riey (British Museum (Natural History), London, England).

Professor Ragnar SpARCK (Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen,
Denmark).

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

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

OPINION 210

ADDITION OF THE SPECIFIC NAME ‘CILIARIS ”
PHILIPPI, 1837, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION
** ASTERIAS CILIARIS ” (CLASS ASTEROIDEA) TO
THE ‘°° OFFICIAL LIST OF SPECIFIC NAMES IN
ZOOLOGY” (‘*OPINION ’? SUPPLEMENTARY
TO ‘** OPINION ” 129)

RULING :—The specific name ciliaris Philippi, 1837,
as published in the combination Asterias ciliaris (Class
Asteroidea), is hereby added to the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology, as Name No. 20.

I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Ruling given in the present Opinion completes the decision
reached by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature in Opinion 129 (1936, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 8)
: 32—33) on the third of the cases relating to disputed Echinoderm
names submitted to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the late Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets
Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen) under cover of a letter dated
17th November 1932. The arguments in regard to these cases
are set out in a paper by Dr. Mortensen entitled “ A Vote on
some Echinoderm Names” (Mortensen, October 1932, Ann.
Mag. nat. Hist. (10)10 : 345—368). The object of the application
so submitted was to secure the suppression by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, under its Plenary
Powers, of the generic name Bipinnaria Sars, 1835 (Beskr. Bergen-
ske Kyst. : 37), thereby providing a basis of availability for the
name Luidia Forbes, 1839 (Mem. werner. nat. Hist. Soc. 8(1) : 123),
a name which Dr. Mortensen stated had been unanimously
adopted by later workers.

APR 2 - 1954

396 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE

2. The present application was reported to the Commission
by the then Secretary (the late Dr. C. W. Stiles) in December 1932
in Circular Letter 230. In this Report Dr. Stiles advised in favour
of the grant of this application. In March 1935 Dr. Stiles reported
—in a further Circular Letter (C.L.295)—that his proposal had
received a favourable reception from those Members of the
Commission who had furnished statements of their views. Dr.
Stiles suggested that this case should be brought to a decision by
the Commission at the Session which it was then due to hold at
Lisbon in September of that year. At the Lisbon Session this
matter was considered at the Fourth Meeting of the Commission
when it was decided to suppress the name Bipinnaria Sars, 1835,
under the Plenary Powers (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Con-
clusion 2) (1942, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1:33). As already explained,
the decision on this case was embodied in Opinion 129 and pub-
lished in October 1936).

3. In May 1938 the documents relating to this and the seven
other cases comprised in the application submitted by Dr.
Mortensen in his paper entitled “ A Vote on some Echincderm
Names ’’ were transferred to the care of Mr. Francis Hemming
who in 1936 had been elected Secretary to the International
Commission in succession to Dr. Stiles. On receipt, these docu-
ments were given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.)18, but at
various later dates most of these cases were given separate
Registered Numbers in the Z.N.(S.) Series. The present case
was, however, retained in the File Z.N.(S.)18, for it appeared at
that time that the action required was complete.

4. At its Session heid in Paris in 1948 the International Com-
mission reviewed the stage reached as regards all the eight cases
submitted by Dr. Mortensen in 1932 (Paris Session, 14th Meeting,
Conclusion 32) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 509—514). As
regards the present case, the Commission took note (l.c. : 512)
that a decision had already been taken in Opinion 129 on the issue
expressly submitted by Dr. Mortensen. At the same time the
Acting President of the Paris Session (Mr. Francis Hemming, |
Secretary to the Commission) recalled that earlier during that
Session the Commission had agreed (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
4 : 270—271) to submit to the Thirteenth International Congress

OPINION 210 397

of Zoology, then also sitting in Paris, a recommendation that it
should establish an Official List of Specific Trivial Names in
Zoology (parallel to the existing Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology), on which should be inscribed, inter alia, the specific
trivial name (now, as explained in paragraph 9 below, termed
“ specific name ’’) of the type species of every genus, the name of
which was placed on the Official List of Generic Names, provided
that that name was an available name and was accepted by
specialists in the group concerned as being the oldest such name
for the species concerned and that, where the name in question,
although an available name, was not considered to be the oldest
such name for the species in question, the latter name and not the
_name of the type species should be placed upon the new Official
List. Mr. Hemming suggested that, as the Commission was en-
gaged in a review of Dr. Mortensen’s application in regard to
Echinoderm names with a view to completing as much as possible
the action required thereon, it would be convenient if it were now
to review its decision in the Luidia case from this point of view.
Continuing, Mr. Hemming said that the type species of the genus
Luidia Forbes, 1839, was, by monotypy, the nominal species
Luidia fragilissima Forbes, 1839 (Mem. werner. nat. Hist. Soc.
8(1) : 123), and that the name /fragilissima Forbes, 1839, was an
available name in the sense that it was neither an objective junior
homonym, nor an objective junior synonym, of some previously
published name. Dr. Mortensen and his colleagues had, however,
explained (Mortensen, 1932 : 350) that specialists were agreed in
considering the name Luidia fragilissima Forbes, 1839, a subjective
junior synonym of Asterias ciliaris Philippi, 1837 (Arch. f. Natur-
gesch. 3(1) : 194). Mr. Hemming accordingly suggested that,
in conformity with the decision to which he had referred, the
name ciliaris Philippi, 1837, as published in the combination
Asterias ciliaris, should be placed upon the Official List now
proposed to be established.

JiL—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
5, The foregoing proposal was considered by the International

Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Fourteenth

398 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi-
théatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 2030 hours.
The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Pro-
ceedings of the International Commission at the foregoing meeting
setting out the decision which it then reached in regard to the
present matter (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 32)
(1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 512—513) :—

THE COMMISSION :—
(1) took note :—

(a) that a decision on the third of the applications
submitted by Dr. Mortensen (Copenhagen) (re-
lating to the names Bipinnaria Sars, 1835, and
Luidia Forbes, 1839) (case (c)) had been taken
at the Session held at Lisbon in 1935 and that
the only action which now required to be taken
was to place on the Official List of Specific Trivial
Names the trivial name ciliaris Philippi, 1837
(as published in the binominal combination
Asterias ciliaris), that being the oldest available
trivial name of a species subjectively identified by
specialists with the species bearing the trivial
name fragilissima Forbes, 1839 (as published in
the binominal combination Luidia fragilissima),
the type species of the genus Luidia Forbes, 1839,
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology in Opinion 129 rendered by the Com-
mission in consequence of the decision referred
to above ;

(2) agreed, with reference to (1)(a) above, to place the trivial
name ciliaris Philippi, 1837 (as published in the bi-
nominal combination Asterias ciliaris) on the Official
List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ;

OPINION 210 399

6. The original reference for the name placed on the Official

List of Specific Names in Zoology under the foregoing decision
1S :—

ciliaris, Asterias, Philippi, 1837, Arch. f. Naturgesch. 3(1) : 194

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

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

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

9. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the
_ present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion
of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species
was the expression “trivial name” and the Official List reserved
for recording such names was’styled the Official List of Specific
Triviai Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial’? appearing also
in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected
and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by
the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen,
1953, the expression “specific name’ was substituted for the
expression “trivial name” and corresponding changes were
made in the tities of the Official List and Official Index of such
names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The
changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in
the Ruling given in the present Opinion.

400 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

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

11. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two
Hundred and Ten (210) of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

Dong in London this Twenty-Third day of November, Nineteen
Hundred and Fifty-Three.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

FRANCIS HEMMING

NOTE TO SUBSCRIBERS

The present volume will be complete with the publication of two
concluding Parts (Parts 30 and 31) which will appear shortly.

Part 30 will contain a Direction (Direction 1) relating to the placing
on the appropriate Official Lists and Official Indexes of the scientific
names and the titles of books dealt with in the first thirteen Opinions
(Opinions 182—194) included in the present volume, all of which
were rendered prior to the establishment of the Lists and Indexes
concerned by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris,
1948. The foregoing Direction is issued under a General Directive
- given by the Paris Congress that previously issued Opinions should be
completed in this way.

Part 31 will contain the Subject Index to the present Volume,
together with the Title Page and Table of Contents.

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

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

Edited by
FRANCIS. HEMMING, c.M.G., CBE.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 3. Part 30. Pp. 401—416

DIRECTION 1

Addition to the Official Lists and Official Indexes of
certain scientific names and of the titles of certain books
dealt with in Opinions 182 to 194

\THSOW SS
o* ‘dy
JUN15 1954

LONDON :

Issued 21st April, 1954

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 1

A. The Officers of the Commission

Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History),
Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England)

President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.,
U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)

Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (({2th
August 1953)

Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948)

B. The Members of the Commission

(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent
re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)

Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The
Netherlands) (Ast January 1947)

Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948)

Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)

Dr. Joseph Pearson (Tasmania Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th
July 1948)

Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark)
(27th July 1948)

Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (A7th April 1950)

Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)

Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th
June 1950)

Protessor Tadeusz Jaczewski Unstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences,
Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950)

Professor Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg,
Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950)

Professor Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat
zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950)

Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (42th August 1953) (Vice-
President)

Professor J. R. Dymond (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August
1953)

Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th
August 1953) (President)

Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland,
U.S.A.) (A2th August 1953)

Professor Béla Hanko (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (12th August 1953)

Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York,
N.Y., U.S.A. (12th August 1953)

Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th
August 1953)

Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether-
lands) (12th August 1953)

DIRECTION 1

ADDITION TO THE “ OFFICIAL LISTS ”? AND “* OFFICIAL |
INDEXES ” OF CERTAIN SCIENTIFIC NAMES AND
OF THE TITLES OF CERTAIN BOOKS DEALT
WITH IN ‘** OPINIONS ” 182 TO 194

RULING :—(1) The under-mentioned specific names
dealt with in the Opinions severally specified below are
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology as Names Nos. 150 to 157 respectively :—
(a) mantis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combina-
tion Cancer mantis (specific name, by designation under
the Plenary Powers, of Squilla Fabricius, 1787) (Class
Crustacea, Order Stomatopoda) (Opinion 186) ; (b) gigas
Burmeister, 1835, as published in the combination
Hypselopus gigas (specific name type species of Hypselopus
Burmeister, 1835) (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera)
(Opinion 187) (c) arietans Merrem (B), 1820, as published
in the combination Vipera (Echidna) arietans (specific
name of type species, by designation under the Plenary
Powers, of Bitis Gray, 1842) (Class Reptilia, Order
Squamata) (Opinion 188); (d) noae Linnaeus, 1758, as
published in the combination Arca noae (specific name
of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers,
of Arca Linnaeus, 1758) (Class Pelecypoda, Order
Filibranchiata) (Opinion 189); (e) alta Williams (H.S.),
1890, as published in the combination Rhynchonella alta
(Class Brachiopoda) (Opinion 190); (f) laevigata Bru-
guiere, 1789, as published in the combination Camerina
laevigata (specific name of type species of Nummulites
Lamarck, 1801) (Class Rhizopoda, Order Foraminifera)
(Opinion 192); (g) praeceps Parks, 1931, as published
in the combination Tetragonosaurus praeceps (specific
name of type species of Procheneosaurus Matthew, 1920)
(Class Reptilia, Order Ornithischia) (Opinion 193) ;
(h) tibeticum Griesbach, 1880, as published in the
combination Ophiceras tibeticum (specific name of type
species of Ophiceras Griesbach, 1880) (Class Cephalopoda,
Order Ammonoidea) (Opinion 194).

404 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

(2) The under-mentioned generic names dealt with in
the Opinions severally specified below are hereby placed
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 139 to 149 res-
pectively :—(a) the following names suppressed under the
Plenary Powers for the purposes both of the Law of
Priority and of the Law of Homonymy :—(@) Squilla
Gronovius, 1760; (41) Squilla Gronovius, 1764; (ai)
Squilla Miller (O.F.), 1776; (Gv) Squilla Scopoli, 1777 ;
(v) Squilla Fabricius (O.), 1780; (vi) Squilla Fabricius
(J.C.), 1781; (vii) Squilla, any other use of, prior to
Fabricius, 1787 (Opinion 186) ; (b) Cobra Laurenti, 1768,
as suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the purposes
of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of
Homonymy (Opinion 188) ; (c) Camerina Bruguiére, 1789,
as suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the purposes
of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of
Homonymy (Opinion 192); (d) Tetragonosaurus Parks,
1931 (not available, because not published in accordance
with the provisions of Proviso (c) to Article 25) (Opinion
193); (e) Ophiceras Suess, 1965, as suppressed under
the Plenary Powers for the purposes both of the Law of
Priority and for those of the Law of Homonymy (Opinion
194).

(3) The under-mentioned reputed specific name is
hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
_ Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 76 :—alta
Calvin [about 1878], in the combination Rhynchonella
alta (a cheironym) (Opinion 190).

(4) The titles of the under-mentioned works are hereby
placed as Works Nos. 21 to 23 respectively on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological
Nomenclature to the extent severally indicated below :—
(a) Martini (F.H.W.) & Chemnitz (J.H.), 1769—1795,
Neues Systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet, all new specific
names and names of lower rank declared invalid (Opinion
184); (b) Bohadsch (J.B.), 1761, De quibusdam Ani-
malibus marinis, suppressed for all purposes under the
Plenary Powers (Opinion 185) ; (c) Bohadsch (J.B.), 1776,

DIRECTION 1 405

_ De quibusdam Animalibus marinis (Leske’s ed.), suppressed
_ for all purposes under the Plenary Powers (Opinion 185).

I—INTRODUCTORY

At the beginning of 1954 Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
_ reviewed the action taken to give effect to the decisions in regard
to further action respecting individual names adopted by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its
Session held in Paris in 1948. The decisions in question included
requests to the Secretary to the Commission that he :—(1)
should investigate, and report upon twenty-eight individual
cases of nomenclature, action on which was deferred for this
purpose ; (2) should prepare Opinions on the ninety individual
cases on which decisions were taken in Paris ; (3) should examine
Opinions already rendered by the Commission with a view to
the preparation of Schedules to be annexed to the Reégles
containing particulars of decisions taken by the Commission in
those Opinions in regard to individual scientific names and the
titles of individual books. By the end of 1953 the position as
regards the foregoing matters was as follows :—(a) Preliminary
Reports on the twenty-eight cases referred to in (1) above had
been published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (volume
7) in 1952 ; decisions had already been reached upon a number of
these cases and it seemed likely that in 1954 the remainder would
have reached a stage at which it would be possible to submit
recommendations to the Commission. (b) The preparation of
Opinions giving effect to the Paris decisions on individual cases
had not been found possible so long as the Honorary Secretary
was working in a spare-time capacity, but the situation in this
matter was materially changed when in 1953 Mr. Hemming
retired from the United Kingdom Civil Service and began to
work for the Commission as a whole-time Honorary Secretary.
In consequence, as soon as the work Copenhagen Decisions on
Zoological Nomenclature had been delivered to the printer, it
was possible in the autumn of 1953 for the Secretary to turn his
attention to the preparation of the Paris Opinions, and by the

406 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

end of the year over seventy of these had been completed. (c) No
action had, however, been taken by the end of 1953 to extract
from the pre-1948 Opinions the material needed for the construction
of the Schedules to the Régles referred to in (3) above. Mr.
Hemming concluded, therefore, that it was desirable that a start
should be made with the foregoing task.

2. The decisions taken by the Fourteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, greatly to extend the
system represented by Official Lists of available names and of
available books and Official Indexes of rejected and invalid
names and of rejected and invalid works (i.e., books and papers)
somewhat modified the form of the Schedules needed to give
effect to the decisions of the Paris (1948) Congress, for under
the system inaugurated by the Paris Congress and greatly extended
by the Copenhagen Congress every decision previously taken by
the Commission would find its place in one or other of the
Official Lists and Official Indexes. Accordingly, the task entrusted
to the Secretary in this matter by the Paris Congress had become
one of compiling proposals for the addition to the Official Lists
and Official Indexes of entries recording decisions already taken
by the Commission but not hitherto recorded in this manner.

3. At the end of the year 1953 the Commission had rendered
two hundred and sixty-three (263) Opinions of which one hundred
and ninety-four (194) had been published and the remainder—
all of which embodied decisions taken in Paris in 1948—were in
the press. The Rulings given in the Paris Opinions contained the
requisite decisions for the placing of names and the titles of books
on the various Official Lists and Official Indexes. In consequence,
the review required was concerned only with Opinions 1—194.
It was decided for the purpose of this review to divide these
Opinions into two main groups: (a) Opinions 1 to 133, and (b)
Opinions 134 to 194. The first one hundred and thirty-three
Opinions were rendered at a time when it was not deemed essential
to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology every
generic name which the Commission might validate or rule to be
available, and when it was not customary for the Commission to
cite in its Opinions full bibliographical references for the names
dealt with. On the other hand the sixty-one Opinions numbered
134—194, which embodied the decisions taken by the Commission

DIRECTION | 407

at Lisbon in 1935 and the decisions taken after the Lisbon Session
but before the Paris Session of 1948, had been compiled on
principles broadly similar to those prescribed by the Paris
Congress. It was evident therefore that the task of preparing
proposals for the incorporation in the Schedules to be attached to
the Régles of entries embodying the decisions taken in the first
of these groups of Opinions would be much more laborious than
that involved in relation to the second group. It was deemed
desirable therefore that the prescribed review should start with the
second of these groups. It was further decided that for the
purpose of this review the Opinions concerned should be examined
in the reverse order to that in which they had been published.
By this means a solid block of decisions, each embodying rulings
on all the matters prescribed by the Congress would be built up
which would be coterminous with the decisions taken in Paris
in 1948, the Opinions on which had been prepared in accordance
with the instructions given by that Congress. The desirability
of conducting the required review in the foregoing order was
enhanced by the fact that the post-Lisbon Opinions (Opinions
182—194) formed part of volume 3 of the work Opinions and
Declarations which with the publication of the first two instalments
of the Paris Opinions, would be complete and would be in need
of a Subject Index—which could not be prepared in a complete
form until after the review of Opinions 182—194 prescribed by
the Congress.

Il.—THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT
* DIRECTION ”

4. On 27th January 1954 Mr. Hemming submitted to the
International Commission a memorandum in which he recalled
the decisions taken by the Paris Congress in regard to the con-
struction of Schedules—for attachment to the Régles—giving
particulars of decisions on individual names and on individual
books announced in Opinions previously rendered by the
Commission and explained the procedure which it was proposed
should be adopted for carrying out the prescribed review of the
Opinions in question. With this memorandum Mr. Hemming

408 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

submitted for the consideration of the Commission the proposals
which in the light of his review he had prepared in relation to
Opinions 182—194 (the post-Lisbon, but pre-Paris Opinions). These
proposals were prepared in the form of a Draft Direction which,
for the convenience of Commissioners was arranged by reference to
the Opinions in which decisions had been taken on the names
concerned. It was intended, however, that, when a decision had
been given by the Commission, the subject matter of that decision
should be regrouped so as to bring together the decisions taken
in regard to the placing of additional entries on each of the
Official Lists and Official Indexes concerned, a note being added,
however, against each name of the Opinion to which it was
related. The Draft Direction so submitted was as follows :—

DRAFT DIRECTION

Addition to the ‘* Official Lists ’’ and ‘‘ Official Indexes ”’ of
certain scientific names and of the titles of certain books
dealt with in ‘‘ Opinions ’’ 182 to 194

The following scientific names and titles of books dealt with in
Opinions 182 to 194 are hereby added to the Official List or Official
Index noted, below, in accordance with the General Directive issued
to the International Commission by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, that it should insert in the foregoing
Lists and Indexes entries relating to generic and specific names and to
books dealt with in Opinions rendered prior to the Paris Session :—

OPINION 182: (1) The following entry is to be made in the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : Clymenia
Munster, 1832, terms for subdivisions published in, by Gumbel
(C.W.) in 1863 not available as from that date as subgeneric names.
The following entry is to be made in the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology: Clymenia Minster, 1832, terms published in the
nominative plural by Giimbel (C.W.) for subdivisions of, to rank for
priority as from their publication in the nominative singular by Hyatt
in 1883, and the latter author is to be treated as the author of these
names.!

OPINION 184: The following entry is to be made in the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature :
Martini (F.H.W.) and Chemnitz (J.H.), 1769—1795, Neues Sys-
tematisches Conchylien Cubinet, Volumes 1—11, all new specific names
and names of lower rank.?

1 See Note 1. (Reproduced in para. 5.)
2 See Note 3. (Reproduced in para. 5.)

DIRECTION 1 409

OPINION 185: The following entry is to be made in the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature :
Bohadsch (J.B.), 1761, De quibusdam Animalibus marinis.

OPINION 186: (1) The following entries are to be made in the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—
(a) Squilla Gronovius, 1760; (b) Squilla Miiller (O.F.), 1776; (c)
Squilla Scopoli, 1777; (d) Squilla Fabricius (O.), 1780; (e) Squilla,
any other use of, prior to Fabricius (J.C.), 1787. (2) The following
name is to be added to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :
mantis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cancer mantis.

OPINION 187: The following entry is to be made in the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology: gigas Burmeister, 1835, as
published in the combination Hypselopus gigas.

OPINION 188: (1) The following entry is to be made in the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: Cobra
Laurenti, 1768. (2) The following entry is to be made in the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology: arietans Merrem (B.), 1820 as
published in the combination Vipera (Echidna) arietans.

OPINION 189: The following entry is to be made in the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology : noae Linnaeus, 1758, as published
in the combination Arca noae.

OPINION 190: (1) The following entry 1s to be made in the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology : alta Calvin,
[about 1878], in the combination Rhynchonella alta, a cheironym.
(2) The following entry is to be made in the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology: alia Williams (H.S.), 1890, as published in the
combination Rhynchonella alta.8

OPINION 192: (i) The following entry is to be made in the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : Camerina
Bruguiére, 1789. (2) The following entry is to be made in the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology: laevigata Bruguiére, 1789, as
published in the combination Camerina laevigata.

OPINION 193: (1) The following entry is to be made in the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology : praeceps Parks, 1931, as published
in the combination Tetragonosaurus praeceps Parks, 1931. (2) The
following entry is to be made in the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : Tetragonosaurus Parks, 1931.

OPINION 194: (1) The following entry is to be made in the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : Ophiceras

3 See Note 4. (Reproduced in para. 5.)

410 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

Suess, 1865. (2) The following entry is to be made in the Official List
of Specific Names in Zoology : tibeticum Griesbach, 1880, as published
in the combination Ophiceras tibeticum.

5. The following explanatory notes were submitted to the
Commission at the same time as the Draft Direction reproduced
in the immediately preceding paragraph. The purpose of these
notes was twofold : (1) to explain why no action was required on
certain of the Opinions numbered 182 to 194; (2) to draw
attention to the provisional character of, or to defects in, certain
of the Opinions concerned which called for further decisions from
the Commission before the names dealt with in those Opinions
could be placed on the appropriate Official List or Official
Index :—

Notes annexed to Draft Direction

Note 1 : Opinion 182 is incomplete in the sense that, although it deals,
in part, with the generic name Clymenia Munster, 1832, it contains
no Ruling on the question of the availability of that name. At Paris
in 1948 the Commission agreed (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 355),
on the suggestion of Professor H. Boschma, that the Rulings given in
Opinions should cover the whole field and that steps should be taken
to fill gaps in existing Opinions arising from the foregoing cause. A
proposal regarding the name Clymenia Miinster, 1832, will therefore,
be submitted as soon as possible (File Z.N.(S.) 799).

Note 2: No action in the present context is required in regard to
Opinion 183, which is concerned entirely with a question of the
interpretation of the Régles.

Note 3: No proposal is here submitted in regard to the status of new
generic names published in volumes 1—11 of Martini and Chemnitz,
Neues systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet, for the Ruling given in
Opinion 184 was expressly stated to be an interim Ruling, pending a
decision being taken as to the interpretation of Proviso (b) to Article 25.
A decision on this latter question was taken in 1948, and it will be
necessary, therefore, to review the question of the status of new generic
names published in the foregoing work. A proposal on this subject
will, therefore, be submitted as soon as possible (File Z.N.(S.) 800).

Note 4: As in the case of Opinion 182 (see Note 1 above), the Ruling
given in Opinion 190 is incomplete, for it contains no decision on the
status of the name Rhynchonella as from the date on which that name
was first validly published (by Fischer de Waldheim in 1809). A

DIRECTION 1] 411

proposal on this subject will be submitted as soon as possible (File
Z.N.(S.) 801).

Note 5: No action in the present context is required in regard to

Opinion 191, which is concerned entirely with an interpretation of

Article 25, which will appear in the revised text of the Rég/es.

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

6. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(54)5: Concurrently with the
submission of the Draft Direction and the Explanatory Notes
reproduced respectively in paragraphs 4 and 5 above, a Call for
a Vote, numbered Voting Paper V.P.(54)5, was issued under the
One-Month Rule. In this Voting Paper, each Member of the
Commission was asked (1) to state whether he agreed “ that, in
conformity with the General Directive relating to the recording
on the various Official Lists and Official Indexes of decisions in
regard to particular names and particular books taken by the
Commission prior to 1948, issued to the International Commission
by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948,
the entries recording such desisions taken in Opinions 182 to 194
specified in the Draft Direction annexed to the Statement
submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present
Voting Paper, should be made, as proposed, in the Official Lists
and Official Indexes concerned ”’, and, (2) if he did not so agree
as regards any given item, to indicate the item concerned.

7. Modification of the proposals submitted in respect of Opinions
182 and 186: On 9th February 1954 Commissioner L. B.
Holthuis addressed a letter to the Secretary containing suggestions
for modifying the action proposed in Voting Paper V.P.(54)5 for
the codification of the Rulings given in Opinions 182 (Clymenia
Minster) and 186 (Sguilla Fabricius). Consideration of Com-
missioner Holthuis’ letter led the Secretary on 16th February
to execute the following Minute modifying, as shown below, the
proposals which he had submitted in respect of the foregoing
Opinions. On the same day the decision so taken was notified
by the Secretary to Commissioner Holthuis.

412 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

Voting Paper V.P.(54)5 : Supplementary Minute by the Secretary

Correspondence which I have had with Commissioner Holthuis since
the issue of Voting Paper V.P.(54)5 has led me to the conclusion that
it would be better temporarily to defer the codification of the Ruling
given in Opinion 182 (Clymenia). In addition, Commissioner Holthuis
has suggested—and I agree—that it would promote clarity if a slight
amplification were to be made in the measures proposed for the
codification of the Ruling given in Opinion 186 (Squilla). The sugges-
tions so made and the action proposed are explained in the following
paragraphs.

(1) Opinion 182: It has been suggested that it would be more
convenient (a) to substitute on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology a list of the rejected Gimbel names
in place of the suggested general entry relating to these names, and (b)
to defer making an entry on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology until, as suggested in Note |] submitted with the Draft Direction,
a decision has been taken on the proposal, foreshadowed in that Note,
for the addition of this generic name to the foregoing Official List. 1
agree that this would be a more satisfactory procedure, and I
accordingly hereby withdraw the proposal submitted in Voting Paper
V.P.(54)5 relating to Opinion 182.

(2) Opinion 186: It has been pointed out that it was only because
of the then existing provisions of Proviso (a) to Article 25 of the
Reégles that in this Opinion the name Squilla Fabricius, 1787, was
preferred to the name Squilla Fabricius, 1781, a name at that time
invalid because not published with an “indication”. Through
an oversight on my part, the name Squilla Fabricius, 1781, was
not expressly cited for addition to the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology in the proposal submitted
in Voting Paper V.P.(54)5, though it is, in fact, covered by the
general proposal for the addition to that Index of the entry
‘* Squilla, any other use of, prior to Fabricius (J.C.), 1787 ”. It
has been suggested that, since all known uses of the name Squilla
Fabricius prior to Fabricius, 1787, are to be listed separately in
this Index, it would be preferable if there were to be a separate
entry for Squilla Fabricius, 1781. I fully agree with Commissioner
Holthuis’ suggestion on this point, for, since under the decision taken
by the Commission in this Opinion, all uses of the generic name Squilla
prior to Squilla Fabricius, 1787, have been suppressed under the
Plenary Powers, the separate enumeration of Squilla Fabricius, 1781,
adds nothing which is not comprised in that decision but on the
other hand has the advantage that it forestalls any possible misunder-
standing of that decision. An exactly parallel situation arises in
connection with another pre-1787 usage of the name Squilla, namely
that by Gronovius in 1764 in volume 2 of his Zoophylacium gronovianum,
a usage which has attracted a certain amount of attention through its

Ce ge A

DIRECTION 1 413

having been cited by Sherborn (1902, Index Anim., Pars prima: 926).
It is my intention therefore, when preparing the Ruling required to
give effect to the present Direction, to include, as a matter of drafting, a
specific reference both to Squilla Gronovius, 1764, and to Squilla
Fabricius, 1781. —

8. The prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting
Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the prescribed
Voting Period closed on Sth March 1954.

9. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)5: The
state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)5 at the close of the
prescribed Voting Period was as follows :—

(a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following nineteen
(19) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes
were received) : |

Riley ; Lemche ; Vokes ; Hering ; Holthuis® ;
Dymond; Hanko; Cabrera; Sylvester-Bradley ;
Pearson; Hemming; Esaki; Boschma®; Bonnet ;
do Amaral; Bradley (J.C.); Stoll; Mertens ;
Jaczewski.

(b) Negative Votes :
None ;

10. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 9th March 1954, Mr.
Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as
Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(54)5,
signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph

* See paragraph 7.

> In his Voting Paper dated 24th February 1954, Commissioner Boschma
associated himself with the comment on the proposal relating to Opinion 182
previously made by Commissioner Holthuis.

414 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS |

9 above and declaring that, subject to the modifications specified |
in paragraph 7 above, the proposal submitted in the foregoing
Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so
taken was the decision of the International Commission in the
matter aforesaid.

11. On 9th March 1954, Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling
given in the present Direction and at the same time signed a
Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord
with those of the proposal approved by the International
Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)5, subject to the
modifications as respects Opinions 182 and 186 specified in the
Minute by the Secretary, dated 16th February 1954, reproduced
in paragraph 7 of the present Direction.

12. The following are the original references for the names
which appear in the Ruling given in the present Direction :—

alta, Rhynchonella, Williams (H.S.), 1890, Bull. geol. Soc. Amer.
1: 495, pl. 12, figs. 5—7

arietans, Vipera (Echidna), Merrem (B.), 1820, Tent. Syst. Amph. :
S52

Camerina Bruguiere, 1789, Ency. méth. (Vers) (1): xvi

Cobra Laurenti, 1768, Specimen medicum : 103

gigas, Hypselopus, Burmeister, 1835, Handb. Ent. 2(1) : 329

laevigata, Camerina, Bruguiére, 1789, Ency. méth. (Vers) (2): 399

mantis, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 633

noae, Arca, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 693

Ophiceras Suess, 1865, Anz. Akad. Wiss. Wien 2 (No. 17): 112

praeceps, Tetragonosaurus, Parks, 1931, Univ. Toronto Stud.
(Geol. Ser.) 31: 1—1]1, pl. 1—3

Squilla Gronovius, 1760, Acta helv. 4: 38

Squilla Gronovius, 1764, Zoophylac. gronoyv. 2: 232

Squilla Miller (O.F.), 1776, Zool. dan. Prodr. : 197

Squilla Scopohi, 1777, Introd. Hist. nat. : 405

Squilla Fabricius (O.), 1780, Fauna groenl. : 248

Squilla Fabricius (J.C.), 1781, Spec. Ins. 1: 514

Tetragonosaurus Parks, 1931, Univ. Toronto Stud. (Geol. Ser.)
31: 1—11

tibeticum, Ophiceras, Griesbach, 1880, Rec. geol. Surv. Ind. 13:
109, pl. 3, fig. 4

DIRECTION 1 415

13. The present Direction is hereby rendered in the name of
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by
the undersigned Francis Hemming, Secretary to the said
Commission, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred
upon him in that behalf.

14. The present Direction shall be known as Direction One (1)
of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

DONE in London, this Ninth day of March, Nineteen Hundred
and Fifty-Four.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

FRANCIS HEMMING

Bie hy
>:

; a
¢
hae ae es
‘ Phen k
Y fal a
‘ j a)
i
. Heli
4 he
.
J =
:
:
2
-

Printed in England by MrETCALFE

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

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

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 3. Part 31. Pp. 417—426

DIRECTION 3
Determination of the gender to be attributed to certain
generic names placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology by the Rulings given in Opinions 182 to 194

LONDON :

Issued 10th August, 1954

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 3

A. The Officers of the Commission

Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History),
Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England)

President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.,
U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)

Vice-President: Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th
August 1953)

Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948)

B. The Members of the Commission

(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent
re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)

Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The
Netherlands) (Ast January 1947)

Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948)

Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)

Dr. Joseph Pearson (Tasmania Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th
July 1948)

Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark)
(27th July 1948)

Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950)

Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)

Se eee Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th
une

Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (nstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences,
Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950)

Professor Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg,
Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (Sth July 1950)

Professor Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat
zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950) |

Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-
President)

eae J. R. Dymond (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August

Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th
August 1953) (President)

Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland,
U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)

Professor Béla Hanké (Mezogazdasagi Muzeum Budapest, Hungary) (12th
August 1953)

Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York,
N.Y., U.S.A. (12th August 1953)

Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th
August 1953)

Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether-
lands) (A2th August 1953)

DIRECTION 3

DETERMINATION OF THE GENDER TO BE ATTRI-
BUTED TO CERTAIN GENERIC NAMES PLACED ON
THE ‘ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN
ZOOLOGY ” BY THE RULINGS GIVEN IN
‘* OPINIONS ” 182 TO 194

RULING : (1) The gender to be attributed to each of
the under-mentioned generic names dealt with in the
Opinions severally noted below is hereby determined as
being the masculine gender :—(a) Hypselopus Burmeister,
1835 (Opinion 187); (b) Nummulites Lamarck, 1801
(Opinion 192); (c) Procheneosaurus Matthew, 1920
(Opinion 193).

(2) The gender to be attributed to each of the under-
mentioned generic names dealt with in the Opinions
severally noted below is hereby determined as being the
feminine gender :—(a) Squilla Fabricius, 1787 (Opinion
186); (b) Bitis Gray, 1842 (Opinion 188); (c) Arca
Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 189).

(3) The gender to be attributed to the generic name
Ophiceras Griesbach, 1880, dealt with in Opinion 194
is hereby determined as being the neuter gender.

I.—THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT
** DIRECTION ”

On 12th May 1954 Mr. Francis Hemming, as Secretary,
submitted to the International Commission the following pro-
posals relating to the gender to be attributed to certain generic
names placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
by Rulings given in Opinions 182 to 194, decisions on this question
being needed in order to complete the review of those of the
Opinions included in volume 3 of the present series which were
rendered before July 1948, in accordance with the General
Directive relating to the review by the Commission of Opinions

420 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

rendered by it prior to the foregoing date, given to it by the
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948. The
present Direction completes the review by the Commission of the
Rulings given in the foregoing Opinions. The previous series of
decisions has been embodied in Direction 1.4

Gender to be attributed to seven generic names placed on the ‘* Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ in ‘‘ Opinions ”’ 186 to 189
and 192 to 194

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

In submitting the Index prepared for Volume 3 of the work Opinions
and Declarations, Miss Joan Kelley, B.Sc., the Commission’s Indexer,
has drawn my attention to the fact that so far the Commission has
not assigned a gender to the following seven generic names placed on
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in Opinions 187 to 189
and 192 to 194 :—(1) Squilla Fabricius, 1787 (Opinion 186); (2)
Hypselopus Burmeister, 1835 (Opinion 187); (3) Bitis Gray, 1842
(Opinion 188); (4) Arca Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 189); (5) Num-
mulites Lamarck, 1801 (Opinion 192) ; (6) Procheneosaurus Matthew,
1920 (Opinion 193) ; (7) Ophiceras Griesbach, 1880 (Opinion 194).

2. Proposals in regard to the foregoing matter should have been
included in the submission made with Voting Paper V.P.(54) 5? issued
on Sth February last, and I regret that through an oversight this was
not done. It is important that this omission should now be rectified
as quickly as possible, since until this is done, it will not be possible
to publish the Index and Title Page for volume 3.

3. The words of which the generic names enumerated in paragraph
1 above consist are either genuine Latin words or barbarous words in
- Latin form or arbitrary combinations of letters constituting synthetic
neo-Latin words. In no case is there any doubt as to the gender to be
attributed to the word concerned, though in the case of the word
Nummulites there have been differences in. practice among specialists
in the group concerned. In this case, I have consulted (1) Dr. L. R.
Cox (British Museum (Natural History) London), (2) through Dr. Cox,
Dr. W. A. Macfadyen, the well-known authority on the Foraminifera
(who with E. J. A. Kenny published in 1934 a paper on the gender of
names in this group) and (3) Professor L. R. Grensted, the noted

1 Direction 1 (here referred to) has been published as Part 30 of the present
volume (: 401—416). Direction 2, which has been published as Part 52 of
volume 2 (: 613—628) of the present work, contains the first instalment of the
decisions taken by the Commission, when reviewing the Rulings given in the
Opinions included in that volume.

The Voting Paper here referred to is the Voting Paper on which the decision
later embodied in Direction 1 was taken by the Commission.

is)

DIRECTION 3 AD

scholar, who for some years has kindly acted as Honorary Classical
Adviser to the Commission. It will be seen from the letters received
from these authorities (reproduced in the Annexe attached) that all
are agreed that the correct gender for the foregoing name is masculine,
and further are of the opinion that adherence to this gender is
desirable.

4. The proposal now submitted is that the Commission should give
a Ruling that the genders to be accepted for the generic names
specified in paragraph 1 above, being names which have been placed
on the Official List in the Opinions there cited, are as follows :—

(1) Masculine gender :—Hypselopus Burmeister, 1835 ; Nummulites
Lamarck, 1801 ; Procheneosaurus Matthew, 1920 ;

(2) Feminine gender :—Squilla Fabricius, 1787; Bitis Gray, 1842 ;
Arca Linnaeus, 1758 ;

(3) Neuter gender : Ophiceras Griesbach, 1880.

ANNEXE
Question of the gender of the name ‘‘ Nummulites ’’ Lamarck, 1801
DOCUMENT 1

Advice received from Dr. L. R. COX
(letter dated 29th April 1954)

This seems to be rather a controversial question. Lamarck, when
founding the genus, treated the name as feminine, as did also d’Archiac
in his classical monograph on the Nummulites (1850), and a number
of later workers, including P. Rozlozsnik in his “ Einleitung in das
Studium der Nummulinrn und Assilinen’’? (1927). On the other
hand most modern authors seem to treat the name as masculine, and
I should regard it as masculine, as it must be derived from the
masculine word “ nummulus ”’ with the addition of “ urns’, meaning
‘‘ of the nature of’. W. A. Macfadyen has called my attention to a
paper by himself and E. J. A. Kenny in the Journ. R. Microsc. Soc.,
vol. 54 (1934), pp. 177—181, entitled ‘‘ On the correct writing in form
and gender of the names of the Foraminifera ”’, in which it is main-
tained that all names ending in “ites”? should be regarded as
masculine, but I think that this is very controversial and other authors
have not agreed with it. In one recent paper on Nummulites which
I have consulted successive specific names have masculine and feminine
terminations respectively, so that the author seems to have adopted
an attitude of impartiality. This seems to be a case in which the
Commission should use its dictatorial powers, and in my opinion
Nummulites should be declared a masculine name.

422 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

DOCUMENT 2

Advice received from Dr. W. A. MACFADYEN
(letter dated \st May 1954 addressed to Dr. L. R. Cox)

The two references I mentioned to you were: (a) W. A. Macfadyen
and E. J. A. Kenny, 1934, “‘ The correct writing in form and gender of
the names of the Foraminifera’? J. Roy. Microscop. Soc. 44 : 177—
181 (specially pp. 177—8) ; and (b) A. Silvestri, 1939, ‘“‘ Foraminiferi
dell’Eocene della Somalia. Parte II’. Pal. italica, 32: Suppl. 4
(bottom of p. 2 of separate (= p. 80), and footnote 3 on same page).

Kenny’s view as a classical scholar was that the ending ites was
definitely masculine. I have now looked through a voluminous cor-
respondence I had with Kenny and others about our paper before
publication, but this particular point does not seem to have been
queried by anyone. Our critics included Glover (then Public Orator
at Cambridge), W. D. Lang, d’Arcy Thompson, and H. D. Thomas.
Silvestri quotes Neumayr, 1899 as getting quite hot about it, and
writing that those who consider it feminine are insensate, barbarous and
arbitrary.

Silvestri considers it feminine, writing that to adopt it as masculine
is contrary to the common rules of the Latin language. The matter
would thus seem to resolve itself into a difference of opinion between
classical scholars, which a man of science is not competent to decide.
Surely classical scholars ought to be capable of deciding it ?

The number of authors using Nummulites as masculine or feminine
seems roughly equal. Silvestri lists rather more using it as feminine,
but he omits many names of those using it as masculine by lumping
them nameless as followers of Henri Douvillé. Many of the more
modern authors are thus omitted. They include Boussac 1911, etc.,
Doncieux 1926, Arni 1935, de Cizancourt 1930, etc., Nuttall 1925, etc.,
L.-M. Davies 1927, 1930, Llueca 1929, Vredenburg 1909, Cotter 1914,
Henson 1948. Older writers using it as masculine and omitted by
Silvestri include Tallavignes 1848, Leymerie 1844, Risso 1826, Tellini
1888, Conrad 1846, Deshayes 1838, 1848.

There is a similarity of usage in the gender of Orbitolites. Of other
generic names in ites, I have only noticed a few, with few species, mostly
not ascertainably masculine or feminine inflected.

It certainly seems up to Classital scholars to decide the matter from the
form of the word.

DIRECTION 3 423

DOCUMENT 3

Advice received from Professor L. R. GRENSTED, Honorary Classical
Adviser to the Commission

(letter dated Sth May 1954)

I think there can be no doubt that Nummulites should be regarded
as masculine. The word is clearly a barbarism, compounded of the
Latin nummulus (masculine) and the Greek termination—irys
(masculine). Words with the termination -ites are very rare in classical
Latin and are almost always direct transliterations of Greek words.
Thus :—

chernites—yepvitns (Pliny, etc.) is masculine
sorites—owpetryns (Cicero, etc.) is masculine
similarly

eremita, in spite of its feminine termination, is transliterated
from épyyitns, and is masculine.

Silvestri’s plea that to make it masculine “ is contrary to the common
rules of the Latin language ”’ is apparently based upon the fact that
Latin nouns ending in -es are commonly feminine. But -ites, being a
Greek termination, does not come under this rule.

The only example I know of a Latin form in -ifes not based on the
Greek is Samarites—a Samaritan, found, I think, only once, in an
obscure writer (the dictionary reference is Hadr. ap. Vop. Sat. 8) and
this again is masculine.

In later Latin we again have forms like Stylites, based on the Greek,
and masculine.

The only escape from this would be an original opinion by the
author of the generic name, based upon some other derivation. But
the only possible one I can see would be based on nummus and
ALOos, and would be very irregular at that. And in any case both
words are masculine. [Cf. Coprolite, Coprolith].

Orbitolites is a very obscure word indeed. But it should, I think,
obviously be treated, like Nummulites (from which it might even be
formed by some sort of analogy) as masculine.

424 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

II—DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

2. Issue of Voting Paper V.P. (O.M.) (54) 6: Concurrently
with the submission to the Commission of the proposals set out in
paragraph 4 of the paper by the Secretary, reproduced in para-
graph 1 above, a Call for a Vote, numbered Voting Paper
V.P.(O.M.) (54) 6, was issued on 12th May 1954 under the
One-Month Rule. In this Voting Paper each Member of the
Commission was asked (1) to state whether he agreed “ that, in
conformity with the General Directive relating to the recording
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the gender of
each name placed thereon prior to 1948, issued to the International
Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology,
Paris, 1948, the gender specified in paragraph 4 of the note by the
Secretary submitted simultaneously with the present Voting
Paper should be entered in the foregoing Official List in respect
of the names enumerated in that paragraph’, and (2), if he did
not so agree, as regards any given item, to indicate the item
concerned.

3. The prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting
Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the prescribed
Voting Period closed on 12th June 1954.

4. Particulars of the Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (54)6: The
state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (54) 6 at the
close of the prescribed Voting Period was as follows :—

(a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following seventeen
(17) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes
were received) :

Sylvester-Bradley; Lemche; Riley; Holthuis ;
Hering ; Dymond; Vokes; Stoll; Esaki; Hanko ;
Hemming ; Jaczewski; Boschma; Bradley (J. C.);
Cabrera ; Bonnet ; Pearson ;

(b) Negative Votes :

None ;

, (c) On leave of absence :

Mertens ;

DIRECTION 3 425

(d) Voting Paper V.P..O.M.) (54) 6 was not returned by one (1)
Commissioner :

do Amaral.

5. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 13th June 1954, Mr.
Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as
Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P. (O.M.)
(54)6, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in
paragraph 4 above and declaring that the proposal submitted
in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that
the decision so taken was the decision of the International
Commission in the matter aforesaid.

6. On 13th June 1954, Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling
given in the present Direction and at the same time signed a
Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord
with those of the proposal approved by the International
Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P. (O.M.) (54) 6.

7. The original references for the generic names, the gender
of which is determined by the Ruling given in the present
Direction, are specified in the Opinions in which decisions on
those names were severally taken by the Commission.

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

9. The present Direction shall be known as Direction Three (3)
of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Done in London, this Thirteenth day of June, Nineteen
Hundred and Fifty-Four.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

FRANCIS HEMMING

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

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

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME3. Part 32.
(Concluding Part)

LONDON :
Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature

and
Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office

41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
1954

Price Sixteen Shillings and Sixpence

Issued 10th August, 1954

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
~ ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
OPINIONS PUBLISHED IN THE PRESENT VOLUME =

A. The Officers of the Commission

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

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

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

B. The Members of the Commission

Class 1949

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

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

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

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

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

Class 1952

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil).
Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.).
Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (University of Parma, Italy).
Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Canada). “a
Dr. James L. PrTers (Museum of Comparative Zoology, a

Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr. US A). B. VOKES (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.,

Class 1955 :
Professor Dr. Hilbrand BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, :
Leiden, The Netherlands).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Tayport, Fife, Scotland).
Professor Teiso EsAki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan).
Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary).
Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Polish Zoological Museum, Warsaw, Poland). 3
Dr. Norman R. SToLu (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Princeton, - Be
New Jersey, U.S.A.).

C. Alternate Members of the Commission at the Session held in Paris, 4
in 1948 s

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

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

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

Professor Harold Kirspy (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S. AXA 4

Dr. Henning LemcHe (Kgl. Veterinzr- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologisk Labora-
torium, Copenhagen, Denmark). a

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

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

Mr. N. D. RiLey (British Museum (Natural History), London, England). a

Professor Ragnar SPARCK (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, |
Denmark). 3

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

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

Be i
a
me

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

RENDERED BY THE INTER-
| NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by 1
FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 3. Part32. Pp. 427448
(also published with this Part: T.P.—XVI)

CONTENTS

Gender of the generic names placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology in Opinions 186—189 and 192
—194; Corrigenda ; Index to Authors of Applications
dealt with in Opinions 182—210 and Direction 1 and of
comments on those Applications; Subject Index ;
Particulars of the dates of publication of the several
Parts in which the present volume was published ;
Instructions to Binders

Also published with this Part: Title Page, Foreword ;
Table of Contents.

LONDON :

Issued 10th August, 1954

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
OPINIONS PUBLISHED IN THE PRESENT VOLUME

A. The Officers of the Commission

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

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

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

B. The Members of the Commission
Class 1949

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

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

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

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

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

Class 1952

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Harold E. Vokes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.,
U.S.A.).

Class 1955

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

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

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

Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary).

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

Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Princeton,

New Jersey, U.S.A.).

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Henning LEMcuHE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologisk Labora-
torium, Copenhagen, Denmark).

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

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

Mr. N. D. RILEY (British Museum (Natural History), London, England).

Professor Ragnar SPARCK (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen,
Denmark)

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

Professor Robert L. UsINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California,

U.S.A.).

Corrigenda

|
7
|
}
j

page 95. Line 1 of title: substitute “Arca” for “Acar se

pages 139—154: substitute “ Bruguiére’’ for “‘ Brugiére ’, wherever the latter spelling
occurs.

page 241. Point (2), lines 13 and 16: substitute “ 1758 ” for “ 1767”.
“page 261. Point (2)(a), line 4: substitute “‘ 1758 ” for “ 1767”.
page 261. Point (2)(b), line 2: substitute * im” fore.Or ..
page 261. Point (2)(b), line 3: substitute “ 1758 ” ton: 1767 =
XN
_ page 278. Line 5: substitute ‘“‘ Kofoid ” for “‘ Kofiod ”’.

Point (3), line 3: substitute “77” for “76”’.

Aldrich, J. M.
Amaral, A. do
Apstein, C.

Baily, J. L. Jr.

Bartsch, P. 30,

Bather, F. A. 99,
WS, QIZs 223 PRS

Berry, E. W.
Bigelow, R. P.
Blote, H. C.
Boschma, H.
Broch, Hj.

Bulman, O. M. B.

Volume 3

: INDEX

TO AUTHORS OF APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH IN

‘* OPINIONS ” 182 TO 210 AND ‘*‘ DIRECTION ” 1 AND OF
COMMENTS ON THOSE APPLICATIONS

Page
311—312

83
253—254

193—195, 202
Ss WG. WIL, 259)

118—119, 145,

. 140
55—58
67

. 260

7 326
209—211,

219—222, 231—233

Cabrera, A.

Calman, WT. .'.

Caporiacco, L. di
Chapman, F.
Clark, A. H.
Clark, Bik.
Collins, A. C.
Cooke, C. W.

18, 146—147
82

WSO, 223
333—334
332—333
eS)

323),.343,, 25) ole

431

Page

Cox! Re L. a “> P98
Crespin, Irene . 144
Cushman, J. A... 141—142
Dautzenberg, P. BE Bets)

Decker, CE: QB 224 735

Elles, Gertrude .. DAD, DIAG 33

Engel, H. . 39—45, 244—253
259, 334
Frizzell, Da. 27—29

Gurney, R. 289—290, 292

Hanna, G..D:- .. bea He Shs

Hemming, F. 18—19, 30—33,
47—48, 60—61, 69—72, 83, 104,
1471505 165—_ 1633) (oie a
2035269==270) 282——2835303——
304, 362—363, 386—389, 397

Henbest, 12.4G2)) 323,343; Soest

Howchin, W. H. . 144

Jacot, A. P. 301—302

5, 16, 81, 100, 153—154,
[8452028 22359233

Jordan, K.

Kay, G. M.
Keble, R. A.

Pell —“115, tered
. 144

432 Opinions and Declarations

Page
Keen, Myra 27—29
Kirby, H. 280—282
Kirke, E. . 324, 343, 357, 373
Kofoid, C. A. 2717—2719
ull Rees: 163—164, 167
Mendenhall, W. C. fe Ba Wh
Mertens, R. ii sue 9h
Maller. Ao Ki. =. RG .. 180

Mitchell, Sir P. C.

Mortensen, Th. 213, 224, 233, 321,
326—331, 341—343, 345—348,
355—356, 359—360, 371, 374—

B18, So osood

153, 184

Parker, H. W. 79-8 [es
Parr, W. J. ms a .. 144
Peters, J. L. 18, 83
Pilsbry, H. A. OF. 256,
Rathbun, Mary .. 58, 98, 290

Reeside, J. B., Jr. 140, 323, 343, 357,
B73
Reinhart, P. W. 95—96

Richter, Ri 6, 16, 30,82; 100) 165;
WES) Dai)

Royal Society of Tropical
Medicine and Hygiene roll

Ruedemann, R. DNA 2250235

Page I
.. 21—29, 99 |

Schenck, H. G. ..

Schindewolf, O. H.

Schmitt W. Le 2: hy SO |
Schoonover, Lois M. .. ohh 2g ‘
Sclater, W.L... 4.) (ami
Singleton, F. A. a .. 145 :
Smith, G.0. ... 3) eee ;
Spath, LF...
Spiirck, Re :
18, 69, 82
211, 222, 233 9

Stejneger, S.
Stephenson, J.

Stephenson, L. W. 140, 323, 343,

Stiles, C. W. 46, 68—69, 83, 142—

144, 146, 164

Stonn W. es By i 4s 3
Townsend, C. Hoi ee L312 |
Ulrich, E. O. Bs .. 141
Van Name, G. .. ms Vals
Vaughan, T. W. K .. 146

_ 15

357, 372

Winckworth, R. 195, 203—204, 257 —

—258

Woodring, W. P. 98, 324, 344, 357,
373

Woodward, D. B. Wy 2

Volume 3 433

SUBJECT INDEX

Page

alta Calvin [about 1878), as Sareea in the combination Rhynchonella alta, question
of status of name. : Ae We ah ee oa a a 109—128

placed on the Official Index of Et aie and Invalid es Names in Hoven as
Name No. 77 .. 404

alta Williams (H. S.), 1890, as published in the combination Rhynchonella alta (Class

_Brachiopoda), discussion of date when first published within the meaning of
proviso (a) of Article 25.. by ue sy an se is Bis 109—128
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 154.. a 408

ampulla Linnaeus, 1758, Bulla (Class Gastropoda), eet as under the Bie
Powers, to be the type species of Bulla Linnaeus, 1758 ; 201
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 2 .. ieee Ol

Aplysia (emend. of Laplysia) Linnaeus, 1767 (Class Gastropoda), validation of, under
the Plenary Powers with Aplysia depilans Gmelin, 1767, as type species .. ba a 22 |
gender of name .. 2 at os i is He dos bs Ln ODED
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 630 M2

Arca Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pelecypoda), all type selections for, set aside under the
Plenary Powers, and Arca noae Linnaeus, 1758, designated as type species 95

gender of name .. ih 2 * is so ar we m .» . 419

placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 622 a 95

arietans Merrem (B.), 1820, Vipera (Echidna) (Class Reptilia, Order Squamata)
designated, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Bitis Gray, 1842 79

placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 152 He, 403

atropos Lamarck, 1816, Spatangus, (Class Echinoidea) designated, under the
Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Moira Agassiz (A.), 1872 sd easy)

placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 14 es 370

434 Opinions and Declarations

Bitis Gray, 1842 (Class Reptilia, Order Squamata), all type selections for, set aside
under the Plenary Powers, and peel aay, arietans Merrem (B), 1820,
designated as type species ia : :

gender of name

placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 621

Bohadsch (J.B.), 1761, De Quibusdam Animalibus marinis, SUPP for all
purposes under the Plenary Powers ae . : ne ty

placed on the Official Index of Ree? and Invalid Works in focus Nomen-
clature as Work No. 22

Bohadsch (J.B.), 1776, De Quibusdam Animalibus marinis es s ed. SEP EM ee
for all purposes under the Plenary Powers is

placed on the Official Index a Beers and Invalid Works in ma Nomen-
clature as Work No. 23

Brissus Gray, 1825 (Class Echinoidea), all type selections for, set aside under the
Plenary Powers, and Spatangus brissus var. unicolor Leske, 1778, designated as

type species

gender of name ..

placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 638

Brissus Leske, 1778, rejected under the Law of Priority and placed on the O pe:
Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology as Name No. 24 ue

Brissus Miller, 1781, Brissus Modeer, 1793, Brissus Link, 1807, Brissus Oken, 1815,
Brissus Dahl, 1823, (emend. of Bryssus Dejean, 1821), Bryssus Dejean, 1821,
Brissus, as used by any other author prior to the publication of Brissus Gray, 1825,
suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes both of the Law of
Priority and the Law of Homonymy Aes ; Lee me iu wa

placed on the Official Index of ees and Invalid Generic Names in AOROE
as Names Nos. 13 to 19 ne : :

Bulla Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Gastropoda), all type selections for, set aside under the
Plenary Powers, and Bulla ampulla Linnaeus, 1758, designated as type species ..

gender of name

placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 627

Page

’

419

404

370

369

370

201

Volume 3

Camerina Bruguiére, 1789, suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the Puppesss
both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy.. :

placed on the Official Index of eG and Invalid Generic Names in hice as
Name No. 147 : ‘

canaliferus Lamarck, 1816, as published in the combination Spatangus canaliferus
(Class Echinoidea), placed on the eet List es ea Names in HOE: as
Name No. 15 ot

ciliaris Philippi, 1837, as published in the combination Asterias ciliaris (Class
Asteroidea), praees on the oe List Beal Pica Names in Hegigens as Name
No. 20 sis

Cobra Laurenti, 1768, suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the pues both
of the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy Bor ;

placed on the Official Index 2 aoe and Invalid Generic Names in eee
as Name No. 146 at

coeruleus Miller (O.F.), 1776, as published in the combination Cyclops coeruleus,
(Class Crustacea), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the Pures
of the Law of Priority but not of ‘the Law of Homonymy.. : ie 5

placed on the Official Index a we clecied and Invalid ee Names in Peeey
as Name No. 8

cordatus Pennant, 1777, Echinus (Class Echinoidea), designated, under the Plea
Powers, to be the type species of Echinocardium Gray, 1825 f a '

placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 16

dentatum Stein, 1858, as published in the combination Entodinium dentatum (Class
ep placed on the ae List ae aes Names in eed as Name
No. 7 E

depilans Gmelin, 1791, Aplysia (Class Gastropoda), Gesieuated under the eiya
Powers, to be the type species of Aplysia Linnaeus, 1767 . :

placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 5

depilans Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Laplysia depilans (Class
Gastropoda), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the
Law both of the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy By Exe

placed on the Official Index of ae and Invalid ones Names in ee as
Name No.6 ..

435

Page

39, 404

404

371

395

79, 404

404

289

369

Sigil

242

241

243

436 Opinions and Declarations

depilans, all other uses of, in combination with the generic name Aplysia (Laplysia)
subsequent to Linnaeus, 1767 and prior to the publication of the name depilans —
Gmelin, 1791, as published in the combination Aplysia depilans, suppression of,
under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes both of the Law of Bree and the
Law of Homonymy

placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology as Name
INOS yer a ahs As 4 ae ae is Ns ane iy

Diadema Gray, 1825 (Class Echinoidea) validation of, under the Plenary Powers,
with Echinometra setosa Leske, 1778, as type species a ie i
gender of name
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 633

Diadema Schumacher, 1817 (Class Crustacea, Sub-class Cirripedia), suppression of,
under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and the
Law of Homonymy oe i Be 4 ; a av Ap

placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology as Name
Noit..: is eau Al iy a a ¥ xi we i
Diadema Ranzani, 1817 (Class Crustacea, Sub-class Cirripedia), suppression of, under

the Plenary Powers, for the Doe tel both of the Law of pens and the Law of
Homonymy i

placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology as Name
NowI2 a. a A ys Le i w ms se a at
Diplodinium Schuberg, 1888 (Class Ciliophora), gender of name neuter, placed on

the Official List of Generic Names in ee as Name No. 632, with "Entodinium
dentatum Stein, 1858, as type species .. é s

drabachiensis Miller (O.F.), 1776, Echinus (Class Echinoidea), designated, under the
Plenary Powers, to be type species of Sfronglyocentrotus Brandt, 1835 .. ;

placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 13

dubius Brandt, 1835, Cidarites (Phyllacanthus) (Class Echinoidea), designated, under
the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Phyllacanthus Brandt, 1835 as

placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 12

Echinocardium Gray, 1825 (Class Echinoidea), all type selections for, set aside under
the Plenary Powers, and Echinus cordatus Pennant, 1777, designated as type
species 0 an Hie te 4 aN ‘

gender of name

placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 639

Page

241
243

321
321
321

321

S21

321

Dae

6p)))

Bey)

355

369
370

370

Volume 3
Echinocardium 1778, Leske, suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the
purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy

placed on the le Index se Race? and Invalid Generic Names in pane
as Name No. 20

Echinocyamus van Phelsum, 1774 (Class Echinoidea), all type selections for, set
aside under the Plenary Powers, and Neg Leanne Miller ae FY, 1776,
designated as type species ;

gender of name

placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 634

fasciata Poiret, 1789, as published in the combination ateiaae Pan! consideration
of, postponed wm ne ae te . ; a a

Fibularia Lamarck, 1816 (Class Echinoidea), all type selections for, set aside under
the Plenary Powers, and Fibularia ovalum Lamarck, 1816, designated ; as pis
species aie ae ae Ye Ue os : ,

gender of name
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 635

fimbria Linnaeus, 1767, Tethys (Class Gastropoda), designated, under the ye
Powers, to be the type species of Tethys Linnaeus, 1767..

placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 6..

geinitzianus Barrande, 1850, as published in the combination Gladiolites geinitzianus
(Class ezy puthina). placed on the sda List of eee Names in Hooley as
Name No. 4

gigas Burmeister, 1835, Hanes Pe pe ue weston as ee specu of
Hypselopus Burmeister, 1835. :

placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 151

Gladiolites Barrande, 1850 (Class Graptolithina), suppression of, under the Plenary
Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of
Homonymy sl ae ” aes Bd a, ‘ g it

placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology as Name
INOZ 3": . ae <P te Le on yi Me bie he Bie

437

Page
369

370

341

243

341
341

341

242

231

403

231

438 Opinions and Declarations

Graptolithus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Graptolithina), suppression of, under the
Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the
Law of Homonymy are : :

placed on the ee Index of aaa and Invalid Generic Names in A00lg ak as
Name No. 1 : :

Gumbel (C.W.), discussion of status of names published by, in 1863, for subdivisions
of the genus C/ymenia Munster, 1832 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). .

Hypselopus Burmeister, 1835 (Class Insecta, Order Pennies): YES gigas
Burmeister, 1835, designated as type species of :

gender of name

placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 620

International Code
See Régles.

Koch, Deutschlands Crustaceen, Myriapoden und Arachniden, new generic names used
in the Hefte published in the period 1835—1842, when naming new specific names
for previously unnamed species declared available as from date of being so
eae and species so included alone eligible to become Hine es of ee
concerne ae 3 as sit x ae Pe

placed on the Official List a Works Se ke as Available in me Nomen-
clature as Work No. 1

laevigata Bruguiére, 1789 Camerina (Class Rhizopoda), designated, under the
Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Nummulites Lamarck, 1801 ..

placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 155

Laplysia (Invalid Original Spelling of ae) Linnaeus, 1767, emendation of, under
the Plenary Powers, to Aplysia ..

placed on the oa Index Ce ees and Invalid Generic Names in Foe
as Name No. 6

leporina Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Tethys leporina (Class Gas-
tropoda), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law
of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy i sy ie

placed on the Official Index of nen and Invalid peeing Names in mee as
Name No.2 |...

Page

209

{—12

67
419

299

139

403

241

242

241

242

Volume 3 439
: : iene : Page
leporina, all other uses of, in combination with the generic name Tethys Linnaeus,
1758, suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of
Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy 241
placed on the Official Index of aa and Invalid See Names in foley as
INamie No.3... 242
limacina Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Tethys limacima (Class
Gastropoda), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the
Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy 241
placed on the Official Index of pirlegiee and Invalid veces Names in abate as
Name No.4 .. 241
limacina, all other uses of, in combination with the generic name Tethys Linnaeus,
1758, suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of
Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy os 241
placed on the Official Index of sane and Invalid ee Names in Fontes: as
Name No.5... 241
Lomatoceras Bronn, 1834 (Class Graptolithina), suppression of, under the Plenary
Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of
Homonymy ee a ie bis ai a : 219
placed on the Official Index of ere and Invalid Generic Names in PDE as
INamer No.2)... 219
mantis Linnaeus, 1758, Cancer (Class Crustacea, Order Stomatopoda), designated,
under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Squilla Fabricius, 1787 35
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 150 403
Martini (F.H.W.) & Chemnitz (J.H.), 1769—95, Neues systematisches Conchylien-
Cabinet, Vols. 1—11, all new spcciite names and names of lower rank pues
in, declared invalid : ; ads Me Fe sre é 27, 404
placed on the Official Index - crs and Invalid Works in Aeiesiedl Nomen-
clature as Work No. 21 404
Moera Michelin, 1855, placed on the aa Index oh Releeied and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology as Name No. 26 .. 370
Moira Agassiz (A.), 1872 (Class Echinoidea), gender of name feminine, placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 642, with Spares
atropos Lamarck, 1816, as type species ig 370

440 Opinions and Declarations

Page
Monograpsus Geinitz, 1852, (Invalid Original spelling of Monograptus Geinitz,
1852), placed on the Official Index By eg and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology as Name No. 4. 219
Monograptus (emend. of Monograpsus) Geinitz, 1852, validation of, under
the Plenary Powers, with Lomatoceras priodon Bronn, 1834, as type species BeOS
gender of name .. a a bg a oe ay si td ea eS)
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 628 ce er O2TO
Monoprion Barrande, 1850 (Class Graptolithina), suppression of, under the Plenary
Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of
Homonymy cn rug Abs Me ys on Sh Ste si Anat LS)
placed on the Official Index of eit and Invalid Generic Names in mane as
Name No.3... by E 219
morrisoni Townsend, 1915, as published in the combination Phoranthella morrisoni
(Class Insecta, Order Diptera), rejection of.. i a on i en Sit
placed on the Official Index of Reed and Invalid aes Names in Zoology as
INamerNo;)/9) 73 311
Necator Sclater & Saunders, 1896, an emendation of Nicator Finsch & Hartlaub, 1870
(Class Aves), suppression of, for all purposes, under the Plenary Powers. ; 269
placed on the Official Index a ees and Invalid Generic Names in Gees
as Name No. 9 269
Necator Stiles, 1903 (Class Nematoda), validation of, under the Plenary Powers.. 269
gender of name .. Ps Kis a sth a Ry ve at at 269
entry of, in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, confirmed wt Seago
noae Linnaeus, 1758, Arca (Class Pelecypoda), desi pues under the Plenty Powers,
to be the type species of Arca Linnaeus, 1758 5 mn bi : ae 95
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 153 .. 403
Nummulites Lamarck, 1801 (Class Rhizopoda), validation of, under the ae
Powers, with Camerina laevigata Bruguiére, 1789, as type species me j 139
gender of name .. 1 a fu a bis a on ae ie Sag
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 623 a 139

Volume 3 441

Page
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, names placed on
Brissus Dahl, 1823 Peis oy on es iY beh dis oe ne 370
_ Brissus Link, 1807 A a Fe ae aie ae ae “463 a 370
Brissus Modeer, 1793... wd te fe ie ms; aS ae AB ape Ih)
Brissus Miller, ‘1781 on ay * ” 370
Brissus, as used by any other author prior to Brissus Gray, 1925 16 ae - 370
Bryssus Mejean, (821 ... leas ace ae zn iS Be Sel bia 370
Camerina Bruguiére, 1789 Ss as ot ae sie ie ah .. 404
Cobra Laurenti, 1768 ute a ae “ae bes £*: Abe Os
Diadema Ranzani, 1817 ia ik a ae on rN Me Ps 74 |
Diadema Schumacher, 1817 he ns ae te an A a Sells) 1
Echinocardium Leske, 1778 a a Me i. dhe aS He TP SLO
Gladiolites Barrande, 1850 ie aie WA a a i ae P23)
Graptolithus Linnaeus, 1758 _... ie sie AY a ne a JES)
Laplysia Linnaeus, 1767 te me as) a ire We Ly fet LO
Lomatoceras Bronn, 1834 3 Ise sae we Pa ae a * 370
Moera Michelin, 1855 .. a a i Bi He th te se WSThO
Monograpsus Geinitz, 1852 ap is ne PR ms ae LNs Bec shai)
Monoprion Barrande, 1850 : o. ae th ae a ps Goitew AD ALO
Necator Sclater & Saunders, 1896 a ie a! By ue Uy et 269
Ophiceras Suess, 1865 .. iy a ne: ar ae ae .. 404
Phoranthella Townsend, Soe ye we ee ie 48 md ae sne S IT
Prospatangus Lambert, 1902 oe 16 ie a eh nk Bt a 370
Spatangus Leske, 1778 .. e ey iN i om ie te Me 370
Spatangus Modeer, 1795 a s 370
Spatangus, as used by any other ‘author rior ¢ to Spatangus ( Gr ay, 1825 te », 370
Squilla Fabricius (J.C.), 1781 .. Mh .. 404
Squilla Fabricius (O.), 1780 a Be sis ne a: ay ef: .. 404
Squilla Gronovius, 1760 cy MG a Me an. oy i: .. 404
Squilla Gronovius, 1764 ie Ss ie 1 ih ne ey Pe OS:
Squilla Miller (O. F.), 1776 ae Porat .. 404
_ Squilla other uses of, prior to Squilla Fabricius, 1787. fe me wr .. 404
Tethys Linnaeus, 1758 Ws she “ ite a ie 242
Tethys all uses of, prior to Tethys Linnaeus, icy ee i A bes or heehee
Tetragonosaurus Parks, 193 oe. ie oS se Ae .. 404
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, names placed on
alta Calvin, [about 1878], Benen bis i ae it i e404
coeruleus Muller (O.F.), 1776, Cyclops . ps 3 ek ee io ale 6289
depilans Linnaeus, 1767, Laplysia oe 243
depilans, other uses of, in combination with the generic name Aplysia published
between 1767 and 1791 mn me bs es ‘p eH 243
leporina Linnaeus, 1758, Tethys et: ivan?
leporina, other uses of, in combination with T ethys Linnaeus, 1758 es Lae
limacina Linnaeus, 1758, Tethys ud Luria
limacina, other uses of, in combination ‘with Tethys Linnaeus, 1758 48 Severe
morrisoni Townsend, 1915, Phoranthella a a a Pa the ee ciel
scalaris Linnaeus, 1768, Graptolithus oa ay vy, ae ae ivf ie ZOS
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature, works
placed on:
Bohadsch (J.B.), 1761, De Quibusdam Animalibus marinis .. 404
Bohadsch (J.B.), 1776, De Quibusdam Animalibus marinis (Leske’s edition) ee er i
Koch, Deutschlands Crustaceen, Myriapoden und Arachniden we 299

Martini (F.H.W.) and Chemnitz (J.H. ) 1769—95, Neues systematisches
Conchylien-Cabinet, Vols. 1—11 Mt : Mi a ay we .. 404

442 Opinions and Declarations

Page —
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, names placed on :
Aplysia Linnaeus, 1767 .. sal 1; at ie. a ue ma sya gy Wee
Arca Linnaeus, 1758 ae on =i i at oe a a aw 95
Bitis Gray, 1842 .. a on by. Be a ay ae te Me 719
Brissus Gray, 1825 Ae ak he Be oy Sie Ai i i 370
Bulla Linnaeus, 1758 —.... a ne ae ee Bs es ba Cen 0))|
Diadema Gray, 1825 as it car id nes nee 2a a ip 321 @
Diplodinium, Schuberg, 1888 .. a he ee cy by Dc ld an
Echinocardium Gray, 1825 ; a Le ae ah HM a, ..,. 3/0
Echinocyamus van Phelsum, 1774 Ms A “ a és Re sul SAl
Fibularia Lamarck, 1816.. ae ty oe a rs ih vhs eto
Hypselopus Burmeister, 1835) oe HA ay >. ave aE ca 67
Moira Agassiz (A.), 1872 Ae A ais is aa Le le 84 370
Monograptus Geinitz, 1852 or me ae a A a ae PAIS)
Necator Stiles, 1903 ce a a Bi v4 te ws soe Bosh LOD
Nummulites Lamarck, 1801 Rs he Hs a ae a. Di fh 139
Ophiceras Griesbach, 1880 as a. ai ae Ss xe ws oe 177
Ova Gray, 1825 .. an a a re ae Pr i i 370
Phyllacanthus Brandt, 1835 if Ae ie a ie eh suk i JOS
Procheneosaurus Mathew, 1920 Et ae a a4 ih ie La 163
Retiolites Barrande, 1850 ap Re wf aC a as mee
Schizaster Agassiz (J. L.R.), 1836 at Ue av = ee ig aie 910)
Spatangus Gray, 1825 .. Ae ake ih op se as ze 370
Squilla Fabricius (J.C.), 1787 .. iy ae ie we Se ore ans 3)
Strongylocentrotus Brandt, 1835 i aa ee se ae ae PINRO. SIS)
Tethys Linnaeus, 1767 .. ae ie ee ite ie se as Biss ive oe
Venus Linnaeus, 1758 .. St a an a thay: ta a ae 193
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, names placed on :
arietans Merrem (B.), 1820, Vipera Sener aA a Ws a? Bee (015)
atropos Lamarck, 1816, Spatangus Le 3 ale Nes iat So | SH
canaliferus Lamarck, 1816, Spatangus . a A ue oe ws ot Sar Ul
ciliaris Philippi, 1837, Asterias . . cae ae a ee bs ve Pee S's)
cordatus Pennant, 1777 Echinus at ae el a nif Me Oe 371
dentatum Stein, 1858, Entodinium we Se es 5 Re, hs ee 8201)
depilans Gmelin, 1791, Aplysia . wes ie a ie md woo AZ
drobachiensis Miiller (O. F.), 1776 Echinus.. sy oF : sis oe 1 355.
dubius Brandt, 1835, Cidarites piscina uk aa ne ud ie ees) |
fimbria Linnaeus, 1767, Tethys .. fe a ts ag het 242
geinitzianus Barrande, 1850, Gladiolites ie 5% MM SE a ie 231
gigas Burmeister, 1835, Hypselopus Xe we ee a a is .. 403
laevigata Bruguiére, 1789, Camerina .. ave ae zt + ie eines
mantis Linnaeus, 1758, Cancer .. fs et as Me Ee a wceaO03
noae Linnaeus, 1758, Arca a, oe 5a Bis a pi ae no tgO3
ovulum Lamarck, 1816, Fibularia ie ie a hs sa oe scnlipsad
praeceps Parks, 1931, Tetrogonosaurus. . hs ey ie at Me .. 403
priodon Bronn, 1834, Lomatoceras : an na ae ua ve poeeea eA IC
purpureus Miiller (O.F.), 1776, Spatagus Ne i re ae ets He 371
pusillus Miller (O.F.), 1776, Spatagus ie be as a a Jimtead
setosa Leske, 1778, Echinometra ee sti die Bc ts mete 6)
studeri Agassiz (J. TRS ), 1840, Schizaster aL: in an rs ach ROS |
tibeticum Griesbach, 1880, Ophiceras .. Re MY, oe ie he: iP A083
unicolor Leske, 1778, Spatangus brissus A oe we oe Me ad IS TL
verrucosa Linnaeus, 1758, Venus a ie ve al a by 7 193

vulgaris Schmeil, 1897, Diaptomus my oe oe ie ui hs Se Ase)

Volume 3 443

Page
Ophiceras Griesbach, 1880 (Class Cephalopoda), validation of, under the werniee
Powers, with - -Ophiceras tibeticum Griesbach, 1880, as type species fe A ee,
gender of name .. i BS ut a i re a iY eh inaaliD
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 625 ne: ya)
Ophiceras Suess, 1865, suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes
both of the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy .. < : 177, 404
placed on the Official Index of pes and Invalid Generic Names in ae as
Name No. 149 2 404.
Ova Gray, 1825 (Class Echinoidea), gender of name feminine, placed on the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology, as Name No. 643, with Dian canalicus
Lamarck, 1816, as type species Suis al Ne aos 3 a 370
ovulum Lamarck, 1816, Fibularia (Class Echinoidea), designated, under the see.
Powers, to be the type species of Fibularia Lamarck, 1816.. wh oP : 341
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 11.. we Oa
Phoranthella Townsend, 1915 (Class Insecta, Order per), teleetou of, as a
nomen nudum Sy ie Re ee : } ie ae Sei
placed on the Official Index of ees and Invalid Generic Names in pee as
Name No. 10 .. 311
Phyllacanthus Brandt, 1835 (Class Echinoidea), validation of, under the Plenary
Powers, with Cidarites (Phyllacanthus) dubius Brandt, 1835, as type species ya)
gender of name .. Nas ae ae are ao bois scl i AeA S 55)
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 636 Be) S/S)
praeceps Parks, 1931, as published in the combination Tetrogonosaurus praeceps
(Class Reptilia), designated as type species of Procheneosaurus Mathew, 1920.. 163
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 156 By, Mase O8)
priodon Bronn, 1834, as published in the combination Lomatoceras priodon (Class
Graptolithina), placed on the et List a Sra Names in a as Name
No. 3 219
Procheneosaurus Mathew, 1920 (Class Reptilia), discussion of status of name 161—174
419

gender of name

placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 624, with
Tetrogonosaurus praeceps Parks, 1931, as type species nc 163

444 Opinions and Declarations
Prospatangus Lambert, 1902, placed on the CBee Index a Relecied and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 25 .. fe

punctata Cuvier, 1803, as published in the combination Rete ee) punctata, con-
sideration of , postponed ; Me ; of : a Ae

purpureus Muller (O.F.), 1776, Spatagus (Class Echinoidea), ere under the
Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Spatangus Gray, 1825.

placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 17.. sa)
pusillus Miller (O.F.), 1776, Spatagus (Class Echinoidea), designated, under the

Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Echinocyamus van Phelsum, 1774 it 341

placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 10.. Say eal

Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique
Article 8: principles to be observed in interpreting this Article in relation to the
form in which generic and subgeneric names are to be published ae .. 13—24

Article 25 : question of whether the use of a new name in explanation of a photo-
graph or other illustration distributed by an author to students or colleagues
constitutes “ publication ” within the meaning of proviso (a) to this Article 129—136

Retiolites Barrande, 1850 (Class Graptolithina), validation of, under the ee

Powers, with Gladiolites geinitzianus Barrande, 1850, as type species tae 231
gender of name .. aye i ae ate Me om we ue ata 234
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 629 eahee 323i
Rhynchonella alta (Class Brachiopoda), status of name He by. a 109—128

(see also under alta Calvin and alta Williams)

scalaris Linnaeus, 1768, as published in the combination Graptolithus scalaris (Class
Graptolithina), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the
Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy se as fi OS

placed on the Official Index of ee and Invalid uae Nowe: in mee as
Name No.1... 209

Schizaster Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1836 (Class Echinoidea) gender of name masculine,
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 641, with
Schizaster studeri Agassiz (J.L.R.), as type species ‘ 370

setosa Leske, 1778, Echinometra (Class Echinoidea), designated, under the Plenary
Powers, to be the type species of Diadema Gray, 1825 a ba DIPS a

placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 9.. {232m

Volume 3 445
Page
Spatangus Gray, 1825 (Class Echinoidea), all type selections for, set aside under the
Plenary Powers, and as e se alae Miller he F. F), oe as type
species 370
gender of name 370
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 640. . 370
Spatangus Leske, 1778, Spatangus Modeer, 1793, Spatangus, as used by any other
author prior to the publication of Spatangus Gray, 1825, suppression of, under
the Plenary Powers, for the ness. both of the Law of Priority a and of the Law
of Priority. . ’ ; 369
placed on the Official Index of Precis and Invalid Generic Names in Mee as
Names Nos. 21—23 .. ae : 370
Squilla Fabricus (J.C.), 1787 (Class Crustacea, Order Stomatopoda), all type
selections for, set aside under the Plenary Powers, and Cancer mantis Linnaeus,
1758, designated as type species ke Do)
gender of name 419
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 619 35)
Squilla Gronovius, 1760, Squilla Gronovius, 1764, Squilla Miller (O.F.), 1776, Squilla
Scopoli, 1777, Squilla Fabricius (O.), 1780, Squilla Fabricius (J.C.), 1781, Squilla,
other uses prior to Fabricius, 1787, suppression of, under the Plenary Powers,
for the purposes both of the law of Priority, and the Law of Homonymy. . 55, 404
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Re as
Names Nos. 139 to 145 respectively a 4 404
Strongylocentrotus Brandt, 1835 (Class Echinoidea), validation of, under the ai |
Powers, with Echinus drobachiensis Miller (O.F.), 1776, as type species .. 355
gender of name 3155)
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 637 355
studeri Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1840, Schizaster (Class Echinoidea), designated, under
the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Schizaster Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1836 .. 369
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 18 Sil
Tethys Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Gastropoda), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers,
for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy.. 241
placed on the Official Index of Hasecied and Invalid Generic Names in ean as
Name No.7 «. : ; 242

446 Opinions and Declarations
Page
Tethys Linnaeus, 1767 (Class Gastropoda), validation of, under the Plenary Powers,
with Tethys fimbria Linnaeus, 1767, as type species. we He sh Ape ie |
gender of name .. ie id He ae it he ba Sis ah eae
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 631 eh, 2am
Tethys, all uses of, subsequent to Linnaeus, 1758, and prior to Linnaeus, 1767, sup-
pression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes both of the Law of
Priority and of the Law of Homonymy oe ie ; si ae een Bp
placed on the eae Index of tieieeres and Invalid Generic Names in Ba as
Name No. 8 . 242
Tetragonosaurus Parks, 1931, suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the
purposes both of the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy zie 163, 404
placed on the Official Index of dial and Invalid Generic Names in OU OE as
Name No. 148 : 404
tibeticum Griesbach, 1880 Ophiceras (Class Cephalopoda), designated, under the
Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Ophiceras Griesbach, 1880. 177
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 157.. .. 403
unicolor Leske, 1778, Spatangus brissus (Class Echinoidea), euee under the
Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Brissus Gray, 1825 : a8 369
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 19.. See 371
Veus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pelecypoda), all type selections for, set aside under
the Plenary Powers, and Venus verrucosa Linnaeus, 1758, designated as type
species ae a en He Me wi Bee es va A ee 193
gender of name .. ae le ae ae oe a ae ae of 193
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 626 ay 193
verrucosa Linnaeus, 1758, Venus (Class Pelecypoda), menaa under the Or
Powers, to be the type species of Venus Linnaeus, 1758. ai Ae : 193
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 1.. ae 193
vulgaris Schmeil, 1897, as published in the combination Diaptomus vulgaris (Class
Crustacea, Order Copepoda), validation of, under the Plenary Powers .. ey ee
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 8.. Sa Oe,

Volume 3 447

PARTICULARS OF DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL
PARTS IN WHICH THE PRESENT VOLUME WAS PUBLISHED

Part No. Contents of Part Date of Publication

1 1—12 17th October 1944

ee 13—24 17th October 1944
3 25—26 17th October 1944
4 37—52 17th October 1944
5 53—64 17th April 1945
6 65—76 26th July 1945
a T7—92 26th July 1945
8 93—108 26th July 1945
y 109—128 21st August 1945
10 129—136 21st August 1945
11 137—160 21st August 1945
12 161—174 28th. February 1947
3 165—190 28th February 1947
14 191—198 27th January 1954
15 199—206 27th January 1954
16 207—216 27th January 1954
17 217—228 27th January 1954
18 229—238 27th January 1954
19 239—266 27th January 1954
20 267—274 27th January 1954
21 275—286 27th January 1954
22 287—296 27th January 1954
23 297—308 27th January 1954
24 309—318 27th January 1954
25 319—338 8th March 1954
26 339—352 8th March 1954
ya | 353—366 8th March 1954
28 367—392 8th March 1954
29 393—400 8th March 1954
30 401—416 21st April 1954
31 417—426 10th August 1954
32 427—448

T.P.—XVI

10th August 1954

448

INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDERS

The present volume should be bound up as follows :—T.P.—XVI,
1—448, coloured wrapper (cover) to Part 32.

Note: The wrappers (covers) to the Parts of which this volume is
composed form, with the exception of the coloured wrapper (cover)
issued with Part 32, an integral part of those Parts, being included for
purposes of pagination. These wrappers should therefore be bound
up in the position in which they were issued. The brown wrapper
(cover) to Part 32 should be bound in at the end of the volume.

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

3 9088 01571

: wu i

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Opinions and declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature"

See other formats