m ■"V'tVi'-Vr-,, , THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE VOLUME I 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 Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature at the Publications Office of the Trust 41, Queen's Gate, London, S.W.7. 1943-1951 {AU righu reserved) Ill INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom) President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) 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) Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.) (President) (1st January 1944) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) (Vice-President) (1st January 1944) Professor Lodovico di Caporiacco (Italy) (1st January 1944) Professor J. R. Dymond (Canada) (1st January 1944) Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) (28th March 1944) Professor Harold E. Vokes (U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944) Dr. William Thomas Caiman (United Kingdom) (1st January 1947) Professor Bela Hanko (Hungary) (1st January 1947) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (U.S.A.) (1st January 1947) Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Cahrera (Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) (Secretary) (27th July 1948) Dr. Joseph Pearson (Australia) (27th July 1948) Dr. Henning Lemche (Demnark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre Bonnet (France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (United Kingdom) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert Mertens (Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin Hering (Germany) (5th July 1950) IV INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE C. 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, D. The staff of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Honorary Secretary & Managing Director : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Honorary Registrar : Mr. A. S. Pankhurst. Publications Officer : Mrs. C. Rosner. E. The addresses of the Commission and the Trust Secretariat of the Commission : 28 Park Village East, Regent's Park, London, N.W.I. Offices of the Trust : 41 Queen's Gate, London, S.W.7. FOREWORD The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature was founded in 1943 to serve as the Ofl&cial Organ of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Prior to that date the International Commission had been gravely handicapped by having at its direct disposal no effective means of bringing to the attention of interested specialists problems relating to zoological nomenclature submitted to it for decision and in consequence had not been able to secure as wide a range of comments as it desired on such applications before it took decisions on the issues involved. The prime object of the Commission in establishing the Bulletin was therefore to provide a means for publishing appUcations submitted to it for decision, together with comments received from specialists on the applications so published. 2. As was inevitable, war-time printmg and other difficulties made the appearance of Parts of the present volume both slow and irregular. By the beginning of 1947 there had however been published eleven Parts and the present volume was thus virtually complete. Of these Parts, Part 1 dealt with introductory matter, three Parts (Parts 2, 4, 6) were concerned with admm- istrative and financial problems and one Part (Part 3) (of much larger size than the foregoing Parts) was devoted to the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission at its Session held at Lisbon in September 1935, to the Keport which the Commission then submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology and matters connected therewith. The remaining six Parts (Parts 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) were devoted to applications submitted to the Inter- national Commission and comments thereon that had been received from interested speciahsts. 3. The six Parts devoted to applications submitted to the International Commission contain 117 papers relating to 96 applications. Of these applications nineteen raise questions of the interpretation of the Regies or are concerned with proposals for their amplification and extension ; two relate to the names of Classes (a subject not dealt with in the Regies) ; six deal with the status of various books imder the Regies, while one raises the question of the date as from which a particular book is to be treated as having been pubUshed for the purposes of Article 25 ; the remaining sixty-eight applications are concerned with individual nomenclatorial problems. These applications range over practically the whole field of the Animal Kingdom, but are very unevenly distributed, almost two-thirds being concerned with the names of insects. The Classes, names of genera or species in which form the subject of these applications to the Commission, are the following, the number of apphcations submitted in respect of names belonging to each Class being shown in brackets (parentheses) : Khizopoda (1) ; Sporozoa (1) ; Ciliophora (1) ; Anthozoa (1) Graptplithina (3) ; Trematoda (3) ; Crustacea (1) ; Insecta (44) ; Arachnida (1) Gastropoda (3) ; Pelecypoda (2) ; Cephalopoda (1) ; Brachiopoda (1) Echinoidea (1) ; Caphalaspidomorphi (1) ; Aves (1) ; Mammalia (2). The forty-four appUcations relating to the names of insects were distributed over the various Orders as follows : Coleoptera (6) ; Diptera (2) ; Hemiptera (14) ; Hymenoptera (19) ; Lepidoptera (2) ; Neuroptera (1). VI 4. All the applications published in the present volume were considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in July 1948. The Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commission at that Session was published in 1950 in volume 4 of the present Bulletin and for convenience of consultation and for purposes of record there has been added at the end of the present volume a table giving a reference to the page in volume 4 where will be found the record of the decision taken by the International Com- mission in regard to each of the applications published in the present volume. FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Interncdioiwl Commission on Zoological NomenckUure. 28 Park Village East, Regent's Park, London, N.W.I, England. 2nd May, 1951. VII TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1. ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL QUESTIONS Decision to establish the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. By Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S., President of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . i The functions and powers of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to tlie International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . iv International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : Financial Report for the period from 6th October 1936 to Slst December 1942. xxvii Income and Expenditure Account for the period from 6th October 1936 to 31st December 1942 and Balance Sheet at 31st December 1942 . . xxxii Estimated expenditure required to enable the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to discharge its outstanding scientific commitments (estimate prepared in June 1943). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxiv An urgent Appeal for a Fimd of £1,800 to continue the work of the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Appeal dated 12th June 1943) xl Report by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for the year 1943 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xli International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : Financial Report for the year 1943 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xlix Income and Expenditure Account of International Fund No. 1 and of International Fund No. 2 for the year 1943 and Balance Sheet at 31st December 1943 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . liv Personnel of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : election of four Commissioners (Report dated 28th June 1944) . . Iviii Contributions received up to 30th June 1944 in response to the Appeal for funds issued by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature in June 1943 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lix Appeal for funds by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Appeal dated 30th June 1944) Ix VIII Report by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for the year 1944 Ixi International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : Financial Report for the year 1944 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ixx Income and Expenditure Account of International Fund No. 1 and of International Fund No. 2 for the year 1944 and Balance Sheet at 31st December 1944 Ixxvi Frederick Chapman (1864-1943) Obituary Ixxx Personnel of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : election of Vice-President (Report dated 19th March 1945) . . . . Ixxxii Contributions received in the period Ist July 1944 to 30th June 1945, in response to the Appeal for funds issued by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . Ixxxiii Forthcoming Publications : Notice prepared in July 1945 . . . . Ixxxix PART 2. THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE AT ITS SESSION HELD AT LISBON IN SEPTEMBER 1935 AND MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH On the Lisbon decisions of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the Internaticmal Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . 1 The Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commis- sion on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held at Lisbon in September 1935 5-52 Conclusions of the First Meeting of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature held in the Library of the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Lisbon on Sunday, 15th September 1935, at 1115 hours. 1. Illness the Secretary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Interim elections to the Commission since the last meeting of the Congress . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Election of two Commissioners . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Appointment of Alternates for the period of the Congress . . 6 5. Secretarial arrangements at Lisbon . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Next Meeting . . . . . . . . , . . . . . 6 IX Conclusions of the Second Meeting of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature held in the Library of the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Lisbon on Monday, 16th September 1935 at 0930 hours. 1. Election of a Commissioner 2. Appointment of an Alternate for the period of the Congress 3. Nomination of the Class 1943 vice the Class 1934 . . 4. Opinions rendered since the last (Padua) meeting of the Congress 5. Amendments to the Rules and to the By-laws of the Commission 6. New Editions of the Rules 7. Co-operation with the International Congress of Entomology 8. Importance of forming specialist groups for the study of the nomenclature of particular divisions of the Animal Kingdom . 9. Procedure to be followed at the Lisbon Session of the Commission . 10. Interpretation of the generic nomenclature used by Freyer in his Neuere Beitrage zur Schmetterlingskunde 11. The dates of publication of the several portions of Hiibner, Ver zeichniss bek. Schmett. 1 2. Form of Family Name to be formed from the name Tingis Fabricius (Hemiptera) . . 8 8 8 9 10 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13. The " Erlangen List " of Hymenoptera and matters incidental thereto : position of namies first pubUshed in rejected works . . 13 14. Family Names formed from Merops Linnaeus and Merope Newman 14 15. Generic names in Mpigen's Nouvelle Classification . . . . . . 14 16. New descriptions : need for an indication of the Order and Family involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 17. Status of names proposed as names for forms of less than sub- specific status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 18. Orthoptera : validation of the name Locusta Linnaeus, 1758 . . 16 X 19. Orthoptera : the generic name Phaneraptera Serville, 1831 . . 16 20. Orthoptera : twenty-two generic names placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. . . . . . 17 21. Lepidoptera : case of three pairs of generic names published in 1807 for identical genera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 22. Lepidoptera : proposed suspension of the Rules in the case of eight generic names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 23. Genera based upon erroneously determined type species : six cases in the Lepidoptera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 24. The Code of Ethics 25 25. Next meeting : time appointed . . . . . . . . . . 25 Conclusions of the Third Meeting of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature held in the Library of the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Lisbon on Monday, 16th September 1935, at 1445 hours 1. Interpretation of Latreille, 1810, Considerations Generates . . . . 26 2. Hymenoptera : thirty-four generic names . . . . . . . . 27 3. Report by the Commission to the Congress : preliminary drafting arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4. Next meeting : date and time appointed . . . . . . . . 31 Conclusions of the Fourth Meeting of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature held in the Library of the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Lisbon on Tuesday, 17th September 1935, at 0930 hours 1. Echinodermata : the generic name Diadema Gray, 1825 . . . . 32 2. Echinodermata : Luidia Forbes, 1839, versus Bipinnaria Sars, 1835 33 3. Echinodermata : the generic names Echinocyamus van Phelsum, 1774, and Fj^w/arwi Lamarck, 1816 33 4. Article 25 of the Code : method to be adopted in interpreting the amendment relating to the replacement of invalid names . . 34 XI 5. Nomenclature of hybrids : proposed amendment of Article 18 of the Code 34 6. Crustacea : question of the type species of Urothoe Dana, 1852 . . 34 7. Article 4 of the Code : question of the genus to be accepted as the type genus of a family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 8. Echinodermata : type species of the genus Tromihosoma Mortensen, 1903 : status of type species when genera are united . . . . 35 9. Type species of genera : validity of selections in Abstracts and similar publications ; type species of Gonulinus von Martens, 1895 36 10. Aves : the type species of the genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758 . . 36 11. Nematoda : the generic names Anguina Scopoh, 1777, Av^uiUidina Gervais and van Beneden, 1859, and Tylemhus Bastian, 1865 . . 37 12. Foraminifera : the generic names Lepidocydina Giimbel, 1870, and Nummulites Lamarck, 1801 . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 13. Mollusca : the generic names Lytoceras Suess, 1865 and Ophiceras Griesbach, 1880 39 14. Article 34 of the Code : the principles to be followed in rejecting, as homonyms, generic names of the same origin and meaning . . 39 15. Articles 25 and 34 of the Code : names proposed as emendations of, or as substitutes for, earlier names of the same origin and meaning 40 16. Camivora : generic names proposed for inclusion in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology . . . . . . . . . . 41 17. Report by the Commission to the Congress : progress in the task of drafting and the principles to be followed . . . . . . 41 18. Next meeting : date and time appointed . . . . . . . . 42 Conclusions of the Fifth Meeting of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature held in the Library of the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Lisbon on Wednesday, 18th September 193S, at 1145 hours 1. The form and scope of the Commission's Report . . . . . . 43 2. Draft Report : detailed examination of accuracy of every paragraph 44 XII 3. Procedure to be adopted for dealing with the " Horn Resolution " : decision of the Permanent Committee of the International 2k)ological Congresses . . . . .... . . . . 45 4. Resignation of Commissioner C. W. Stiles from the Office of Secretary to the Commission . . . . . . . . . . 45 5. Additional paragraphs for insertion in the Commission's Report . . 46 6. Unanimous adoption by the Commission of their Report to the International Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 7. Posting of the Commission's Report on the Bulletin Board of the Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 8. Arrangements for the nomination of a Commissioner to be Secretary to the Commission . . . . . . . . , . 47 9. The headquarters of the Commission . . . . . . . . 47 10. The Secretariat of the Commission : future arrangements . . 48 11. Thanks to the Alternate Members . . . . . . . . 48 12. Thanks to the Commissioners who acted as Secretaries at the Lisbon Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 13. Thanks to President Jordan . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 14. Next meeting : arrangements for . . . . . . . . . . 49 Conclusions of the Sixth Meeting of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature held in the Chemistry Amphitheatre of the Faculty of Sciences on Wednesday, 18th September 1935, at 1400 hours {Meeting field concurrently with the Section on Nomendature) 1. Welcome by the President of the International Commission . . 50 2. Resignation of Dr. C. W. Stiles from the Secretaryship of the Com- mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 3. Report by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature to the International Congress . . . . . . . . 51 4. The Berlin Agreement and the Liberum Veto 5. Closing of the Meeting Xlll 52 52 Report submitted by the International Commission on Zoological, Nomenclatm-e to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, Lisbon, September 1935 (Extract from the Compte Rendu XI I e Congres International de Zoologie tenu a Lisbonne du 15 au 21 seftemhre 1935, pp. 181-196) Official Record of the approval by the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology of the Report submitted by the International Cormnission on Zoological Nomenclature and of the adoption by the Congress of the Resolutions submitted by the International Commission (Extract from the Compte Rendu Xlle Congres International de Zoologie tenu a Lisbonne du 15 au 21 septembre 1935, page 205) On certain minor corrections made in the Report submitted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, Lisbon, September 1935. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to tJie International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature Plenary Conference between the President of the International Conmiission on Zoological Nomenclature and the Secretary to the International Commission : Minutes of a Meeting held at Columbia House, Aldwych, London, on Monday, 19th June 1939 (Reference Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10) . . 1. The scope of the present Meeting 2. Headquarters of the Commission 3. The financing of the work of the Commission 4. The main Records of the Commission 5. Correspondence and other documents of the Conmiission . 6. Arrangements for the issue of Opinions 7. Lisbon decisions : cases dealt with in the Lisbon Report not in- volving suspension of the Rules 8. Lisbon decisions : four cases involving suspension of the Rules to which no objection was later received 53 63 64 70-86 70 71 71 72 73 74 74 75 XIV 9. Lisbon decisions : fifteen generic names in the Hymenoptera . . 76 10. Lisbon decisions : Hylaeus Fabricius, Prosopis Fabricius, and Pro- sapis Jurine (Hymenoptera) . . . . . . . . . . 77 IL Lisbon decisions : Phaneroptera Serville and Locusta Linnaeus (Orthoptera) 79 12. Lisbon decisions : cases not dealt with in the Report . . . . 80 13. The work of the Commission : priority to be assigned to various items . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . • • • 81 14. Personnel of the Commission .. .. .. ..' .. 82 15. Suspension of the Rules in certain cases : form of advertisement . . 83 16. Suspension of the Rules for Bitis Gray, 1842 : scope of advertise- ment to be issued . . . . . . . . . . . . • • 83 17. Suspension of the Rules in certain cases : four cases to be adver- tised forthwith . . . . . . . . . • • • • • 85 18. Suspension of the Rules in certain cases : institutions and journals to which advertisement to be sent . . . . . . . . 85 PART 3. INDIVIDUAL NOMENCLATORIAL PROBLEMS PubUcation of proposals submitted to the International Co mmis sion on Zoological Nomenclature. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nom,enclature 87 Instructions to authors laid down by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, May 1943 . . 88 On the status, under Article 3 of the International Code, of a trivial name consisting of an im-Latinised modern patronymic. By T. D. A. Cock- erell. University of Colorado, Boulder, Col. . . . . . . . . 89 On the status, under Article 3 of the International Code, of a specific or subspecific trivial name consisting of a phonetic reproduction of the initial letters of two or more modem patronymics. By R. G. Fennah, Castries, St. Lucia, B.W.I 89 XV Proposal that Article 22 of the International Code should be amended by the adoption of a " Recommendation " that authors' names should not normally be cited. By the late Arthur P. Jacot . . . . . . 90 The implications of Dr. Jacot's proposal for the amendment of Article 22 of the International Code. By Francis Hemming, C.M.Gr., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 90 On the interpretation of Article 23 of the International Code in relation to the use of brackets when citing the name of an author of a subspecific trivial name, when that name appears in conjunction with the same generic name but not in the same relationship thereto as when originally published. By R. Chester Hughes, Department of Zoology, Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College, School of Arts and Sciences, Stillwater, Okkthorna . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 On the interpretation of Article 23 of the International Code in cases where a species is originally described as being both in a genus and in a subgenus and later the subgenus is elevated to generic rank and the species is transferred to the genus so erected. By C. F. W. Muesebeck, Officer in Charge, Division of Insect Identification, United States Depart- ment of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C 92 Proposal to delete Article 23 from the International Code. Resolution adopted by the American Malacological Union . . . . . . . . 93 On the question whether a generic, or a specific, name based upon the work of an animal but not on the animal itself has any standing imder Article 25 of the International Code. By J. Chester Bradley, Professor of Entomology and Curator of Invertebrate Zoology, New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell University, Cornell University Agri- cultural Experiment Statical, Ithaca, N.Y. . . . . . . . . 93 On the status, under Article 25 of the International Code, of generic names where the genera concerned are founded upon figures only. By Harald A. Rehder, Assistant Curator, Division of Mollusks, Smith- sonian Institution, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C. 94 On the problem raised by Dr. Harald A. Rehder regarding the status of generic names where the genera concerned are founded upon figiires only. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . 95 On the interpretation of Article 25 of the International Code in relation to the author to whom should be attributed a specific or subspecific trivial name originally published conditionally : case of Halictus mor- billosus aegyptiellus (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By T. D. A. Cockerell, University of Colorado, Boulder, Col. . . . . . . . . 97 XVI On the status, under Article 25 of the International Code, of the names of species of parasites pubUshed, prior to 1st January 1931, with no description, definition, or indication other than the name of the host. By Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.K.S., British Museum {Natural History), The Zoological Museum, Tring . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 The procedure proposed to be adopted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in preparing the report asked for by the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology in regard to the meaning to be attached to the expression " Nomenclature binaire " in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and on matters incidental thereto. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the hiternational Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . . . 98 On the meaning to be attached to the expression " le plus andennement designe " used in Article 25 of the International Code, with special reference to the case of Ophiotaenia ranarum Iwata and Matuda, 1938 and Ophiotaenia ranae yamaguti, 1938 (Class Cestoidea, Order Tetraphyllidea). By Satyu Yamaguti, M.D., Lecturer in Parasitology, Kyoto Imperial University, Japan . . . . . . . . . . 102 On the status, imder Article 25 of the International Code, of specific names published witli descriptions but without comparison with allied species. By H. B. Hungerford, Department of Entomology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 On the interpretation of Article 34 of the International Code in relation to a generic name identical with a name previously published for a genus in the Anim al Kingdom, where that genus has been transferred to the Vegetable Kingdom in accordance with Article 1 of the Inter- national Code. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . 103 On the question of recognising " neotypes ". By Don L. Frizzell and Harry E. Wheeler, Stanford University, California . . . . . . 106 On the proposal that the International Code should be amended to pro- vide for the estabUshment of " neotypes ". By Francis He m ming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the Interrmtional Commission onZoological Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • 108 On the status of the generic names published by Brisson (M. J.), 1762, Regnum Animale, By G. H. H. Tate, Assistant Curator of South American Mammals, American Museum of Natural History, New York 112 Proposal by the late commissioner C. W. Stiles for the addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of certain names proposed by Brisson (M. J.), 1762, Regnum Animale, and by Oken (L.), [1815-1816], Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 112 XVII On the generic names published by Briinnich, 1172, Zoologiae Fundamenta. By R. Winckworth, London . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 On the question whether generic names pubhshed by Geoffrey (E. L.), 1762, Histoire abregee des Insectes qui setrouventavx environs de Paris, are available under proviso (6) to Article 25 of the International Code. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . 117 Proposal that the pamphlet entitled " Buprestidae " privately and anonymously issued by Hope (F. W.), in 1836 should be suppressed for nomenclatorial purposes. By the late H. J. Carter, B.A. . . . . 117 On the pamphlet " Buprestidae " anonymously issued by Hope (F. W.) in 1836. By Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.E.S., British Museum {Natural History), The Zoological Museum, Tring . . . . . . . . . . 118 On the importance of facsimile reproductions of rare works of importance in systematic zoology, with special reference to Meigen (J. G.), 1800, Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a deux Ailes. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 On the validity of the genotypes designated by Koch (C. L.), 1837-1842, Ubersicht des Arachnidensy stems, 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 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 . . . . . . . . 162 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 . . 163 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Monograptus Geinitz, 1852 (Class Graptolithina, Order Graptoloidea). By 0. M. B. Bulman, Sc.D., F.R.S., University Lecturer in Palaeozoology, Cambridge University . . 164 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Retiolites Barrande, 1850 (Class Graptolithina, Order Graptoloidea). By 0. M. B. Bulman, Sc.D., F.R.S., University Lecturer in Palaeozoology, Cambridge University . . 166 On the type of the genus Diplodinium Schuberg, 1888 (Class Ciliophora). By Charles A. Kofoid, Department of Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 167 XVIII On Professor Charles A. Kofoid's application relating to the type of the genus Diplodinum Schuberg, 1888 (Class Ciliophora). By Francis Hem- ming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the Intermitimal Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . • • • • • • • • 168 On the type of the genus Diplodinium Schuberg, 1888 (Class Ciliophora), By Harold Kirby, Department of Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California . . . . . . • • • • ■ • • • 169 On the status of the generic name Aspidoproctus Newstead, 1901 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). By T. D. A. Cockerell, University of Colorado, Boulder, Col. . . . . . ■ ■ ■ • • • • • • 171 On the status of the generic name Phoranthella Townsend, 1915 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By the late J. M. Aldrich 171 Proposed suspension of the Regies for the generic name Diadenia Hum- phreys, 1797 (Class Echinoidea, Order Aulodonta). By Th. Mortensen, Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Kebenhavn 172 On the relative merits of the names Polyplacophora and Loricata as the name for the Class known as " Chitons " of the Phylimi MoUusca. By the late Edwin Ashby 176 On the holotype of Fasdola ovata Rudolphi, 1803 (Class Trematoda, Order Digenea). By G. Witenberg, Department of Parasitology, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem . . . . . . • • 176 On the relative status of the names Petalifera Gray, 1847, and Aplysielkt Fischer, 1872 (Class Gastropoda, Order Aplysiomorpha). By H. Engel, Conservator, Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam 177 On the question whether the name Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1830 (Class Gastropoda, Order Archaeogastropoda) is a homonym of Actnea (= emended form of Acnie) Hartmann, 1821 (Class Gastropoda, Order Mesogastropoda). By Avery R. Test, Laboratory of Vertebrate Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 178 On the holotype of Ammonites cordatus Sowerby, 1813 (Class Cephal- opoda, Order Ammonoidea). By W. J. Arkell, D.Sc, University Museum, Oxford 181 On the scope of the proposal submitted to the International Commission by Dr. W. J. Arkell in relation to the name Ammonites cordatus Sowerby, 1813 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . • . • • . • 185 XIX Proposed suspension of the Regies for Actinote Hiibner, [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and N. D. Riley, Keeper of the Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History) . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Hemerobius Linnaeus, 1758, and Chrysopa Leach, 1815 (Class Insecta, Order Neuroptera). By John Cowley, M.A., Bridgwater, Somerset ; F. J. Killington, D.Sc, Parkstone, Dorset ; D. E. Kimmins, Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History) ; C. E. Longfield, Department of Erdomology, British Museum {Natural History) . . . . . . . . . . 188 On the question whether Acarus alatus Hermann, 1804, is invalidated by Acarus alatus Schrank, 1803, an unrecognisable species (Class Arachnida, Order Acarina). By the late Arthur P. Jacot . . . . . . . . 191 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Palaeaneilo Hall (J.), 1869 (Class Pelecypoda, Order Protobranchia). By L. R. Cox, Sc.D., Assistant Keeper in the Department of Geology, British Museum {Natural History) 192 On the relative status of the names Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856, and Schistosoma Weinland, 1858 (Class Trematoda, Order Digenea). By H. Vogel, Institut fur Schiffs-und Tropenkrankheiten, Hamburg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 On the status of the generic name Schistosoma Weinland, 1858 (Class Trematoda, Order Digenea) in relation to Opinion 77. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 On the relative merits of the names Dissotrematidae, Gyliauchenidae, and Opistholebetidae as the name of the Family containing the genus Dissotrema Goto & Matsudaira, 1918 (Class Trematoda, Order Digenea). By H. W. Manter, Department of Zoology and Anatomy, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 On the date as from which the names published in Pallas (P. S.), Zoo- graphia rosso-asiatica are available nomenclatorially. By the late W. L. Sclater, M.A. 198 Annex to application submitted by Mr. W. L. Sclater. On the dates of Pallas's Zoographia rosso-asiatica. By the late C. D. Sherborn, D.Sc. 199 On the status of the name Clavdlariu^ Olivier, 1789 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By H. H. Ross and B. D. Burke, Illinois State Natural History Survey, Urbana, Illitwis . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 XX On the relative status of the generic names Cimbex Olivier, 1790, and Clavellarius Olivier, 1789 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . . . 202 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Bombus Latreille, 1802 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History) ; Ch. Ferriere, Imperial Institute of Entomology, London ; 0. W. Richards, D.Sc, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Ceratina Latreille, [1802-1803] (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), By R. B. Benson, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History) ; Ch. Ferriere, Imperial Institute of Entomology, London ; 0. W. Richards, D.Sc, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Diodontus Curtis, 1834 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History) ; Ch. Ferriere, Imperial Institute of Entomology, London, 0. W. Richards, D.Sc. Imperial College of Science and Technology, London . . . . 206 Proposed suspension of the Regies for the names Formica Linnaeus, 1758, and Camponotus Mayr, 1861 (Class Insecta, Order Hjmienoptera). 6y R. B. Benson, M.A. Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History) ; Ch. Ferriere, Imperial Institute of Entomology, Londo^i ; 0. W. Richards, D.Sc, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London . . . . . . 207 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Gorytes Latreille 1804, and Iloplisus Lepeletier, 1832 (Class Insecta, Order Hjonenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History) ; Ch. Ferriere, Imperial Institute of Entomology, London; 0. W. Richards, D.Sc, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Harpactus, Shuckard, 1837 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History) ; Ch. Ferriere, Imperial Institute of Entomology, London ; 0. W. Richards, D.Sc, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . 209 XXI Proposed suspension of the Regies for Macropis (Klug MS.) Panzer, [1806-1809], and Megilla Fabricius, [1804-1805] (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History) ; Ch, Ferriere, Imperial Institute of Entomology, London ; 0. AV. Richards, D.Sc, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London . . . . 210 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Megachile Latreille, 1802 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Department of Emtomology, British Museum {Natural History) ; Ch. Ferriere, Imperial Institute of Entomology, London ; 0. W. Richards, D.Sc, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London . . . . . . . . . . 211 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Methoca Latreille, 1804 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History) ; Ch. Ferriere, Imperial Institute of Entomology, London ; 0. W. Richards, D.Sc, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Notozus Forster, 1853 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History) ; Ch. Ferriere, Imperial Institute of Entomology, London ; 0. W. Richards, D.Sc, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 Proposed emendation to Nysson of the name Nysso Latreille, 1796 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History) ; Ch. Ferriere, Imperial Institute of Entomology, London ; 0. W. Richards, D.Sc, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Odynerus Latreille, [1802-1803] (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History) ; Ch. Ferriere, Imperial Institute of Entomology, London ; 0. W. Richards, D.Sc, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London .. .. 215 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Ponera Latreille, 1804 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History) ; Ch. Ferriere, Imperial Institute of Entomology, London ; 0. W. Richards, D.Sc, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 216 XXII Proposed suspension of the Regies for Rhopalum (KirbyMS.) Stephens, 1829 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History) ; Ch. Ferriere, Imperial Institute of Entomology, London ; 0. W. Richards, D.Sc, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Solenius Lepeletier and BruUe, 1835 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History) ; Ch. Ferriere, Imperial Institute of Entomology, London ; 0. W. Richards, D.Sc, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 Proposed suspension of the Regies to preserve the trivial component {arvensis) of the specific name Vespa arvensis Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Department of Etomology, British Museum (Natural History) ; Ch. Ferriere, Imperial Institute of Etomology, London ; 0. W. Richards, D.Sc, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London - . . . . . . . . 219 Proposed suspension of the Regies to preserve the trivial component (agrorum) of the specific name Apis agrorum Fabricius, 1787 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History) ; Ch. Ferriere, Imperial Institute of Entomology, London ; 0. W. Richards, D.Sc, Imperial College of Science and Technology, Lmdon 220 Proposed suspension of the Regies for the genotype of Erycina Lamarck, 1805 (Class Pelecypoda, Order Heterodonta. By Harald A. Rehder, Associate Curator, Division of Mollusk, Smithsonian Institution, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C. . . . . . . . . 221 Proposal that Gesner (J.), 1758, Tractatus Physicus de Petrificatis, should be suppressed for nomenclatorial purposes. By J. Brookes Knight, Department of Geology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey . . 222 On the question whether Liodes Heyden, 1826 (Class Arachnida, Order Acarina) is a homonym of Leiodes Latreille, 1796 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By the late Arthur P. Jacot 223 On the question whether the names Liodes Heyden, 1826 (Class Arachnida, Order Acarina) and Leiodes Latreille, 1796 (Class Insecta, Order Cole- optera) are of the same origin and meaning. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomendaiure . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . 223 225 XXIII Proposed suspension of the Regies to suppress the name Raphistoma Kafinesque, 1815 (Class Pisces, Order Synentognathi) and to vaUdate the name Raphistoma Hall, 1847 (Class Gastropoda, Order Archaeogas- tropoda). By J. Brookes Knight, Department of Geology, Princeton University, New Jersey ; L. R. Cox, Sc.D., Department of Geology, British Museum {Natural History) ; K. P. Oakley, Department of Geology, British Museum {Natural History) ; Josiah Bridge, Palaeon- tologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. ; Edwin Kirk, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. ; the late J. R. Norman ; Ethelwynn Trewavas, D.Sc, Department of Zoology, British Museum {National History) ; the late E. 0. Ulrich ; Leonard P. Schultz, Division of Fishes, Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. ; and George S. Myers, Professor of Biology and Head Curator of Zoological Collections, Natural History Museum, Stanford University, California . . Proposal to suppress the generic name Teleosteus Volger, 1860, and the specific name Teleosteus primaevus Volger, 1860 (Class Anthozoa). By Adolf Zilch, Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Natur-Museum, Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M 228 On the relative merits of the names Bryozoa and Polyzoa as the name for the Class in the Animal Kingdom now know by one or other of these names. By Sir Sidney F. Harmer, D.Sc, F.R.S., formerly Director of the British Museum {Natural History) 230 On the interpretation of Article 19 of the Regies Internationales in relation to the name Chromodoris mcfarlandi Cockerell, 1902 (Class Gastropoda, Order Opisthobranchia). By D. P. Costello, Department of Zoology, University of North Carolina . . . . • • • • • • • ■ 232 On the status of the name commonly cited as Piroplasma annulatum Dschunkowsky and Luhs, 1904 (Class Sporozoa, Order Coccidiida): By G. Witenberg, Department of Parasitology, Tlie Hebrew University, Jerusalem . . . . . . • • • • •• • • • • • • ^^^ On the question of the place and date of first publication of the name Piroplasma annulatum Dschunkowsky and Luhs (Class Sporozoa, Order Coccidiida) commonly treated as having been first published in 1904. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the Irder- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 234 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Tretmtaspis Schmidt, 1866 (Class Cephalaspidomorphi, Order Osteostraci). By George M. Robertson, Department of Biology, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire 237 Proposed suspension of the Regies to indentify Anomia pecten Linnaeus, 1758, with the species belonging to the Order Protremata (Class Brachiopoda) commonly known as Strophomena pecten (Linnaeus, 1758) ^^^ XXIV On the type of the genus Chinchilla Bennett, 1829 (Class Mammalia, Order Rodentia). By Wilfred H. Osgood, Chicago Natural History Museum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • ■ • 240 On the status of the name Aturoidea Vredenburg, 1925 (Class Cephalopoda Order Nautiloidea). By M. H. Haas, Ph.D., LL.D., Department of Geology, British Museum {Natural History) . . . . . . . . 243 On the types of the genera Bradycellus Erichson, 1837, and Trichocellus Ganglbauer, 1892 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By H. E. Andrewes, Leicester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Bradycellus Erichson, 1837 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By Sir Guy A. K. Marshall, K.C.M.G., D.Sc, F.R.S., formerly Director of the Imperial Institute of Entomology, London ; H. E. Andrewes, Leicester ; W. A. F. Balfour-Browne, formerly Professor of Entomology, Department of Entomology, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London ; K. G. Blair, D.Sc, formerly Deputy Keeper of the Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History) ; and M. Cameron, British Museum- {Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring . . . . . . . . . . 246 On the type of the genus Carabus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By H. E. Andrewes, Leicester .. .. .. .. 247 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Carabus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By Sir Guy A. K. Marshall, K.C.M.G., D.Sc, F.R.S., H. E. Andrewes, W. A. F. Balfour-Browne, K. G. Blair, D.Sc, and M. Cameron 248 On the types of the genera Harpalus Latreille, [1802-1803] and Ophonus Stephens, 1827 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By H. E. Andrewes, Leicester .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Harpalus Latreille, [1802-1803] and Ophonus Stephens, 1827 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By Sir Guy A. K. Marshall, K.C.M.G., D.Sc, F.R.S., H. E. Andrewes, W. A. F. Balfour-Browne, K. G. Blair, D.Sc, and M. Cameron 250 On the types of the genera Lebia Latreille, [1802-1803], and Dromius SamoueUe, 1819 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By H. E. Andrewes, Leicester . . . . . . . . . . 251 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Lebia Latreille [1802-1803] (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By Sir Guy A. K. Marshall, K.C.M.G., D.Sc, F.R.S., H. E. Andrewes, W. A. F. Balfour-Browne, K. G. Blair, D.Sc, and M. Cameron 252 XXV On the type of the genus Tachys Stephens, 1828 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By H. E. Andrewes, Leicester . . . . . . . . 253 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Tachys Stephens, 1828 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By Sir Guy A. K. Marshall, K.C.M.G., D.Sc, F.R.S., H. E. Andrewes, W. A. F, Balfour-Browne, K. G. Blair, D.Sc, and M. Cameron 254 On the types of the genera Trechus Schellenberg, 1806, and Acwpalpus LatreiUe, 1829 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By H. E. Andrewes, Leicester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • 255 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Trechus Schellenberg, 1806 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By Sir Guy A. K. Marshall, K.C.M.G., D.Sc, F.R.S., H. E. Andrewes, W. A. F. Balfour-Browne, K. G. Blair, D.Sc, and M. Cameron . . 256 On the type of Dinornis novae-zealandiae Owen, 1843 (Class Aves, Order Dinornithiformes). By Gilbert Archey, Director, Auckland Institute and Museum, Auckland, New Zealand and R. S. Allan, Canterbury University College, Christchurch, New Zealand . . . . . . ... 257 On the question whether the name Corixa Geoffroy, 1762 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) satisfies the requirements of proviso (6) to Article 25 of the Regies Internationales and, if it is an available name, what is its type. By H. B. Hungerford, Department of Entomology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 Procedure proposed to be adopted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in considering the questions submitted by Professor H. B. Hungerford in regard to the name Corixa Geoffroy, 1762 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G. C.B.E., Secretary to the Internatio'nal Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 On the status of Martin (W.), 1793, Fig. Descr. Petrif Derbyshire, and 1809, Petrificata Derbiensia. By J. Brookes Knight, Department of Geology, Princetoti University, Pri)icelon, Neiv Jersey . . . . . . 260 On the question whether eight generic names in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) commonly accepted as having been first pubUshed by Fabricius in 1807 were pubhshed by Illiger earlier in the same year. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G. , C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . 261 XXVI Proposed emendation to Hygrohia of Hygriobia Latreille, 1804 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By H. E. Andrewes, Leicester ; W. A. F. Balfour-Browne, formerly Professor of Entomology, Department of En- tomology, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London ; K. G. Blair, D.Sc, formerly Deputy Keeper of the Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History) ; M. Cameron, British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring ; and C. E. Tottenham, University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge . . . . . . . . 270 On the type of the genus Schwagerina von MoUer, 1877 (Class Ehizopoda, Order Foraminifera). By Hubert G. Schenck, Department of Geology, Stanford University, California . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 On the status of the name Alydus Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta;, Order Hemiptera). By W. E. China, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Depart- ment of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History) . . . . 273 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Alydus Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). By E. E. Green, Camberley, and W. E. China, M.A., Assistant Keeper in tlie Department of Entomology , British Museum {Natural History) . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 On the status of the name Salda Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). By W. E. China, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Depart- ment of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History) . . . . 276 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Salda Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). By E. E. Green, Camberley, and W. E. China, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Aquarius Schellenberg, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), a genus based upon an erroneously deter- mined species. By W. E. China, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Depart- ment of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History) . . . . 277 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Bellocoris Hahn, 1834 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), a genus based upon an erroneously deter- mined species. By W. E. China, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Depart- ment of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History) .. .. 278 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Beosus Amyot and Serville, 1843 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), a genus based upon an erroneously determined species. By W. E. China, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History) . . 279 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Catoplatus Spinola, 1837 ^Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), a genus based upon an erroneously deter- mined species. By W. E. China, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Depart- ment of Entonwlogy, British Museum {Natural History) .. .. 281 XXVII Proposed suspension of the Regies for Diciyonota Curtis, 1827 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), a genus based upon an erroneously deter- mined species. By W. E. China, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Depart- ment of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History) . . . . 282 Proposed suspension of the Rigles for Gastrodes Westwood, ISIO (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), a genus based upon an erroneously deter- mined species. By W. E. China, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Depart- ment of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History) . . . . 283 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Oncotylus Fieber, 1858 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), a genus based upon an erroneously deter- mined species. By W. E. China, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Depart- ment of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History) . . . . 284 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Pachylops Fieber, 1858 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), a genus based upon an erroneously deter- mined species. By W. E. China, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Depart- nient of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History) . . . . 285 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Pilophorus Hahn, 1826 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), a genus based upon an erroneously deter- mined species. By AV. E. China, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Depart- ment of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History) . . . . 286 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Tetyra Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), a genus based upon an erroneously deter- mined species. By W. E. China, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Depart- ment of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History) .'. .. 287 Action taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature on the applications published in Volume 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . , , . . 289 Addenda et Corrigenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 Index of the names of the authors of papers published in Volimie 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and of appUcations, and of com- ments on apphcations, published or referred to therein . . . . 303 Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . , . . 307 Particulars of dates of publication of the several Parts in which Volume 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature was published . . . . 343 Instructions to Binders . . . . . . » . . . . . . . 344 VOLUME 1. Part 1. Pp. i-xxyi 21»t MAY 1943 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 2 3 JoL '^4^ ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE PURCHASED Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission Decision to establish the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. By Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S., President of the Inter- national Commission ...... The functions and powers of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Com- mission pp. i-iii pp. iv-xxvi 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. 1943 Price Nine Shillings (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION A. 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 Kmgdom). Assistant Secretary : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). B. The Members of the Commission Class 1943 Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor L. di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). , Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) {Assistant Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Leonhard STEJNEGER (U.S.A.). (Vacant).* ^, ,... Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. W. ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Bela von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. T. JACZEWSKI (Poland). (Vacant), t _, ,„.„ Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia). Mr Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) {Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) {President of the Commission). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). C. The Staff of the Secretariat in London Secretary to the Commission : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G.. C.B.E. Archivist : Mr. Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A. Publications Clerk : Miss E. Evans. D. The Address of the Commission 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. * This vacancy was caused by the death on 23rd May, 1939, of Dr. Witmer STONE ^""t' This vacancy was caused by the death on 24 January, 1941, of Dr. Charles Wardell STILES {U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935). DECISION TO ESTABLISH THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE By Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. {President of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.) At their meeting held in Lisbon in September 1935 during the Twelfth Inter- national Congress of Zoology the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature were informed that a letter had been received from Dr. C. W. Stiles in which he asked to be relieved of the Office of Secretary on grounds of ill-health (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 4), and the Commissioners felt that they had no option but to comply with his request. Dr. Stiles had filled that office with the greatest success from its institution in 1897, and the whole administrative arrangements for the working of the Commission had been of his making. It was apparent, therefore, that the break involved by Dr. Stiles's resignation would give rise to a number of problems afiecting the working of the Commission, but it was equally clear that no solutions could be found until his successor had been elected. In these circumstances the Commission judged it better not to fill the Office of Secretary at that meeting, but to do so after the Congress by correspondence in order to give every member of the Commission an opportunity to take part in the election. The Commission accordingly decided to invite Dr. Stiles to officiate as Acting Secretary to the Commission until the election of his successor. The decision to follow this procedure was in the general interest of the work of the Commission, but in consequence of it the Commission could not give even preliminary consideration at Lisbon to the administrative and other problems inevitably created by a change in the Secretaryship of the Com- mission. All that it was then possible for the Commission to do was to provide the means by which these problems could be settled as soon as Dr. Stiles's successor was elected. With this object in view the Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10) that I, in conjunction with the new Secretary when elected, should be authorised to make such arrangements and to take such other action as might appear to us necessary or expedient : — (i) to establish the Secretariat of the Commission at its new headquarters ; (ii) to secure the due publication of the Opinions agreed upon from time to time by the Commission ; (iii) to give effect to the decisions reached by the Commission at their Lisbon Session ; (iv) to obtain the finance required for the due functioning of the Com- mission; and generally (v) to seciire the effective continuance of the work of the Commission. In October 1936 Commissioner Francis Hemming was unanimously elected Secretary to the Conmaission, and early in 1937 the current correspondence (and later the other records) of the Commission were transferred from Washington to London. The task involved in establishing the Commission at its new head- quarters was a formidable one : suitable accommodation had to be secured , funds to be raised, arrangements to be made for the publication of future Opinions of the Commission, and the documents transferred from Washington , BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (MAY 1943.) A ii Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. to London to be sorted, registered and indexed. Mr. Hemming's official duties at that period made it particularly difficult for him to find the large amount of time required for this task ; but in spite of these difficulties all the necessary- work had been completed and the Secretariat fully established by the spring of 1939. It is not necessary here to refer in detail to the arrangements then made, since full particulars are given in the minutes of the conference held between Mr. Hemming and myself on 19 June 1939 under the authority of the Resolution adopted by the International Commission quoted in the preceding paragraph.* Of all the matters which it was necessary for Mr. Hemming and myself to consider at that time the one which was the most intractable and which gave us the greatest anxiety was the provision of the finance required to enable the Co m mission to continue its work. For so long as the Secretariat was established in Washington the Commission as such had no income and needed none. Its out- of-pocket expenses were defrayed by the U.S. Government Department of which Dr. Stiles was an official, and the printing of the Commission's Opinions was undertaken free of charge by the Smithsonian Institution. On the transfer of the Secretariat to London these arrangements necessarily lapsed, and new ones had to be devised in their place. The grants generously made to the Commission at that time by the Royal Society, the Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History) and the Learned Societies in London concerned with the biological sciences made it possible not only to establish the Secretariat in London, but also to resume in 1939 the publication of Opinions agreed upon by the Co mm ission. These for the first time were then published directly by the Commission itself. There remained, however, one problem for which no solution had been found, and which piust now be solved. Quite clearly the slender financial resources of the Commission are not sufficient to justify the engagement of an assistant to copy, for distribution to the 18 Conomissioners, the text of proposals — often of considerable length — submitted to the Commission for decision. On the other hand, Mr. Hemming has already shouldered single-handed the burden of the correspondence of the Commission, and it would be as unfair as it would be impracticable to expect him personally to undertake the reproduction of docu- ments of which a copy is required for each Commissioner. This problem raises a question of much wider interest. Experience has shown that, if the Commission is to command in full measure the support of zoologists as a whole, it is essential so to conduct its affairs that any zoologist whose work involves questions of nomenclature shall have a ready means at his disposal of ascertaining what are the problems actually under consideration by the Commission at any given time. This need was recognised in principle both by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and by the International Congress of Zoology at Monaco in 1913, when it was agreed that the plenary powers to suspend the rules then conferred upon the Com- mission should not be used in any given case until the Commission had first advertised its intention in two or more of five specified scientific journals. In practice this provision has not proved adequate for the purpose, for the journals in question being of a wide biological character are not the journals which systematists would most naturally consult on such subjects. Moreover, the interest of zoologists in questions before the Commission is not confined to cases involving the possible suspension of the rules, but is often as keenly directed to questions of other kinds submitted to the Commission, for instance * For the text of the Minutes of this Conference, aee pp. 69-80. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. iii proposals in regard to the status of particular zoological works and proposals in favour of placing particular generic names on the Official List. When we were unable at our conference in 1939 to find a way to deal with the immense clerical work of the Secretariat of the Commission, we agreed to leave this difficulty over for further examination at a later stage, since it seemed to us more important that Mr. Hemming should give his immediate attention to the preparation of Opinions on the considerable number of questions on which the Commission had already reached decisions and which therefore did not require any further correspondence with the Commissioners. The outbreak of war in September 1939 led to the temporary suspension of the work of the Secretariat. But when in 1942 Mr. Hemming was able to reopen the Secretariat, the two-fold problem described above forced itself into the foreground with renewed insistence. After very careful consideration of the situation in which the Secretariat finds itself, Mr. Hemming and I have come to the conclusion that the most satisfactory way of distributing to the members of the Commission the text of propositions submitted to it for consideration and the only way of ensuring that the nature of those propositions shall quickly be brought to the attention of the zoological profession in general would be to arrange for their publication in a journal specially devoted to questions of zoological nomenclature. No such journal exists to-day, and we had therefore to choose between the two alter- natives : either to restrict the work of the Commission, which would be an untenable measure, or ourselves to issue a journal of that sort on behalf of the Commission. Thus we came to the decision to found the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as the Official Organ of the Commission. The Bulletin will be issued in parts as material (and funds) are available, and we hope that it will be possible to publish at least two Parts annually. Normally, each Part will mainly consist of : — (a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the Commission for deliberation and decision ; (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary with, zoologists on proposals already published in the Bxdletinwi^eT (a) above; -and (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. The present Part, which is of an introductory character, contains a paper by the Secretary on the functions and powers of the Commission, which is not only the first general account of the subject ever published, but is of great interest also by reason of the suggestions it contains for the future development of the work of the Commission and in particular for the reform of its procedure so as to ensure that, while the fullest consideration is given to all matters submitted for decision, all unnecessary delays in reaching decisions and pub- lishing them are eliminated. The lack of information as to the decisions of the Commission at the Lisbon meeting in 1935 has long been a handicap to working zoologists and the publication in Part 2 of the documents in which those decisions are recorded will fill a long-felt want. a2 ( iv ) THE FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.) I. Introductory. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was established by the Third International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Leyden in 1895. The Commission was charged by the Congress with the duty of studying the various codes of zoological nomenclature then in use and of reporting thereon to a later Congress. 2. The Commission held a special meeting in 1897 at Baden-Baden for the purpose of discharging the duty laid upon it by the Congress. As a result it prepared a report for submission to the Fourth International Congress of Zoology that met at Cambridge in 1898. The Commissioners were agreed upon the majority of the questions before them but they were unable to reach complete unanimity upon all points. The only surviving account of what happened on the arrival at Cambridge of the four members of the Commission (Blanchard, Jentink, Sclater and Stiles) who attended the meeting is that given by Dr. Stiles (then the only survivor) in paragraph 71 of the report submitted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to the Tenth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held in Budapest in 1927. This passage, which forms part of a retrospect by the Commission, reads as follows : — 71. . . . Upon arriving at Cambridge, England, and prepared to present its report, the Commission was definitely denied a place on the program to present the Rules; the reason stated was that the recom- mendations by the Commission were not unanimous. To be specific, for the benefit of any person who desires to follow this matter further, it was Prof. F. JEFFREY BELL, of London, the General Secretary of the Cambridge (4th) Congress, who imparted this information to the then President [Professor Blanchard] and the Secretary of the Commission [Dr. Stiles], ... 3. The Proceediiigs of the Cambridge Congress are far from being informa- tive, but, so far as they go, they fully support Dr. Stiles's account of what happened. At any rate they make it perfectly clear that the report prepared by the Commission between 1895 and 1898 on the various codes was not presented to the Congress. The work of the Commission was discussed at the First General Meeting held on Tuesday, 23rd August 1898, when (p. 54) :- " Dr. Stiles made a statement regarding the Proceedings of the Com- mittee appointed to consider the Laws of Zoological Nomenclature and their Report," Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. v The Proceedings go on to say : — " and it was then moved by Mr. Sclater and agreed, ' That the Report be referred for further consideration to the Com- mittee, with power to add to its number.' " 4. There follows (p. 55) a passage written (in French) presumably by Professor Blanchard, the President of the Commission, in which an account is given of how, as the result of the foregoing decision, the Commission met and elected ten additional members, thereby bringing its total membership up to fifteen. This passage ends with the following brief description of the functions of the Commission : — Cette Commission de quinze membres est chargee de centraliser, de discuter et d'elaborer toutes les questions relatives a la nomenclature zoologique. 5. Since the Cambridge meeting, now nearly more than forty-five years ago, the scope of the functions of the International Commission has been extended in various directions and additional powers have been given to it from time to time ; but in general the instructions given to the Commission by the Fourth Congress still constitute its terms of reference. In the words of the By-Laws adopted by the Commission at the meeting of the Eighth International Con- gress of Zoology held in Graz in 1910, it is the duty of the Commission to " study the general subject of the theory and practice of zoological nomen- clature " and to report thereon to the International Congress of Zoology. II. The present functions of the International Commission. 6. In their present form the powers of the Commission date from the meeting of the Ninth International Congress of Zoology held at Monaco in 1913. Those powers it has discharged in four main ways : — (i) by submitting from time to time to the International Congress of Zoology recommendations either for amendments to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature or for the addition of " recommenda- tions " to be added to particular Articles of the Code; (ii) by rendering (since 1907) Opinions on questions of zoological nomen- clature submitted to it ; (iii) by compiling (since ] 910) the " Official List of Generic Names in Zoology" ; (iv) by the use (since 1913) of the " plenary powers " conferred upon it by the Monaco meeting of the International Congress of Zoology. (a) Proposals for the aynendment of, or for additions to, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 7. At the time when the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature was adopted by the International Congress of Zoology, zoologists in difierent parts of the world and specialists in different groups had been working on one or other of the unofficial codes, which, though generally similar in many respects, differed from one another in important particulars. It was only natural, therefore, that the new International Code was neither warmly welcomed nor universally accepted. Like other new institutions, it had to gain support gradually as its merits came to be recognised. On the whole, it won its way vi Biilletin of Zoological Nomenclature, with, astonishing rapidity and that this was so must certainly be attributed in large part to the deliberate policy of the Commission, with the support of the authorities of the Cambridge (1898) and Berlin (1901) Congresses, in con- centrating attention on those aspects of zoological nomenclature on which at that time unanimity could be secured and in leaving over for later consideration those questions on which opinion was then acutely divided. 8. In the general interest of the Code itself, the Commission were certainly wise in the early stages to adopt a cautious, not to say conservative, attitude. This does not mean that the Commission have hesitated to suggest changes in the International Code, where experience showed that these were needed. On the contrary, some important changes and developments have been made by the Congress on the recommendation of the Commission. Thus, at the Boston (1907) meeting, a new version of Article 30 (relating to the method to be followed in designating the types of genera) was inserted in the Code ; at the Graz (1910) meeting, an important addition was made to Article 35 on the method of determining homonyms; at Budapest (1927), an important reform was introduced into Article 25 designed to secure that so far as concerned names published after 31st December 1930, no generic or specific name pub- lished without a summary of characters difierentiating it from other genera or species shall have any status of availability and hence of validity ; and at Padua (1930) a valuable " recommendation " regarding homonyms of identical date was added to Article 36. Numerous other less important changes in, or additions to, the Code were approved at Boston (1907), Graz (1910) and Padua (1930). Most important of all was the settlement at Monaco (1913) of the controversy between the schools of thought which on the one hand were in favour of the most rigid application of the Law of Priority and on the other advocated the adoption on a wide scale of lists of nomina conservanda. This settlement, which was secured through the grant to the Commission by the Congress of " plenary powers " to suspend the rules in certain cases, is further discussed in paragraphs 45-48 below. 9. In addition to formal changes in the Code such as those discussed above, the Commission have rendered a number of Opinions on the interpretation of the Code, which, on their adoption by the International Congress, are equi- valent, if not to changes in, at least to amplifications of, the Code. The most recent Opinions of this type are (i) Opinion 138, which amplifies and clarifies the meaning of the phrase " definite bibliographic reference " in paragraph (2) of Section (c) added to Article 25 by the Congress at Budapest in 1927, (ii) Opinion l4l, which lays down the principles to be observed in interpreting Article 4 of the Code relating to the naming of families and subfamilies, (iii) Opinion 145, relating to the status of names first published in works rejected for nomenclatorial purposes and subsequently republished in other works, (iv) Opinion 147, on the principles to be observed in interpreting Article 34 of the Code in relation to the rejection, as homonyms, of generic and sub- generic names of the same origin and meaning, and (v) Opinion 148 on the status of generic names proposed as emendations of, or as substitutes for, earlier generic names of the same origin and meaning. (b) The rendering of Opinions on questions of zoological nomenclature. 10. At the Boston (1907) meeting of the International Congress of Zoology the International Commission included in its report to the Congress five Opinions that had been unanimously adopted by the Commission in regard to Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. vii the Law of Priority (Article 25) and its application (Article 26). A few weeks later (ISth October 1907) these Opinions were published in Science (26 : 522- 523) as Opinions 1 to 5 of the Commission. At the CIraz (1910) Congress the International Commission reported that since the last Congress they had ren- dered 20 further Opinions (Opinions 6-25) on various questions that had been referred to them. At the same meeting the Commission for the first time adopted formal By-Laws, which they included in the report that they submitted to the Congress. Section 3 of Article 3 of these By-Laws laid it down as part of the powers of the Commission that " the Commission is authorised to express Opinions on cases of nomenclature submitted to it ". 11. Since 1910 the Commission has continued to render Opinions from time to time. To the present date (2nd April 1943), the total number of Opinions rendered is 150. Of these, 144 have been published and 6 are awaiting publica- tion. In addition, there is a considerable number of other cases on which the Commission had reached decisions prior to the outbreak of war in September 1939, on which it has not yet been possible to publish Opinions. 12. The dates of the publication of the Opinions so far rendered by the Commission are as follows : — Opinion. Date of publication. 1-5 18th October 1907 1 6-25 July 1910 26-29 October 1910 30-37 July 1911 38-51 February 1912 52-56 May 1913 57-65 March 1914 66 February 1915 67 April 1916 68-77 January 1922 78-81 February 1924 82-90 December 1925 91-97 October 1926 98-104 September 1928 105-114 June 1929 115-123 January 1931 124-133 October 1936 134 135 I 28th August 1939 136 J 137 1 138 1 30th October 1942 139 ' 140 ^ 30th January 1943 141 142 "1 143 I 25th March 1943 144 30th March 1943 ^ As explained in paragraph 10 above, these Opinions were first pubKshed in Science in October 1907. They were reprinted by the Smithsonian Institution (July 1910) with Opinions 6-25. A3 viii Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 13. The 150 Opinions so far rendered fall into the following groups : — Nature of subject dealt with. No. of Opinions. Interpretations of the Code; the status of certain zoo- logical works or of the names published therein ; question whether in certain works the authors concerned designated types of genera; questions relating to the status of particular names raising no general question of principle and of interest only to specialists in the group concerned . 102 ^ The Official List of Generic Names in Zoology . . 21 ^ Cases involving the use of the " plenary powers," including four cases (Opinions 76, 90, 112, and 121) where the use of these powers was refused ...... 27 ^ 150 14. The 102 Opinions dealing with general subjects fall into the following groups : — Nature of subject dealt with. No. of Opinions. interpretations of the Code : Opinions 1-10, 15, 16, 20, 25-27, 34, 35, 43, 44, 46, 52, 59, 62, 64, 65, 83, 87, 88, 102, 120, 131, 133, 138, 141, 145, 147, 148 38 the status of certain zoological works or of the names published therein : Opinions 17, 21, 28, 37-39, 48, 51, 57, 72, 96, 97, 101, 124, 126, 132, 134, 150 18 ^ question whether in certain works the authors concerned designated types of genera : Opinions 11, 30, 71, 79, 98, 136 6 questions relating to the status of particular names raising no general question of principle and of interest only to specialists in the group concerned : Opinions 12-14, 18, 19, 22-24, 29, 31-33, 36, 40^2, 45, 47, 49, 50, 53-56, 58, 60, 61, 63, 68-70, 78, 86, 99, 107, 116, 118, 125, 140, 143 40 ^ 102 2 Exclusive of Opinion 76 (which deals also with the use of the " plenary powers ") and 113 (which is concerned also with the Official List of Generic Names). » Exclusive of 16 Opinions (Nos. 80, 82, 93, 100, 108-111, 117, 127-130, 142, 144, 146) which involve also the use of the " plenary powers " and 1 Opinion (No. 112) where a name was placed on the Official List after the use of the " plenary powers " had been refused. ^ Including the 17 Opinions referred to in Note 3. ^ Exclusive of 1 Opinion (No. 20), which also contains an interpretation of the Code and of 4 Opinions (Nos. 89, 105, 123, 135), which involve the use of the " plenary powers ". « Exclusive of 15 Opinions (Nos. 15, 25-27, 34, 43, 44, 52, 59, 83, 88, 102, 120, 131, 133), which contain also interpretations of the Code, of 1 Opinion (No. 113), which is concerned also with the Official List of Generic Names, and 1 Opinion (No. 76), which is concerned also with the use of the " plenary powers ". Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. ix 15. At the Boston (1907) meeting, at which the Commission first agreed upon the issue of Opinions on questions of nomenclature submitted to them, the Commission included in their report to the Congress the full text of the Summaries of the Opinions so rendered (Opinions 1-5). The same procedure was followed at the Graz (1910) meeting and a provision directing that this course should be followed as a matter of routine on future occasions was inserted in the By-Laws (Article 4, Section 1 (b)) adopted by the Commission at that meeting. At the Monaco (1913) meeting the Commission accordingly set out in their report the summaries of the Opinions (Nos. 26-56) adopted since the Graz meeting. When the Commission's report came to be considered by the Section on Nomenclature, it was recognised that the reading of these summaries was inconvenient and unnecessary and it was accordingly dispensed with. The official record of this decision is given in the Com'ptes Rendus of the Congress in the following terms : "In view of the fact that Opinions 29-56 [sic], inclusive, had been printed in detail, it was moved, seconded, and voted that section (58) of the report dealing with Opinions 29-56 be read by title and that the Opinions be approved." At the Budapest (1927) meeting, the Commission inserted in their report a paragraph (paragraph 48) dealing with the Opinions rendered since the Monaco meeting fourteen years earlier. This paragraph concluded with the words " The following are the ' Summaries ' of Opinions 57-97 ". These summaries, however, were not included in the version of the report published in the Comptes Rendus of the Congress, and in view of the practical difficulties of preparing and reproducing the report of the Com- mission during meetings of the Congress in time to permit of its being sus- pended on the Bulletin Board of the Congress (as required by Article 4, Section 2 of the By-Laws of the Commission), it is reasonable to conclude that in fact the text of the summaries were not included in the version of the report actually submitted to the Congress. For similar reasons, the text of the summaries of Opinions rendered since 1927 appear not to have been incorporated in the report of the Commission at the time of its submission to the Padua (1930) meeting, although they are given in full in the report as subsequently published in the Comptes Rendus of the Congress. It is in any case certain that the portion of the Commission's report, which theoretically at least contained the summaries of the Opinions in question was not actually read at the meeting of the Section on Nomenclature when the report was presented, for the Comptes Rendus in the account of that meeting state explicitly that " Certain portions of the Report were read only by title, for instance, the Summaries of Opinions ". The same problem arose in an even more aggravated form at the Lisbon (1935) meeting at which, in the absence through ill-health of the Secretary (Dr. Stiles), it fell to me as one of the Acting Secretaries to the Commission, to draft their report to the Congress, for on this occasion the Commission had been unable to begin its meetings before the opening of the Congress with the result that it was necessary for the Commission to hold five meetings and to agree upon their report within a space of four days. "WTien therefore I came to draft the Commission's report, I obtained authority to include in that docimient only a brief paragraph (paragraph 9) stating that between the Eleventh and Twelfth Congresses the Comxnission had adopted certain new Opinions. 16. Clearly if full value is to be secured by the zoological profession from the work of the Commission, it is essential that the Opinions rendered by the Commission should be readily available for consultation by working zoologists. It was Avith this object in view that Dr. Stiles made an arrangement with the X Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, which had very generously undertaken to publish the Opinions rendered by the Commission, by which that Institution distributed copies of " the printed Opinions to 1,100 libraries, to the members of the International Congress of Zoology and to a limited list of specialists " (Stiles, 1910, Smithson. misc. Coll. 1938 : 5). In reporting this arrangement to the Monaco (1913) meeting of the Congress (paragraph (58) of the report), the Commission expressed their regret that some zoologists had apparently been unable to obtain copies of the Opinions so far rendered and invited any member of the Congress who failed " to receive the full Opinions to notify the Secretary to the Commission ". 17. The arrangement set out above was not altogether satisfactory, since imder it all members of the International Congress of Zoology received copies of the Opinions, whether they were interested in systematic zoology or not, while in the course of time it became increasingly difficult for the younger generation of zoologists to obtain copies of the earlier Opinions for their personal use. The whole question was reviewed by the Commission at their Budapest (1927) meeting, when they " adopted the policy of sending the ' Summaries ' of their Opinions to several scientific journals (Nature, Monitore Zoologico, Science, and Zoologischer Anzeiger) for publication as news items ". This arrangement was of value in that it served to bring the summaries of the Commission's Opinions before a wider zoological public but it was no more than a palliative in that it did nothing to enable zoologists to obtain copies of the Opinions for themselves. 18. On the transfer of the Secretariat of the Commission from Washington to London in 1936, following the resignation of Dr. Stiles from the Office of Secretary, it was necessary to review all existing arrangements in the light of the new situation that had arisen, and one of the decisions then taken was that in future the Commission should itself undertake the publication and sale of its Opinions. This decision was taken partly on financial grounds and partly to ensure that in future any zoologist who wished to obtain a copy of an Opinion rendered by the Commission should be able to do so. As part of this policy, it was decided to discontinue the practice by which six or more Opinions had normally been published together in a single issue and in its place to publish each Opinion singly, thereby making it possible not only to publish each Opinion immediately it was ready but also to place each Opinion on sale at a very low price. The first Opinions published under the new system were Opinions 134-136, which all appeared on 28th August 1939 (see paragraph 12 above). 19. At the time of the introduction of the new method of publishing the Opinions of the Commission, the majority of the earlier Opinions (Opinions 1-133) were already out of print and were therefore unobtainable by working zoologists. It was for this reason (as explained on page 2 of Opinion 134) that it was then decided that, as soon as sufficient funds were available, Opinions 1-133 should be reprinted as Volume 1 of Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. In consequence of this decision. Opinion 134 was published as the first Part of Volume 2 of the collected Opinions. All subsequent Opinions have been given continuous pagination in order to permit of the preparation of a comprehensive subject index when Volume 2 is completed. Btilletm of Zoological Nomenclature. xi (c) The " Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ". 20. The decision of the International Congress of Zoology at its Berlin (1901) meeting to tighten up the provisions in the International Code rel ting to the Law of Priority marked an important stage in the controversy between those zoologists who held the view that the only sure hope of ultimately securing a stable system of nomenclature lay in the most rigid application of the principle of priority and that other group of zoologists who were convinced that some names were so deeply rooted in scientific literature that any attempt to displace them on the ground that other names had priority would not only serve no useful purpose but would also postpone rather than assist the attain- ment of a stable nomenclature. For the most part, the zoologists of the latter school accepted the Berlin decision and thereafter concentrated their efiorts towards preserving long-established usage in the case of names of special importance through the adoption of some system of authorised excep- tions. The names on behalf of which these efiorts were directed were for the most part names of importance outside strictly systematic zoology, such as names in common use in the teaching of zoology and names ha^ang an impor- tant literature in such fields as medicine and agriculture. Proposals in favour of this course were received by the Commission from various bodies including the British Association for the Advancement of Science and the Eastern Branch of the American Society of Zoologists. At the same time numerous indications were received by the Commission showing the existence of a con- siderable body of zoologists " directly and enthusiastically opposed " to any proposal involving the making of any exceptions from the Law of Priority. 21. In these circumstances it was clearly necessary for the Commission to proceed with great circumspection if they were to follow a course acceptable to both parties to the controversy. As a first step. Dr. Stiles, as Secretary to the Commission, made an attempt between 1907 and 1910 " to collect from zoologists the most commonly used and important generic names " in their respective groups in order to form some estimate of the scope of the problem involved. At the Graz (1910) meeting the Commission reported that these efforts " had as yet met with such poor success " that the Commission were led to doubt whether some of the zoologists who advocated the establishment of an " Official List of Most Frequently Used Generic Names " were sufficiently enthusiastic over the plan to go to the labour of supplying the Commission with the data necessary for its preparation. The Commission added, however, that " after careful consideration of the subject and of the many difficulties involved " they had " decided to propose to the Congress the trial of a pro- position " which they hoped would " meet with the approval of both sides of the controversy ". 22. From the historical point of view, the plan proposed by the Commission is of such interest that it is here quoted in full : — 1. The Commission invites all zoologists to send to the Secretary to the Commission, prior to November 1, 1910, a list of 100 zoological generic names which they consider should be studied in connection with the preparation of an " Official List ". Each name should be accompanied either by the name of the author of the generic name, or by an indication of the group to which it belongs. 2. All systematists are invited to send a separate list of the 50 to 100 generic names in their specialty which they look upon as the most important and most generally used. Each should be accompanied by the xii Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. full and complete bibliographic reference, by the name of the type species, determined according to Axt. 30 of the International Rules, and by the name of the Order and family to which the genus belongs. 3. All zoologists and palaeontologists who give courses in General zoology are invited to supply the Secretary with a list of the text books used in said courses so that said books may be indexed for generic names. 4. The Commission will alphabetize all the generic names sent in and will endeavour, according to circumstances, to determine which are the 100 to 500 most commonly quoted genera. 5. The genera selected will be submitted to specialists in the groups in question who will be requested to submit opinions on the nomenclatorial status of said names. 6. Upon return of the list from the specialists, the Commission will endeavour to test the names, according to the International Rules, and if feasible will publish a list of the genera in question with their most commonly used names and their correct names. 7. If the undertaking is successful, the zoologists of the world will be invited to give to the Commission the benefit of their criticisms not later than July 1, 1912, so that the Commission can re-study the names and submit to the next Congress — 8. AN OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES, with their geno- types ; and with the 9. Proposition that the Congress adopt said list and a 10. Resolution to the effect that no zoologist shall upon NOMEN- CLATORIAL grounds change any name in said list unless he first submits to the Commission his reasons for making the change and unless the Commission considers the reasons valid. 23. The Commission went on to say that they believed this proposition feasible but for the present viewed it in the light of an experiment, dependent to no small extent upon the question whether a proper amount of cooperation was forthcoming. The published Proceedings of the Graz (1910) Congress contain no record of the action taken by that Congress on the foregoing recommendations of the International Commission, but fortimately there is no doubt in this matter, since three years later the report submitted by the Commission to the Monaco (1913) Congress contains the following statement (paragraph 19) : — (19) OFFICIAL LIST OF MOST FREQUENTLY USED ZOO- LOGICAL NAMES. — The Graz Congress adopted a recommendation by the Commission to the effect that an attempt be made to establish, on basis of the International Rules of Nomenclature, an " Official List of Most Frequently Used Zoological Names ". 24. From the report submitted by the Commission to the Monaco Congress, it appears that after the Graz (1910) Congress, Dr. Stiles, as Secretary to the Commission, " invited a number of workers to form themselves into special committees " for the purpose of cooperating in the preparation of the pre- liminary lists of generic names in the various groups. To some of these Com- mittees Dr. Stiles submitted lists of names for study. The reception accorded to this effort to give effect to the Graz decisions differed widely, ranging from full cooperation to vigorous opposition. Among the critics were ranged both those zoologists who objected on the ground that the proposed " Official Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. xiii List " was " the beginning of a list of ' Nomina conservanda ' to which they would not submit " and also those zoologists of the opposite school who " demanded that the Secretary agree that the list be made without reference to the Law of Priority ". 25. Faced with this fresh outbreak of the old controversy, Dr. Stiles very wisely decided that it was necessary for him to proceed with the utmost caution. It was in this spirit therefore that Dr. Stiles " finally decided that the wisest plan would be to submit to the Commission only a comparatively small number of names as a sample of what was proposed and to postpone further action on the matter until the Commission might discuss the situation and lay its views before the Congress for further consideration ". 26. In accordance with this policy the Commission submitted to the Monaco (1913) Congress the following documents : — (i) a sample " accepted list of 40 generic names which appear from our present knowledge to be valid under the Code " made up as follows : — Trematoda . .11 Acanthocephala . 1 Cestoda ... 5 Arachnoidea . . 8 Nematoda . . 7 Diptera ... 6 Gordiacea . . 2 The Commission added that " practically all of these come into con- sideration not only in zoological but also in medical and veterinary * literature " ; that public notice had been given that these names would be called up " for vote at this (1913) meeting of the Com- mission " ; that ample opportunity had been afforded for the pre- sentation of objections ; but that no objection to any name in the foregoing list had been presented to the Commission, (ii) a " list of 169 generic names of birds, with their authorities, refer- ences, genotypes, and method of type fixation, based on the Inter- national Rules of Zoological Nomenclature " ; The Commission explained that this list had been " imanimously agreed upon by a special committee of professional ornithologists " consisting of J. A. Allen (New York); E. Hartert (Tring) ; C. E. Hellmayr (Munich) ; H. C. Oberholser (Washington) ; C. W. Richmond (Secretary) (Washington) ; R. Ridgway (Washington) ; L. Stejneger (Washington) ; and W. Stone (Philadelphia). The Commission stated that it was their intention to send this list of names to press in the very near future and to give ample opportunity to the zoological pro- fession to offer objections to any of the names in question. The Commission expected to be able to announce early in the year 1914 whether or not objection had been raised to the list and therefore to be in a position to issue an Opinion on the subject. The Opinion so issued would be laid before the Tenth {i.e. the next) International Congress for confirmation, (iii) a " rejected list of names which appear to be unavailable under the Code " made up as follows : — Trematoda 22 Acanthocep hala . 2 Nematoda . 40 Diptera . . 92 Gordiacea . 1 Mammalia . 273 The Commission explained that these names, like those in the proposed " accepted list ", had " been made public with invitation to xiv Btdletin of Zoological Nomenclature. zoologists to present arguments showing why any of the said names should not be rejected ". The Commission added the followong note regarding the way in which the list of names to be rejected was to be interpreted : " Word has reached the Commission in one form or another that these names are absolute homonyms and therefore (Art. 34) unavailable ". In these circumstances the Commission proposed to consider the names iu question as still-born unless evidence was presented showing that the e\'idence then before them was erroneous. 27. At the same time, the Commission stated that " many other names, supposedly valid or supposedly unavailable, are still under consideration either by the Commission or by the several special sub -committees, but no further work in this line is contemplated unless the present Congress distinctly expresses its desire to have the labor continued "'. The Commission concluded this portion of their report by expressing the opinion that " work of this nature is distinctly constructive and promises the ultimate possibility of an international and authoritative list of the names that should be applied to the most commonly cited 5,000 to 10,000 zoological genera " (paragraph (30)) and by requesting " definite instructions from the Congress as to whether or not it is the desire to have this list continued " (paragTaph (50)). 28. ^Mien the Commission's report was brought before the Section on Nomenclature of the Monaco Congress, it was first adopted as a whole and the individual recommendations were then voted upon separately. On paragraph (50) the Commission were " instructed to continue the list " of generic names. As regards the three lists submitted by the Commission, it was agreed that the names in question should be re-submitted to sub-committees of specialists before they were formally approved. Thus at the close of the Monaco Congress in 1913, a definite decision had been taken to establish an " Official List of Generic Names " and instructions had been given to the Commission to push on with the task of placing on the List the most commonly used generic names in the Animal Kingdom, with their types. Both at Graz (in 1910) and in the discussions at Monaco prior to the presentation of the " Supplemental Report " it had been contemplated that there should be placed on the List only names which were nomenclatorially available under the Code and whose types had been determined in strict accordance with the rules in the Code; but with the grant to the Commission of " plenary powers " to suspend the rules in cases where they were satisfied that " the strict application " of the rules would " clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity " (for particulars of which see paragraphs 45-48 below), it became possible for the Commission in any given case first to suspend the rules under the plenary powers and then to place the name, as thus defined, on the Official List. 29. The first task to which the Commission addressed itself after the Monaco Congress was the preparation of Opinions placing on the Ofl&cial List well-known generic names that complied with the requirements of the Code in all respects and it was not until February 1924 that (in Opinion 80) the plenary powers were first used to place on the Ofiicial List names that would otherwise have been invalid or which it would othervvase have been necessary to use in a different sense. 30. The outbreak of war in 1914 inevitably delayed a start being made with the Official List but in February 1915 nine names (in the Nematoda and Gordiacea) were placed on the Official List by Opinion 66. Fourteen months Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. xv later 102 bird names drawn from the longer provisional list submitted to the Monaco Congress in 1913 were added to the Official List by Opinion 67; The further extension of the war in the following year put a stop temporarily to the work of the Commission and it was not until January 1922 that it was possible to publish the next instalment. This appeared in Opinions 73, 75, and 77, and included 161 generic names drawn from a wide variety of Phyla and Classes. 31. In July 1915 Commissioner Apstein had submitted to the Commission a long list of names as a basis for study. This list had been published that year in the Sitzvngberichte der GeseUschaft Naturforschender Freiinde zu Berlin under the title " Nomina conservanda. Unter Mitwirkung zahlreicher Spezial- isten herausgegeben von Prof. C. Apstein, Berlin ". The Apstein list was not sufficiently documented to enable the Commission without further investiga- tion to place on the Official List the names it contained, in view especially of the fact that some of those names could not be placed on the Official List without resort first being made to the plenary powers granted by the Monaco Congress. The Commission felt bound therefore to render an Opinion (Opinion 74 published in January 1922) making it clear that they had no power to adopt the list en bloc but that they* were prepared " to consider names separately on presentation of reasonably complete evidence ". The Apstein list thus failed to secure its immediate object but it was nevertheless a most valuable con- tribution to the work of the Commission and at later dates a large number of the names contained in it were added to the Official List. Its success would have been even greater had it not been for the unfortunate use in its title of the term " nomina conservanda " which served only to revive the memories of the bitter controversies of the period 1901-1913. 32. The accessions to the Official List between the Monaco (1913) and Budapest (1927) Congresses were as follows : — 1915 ... 9 1924 ... 3 1916 . . .102 1925 . . .108 1922 . . .161 1926 ... 87 Thus at the opening of the Budapest Congress in 1927 the number of names on the Official List amounted to 470 '^. In the case of 15 of these names (Opinions 80, 82, and 93), it was found necessary to make use of the plenary powers to place the name in question on the Official List in the sense desired. 33. The experience of the 14 years that had elapsed since the Monaco Congress in 1913 led the Commission in their report (paragraph 49) to the Budapest Congress to re-affirm their view that the Official List presented " a practical compromise between the views of the two opposing groups in the zoological profession, namely, the views of workers who favor a list of Nomina conservanda and of those who are opposed to Nomina conservanda ". 34. At the Budapest Congress the Commission judged it useful to place on record (paragraph 51) " in order to clear up a misconception on the part of some authors " that under the By-Laws of the Commission " no name once admitted to this list [i.e. the Official List of Generic Names] can be changed by the Commission without a two-thirds vote in the Commission ". 35. In the interval between the Budapest (1927) and Padua (1930) Con- gresses the number of names on the Official List was increased to 541 by the addition of 71 names as follows : — 1928 ... 60 1929 ... 11 ' Inadvertently given as 464 in paragraph 52 of the report submitted by the Com- mission to the Budapest Congress. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. In the case of 6 of these names (Opinions 100 and 108-111) it was found necessary to make use of the plenary powers to place the name in question on the Official List in the sense desired. 36. In the period immediately following the Padua Congress, the Com- mission was confronted with special difficulties and in consequence its output of work fell. The only additions to the Official List between the close of the Padua Congress in 1930 and the opening of the Lisbon Congress in 1935 were the follo^nng : — 1931 14 1936 8 38 In the case of 4 of the above names (Opinions 117 and 127-128) it was found necessary to make use of the plenary powers to place the name in question on the Official List in the sense desired. 37. Thus at the opening of the Lisbon Congress the total number of names on the Official List amounted to 558. The Opinions by which these names were placed on the Official List are the following : — Opinions 66 ; 67 ; 73 ; 75 ; 77 ; 80-82 ; 84 ; ^5 ; 91-95 ; 100 ; 103 ; 104 ; 106; 108-113; 117; 119; 122; 127; 128. Opinions 129 and 130, which each added one name to the List, were virtually settled before Lisbon but were not published tiU 1936. 38. At the Lisbon Congress the Commission raised the total number of names on the Official List to 613 by adding 53 insect names as follows : — 24 7 Hymenoptera 22 Orthoptera Lepidoptera . It was necessary for this purpose to make use of the plenary powers in the case of 2 of the Orthoptera names, all 7 of the Lepidoptera names and 16 of the Hymenoptera names. The only Opinions so far rendered in regard to the names added to the Official List at Lisbon are Opinions 139 and 144 relating to five names in the Hymenoptera, Opinions 142 and 146 relating to two names in the Lepidoptera and Opinion 149 relating to 21 names in the Orthoptera. 39. The 613 names so far placed on the Official List of Generic Names are distributed among the main groups of the Animal Kingdom as follows : — Phylum Protozoa . 10 Phylum Mollusca . 24 Phylum Coelenterata . 3 The Brachiopoda . 2 Phylum Platyhelminthes . . 16 Phylum Echinodermata The Nematoda . 12 Class Asteroidea . . 1 The Nematophora . 2 Class Holothuroidea . 1 The Acanthocephala . 1 Class Crinoidea . 5 Phylum Annelida Phylum Cbordata Class Chaetopoda . . 2 Class Urochorda (Tunicata) . 6 Class Hirudinea . 3 Class Pisces . . 49 Phylum Arthropod a Class Amphibia . 3 Class Crustacea . 196 Class Reptilia . 10 Class Insecta . 76 Class Aves . . 103 Class Arachnida . . 26 Class Mammalia . . 62 613 * Although the Opinions in question (Opinions 127 and 128) were not published until October 1936, the addition of these three names to the Official List had been agreed upon before the opening of the Lisbon Congress in 1935. •Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. xvii (d) The plenary powers granted to the Commission to suspend the rules in certain cases. Tnfo?' ^""^ f n*^^ ''^'''^ °^j^^*^ °^ ^^« Commission in recommending the NameTtrLf'"^?" 1 -^''^'^y *° ^^^^^lish the Official List of Generic leasTa r4/l 'f^^^^'^ m paragraphs 20-21 and 33 above) to provide at least a partial modus vjvendi between those zoologists who favoured the most mitted i^ ?,^nnf T P^"^.«^Pl«'/«««idered that exceptions should be per^ who therpfn?/f TIT '^ T.^'' *° P^^^^^^« well-established names and When the Offil^Tr*^ the establishment of a system of nomina conservanda. apparent th^fr i ^f. ^^^' ^. "''*^^ ^^°^^* «* P^«g^««s. i* became wafno. ibi fn r^^''.*^' most rigid application of the Law of Priority it well estabblhprl ""' *?.'^'' ^ ^^'^' ^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^°«t, important and the;fo?e tt or'^f/^^ commonly accepted sense. To this extent, olvolZ\^L? TL^^^^^ *^" ^^^^ «^ di«P^t« between the twJ opposmg schools of thought, but it could do nothing to bridge the aap in the oneT"^'"''^ numerous and important-where the Law of Prforit/ on ^?h on\t"oLer ^^"8"^*^^^^^^-^ -^g« «^ t^e other were in direct conflict Grat^riqfoVl?/-''' ''*/^'^«bing the Official List was not completed until the therefire th.tT ^""^ of the International Congress and it was only natural ms th.f thp P. •''°' '"''''^ *^' ^^'^^^g ^^ ^be Congress held at Monaco in a method of rSr"^'"' >!' 7^' ^^ ^^Position to make a serious effort to devise to^ld be H Jv o""!.^^ ^ the problems created by the Law of Priority that whole Thi P^ ' g^^^^^lly, acceptable to the zoological profession as a whole. The Commission devoted a considerable part (paragraphs (94)-(106)) of their report to the Monaco Congress to a discussion of this^sub ec ^ The " aTrshTa.f "f '' '['"^^^ ^P^^^^^P^ (^«)) '^'' '^^ Law of Prior ty '^s mfssln pofnl? r^'"''' inconveniences ". Nevertheless, while the Com- m one£T ll^ ] (paragraph (95)) that the original body of five Com- rpXatTon of ?bp T Tv^ ^^'^^^ ''''^^ exceptions being made in the vLw the nn.ft^n \ ri. T% ^^'^ ^^^' '^ ^''^''^^y ^^^ar that in their favmir of^thf2- . T ^^^^'^^"7 ^^anged as the result of the decisions in Sess in 1901 V^?!-'"'*'"'' ^^ ?^.^"^ ^^ ^"""^-^ *«ken by the Berlin «. ?S A .!r *^'' ''^'°^ *be Commission, while expressing no views agaLt^ aZftZ^^ ^" ^^^^^' ^'' " '^ o-rXlm4 ma^ irg^LS^r^eU^^^^^^^ *^ --P^^^- ^^ ''^ remtLd*sh^rT.n' .*f^/ . ^^e Commission recognised that, although opinion Tnd outside ZV'^ i^ this matter, there was a strong desire both inside finallv and on.P ^^T' '^^' 'i'' '''^^''' ^^^^^^ " ^«^ ^e settled definitely, uSurredbvvJm f ' "\'^'' ^1'"^'' "^'^^^ " P^«^^«^l ^^ their work to th s feeti^J Thr/f^p"' '^' ^'^'^ I (paragraph (96)). It was in response hoped woid^itt ^' Commission then put forward a plan which they XecllTv teaohern? f, ^"''' for an attempt to relieve zoologists, more is mTde* (para^ih (9l)|"'* ""' '' ''^ inconveniences of which'complaint by the Int?na?iolTr''''^ ^^ *^/ Commission contemplated the establishment wi!r ■^^!,ernat onal Congress of a second body to be knoxxTi as the " Inter- CoZfttee r ''' '" Transitional Names '' (paragraph (100) (1)). TMs Committee, it was proposed, should be " empowered to select 1,000 (and no xviii Bxdletin of Zoological Nomenclature. more) zoological names " and it would be the duty of the Committee " definitely to define the meaning of the names selected " (paragraph (100) (3)). The list comprising the names so selected was to be known as the " Transitional List " and it was part of the plan that it should be " considered proper during the transitional stage of nomenclature of any given group, for any author to use anv of said names, even though they be not in accord with the Law of Priority " (paragraph (100) (4)). Once a name had been placed on the Transitional List it was to remain there until both the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the International Committee on Transitional Names each independently voted by a two-thirds majority that the time had come in the nomenclature of any given group to drop any given name (or names) from the Transitional List (paragraph (100) (6)). Finally, the Com- mission recommended (paragraph (101)) that simultaneously with the adoption of the plan, the International Congress should adopt a resolution that this action was " not to be interpreted as in any way restricting the application of the Law of Priority or of any other pro\4sion in the Rules of Nomenclature ". 44. In submitting this plan to the Congress, the Commission put on record (paragraph (102)) that for some time they had had under informal discussion " the advisability of a resolution by the Congress placing in the hands of the Commission the plenary power of suppressing entirely, in some way, certain names which it is claimed are at present applied in an erroneous sense and which when transferred to the correct genus or species under the Law of Priority are calculated to produce unusual confusion ". The Commission added that as yet the views of the Commission were " not formulated in a sufficiently safeguarded manner to make it advisable to report definitely on the subject to the present Congress ". 45. It is not necessary to examine the merits of the plan to establish a Transitional List or to consider the difficulties that would certainly have followed its adoption, for (as shown in paragraph 46 below) it was ultimately dropped when the Congress decided upon the bolder course of granting plenary powers to the Commission to suspend the rules in certain cases. The records of the proceedings of the Monaco Congress are incomplete but from the evidence available it is clear that after the Commission had submitted their report there was some adverse criticism in the Section on Nomen- clature of the plan described above. As a result, an additional proposition was adopted by the Section on Nomenclature and this proposition was submitted to the International Commission for consideration. The efiect was to persuade the Commission that the time was ripe to put forward definite proposals for the grant to them of plenary powers to suspend the rules in certain cases. The Commission accordingly drew up a " Supplemental Report " in which they incorporated the text of the resolution which they now recommended that the Congress should adopt on this subject. This Supplemental Report was only completed on the morning of the last day of the Congress. It appears from the paragraph numbered (111) in the Supple- mental Report that " prior to the meeting of the Section on Nomenclature, most of the members of the Commission had approved the resolutions, and the Section took a recess in order to permit the other Commissioners to con- sider them '"'. As the result " all Commissioners approved the resolutions and the Secretary was instructed to present them to the Section and the Congress as a supplemental report ". It further appears (from the paragraph nimabered (110) in the Supplemental Report) that on the presentation of the Supplemental Report to the Section on Nomenclature, the Section voted " to reconsider " Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. xix the "additional proposition " that they had passed at a previous meeting (to which reference has been made above) and thereupon " approved in its place the resolutions presented in this supplemental report ". 46. In the course of the discussion of the Supplemental Report in the bection on Nomenclature, Commissioner Stejneger is recorded (in the Camptes Rendus oi the Congress) as having expressed misgivings on the question whether or not practical difficulties might arise " in coordinating the work of the proposed Committee on Transitional Names (paragraphs (99)-(101) (105) and (106) of the main report) with the work which under the " plenary powers" resolution it would now fall to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to perform (paragraphs (113)-(115) of the Supple- mental Report). Dr. Stejneger accordingly asked that no action should be taken on the part of the mam report relating to the proposed establishment ot the Committee on Transitional Names until the matter had been further considered by the International Commission in the light of the new situation In the words of the official record this portion of the Commission's report was accordmgly " tabled ". There is no doubt that this was a wise decision • the plan for the establishment of a " Transitional List " was a compromise of doubtful practicability that had been put forward by the Commission at a time when that body did not feel in a position to submit proposals for the more radical solution represented by the grant of plenary powers; now that It had been found possible to bring forward the plenary powers proposal the earlier proposal for the establishment of a TransitionalList had lost its raisan d etre. Any attempt to give effect both to the plenary powers resolution and to the plan lor a Transitional List would ine^^tabIy have led to confusion and duplication of effort. That this was the view taken by the International Commission when after the Monaco Congress they set about giving effect to the plenary powers resolution is clear from the fact that they treated their original proposals for the establishment of a Transitional List as having been superseded by the plenary powers procedure. ^, *!• ^^^. ^resolutions and recommendations contained in the main report of the Commission (other than those parts relating to the establishment of a Iransitional List) together with the resolution set out in their Supplemental Report were submitted for final approval by the Congress at the concluding Concilium Plenum held on the afternoon of the same day. The Permanent Committee of the Congress had previously decided that all discussion on reports and resolutions should be confined to the Sections and that at the ConcUium Plenum such reports and resolutions should be put to the Congress without discussion. Accordingly the recommendations submitted by the International Commission, as endorsed by the Section on Nomenclature, were put to the Congress for approval en bloc. Against only four dissenting voices the whole was then adopted and approved. Thus it was by a combination of good sense and mutual concession that an end was put to the controversy over the Law /q°''S? f*'''-^" l°^« ^^"^ disturbed the harmony of zoological discussions. 48. Ihe resolution by which this settlement was achieved reads as follows :— Resolutimi adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at i^s meeting held at Monaco in 1913 conferring plenartj powers upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to suspend the Rules m the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature in certain cases. I. RESOLVED.— That plenary power is herewith conferred upon the XX Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting for this Congress, to suspend the Kegles as applied to any given case, where in its judgment the strict application of the Eegles will clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, (a) provided, however, that not less than one year's notice shall be given in any two or more of the following publications namely, Btdletin de la Societe zoologique de France, Monilore zoologico, Nature, Science (New York), and Zoologischer Anzeiger, that the question of a possible suspension of the Regies as applied to such case is under consideration, thereby making it possible for zoologists, particularly specialists in the group in question, to present arguments for or against the suspension under consideration ; and (b) provided, also, that the vote in Commission is unanimously in favor of suspension; and (c) provided, further, that if the vote in Commission is a two-thirds majority of the full Commission, but not a unanimous vote in favor of suspension, the Commission is hereby instructed to report the facts to the next succeeding International Congress ; and 2. RESOLVED. — That in the event that a case reaches the Congress, as hereinbefore described, with a two-thirds majority of the Commission in favor of suspension, but without unanimous report, it shall be the duty of the President of the Section on Nomenclature to select a special Board of 3 members, consisting of one member of the Commission who voted on each side of the question and one ex-member of the Commission who has not expressed any public opinion on the case, and this special Board shall review the evidence presented to it, and its report, either majority or unanimous, shall be final and without appeal, so far as the Congress is concerned; and 3. RESOLVED. — That the foregoing authority refers, in the first instance and especially to cases of the names of larval stages and the transference of names from one genus or species to another ; and 4. RESOLVED. — That the Congress fully approves the plan that has been inaugurated by the Commission of conferring with special com- mittees from the special group involved in any given case, and that it authorizes and instructs the Commission to continue and extend this policy. 49. The Commission have so far rendered twenty-three Opinions in which they have made use of the plenary powers conferred upon them at Monaco. The Opinions in question are the following : — Opinions 80; 82; 89; 93; 100; 105; 108-111; 114; 115; 117; 123; 127-130; 135; 137; 142; 144; 146. In addition, at their Lisbon (1935) meeting the Commission agreed to make use of these powers in a number of cases on which Opinions have not as yet been rendered. On five occasions, the Commission have rendered Opinions (Opinions 74, 76, 90, 112, and 121) in which they have either refused to use their plenary powers or have recorded that the proposal submitted did not comply with the conditions precedent to the use of those powers. 50. The twenty-three cases in regard to which the Commission have so far rendered Opinions involving the use of the plenary powers fall into five main I Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. xxi classes, which may be classified as follows by reference to the purpose for which the plenary powers were used : — (i) to validate a generic name or to fix as the type of a genus a species other than that which would be its type under the Code : Opinions 80; 82; 93; 100; 108-111; 117; 127 9; i28t; 129 9; 130; 137 9; 142; 144; 146 (ii) to suppress a generic name : Opinions 114; 115; 127 »; 129 9; 137 9 (iii) to suppress a specific name in a given genus : Opinion 128 i" (iv) to eliminate a given zoological work from consideration as respects systematic names published therein for the first time : Opinions 89; 105; 123; 135 (v) to determine the relative priority to be assigned to given zoological works : Opmion 137. III. The tasks confronting the Commission. 51 . Four main tasks will confront the Commission immediately it is possible actively to resume its functions after the war. These are : — (i) the adjustment of its procedure so as to prevent all unnecessary delays in the consideration of proposals submitted to it by zoologists ; (ii) the introduction of a simpler and speedier method of securing the addition of nomenclatorially available names to the Official List of Generic Names ; (iii) the formulation of proposals for consideration by the International Congress of Zoology in regard to those nomenclatorial problems that are either not dealt with at all in the International Code or are dealt with in an ambiguous manner ; (iv) the consideration of the nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory in the period that has elapsed since the adoption of the International Code with a view to the introduction of such additions to, or modifications in, the Code as may be necessary to ensure that it is kept abreast of modern developments. (a) The elimination of all unnecessary delays from the procedure of the Commission. 52. There is no doubt that in the early days of its history the Commission was well advised in adopting a cautious policy in view of the considerable body of zoological opinion that at that time was doubtful of the utility of the Commission as an institution and would have been very ready to draw attention to any errors that the Commission might have made through acting with undue speed. The thorough investigation of every proposal submitted is as necessary today as at any previous time but it is widely felt that it * In this Opinion it was necessary for the Commission, in order to secure the desired object, first to suppress a given name and then to validate another name. ^^ In this Opinion, it was necessary for the Commission, in order to secure the desired object, first to fix the types for two genera, and second to suppress a specific name for those, and eighteen other, genera. •yirii Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. should be possible both to satisfy this condition and to give zoologists at large ample opportunity of submitting their views to the Commission on any given proposal, while at the same time avoiding the prolonged delays that have often marked the consideration of cases submitted to the Commission for decision. No one Avould dispute that a body such as the Commission that is forced by circumstances to conduct the greater part of its business by correspondence must inevitably be a relatively slow-moving machine. It is all the more important therefore that the Commission should so regulate its procedure as to eliminate all delays of an avoidable character. 53. Quite recently one cause of delay has been removed by the decision that in future each Opinion shall be published separately and that publication shall take place as soon as possible after the Opinion has been adopted by the Commission. This system, which replaces the pre\dous practice of publishing half a dozen Opmions or more in a single issue, will alone eliminate delays that in the past have amounted to months or even years. There is no doubt that in other ways also the procedure of the Commission could be speeded up without in any way prejudicing the care with which cases are examined ; it is certainly the wish of every working zoologist that this should be done. (b) The introduction, of a simpler and speedier method for securing the addition of nomenclatorially available names to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 54. When in 1910 the plan for establishing an Ofl&cial List of Generic Names was first put forward by the Commission to the Graz Congress, opinion was still acutely divided on the question of the extent to which the Law of Priority should be applied, and those zoologists who were opposed to any amelioration in the rigour of that Law viewed the proposal for the establish- ment of the Official List with considerable suspicion. Nor was this suspicion reduced when the Monaco Congress in 1913, on approving the plan for the establishment of the List, agreed also to confer upon the Commission plenary powers to suspend the rules in certain cases. Here again the cautious policy adopted by the Commission stood them in good stead. The former fears have been dissipated and the Official List has won for itself a position of general esteem. 55. This result has, however, only been achieved at the cost of a very great sacrifice in the anticipated rate of growth of the List. In their report to the- Monaco Congress the Commission stated ^^ that they looked forward to obtain- ing " an international and authoritative list of the names of the most com- monly cited 5,000 to 10,000 zoological genera ". The Commission did not indicate how long they anticipated would be required to attain that goal, but, if it be assimied- — as is not unreasonable — that they expected that this might be achieved in about 30 years (the period that has in fact elapsed since the Monaco Congress) it w^ould have been necessary for over 300 names to be added to the List on the average every year. In actual fact (as shown in paragraph 39 above) only 613 names in all have so far been placed on the List, an average of 20 names' a year. 56. Clearly where it is necessary to suspend the rules under the plenary powers before a name can be placed on the Official List A\ath the type desired, the procedure to be followed by the Commission must in the nature of the case be much slower and requires much greater safeguards than in those cases — the great majority — where the name proposed to be placed on the List ^* See paragraph 27 above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. xxiii is nomenclatorially available under the Code. No one will dispute the need in the former class of case for the most exhaustive examination by the Com- mission of the evidence submitted, and all are agreed that in such cases the fullest opportunity should be given to members of the zoological profession to put forward arguments either for, or against, the proposed suspension. This is seen to be all the more important when it is realised that in many of the cases involving suspension of the rules it is not sufficient that the Commission should take into account both the merits of the case as it affects the particular Class or Order concerned and the wishes of the specialists concerned. It is essential also that the Commission should consider most carefully the reper- cussions which a given suspension may have in entirely different fields. Where, for example, the proposal is that a given zoological work should be suppressed or that a given name should be suppressed in order that a well-kno-mi name that is a homonym of it may be validated, the proposal may easily have the most objectionable repercussions in one or more Phyla widely separated from that with which the actual proposal is immediately concerned. Again, where a proposal affects a name in common use in one of the applied sciences {e.g. medicine, veterinary science or agriculture), it is particularly necessary that the Commission should give the amplest opportunity to all concerned to consider the proposal before a decision is taken even though this may — and probably will — involve very considerable delay. 57. These considerations do not apply in the case of proposals for the addition to the Official List of names that are available nomenclatorially under the Code, for such proposals are the almost exclusive concern of the specialists in the group immediately involved. All that is necessary in such cases for the Commission to do is to satisfy itself with the help of the leading specialists in the group in question that in fact each of the names proposed to be added to the List is available nomenclatorially and that its type has been correctly designated under Article 30 of the Code. Thirty years ago these were matters on which it was often difficult to reach a definite conclusion but with the great gro^^i;h of systematic and nomenclatorial work in most groups these particular difficulties have today been largely eliminated. The only case where a proposal falling in this class is of interest outside the immediate circle of specialists in the group involved is where the name proposed to be added to the List is one in common use either in one of the applied sciences or in general zoological textbooks. 58. Quite apart from these considerations, it must be remembered that unless the most important of the nomenclatorially available generic names in each group are placed on the Official List, one of the main objects of the International Congress in establishing the List will remain unfulfilled, and the List will never become the authoritative and representative international list that the Congress intended it to be. 59. The fact that so far the names placed from time to time on the Official List have never been published in a collected form is no doubt one of the reasons that have contributed to the slow growth of the List, for it has been difficult without considerable search to ascertain for any given group what names have already been placed on the List. It is certain also that the absence of a published list enumerating all the names that have been placed on the Official List accounts for the extremely unbalanced state of the list at the present time. The most striking feature of the summary of the contents of the List given in paragraph 39 above is the large number of Phyla and the still larger number of Classes — not to mention Orders — that are entirely xxiv Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. vinrep resented. At the present moment I am engaged in preparing for publication an edition of the Ofl&cial List which will give full particulars of all the names that have so far been placed on it, w-ith their types. If, as I hope, it is possible to publish this edition before the end of the war, the Commission will be in a good position, when it is able to resume its work, to judge how best it may promote the rapid development of this enterprise. 60. Publicity regarding each application for the addition of names to the Official List is not obligatory as it is where there is a proposal for the suspen- sion of the rules under the plenary powers. Such publicity is, however, highly desirable and the Commission will in future be in a position to secure it now that all such applications are to be published by the Co mm ission itself as and when they are received. This fact, coupled with the gro^ving desire on the part of zoologists to do everything possible to promote the stability of the nomenclature in their respective groups, is likely to lead to a considerable increase in the volume of applications for the admission of names to the Official List. Here again it will be necessary for the Commission to examine its procedure with a view to securing that all such applications are dealt with as expeditiously as possible. (c) The addition to the Code of provisions relatitig to matters not at present dealt ivith therein. 61. Certain features of the present Code may be traced to the firm attitude taken up by the authorities of the Fifth International Congress of Zoology held in Berlin in 1901, in refusing to put to the Congress proposals by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature unless those proposals were unanimous. This attitude, following upon similar action taken by the authorities of the Fourth International Congress at its meeting held at Cambridge in 1898, demonstrated clearly the general desire of zoologists to put an end to argument and to reach some sort of finality. The discussions in the Commission between the Cambridge and Berlin meetings had consider- ably reduced the number of questions in regard to the Code on which the members of the Commission were divided. At Berlin therefore the Com- mission was faced ^vith the choice of composing their differences on the questions that were still outstanding or of being prevented once more from presenting their report to the Congress. Very naturally — and very properly — the Commission elected in favour of the first of these courses. To secure the necessary unanimity various concessions were necessary to meet opposing points of \'iew. The result, as must always happen in such cases, was that the draft Code, when finally presented, was neither so complete nor so unambiguously worded as it would have been if its authors had been in wholehearted agreement with one another. 62. Nevertheless, zoologists in general owe a great debt to the members of the Commission in the period 1895-1901, for, although the Code that they produced was not perfect, the fact that they achieved unanimity and that the Congress gave its approval to the results of their labours prowled zoologists for the first time with an authoritative international Code by which to work. Since that time the Congress, on the recommendation of the Commission, has introduced various improvements into the Code, of which the most important have been referred to in paragraph 8 above. In spite of these measures, the Code today is still marred by several serious omissions and ambiguities. The questions involved often raise intricate and difficult problems of a nature Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. XXV which make a rapid settlement quite impossible. On some of these matters, however, the Commission have made considerable progress even though at the time of the last Congress (Lisbon, 1935) the discussions had not reached a stage at which the Commission felt that they could profitably submit proposals for the consideration of the Congress. Prominent among these outstanding questions is the definition of what constitutes "publication" and of the nomenclatorial status of names applied to forms of less than subspecific status. 63. Judging by the experience of the period that followed the war of 1914-1918, it may reasonably be assumed that, even when the present war is over, it may be some time before it will be possible for the next (Thirteenth) International Congress of Zoology to assemble. It is therefore particularly important that on the conclusion of hostilities the Commission should address Itself seriously to the consideration of these outstanding questions, so that, if at all possible, definite -proposals for dealing with them may be ready ipor submission to the next meeting of the International Congress, whenever that may be. (d) The gradual adaptation of the International Code to changing concepts of taxonomy. _ 64 The International Commission, as the body charged with the considera- tion of questions of nomenclature, needs to be on its guard at all times against the risk of bemg drawn into discussion of questions which, though possessing a nomenclatorial aspect, are primarily matters of taxonomy. In most cases the distmction is sufficiently clear cut to prevent difficultv arising under this head, but there are others where the two subjects are so intimately intertwined that It would be impossible for the Commission to refuse to deal with any part of a given problem on the ground that the problem was primarily one of taxonomy without at the same time neglecting to deal with an important question of nomenclature. 65 The authors of the present Code were unable altogether to escape from this dilemma and m consequence the Code contains pro\asions governing some or all of the nomenclatorial questions arising in connection with five systematic categories, namely families, subfamilies, genera, species, and sub- species. It IS true that the Code does not attempt to define any of these units but the mere fact that they are mentioned in the Code and that their relationship is defined in its nomenclatorial aspects carries with it certain assumptions regarding both the nature of the categories themselves and their systematic relationship to one another. That this should be so was inevitable but it makes it particularly necessary for the Commission to be on its guard against the danger of this part of the Code becoming out of date through changes in current ideas regarding the character of the systematic units referred to in the Code. 66. The five categories mentioned in the Code were no doubt selected because they were the categories on which working zoologists at that time wanted nomenclatorial guidance. No one would be likely to question the choice of units made in 1901 but it by no means follows that what is ^vise and advantageous at one date is necessarily equally wise and advantageous 4U or 50 years later. It may well be therefore that there is a case or that a case may arise where it would be advantageous either to add provisions to the Code dealmg with categories at present excluded {i.e. categories above the tamily or below the subspecies) or to modify some of the existing p^o^dsions xxvi Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. in regard to categories dealt with in the Code. It would certainly be an error of policy for the Commission lightly to seek to amend the Code to meet the requirements of new theories until these have won for themselves a substantial body of support. It is inevitable that law-giving (or, as in the present case law-drafting) bodies should always be somewhat behind the most advanced thought in their particular subject. But this is very far from meaning that such bodies should be averse from recommending changes as soon as a sufficient body of evidence is forthcoming to show both that a change is desirable and that the particular public opinion concerned is ready to accept legislation on the subject. It is essential therefore that the Commission should keep a constant watch to ensure that the Code is sufficiently strong to meet the strains imposed by developments in zoological theory and, where evidence to the contrary becomes evident, to take steps to secure the amendment of the Code in whatever direction may be required to provide working zoologists with the guidance that they need on the nomenclatorial aspects of the problems involved. 'This is admittedly the most difficult of all the tasks that will confront the Commission after the war but it is nevertheless one that must be squarely faced if the Commission is adequately to discharge the duties entrusted to it by the International Congress of Zoology. 2 3JUL1943 PURCHASED I INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS .t,^H^/"*^!^u^!'u"^' Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has been criticised at times for h.v. h5n ll'^\^''^^ occurred m the consideration of particular cases. In part these delays Jc^hi^ h ly^ '°.k''"'" '" ""^ organisation and procedure of the Commission and, in so far To. ^^ H Ki tf^e.'^ase steps have been, and are being, taken to prevent their recurrence. I^v ir. h'^l"'"'''^ extent, however, these delays have been due to the incomplete and inaccurate way m which proposals have been submitted to the Commission for consideration. .tr^fl^Sh'fh/f'r.^i'''''^""*-"^!^ T'^^"^ ^^ co-operate with the Commission by complying fh. r^n!^- ^ followmg mstructions when submitting proposals for the consideration of % doTg so'zoolSts"wiir:- "^"''' ' submitting papers for publication in the Bulletin. (a) avoid unnecessary delays in securing decisions on questions submitted • and (b) reduce to a minimum the expenditure incurred by the Commission in dealing with applications submitted. utamig wiui 3. The instructions in question are the following:— ^'^ ■w^?,rti^'?°"''' ^^ '"/'^ form of papers and should not be raised incidentally rnnZ^Z^^fuVu'^?'"^^''''^' '^"^ P^P^""^ ^^ould be as short and concise as is consistent with the clear presentation of the problem to be considered. ^ ^ ^il T' possible papers shou d be typewritten and, whether typewritten or in manuscript, should be on one side of the paper only ^'iJcwimcn, ur inZ'^tuTrl^'r^ °^ P^Pif' '" ^°''^'l" languages adds greatly to their cost. For so long therefore as the present hnancial difficulties of the Commission persist zoologists are asked to submit all manuscripts in English ^""''""''°" P^'^''^^' ^ ^ ?f ?wn ^^ 1^^^'°'' '^""V'^ ^^ ^°"^"^.^ ^° a s*"8'^ subject except where the status / ^^f ™'"S °f ^he paper, of the Class and Setm'ny'sSld'befdTer'' '''"'" '^^°"^^- ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^'^ '^^^ "^^^ «f ^^^ le^nedc'L'^spedfic! dted' ''^"■'"'' '''°"''^ ^' ^^^'" ^°'" ^^"'^ "^"^^' ^^ether ^^^ lili!'^-^^^^ °^.f "^."c names the type species should be clearly stated and a refer- ence given to the circumstances in which that species became the type, /.° . :- (i) whether so designated at the time of original publication: or ' (n) whether designated at a later date under Article 30 of the Code, and if so ^r^^hirli f "f '* u^Mu designated. (In these cases the full biblio- SS"a£rartS?yp?r"^^ (8) Specific names should be cited in the same combination of generic and trivi-,1 (a) the generic or specific name in question • (b) the name of its author; (c) the date of its publication ; f2 wh.r!!'fi,°'^ the work in which the name was so published; ^umbeJ;' '" '^"^'''°" ''°"'''^' °*"'"°''^ ^'^^^ °°^ ^o'""^^' 'he volume (f) the page number. ^^^^ Ust ofZ-^JJTl^^' should ^be abbreviated in the form shown in the " World ^„^ ^yjJ^:Zls'Z°^^^^^^^^ ^'^ "-- ^^-^'^o- and the tS nil ^"'""lenunibers should be cited in Arabic (and not in Roman) numerals (12) Page references should be cited in accordance with the HaSsys^erof notation itie of thfwn^rr''"' ^^'''^l^ ^y ^ '=°lo" should followTmmediaTely after ffi number T^ word '"''n''/J'''^''7.^'''' IV" '^°'' *an one volume, the volurSe 4 Pr-o •. T! ^^^^"'"^ page and the abbreviation "p." should not be used. with\h'^.X|oinJ?n'sSoni" '" '" ''^" '^ ^'^^^ ^° P'-°P°^als prepared in accordance BY ORDER OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission Secretariat of the Commission, At the British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road, London, S.W 7 8th May, 1943. Opinions Published by the Commission (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission, 4J , Queen's Gate, London, S. W. 7.) Opinion 134. On the method to be adopted in interpreting the generic names assigned by Freyer to the species described in his Neuere Beitrage zur Schmetterlingskunde, 1833-1858. price M. Opinion 135. The suppression of the so-called " Erlangen List." price Zd. Opinion 136. Opinion supplementary to Opinion 11 on the interpretation of Latreille's Considerations generates sur Vordre naturel des animaux composant les classes des Crustaces, des Arachnides et des Insectes avec un tableau methodique de leurs genres disposes en families, Paris, 1810. price Is. Od. Opinion 137. On the relative precedence to be accorded to certain generic names published in 1807 by Fabricius and Hiibner respectively for identical genera in the Lepidoptera Rhopalocera. price \s. 6d. Opinion 138. On the method by which the amendment to Article 25 of the International Code adopted at the Budapest Meeting of the International Zoological Congress, relating to the replacement of invalid names, should be interpreted, price 1^. 6d. Opinion 139. The names Ceplws Latreille, [1802-1803], and Astata Latreille, 1796, in the Hymenoptera added to the Official List of Generic names, price 2s. 6d. Opinion 140. On the method of forming the family names for Merops Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves) and for Merope Newman, 1838 (Insecta). price 2.y. 0^. Opinion 141. On the principles to be observed in interpreting Article 4 of the International Code relating to the naming of families and subfamilies, price 2s. 6d. Opinion 142. Suspension of the rules for Satyrus Latreille, 1810 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). price 2s. 6d. Opinion 143. On the method of forming the family name for Tingis Fabricius, 1803 (Insecta, Hemiptera). price 2s. 6d. Opinion 144. On the status of the names Crabro Geofffoy, 1762, Crabro Fabricius, 1775, and Cimbex Olivier, 1790 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). price 25. 6d. Opinions Rendered by the Commission but not yet Published Opinion 145. On the status of names first published in works rejected for nomenclatorial purposes and subsequently pubUshed in other works. Opinion 146. Suspension of the rules for Colias Fabricius, 1807 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Opinion 147. On the principles to be observed in interpreting Article 34 of the International Code in relation to the rejection, as homonyms, of generic and subgeneric names of the same origin and meaning. Opinion 148. On the principles to be observed in interpreting Articles 25 and 34 of the International Code in relation to the availabiUty of generic names proposed as emendations of, or as substitutes for, earlier generic names of the same origin and meaning. Opinion 149. Twenty-one names in the Orthoptera (Insecta) added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Opinion 1 50. On the dates of publication of the several portions of Hiibner (J.), Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic], 1816-[1826]. Opinion 151. On the status of the names Lasius Panzer, [1801-1802], Podalirius Latreille, 1802, Lasius Fabricius, [1804-1805], and Anthophora Latreille, 1803 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Opinion 152. On the status of the generic names in the Order Diptera (Insecta) first published in 1800 by J. W. Meigen in his Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a deux ailes. Opinion 153. On the status of the names 5e///>'/M5 Latreille, [1802-1803], and DnwMi Latreille, [1804] (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Opinion 154. On the status of the names Phaneroptera Scrville, 1831, and Tylopsis Fieber, 1853 (Insecta, Orthoptera). Opinion 155. On the status of the names Callimome Spinola, 1811, Misocampe Latreille, 1818, and Torymus Dalman, 1820 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Opinion 156. Suspension of the rules for Vanessa Fabricius, 1807 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Opinion 1 57. Three names in the Hymenoptera (Insecta) added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Opinion 158. On the status of the name Locusta Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Orthoptera). Printed in Great Britain by Richard Clay and Company, Ltd., Bungay, Suffolk. I VOLUME 1. Part 2. Pp. xxvii-xl. 27th JULY 1943 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL ^...p^g^g NOMENCLATURE PURCHASED The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : Finan- cial Report for the period from 6th October 1936 to 31st December 1942. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission and Accounting Officer to the International Fund pp. xxvii-xxxi Income and Expenditure Account of the International Fund for the period from 6th October 1936 to 31st December 1942 and Balance Sheet at 31st December 1942 . . . pp. xxxii-xxxiii Estimated expenditure required to enable the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature to discharge its outstand- ing scientific commitments. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission and Accounting Officer to the International Fund . . pp. xxxiv-xxxviii An urgent appeal for a Fund of £1800 to continue the work of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- «***"'« . pp.xxxix-xl LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the PubUcations Office of the Commission 41, Queen's Gate, London, S.W.7. 1943 Price Five Shillings (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION A. 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.). B. The Members of the Commission Class 1943 Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor L. di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Leonhard STEJNEGER (U.S.A.). (Vacant).* Class 1946 Hen Professor Dr. W. ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Bela von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. T. JACZEWSKI (Poland). (Vacant), t Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) {President of the Commission). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). > Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). C. The Staff of the Secretariat in London Secretary to the Commission : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Archivist : Mr. Francis J. Griflfin, A.L.A. Publications Clerk : Miss E. Evans. D. The Address of the Commission 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. ♦ This vacancy was caused by the death on 23rd May, 1939, of Dr. Witmer STONE (U.S.A.). t This vacancy was caused by the death on 24 January, 1941, of Dr. Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935). INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE: FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 6th OCTOBER, 1936 TO 31st DECEMBER, 1942 By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission and Accounting Officer to the Inter jmtional Fund.) I. INTRODUCTORY. I SUBMIT herewith for the information of all concerned in zoological nomenclature a consolidated statement of the Income and Expenditure of the Commission, together with the Balance Sheet, in respect of the period from 6th October 1936 (when I was elected Secretary to the Commission) to 31st December 1942. These Accounts have been audited by Messrs. W. B. Keen '/M5 Latreille, [1802-1803], and Dz-j^/nMi Latreille, [1804] (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Opinion 154. On the status of the names Phaneroptera Serville, 1831, and Tylopsis Fieber, 1853 (Insecta, Orthoptera). Opinion 155. On the status of the names Callimome Spinola, 1811, Misocampe Latreille, 1818, and Torymus Dalman, 1820 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Opinion 156. Suspension of the rules for Vanessa Fabricius, 1807 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Opinion 157. Three names in the Hymenoptera (Insecta) added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Opinion 158. On the status of the name Locusta Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Orthoptera). Printed in Great Britain by Richard Clay and Company, Ltd., Bungay, Suffolk. I VOLUME 1. Pari 4. Pp. xU-bt. 17lh OCTOBER 1944 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE nstruct.ons when submitting proposals for the consideration of By dc^ng so zoClogi^ts win •!!'^"'"'' ^^^'^ submitting papers for publication in the Bulletin. rM rJn ''^ """e'^essary delays in securing decisions on questions submitted • and .^^u.°J "''"'T"' '''.^ expenditure incurred by the Commission in dealing with applications submitted. .■'. The instructions in question are the following:— (1) Proposals should be in the form of papers and should not be raised incidentally rnnc^."f'i^° i°''/if^P?"'^^"^^' ^''"^ P^P^""^ ^^ould be as short and concise as is n^ u/K with the clear presentation of the problem to be considered. Wherever possible papers should be typewritten and, whether typewritten or in n^ Tif '^"'^ ' should be on one side of the paper only. i!.n ^.k"'"?^ °^ P^Pu ""^ ^" ^o^'^'g" languages adds greatly to their cost. For so long therefore as the present financial difficulties of the Commission persist, Ml ?po'°g'Sts are asked to submit all manuscripts in English (4J tach application should be confined to a single subject except where the status t<^^ ?»/u ° °'^ "^°^^ "^'"^^ ^O'"'"^ P^'"^ o<"a single problem. O) Where a proposal refers to status of a particular name, a clear indication should DC given, either in the title or at the beginning of the paper, of the Class and Yh.fl °, u ,i^u g^""S or species belongs. Wherever possible the name of the tamily should be added. (6) The full bibliographical reference should be given for every name wherever generic or specific, cited. (7) In the case of generic names the type species should be clearly stated and a refer- ence given to the circumstances in which that species became the type, i.e. :— 0) whether so designated at the time of original publication • or (11) whether designated at a later date under Article 30 of the Code, and if so by what author it was so designated. (In these cases the full biblio- grapliical reference should be given to the place where the species in question was designated as the type.) (8) Specific names should be cited in the same combination of generic and trivial tQ^ fT^uu^ul- «"?P'oyed by the original author when first naming the species, (y) A full bibliographical reference consists of :— (a) the generic or specific name in question ; (b) the name of its author; (c) the date of its publication ; (d) the title of the work in which the name was so published • (e) where the work in question consists of more than one volume, the volume number : (f) the page number. (10) The titles of journals should be abbreviated in the form shown in the " World Kited irJS Periodicals," ed. 2, 1934; the names of separate works should (11) Volume numbers should be cited in Arabic (and not in Roman) numerals (U) I'age references should be cited in accordance with the Harvard system of notation i.e the page number preceded by a colon should follow immediately after the title of the work, or, where that work is in more than one volume, the volume number. The word " page " and the abbreviation " p." should not be used. withth'?forSobVins!?u«Lt" '" '" """"' ^ ^'''" *° P''°P°'"'' ''''''''"^ '" accordance BY ORDER OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commi.ision. Secretariat of the Commission, At the British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. May, 1943. THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen^s Gate, London, S.Wn.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This journal has been estabUshed 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 (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. The Bulletin was established in 1943, in which year three Parts were published. Part 4 has been published in 1 944 and Parts 5 and 6 are in the press. Opinions oitrf Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The above work is being published in three volumes concurrently, 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 1-12 (containing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions 1-3) have now been published. Parts 13-15, containing Opinions 4-6, are in the press and 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 1-25, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-155, have now been published. Part 26, containing Opinion 156, is in the press and will be published shortly. Volume 3. This volume, which will commence 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, are in the press and will be published shortly. Printed in Great Britain by Richard Clay and Company, Ltd., Bungay, Suffolk. VOLUME 1. Part 6. Pp. Ixi-lxxxiv. 2l8t AUGUST 1945 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official' Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ^^O^^^FRANaS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Y Secretary to the International Commission Report by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for the year 1944 . . . . pp. ixi-lxix International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: Fmancial Report for the year 1 944. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Com- mission and Accounting Officer to the International Funds ... ^.,11 pp. Ixx-lxxv Income and Expenditure Account of International Fund No. 1 and International Fund No. 2 for the year 1944 and Balance Sheet at 3 1 st December 1 944 . . . pp. kxvi-lxxix Frederick Chapman (1864-1943) (portrait) . . pp. Ixxx-lxxxi Personnel of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : Election of Vice-President ... p. Ixxxii Contributions received up to 30th June 1945 in Response to the Appeal for Funds issued by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature . . . .p. bcxxiii Forthcoming Publications p ixxxiv LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Pubhcations Office of the Commission 41, Queen's Gate, London, S.W.7. 1945 Price six shillings (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION A. 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). B. The Members of the Commission Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. W. ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Bela von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. T. JACZEWSKI (Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLE (U.S.A.). Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Dr. Fred CHAPMAN (Australia). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) {President of the Commission). 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. YOKES (U.S.A.). C. The Staff of the Secretariat in London Secretary to the Commission: Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Archivist : Mr. Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A. Publications Clerk : Mrs. F. R. Langstadt. D. The Address of the Commission 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. REPORT BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FOR THE YEAR 1944 I. Introductory. THE International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature have pleasure in presenting the following report on their work for the year 1944. 2. Owing to the continuance of a state of war throughout 1944, conditions continued to be difficult in many ways, but in spite of these handicaps, the International Commission succeeded during the year under review in maintain- ing the high level of output achieved in 1943, and in addition were successful in breaking new ground in various directions. II. Opinions Rendered in 1944. 3. In the course of the year 1944, the International Commission rendered 8 Opinions {Opinions 184-191). Of these Opinions, the first 5 {Opinions 184- 188) were concerned with questions on which decisions were taken before the outbreak of war in 1939, while the remainder- {Opinions 189-191) relate to problems on which voting had been started in the Commission prior to the outbreak of war but on which a sufficient number of votes to secure the adoption of the proposed Opinions had not been secured by that date. In these cases, the problems at issue were re-submitted in 1943 and 1944 to those members of the Commission who till then had not recorded their vote, with the result that during that period sufficient additional votes were received to secure the adoption by the Commission of the Opinions in question. 4. The titles of the Opinions adopted in 1944 are as follows : — Opinion 184. On the status of the names first published in volimies 1 to 11 of Martini (F. H. W.) and Chemnitz (J. H.), Neves systematisches Conchy- lien-Cabinet, Niirnberg, 1769-1795. Opinion 185. Suppression of Bohadsch (J. B.), De quihusdam Animalibus marinis, 1761, and of the German translation thereof published by Leske (N. G.) in 1776. Opinion 186. Suspension of the rules for Squilla Fabricius (J. C), 1787 (Class Crustacea, Order Stomatopoda). Opinion 187. On the type of the genus Hypselopus Burmeister, 1835 (Class Insect a. Order Hemiptera). Opinion 188. Suppression of the name Cobra Laurenti, 1768, and suspension of the rules for Bitis Gray, 1842 (Class Reptilia, Order Squamata). Opinion 189. Suspension of the rules for Area Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pelecy- poda. Order FiUbranchiata). 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. Opinion 191. On the question whether the use of a new name in explanation of a photograph or other illustration distributed by an author to students or colleagues constitutes " pubUcation " within the meaning of proviso (a) to Article 25 of the Regies Internationales. 5. No Declarations were rendered by the International Commission in the year 1944. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (AUGUST 1945.) D Ixii Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. in. Opinions and Declarations published in 1944. 6. During the year 1944 further consideration was given to the question of devising means for reducing the period elapsing between the date on which an Opinion is rendered by the International Commission and that on which the Opinion, so rendered, is actually pubUshed. At that time there still remained 26 Opinions rendered in regard to matters on which decisions had been taken by the International Commission at the Session held at Lisbon in 1935, which it had so far been impossible to publish. In addition, there were also at that time (July 1944) 4 unpublished Opinions relating to questions on which decisions had been taken subsequent to the Lisbon Session. It was apparent, therefore, that, unless some special steps were taken to deal with this problem, there would continue to be a considerable delay in the publication of every newly adopted Opinion of the Commission until such time as it was found possible to pubUsh all the Opinions at that time stilj unpubUshed. In order to escape from this dilemma and to reach a position in which every Opinion could in future be pubhshed directly it was rendered by the Commission, it was decided (i) that volume 2 of the Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature at that time in course of pubUcation should be reserved for the Opinions and Declarations dealing with questions on which decisions had been taken at Lisbon in 1935 {Opinions 134r-181 and Declarations 10-12), and (ii) that an immediate start should be made with the publication of volume 3 of the above work, thereby making it possible to commence the publication of the post-Lisbon Opinions beginning with Opinion 182. The effect of this decision may be sUghtly to increase the period that must elapse before the last of the Lisbon Opinions is published, but this disadvantage is much more than offset by the gain secured through the rapid pubUcation of the post -Lisbon Opinions. If, as the Commission hope, all the latter Opinions are published in 1945, the Commission will have succeeded in placing themselves in a position in which in future every Opinion can be sent to the printer for immediate publication directly it is rendered by the Commission. 7. In all, 20 Opinions and Declarations were published in 1944, the same number as that pubUshed in 1943. The Opinions and Declarations pubUshed in 1944 were issued as Parts 9-15 of volimae 1 {Declaration 9 and re-issues of Opinions 1-6), Parts 18-26 of volume 2 {Opinions 151-156 and Declarations 10-12) and Parts 1-4 of volume 3 {Opinions 182-185). 8. In the case of the re-issues of old Opinions, explanatory notes have been . added drawing attention to any decisions taken since the date on which those Opinions were rendered, where such decisions either amplify or modify the decisions embodied in the Opinions in question. In particular, attention has been drawn to the fact that the decision to amend Article 25 of the Regies Internationales taken at Budapest in 1927 by the Tenth International Congress of Zoology (on the advice of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) automatically involved the amendment of all Opinions pre- %'iously rendered by the International Commission in regard to the selection of the types of genera under Article 30 of the Regies, as respects generic names pubUshed on, or after, 1st January 1931, the day as from which the more rigorous provisions inserted in Article 25 at Budapest came into operation. The Opinions published in 1944 include re-issues of two Opinions {Opinions 1 and 6), each of which was modified in the manner described above by the decision taken by the International Congress at Budapest in 1927. In the re-issue of each of these Opinions words have been added both in the title to the Opinion I Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Ixiii and in its summary in order to bring tte Opinion into conformity with the Budapest decisions. 9. The titles of the Opinions and Declarations pubUshed in 1944 are as follows : — VOLUME 1. Declaration 9. On the desirability of Universities including zoological nomenclature in their courses of general and systematic zoology. Opinion 1 (re-issue). The meaning of the word " indication " in proviso (a) to Article 25 of the International Code, as respects names published, on, or before, 31st December 1930. Opinion 2 (re-issue). The nature of a systematic name. Opinion 3 (re-issue). The status of publications dated 1758. Opinion 4 (re-issue). The status of names published as manuscript names. Opinion 5 (re-issue). The status of certain pre-Linnean names reprinted subsequent to 1757. Opinion 6 (re-issue). On the type of a genus " A — — ," containing two species, " A 6 • " and " A c ," where the generic name in question was published on, or before, 31st December 1930. VOLUME 2. Declaration 10. On the importance of forming specialist groups for the study of the nomenclature of particular divisions of the Animal Kingdom. Declaration 11. On the need for a clear indication in the description of new genera and species of the Order and Family involved. Declaration 12. On the question of breaches of the Code of Ethics {Declara- tion supplementary to Declaration 1). Opinion 151. On the status of the names Lasius Panzer, [1801-1802], Poda- liritis Latreille, 1802, Lasius Fabricius, [1804-1805], and Anthophora Latreille, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). Opinion 152. On the status of the generic names in the Order Diptera (Class Insecta) first published in 1800 by J. W. Meigen in his Nouvelle Classifica- tion des Monches a deux ailes. Opinion 153. On the status of the names Bethylus Latreille, [1802-1803], and Dryinus Latreille, [1804] (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). Opinion 154. On the status of the names Phaneroptera Serville, 1831, and Tylopsis Fieber, 1853 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera). Opinion 155. On the status of the names Callimome Spinola, 1811, Misocampe Latreille, 1818, and Torymus Dalman, 1820 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). Opinion 156. Suspension of the rules for Vanessa Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). VOLUME 3. Opinion 182. On the status of the names published by GUmbel (C. W.) in 1863 for subdivisions of the genus Clymenia Miinster, 1832 (Class Cephalo- poda, Order Ammonoidea). 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. Ixiv Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Opinion 184. On the status of names first published in volumes 1 to 11 of Martini (F. H. W.) and Chemnitz (J. H.), Neiies systematisches Conchylien- Cabinet, Niirnberg, 1769-1795. Opinion 185. Suppression of Bohadsch (J. B.), De quibiisdam Animalibus marinis, 1761, and of the German translation thereof published by Leske (N. G.) in 1776. IV. "Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature." 10. One Part (Part 4) of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature was pub- lished in 1944 as compared with three Parts in 1943. During the year, how- ever, a careful study was made by the Secretary to the Commission of all the cases (sUghtly over iOO in number) which are now before the Commission await- ing decision. As a result, all these applications (with the exception of about half a dozen which were found to be so incomplete that further preliminary work was required) were prepared for publication and sent to the printer. It is hoped that the Parts of the Bulletin containing these appUcations will be published early in 1945. 11. The publication of these applications will place the zoological profession in full possession of the current Agenda of the International Commission and will afford to all interested specialists an opportunity of furnishing comments on any of those apphcations before any decision is taken thereon by the Interna- tional Commission. The obtaining of comments in this way was one of the main objects which the International Commission had before them when in 1943 they decided to estabUsh the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as their Ofl&cial Organ. It is the particular hope, therefore, of the International Com- mission that speciaUsts will communicate freely with the Commission in regard to proposals published in the Bulletin, which affect their particular speciaUty. V. The publication of facsimile reproductions of extracts from zoological works referred to in applications submitted to the International Commission for decision. 12. Many of the problems submitted to the International Commission for decision turn upon the status of early zoological works or upon the manner in which such works should be interpreted. In such cases, it has hitherto been necessary for specialists, when preparing cases for submission to the Interna- tional Commission, either to give an elaborate description of the method adopted in the zoological work in question or to furnish a transcript of a typical page in order to illustrate that method. Neither of these methods pro\ades a satis- factory substitute for an inspection of the actual work in question. Many of these works are extremely rare and diflB.cult of access and there would, therefore, be a danger that the publication in the Bulletin of an application in regard thereto would by itself be insufficient to secure that all the necessary informa- tion was made available to speciaUsts regarding the problem at issue, unless some special steps were taken by the International Commission to ward against this risk. 13. It was accordingly decided in 1944 that the presentation of cases of this kind should, so far as possible, be supplemented in future by the pubHcation in the Btdletin of a facsimile of a specimen page of the zoological work under discussion. The first application in regard to which the new system will be employed is one relating to the status of Brlinnich, 1772, Zoologiae Fundamenta. submitted by Mr. E. Winctworth (London), which is now in the press and will I Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Ixv appear in one of the Parts of the Bulletin shortly to be published. '^ When in due course decisions are taken by the International Commission on such cases, the facsimile will be included also in the Opinion containing the Commission's decision and will thus be made part of the permanent record of the case in question. 14. It has been decided to apply the same procedure in preparing the earlier Opinions for re-issue in volume 1 of the Commission's " Opinions and Declara- tions." The first facsimile so to be pubHshed will be in the re-issue of Opinion 11 (relating to the designation of the types of genera in Latreille, 1810, Consid. gen. Crust. Arach. Ins.), publication of which is due to take place early in 1945.- VI. The " Official List of Generic Names in Zoology." 15. Circumstances made it impossible in the year under re\dew to fulfil the hope expressed in the Commission's Report for the year 1943 that a start would be made in 1944 with the printing of the forthcoming edition in book form of the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. This was mainly due to the difl&- culty in wartime of consulting copies of the numerous works required in con- nection with the checking of bibUographical references to those of the generic names concerned or their type species as were originally described in zoological works or journals which are now rare or otherwise difficult to obtain. Sub- stantial progress, however, was made in 1944 both in this part of the work and also in the often more difficult task of ascertaining where a given species was first selected as the type of a given genus by a later author acting under rule (g) in Article 30 of the Regies Internationales. 16. Apart from those cases — relatively few in number — where a generic name with a given species as the type of the genus concerned has been placed on the Official List by the International Commission acting in virtue of their plenary powers, the placing of a name on the Official List does not in any way affect the status of such a name under the Regies Internationales. It is there- fore of the highest importance that the greatest care should be taken by special- ists, when submitting proposals to the International Commission for the addition of names to the Official List, to ensure that the particulars submitted are accur- ate in every respect and therefore that no errors occur if the names in question are added to the Official List. Every practicable step is taken to check the accuracy of particulars included in proposals for the addition of names to the Official List, but it is inevitable that, however much care in this matter is taken both by the appUcant and by the Secretariat of the Commission, erroneous entries will occasionally be made in the Official List. A number of errors of this kind have been detected in the course of the preparation of the Official List for publication in book form, since, as part of those preparations, the biblio- graphical references connected with every entry on the Official List have been re-examined by reference to the original pubUcations concerned. In every case where an error of this kind has been detected, steps are being taken with a view to the regularisation of the position by the International Commission at the earliest possible moment. In some cases, it will be found sufficient either to delete the erroneous entry from the Official List or to substitute for it an amended entry setting out the correct position as it exists under the Regies Internationales. 17. In some cases, however, it has been found that the adoption of either of ^ This paper has now been published. See 1945, Bull. zool. Nomenct. 1 : 113-117. " The re-issue of O^^iH /on 11 was pubhshed on 17th April 1945 (Opinions and Dedarationa rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Xomenclature 1 : 179-190). D* Ixvi Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. the above courses would be calculated to result in greater confusion than uni- formity and therefore that it will only be by the use by the International Com- mission of their plenary powers that it will be possible to avert such confusion by gi\'ing vaUd force to the erroneous entry already made in the Official List. An example of this kind is provided by the entry made in the Official List in relation to the generic names of the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite (Laver- ania Feletti and Grassi, 1889) and the Quartan Malaria Parasite (Plasmodium Marchiafava and Celli, 1885). In the case of each of these names, there are serious errors in the entry inserted in the Official List by Opinion 104, but in each case great confusion would arise if the rules were strictly applied, since the entries as they now stand in the Official List correspond with the universal practice of the medical profession. Preliminary notice was therefore given in 1944 both in Science and in Nature of the intention to invite the International Commission to rectify matters by making use of their plenary powers to suspend the rules. 18. Great importance is attached by the International Commission to the forthcoming publication of the Official List, since it will, in their view, constitute an important step in the direction of stabilising the names of all the most important of the generic names in zoology. The number of names at present on the Official List is relatively small but the Commission are confident that the advantages secured through the stabilisation of those names will be so manifest when the forthcoming edition of the Official List is published that many special- ists will be prompted to submit proposals for the addition to the Official List of the names of the principal genera in their respective groups. VII. The Regies Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique (Inter- national Code of Zoological Nomenclature). 19. The position as regards the Regies hiternationales de la Nomenclature Zoologiqiie (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature) has for long been a cause of anxiety to the International Commission, since there is now no edition on sale either of the substantive French text or of the English, German or ItaUan translations. Moreover, every one of the unofficial editions in the fore- going languages that has been published since 1905 (the year in which the Regies Internationales were ofiicially promulgated) was either inaccurate in certain particulars or incomplete or both even at the time when it was published. Further, even the most recent of the unofiicial editions of the Regies does not include the additions made to the Regies by the Eleventh International Congress of Zoology at the meeting held at Padua in 1930. 20. There is therefore an urgent need for a new edition of the Regies which will be both authoritative and complete in all respects. This need was recog- nised by the International Commission when in 1943 they included provision for the publication of such an edition in the estimate which they then drew up of the expenditure reqmred to enable them to discharge their outstanding scientific commitments.^ 21. During the year 1944, a substantial start was made with the preparation of the new edition of the Regies Internationales, which, it has been decided, will contain the substantive French text on the left-hand pages and the English translation on the right-hand pages. The substantive French text has been prepared for the printer from the original sources published at different times either by the International Congress of Zoology or by, or on behalf of, the International Commission. In the preparation for the printer of the text of the ^ See 1943, Bull. zool. Namencl. 1 : xxxvii. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Ixvii English translation, it has been found that that translation does not follow the substantive French text as closely as is desirable in a translation of so important a document and that in addition there are a few actual errors of translation. That this should be so is no matter of surprise when it is recalled that at its meeting held at Berne in August 1904 the Editorial Committee appointed by the Fifth International Congress of Zoology at Berlin in 1901 had at its disposal only six days in which to settle the drafting of the substantive French text and, when they had completed this task, to make all the necessary corrections and consequential changes in the English and German translations. More- over, the Editorial Committee at its Berne meeting were handicapped by not having at its disposal the services of professional translators specially trained to secure not only that a translation shall faithfully reproduce the meaning of the original document but also that it shall correspond textually with that docu- ment, so far as the differences in the structure of the two languages render this possible. While, therefore, it was only to be expected that the translation hurriedly prepared in 1904 should contain various errors and other imperfec- tions, it is clearly essential that in the preparation of the new edition of the Regies every possible effort should be made to secure that the English transla- tion should correspond as closely as possible with the substantive French text, which (as has been explained) will be printed line for line opposite to the Eng- lish translation. To this end the highest skilled professional advice is being obtained. 22. In addition to the substantive French text and the English translation, the forthcoming edition of the Regies Internationales will contain an account of the historical development of the Regies and an analysis of all the Opinions so far rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature which contain interpretations of various Articles of the Regies. The volume will be completed by a full subject index of the provisions of the Regies and of the Opinions bearing upon the interpretation of those provisions. 23. The International Commission attach the highest importance to secur- ing that the new edition of the Regies Internatiotiales shall be placed on sale at a price so low that the purchase of a copy will be within the financial means of every zoologist. The International Commission have in mind various measures to assist this object, but clearly limits to action in this direction are set by the present slender financial resources of the Commission. The International Commission will, therefore, particularly welcome donations specially earmarked for the purpose of subsidising the forthcoming edition of the Regies and they appeal to scientific institutions and individual zoologists for gifts for this purpose. VIII. The personnel of the International Commission. 24. It was with the greatest regret that in February 1944 the International Commission learnt of the death on 10th December 1943 of Commissioner Frederick Chapman (Australia) in the eightieth year of his age. Frederick Chapman was elected a Member of the Commission in 1925 in succession to WilUam Evan Hoyle (United Kingdom). At the time of his death Commissioner Chapman had thus served continuously as a Member of the International Commission for over 18 years. Various circimistances, including the long journey involved, made it impossible for Commissioner Chapman to attend the Sessions of the International Coramission held during the meetings of the International Congresses of Zoology but throughout his service as a Member of the Commission he displayed the greatest assiduity in the discharge of his duties Ixviii ^ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. as a Commissioner and, in addition, lie was personally instrumental in bringing a number of important cases to the attention of the Commission. His death is a severe blow to the International Commission and will be keenly mourned not only by the Members of the International Commission but also by his many colleagues, by all of whom he was held in the highest esteem and regard. To Commissioner Chapman's son and daughter, the International Commission offer their most sincere condolences on the death of their father. At the request of the International Commission a short appreciation of Commissioner Chapman's scientific career has been prepared by his friend and colleague Dr. W. J. Parr (Victoria),* which, together wdth a portrait of Commissioner Chapman, will be published in the same Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature as the present Report. 25. In their Report for the year 1943,^ the International Commission recorded that preliminary consultations had been initiated with a view to the filling of the vacancies in the membership of the Commission caused by the deaths of Commissioners Witmer Stone, Charles Wardell Stiles, and Leonhard Stejneger, and expressed the hope that the necessary arrangements for filling these vacancies would be completed early in 1944. These hopes were fulfilled in time to permit of the announcement of the names of the newly elected Com- missioners in Part 4 of Volume 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, which was published in October 1944.^ On the same occasion, the International Commission were able to announce the name of the zoologist, who, after con- sultation with the Australian National Research Council, had been elected to succeed the late Commissioner Frederick Chapman. 26. The elections announced in 1944 were as follows : — To be Commissioners : — Class 1952 James Chester BRADLEY, Professor of Entomology, New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell University, Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, Ithaca, New York, U.S.A., vice the late Commissioner Witmer STONE, Emeritus Curator of the Department of Ornithology, The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Pa., U.S.A. (28th March 1944). Harold E. YOKES, United States Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., U.S.A., vice the late Commissioner Leonhard STEJNEGER, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. (23rd April 1944). Class 1949 Joseph PEARSON, Director, Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Hobart, Tasmania, vice the late Commissioner Frederick CHAPMAN, Melbourne, Australia (26th June 1944). Class 1946 Norman R. STOLL, Department of Animal and Plant Pathology, Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A., vice the late Commissioner Charles Wardell STILES, United States National Museum, W^ashington, D.C., U.S.A. (28th June 1944). * See pages Ixxx-lxxxi below and Plate 1. * See 1944, Bull. zool. Nomend. 1 : xlvii. * See 1944, Bull. zool. Nomend. 1 : Iviii. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Ixix IX. The financial position of the International Commission. • "^^ '^.'i" particulars regarding the financial out-turn for the year 1944 are given in the Report now submitted by the Secretary to the International Com- mission as Accounting Officer for the International Funds. When regard is paid to the fact that the year 1944 was the fifth year of a war of unparalleled magnitude the position as disclosed in the Secretary's Report is extremely encouraging and It IS only necessary for the International Commission to express their keen gratification at the further increase in income derived from the sales of their publications and their grateful thanks to those scientific institutions and in- dundual zoologists who during the year 1944 were so good as to make donations to the special Reconstruction Fund (International Fund No. 2) established by the International Commission in the summer of 1943 r.J^' ^''^^ t^e increase in sales and the additional' gifts received in 1944 are particularly gratifying to tte International Commission as affordin- evidence ot a widespread and growing measure of support for their work and a heightened appreciation by zoologists generally of the essential part which an orderly sy_stem of scientific nomenclature must play in the development of zoological science Such ejadence is especially welcome at a time like the present when the International Commission, in common with all other international institu- tions, is passing through a period of exceptional difficulty and when the hope of onerfirfri'7'%''Pr '^^ ^^'r^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^P^^^ of international co- operation can be kept alive until the return of easier times at the close of the SIGNED ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FR.INCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission. ■ Secretariat of the Commission, At the British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road, LONDON, S.W. 7. 9th February, 1945. Ixx Bulletin of Zoological Notnenclahire. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE: FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR 1944 BY Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ayid Accounting Officer to the International Funds established by the Commission. I. INTRODUCTORY. I SUBMIT for the information of all concerned the following Report on the Income and Expenditure of the several International Funds of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, together with the Balance Sheet, in respect of the calendar year 1944. As in previous years, the International Commission have pleasure in recording their thanks to Messrs. W. B. Keen & Co., Chartered Accountants (London), by whom these Accounts have been audited. 11. DONATIONS RECEIVED IN 1944 (INTERNATIONAL FUND No. 2). 2. During the year 1944, the International Commission received gifts from scientific institutions and individual zoologists, amounting in the aggregate to the sum of £409 lis. Id., almost exactly the same amount as that similarly received in 1943 (£409 17s. 6d.\. 3. The individual contributions received in 1944 are as follows : — Appeal for contributions issued by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Second list of contributions {contributions received in 1944). £ s. d. The British Association for the Advancement of Science (second contribution) ...... Dr. Hubert G. Schenck and Dr. PhiUp W. Reinhart The Geological Society of London .... The Commonwealth Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Melbourne, AustraUa .... The Zoological Society of London .... The Malacological Society of London .... The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine . The Royal Society (second contribution) The New York Entomological Society .... The Royal Society of Medicine ..... The Royal Entomological Society of London The Royal Society of Edinburgh ..... The Hope Department of Zoology, Oxford University . The Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom The Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 20 4 18 9 10 20 50 1 3 3 200 24 14 4 5 25 5 5 20 10 10 10 £409 11 1 Bulletin of Zoological Nomemlature. Ixxi 4. The International Commission tender their most grateful thanks to each and every one of the institutions and individual zoologists who made donations to the Commission's funds in 1944. 5. When the contributions enumerated in the foregoing list (£409 11^. Id.) are added to those enumerated in the list given in the Report for the year 1943 (£409 17s. 6d.), it will be seen that the total sum received in the period from the opening of the Commission's Appeal in June 1943 to 31st December 1944 amounts to £819 8s. Id. The sum remaining to be obtained, in order to secure the Fund of £1800, which the International Commission are seeking to raise is, therefore, £980 lis. 5:1. 6. As in the year 1943, the whole of the sums received as gifts in 1944 have been credited to International Fund No. 2. m. INTERNATIONAL FUND No. 1 (GENERAL ACCOUNT). (a) Income. 7. As the International Commission are still without any income from investments, the sole sources of income for their General Account (Interna- tional Fund No. 1) are (i) income arising from the sales of publications and (ii) transfers from the Special (Publications) Fund (International Fund No. 2). 8. The total income of International Fimd No. 1 in 1944 amounted to the sum of £696 7s. Id., as compared with £570 6s. 6d. in the year 1943. (i) Income from sales of publications. 9. Income from the sale of the Commission's Opinions and Declarations in 1944 amounted to the sum of £330 17s. '2d., as compared with £136 Is. id. in 1943. As explained in the Report for 1943, the income in 1944 from the sale of publi- cations benefited by the fact that it had not been possible to distribute the last instalment of Opinions published in 1943 in time for the income arising from their sale to accrue in the Accounts for 1943. When full account is taken of this windfall, there remains a very substantial and highly gratifying increase in sales in 1944 over the level achieved in 1943. It is particularly satisfactory to be able to record that the bulk of this additional income is in respect of new subscriptions, most of which carried with them orders for complete sets of back Parts published in previous years. 10. It was only possible to pubUsh in 1943 one Part (Part 4) of Volume 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. As the sale price of this Part was less than one-seventh of the combined sale price of the three Parts published in 1943, it was to be expected that the income in 1944 from sales of the Bulletin would be substantially lower than in 1943. In fact, however, only a small drop in income was experienced under this head, income from the sale of the Bulletin in 1944 amounting to £90 9s. \\d., as compared with £109 5s. '2d. in 1943. As respects the Bulletin also, it is thus possible to report that the year 1944 wit- nessed a substantial increase in the number of subscriptions, the orders received including in most cases orders for all the Parts previously published. (ii) Transfers from International Fund No. 2 to IrUemaiional Fund No. 1. 11. In the course of the year 1944, transfers amounting in the aggregate to £275 were made from International Fund No. 2 to International Fund No. 1, a reduction of £50 as compared with 1943. Ixxii Bullet in of Zoological Nomenclature. (b) Expenditure. 12. The total expenditure from International Fund No. 1 amounted in 1944 to the sum of £689 2s. Ud., as compared with £439 10s. 2d. in 1943. This expenditure is divisible under four main heads, namely (i) the printing of the pubhcations of the International Commission, (ii) normal administrative ex- penses, (iii) pro\asion towards the cost of publishing the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and (iv) provision towards the cost of pubhshing the forth- coming edition of the Regies Internationales de ki Nomenclature Zoologique (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature). Of these items, the first two form part of the expenditure of the International Commission every year, while the third first figured in the Accounts for 1943. The fourth item is a new item, appearing for the first time in the Accounts now submitted. (i) The printing of the publications of the International Commission. 13. As in previous years, the main item of expenditure incurred by the International Commission in 1944 was in respect of the printing of its publica- tions. The total expenditure incurred in 1944 under this head amounted to £469 15s. Id., as compared with £359 8s. Id. in 1943. 14. Of the above sum, £339 3s. \0d. represents expenditure incurred in 1944 on the production of Opinions and Declarations, as compared with £246 14s. 9d. in 1943. The number of Opinions and Declarations actually published in 1944 was 20, the same number as in 1943. The additional expenditure incurred in 1944 is in part attributable to the fact that the number of pages published in 1944 was slightly larger than in 1943 (232 pp. as compared with 198 pp.) but is mainly due to the fact that expenditure incurred in 1944 on printing matter not published in that year was larger than the corresponding item for the year 1943. 15. Expenditure in 1944 on the production of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature amounted to £130 lis. 9d. as compared with £112 13s. lOd. in 1943. The bulk of the expenditure incurred in 1944 was in respect of printing Parts 5 and 6 of Volume 1 of the Bulletin, which owing to wartime difficulties it was not possible to publish in 1944 but which it is hoped will appear in the early part of 1945. (ii) The normal administrative expenses of the International Commission. 16. The total expenditure in 1944 on normal administrative services amounted to £53 19s. Ud., as compared with £25 9s. Od. in 1943. The increase in expenditure under this head is the inevitable result of the rapid development of the work of the International Commission and the consequent increase in the volume and scope of its administrative functions. 17. In the first place, it became necessary early in 1944 to make fresh arrangements for the performance of the clerical work at the Pubhcations Office of the International Commission, since this had become much too onerous for Miss Edith Evans, the Commission's Publications Clerk, to discharge as a spare-time occupation in addition to her functions as a member of the staff of the Royal Entomological Society of London. Accordingly, Miss Evans felt bound, to the great regret of the International Commission, to rehnquish the post of Pubhcations Clerk. The International Commission were fortunate enough to secure as her successor Mrs. F. R. Langstadt, who is particularly well fitted for this post by reason of her previous experience of somewhat similar duties at the British Museum (Natural History). For the reasons already Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Ixxiii explained, fresh financial arrangements would in any case have been necessary, even if Miss Evans had been able to continue to work for the International Commission. The remuneration now being paid to Mrs. Langstadt is at the rate paid by the Royal Entomological Society of London to members of their staff performing comparable work. The fact that the outlay incurred by the International Commission under this head has risen is mainly due to the substantial increase in the volume of current work. 18. Expenditure on postage in 1944 amounted to £17 18s. 9d., as compared with £9 lis. Od. in 1943. This increase reflects in part the increased volume of work in the Publications Office. It is mainly due, however, to the great increase in the volume of scientific correspondence in the Secretary's Office. Further, it may be noted that it was decided in 1944 that urgent scientific corre- spondence between the Secretariat and certain countries should be despatched by airmail, thereby greatly reducing the period, otherwise inevitable in wartime conditions, required to obtain replies to inquiries addressed to zoologists resident in the countries concerned. It was recognised that this decision would involve an increased expenditure on postage, but it was felt that this disadvan- tage would be far more than offset by the elimination of at least one cause of delay in the transaction of the work of the Commission. 19. Expenditure in 1944 on miscellaneous printing and stationery amounted to £10 Is. 8d. as compared with £8 lis. Od. in 1943. For the first time a small fee (£2 2s. Od.) was paid to the Auditors for the valuable services rendered by them in auditing the Annual Accounts of the Commission. 20. Owing to the continued generosity of the Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History) in housing the Secretariat of the Commission at the Museum free of charge and of the Royal Entomological Society of London in permitting the Commission to use the Society's House at 41 Queen's Gate as the Publica- tions Office of the Commission, it is fortunately possible to report that in 1944 (as in previous years) no expenditure was incurred by the Commission in respect of rent, heating, or lighting. (iii) Further provision for the publication of the " Official List of Generic Names in Zoology." 21. It will be recalled that in 1943 a start was made with the provision of funds for financing the publication of the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. For this purpose a special Suspense Account (" Official List (Suspense) Account ") was established and a sum of £54 12s. Id., being one-half of the income in 1943 from the sale of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, was transferred to the Fund so established. In the year 1944, it was decided to raise the assets of this Fund to £120, and a sum of £65 7s. 5d. was accordingly transferred thereto from International Fund No. 1. (iv) " Regies Lnternationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique " {International Code of Zoological Nomenclature). 22. It has for long been the intention of the International Commission to take the first practicable opportunity to publish an authoritative and complete edition of the Regies Internatio'nales de la Nomenclature Zoologique (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature), since all the existing unofficial editions of the Regies not only are out of print but were also incomplete and inaccurate in certain particulars even at the time when they were published. The publica- tion of an edition of the kind which the International Commission have in mind Ixxiv Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. will involve a considerable outlay in printing and for this reason alone it is highly desirable that a start should at once be made with the provision of the funds required for carrying through this undertaking. The cost of printing will not, however, be the only expenditure involved, since it will be necessary to employ professional translators, as it is intended that not only shall the edition comprise both the substantive French text of the Regies and the EngUsh translation of that text but also that the explanatory matter relating to the historical development of the Regies and the analysis of the Opinions rendered by the Commission in regard to the interpretation of the various Articles of the Regies which are to be incorporated in the same publication shall appear both in French and in English. Quite apart from the question of meeting the outlay actually to be incurred in the publication of the proposed edition of the Regies Intertmtionales, it is necessary also to make such provision as is possible to enable the International Commission to give effect to their desire to place the edition on sale at so low a price as to be within the financial means of every zoologist . 23. In order to make a start in pro\4ding the requisite funds, it was decided in 1944 to establish a special Suspense Account, to be known as the " Interna- tional Code (Publication) (Suspense) Account " and to transfer thereto a sum of £100 from International Fund No. 1. 24. The forthcoming edition of the Regies Internationales will be indispens- able to all workers in systematic zoology but, if the International Commission are to be able to place it on sale at the low price at which they are aiming, it will be necessary to collect considerable funds before publication can take place. The International Commission will, therefore, be particularly glad to receive financial contributions specially earmarked for subsidising the publication of the Regies. Institutions and individual zoologists making contributions for this purpose will be rendering a particularly valuable service to the advance- ment of zoological nomenclature and one for which the International Com- mission will be especially grateful. (c) Excess of income over expenditure. 25. The Income of International Fund No. 1 in 1944 exceeded expenditure by £7 4s. 2d., and this sum has been carried to the Balance Sheet. IV. BALANCE SHEET. 26. The Balance Sheet calls for little comment. Unpaid bills amounted to £269 lis. Id. (as compared with £112 14s. M. in 1943) but these were almost entirely in respect of the estimated cost of printing the last instalments of the Commission's programme of publications for the year 1944, accounts for which had not been rendered to the Commission by their printers by 31st December 1944. On the other side of the account, debts owing to the Commission on 31st December 1944, amounting to £162 13s. Id. (as compared with £111 19s. 8c?. at the corresponding date in 1943), were entirely in respect of sales of publica- tions and, with a few exceptions, all related to recent sales, the purchasers in question not having had time by the end of 1944 to remit the sums due by them to the Commission. V. THE FUTURE OUTLOOK. 27. In general, the year 1944 may be regarded as having been one of out- standing success for the International Commission, for in it the Commission 1 { Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Ixxv maintained the high rate of issue of its publications, greatly increased the sale. zooWir. fin"'"'? ""^ ""^^^'^^ fronT scientific in! titu fons anrtdivfdt zoologists financial support on as large scale as in any previous year .«t,-S ;^^^^V f''^^''v'^ '' permissible to look back upon the year 1944 with satisfaction, the times through which the Tnternntmnal n^ ^"e year ly** with are fillprl witli ri;ffi„.,u- c . ^ >'"® -international Commission is passinf^ t?nnn P difficulties of exceptional gravity and the position of the Interna (signed) FRANCIS HEMMING Secretariat of the Commission, At the British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road, LONDON, S.W. 7. 9th February 1945. Ixxvi Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT International Income. TO Sales of Publications :— Opinions ?ind Declarations . Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature „ Transfer from International Fund No. 2 . £ s. d. 330 17 2 90 9 11 421 7 1 275 £696 7 1 TO Donations International £ s. d. 409 11 1 TO Transfer from International Fund No. 1 £409 11 1 " Official List " £ 5. d. . 65 7 5 TO Transfer from International Fund No. 1 " International Code " £ s. d. . 100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Ixxvii ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31ST DECEMBER 1944. Fund No. 1. Expenditure. BY Administration Expenditure : — Remuneration of Publications Clerk Miscellaneous Printing and Stationery . Audit Fee „ Cost of Printing Publications : — Opinions and Declarations ...... BuUetin of Zoological Nomenclature .... „ Transfer to " Official List " (Suspense) Account . „ Transfer to " International Code " (Publication) (Suspense) Account ........ „ Excess of Income over Expenditure carried to Balance Sheet 23 17 17 18 10 1 2 2 339 130 3 11 10 9 53 19 11 469 15 65 7 100 7 4 2 £696 Fund No. 2. BY Transfer to International Fund No. 1 . . „ Excess of Income over Expenditure carried to Balance Sheet £ s. d. 275 134 11 1 £409 11 1 (Suspense) Account. BY Excess of Income over Expenditure carried to Balance Sheet £ s. d. 65 7 5 (Publication) (Suspense) Account. BY Excess of Income oxer Expenditure carried to Balance Sheet £ s. d. . 100 Ixxviii Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. BALANCE SHEET d. £ s. d. 268 3 7 4 2 — 275 4 5 Liabilities. Sundry Creditors ..... Excess of Assets over Liabilities : — International Fund No. 1 As at 31st December 1943 . Add Excess of Income over Expenditure for Year to date . . ... International Fund No. 2 As at 31st December 1943 . Add Excess of Income over Expenditure for Year to date ..... " Official List " (Suspense) Account: — As at 31st December 1943 . Add Excess of Income over Expenditure for Year to date ..... International Code " (Publication) (Suspense) Account: — Excess of Income over Expenditure for Year to date . 100 84 17 6 134 11 1 - 219 8 7 54 12 7 65 7 5 — 120 £ s. d. 269 11 7 714 13 £984 4 7 (signed) FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and Accounting Officer to the International Funds. We have examined the above Balance Sheet and accompanying Income and Expendi- ture Accounts with the books and vouchers of the Commission and certify same to be in accordance therewith. We have verified the balance at the Bank. (signed) W. B. KEEN & CO. Chartered Accountants. 224, Regent Street, LONDON, W. 1. 25/A Jamiary 1945. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Ixxix 31st December 1944. Assets. £ s. d. Sundry Debtors for Publications 162 13 1 Cash at Bank 821 11 6 (Stock of Publications not valued) ....... — £984 4 7 Ixxx Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. FREDERICK CHAPMAN. (1864-1943.) FREDERICK CHAPMAN, the news of whose death has been received from Austraha. was one of the oldest members of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, on which he had served as the AustraUan representa- tive since 1925. While he is best known for his work on the Foraminifera and the larger fossils, he preferred to describe himself as a broad general naturalist, for his interests in natural science were catholic. He was a keen botanist and entomologist and did much, while resident in Australia, to promote a popular interest in scientific subjects and in the study and cultivation of Australian native plants. Mr. Chapman, who was born in London on 13th February 1864, began his scientific career at the age of 18 when he was appointed laboratory assistant to Professor J. W. Judd at the Royal College of Science at South Kensington, where he remained until 1902, when he left for AustraUa. His duties under Judd early brought him into contact with the Foraminifera, on which, guided by Professor Rupert Jones, he soon became the leading British authority. This group always remained his favourite interest and from 1886 until his death scarcely a year passed without several papers on these organisms coming from his pen. "\Miile at South Kensington, he also quahfied in geology and petrology and published important contributions on these subjects, including one in which he demonstrated the nature of perlitic structure in igneous rocks by its develop- ment in thick discs of Canada balsam. In 1902, Mr. Chapman took up the position of Palaeontologist to the National Museum, Melboiirne, for which he had been chosen by Professor G. B. Howes. He resided in Australia for the rest of his life. At the National Museum, he found a very large mass of material, most of which was undescribed, and, as the only professional palaeontologist in Victoria, his work during this period of his life was of necessity concerned principally with the larger inverte- brates, plants and fishes. He continued, however, his studies on the Foramini- fera, to which he devoted much of his leisure, publishing many papers on material. Recent and fossil, from Australia and elsewhere. In 1927, developments in oil search in AustraUa led the Commonwealth Government to appoint him the first Commonwealth Palaeontologist. He retained this position until his retirement at the age of 72, but continued to engage in scientific work for the remainder of his life. His death took place suddenly on 10th December 1943, at his home at Kew, Victoria, within a few weeks oi his 80th birthday. In addition to his work as State and later Commonwealth Palaeontologist, he was from 1920 until 1932 part-time Lecturer in Palaeontology at the Uni- versity of Melbourne and also took part in the acti\'ities of Australian and Victorian scientific bodies for nearly forty years. Mr. Chapman was the author of over 500 scientific papers and several books. Of his papers on the Foraminifera may be mentioned his " Foramini- fera of the Gault of Folkestone," published in the Journal of the Royal Micro- scopical Society, his papers in the Journal of the Linnean Society of Londmi on the results of the Funafuti Expedition, his reports on the Foraminifera of the Shackleton and Mawson Expeditions to the Antarctic, " The Cretaceous and Tertiary Foraminifera of New Zealand " {New Zealand Geological Survey), and Bull. zool. No mend . Vol. 1, FREDERICK CHAPMAN (1864-1943) Member of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1925-1943. {To face p. Ixzx. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Ixxxi the Victorian Geological Survey Reports on the Mallee and Sorrento bores. His most important contributions to the larger fossils are contained in his " New or Little Known Fossils in the National Museum," published in 30 Parts in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria. His books include the textbooks, The Foraminifera, for many years the only work of its kind, and Australasian Fossils, and a volume of popular scientific essays. Open- Air Studies in Australia. Physically, Mr. Chapman was of small stature but, like many men of this tj'pe, he possessed great energy and determination, which he retained through- out his life. He was of a kindly, unassuming disposition, and always glad to aid younger workers. His courtesy was unfailing. To all, including his many overseas correspondents, he was a friend as well as a scientist, whose passing is deeply regretted. W. J. PARR. Caulfield, Victoria, Australia. Ixxxii Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. PERSONNEL OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Election of Vice-President. The following election is announced : — ■ To be Vice-President :— James L. PETERS, Assistant Secretary to the International Commission, Curator of Birds, IMuseum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A., to be Vice-President of tlie International Commission, vice the late Commissioner Charles Wardell STILES, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. (19th March 1945). Signed on behalf of the Internatimial Commission cm Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission. Secretariat of the Commission, At the British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, LONDON, S.W.7. 19th March 1945. - Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Ixxxiii CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED UP TO 30TH JUNE 1945, IN RESPONSE TO THE APPEAL FOR FUNDS ISSUED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COM- MISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Third list of contributions. (Period 1st January-30th June 1945.) Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa .... Royal Entomological Society of London (second con- tribution) ...... Senhor Dr. A. do Amaral Professor E. G. Linsley Individual Members of the Palaeontological Society, U.o.A. Total so far received. First List (see pi. 1) Second List (see p. Ixx) Third List Total required to complete Fund of £1800. £ s. d. (see I9i3, Bull. zool. Nomencl.l:xxxix-xl) . .. £830 3 11 £ s. d. 20 25 10 1 14 11 93 12 7 £150 7 6 £ s. d 409 17 6 409 11 1 150 7 6 £969 16 1 Ixxxiv Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. FORTHCOMING PUBLICATIONS The following forthcoming publications are announced : — Regies Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature). This edition, in which will be incorporated all the amendments adopted from time to time since 1901 by the International Congresses of Zoology, will contain the substantive French text (on left-hand pages) and the English translation thereof (on right-hand pages). The volume, which will be fully indexed, will also contain a brief historical account of the development of the Regies and an analysis of all the Opinions so far rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in regard to the interpretation of the provisions of the Regies. The Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Although it was established in 1913, the Official List has never yet been published in book form, the only record of the entry of names thereon being at present the successive Opinions rendered by the International Commission on this subject. Full bibliographical details will be given in the forthcoming edition in regard to the generic names so far placed on the Official List, their type species and the manner in which these species became the types of the genera in question. Particulars will also be given of all other decisions so far taken by the International Commission in regard either to the status of par- ticular zoological works or particular names. The index to the volume will therefore provide a complete guide to all decisions so far taken by the Inter- national Commission on such questions. At present there are between 600 and 700 names on the Official List, but it is the hope of the International Commission that, on the publication of the forthcoming edition, the value of the Official List as an instrument for the stabilisation of the nomenclature of the more important genera in the Animal Kingdom will become so apparent that many specialists will be stinuilated to submit further proposals for the addition to the Official List of generic names of importance in their respective groups. SUBSCRIPTION RATES: — Institutions and individuals now registering as prospective subscribers will be notified of the prices of the above publications, when those prices have been settled and, if they make payment prior to publi- cation, will be granted a special discount of 20 per cent on the publication price. INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has been criticised at times for the delays that have occurred in the corisideration of particular cases. In part these delays have been due to faults in the organisation and procedure of the Commission and, in so far as this has been the case, steps have been, and are being, taken to prevent their recurrence. To a considerable extent, however, these delays have been due to the incomplete and inaccurate way in which proposals have been submitted to the Commission for consideration. 2. Zoologists are accordingly invited to co-operate with the Commission by complying strictly with the following instructions when submitting proposals for the consideration of the Commission and in consequence when submitting papers for publication in the Bulletin. By doing so zoologists will: — (a) avoid unnecessary delays in securing decisions on questions submitted ; and (b) reduce to a minimum the expenditure incurred by the Commission in dealing with applications submitted. 3. The instructions in question are the following : — (1) Proposals should be in the form of papers and should not be raised incidentally in course of correspondence ; these papers should be as short and concise as is consistent with the clear presentation of the problem to be considered. (2) Wherever possible papers should be typewritten and, whether typewritten or in manuscript, should be on one side of the paper only. (3) The printing of papers in foreign languages adds greatly to their cost. For so long therefore as the present financial difficulties of the Commission persist, zoologists are asked to submit all manuscripts in English. (4) Each application should be confined to a single subject except where the status of two or more names forms part of a single problem. (5) Where a proposal refers to status of a particular name, a clear indication should be given, either in the title or at the beginning of the paper, of the Class and Order to which the genus or species belongs. Wherever possible the name of the family should be added. (6) The full bibliographical reference should be given for every name, wherever generic or specific, cited. (7) In the case of generic names the type species should be clearly stated and a refer- ence given to the circumstances in which that species became the type, i.e. : — (i) whether so designated at the time of original publication ; or (ii) whether designated at a later date under Article 30 of the Code, and, if so, by what author it was so designated. (In these cases the full biblio- graphical reference should be given to the place where the species in question was designated as the type). (8) Specific names should be cited in the same combination of generic and trivial names as that employed by the original author when first naming the species. (9) A full bibliographical reference consists of :— (a) the generic or specific name in question ; (b) the name of its author; (c) the date of its publication ; (d) the title of the work in which the name was so published ; (e) where the work in question consists of more than one volume, the volume number; (f) the page number. (10) The titles of journals should be abbreviated in the form shown in the " World List of Scientific Periodicals," ed. 2, 1934; the names of separate works should be cited in full. (11) Volume numbers should be cited in Arabic (and not in Roman) numerals. (12) Page references should be cited in accordance with the Harvard system of notation, i.e., the page number preceded by a colon should follow immediately after the title of the work, or, where that work is in more than one volume, the volume number. The word " page " and the abbreviation " p." should not be used. 4. Priority of treatment will in all cases be given to proposals prepared in accordance vith the foregoing instructions. BY ORDER OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission. Secretariat of the Commission, At the British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. May, .1943. THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission a/ 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 (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. The Bulletin was established in 1943, in which year three Parts were published. Part 4 was published in 1944 and two further Parts (Parts 5 and 6) have been published in 1945. Opiniofis and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The above work is being published in three volumes concurrently, 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 (containing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions 1-1 1) have now been published. Further Parts are in the press and 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 are in the press and 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 1-11, containing Opinions 182-192, have been published. Further Parts are in the press and will be published shortly. Printed is Great Britain by Richard Clay and Company, Ltd., Bungay, Suffolk. VOLUME 1. Part 3. Pp. 1-86. 28th OCTOBER 1943 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON :^OOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE f\}^^' n T^ O Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission On the Lisbon decisions of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. , Secretary to the International Commission . . . . . . . pp. 1-4 The Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at their Session held at Lisbon in September 1935 (prepared by Commissioner Francis Hemming at the request of the International Commission) ....... pp. 5-52 The Report submitted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, Lisbon, September 1935 (prepared by Commissioner Francis Hemming for Secretary to the International Commission) .... pp. 53-62 The Official Record of the approval by the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology of the Report submitted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and of the adoption by the Congress of the Resolutions submitted by the International Commission . p. 63 On certain minor corrections made in the Report submitted by the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, Lisbon, September 1935. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission .......... pp. 64-69 The Minutes of a Plenary Conference between the President of the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the Secretary to the International Commission held in London on 19th June 1939 . pp. 70-86 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. 1943 Price One Pound Ten Shillings (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION A. The Officers of the Commission President ■ Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). ^eZ) Mr. Francis Hemming, CM.G C.B.E. (Umted Krngdom). Assistant Secretary : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). B. The Members of the Commission Class 1943 Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor L. di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Prnfessor J R. DYMOND (Canada). . Dr James L PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commmwn). Dr. Leonhard STEJNEGER (U.S.A.). ^'^^^^'■)* Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. W. ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Bela von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. T. JACZEWSKI (Poland). ^^^^^^^^■■^ Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). ^- "pran^V^HEMMING^^^^^^^ ^Secretary to the Co^nnssion, Dr KarUORDAN (United Kingdom) {President of the Convmssion). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). C. The Staff of the Secretariat in London Secretary to the Commission: Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Archivist : Mr. Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A. Publications Clerk : Miss E. Evans. D. The Address of the Commission 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. . This vacancy was caused by the death on 23rd May, 1939, of Dr. Witmer STONE (U.S.A.). , . .u ^^otv, r>n Oi. Tannarv 1941 of Dr. Charles Wardell (1897-1935). ( 1 ) ON THE LISBON DECISIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. {Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.) The usual practice is for the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature to start their meetings at the place fixed for the International Congress of Zoology about a week before the opening of the Congress. This arrange- ment enables the Commission to complete the greater part of their discussions before the Congress and gives ample time for the preparation of the report to be submitted by the Commission to the Congress. 2. On the occasion of the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology held at Lisbon in September 1935, it was not possible to proceed in this manner. The reason for this was that the Sixth International Congress of Entomology had been meeting at Madrid in the week immediately preceding the opening of the Lisbon Congress, and it had been necessary for the President and those members of the Commission who were entomologists to be present at the Madrid meeting in order that they might take part in the meetings of the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature. 3. The consequence of this was that it was not possible for the Commission to hold their first meeting earlier than Sunday, 15th September 1935, the day immediately following the arrival in Lisbon of the members of the Congress. This first meeting was concerned (as will be seen from the minutes) with non- scientific matters such as the election of Commissioners and the nomination of certain members of the Congress to serve as Alternate Members of the Commission during their Lisbon Session. At the same meeting, the Com- mission invited Commissioner James L. Peters and myself to perform between us the duties of Secretary to the Commission during the Lisbon Session owing to the absence through ill-health of Commissioner C. W. Stiles, the Secretary to the Commission. 4. On the following day (Monday, 16th September 1935) the Commission started the consideration of the questions of zoological nomenclature that figured on their Agenda. That Agenda was a long one and the time available was short, since arrangements had been made by the Secretariat-General of the Congress for the Public Meeting of the Commission (prescribed by paragraph (1) of Article 5 of the By-laws of the Commission) to be held on the afternoon of Wednesday, 18th September 1935. There was therefore only a period of two-and-a-half days available (a) for the discussion of the various questions before the Commission, and (b) for the preparation of their report, since it was necessary that that document should be approved before the Public Meeting took place. 5. The Commission realised therefore that, if they were to complete their examination of all the items on their Agenda, it was necessary both that they should proceed with the utmost despatch and also that they should be in almost constant session until the time fixed for their Public Meeting. Accord- ingly, to secure these objects the Commission agreed, at their meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935, to suspend so much of the By-Laws for the duration of the Congress as might be necessary to enable BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (OCTOBER 1943.) 1 2 ■ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. them to work with the greatest effect, and to sit continuously throughout that day and also for the whole of the morning of the following day (Tuesday, 17th September 1935). By mid-day of the last-named day, the Commission had virtually completed the examination of their Agenda. 6. In response to a request made by the Commission at the close of the second of the two meetings held on Monday, 16th September, I had agreed to begin the drafting of their report to the Congress. VThen the Commission adjourned at mid-day on Tuesday, 17th September, it was apparent that in no circumstances would it be possible, between that time and eleven o'clock on the following day (the time fixed for the meeting to consider, and, subject to any necessary amendments, to adopt their draft report) to prepare for inclusion in the report draft paragraphs relating to all the matters dealt with by the Commission at Lisbon. It was accordingly decided that, in addition to the customary introductory paragraphs relating to the composition of the Commission and the work done by the Commission since the last Congress, the report should include paragraphs dealing with all the matters on which the Commission had decided to take action involving " suspension of the rules " together with paragraphs relating to as many of the other matters dealt with by the Commission for which it was possible to prepare drafts in the time available. It was further agreed that in the case of those matters for which, in the time at the disposal of the Commission it had not been possible to include paragraphs in the report, any necessary action should be taken after the Congress and that the Official Record of Proceedings of the meetings of the Commission should be the authority for action so taken. 7. "WTien the Commission met on the morning of Wednesday, 18th Sep- tember 1935, I was able to submit for consideration the draft of a report dealing with all the matters which the Commission had agreed should be included in that document and also with the great majority of the matters not involving " suspension of the rules " on which they had taken decisions dviring their Lisbon Session. This draft was adopted by the Commission as their report to the Congress, subject to minor drafting amendments and to the incorporation of paragraphs relating to (a) the resignation by Commissioner C. W. Stiles of the Office of Secretary to the Commission (first notified to the Commission at that meeting) and (b) the procedure in regard to the matters covered by the so-called " Horn Resolution " that had been approved by the Permanent Committee of the International Zoological Congresses. 8. Immediately upon its adoption, the report of the Commission was posted on the Bulletin Board of the Congress in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (2) of Article 4 of the By-Laws of the Conmiission. On the afternoon of the same day (18th September 1935) the report was unanimously adopted at the Public Meeting of the International Commission, which was held as a joint meeting with Section XII (Section on Nomenclature) of the Congress. Finally the report was unanimously approved and adopted by the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at the Concilium Plenum held on Saturday, 21st September 1935. 9. In normal course, formal Opinions would have been prepared as soon as conveniently possible after the close of the Congress, embodying the decisions reached by the International Commission and approved and adopted by the Congress. On the present occasion immediate action was not possible. First, the Secretaryship was vacant until October 1936, when I was elected to that Ofiice; second, the transfer of the records of the Coni- mission from Washington to London and their subsequent sorting and classi- Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 3 fication proved a far more lengthy task than had been expected, and these difficulties were greatly increased by the exceptionally heavy calls on my own time made by my official work in that period. Third, there was the difficult task of obtaining the funds necessary to enable the Commission to continue their work. No sooner had these difficulties been overcome and the first three Opinions {Opinions 134-136) of the new series issued than the out- break of war in September 1939 again brought the work of the Commission to a halt. In the spring of 1942 I made fresh arrangements as the result of which I was able to resume work on those cases on which the Commission had reached agreement before, owing to the outbreak of war, an end was put for the time being to communications between men of science living in different countries. As the result of these arrangements two further Opinions [Opinions 137 and 138) were issued in 1942; and nine [Opinions 139-147) have been published this year (1943). 10. If it had been possible in the case of the Lisbon Session of the Inter- national Commission to publish quickly the Opinions then agreed upon, the report of the Commission to the Congress and the Official Record of its Proceedings would have been only of historical interest. In existing circum- stances, however, both these documents are of great importance, for, apart from the fourteen Opinions referred to above, it is only in these documents that the decisions taken by the International Commission at Lisbon are to be found. 11. Even now some time must elapse before all the outstanding Opinions can be published. In order therefore that specialists may have ready access to all the decisions taken by the International Commission at Lisbon, it has been decided to devote the present Part (Part 3) of the Bulletin to this subject. 12. The documents now published are : — (a) the Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the six meetings held during their Lisbon Session between 15th and 18th September 1935; (b) the Report submitted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology and unanimously approved and adopted by the Congress at the Concilium Plenum held at Lisbon on 21st September 1935; (c) the Proceedings of the Plenary Conference between the President of the International Commission and the Secretary to the International Commission held in London on 19th June 1939. 13. The Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission at their Lisbon Session, which has not previously been published, contains a complete record of every decision taken by the Conmaission during that Session. 14. The Report of the International Commission covers the same fifeld as the Official Record of Proceedings but, for the reasons explained in paragraphs 6 and 7 above, the Report is less complete than the Official Record of Proceedings. The Report was published in 1936 in the Compte Rendu of the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology published in Lisbon under the direction of the President of the Congress, Professor Arthur Ricardo Jorge (pp. 181 to 196). Owing to the fact that none of the standard books of reference were available for consultation during the Congress, the International Commission recognised that it was inevitable that there should be some errors in the bibliographical and other references cited in their report. They accordingly 4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. authorised me to examine that document after my return to London on the close of the Congress when I should have access to a scientific library and to correct any errors of this kind that I might so detect. The text of the report published in Lisbon in 1935 is identical with that actually submitted by the International Commission to the Congress. On the present occasion such minor errors of the kind referred to above as I have found have been corrected. In every case a note has been added showing the place and nature of the correction so made. 15. The Proceedings of the Plenary Conference have not previously been published. This meeting was held under an arrangement approved by the International Commission at Lisbon (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10(a)) as part of the measures then taken to ensure that there should be no break in the continuity of the work of the Commission consequent upon the resignation by Commissioner Stiles of the Office of Secretary to the Commission. 16. The publication of these three documents puts the zoological profession in possession of the full record of the decisions taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at their Lisbon Session. It was most unfortunate that circumstances should have led to so great a delay in the publication of the Opinions agreed upon by the International Commission during that Session, but every effort is being made to publish outstanding Opinions as rapidly as possible and in other ways to prepare the ground for the active resumption of their labours by the Commission as soon as circum- stances permit. ( 5 ) THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE AT THEIR SESSION HELD AT LISBON IN SEPTEMBER 1935 (prepared by Commissioner Francis Hemming at the request of the International Commission) INTEKNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Session held during the Twelfth Internatioml Congress of Zoology, Lisbon, September 1935 CONCLUSIONS of the First Meeting held in the Library of the Faculty of Sciences on Sunday, 15th September 1935, at 1115 hours PEESENT : Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom) (President) Dr. Jacques Pellegrin (France) Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.) Dr. L. Stejneger (U.S.A.) ILLNESS OF THE SECRETARY \ INTERDI ELEC- TIONS TO THE COMJUSSION SINCE THE LAST MEET- ING OF THE CONGRESS 1. THE PRESIDENT welcomed the Commissioners and said that it was with great regret that he had to inform the Commission that he had received a letter from their Secretary, Commissioner C. W. Stiles, statin.^ that owmg to illness he had been forbidden by his medical attendants to leave home. He would therefore be unable to be present at the Lisbon Session of the Commission. THE COiEVIISSION invited :— Dr. K. Jordan, President of the Commission, to convey to Dr. Stiles the sympathy of the Commission and their regret that he was prevented from being present at the Lisbon Session. 2. THE PRESIDENT reported that since the last (Padua) meetmg of the International Congress of Zoology the under-mentioned interim elections had been made to the Commission : — Class 1934. ' James L. PETERS (Cambridge, Mass.) vice David btarr Jordan (Stanford) (deceased) ; /a \ B F^THAJI (Montreal) vice Ernest Warren (bouth Africa) (resigned). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. THE COMMISSION agreed :— to report the above interim elections to tlie Inter- national Congress of Zoology, with a recommendation that they be approved and confirmed. ELECTION OF TWO COMMISSIONERS APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES FOR THE PERIOD OF THE CONGRESS SECRETARIAL ARRANGEMENTS AT LISBON NEXT MEETING 3. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (a) to elect the undermentioned to be Commis- sioners in the vacancies noted : — Francis HEMMING (London) vice F. A. Bather (London) (deceased) (Class 1940) ; William Thomas CALMAN (London) vice John Stephenson (London) (deceased) (Class 1937) ; (b) to report the above elections to the International Congress of Zoology, with a recommendation that they be approved and confirmed. 4. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (a) to continue for the present Session of the Commission the policy inaugurated at Monaco in 1913 and continued and approved by the Congresses held at Budapest (1927) and Padua (1930) and to invite certain members of the Congress specially interested in zoological nomen- clature to sit with the Commission at Lisbon as Alternate Members with full voting rights ; (b) to invite the following members of the Congress to sit with the Commission during the Lisbon Session as Alternate Members with full voting rights : — AMAEAL vice CABREEA Chester BRADLEY vice STONE BEIER vice HANDLIRSCH ARNDT vice RICHTER MORTENSEN vice APSTEIN. 5. THE COMMISSION agreed :— as regard the secretarial arrangements during the Lisbon Session, to invite : — Commissioner James L. Peters to act as Secre- tary; and Commissioner Francis Hemming to perform such of the duties of Secretary as might be arranged between him and Commissioner Peters. 6. THE COMMISSION agreed :— that the next meeting of the Lisbon Session should be held at the Faculty of Sciences on Monday, 16th September 1935 at 0930 hours. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 7 CERTIFICATE : I, FRANCIS HEMMING, acting for the Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, hereby CERTIFY that the above is a full and true account of the proceedings of the said Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its meeting held in Lisbon in the Library of the Faculty of Sciences on Sunday, 15th September 1935, at 1115 hours as recorded at t^at meeting by Commissioner James L. Peters (signed) FRANCIS HEMMING for Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ( 8 ) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Session held during the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, Lisbon, September 1935 CONCLUSIONS of the Second Meeting held in tli6 Library of the Faculty of Sciences on Monday, 16th September 1935, at 0930 hours PRESENT : Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom) (President) Dr. W. T. Caiman (United Kingdom) Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) Dr. Jacques Pellegrin (France) Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.) Dr. L. Stejneger (U.S.A.) Professor Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) Dr. Max Beier (Austria) Professor James Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) Dr. Thomas Mortensen (Denmark) ELECTION OF A 1. THE COMMISSION agreed :— comnssiONER , ^ ^.®^„.^^,^ (a) to elect Dr. leiso ESAKl (Japan) to be a Com- missioner vice Professor C. Ishikawa (Japan) (resigned) (Class 1937) ; (b) to report the above election to the International Congress of Zoology, with a reconamendation that it be approved and confirmed ; (c) to leave unfilled for the time being the vacancies caused by the death of Commissioner Handlirsch (Class 1934) and the resignation of Commis- sioner Horvath (Class 1937). APPOlNTivrENT OF 2. THE COMMISSION agreed :— AN ALTERNATE ^ FOR THE PERIOD to invite Dr. Hiroshi OHSHIMA (Japan) to sit OF THE CONGRESS yfith. the Commission during the Lisbon Session as an Alternate Member with full voting rights vice Commissioner Esaki. NOMINATION OF 3. THE COMMISSION agreed :— THE CLASS 1943 ^ VICE THE CLASS (a) to nominate Commissioners PETERS, SILVES- 1934 TRI, STEJNEGER, STONE, and FANTHAM, the retiring Commissioners of the Class 1934, to be members of the Class 1943 ; (b) to take note that owing to the decision tem- porarily to leave unfilled the vacancy in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 9 Class 1934 caused by the death of Commissioner HANDLIRSCH, there remained one place in the Class 1943 unfilled. gSrs'iNcrTHE 4- ™^ COMMISSION agreed :- LAST (PADUA) (a) to take note that since the last (Padua) Meeting CONGRESS ^^ THE of the International Congress of Zoology five (5) Opinions ^ (Opinions 124-128) had been adopted, the Summaries of the said Opinions being as follows : — OPINION 124: The various Subdivisions of genera published by Linnaeus in 1758 are not to be accepted as of this date (1758) as of sub- generic value under the International Rules. OPINION 125 : Boms Agassiz, 1846, is an emendation of, and therefore an absolute syno- nym of. Boras Herbst, 1797 ; Borus Albers, 1850, is a dead homonym. OPINION 126 : On the basis of evidence and expert advice of outstanding specialists, the Commission does not see its way clear to declare the new names in d'Orbigny's, 1850, " Pro- drome " as unavailable or as nomina nuda under the Rules. OPINION 127: Complying with the expert advice from specialists in the group involved, the Commission herewith Suspends the Rules and places Lepidocyclina Giimbel, 1868,^ type Nummulites mantelli, in the Ofiicial List of Generic Names, with Cyclosiphon Ehrenberg, 1856, type Nummulites mantelli, as objective synonym. The consultants agree, almost unani- mously, that to apply the Rules in this case would produce greater confusion than uniformity. OPINION 128 : Under Suspension of the Rules Nycteribia Latreille, 1796, with peclicularia La- treille, 1805, as type, and Spinturnix von Hey- den, 1826, with myoti Kolenati, 1856, as type, are hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names. The specific name vesper tilionis of all authors is hereby invalidated for the following generic names : Acarus, Acrocholidia, Celeripes, Der- manyssus, Diplostaspis, Gamasus, Hippobosca, Ichoronyssus, Lipomjssus, Listropoda, Megis- ^ At the time of the Lisbon Session, numbers had not yet been allotted to these Opinions. The numbers here cited are those under which these Opinions were sub- sequently (October 1936) published. 2 The portion of the volume for 1868 of the At)h. hayer. Akad. Wiss., in which this name was published, was not issued until 1870, to which date therefore Lepidocyclina Giimbel should be assigned. 10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, AAfENDMENTS TO THE RULES AND TO THE BY-LAWS OF THE COMMISSION NEW EDITIONS OF THE RULES CO-OPERATION WITH THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ENTOMOLOGY topoda, Nycteribia, Pediculus, Penicillidia, Periglischrus, Phthiridium, Pteroptus, Sarcoptes, Spinturnix, Strehla, on the ground that the application of the Rules would produce greater confusion than uniformity ; (b) to report to the International Congress of Zoology that, during the interim between the Eleventh and Twelfth International Congresses, the Inter- national Commission had adopted several new Opinions which would shortly be sent to the press. 5. THE COMMISSION took note :— that various proposals for the amendment of the rules embodied in the International Code and of the By-Laws of the Commission had been received since the last Session of the Inter- national Congress of Zoology, that these pro- posals were being studied but that none of them was yet ready for final consideration by the Commission. 6. THE COMMISSION took note :— that since the last meeting of the International Congress of Zoology three new editions of the rules in the form of translations had been printed : — (i) a Polish edition ; (ii) a Portuguese edition (translation by do Amaral) ; (iii) a Spanish edition (translation by C. G. Aguayo). 7. THE PRESIDENT stated that in pursuance of the policy adopted on pre\aous occasions and, on the present occasion, because the meeting of the Sixth Inter- national Congress of Entomology had been arranged to be held at Madrid immediately before the present (Lisbon) meeting of the International Congress of Zoology, cases relating to entomological nomenclature received by the International Commission had been referred for report to the International Committee on Entomological Nomen- clature. , On a number of those cases the International Committee had agreed upon recommendations for the consideration of the International Commission. In addi- tion, the International Committee had itself put forward resolutions on certain subjects for the consideration of the International Commission. In his capacity as Secretary to the International Committee, he (the President of the International Commission) proposed now to lay before the Commission the proposals so formulated. It was inevitable that in the case of the resolutions adopted at Madrid it had been impossible to circulate to the mepiber^ IMPORTANCE OF FORMING SPECIALIST ^ GROUPS FOR THE STUDY OF THE NOMENCLATURE OF PARTICULAR DIVISIONS OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED AT THE LISBON SESSION OF THE COJEVIISSION Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 11 of the Commission the texts adopted. Nevertheless, the proper course for the International Commission would, in his view, be to take these proposals into immediate consideration and for this purpose to suspend the By-Laws of the Commission to such extent as might be necessary for the period of the present Congress. THE COMMISSION :— (a) took note of, and approved, the procedure pro- posed by the President ; and (b) agreed to suspend the By-Laws of the Inter- national Commission during the Lisbon Session of the Commission to such extent as might be necessary to give effect to the decision recorded in (a) above. 8. Arising out of the discussion recorded in Conclu- sion 7 above, the COMMISSION :— (a) recorded their earnest hope that specialists in particular groups of the Animal Kingdom would organise themselves for the study of nomen- clature in the same way as had been done in the case of entomology and more recently in the case of ornithology ; (b) agreed to attach great weight to recommendations submitted by groups of specialists so formed ; but (c) felt bound to reserve to themselves the right in all cases of deciding whether recommenda- tions so submitted were in conformity with the spirit of the Code and were within the powers granted to the Commission at successive meet- ings of the International Congress of Zoology. 9. THE COMMISSION :— (a) took note that owing to the illness of Com- missioner STILES, Secretary to the Commission, it had not been possible on the present occasion to make the customary detailed arrangements for the Agenda of the Commission during the Lisbon Session ; (b) agreed : — (i) that in view of (a) above immediate con- sideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Commission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a decision could properly be taken ; (ii) that for the purpose of giving effect to (i) above, such use as might be necessary should be made of the special procedure agreed upon in Conclusion 7(b) above ; (iii) that in so far as action under (i) and (ii) above involved taking decisions " under suspension of the rules " in cases where 12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. DITERPRETATION OF THE GENERIC NOMENCLATURE USED BY FREYER IN HIS NEUERE BEITRAQE ZUR SCHMETTERLINGS. KUNDE the prescribed " advertisement " had not been published or, if published, had not been published for the prescribed period before the opening of the Congress, the said cases, together with the decisions of the Commission thereon, should be duly " advertised " as soon as might be prac- • ticable after the conclusion of the present (Lisbon) meeting of the Congress and that no Opinion should be rendered and pub- lished thereon until after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the said ' ' advertisement ' ' ^ was despatched to the prescribed journals for publication, 10. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a resolution adopted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at its meeting held in Paris in 1932 and later confirmed both by Section VIII of the Fifth International Congress of Entomology and by the said Congress in Conciliuin Plenum on the presentation of the Keport of the Secretary of the Executive Com- mittee, regarding the interpretation of the generic nomen- clature used by FKEYER in his Neuere Beitrdge zur Schmetterlingskunde. The COMMISSION agreed :— (a) to render an Opinion * approving the proposal embodied in the resolution referred to above ; (b) to invite the President (Dr. Karl JORDAN) and Commissioner HEMMING to serve as a Sub-Committee to draft the " summary " of the necessary Opinion. 11. THE CORBIISSION had under consideration a resolution relating to the dates of publication of Jacob Hiibner's Verzeichniss hekannter Sclimettlinge [sic] adopted by the International Conamittee on Entomological Nomen- clature at its meeting held in Paris in 1932 and later confirmed both by Section VIII of the Fifth International Congress of Entomology and by the said Congress in Concilium Plenum on the presentation of the Report of the Secretary of the Executive Committee. THE COMMISSION :— (a) took note that since the adoption by the Inter- national Committee on Entomological Nomen- clature of the resolution referred to above, the surviving manuscripts of Jacob Hiibner had been discovered and that it was likely that these manuscripts, which were now being studied by Commissioner Hemming, would throw im- portant fresh light on the problem of the dates * The " advertisement " here referred to was duly despatched by Dr. Stiles to the pre- THE DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL PORTIONS OF HttBNER, VERZEICHNISS BEK. SCHMETT. scribed journals on 1st May, 1936. See Opinion 134. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 13 FORM OF FAMILY NAME TO BE FORMED FROM THE NAME TINGIS FABRICIUS (HEMIPTERA) of publication of this, and other, works pub- lished by Jacob Hiibner ; (b) agreed that, in view of (a), the question of the dates of publication of Hiibner's Verzeichniss bekannter Sclwielllinge [sic] was one which should be determined in the light of the evidence made available as the result of the discovery of Hiibner's manuscripts and that in consequence no action should be taken on the resolu- tion on this subject adopted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature ; (c) agreed to render an Opinion ^ in the sense of (b) above. 12. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a resolution adopted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature relating to the form of the family name to be formed from the generic name Titigis Fabricius, that had been approved at the meeting of the Committee held in Paris in 1932 and later conjfirmed by Section VIII of the Fifth International Congress of Entomology and by the said Congress in Concilium Plenum on the presentation of the Report of the Secretary of the Executive Committee. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (a) that the form of the family name to be estab- lished for the genus Tingis Fabricius, 1803 [Syst. Rhyng. : 124) in the Hemiptera was a question which affected entomologists alone and in con- sequence was a matter on which the Commission could properly be guided by the International Congress of Entomology ; (b) in view of (a) above, to render an Opinion^ declaring that the family name for Tingis Fabricius, 1803, was TmcroAE. 13. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a resolution relating to the " Erlangen List " of Hymeno- ptera adopted by the International Committee on Ento- mological Nomenclature at its meeting held in Paris in 1932 and later confirmed by Section VIII of the Fifth International Congress of Entomology and by the said Congress in Concilium Plenum on the presentation of the Report of the Secretary of the Executive Committee. THE COMMISSION agreed :— to render Opinions ' : — (i) declaring, imder suspension of the rules, that the so-called " Erlangen List " is to be treated as though it had never been published ; ' See Opinion 150. « See Opinion 143. ' Conclusions (i) and (ii) are dealt with in Opinion 135 ; Conclusion (iii) is dealt with in Opinion 145. THE "ERLANGEN LIST " OF HYMENOPTERA AND :\L\TTERS INCIDENTAL THERETO : POSITION OF NAilES FIRST PUBLISHED EST REJECTED WORKS 14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (ii) making it clear that, where any subsequent author published a genus having the same name as one of the genera proposed in the " Erlangen List," the later-published name is not to be rejected as a homonym by reason of the earlier publication of that name in the " Erlangen List " ; (iii) indicating that the principle laid down in (ii) above applies generally both where the Commission render (or have rendered) an Opinion declaring that a given work is to be treated as though it had never been published and where a work is rejected automatically under Article 25 of the Inter- national Code. FORMM) ^^M^ ^^- ^^^ COMMISSION had under consideration a MEROPS LINNAEUS resolution regarding the family names formed for the AND MEROPE genera Merops Linnaeus (Aves) and Merope Newman NEWTVIAN (Insecta) adopted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at its meeting held in Paris in 1932 and later confirmed by Section VIII of the Fifth International Congress of Entomology and by the said Congress in Concilium Plenum on the presentation of the Keport of the Secretary of the Executive Committee. THE COMMISSION agreed :— to render an Opinion ^ declaring : — (i) that the family name for the genus Merops Linnaeus, 1758 {Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 117) in the Aves is Meropidae ; and (ii) that the family name for the genus Merope NewTnan, 1838 {Ent. Mag. 5 (2) : 180) in the Insecta is Meropeidae. GENERIC NAUIES IN MEIGEN'S NOUVELLE CLASSIFICATION 15. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a resolution regarding the status of the generic names pro- posed in Meigen's " Nouvelle Classification ", adopted by Section VIII of the Fifth International Congress of Ento- mology at its meeting held in Paris in 1932 and later confirmed by the said Congress in Concilium Plenum on the presentation of the Report of the Secretary of the Executive Committee. At the same time, the Com- mission reviewed the Opinion [Opinion 28) previously rendered by them on this subject. THE COMMISSION agreed :— to render an Opinion ^ indicating : — (i) that the generic names first published in 1800 by Johann Wilhelm MEIGEN in his " Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a deux * See Opinion 140. * See Opinion 152. NEW DESCRIP- TIONS: NEED FOR AN INDICATION OF THE ORDER AND FAMILY INVOLVED STATUS OF NAIVIES PROPOSED AS NAMES FOR FORMS OF LESS THAN SUBSPECIFIC STATUS Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 15 ailes " should be treated as having priority as from that date ; but (ii) that, where in the case of any given generic name first published in the above work, specialists in the group concerned are of the opinion that the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, the specialists in question should submit full particulars to the Commission with such recommendations for the suspension of the rules in the case of that generic name as they may consider the most appropriate. 16. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a resolution regarding the need for an indication of the Order and Family concerned whenever new descriptions are published, adopted by the International Co mm ittee on Entomological Nomenclature at its meeting held in Paris in 1932 and later confirmed by Section VIII of the Fifth International Congress of Entomology and by the said Congress in Concilium Plenum on the presentation of the Report of the Secretary of the Executive Committee. THE COMMISSION agreed :— that it was highly desirable that every author when publishing a new description should indicate clearly to what Order and Family the genus or species so described belonged, and that this^ matter should be brought to the attention of editors of zoological journals and of authors of zoological papers. 17. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a resolution relating to the status of varietal names adopted (by a majority) by Section VIII of the Fifth International Congress of Entomology at its meeting held in Paris in 1932 and adopted with other resolutions by the said Congress in Concilium Plenum on the presentation of the Report of the Secretary of the Executive Committee. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (a) that in the time available it would not be pos- sible at Lisbon to deal adequately with the problems involved in this resolution ; (b) that the Secretary should confer with specia- lists in representative branches of the Animal Kingdom regarding the status to be accorded to names proposed as names for forms of less than subspecific status, with a view to the formulation of an Opinion appropriate to each of the various circumstances in which this problem arises. 16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. ORTHOPTERA : VALIDATION OF THE NAME LOCUST A LINNAEUS, 1758 ORTHOPTERA : THE GENERIC NAME PHANEROPTERA SERVILLE, 1831 18. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a resolution relating to the " suspension of the rules " in the case of the name Locusta Linnaeus, adopted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at its meeting held at Madrid immediately prior to the present (Lisbon) meeting of the International Congress of Zoology, and later confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held on 12th September 1935. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (a) to take note that the present was an application submitted by specialists under the invitation contained in the Resolution adopted by the International Commission at their meeting held at Padua on 30th August 1930 and re-affirmed in Opinion 124, for a name {Locusta) published by Linnaeus in 1758 {Syst. Nat. (ed. 10)) as a subdivision of a genus [Grylhis Linnaeus; 1758) to be accepted as of that date (1758) as of subgeneric value under the International Rules ; (b) to " suspend the rules " in the case of the name Locusta Linnaeus and, under the said " suspension of the rules ", to declare : — (i) that the said name Locusta Linnaeus shall be accepted as of subgeneric value as from 1758 {Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 431) ; and (ii) that the type of Locusta Linnaeus, 1758, so validated, shall be Gryllus migratorius Linnaeus, 1758 {Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 432) ; (c) to place the generic name Locusta Linnaeus, 1758, as validated in (b) above and with the type there specified, on the Official List of Generic Names; (d) to render an Opinion^^ in the sense of (a) to (c) above. 19. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a resolution relating to the " suspension of the rules " in the case of the generic name Phaneroptera Serville, 1831, adopted by the International Committee on Entomo- logical Nomenclature at its meeting held at Madrid immediately prior to the present (Lisbon) meeting of the International Congress of Zoology, and later confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held on 12th September 1935. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (a) to " suspend the rules " in the case of the generic name Phaneroptera Serville, 1831 {Ann. Sci. nat. 22 : 158) ; (b) in virtue of (a) above, to validate the name Phaneroptera Serville, 1831, and to declare its " See O'pinion 158. ORTHOPTERA : TWENTY-TWO GENERIC NAMES PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 17 type to be Gryllus falcata Poda, 1761, Ins. Mus. grace. : 52 ; (c) to place the generic name Phaneroptera Serville, 1831, validated as in (b) above and with the type there specified, on the Official List of Generic Names ; and (d) to render an Opinion ^^ in the sense of (a) to (c) above. 20. THE COMMISSION had under consideration :- (i) certain proposals submitted to the Commission by Commissioner Professor C. Apstein of Ber- lin, with the comments thereon of Dr. A. N. Caudell (U.S. National Museum) and certain other proposals submitted by Commissioner the late Dr. Anton Handlirsch of Vienna in favour of adding certain generic names in the Orthoptera to the Official List of Generic Names ; (ii) the resolutions in regard thereto adopted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at its meeting held at Madrid immediately prior to the opening of the present (Lisbon) meeting of the International Congress of Zoology, and subsequently confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held on 12th September 1935. ^ NOTE :— In the time available the Inter- national Coromittee on Entomological Nomen- clature had not been able to prepare a formal report for consideration by the International Commission. In these circumstances the re- commendations of the International Com- mittee and the grounds on which they were based were explained to the International Commission orally by the President (Dr. Karl Jordan) in his capacity as Secretary to the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature. THE COMMISSION agreed :— to render an Opinion^^ placing on the Official List of Generic Names the under-mentioned twenty-two nomenclatorially available generic names in the Orthoptera, with the types indicated, each of which has been duly designated in accordance with the pro\Tsions of the Code : — ^* See Opinion 154. deaff M^ln^n""-^^ f^a^'T*^^ '" *^' Conclusion, those numbered (1) to (21) are dea.lt with laOpimon 149; the twenty-second name (Tylopsis Fieber) is dealt ^nth up (s^ SUf4Sl9°fb^vet °^"^ '^'^'''''''''^ '''^^' ^'' ^'^^^ '' ^ cloself bound BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (OCTOBER 1943.) 2 18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Name of genus Type of genus (1) Bacillus Le Peletier de AIantisrossiaB,ossi, 1790, Saint-Fargeau & Serville, Faun, etrusc. 1 : 259 1825, Ency. meth. Hist, (monotypical) nat. Ent. 10 : 446 (2) Chelidiira'BeTth.old,1827, Forficiila aptera Cha,T]^en- in Latreille, Nat. Fain, tier, 1825, Hor. Ent. : 69 Thierr. : 409 (type designated by Ser- ville, 1831, Ann. Sci. nat. 22 : 36 (as Chelidoura)) (3) Eumastax Burr, 1899, Maslax tenuis Perty, An. Soc. esp. Hist. nat. 1832, Del. Anim. artic. 28 : 75, 94, 257 Brasil. (2) : 123 (monotypical) {4:) Gamposcleis ¥iebeT,lS52, Locusta glabra Herbst, in Kelch, Grundl. Orth. 1786, in Fuessly, Arch. Obersches. : 2 Ins. 7 : 193 (monotypical) (5) Gryllacris Serville, 1831, Gryllacris maculicollis Ann. Sci. nat. 22 Serville, 1831, Ann. Sci. (86) : 138 nat. 22 (86) : 139 (type designated by Eehn, 1905, Proc. Acad, nat. Sci. Philad. 57 : 827) (6) Gryllotalpa Latreille, Gryllus gryllotalpa Lin- [1802-1803], (mSonnini's naeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. Buffon) Hist. nat. gen. (ed. 10) : 428 partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 275 (monotypical) (7) Hemimerus Walker, 1871, Hemimerus talpoides Cat. Dennapt. Saltat. Walker, 1871, Cat. Der- Brit. Mils. 5 Siippl. Der- tnapt. Saltat. Brit. Mus. 5 mapt. Salt. : 2 Suppl. Dermapt. Salt. : 2 (monoty3)ical) (8) LabiaJjeach, 1815, Brew- Forficula minor Jjianaeus, steis Edinburgh Ency. 9 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. (1) : 118 10) : 423 (monotypical) (9) Leptophyes Fieber, 1852, Locusta punctatissima in Kelch, Grundl. Orth. Bosc, 1792, Actes Soc. Obersches. : 3 Hist. nat. Paris 1 (1) : 45 (monotypical) (10) Mantis Linnaeus; 1767, Gryllus religiosus Lin- Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 naeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (2) : 689 (ed. 10) : 426 (type designated by La- treille, 1810, Consid. gen. Anim. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 433) (11) Mynnecophilus'BeTth.old, Blaita acervorum Fanzer, 1827, in Latreille, Nat. [1799], Fatin. Ins. germ. Fam. Thierr. : 409 (68) : Tab. 24 (monotypical) .mM Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 19 Name of genus (12) Oedipoda Latreille, 1829, in Cuvier, Regne Anim. (ed. 2) 5 : 188 (13) PhylUum Illiger, 1798, in Kugelann, Kdfer Preuss. : 499 (14) Prophalangopsis Walker, 1871, Cat. Dermapt. Sal- tat. Brit. Mus. 5 Suppl. Dermapt. Salt. : 116 (15) Proscopia Klug, 1820, Hor. phys. Berol. : 17 (16) Psophiis Fieber, 1853, Lotos 3 : 122 (17) Saga Charpentier, 1825, Hor. Ent. : 95 (18) Schizodactylus Brulle, 1835, Hist. nat. Ins. 9 (Orth.) : 161 (19) Sphingonothus Fieber, 1852, in Kelch, Grundl. Orth. Obersches. : 2 (20) Stenopelmatus Burmei- ster, 1838, Handb. Ent. 2 (2) (No. 1) : 720 (21) Tridactylus Olivier, 1789, Ency. meth. 4 (Ins.) : 26 (22) Tijlopsis Fieber, 1853, Lotos 3 : 172 Type of genus Gryllus caerulescens Lin- naeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10): 432 (type designated by Kirby, 1910, Syn. Cat. Orthopt. 3 : 238) Gryllus siccifolius Lin- naeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 425 (monotypical) Tarraga obscura Walker, 1869, Cat. Dermapt. Sal- tat. Brit. Mus. 1 : 100 (monotypical) Proscopia gigantea Klug, 1820, Hor. phys. Berol. : 18 (type designated by Guerin 1828, Diet. Class. Hist. nat. 14 : 297) Gryllus stridulus Lin- naeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 432 (monotypical) Locusta serrata Fabricius, 1793, Ent. syst. 2 : 43 (monotypical) Gryllus monstrosus Drury, 1773, III. nat. Hist. 2 : index & 81 (monotypical) Gryllus caerulans Lin- naeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 701 (monotypical) Stenopelmatus talpa Bur- meister, 1838, Handb. Ent. 2 (2) (No. 1 ): 721 (type designated by Kir- by, 1906, Syn. Cat. Orth- opt. 2 : 111) Tridactylus paradoxus Latreille, [1802-1803], {in Sonnini's BufEon), Hist. nat. gen. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 276 (monotypical) Locusta lilifolia Fabri- cius, 1793, Ent. syst. 2 : 36 (monotypical) 20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. LEPIDOPTERA : 21. THE COmilSSION had under consideration :— CASE OF THREE . , , • , ^ ^ PAIRS OF (i) proposals submitted by Commissioner Hem- ^^^^^^^^^^^ ming for determining the relative prece- 1807 FOR dence to be accorded to the names comprised IDENTICAL , in three pairs of generic names published GENERA in 1807 for identical genera, the names in question being : — Morpho Fabricius and Potamis Hiibner ; Helicopis Fabricius and Rusticus Hiibner; and Pontia Fabricius and Mancipium Hiibner ; (ii) the resolutions in regard thereto adopted by the International Committee on Ento- mological Nomenclature at its meeting held at Madrid immediately prior to the opening of the present (Lisbon) meeting of the Inter- national Congress of Zoology, and later con- firmed by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held on 12th September 1935. THE COMMISSION agreed :— to render an Opinion ^^ stating : — (i) that unless and until further evidence was forthcoming regarding the precise dates in 1807 on which were published (a) Fabricius's paper on generic names of Lepidoptera in the sixth volume of Illiger's Magazinfiir InseJctenhcnde and (b) plates [79], [102] and [104], and [141] in volume 1 of Jacob HUbner's Sammlung exotischer Sclimetterlinge, the names proposed by Fabricius shall have precedence over those proposed by Hiibner ; and (ii) that in the event of evidence later being found to show that Hiibner's plates were published before Fabricius's paper, the generic names proposed by Hiibner on the said plates [i.e. the names Potamis Hiibner, Rusticus Hiibner and Mancipium Hiibner) are, under " suspension of the rules ", to be suppressed in favour of the names proposed by Fabricius for the same genera (i.e. the names Morpho Fabricius, Helicopis Fabricius, and Pontia Fabricius). LEPIDOPTERA: 22. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a SUSPENSION OF resolution relating to the " suspension of the rules " in THE RULES IN the case of eight generic names in the Lepidoptera THE CASE OF Rhopalocera, adopted by the International Committee NAMES ^ ^^ Entomological Nomenclature at its meeting held at ^^ See Opinion 137. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 21 Madrid immediately prior to the present (Lisbon) meeting of the International Congress of Zoology, and later confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held on 12th September 1935. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (a) to " suspend the rules " in the case of the following generic names :— (i) Euploea Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insek- tenk. (Illiger) 6 : 280 (ii) Satyrus Latreille, 1810, Consid. gen. Anivi. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 355, 440 (iii) Argtjnnis Fabricius, 1807, Mag.f. Insek- tenk. (Illiger) 6 : 283 (iv) Vanessa Fabricius, 1807, 3Iag. f. Insek- tenk. (Illiger) 6 : 281 (v) Euihalia Hubner, [1819]i*, Verz. hek. Schmett. (3) : 41 (vi) Nymphidiiim Fabricius, 1807, 3Iag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 286 (vii) Colias Fabricius, 1807, 3Iag.f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6: 284; (b) to declare that the type of Eiiploea Fabricius, 1807, is Papilio corns Fabricius, 1793, Ent. siisi. 3(1): 41; "^ (c) to declare that the type of Satyrus Latreille, 1810, is Papilio actaea Esper, [1780], Die Schmett. 1 (Bd. 2) Forts. TagscJwiett. : 37 ; (d) to declare that the generic name Argyreus Sco- poli, 1777, Intr. Hist. nat. : 431 (type : Papilio niplie^ Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 785) (= Papilio hjperhixis Linnaeus, 1763, Amoen. acad. 6 : 408) is not to be substituted for Argynnis Fabricius, 1807 (type: Papilio paphia Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 481) ; that the name Argynnis Fabricius, 1807, is there- fore valid; but that this decision would not affect the validity of the name Argyreus Scopoli, 1777, in so far as it is otherwise available, in the event of it being found desirable on taxonomic grounds to place Papilio niphe Linnaeus (= Papilio hyperbius Linnaeus) and Papilio paphia Linnaeus in different genera ; (e) to declare that page precedence shall not be invoked to secure precedence for Cynthia Fabri- cius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 281 " At the time that this meeting was held, it was beheved that the name Euihalia Hubner was pubhshed in 1823. It has since been ascertained that it was pubUshed in 1819 (see Hemming, 1937, Hubner 1 : 507-508). 22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (type : Papilio cardui Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 475) over Vanessa Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insehtenh. (Illiger) 6 : 281 (lower down on the same page as the name Cynthia) (type : Papilio atalanta Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 478) ; and therefore that the name Vanessa Fabricius is yalid ; (f) to declare that page precedence shall not be invoked to secure precedence for Symphaedra Hubner, [1819] ^^ Verz. hek. Schmett. (3) : 40 (type : Symphaedra alcandra Hubner, [1819] ^^, ibid. (3) : 40), over Euthalia Hiibner, [1819] l^ Verz. hek. Schmett. (3) : 41 (type : Papilio luben- tina Cramer, [1777]) ; that the name Euthalia Hiibner is therefore valid ; but that this decision would not afiect the validity of the name Sym- phaedra Hiibner, [1819] ^^, if and when it may be desired on taxonomic grounds to place Sym- pJiaedra alcandra Hiibner, [1819] ^^ and Papilio lubentina Cramer, [1777], in different genera; (g) to declare that the name Nymphidium Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. InseUenk. (Illiger) 6 : 286 (type : Papilio caricae Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 484) shall not be rejected in favour of Limnas Hiibner, [1806] {Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : pi. [29]) (type : Limnas leucosia Hiibner, [1806], ibid.) ; that the name Limnas Hiibner is to be treated as suppressed for all purposes ; and therefore that the name Nymphidium Fa- bricius, 1807, is valid ; (h) to declare that the type of Colias Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6:284, is Papilio hyale Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 469 ; (i) to add the generic names Euploea Fabricius, 1807, Satyrus Latreille, 1810, Argynnis Fabri- cius, 1807, Vanessa Fabricius, 1807, Euthalia Hiibner, [1819] ^^, Nymphidium Fabricius, 1807, and Colias Fabricius, 1807, to the Official List of Generic Names, with the types indicated above ; (i) that the need for the suspension of the rules for Strymon Hiibner, 1818, Zutr. z. Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : 22 had not been established ; (k) to take note that, in view of the decision set out in (a), (c), and (i) above, the request for an Opinion rejecting specific names first published in Retzius, 1783, Caroli Degeer genera et species Insectorum et generalissimi auctoris scriptis ex- traxit, digessit, latine quoad partem reddidit, ^* At the time that this meeting was held, the date of this name was beUeved to be 1823. It has since been ascertained to be 1819 (see Hemming, 1937, Hubner 1 : 507-508). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 23 terminologiam Inseclorum Linneanam addidit A. I. Retzius submitted to the Commission in 1934 had been withdrawn by the petitioners ; (1) to render Opinions'^^ in the sense of (a) to (k) above. GENERA 23. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a ERRONEOTJSLY paper submitted by Commissioner Hemming on the DETERMINED problem of genera based upon erroneously determined SPECIES : SIX species, with special reference to certain genera in the LEPIDOPTERA Lepidoptera Rhopalocera, together with a resolution thereon adopted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their meeting held at Madrid immediately prior to the present (Lisbon) meeting of the International Congress of Zoology. The latter resolution had been confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology in Concilium Plenum on 12th September 1935. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (a) to re-afiirm the decision taken at their Monaco Session in 1913 that Article 25 of the Inter- national Code is to be interpreted as meaning that, as a specimen is the type of a species, so a species is the type of a genus; to interpret Opinion 65 as directing (i) that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is to be assumed that the original author of a genus correctly identified the species assigned by him thereto, whether the species in question was designated as the type of the genus by that author or, no species having been so designated, is a species selected as the type by a later author acting under Article 30 (II) (g) of the Code, and (ii) that in the latter event it is to be further assumed that the later author correctly identified the species so selected, but (iii) that, where there is evidence that either or both of these assumptions is at variance with the facts, the case should be submitted with full details to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, and (iv) that, pending their decision thereon, the genus should be regarded as of doubtful status ; (b) in the light of (a) above, to suspend the rules in the case of the undermentioned genera and to declare the types of the genera in question to be the species indicated below : — i« Of the Opinions referred to, three have so far (15th May, 1943) been rendered by the Commission, namely : Opinion 142 (relating to Satyrus Latreille), 146 (relating to Colias Fabricius) and 156 (relating to Vanessa Fabricius). 24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Name of genus (1) Lycaeides Hiibner, [1819] ", Verz. bek. Schmett. (5) : 69 Type of genus Papilio argyrognomon Bergstrasser, [1779], Nom. Ins. 2 : 76 (the species misidenti- fied as Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758, by Schiffermuller & Denis, 1775, and by Hiibner and later authors) (2) Agriades Hiibner, [1819]", Verz. bek. Schmett. (5) : 68 and Latiorina Tutt, 1909, Ent. Rec. 21 : 108 Papilio glandon Prun- ner, 1798, Lepid, pede- mont : 76 (the species misidenti- fied as Papilio orbi- tulus Prunner, 1798, by Esper, [1799], by Hiib- ner and other authors) (3) Polyommatus Latreille, 1804, Nouv. Diet. Hist, nat. 24 (Tab.) : 185, 200 (4) EucMoe Hiibner [1819] 1', Verz. bek. Schmett. (6) : 94 (5) Princeps Hiibner, [1807], Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : pi. [Il6] and Orpheides Hiibner, [1819] ", Verz. bek. Schmett. (6) : 86 Papilio icarv^ Kottem- burg, 1775, Naturfor- scher 6 : 21 (the species misidenti- fied as Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758, by Latreille, 1804) Euchloe au^onia Hiib- ner var. esperi Kirby, 1871, Syn. Cat. diurn. Lep. : 506 (the species misidenti- fied as Papilio belia Linnaeus, 1767, by Stoll (in Cramer) and by Esper and Hiibner) Papilio demodocus Es- per, [1798], Ausl. Schmett. (14) : 205 (first described by Linnaeus in 1764 as Papilio demoleus, a name given by him in 1758 to another spe- cies ; similarly mis- identified by Hiibner) ^' At the time that this meeting was held, the date of this name was believed to be 1823. It has since been ascertained to be 1819 (see Hemming, 1937, Hiibner 1 : 507-508). I Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 25 Name of genus Type of genus (6) Carcharodus Hiibner, Papilio alceae Esper, [1819] 18, Verz. bek. [1780], Die Sckmett. Schmett. (7) : 110 1 (Bd.2) Forts. and Tagschmett. : 4 pi. 51 Spilothyrus Duponcliel, fig. 3 $ 1835, in Godart Hist, (the species misidenti- nat. Lipid. France fied as Papilio malvae Suppl. 1 {Diurnes) : 415 Linnaeus, 1758, by Denis and Scbiffermiil- ler, 1775, and by Hiib- ner and Duponchel) (c) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) and (b) above. THE CODE OP 24. THE COMMISSION had under consideration ETHICS communications received from (a) the Schweizerische Entomologische Gesellschaft and (b) the Verein Ento- mologia, Ziirich, regarding an alleged breach of the Code of Ethics. THE COMMISSION agreed :— to re-affirm their fullest support of the Resolution adopted on their recommendation by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in 1913, laying down a Code of Ethics to be observed by zoologists before publishing substitutes for generic or specific names that are unavailable under Articles 34 and 36 of the Code, in those cases where the author of the name to be so replaced is still alive ; but at the same time to record their considered opinion that the question whether the Code of Ethics had been duly complied with in any given case was not a matter on which they were authorised to enter. NEXT MEETING 25. THE COIilMISSION agreed :— that their next meeting should be held at the same place at 1400 hours on the same day. CERTIFICATE : I, FRANCIS HEmiING, acting for the Secre- tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, hereby CERTIFY that the above is a full and true accoimt of the proceedings of the said International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature at its meeting held in Lisbon in the Library of the Faculty of Sciences on Monday, 16th Sep- tember 1935, at 0930 hours (signed) FRANCIS HEMMING for Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ^* At the time that this meeting was held, the date of this name was believed to be 1823. It has since been ascertained to be 1819 (see Hamming, 1937, Hiibner 1 : 507-508). ( 26 ) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL ' NOMENCLATURE Session held during the Ttvelfth International Congress of Zoology, Lisbon, September 1935 CONCLUSIONS of the Third Meeting held in the Library of the Faculty of Sciences on Monday, 16th September 1935, at 1445 hours PRESENT : Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom) (President) Dr. W. T. Caiman (United Kingdom-) Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) Dr. Jacques Pellegrin (France) Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.) Dr. L. Stejneger (U.S.A.) Professor Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) Dr. 'Max Beier (Austria) Professor James Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) Dr. Thomas Mortensen (Denmark) INTERPRETATION 1. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a ISIO C^^IDiMa- resolution relating to the interpretation of Latreille's Con- TIONS QJSn^RALES siderations generales of 1810, adopted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at its meeting held at Madrid immediately prior to the present (Lisbon) meeting of the International Congress of Zoology, and subsequently confirmed by the Sixth International Con- gress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held on 12th September 1935. THE COMMISSION agreed :— to render an Opinion ^^ stating that Opinion 1 1 , which directs that the " table des genres avec I'indication de I'espece qui leur serve de type ", which is attached to the Considerations generales sur I'ordre naturel des animaiix composant les classes des Crustaces, des Arachnides et des Insedes published by Latreille in 1810, should be accepted as constituting a designa- tion, under Article 30 of the Code, of the types of the genera in question, applies only to those genera there cited by Latreille in which he placed one only of the species included in the genus by the original author thereof. ^' See Opinion 136. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 27 HYMENOPTERA : 2. THE COMMISSION had under consideration :— THIRTY-FOUR GENERIC NAMES (i) proposals submitted by Professor James Chester Bradley and 59 other Hymenopterists for deal- ing with the problems connected with thirty-four generic names in the Hymenoptera ; (ii) resolutions in regard thereto adopted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at its meeting held at Madrid immediately prior to the present (Lisbon) meet- ing of the International Congress of Zoology, and subsequently confirmed by the Sixth Inter- national Congress of Entomology at the Con- cilium Plenum held on 12th September 1935; (iii) the effect on the proposals referred to in (i) and (ii) above of the decision taken by the International Commission (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 13) to render an Opinion under " suspension of the rules " suppressing the " Erlangen List ". THE COMMISSION agreed :— (a) to place on the Official List of Generic Names the undermentioned six nomenclatorially avail- able generic names, with types as shown, each of which has been duly designated in accordance with the provisions of the International Code : — Name of genus Type of genus (1) Cephus La,treille, Sirex pygmaeus Lin [1802-1803] 20, {in naens, 1767, Syst. Nat. Sonnini's Buffon) Hist. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 929 nat. gen. partic. Crust, (monotypical) Ins. 3 : 303 (2) Astata Latreille, 1796, Tiphia abdominalis Precis Caract. Ins.: xiii [1798], Faun. Ins. germ. (53) : Tab. 5 • (type designated by Latreille, [1802-1803],20 {in Sonnini's BuSon) Hist. nat. gen. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 336) (3) Dryinus Latreille, Dryinus formicarius [March 1804], Nouv. Latreille, [Sept. 1804- Dict. Hist. nat. 24 Sept. 1805], {in Son- (Tab.) : 176 nini's Bufion) Hist. nat. gen. partic. Crust. Ins. 13 : 228 (monotypical) ^^ At the time that this meeting was held, the date of this name was beHeved to be [1802]. It has since been ascertained that this name should be dated [I802-I803] (see Griffin, 1938, J. Soc. Bibl. 7iat. Hist 1 : 157). 28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Name of genus Type of genus (4) Cryptus Fabricius, Cryptus viduatorius Fa- [1804-1805], Syst. Pie- bricius, [1804-1805], zat. : 70 (same reference as gen- eric name Cryptus) (type designated by Curtis, 1837, Brit. Ent. 14 : pi. 668) (5) Arge Sckrank, 1802, Tenthredo enodis Lin- Fauna boic. 2 (2) : 209 naeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 922 (type designated by Kobwer, 1911, Tech. Ser. U.S. Bur. Ent. 20 (2): 74) (6) Diprion Scbrank, 1802, Tenthredo pini Lin- Fauna boic. 2 (2) : 209 naeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 556 (type designated by Eobwer, 1910, Proc. U.S. nut. Mus. 39 : 103) (b) under " suspension of the rules " permanently to reject the following generic names : — (7) Crabro Geoffroy, 1762, Hist. Ins. Paris 2 : 261 (8) Lasius Panzer, [1801-1802], Fa^m. Ins. germ. (86) : Tab. 16 (9) PodaliriusJjatieille, 1802, Hist. nat. Fourmis : 430 (10) Ephialtes Scbrank, 1802, Fa^ma boic. 2 (2) : 316 (11) Psammochares Latreille, 1796, Precis Caract. Ins. : 115 (12) Hylaeus Fabricius, 1793, Ent. syst. 2 : 302 (13) Ceraphron Panzer, [1805], Faun. Ins. germ. (97) : Tab. 16 (14) Callimorne Spinola, 1811, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris 17 (98) : 148 (15) Misocampe Latreille, 1818, Nouv. Diet. Hist. nat. (ed. 2) 21 : 213 (16) Serphus Scbrank, 1780, Schrift. Berlin. Ges. nat. Freunde 1 : 307 (17) Prosopis Fabricius, [1804-1805], Syst. Piezat. : 293 (18) Pompilus Schneider, 1784, Samml. verm. Abh. : 128 (if intended as a generic name) (c) under " suspension of the rules " to set aside all type designations for the undermentioned genera and to declare their types to be the species indicated below : — Name of genus Type of genus (19) Cimbex Olivier, 1790, Tenthredo lutea Lin- Ency. meth.5 {Ins.) : 762 naeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 555 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 29 Name of genus (20) Crabro Fabricius, 1775, Stjst. Ent. : 373 (21) Lasius Fabricius, [1804-1805], Syst. Pie- zat. : 415 (22) Anthophora Latreille, 1803, Nonv. Diet. Hist. nat. 18 : 167 (23) Ichneumon Linnaeus 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 560 (24) Pimpla Fabricius, [1804-1805], Syst. Pie- zat. : 112 (25) Ephialtes Gravenhorst, 1829, Ichneuynon. Europ. 1 : Conspectus 64; 3:224 (26) Bracon Fabricius, [1804-1805], Syst. Pie- zat. : 102 (27) Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : (28) Bethylus Latreille, [1802-1803] 21, (mSon- nini's Buffon) Hist, nat. gen. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 315 (29) Prosopis Jurine, 1807, Nouv. Meth. class. Hy- menopt. : 218 (30) Cerajj/trow Jurine, 1807, Nouv. Meth. class. Hy- menopt. : 303 (31) Torymus Dalman, 1820, K. Vet. Ac. Handl. 1820 (1) Type of genus Vespa cribraria Lin- naeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 573 Formica nigra Lin- naeus, 1758, Syst. Nat (ed. 10) : 580 Apis pilipes Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 383 Ichneumon extensorius Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 561 Ichneumon instigator Fabricius, 1793, Ent. syst. 2 : 164 Ichneumon manifestator Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 563 Ichneumon minutator Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 225 Pompilus pulcher Fa- bricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 249 Omalus fuscicornis Ju- rine, 1807, Nouv. Meth. class. Hymenopt. : 301 Sphex signata Panzer [1798], Faun. Ins', germ. (53) : Tab. 2 Ceraphron sulcatus Ju- rine, 1807, Nouv. Meth. class. Hymenopt. : 303 Ichneumon bedeguaris TOP, , lot. Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. 125 & 135 iVaMed. 10) : 567 (32) Proctotrupes Latreille, Proctotrupes brevipennis uyt, Precis Caract. Latreille, [1802-1 803]2i ^^^- '■ 1^^ (in Sonnini's Buffon) Hist. nat. gen. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 309 Sphex flavipennis Fa- bricius 22, 1793^ ^^i ^^^m^'l^l^n^V^\^f:ilTl^^^^ ^^'^ f tlusTmfwaf believed to be Griffin, 1938, /. ^oc.^Sr^aTS 1 157* " "^"^^ '^""^^ ^' ^"*^^ [1802-1803] (see (33) Sphex Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 569 30 ' Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Name of genus Type of genus (34) AmmopMla Kirby, Sphex sabulosa Lin- 1798, Trans, linn. Sac. naeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. Lond. 4 : 199 (ed. 10) : 569 (d) under " suspension of the rules " to place on the Official List of Generic Names the sixteen generic names enumerated in (c) above (names (19) to (34)), each with the type species there indicated ; (e) to render Ojnnions ^^ in the sense of (a) to (d) above. REPORT BY THE 3. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the THE CONGRESS • question of the form and contents of the Report to be PRELIMINARY submitted by them to the International Congress and DRAETING also the arrangements to be made for the preparation of ARRANGEMENTS that document THE COMMISSION :— (a) agreed : — ■ (i) that it was desirable that the report to be submitted by the Commission to the International Congress should be com- pletedjas soon as possible in order that, in accordance with paragraph (2) of Article 4 of the By-Laws of the Commission, the said report might be suspended on the Bulletin Board of the Congress prior to the public meeting of the Commission prescribed in Article 5 of the By-Laws, which it had been arranged to hold on the afternoon of Wednesday, 18th September 1935 ; (ii) that the opening portion of the report should deal with the matters referred to in Section 1 of Article 4 of the By-Laws of the Commission ; and (iii) that the remainder of the report should deal with all the questions on which action under " suspension of the rules " had been unanimously agreed upon by the Commission during their Lisbon Ses- sion and so much of the other matters transacted by the Commission at the Lisbon Session as it might be practicable to include in the limited time available for the preparation of the report ; ^^ Of the Opinions referred to, only the following have so far (15th May, 1943) been rendered by the Commission: Opinion 139 (Cephus Latreille and Astata Latreille) ; 144 {Grabro Geoflfroy, Crabro Fabricius, and Cimbex Olivier) ; 151 (Lasius PanS;er, Podalifius Latreille, Lasius Fabricius and Anthophora Latreille) ; 153 (Bethylus Latreille and Dryinus Latreille) ; 155 (Callimome Spinola, Misocampe Latreille, and Torymus Dalman) ; 157 {Cryptus Fabricius, Arge Schrank, and Diprion Schrank). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 31 (b) invited Commissioner Hemming to begin forth- with the preparation of the report of the Com- mission on the lines indicated in (a) (ii) and (iii) NEXT MEEXmo 4. ^HE COMMISSION agreed :- that their next Meeting should be held at the same hours '''' ^''^''^^^' 1^*^ September 1935, at 0930 CERTIFICATE : I FRANCIS HEMMING, acting for the Secre- tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, hereby CERTIFY that the abole is a full and true account of the proceedings of the said International Commission on Zoological Nomen- c ature at its meeting held in Lisbon in the Library f935:!tT44tw'"^°^''°"^^^^ (signed) FRANCIS HEMMING for Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ( 32 ) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Session held during the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, Lisbon, September 1935 CONCLUSIONS of the Fourth Meeting held in the Library of the Faculty of Sciences on Tuesday, 17th September 1935, at 0930 hours PRESENT : Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom) (President) Dr. W. T. Caiman (United Kingdom) Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) Dr. Jacques Pellegrin (France) Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.) Dr. L. Stejneger (U.S.A.) Professor Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) Professor James Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) Dr. Hiroshi Ohshima (Japan) Dr. Thomas Mortensen (Denmark) ECHINODERIIATA ; THE GENERIC NAME DIADEMA GRAY, 1825 1. DR. THOMAS MORTENSEN, an Alternate Mem- ber of the Commission, brought forward the case of the generic name Diadenia Gray, 1825 {Ann. Phil. 26 : 426), in the Echinodermata. This name was a homonym of Diadema Schumacher, 1817 {Essai Vers test. : 34, 90), in the Cirripedes; it had, however, a very large literature attached to it in the Echinoderms, and its suppression as a homonym would certainly lead to greater confusion than uniformity. He, therefore, invited the Commission to make use of their plenary powers and validate this name under " suspension of the rules ". COMMISSIONER HEMMING said, that, while he concurred in principle with the proposal brought forward by Dr. Mortensen, he felt that the case required more detailed study before the Commission could properly reach a decision. He had had to examine this case from the point of the Lepidoptera in connexion with the name Diadema Boisduval, 1832 {in d'Urville, Voy. " Astro- labe " Ent. 1 (Lep.) : 135) ; in addition to Diadema Schu- macher, to which reference had been made, there was also the Cirripede name Diadema Ranzani, 1817 {Opusc. Sci., Bologna 1 : 276) ; the oldest name of all, Diadema Humphreys, 1797, from which Gray's use of the name was derived, was unfortunately not available owing to the decision of the Commission {Opinion 51) that none of the names in the Museum Calonnianuyn in which it ECHINODERMATA : LUIDIA FORBES, 1839, versux BIPINNARIA SARS. 1835 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 33 was published, was to be accepted for any nomenclatorial purpose. 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 Hem- ming to confer together with a view to the subniission to the Commission of all the data required to enable a decision to be reached. 2. THE COMMISSION had under consideration :— (a) a proposal submitted by Dr. Thomas Mortensen (1932, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10) 10 : 350-351) for : — (i) the " suspension of the rules " to validate the name L%ddia Forbes, 1839 {Mem. Werner, nat. Hist. Soc. 8 (1 j : 123) ; and (ii) the suppression as a generic name of the name Bipinnaria Sars, 1835 ; (b) the draft of an Opinion, prepared by Secretary Stiles, to give effect to the proposal sum- marised above. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (a) that the strict application of the rules in the case of the name Bipinnaria Sars, 1835 {Beskr. Bergenske Kyst Dijr : 37 pi. 15 fig. 40 a-d) would clearly result in greater confusion than uni- formity ; (b) in view of (a) above, to' make use of the plenary powers conferred upon them by the Inter- national Congress of Zoology for the purpose of declaring that the name Bipinnaria Sars, 1835, is hereby suppressed as a generic name ; (c) to place on record that the declaration recorded in (b) above does not affect the position of the word " Bipinnaria " as the technical designation for the larval type of the Sea-Stars (Asteroidea), which remains unaltered ; (d) to render an Opinion 2* in the sense of (a) to (c) above. 3. THE COMMISSION agreed :— that in the absence of the necessary documentation at the present meeting the proposal regarding the following generic names in the Echinodermata : — Echinocyamus van Phelsum, 1774 {Brief Zee- Egelen : 131); and Fihularia Lamarck, 1816 {An. S. vert. 3 : 16); be postponed for further consideration. I . 7^% decision in this case, expanded as the result of subsequent correspondence, is Jgiven in Opinion 129. Luidia Forbes was then added to the Official List of Generic Names. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (OCTOBER 1943 ) 3 ECHINODERMATA I THE GENERIC (NAMES [ECHINOCYAMUS IVAN PHELSUM, 11774, AND IFIBULAEIA LLAMARCK, 1816 34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. ARTICLE 25 OF THE CODE: METHOD TO BE ADOPTED IN INTERPRETING THE AMENDMENT RELATING TO THE REPLACEMENT OF INVALID NAMES 4. THE COMMISSION tad under consideration an inquiry received from Dr. C. B. Ticehurst, regarding the method to be adopted in interpreting the amendment to Article 25 of the International Code relating to the replacement of invalid names adopted by the Tenth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Budapest in 1927. THE COMMISSION agreed :— to render an Opinion ^^ :— (i) making it clear that an author giving a new name would not comply with the amendment to Article 25 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature adopted by the Tenth International Congress of Zoology held at Budapest in 1927, if, on or after 1st January 1931 (the date on which the said amendment became operative), he were only to add after the name to be replaced such an expression as " La Touche, 1922 " ; (ii) laying it down that, in order to comply with the provisions of Article 25 of the Code, as amended by the Tenth International Con- gress of Zoology, it is necessary for the author proposing the new name, after giving the name to be replaced and its author, to cite also the year in which that name was pub- lished and to indicate the title of the work or journal in which that name was published, and (in all cases where the pages of the work concerned are numbered) to cite the number of the page on which the name to be replaced was printed. 5. THE COMMISSION agreed :— that the proposal for the amendment of Article 18 of the International Code, relating to the naming of hybrids, submitted by Dr. Hans Bytinski-Salz, of the Deutsch-Italienisches Institut fiir Meeresbio- logie Kovigno d'Istria, should be reserved for further examination. CRUSTACEA: 6. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a QUESTWN Jgj THE^ request received from Dr. Jean M. Pirlot of the Institut DANA, 1852 van Beneden, University of Liege, for a decision on the question of the type of the genus UroiJioe Dana, 1852 {Amer. J. Sci. (2) 14 : 311) in the Crustacea. THE COMMISSION agreed :— that, as a draft Opinion^^ on the type of the genus Urothoe Dana, 1852, prepared by Commissioner NOMENCLATURE OF HYBRIDS: PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF ARTICLE 18 OF THE CODE See Opinion 138. 26 See Opinion 133. ARTICLE 4 OF THE INTER- NATIONAL CODE: QUESTION OF THE GENUS TO BE ACCEPTED AS THE TYPE GENUS OF A FAMILY ECHINODERMATA : TYPE OF THE GENUS TROMIKOSOMA MORTENSEN, 1903: STATUS OF TYPES WHEN GENERA ARE UNITED Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 35 Stiles, had already been circulated for a postal vote, the question should be left to be settled by the Commission by that method. 7. THE COMMISSION had before them a request received from Dr. Jean M. Pirlot of the Institut van Beneden, University of Liege, for an Opinion on the question whether the oldest available generic name in a family (or the valid name of the oldest genus in a family) should be regarded as the type genus of the family under Article 4 of the International Code. THE COMMISSION agreed to render an Opinim 2' :— (i) laying it down that Article 4 of the Code does not require that the oldest generic name in the family or subfamily concerned must be taken as the type genus of the family or subfamily ; (ii) incorporating also the general propositions relating to the interpretation of Article 4 of the Code embodied in the draft Opinion on the case of the genus Urothoe Dana as soon as that Opinion had been approved in the manner agreed upon in Conclusion 6 above. 8. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a request for an Opinion on the type of the genus Tromi- kosoma Mortensen, 1903 [Dan. Ingolf-Exped. 4 : 62, 64), received from Dr. Thomas Mortensen. DR. THOMAS MORTENSEN explained that, if the genus Tromikosoma Mortensen were viewed in isolation, there was no doubt that its type was Tromikosoma koehleri Mortensen, 1903 (same reference as Tromikosoma), since that was the only species that he had referred to the genus in the paper in which that name had first been published. The question for decision was whether any change in the type of Tromikosoma Mortensen followed automatically as the result of (a) the discovery that Phormosoma tenuis Agassiz, the type of Echinosoma Pomel, 1883 {Classif. meth. Echin. : 108) is congeneric with Tromikosoma koehleri Mortensen, and of (b) the fact that the generic name Echinosoma Pomel is invalid being a homonym of no less than three older genera of the same name. In these circumstances, (i) did the type of Tromikosoma Mortensen remain unaffected or (ii) did Phormosoma tenuis Agassiz, in virtue of being the type of the older but invalid genus Echinosoma Pomel, automatic- ally become the type of Tromikosoma Mortensen, the genus to which it now became referable ? THE COMMISSION agreed :— (a) that, when two or more genera are united on taxonomic grounds, such action in no way affects ^' See Opinion 141. 36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. TYPES OF GENERA : VALIDITY OF DESIGNATIONS IN ABSTRACTS AND SIMILAR PUBLICATIONS ; TYPE OF CONU- LINUS VON MARTENS, 1895 (MOLLUSCA) AVES : THE TYPE OF THE GENUS COLYMBUS LINNAEUS, 1758 . the types of the genera concerned ; that the broader genus thus formed takes as its name the oldest available name based on any included species; and that the genus bearing that name retains as its type the species pre\dously so established ; (b) that, in view of (a) the type of Tromikosoma Mortensen, 1903, remains in all circumstances Tromikosoma koehleri Mortensen, 1903, the only species placed in it by its original author at the time of the first publication of the name Tromikosoma Mortensen ; (c) to render Opinions ^® in the sense of (a) and (b) above. 9. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the question whether type designations of genera in Abstracts and similar publications could properly be accepted as designations of the types of the genera concerned within the meaning of Article 30 of the International Code. This question had been brought to the attention of the Commission by Mr. J. K. Le B. Tomlin (London), who pointed out that Buliminus {Conidinus) ugandae von Martens, 1895, had been designated as the type of Conu- linus von Martens in the volume of the Zoological Record for 1895, pubUshed in December 1896. In view of this designation, it was necessary to re-examine Opinion 86, where it had been laid down that Bulimt/s comdus Reeve, 184:9, was the type of Conidinus von Martens, 1895. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (a) that it was undesirable that the types of genera should be designated for the first time in Ab- stracts, Records, and similar publications ; but that, where the type of a genus was clearly designated in such a publication, that designa- tion must be accepted as being within the scope of Article 30 of the International Code ; (b) to re-aflirm (if necessary, under their plenary powers) that, as stated in Opinion 86, Bidimus comdus Reeve, 1849, is the type of Conidinus von Martens, 1895 (MoUusca) ; (c) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) and (b) above. 10. THE COMMISSION had under further considera- tion the question of the type of the genus Colymbus Liimaeus, 1758 {Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 135) in Aves. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (a) that it was desirable that a final decision should be reached as soon as possible on the long- Decision (b) is dealt with in Opinion 131. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 37 NEMATODA: THE GENERIC NAMES ANGUINA SCOPOLI, 1777, ANGUILLULINA GERVAIS AND VAN BENEDEN, 1859, AND TYLENCHUS BASTIAN, 1865 disputed question of the type of the genus C oly mbus hiimaens, 1758; (b) that, in view of the fact that whatever decision was taken, that decision would be received with regret by a substantial body of workers, it was desirable that the Commission, before reaching a decision, should be in possession of the most representative advice from specialists in orni- thology ; (c) that the Secretary to the Commission should therefore be asked to invite bodies such as the Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature recently appointed by the International Orni- thological Congress to furnish the Commission with statements of their views on this question, 11. THE COMMISSION had under consideration :— (i) a proposal submitted by Dr. B. G. Chitwood and four other nematologists of the U.S. Department of Agriculture that the Commission should either : — (a) recognise Atvguina Scopoli, 1777 {Inlr. Hist, nat. : 374) as the generic name for Vibrio tritici Steinbuch, 1799 {Naturforscher 28 : 251); or (b) (preferably) under " suspension of the rules " : — (1) invalidate both ^w^rinwa Scopoli, 1777, and Anguillulina Gervais and van Beneden, 1859 {Zool. Med. 2 : 101) ; and (2) recognise Tylenchus Bastian, 1865 [Trans, linn. Sac. Lord. 25 : 125) as the generic name for Vibrio tritici Steinbuch, 1799, and to place the name Tylenchus Bastian 1865 (so defined) on the Official List of Generic Names ; (ii) communications from Dr. Carl Allgen (Sweden), Dr. J. H. Schurmans Steckhoven of Utrecht, and Mr. I. N. Filipjev (Almata) supporting the above proposal ; (iii) communications from Dr. H. A. Baylis (British Museum (Natural History)), from Dr. H. Goffart, Kitzeberg, b. Kiel, and from Dr. T. Goodey (St. Albans) opposing the proposal set out in (i) above ; (iv) a commimication from Commissioner Jordan, expressing the view that Scopoli was a binary, though not a binomial author, that the genera established by him satisfy the requirements of the Code, and that in consequence Anguina Scopoli should be considered valid. 38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (a) that, for so long as generic names published by authors using a binary, though not a binominal, system of nomenclature were recognised as com- plying with the requirements of Article 25 of the International Code, the generic names pub- lished by Scopoli in 1777 in his Introductio ad Historiam naturalem should be accepted as avail- able nomenclatorially, but that the position should be re-examined if later it were decided to reject generic names published by authors no^ applying the binominal system ; (b) that no case had been established for the " sus- pension of the rules " for the purpose of : — (i) invalidating either Anguina Scopoli, 1777, or that name and Anguillulina Gervais and van Beneden, 1859, and (ii) validating Anguillulina Gervais and Beneden or Tylenchus Bastian, 1865, as the case might be ; (c) to render an Opinion in the sense of (a) and (b) above. FORAMINIFERA : 12. THE COMMISSION had before them a proposal NAMES L^^^O- submitted by Commissioner F. Chapman of Melbourne, in CYCLINA gUmbel, favour of using their powers to " suspend the rules " : — 1870, AND NUMMU- {{) to invalidate the generic name Camerina Brugiere, LITRES LAMARCK. '' ^^gg^ (^^^^_ meth (Vers) (1) : xvi) ; and (ii) to validate the generic name Nummulites Lamarck, 1801 {Syst. Anim. : 101) and to place it on the Official List of Generic Names, together with the comments thereon received from a large number of specialists consulted. THE COMMISSION :— (a) took note that, although there had been a unanimous vote by a sufficient number of Commissioners to secure the adoption by the Commission of an Opinion suspending the rules in the case of the name Lepidocyclina Giimbel, 1870 {Abh. baijer. Akad. Wiss. 1868 : 689, 717) 29, the voting in the case of the name Nummulites Lamarck, 1801, had been eleven (11) infavour of suspension and four (4) against ; (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 2' See Opinion 127. Bulletm of Zoological Nomenclature. 39 MOLLUSCA: THE GENERIC NAMES LYTOCERAS SUESS, 1865, AND OPHICERAS GRIESBACH, 1880 under Article 2 of the " Plenary Powers " Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology in March 1913 ; (c) in view of (b) above, to report the case of Nmnmulites 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 3". 13. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal for the " suspension of the rules " in the case of the name Ophiceras Griesbach, 1880 (Rec. geol. Surv. Ind. 13 : 102, 109) in MoUusca. THE COMMISSION :— (a) took note that, although there had been a unanimous vote by a sufficient number of Commissioners to secure the adoption by the Commission of an Opinion suspending the rules in the case of the name Lytoceras Suess, 1865 {S.B. Akad. Wiss. Wien 52 (No. 1) : 78) ^i, the voting in the case of the name Ojjhiceras Griesbach, 1880, had been ten (10) in favour of suspension and three (3) against ; (b) agreed that the proper course as regards Ophiceras Griesbach was to proceed under Article 2 of the " Plenary Powers " Resolu- tion adopted by the Ninth International Con- gress 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 1913 ^o. 14. THE COMMISSION had under consideration certain difficulties that had been experienced in inter- preting Article 34 of the International Code in regard to the rejection of generic names, when those names were of the same origin and meaning as generic names of earlier date. In the course of the ensuing discussion, it was explained that the Commission had hitherto held the view that it would naturally be concluded by zoologists that the principles laid down in this matter for specific names in Article 35 applied also to generic names. In view, however, of the fact that it was now clear that the present position was liable to give rise to mis- understandings, THE COMMISSION agreed :— to render an Opinion ^^ making it clear that the principles lettered (a) to (d) in Article 35 of the '" This action was taken immediately after this meeting; For the text of the Plenary Powers Resolution, see Declaration 5. '^ See Opinion 130. ^^ See Opinion 147. ARTICLE 34 OF THE INTER- NATIONAL CODE : THE PRINCIPLES TO BE FOLLOWED IN REJECTING, AS HOMONYMS, GENERIC NAMES OF THE SAME ORIGIN AND MEANING 40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. ARTICLES 25 AND 34 OF THE INTER- NATIONAL CODE: NA3IES PROPOSED AS EMENDATIONS OF, OR AS SUB- STITUTES FOR, EARLIER NAMES OF THE SAME ORIGIN AND MEANING International Code for determining whether a given specific (or subspecific) name is a homonym of another specific (or subspecific) name of earlier date that is of the same origin and meaning, apply equally to the determination, under Article 34, of the question whether a given generic (or subgeneric) name is a homonym of another generic (or sub- generic) name of earlier date, where the two generic ' (or subgeneric) names are of the same origin and meaning. 15. In the course of the discussion recorded in the preceding Conclusion, the attention of the Commission was drawn to the position of generic names proposed as emendations of, or as substitutes for, earlier generic names of the same origin and meaning. As regards names published as emendations of earlier names, the important general principle involved had already been settled by the Commission when dealing with an indi- vidual case in Opinion 120 and had recently been restated in an (as yet unnumbered and unpublished) Opinion in regard to the names Borus Agassiz, 1846, Boros Herbst, 1797, and Bonis Albers, 1850 33. ^j^g Commission were asked to render an Opinion setting out this decision as a general principle, since it was difficult for working zoologists to detect such decisions, if they were published only incidentally in an Opinion dealmg -ndth a particular case. The Commission were asked at the same time to make it clear that the decision set out in the Opinions referred to above applied only to names proposed as emendations of earlier names and not to names proposed as nomina nova for earlier but unavailable names. 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 most readily available to all concerned. As regards the particular case under discussion, THE COMMISSION agreed :— to render an Opinion ^^ restating in general terms the decision embodied in Opinion 120 in regard to the status of a generic (or subgeneric) name published as an emendation of an earlier generic (or subgeneric) name of the same origin and meaning, and making it clear that that decision did not apply to a name expressly pub- lished as a substitute name (nomen novum), even when ^' See Opinion 125. ^* See Opinion 148. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 41 CARNIVORA : GENERIC NAMES PROPOSED FOR INCLUSION IN THE OFFICIAL LIST REPORT BY THE COMMISSION TO THE CONGRESS: PROGRESS IN THE TASK OF DRAFTING AND THE PRINCIPLES TO BE FOLLOWED that name was of the same origin and meaning as the name replaced. 16. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the list of generic names in the Carnivora proposed by Com- missioner Stiles for inclusion in the Official List of Generic Names. THE COMMISSION :— (a) took note : — (i) that various comments on the list had been received from the specialists con- sulted ; (ii) that these comments were in the hands of the Secretary by whom the list would be corrected where necessary ; (b) agreed to leave it to the Secretary to determine which names should be deleted from the List in the light of the comments received and author- ised him to proceed with the issue of an Opinion placing on the Official List of Generic Names such of those generic names as remained in the list that had been circulated, after it had been checked in the manner indicated in (a) (ii) above. 17. COMMISSIONER HEMMING reported that, in accordance with the request of the Commission at the previous meeting (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclu- sion 3 (b)), he had made a start in preparing the report to be submitted by the Commission to the International Congress. He had been greatly hampered by the lack of standard works of reference and by the fact, as regards the cases relating to groups other than Insecta, that he had had no opportunity of studying the cases dis- cussed by the Commission prior to the opening of the present (Lisbon) meeting in the detailed manner necessary to enable satisfactory draft resolutions to be prepared. He had, however, made considerable progress, and he intended to resume work on the report immediately after the end of the present meeting. He did not doubt that he would be in a position to lay a draft report before the Commission at their next meeting, though in the time available it would be quite impracticable to prepare the drafts of paragraphs relating to all the matters on which decisions had been reached during the Lisbon Session of the Commission. As agreed upon at the meeting referred to above (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3 (a) (iii)), he was therefore concentrating upon those matters that appeared to be the more im- portant. He proposed that those matters which it was found impossible to include in the report, owing to the shortness of the time available, should be dealt with 42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. after the Congress on the basis of the records in the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commission during their Lisbon Session. For this purpose, he (Commis- sioner Hemming) proposed that all matters unanimously agreed upon during the Lisbon Session should be treated in the same manner, whether or not it was found possible to include references to them in the report to be sub- mitted to the Congress, and therefore that every such decision should be treated as having been participated in by all tlfe Commissioners and Alternates present at Lisbon. THE COMMISSION :— (a) took note of, and approved, the statement just made by Commissioner Hemming ; and (b) adopted the proposals submitted by him, as recorded above, in regard both to the selection of items to be included in their report to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology and to the procedure to be adopted after the Con- gress in regard to those matters with which, for the reasons explained, it was found im- possible to deal in that report. NEXT MEETING 18. THE COMMISSION agreed :— that their next meeting should be held at the same place on Wednesday, 18th September 1935, at 1100 hours for the purpose of considering the draft of their Report to the International Congress of Zoology. CERTIFICATE : I, FRANCIS HEMMING, acting for the Secre- tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, hereby CERTIFY that the above is a full and true account of the proceedings of the said International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature at its meeting held in Lisbon in the Library of the Faculty of Sciences on Tuesday, 17th Sep- tember 1935, at 0930 hours (signed) FRANCIS HEMMING for Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ( 43 ) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Session held during the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, Lisbon, September 1935 CONCLUSIONS of the Fifth Meeting held in the Library of the Faculty of Sciences on Wednesday, 18th September 1935, at 1145 hours. PRESENT : Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom) (President) Dr. W. T. Caiman (United Kingdom) • Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) Dr. Jacques Pellegrin (France) Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.) Dr. L. Stejneger (U.S.A.) Professor Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) Dr. Max Beier (Austria) Professor James Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) Dr. Hiroshi Ohshima (Japan) Dr. Thomas Mortensen (Denmark) THE FORM AND SCOPE OF THE COiALMISSION'S REPORT (Previous reference : 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3) 1. THE COMMISSION had before them the draft of the Report to be submitted by them to the International Congress that had been prepared at their request by Commissioner Hemming. COMMISSIONER HEMMING expressed regret that it had not been possible for him to complete the draft of the Co mm ission's report in time to permit the Commis- sion to meet at 1100 hoiirs as arranged at their previous meeting. Since that meeting he had been engaged almost continuously on the preparation of the document. The Commission would find that he had included paragraphs dealing with all the matters specified in paragraph (1) of Article 4 of the By-Laws and with all the cases where the Commission had taken decisions involving the use of their plenary powers to " suspend the rules " ; he had also included paragraphs dealing with as many of the other matters on which the Commission had reached decisions as in the time available it had been possible for him to prepare the necessary drafts. Commissioner Hemming added that, so far as possible, he had verified the references cited in the draft report; but, as he had explained at the pre- vious meeting (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 17) he had been greatly hampered in his work through the lack of standard works of reference. In spite of every 44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. DRAFT REPORT; DETAILED EXAillNATION OF ACCURACY OF EVERY PARAGRAPH care, lie had no doubt, therefore, that there were some errors in the bibliographical references and dates cited in the draft report. He hoped that the Commission would recognise that this was inevitable in the circum- stances and would authorise him to examine the report from this point of view after the Congress when on his return to London he would have access to all the necessary works of reference. He asked for the authority of the Commission to correct any such errors before the text of the report was oflB.cially printed. THE COMMISSION proceeded next to examine the general form and scope of the draft Report prepared by Commissioner Hemming. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (a) to approve generally both the form and scope of the draft report ; (b) that any necessary action on matters on which decisions had been taken by the Commission during the Lisbon Session but on which it had been impracticable in the time available to pre- pare paragraphs for inclusion in the report should be taken by the Secretary after the close of the Congress and that the authority for such action should be the Official Record of Proceedings of the Commission during their Lisbon Session ; (c) to authorise Commissioner Hemming to exam- ine the report, after the close of the Congress when works of reference were available to him, for the purpose of checking the accuracy of the bibliographical and other references cited therein, and to correct any errors that might be found before the text of the report was oflB.cially printed. 2. THE COMMISSION examined the draft report paragraph by paragraph for the purpose of satisfying themselves that the document as drafted gave full eSect in every case to the decisions taken by the Commission on the questions referred to therein. THE COIUMISSION agreed :— (a) that, subject to certain minor drafting amend- ments agreed upon in the course of the discus- sion referred to above, the draft report gave full effect to the decisions of the Co mm ission on the questions dealt with therein ; (b) to adopt for their report on the matters dealt with in the draft the text prepared by Com- missioner Hemming, subject to the incorporation therein of the minor drafting amendments re- ferred to in (a) above. f PROCEDURE TO BE ADOPTED FOR DEALING WITH THE "HORN RESOLUTION " : DECISION OF THE PERMANENT COAIIVIITTEE OF THE INTER- NATIONAL ZOOLOGICAL CONGRESSES RESIGNATION OF COMMISSIONER C. W. STILES FROM THE OFFICE OF SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 45 3. COMMISSIONER JORDAN {President of the Com- mission) informed the Commission that the method of dealing with the so-called " Horn Resolution " relating to the definition of binary nomenclature, voted upon at the Eleventh International Congress of Zoology held at Padua in 1930 had been considered by the Permanent Com- mittee of the International Zoological Congresses during the present (Lisbon) meeting. The Permanent Committee had referred the question dealt with in that resolution back to the Chairman of the Section on Nomenclature (Section XII) of the present (Lisbon) Congress for further study. The Chairman of that Section had, in turn, submitted it to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature for deliberation and report. THE COMMISSION :— (a) took note of the above statement by the Presi- dent of the Commission ; (b) agreed to take into consideration after the Con- gress the question in regard to the definition of binary nomenclature dealt in the so-called " Horn Resolution " voted upon at the Eleventh International Congress of Zoology held at Padua in 1930 and, in accordance with the request of the President of Section XII of the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, to whom the matter had been referred by the Permanent Committee of the International Zoological Con- gresses, to submit a report thereon to the International Congress of Zoology at its next meeting ; (c) agreed to include a paragraph recording the foregoing decision in the report now to be submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. 4. COMMISSIONER JORDAN {President of the Com- mission) said that it was with the greatest regret that it was his duty to inform the Commission that he had received a letter from Commissioner C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, intimating his desire to relinquish his Office on grounds of ill-health. The zoological profession as a whole was under a deep debt of gratitude to Dr. Stiles for the great contribution that he had made to the development of zoological nomenclature during his long term of office. As for the International Commission, it was unpossible to overestimate the value of the services that he had rendered. Every member of the Commission would, he knew, join with him in sending to Dr. Stiles then: keenest regret at the decision that -he had felt bound to take and their warm satisfaction in the know- ledge that, although no longer Secretary, he would remain a member of the Commission. In the circumstances, 46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. the Commission had, lie considered, no option but to adopt a formal resolution giving effect to Dr. Stiles's request, but he felt sure that it would be the wish of the whole Commission that Dr. Stiles should be asked to remain in office until such time as it was possible to elect his successor. Dr. Stiles's resignation was a great loss to the Commission. He had brought an unrivalled know- ledge and unbounded energy and devotion to the service of the Commission and it would be hard to find a successor possessing these qualities in equal measure. The foregoing statement was received with the greatest regret by the Commissioners and Alternate Members of the Commission present at the meeting, all of whom asked to be associated with the tribute just paid by the President of the Commission to the great services ren- dered by Dr. Stiles during his long occupancy of the Office of Secretary to th6 Commission. THE COMMISSION agreed :— ' (a) to take note with the greatest regret that Com- missioner C. W. Stiles felt bound on grounds of ill-health to ask to be relieved of the Office of Secretary to the Commission ; (b) to accept Dr. Stiles's resignation of the Office of Secretary to the Commission but to request him to officiate as Acting Secretary until such time as his successor was elected ; (c) to place on record their great appreciation of the valuable services rendered both to the Commission and to the cause of zoological nomenclature by Commissioner Stiles during his long term of office ; (d) to take note with satisfaction that, notwith- standing his resignation of the Office of Secretary to the Commission, Commissioner Stiles had not found it necessary to resign his membership of the Commission ; (e) to include in their report to the International Congress a passage dealing with the matters set out above. (At this point the Commission agreed to a temporary adjournment to enable Commis- sioner Hemming to prepare the drafts of the passages to be inserted in the Commission's report to give efiect to the decisions recorded in Conclusions 3 and 4 above.) {On resumption) ADDITIONAL 5. COMMISSIONER HEMMING laid before the Com- mSEimON^IN'^THE i^ission the drafts of the passages that he had prepared COMMISSION'S for insertion in the report of the Commission to give effect REPORT to the decisions recorded in Conclusions 3 and 4 above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 47 UNANIMOUS ADOPTION BY THE COMMISSION OF THEIR REPORT TO THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS POSTING OF THE COMMISSION'S REPORT ON THE BULLETIN BOARD OF THE CONGRESS ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE NOMINATION OF A COMMISSIONER TO BE SECRE- TARY TO THE COMMISSION THE HEAD- QUARTERS OF THE COMMISSION THE COMMISSION agreed :— subject to certain minor drafting amendments agreed upon in the course of the discussion, to incorporate in their report : — (i) as paragraph 8 the revised draft of that para- graph prepared by Commissioner Henmiing to give effect to the decisions recorded in Conclusion 4 above, taken in consequence of the resignation by Commissioner Stiles of the Office of Secretary to the Commission ; (ii) as paragraph 14, the new paragraph drafted by Commissioner Hemming to give effect to the decisions recorded in Conclusion 3 above, in regard to the procedure to be adopted in the matter of the so-called " Horn Kesolution ". 6. THE COMMISSION agreed :— to adopt as their unanimous report to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology the draft prepared by Commissioner Hemming subject to the incor- poration therein of : — (i) the minor drafting changes referred to in Conclusion 2 above ; and (ii) the revised text of paragraph 8 and the new paragraph 14 referred to in Conclusion 5 above. 7. THE COMMISSION agreed :— that, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (2) of Article 4 of the By-Laws of the Commission, the report unanimously adopted by the International Commission for submission to the Twelfth Inter- national Congress of Zoology should be posted as soon as possible on the Bulletin Board of the Congress. 8. THE COMMISSION agreed :— to invite Commissioner Karl Jordan {President of the Commission), in conjunction with Commissioner C. W. Stiles {Acting Secretary to the Commission), to take such steps as were necessary to place before the Commission the nomination of a Commissioner to be Secretary to the Commission in the place of Commissioner Stiles, resigned. 9. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (a) that, on the election of a Commissioner to be Secretary to the Commission in the place of Commissioner C. W. Stiles, the headquarters of the Commission should be transferred from Washington to the place at which the Com- missioner so elected was resident ; 48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. THE SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMIS- SION: FUTURE ARRANGEMENTS THANKS TO THE ALTERNATE MEMBERS THANKS TO THE COMMISSIONERS WHO ACTED AS SECRETARIES DURING THE LISBON SESSION (b) to express their warm appreciation of the valuable assistance rendered to the Commission for many years by : — (i) the U.S. National Museum, Washington, for permitting the use by the Commission of the Museum as their headquarters ; and by (ii) the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, for undertaking the publication, free of charge, of the Opinions rendered by the Commission and for generous contributions towards the clerical expenses of the Commission. 10. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (a) that Commissioner Karl JORDAN {President of the Commission) and the new Secretary to the Commission, when elected, should be authorised to make such arrangements, and to take such other action, as might appear to them necessary or expedient : — (i) to establish the Secretariat of the Com- mission at its new headquarters ; (ii) to secure the due publication of the Opinions agreed upon from time to time by the Commission ; (iii) to give effect to the decisions reached by the Commission at their Lisbon Session ; (iv) to obtain the finance required for the due functioning of the Commission ; and generally (v) to secure the effective continuance of the work of the Commission ; (b) that as soon as might be conveniently practic- able after the transfer of the Secretariat of the Commission to its new headquarters and at such later time or times as he may deem it necessary or desirable so to do, the new Secre- tary to the Commission should report to the Commission the steps taken to give effect to the decision recorded in (a) above. 11. THE COMMISSION agreed :— to express their thanks to those specialists who had consented to act as Alternate Members of the Com- mission during the Lisbon Session for the valuable assistance so rendered. 12. THE COMMISSION agreed :— to express their thanks to Commissioners FRANCIS HEMMING and JAMES L. PETERS for the assist- ance which, in the absence of the Secretary to the Commission, they had rendered to the Commission during the Lisbon Session. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 49 THANKS TO PRESIDENT JORDAN NEXT MEETING 13. THE COmilSSION agreed :— to place on record their warm thanks to Com- missioner KARL JORDAN {President of the Com- mission) for the wise, kindly and sympathetic manner in which he had presided over their dis- cussions at the Lisbon Session. 14. THE COMMISSION took note:— (a) thattheir next meeting, which would be the public meeting prescribed in paragraph (1) of Article 5 of the By-Laws of the Commission, would be held on the same day at the Chemistry Amphi- theatre of the Faculty of Sciences at 1400 hours ; (b) that arrangements had been made by the Secretary-General of the Congress that the above meeting should be held jointly with the meeting of Section XII of the Congress (Section on Nomenclature) ; (c) that Commissioner KARL JORDAN as Presi- dent of the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature would preside over the Joint Meeting of the Commission and Section XII referred to in (b) above. CERTIFICATE : I, FRANCIS HEMMING, acting for the Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, hereby CERTIFY that the above is a full and true account of the proceedings of the said International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature at its meeting held in Lisbon in the Library of the Faculty of Sciences on Wednesday, 18th September 1935, at 1145 hours; and I further cer- tify that in accordance with the decision recorded in Conclusion 7 of the said Record of Proceedings the Report unanimously adopted by the said Inter- national Commission at the above meeting was duly posted by me on the Bulletin Board of the Congress immediately after the close of the above meeting (signed) FRANCIS HEMMING for Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (OCTOBER 1943.) ( 50 ) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Session held during the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, Lisbon^ September 1935 CONCLUSIONS of tlie Sixth Meeting held in the Chemistry Amphitheatre of the Faculty of Sciences on Wednesday, 18th September 1935, at 1400 hours {Joint Meeting with Section XII of the Congress) PRESENT : Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom) (President) Dr. W. T. Caiman (United Kingdom) IVIr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) Dr. Jacques Pellegrin (France) ]■ Commissioners Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.) Dr. L. Stejneger (U.S.A.) Professor Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) Dr. Max Beier (Austria) Professor James Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) Dr. Hiroshi Ohshima (Japan) Dr. Thomas Mortensen (Denmark) Alternate Members of the Commission THERE WERE ALSO PRESENT:— Dr. Alice Pruvot-Fol (Sceaux) {Vice-President of Section XII) Dr. Franz Poche (Vienna) ]\Ir. Norman D. Riley (London) Dr. Alberto Xavier da Cunha Marques {Secretary of Section XII) Senhor Alberto Nunes Aboim (Lisbon) {Secretary of Section XII) and numerous other Members of the Congress. WELCOME BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION RESIGNATION OF DR. C. W. STILES FROM THE SECRETARYSHIP OF THE COmilSSION 1. Dr. KARL JORDAN {President of the International Commission) welcomed' the Members of the Congress present at the meeting, which, he explained, was both the customary public meeting of the International Com- mission and also a Meeting of Section XII (Section on Nomenclature) of the Congress. 2. Dr. JORDAN said that it was with the sincerest regret that the Secretary to the Commission, Dr. Charles Wardell Stiles, was prevented by illness from attending the Congress. The resignation by Dr. Stiles from the Secretaryship of the Commission, which he had held so long and with such great success, meant a very serious Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 51 loss to the Commission, and it would be difficult to find a successor devoted to nomenclature to an equal extent. REPORT BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE TO THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS 3. Dr. JORDAN said that, although, owing to the meeting of the Sixth International Congress of Ento- mology at Madrid immediately prior to the opening of the present Congress, it had not been possible for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on this occasion to start its work before the opening of the International Congress of Zoology, the Commission had nevertheless succeeded in the time available in reaching decisions upon a large number of important questions that had been submitted to them. The Commission's report to the International Congress had only been com- pleted that morning ; it had been duly posted upon the Bulletin Board of the Congress and would remain so posted until immediately before the Concilium Plenum of the Congress to be held on Saturday, 21st September 1935. If before that time any member of the Congress desired to make any detailed inquiry either regarding matters dealt with in the Commission's report or regard- ing other matters dealt with by the Commission, either he (Dr. Jordan) or Commissioner Hemming (by whom the Commission's report had been drafted) would gladly give all necessary particulars. Dr. Jordan then formally invited the Members of the Congress present at the Meeting to bring forward any points on the Commission's report that they might wish to raise. In the discussion that ensued, reference was made to various matters dealt with in the Commission's report, and in particular to the proposal submitted by the Fifth International Congress of Entomology at its meeting held in Paris in 1932, in regard to the method to be adopted in interpreting the generic names assigned by Freyer to species described in his Neuere Beitrdge zur Schmetter- lingskunde. Explanations regarding the action taken by the International Commission on this, and the other matters raised, were given by Dr. Jordan and Commissioner Hemming. The adoption of the Commission's report was then duly proposed to the Meeting, and, no amendment to that proposal having been put forward by any Member of the Congress present. Dr. JORDAN, as President of the Meeting, announced that the report of the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature had been unanimously approved by the Meeting, both as the Public Meeting of the International Commission and as Section XII of the Congress, for submission to the Con- cilium Plenum of the International Congress of Zoology to be held on Saturday, 21st September 1935. 52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. THE BERLIN AGREEMENT AND THE LIBERUM VETO CLOSING OF THE MEETING 4. DR. FRANZ POCHE (Vienna) then read a com- munication entitled " Was there ever a ' Berlin Agree- ment ' recently claimed by the Secretary of the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature as the foundation of the Liberum Veto in the said Commis- sion ? " 35 A short discussion ensued in which Mr. N. D. RILEY (London) deprecated the controversial tone of the com- munication just made to the Meeting. 5. DR. KARL JORDAN (President) then pronounced the Meeting closed. CERTIFICATE : I, FRANCIS HEMMING, acting for the Secre- tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, hereby CERTIFY that the above is a full and true account of the proceedings of the said International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature at its public meeting held in Lisbon (jointly with Section XII of the Twelfth International Con- gress of Zoology) in the Chemistry Amphitheatre of the Faculty of Sciences on Wednesday, 18th Sep- tember 1935, at 1400 hours (signed) FRANCIS HEMMING for Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological N oWienclature *' The text of this communication was later published in full. Poche, 1935, in Compte Rendu XII Congr. int. Zool. : 168-178. ( 53 ) THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMIS- SION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE TO -THE TWELFTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY, LISBON, SEP- TEMBER 1935 {Extract from the Compte Rendu XI I" Congres International de Zoologie Tenu a Lisbonne du 15 au 21 septembre 1935) (pp. 181-196) M. F. HEMMING rend compte des travaux de la Commission International Permanente de la Nomenclature zoologique et presente le rapport suivant : REPORT OF THE " PERMANENT INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ". By F. HEMMING, FOR SECRE- TARY TO THE COMMISSION. 1 . The following interim elections have been made since the last Congress : Class of 1934. JAMES L. PETERS (Cambridge, Mass.) vice DAVID STARR JORDAN (Stanford), deceased. H. B. FANTHAM (Montreal) vice ERNEST WARREN (South Africa), resigned. 2. Since the above interim elections, four other members of the Com- mission have died, namely, BATHER, ISHlKAWA, STEPHENSON, and HANDLIRSCH. In addition, one member of the Commission (HORVATH) has resigned. At the first meeting of the Commission at the Lisbon Congress, the following elections were made : FRANCIS HEMMING (London) vice BATHER ; T. ESAKI (Japan) vice ISHlKAWA; WILLIAM THOMAS CALMAN (London) vice STEPHENSON. No election has been made to fill the vacancies caused by the death of HANDLIRSCH and the resignation of HORVATH. 3. The Commission request that the interim elections (1930-1935) in the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (as cited in paragraph 1 above) and the elections at Lisbon referred to in paragraph 2 above be approved and confirmed, and therefore ask for the adoption of the following resolution : Resolved, that the elections (1930-1935) in the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, as cited in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Commission's report, be herewith approved and confirmed. 4. Nominations, Class 1943 vice Class 1934. — Of the six Commissioners of the Class 1934 whose term of ofiice now expires, one (HANDLIRSCH) is dead, and no proposal is made for filling the vacancy so caused. As regards the remaining vacancies, the Commission respectfully nominate the retiring Commissioners for service in Class 1943, viz. PETERS, SILVESTRI, STEJ- NEGER, STONE, and FANTHAM. 5. Personnel of the Commission at Lisbon. — The following four Commissioners have attended each of the five meetings of the Commission held at Lisbon, viz. STEJNEGER, JORDAN, PELLEGRIN. and PETERS. The following two Commissioners, HEMMING, and CALMAN, who were elected at the first 54 Bidletin of Zoological Nomenclature. meeting of the Commission at Lisbon, have attended each of the four subsequent meetings. 6. The remaining Commissioners have been unable to attend the meetings of the Commission at Lisbon on account either of illness or of various circum- stances which have prevented their being present in Lisbon during the meetings of the Commission. 7. Continuing the policy inaugurated at Monaco in 1913 and continued at Budapest in 1927 and at Padua in 1930, and approved at the Congresses held at each of the above cities, the following persons were invited to sit with the Commission at Lisbon as Alternate Members with full voting rights : AMAEAL rice CABRERA; OHSHBL\ vice ESAKI; CHESTER BRADLEY vice STONE; BEIER vice HANDLIRSCH; ARNDT vice RICHTER; MOR- TENSEN rtce APSTEIN. 8. The Commissioners have received with great regret a letter from their Secretary, DR. C. W. STILES, intimating his desire to relinquish that office on account of ill-health. In the circumstances the Commission feel bound to accede to DR. STILES'S request and desire to place on record their great appreciation of the valuable services rendered by DR. STILES during his long term of office both to the Commission and to the cause of zoological nomenclature. The Commission, in accepting DR. STILES'S resignation, have requested him to continue in office until such time as his successor is elected. During the Lisbon Congress, DR. J. L. PETERS has acted tem- porarily as Secretarv to the Commission. In the discharge of these duties he has been assisted by MR. FRANCIS HE:\DIING. 9. During the interim between the Eleventh and Twelfth Congresses, the Commission have adopted several new Opinions which will shortly be sent to the press. 10. Proposals for amemlment of the rules or of the hy-laws of the Commission. — Various proposals for the amendment of the Rules or of the by-laws of the Commission have b?en submitted to the Commission during the period under review. These are under consideration by the Commission. 11. New editions of the Rules. — Since the Padua meeting of the Congress, three new editions of the Rules in the form of translations have been printed, viz. : — (1) a Polish edition ; (2) a Portuguese edition translated by DO Aj\LARAL; (DO A3IARAL, 1930, Memorias do Instituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brasil 5 : 235-264). (3) a Spanish edition translated by C. G. AGUAYO; (AGUAYO, 1934, Memorias de la Sociedad cubana de Historia natural 8 (5) : 265-316). 12. Co-operation with the International Congress of Entomology and the Internati(»ml Ornithological Co)igress. — In pursuance of the policy indicated in previous reports, the Commission have referred all cases involving the nomen- clature of the Insecta to the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature elected by the International Congress of Entomology. The cases dealt with by the Commission at Lisbon which had been considered in this way are enumerated in paragraphs 16-19 and 24-29 of this report. 13. The Commission earnestly hope that specialists in other groups of the Animal Kingdom will organise themselves in the same way as has been done in the case of Entomology and (more recently) of Ornithology as they believe that the formation of such specialist groups will do much to speed up their own work by providing means "for the detailed examination of propositions I Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalure. 55 before their actual submission to the Commission itself. The Commission would naturally attach great weight to recommendations submitted by such groups of specialists, in the same way as they have done to the recommenda- tions submitted to them by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature, and as they propose to do when they receive recommendations from the corresponding Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature. The Commission must, however, reserve to themselves the right in all cases of deciding whether recommendations so submitted are in conformity with the spirit of the Code and are within the powers granted to the Commission at successive meetings of the International Zoological Congress. 14. The method of dealing with the so-called " Horn Kesolution " relating to the definition of binary nomenclature, voted upon at the meeting of the International Zoological Congress held at Padua in 1930, has been considered , by the Permanent Committee of the International Zoological Congresses during the Lisbon meeting, and that body has referred the question dealt with in that resolution back to the Chairman of the Section on Nomenclature at the Lisbon Congress for further study. The Chairman of that Section has, in turn, sub- mitted it to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for deliberation and report. The matter will accordingly be further considered by the Commission in due course. 15. Proposals for suspension of the Rules in certain cases. — In the following paragraphs the Commission set out various matters on which they have reached conclusions during their meetings at Lisbon and for which they ask the approval of the Congress. For this purpose, they ask for the adoption of the following resolution : Resolved that the Opinions of the Commission relating to the interpretation of the Code and their proposals, unanimously adopted, for the Suspension of the Rules in certain cases, set out in paragraphs 16-29 of the Commission's report, be approved and confirmed. 16. On the method to be adopted in interpreting the generic names assigned by FREYER to species described in his " Neuere Beitrage zur Schmetterlingskunde " (1833-1858). — In interpreting the generic names assigned by FREYER in his Neuere Beitrage zur Schmetterlingskunde to the species there described, each species is to be regarded as having been described by FREYER as belonging to the genus cited by him at the head of each description and not to the genus with which he actually associated the specific name. For example, FREYER described, under the genus Hipparchia FABRICIUS, a species to which he gave the specific name eriphyle, and which he proceeded to name Papilio eriphyle FREYER. FREYER is to be deemed to have described this species under the name Hipparchia eriphyle and not under the name Papilio eriphyle. 17. Suppression of the so-called " Erlangen List'' of 1801. — The Inter- national Commission have had under consideration the anonymous pamphlet dealing with the generic classification of the Hymenoptera,' which was pub- lished in 1801 under the title Nachricht von Einem neuen enlomolischen [s/c] Werke des Hrn. Prof. J URINE in Geneve, and which is commonly known as the " Erlangen List ". The International Commission are convinced that the adoption of the names contained in this pamphlet in accordance with the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. Acting, therefore, in virtue of the plenary powers conferred upon them at the Monaco session of the International Zoological Congress, the International Commission hereby declare that the so-called " Erlangen 56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. List " is to be treated as though it had never been published. Consequential on the above, it should be understood that, where subsequently any author published a genus having the same name as one of the genera proposed in the " Erlangen List ", the later-published name is not to be regarded as a homonym by reason of the earlier publication of that name in the " Erlangen List ". 18. Supplementary Opinion on the interpretation of LATREILLE'S " Con- siderations generales" of 1810. — Opinion 11 of the International Commission, which directs that the " table de genres avec I'indication de I'espece qui leur sert de type ", which is attached to LATREILLE'S Considerations generales of 1810, should be accepted as constituting a designation, under Article 30 of the Code, of the types of the genera in question, applies only to those genera there cited by LATREILLE in which he placed one only of the species included in the genus by the original author thereof. 19. On the relative precedences to be accorded to certain generic names in the Lepidoptera published in 1807 by FABRICIUS and HUBNER respectively. — Unless and until further evidence is forthcoming regarding the precise dates in 1807 on which were published (a) FABRICIUS'S paper on generic names in the sixth volume of ILLIGER'S Magazin fiir Insektenkunde and (b) certain plates of HUBNER'S Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, the names proposed by FABRICIUS shall have precedence over those proposed by HUBNER. The Commission are further of the opinion that if evidence were found to show that HUBNER'S plates were published before FABRICIUS'S paper, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. Acting, therefore, in virtue of the plenary powers conferred upon them at the Monaco meeting of the International Zoological Congress, the International Commission hereby declare that in that event the generic names Potamis HUBNER, Rusticus HUBNER, and Mancipium HUBNER are to be suppressed in favour of Morpho FABRICIUS^ Helicopis FABRICIUS, and Pontia FABRICIUS respectively. 20. On the method by which the amendment to Article 25 of the International Code adopted at the Budapest Meeting of the International Zoological Congress, relating to the replacement of invalid names, should be interpreted. — The Inter- national Commission have had under consideration the question of the inter- pretation of the amendment to Article 25 of the International Code adopted at the Budapest meeting of the International Zoological Congress, which became operative on the 1st January 1931, and which lays it down that, when for any reason it is necessary to replace an existing name, either because it is a synonym or a homonym, the author proposing the new name must give " a definite bibliographical reference " to the name to be replaced. An author giving such a new name would not comply with the above amendment to Article 25, if, after giving the name to be replaced, he were only to add such an expression as " La Touche, 1922 ". In order to comply with the Article as amended at Budapest, it is necessary for the author proposing the new name, after giving the name to be replaced and its author, to cite also the year in which that name was published and to indicate the title of the work or journal in which the name to be replaced was first published, and (in all cases where the pages of the work concerned are numbered) to cite the number of the page on which the name to be replaced was printed. 21. On the interpretation to be given to Article 4 of the International Code. — Article 4 of the Code, which relates to the naming of families and subfamilies, does not require that the oldest generic name in the family or subfamily concerned must be taken as the type genus of the family or subfamily. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 57 22. On the method to be adopted in the forming of the family names for Merops LINNAEUS in Aves and for Merope NEWMAN in Inseda.— The Inter- national Commission have had under consideration the way in which should be fonned the family names for the genus Merops LINNAEUS, 1758, in the Aves, and for the genus Merope NEWMAN, 1838, in the Order Mecoptera in the Insecta. The family name for Merops LINNAEUS is Meropidae and the family name for Merope NEWMAN is Meropeidae. 23. On the interpretation of the name Bipinnaria M. SARS, 1835 {Echino- dermata). — The International Commission have considered the position which would arise from the strict enforcement of the Rules in the case of the name Bipinnaria M. SARS, 1835, and they have reached the conclusion that in this case the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. Acting, therefore, in virtue of the plenary powers conferred upon them at the Monaco session of the International Zoological Congress, they hereby declare that the name Bipinnaria M. SARS, 1835, is suppressed as a generic name. Note. The above declaration does not afiect the position of the word " Bipinnaria " as the technical designation for the larval type of the Sea-Stars (Asteroidea), which remains unaltered. 24. Twenty-two generic names in the Orthoptera placed on the Official List of Generic Names.— The. following twenty-two names in the Orthoptera, the types of which have been designated in accordance with the provisions of the Code in the manner shown below, are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names : — Name of genus (1) Bacillus LE PELETIER DE ST. FARGEAU (1) et SERVILLE, 1825 Gamposcleis FIEBER, 1852 Type of genus Mantis rossia ROSSI, 1790 (monotypical) Locusta glabra liEKE^ll, 1786 (monotypical) (2) Forficula aptera CHARPENTIER, 1825 (type designated by SERVILLE, 18^1) Mastax tenuis PERTY, 1832 (3) (monotypical) Gryllacris tnaculicollis SERVILLE (4), 1831 (type designated by REHN, 1905) Gryllus gryllotalpa LINN., 1758 (monotypical) Hemitnerus talpoides WALKER, 1871 (monotypical) Forficula minor LINN., 1758 (monotypical) Locusta punctatissima BOSC, 1792 (monotypical) Blatta acervorum PANZER, [1799] (6) (monotypical) For explanation, see correspondingly numbered notes on pp. 64 and 65 (2) (3) Chelidura BERTHOLD, 1827 (4) Eumastax BURR, 1899 (5) Gryllacris SERVILLE, 1831 (6) Gryllotalpa LATREILLE, [1802- 1803] (5) (7) Hemimerus WALKER, 1871 (8) Labia LEACH, 1815 (9) Leptophyes FIEBER, 1852 (10) Myrmecophilus BERTHOLD, 1827 (l)-(6). below. 58 Bullelin of Zoological Nomenclature. Name of genus (11) Oedipoda LATREILLE, 1829 (7) (12) Phyllium ILLIGER, 1798 (8) (13) Prophalangopsis WALKER, 1871 (U) Psophus FIEBER, 1853 (10) (15) Proscopia KLUG, 1820 (16) Saga CHARPENTIER, 1825 (17) ScUzodactylus BRULLlS, 1835 (18) Sphingonothus FIEBER, 1852 (19) Stenopelmztus BURMEISTER, 1838 (20) Tridactylus OLIVIER, 1789 (21) Tylopsis FIEBER, 1853 (22) Mantis LINNAEUS, 1767 (13) Type of genus Gryllus caerulescens LINN., 1758 (type designated by KIRBY, 1910) Gryllus siccifolius LINN., 1758 (monotypical) Tarraga ohscxira WALKER, 1868 (9) (monotypical) Gryllus stridulus LINN., 1758 (monotypical) (10) Proscopia gigantea KLUG, 1820 (11) (type designated by GUERIN, 1828) (11) Locusta serrata FABRICIUS, 1793 (monotypical) Gryllus monstrosus DRURY, 1773 (monotypical) Gryllus caerulans LINN., 1767 (monotypical) Stenopelmatus talpa BURMEI- STER, 1838 (type designated by KIRBY, 1906) Tridactylus paradoxus LATRE- ILLE, [1802-1803] (12) (monotypical) (12) Locusta lilifolia FABRICIUS, 1793 (monotypical) Gryllus religiosus LINN., 1758 (13) (type designated by LATREILLE 1810) 25. Six generic names in the Hymenoptera placed on the Official List of Generic Names. — The following 6 generic names in tbe Hymenoptera, the types of which have been designated in accordance with the provisions of the Code in the manner shown below, are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names : — Name of genus LATREILLE, [1802-1803] Type of genus Sirex pigmaeus LINN., 1767 (14) (monotypical) Tiphia abdominalis PANZER, [1798] (15) (type designated by LATREILLE, [1802-1803]) (15) Dryinus formicariiis LATREILLE, [1804-1805] (16) (monotypical) (16) Cn/ptus viduatorius FABRICIUS, [1804-1805] (17) (type designated by CURTIS, 1837) (7)-(17).' For explanation, see correspondingly numbered notes on pp. 65 to 67 below. (1) Cephus (14) (2) Astata LATREILLE, 1796 (3) Dryinus LATREILLE, [1804] (16) (4) Cryptus FABRICIUS, [1804-1805] (17) i Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 59 Name of genus Type of genus (5) Arge SCHRANK, 1802 Tenthredo enodis LINN., 1767 (18) (type designated by ROHWER, 1911) (6) Diprion SCHRANK, 1802 Tenthredo pini LINN., 1758 (type designated by ROHWER, 1910) 26. On the status of two generic names in the Orthoptera. — After carefully considering recommendations in regard to two generic names in the Orthoptera submitted to them by the International Committee on Entomological Nomen- clature, by whom the matter was considered before and at the recent meeting at Madrid of the International Entomological Congress, the International Commission are convinced that in these cases the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. Acting, therefore, in virtue of the plenary powers conferred upon them at the Monaco meeting of the International Zoological Congress, the International Commission Hereby : — (a) suspend the rules in the case of the generic names Locusta LINNAEUS, 1758, and Phaneroptera SERVILLE, 1831 ; (b) validate the above genera and declare their genotypes to be as follows : — Name of genus Type of genus Locusta LINN., 1758 Gryllus migratorius LINN., 1758 PJmneroptera SERVILLE, 1831 Gryllus falcata PODA, 1761 (19) (c) place the above generic names as thus defined on the Official List of Generic Names. 27. On the status of sixteen generic names in the Hymenoptera. — ^The question of the way in which certain generic names in the Hymenoptera should be used has formed the subject of discussion between the specialists in that Order during the last few years, and the recommendations which they have formulated for the suspension of the rules in certain cases have been submitted to, and unanimously endorsed by, the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature. After carefully considering the recommendations referred to above, the International Commission, acting in virtue of the plenary powers conferred upon them at the session of the International Zoological Congress held at Monaco, because they are convinced that in the following cases a strict application of the rules would lead to greater confusion than uniformity, Hereby : — (a) suspend the rules in the case of the generic names Crabro, Cimbex, Lasius, Podalirius, Anthophora, Ichneumon, Ephialtes, Pimpla, Bracon, Pompilus (20), Psammochares, Bethylus, Hylaeus, Prosopis, Ceraphron, Calliceras, Torymus, Misocampe (21), Callimome, Proctotrupes, Serphus, Sphex, and Ammophila ; (b) permanently reject Crabro GEOFFROY, 1762, Lasius PANZER, [1801- 1802] (22), Podalirius LATREILLE, 1802, Ephialtes SCHRANK, 1802, Psammochares LATREILLE, 1796 (23), HyUeus FABRICIUS, 1793, Ceraphron PANZER, [1805] (24), Callimome SPINOLA, 1811, Miso- ( 18)-(24) . For explanation, see correspondingly numbered notes on pp. 67 and 68 below. 60 (c (d (1 (2 (3 (4 (5 (6 (7 (8 (9 (10 (11 (12 (13 (14 (15 (16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. campe LATREILLE, 1818, Serphvs SCHRANK, 1780, Pompilus SCHNEIDER, 1784, and Prosopis FABRICIUS, [1804-1805] (25) ; set aside all type designations for the genera mentioned in (d) below; declare the genotypes of the undermentioned genera to be as follows : — Cimbex OLIVIER, 1790 Crabro FABRICIUS, 1775 Lasius FABRICIUS, [1804-1805] (27) Anthophora LATREILLE, 1803 Ichneumon LINN., 1758 Pimpla FABRICIUS, [1804-1805] (28) Ephialtes GRAVENHORST, 1829 Bracm FABRICIUS, [1804-1805] (29) Pompilus FABRICIUS, 1798 5e%?Ms LATREILLE, [1802-1803] (30) Prosopis JURINE, 1807 Ceraphron JURINE, 1807 Torymus DALMAN, 1820 Proctotrupes LATREILLE, 1796 Sphex LINNAEUS, 1758 Ammophila KIRBY, 1798 type, Tenthredo lutea LINN., 1758 type, Vespa cribraria LINN., 1758 (26) type, Formica nigra LINN., 1758 type. Apis pilipes FABRICIUS, 1775 type. Ichneumon extensorius LINN., 1758 type. Ichneumon instigator FA- BRICIUS, 1793 type, Ichneumon manifestator LINN., 1758 type. Ichneumon minutator FAB- RICIUS, 1798 (29) type, Pompilus pulcher FABRI- CIUS, 1798 type, Omalus fuscicornis JURINE, 1807 type, Sphex signata PANZER, [1798] (31) type, Ceraphron sulcatum JURINE, 1807 type. Ichneumon bedeguaris LINN., 1758 type, Proctotrupes brevipennis LA- TREILLE, [1802-1803] (32) type, Sphex flavipennis FABRI- CIUS, 1793 type, Sphex sabulosa LINN., 1758 (e) place on the Official List of Generic Names the sixteen generic names enumerated in (d) above, each with the type there stated. Note. With reference to the names Sphex LINN., and Ammophila KIRBY referred to in paragraph (d) (15) and (16) above, it should be noted that the Commission have on a previous occasion (in Opinion 32) declared that the type of Sphex LINN, is Sphex sabulosa LINN. The Commission remain of the opinion that that species is the type of Sphex LINN, under the rules, but in view of the fact that the strict application of the rules in this case would cause greater confusion than uniformity, they have now agreed to suspend the rules in the manner shown above. 28. On the status of seven generic names in the Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera. — The question of the way in which certain generic names in the sub-order Rhopalocera of the Lepidoptera should be used, has formed the subject of discussion between the specialists in that Order during the last few years and recommendations regarding certain of these names have been submitted to, {25)-(32). For explanation, see correspondingly numbered notes on p. 68 below. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 61 and unanimously endorsed by, the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature. After carefully considering the recommendations referred to above, the International Commission, acting in virtue of the plenary powers conferred upon them at the session of the International Zoological Congress held at Monaco, because they are convinced that a strict application of the rules in the following cases would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, Hereby : — (a) suspend the rules in the case of the generic names Euphea FABRI- CIUS, 1807, Satyrus LATREILLE, 1810, Argynnis FABRICIUS, 1807, Vanessa FABRICIUS, 1807, Euthalia HUBNER, [1819] (33), Nymphidium FABRICIUS, 1807, and Colias FABRICIUS, 1807 ; (b) declare that the type of Euploea FABRICIUS, 1807, is Papilio corns FABRICIUS, 1793 ; (c) declare that the type of Satyrus LATREILLE, 1810, is Papilio actaea ESPER, [1780]; (d) declare that the generic names Argyreus SCOPOLI, 1777 (type, Papilio niphe LINN., 1767) is not to be substituted for Argynnis FABRICIUS, 1807 (type, Papilio paphia LINN., 1758) and therefore that the name Argynnis FABRICIUS is valid ; Note'. The above would not affect the validity of the name Argyreus SCOPOLI, 1777, in the event of it being found desirable on taxonomic grounds to place Papilio niphe LINN., and Papilio paphia LINN., in different genera. (e) declare that page priority shall not be invoked to secure precedence for Cynthia FABRICIUS, 1807 (type, Papilio cardui LINN., 1758) over Vanessa FABRICIUS, 1807 (type, Papilio atalanta LINN., 1758); and therefore that the name Vanessa FABRICIUS is valid ; (f) declare that page priority shall not be invoked to secure precedence for Symphaedra HUBNER, [1819] (33) (type, Symphaedra alcandra HUBNER, [1819]) (33) over EutMlia HUBNER, [1819] (type, Papilio lubentina CRAMER, [1777]) (34) ; and therefore that the name Euthalia HUBNER is valid ; Note. ,,The above would not affect the validity of the name Symphaedra HUBNER, [1819] (33) if and when it may be desired upon taxonomic grounds to place Symphaedra alcandra HUBNER, [1819] (33), and Papilio lubentina CRAMER, [1777] (34), in different genera. (g) declare that the name Nymphidium FABRICIUS, 1807, (type, Papilio caricae LINN., 1758) shall not be rejected in favour of Limnas HUB- NER, [1806] (type, Limnas leucosia HUBNER, [1806]) ; that the name Limnas HUBNER is to be treated as suppressed for all purposes; and therefore that the name Nymphidium FABRICIUS is valid ; (h) declare that the type of Colias FABRICIUS, 1807, is Papilio hyale LINN., 1758; (i) add the generic names Euploea FABRICIUS, 1807, Satyrus LA- TREILLE, 1810, Argynnis FABRICIUS, 1807, Vanessa FABRICIUS, 1807, Euthalia HUBNER, [1819] (33), Nymphidium FABRICIUS, 1807, and Colias FABRICIUS, 1807, to the Official List of Generic Names, with the types indicated above. (33)-(34). For explanation, see correspondingly numbered notes on p. 68 below. 62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 29. On the types of six genera of Lepidoptera {Rhopalocera). — The Inter- national Commission have had under consideration the position of the six genera of the sub-order Rhopalocera of the Lepidoptera mentioned below and have reached the conclusion that the strict application of the rules in these cases would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. Acting, therefore, in ^'irtue of the plenary powers conferred upon them at the Monaco session of the International Zoological Congress, the International Commission Hereby : — (a) suspend the rules in the case of the genera Lijcaeides HTUBNER, [1819] (33), Agriades HUBNER, [1819] (33), Latiorina TUTT, 1909 (35), Polyommatus LATREILLE, 1804, Eucliloe HUBNER, [1819] (33), Princeps HUBNER, [1807], Orpheides HUBNER, [1819] (33), Carch- arodus HUBNER, [1819] (33), and Spilothyrus DUPONCHEL, 1835. (b) declare the types of the above genera to be as follows : — Name of genus Type of genus Lycaeides HUBNER, [1819] (33) Papilio argyrognomon BERG- STRASSER, [1779] (36) Agriades HUBNER, [1819] (33) ^ and \Papilio glandon PRUNNER, 1798 Latiorina TUTT, 1909 (35) J Polyommatus LATREILLE, 1804 Papilio icarus ROTTEMBURG, 1775 Euchloe HUBNER, [1819] (33) Euchloe ausonia HUBNER, var. esperi KIRBY, 1871 Princeps HUBNER, [1807] ]PapiUo demodocus ESPER, [1798] Orpheides HiJBKER, [1819] (33) / ^^^^ Carcharodus HUBNER, [1819] (33) i and \Papilio alceae ESPER, [1780] (38) Spilothyrus DUPONCHEL, 1835 J ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY by the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature at their meeting held at Lisbon on Wednesday, 18th September, 1935. (signed) FRANCIS HEMMING For Secretary to the International Commission Lisbon, 18th September 1935 (33), (35)-(38). For explanation, see correspondingly numbered notes on pp. 68 and 69 below. ( 63 ) THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE APPROVAL BY THE TWELFTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE AND OF THE ADOPTION BY THE CONGRESS OF THE RESOLUTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION [Extract from the Compte Rendu XI P Congres International de Zoologie Tenic a Lishonne du 1^ au 21 septembre 1935) (page 205) Tous ces rapports ayant ete approuves et les propositions adoptees a Funanimite, la parole est dormee a M. CAULLERY, qui presente les proposi- tions suivantes au nom du Comite Permanent : (The Reports recorded above as having been adopted unanimously were the Report of the Secretary-General of the Congress and the Reports of the four Permanent Commissions of the Congress. Of these latter, the first to be presented was the Report of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.) ( 64 ) ON CERTAIN MINOR CORRECTIONS MADE IN THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE TO THE TWELFTH INTER- NATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY, LISBON, SEPTEMBER 1935 By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. {Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.) When at their Fifth Meeting held at Lisbon on 18th September 1935, I laid before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature the draft of the report to be submitted by them to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, I pointed out that I had been greatly hampered in pre- paring this document through the lack of standard works of reference. So far as was possible in the circumstances, I had verified the references cited in the draft Eeport; but I had no doubt that in spite of this there were some errors in the bibliographical and other references cited. I hoped that the Co mm ission would recognise that this was inevitable in the circumstances and would authorise me to examine the report from this point of view after the Congress when on my return to London I should have access to all the neces- sary works of reference. I asked for the authority of the Commission to correct any such errors before the text of the report was ofl6.cially printed. This request was granted by the International Commission (see Official Record of Proceedings of the 5th Meeting (Lisbon Session, Conclusion 1 (c)). On my return to London exceptional pressure of official work made it impossible for me at once to undertake the task of checking and revising the numerous references cited in the Commission's report. When, therefore. Professor Arthur Ricardo JORGE, the President of the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, asked to be furnished with the text of the Report for inclusion in the Compte Rendu of the Congress which he was anxious to publish as quickly as possible, I had no option but to give him for this purpose a copy of the report in the form in which it had been prepared during the Lisbon Congress. In consequence, the report, as it appears in the Compte Rendu of the Congress published in 1936, is identical in every respect with the report actually submitted to, and approved by, the Congress at the Concilium Plenum held on 21st September 1935. I have since personally verified every reference cited in the report and have corrected the errors so detected. These corrections have been inserted in the text of the report now published. In order to eliminate any possibility of subsequent misunderstanding, I have thought it right to draw attention to every correction so made by placing a number after every item so corrected. In a few cases where no correction was needed, I have thought it desirable to add short explanatory notes, each of which has been numbered in the same way. The numbers placed against names, etc., in the report correspond with the numbers allotted to the notes given below. (1) Bacillus. This name was published in the entomological portion of volume 10 of the Encyclopedie methodique, Paris, 1825. This was pre- pared by Le Peletier de Saint Fargeau and Serville, in collaboration. The name of the first of these authors was given incorrectly in the Lisbon report as " St. Fargeau ". Bnlletin of Zoological Nommclature. 65 a. sole species, -r.,i2!:ZSt'T^;l It^^Vfl' ^'*" «^'» which he app ied the name 7)^wri„'r ^ , T^^ "^^ (^) (c)), a species to ence is clelrly to Z).S ^/r2 p ^ «^«c^/^«^.... var. 5r/a6e;-. The refer- <. ^4llrsr£ SH-- £~"^^' mmuUcoIlis Serville- fiiVrl^ £f o ^^- '? ^^''^^ ^^^^ species: (i) G. yille. The first iuthor^o-s^^^f^^^^^^^^^ and(iii) 6'. ,.,«i kr- 6^ry?fea.. Serville was Etehnl^S hi^go^ P 'S'^f "' '^^ ^^P^ ^^ 57:827) designated (?. .rnXz/Vs^ monly held (e.g. by Kirbv IQOfi za(^ema Humphreys, 1797 (type Echinometra setosa Leske, 1778) to be added to the Official List of Generic Names (see Mortensen, 1937, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist QO) 19 : 463-469) (reference Z.N. (S ) 52) (b) INSECTA, NEUROPTERA.-To be added to the Official List of Generic Names with types as shown m brackets ■.—Hemerobius Linnaeus, 1758 {Hemerobius humulinus Linnaeus, 1758); Chnj- sopa Leach, 1815 (Hemerobius perla Linnaeus 1758) (see Cowley and others, 1937, Generic Names of British Insects, Part 4) (reference Z.N. (S.) 42). (c) INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA.-To be added to the Official List of Generic Names with the type as shown in brackets -.—Actinote Hubner, [1819] [Papilio thalia Linnaeus, 1758) (see Hemming, 1936, Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (B) 5 : 56-57) (reference Z.N. (S.) 63) (d) m.VTlLlk.~Bitis Gray, 1842 (type Vipera [Echidna) anetans B. Merrem, 1820) to be added to the Official List of Generic Names, and Cobra in?/^^^'' ^^^^' ^"^ ^^ suppressed (Steineger, 1936, Copeia 3 : 140) (reference Z.N. (S.) 121). 18. THE CONFERENCE agreed :— that the advertisement referred to elusion 17 above should be sent possible : — (i) to the five journals specified in the Reso- lution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at Monaco in 1913- and ' in Con- as soon as « This advertisement was issued on 27th June 1939 as Advertisement A. (n.s.) 1. 86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (ii) to the following institutions for publication in their respective journals, so far as they were severally interested in the cases in question : — Societe entomologique de France ; Royal Entomological Society of London ; Zoological Society of London ; Zoological Museum, Tring ; and to the undermentioned journals : — Journal of Mammalogy, Washington ; Entomological News, Philadelphia ; Canadian Entomologist, Ottawa ; Deutsche entomologische Zeitschrift, Berlin. (THE CONFERENCE THEN ADJOURNED.) CERTIFICATE : I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, hereby CERTIFY that the above is a full and true account of the proceedings at the Con- ference between the President of the Commission and the Secretary to the Commission held in London on Monday, 19th June 1939 at 1015 hours, under the procedure prescribed by the said International Commission in a resolution adopted during their Lisbon Session at a meeting held on 18th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10). (signed) FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature .BASED INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has been criticised at times for the delays that have occurred in the consideration of particular cases. In part these delays have been due to faults in the organisation and procedure of the Commission and, in so far as this has been the case, steps have been, and are being, taken to prevent their recurrence. To a considerable extent, however, these delays have been due to the incomplete and inaccurate way in which proposals have been submitted to the Commission for consideration. 2. Zoologists are accordingly invited to co-operate with the Commission by complying strictly with the following instructions when submitting proposals for the consideration of the Commission and in consequence when submitting papers for publication in the Bulletin. By doing so zoologists will : — (a) avoid unnecessary delays in securing decisions on questions submitted ; and (b) reduce to a minimum the expenditure incurred by the Commission in dealing with applications submitted. 3. The instructions in question are the following: — (1) Proposals should be in the form of papers and should not be raised incidentally in course of correspondence ; these papers should be as short and concise as is consistent with the clear presentation of the problem to be considered. (2) Wherever possible papers should be typewritten and, whether typewritten or in manuscript, should be on one side of the paper only. (3) The printing of papers in foreign languages adds greatly to their cost. For so - long therefore as the present financial difficulties of the Commission persist, zoologists are asked to submit all manuscripts in English. (4) Each application should be confined to a single subject except where the status of two or more names forms part of a single problem. (5) Where a proposal refers to the status of a particular name, a clear indication should be given, either in the title or at the beginning of the paper, of the Class and Order to which the genus or species belongs. Wherever possible the name of the family should be added. (6) The full bibliographical reference should be given for every name, whether generic or specific, cited. (7) In the case of generic names the type species should be clearly stated and a refer- ence given to the circumstances in which that species became the type, i.e. : — (i) whether so designated at the time of original publication : or (ii) whether designated at a later date under Article 30 of the Code, and, if so, by what author it was so designated. (In these cases the full biblio- graphical reference should be given to the place where the species in question was designated as the type.) (8) Specific names should be cited in the same combination of generic and trivial names as that employed by the original author when first naming the species. (9) A full bibliographical reference consists of: — (a) the generic or specific name in question ; (b) the name of its author ; (c) the date of its publication ; (d) the title of the work in which the name was so published ; (e) where the work in question consists of more than one volume, the volume number ; (f) the page number. (10) The titles of journals should be abbreviated in the form shown in the " World List of Scientific Periodicals," ed. 2, 1934; the names of authors and the titles of separate works should be cited in full. (11) Volume numbers should be cited in Arabic (and not in Roman) numerals. (12) Page references should be cited in accordance with the Harvard system of notation, i.e., the page number preceded by a colon should follow immediately after the title of the work, or, where that work is in more than one volume, the volume number. The word " page " and the abbreviation " p." should not be used. 4. Priority of treatment will in all cases be given to proposals prepared in accordance with the foregoing instructions. BY ORDER OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission. Secretariat of the Commission, At the British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. 8th May, 1943. OPINIONS Published by the Commission (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission, 41, Queen's Gate, London, S.W.7.) Opinion 134. On the method to be adopted in interpreting the generic names assigned by Freyer to the species described in his Neuere Beitidge zur Schmetterlingskunde, 1833-1858. price 8(/. Opinion 135. The suppression of the so-called " Eriangen List " of 1801. price 8^. Opinion 136. Opinion supplementary to Opinion 11 on the interpretation of Latreille's Considerations gene'rales sur I'ordie naturel des animaux composant les classes des Crustaces, des Arachnides et des Insectes avec un tableau methodique de leurs genres disposes en families, Paris, 1810. price Is. Od. Opinion 137. On the relative precedence to be accorded to certain generic names published in 1807 by Fabricius and Hubner respectively for identical genera in the Lepidoptera Rhopalocera. price l.y. 6d. Opinion 138. On the method by which the amendment to Article 25 of the International Code adopted at the Budapest Meeting of the International Zoological Congress, relating to the replacement of invalid names, should be interpreted, price Is. 6d. Opinion 139. The names Cephus Latreille, [1802-1803], and Astata Latreille, 1796, in the Hymenoptera added to the Official List of Generic Names, price 2s. 6d. Opinion 140. On the method of forming the family names for Merops Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves) and for Merope Newman, 1838 (Insecta). price 2s. Od. Opinion 141. On the principles to be observed in interpreting Article 4 of the International Code relating to the naming of families and subfamilies, price 25. 6d. Opinion 142. Suspension of the rules for Satyrus Latreille, 1810 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). price 2s. 6d. Opinion 143. On the method of forming the family name for Tingis Fabricius, 1803 (Insecta, Hemiptera). price 2^. 6d. Opinion 144. On the status of the names Crabro Geoffroy, 1762, Crabro Fabricius, 1775, and Cimbex Olivier, 1790 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). price 2^. 6d. Opinion 145. On the status of names first published in works rejected for nomenclatorial purposes and subsequently published in other works, price 2s. 6d. Opinion 146. Suspension of the rules for Colias Fabricius, 1807 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). price 2s. 6d. Opinion 147. On the principles to be observed in interpreting Article 34 of the International Code in relation to the rejection, as homonyms, of generic and subgeneric names of the same origin and meaning as names previously published, price 2s. 6d. OPINIONS Rendered by the Commission but not yet Published Opinion 148. On the principles to be observed in interpreting Articles 25 and 34 of the International Code in relation to the availability of generic names proposed as emendations of, or as substitutes for, earlier generic names of the same origin and meaning. Opinion 149. Twenty-one names in the Orthoptera (Insecta) added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Opinion 150. On the dates of publication of the several portions of Hubner (J.), Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic], 1816-[1826]. Opinion 151. On the status of the names Lasius Panzer, [1801-1802], Podalirius Latreille, 1802, Lasius Fabricius, [1804-1805], and Anthophora Latreille, 1803 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Opinion 152. On the status of the generic names in the Order Diptera (Insecta) first published in 1800 by J. W. Meigen in his Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a deux ailes. Opinion 1 53. On the status of the names Bethylus Latreille, [1802-1803], and Dryinus Latreille, [1804] (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Opinion 154. On the status of the names Phaneroptera Serville, 1831, and Tylopsis Fieber, 1853 (Insecta, Orthoptera). Opinion 155. On the status of the names Callimome Spinola, 1811, Misocampe Latreille, 1818, and Torymus Dalman, 1820 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Opinion 156. Suspension of the rules for Vanessa Fabricius, 1807 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Opinion 1 57. Three names in the Hymenoptera (Insecta) added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Opinion 158. On the status of the name Locusta Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Orthoptera). Printed in Great Britain by Richard Clay and Company, Ltd., Bungay, Suffolk. VOLUME 1. Part 5. Pp. 87-118 26lh JULY 1945 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE p J » v^^ Edited by FRANaS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission Publication of proposals submitted to the International Commission °VO°lo8ical Nomenclature. By Francis Hemming, CM G NfmencfaZT\ '" l^^^rnational Commission on Zoological ^"' nn'^Sof ^*^ ^"ft°" '^'^ ^°^ ^y th« International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in May 1943 . On the status, under Article 3 of the International Code, of a trivial name consisting of an un-latinised modem patronymic. By 1 . D. A. Cockerell, University of Colorado, Boulder, Col. . On the status, under Article 3 of the International Code, of a specific or subspecific trivial name consisting of a phonetic reproduction ot the imtial letters of two or more modern patronymics. By ^■G.Vennah, Castries, St. Lucia, B.W.I. . . . , p 39 (continued on back wrapper) 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 eight shillings (All rights reserved) p. 87 p. 88 p. 89 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION A. 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). B. The Members of the Commission Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. W. ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Bela von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. T. JACZEWSKl (Poland). Dr. Norman R. 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 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.). Professor L. di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. Harold E. YOKES (U.S.A.). C. The Staff of the Secretariat in London Secretary to the Commission : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Archivist : Mr. Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A. Publications Clerk : Mrs. F. R. Langstadt. D. The Address of the Commission 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. PUBLICATION OF PROPOSALS SUBMITTED TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. {Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature). (Commission's reference Z.N.(G.)17.) The present Part of the Bulletin contains the first instalment of the texts of proposals submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature for decision. The remaining cases will be published as soon as possible. For convenience of reference, proposals relating to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature are given first. These will be followed by the remaining cases arranged, so far as possible, according to the date on which they were received by the Commission. The publication of these cases will place before the zoological public the whole of the present Agenda of the International Commission and will enable specialists readily to ascertain what are the proposals under consideration by the Commission. It will also provide an opportunity to specialists to furnish to the Commission statements of their views on any of the proposals before a decision is taken by the Commission thereon. As soon as possible after being received, comments so furnished will be published in the Bulletin. In the case of Members of the Commission, the publication in the Bulletin of proposals submitted to the Commission will provide the material on the basis, of which they will later be asked to vote on the Opinions to be rendered by the Commission on the cases in question. Reference Numbers : The Reference Number appropriate to each case is given at the head of each paper published and specialists communicating with the Secretary to the Co mmi ssion are particularly asked to quote the Reference Number concerned, since by so doing they will materially lighten the work of the Secretariat of the Commission. Comments on proposals submitted to the Commission should be written in English or French on one side of the paper only. Attention should be paid to the "Instructions to Authors" which were issued by the International Com- mission in May 1943 and which are reprinted on the following page. MTiere a specialist desires to comment on more than one case, a separate note should be furnished for each case. All comments on proposals published in the Bulletin should be addressed to the Secretary to the International Commission at 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W.3. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (AUGUST 1945.) 88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS LAID DOWN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE IN MAY 1943 The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has been criticised at times for the delays that have occurred in the consideration of particular cases. In part these delays have been due to faults in the organisation and procedure of the Commission and, in so far as this has been the case, steps have been, and are being, taken to prevent their recurrence. To a considerable extent, however, these delays have been due to the incomplete and inaccurate way in which proposals have been submitted to the Commission for consideration. 2. Zoologists are accordingly invited to co-operate with the Commission by complying strictly with the following instructions when submitting proposals for the consideration of the Commission and in consequence when submitting papers for publication in the Bulletin. By doing so zoologists will : — (a) avoid unnecessary delays in securing decisions on questions submitted ; and (b) reduce to a minimum the expenditure incurred by the Commission in dealing with applications submitted. 3. The instructions in question are the following: — (1) Proposals should be in the form of papers and should not be raised incidentally in course of correspondence ; these papers should be as short and concise as is consistent with the clear presentation of the problem to be considered. (2) Wherever possible papers should be typewritten and, whether typewritten or in manuscript, should be on one side of the paper only. (3) The printing of papers in foreign languages adds greatly to their cost. For so long therefore as the present financial difficulties of the Commission persist, zoologists are asked to submit all manuscripts in English. (4) Each application should be confined to a single subject except where the status of two or more names forms part of a single problem. (5) Where a proposal refers to the status of a particular name, a clear indication should be given, either in the title or at the beginning of the paper, of the Class and Order to which the genus or species belongs. Wherever possible the name of the family should be added. (6) The full bibliographical reference should be given for every name, whether generic or specific, cited. (7) In the case of generic names the type species should be clearly stated and a refer- ence given to the circumstances in which that species became the type, i.e. : — (i) whether so designated at the time of original pubUcation : or (ii) whether designated at a later date under Article 30 of the Code, and, if so, by what author it was so designated. (In these cases the full biblip- graphical reference should be given to the place where the species in question was designated as the type.) (8) Specific names should be cited in the same combination of generic and trivial names as that employed by the original author when first naming the species. (9) A full bibliographical reference consists of: — » (a) the generic or specific name in question ; (b) the name of its author ; (c) the date of its publication ; (d) the title of the work in which the name was so published ; (e) where the work in question consists of more than one volume, the volume number ; (f) the page number. (10) The titles of journals should be abbreviated in the form shown in the " World List of Scientific Periodicals," ed. 2, 1934; the names of authors and the titles of separate works should be cited in full. (1 1) Volume numbers should be cited in Arabic (and not in Roman) numerals. (12) Page references should be cited in accordance with the Han/ard system of notation, i.e., the page number preceded by a colon should follow immediately after the title of the work, or, where that work is in more than one volume, the volume number. The word " page " and the abbreviation " p." should not be used. 4. Priority of treatment will in all cases be given to proposals prepared in accordance with the foregoing instructions. BY ORDER OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 89 ON THE STATUS, UNDER ARTICLE 3 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE, OF A TRIVIAL NAME CONSISTING OF UN-LATINISED MODERN PATRONYMIC By T. D. A. COCKERELL. {University of Colorado, Boulder, Col.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)165.) Some years ago Dr. Brown, palaeobotanist of the U.S. Geological Survey, developed the theory that the trivial names of species named after persons should not be latinised or take the possessive form. So he proposed a Salix cockerell. This name was, however, invalid since another man had pubUshed the same species as Salix cockerelli. I thought that this practice would not spread, but in the Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 41 : 54-58, published in February 1939, there is a paper containing descriptions of new species of the genus Serica Macleay, 1819, Hor. ent. 1 (1) : 146 (Order Coleoptera) by L. W. Saylor, con- taining the name Serica craighead ( : 55), Serica oliver ( : 56), and Serica watson ( : 58). The International Eules, however, require that such trivial names should be latinised, and the names referred to above do not conform to this require- ment. The weak point is that in the early part of the XlXth century some fishes were named in this fashion and also at least one bird, and these names have become current. I am very much opposed to changing names, if it can possibly be avoided, but whatever may have been done in the past there should be a stand against objectionable names in the future. I think that the zoological names cited above should be changed to the usual form. ON THE STATUS, UNDER ARTICLE 3 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE, OF A SPECIFIC OR SUBSPECIFIC TRIVIAL NAME CONSISTING OF A PHONETIC REPRODUCTION OF THE INITIAL LETTERS OF TWO OR MORE MODERN PATRONYMICS By R. G. Fennah. {Castries, St. Lucia.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)163.) I should be grateful if the International Commission would render an Opinion on the question whether the trivial name " veedee " comprised in the specific name Aglaostigma veedee Ross, 1943, Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 45 : 81, is acceptable in this form. The name " veedee " presumably represents the initials " V.D." written phonetically. These letters are apparently the initials of E. C. Van Dyke and E. P. Van Duzee, both of whom are listed as collectors of this species, so that this specific trivial name may be jointly dedicatory in the form of initials. Does a specific or subspecific trivial name so formed fulfil the requirements of Article 3 of the Code ? BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (AUGUST 1945.) 90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. PROPOSAL THAT ARTICLE 22 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE SHOULD BE AMENDED BY THE ADDITION OF A " RECOMMENDATION " THAT AUTHORS' NAMES SHOULD NOT NORMALLY BE CITED By the late Arthur P. Jacot. (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)12.) Pursuant to my article published on r2th September 1930 in Science 72 : 272-273, and the advice of colleagues, I am writing to ask you to present to the Commission for consideration as an amendment to the International Rules, more specifically as a Recommendation to Article 22, the following : — ■ That the name of the author of a scientific name be omitted from scientific papers except catalogs and papers of rectification, and that in those cases where confusion might arise from its omission, a bold face numeral referring to the author reference in the bibliography (or to the most lucid presentation of the synonymy) be placed after the specific name. If such a rule be enforced (by popular consent, or good example) scientific papers would no longer bristle with personal-family names and thus be nearer the impersonal scientific ideal. Furthermore, much pettiness would be eliminated from nomenclatural " technique ". THE IMPLICATIONS OF DR. JACOT'S PROPOSAL FOR THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLE 22 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. {Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)12.) In acknowledging receipt of Dr. Jacot's proposal, my predecessor, the late Dr. C. W. Stiles, drew attention to the fact that that proposal ran directly counter to the resolution adopted by the International Commission at Buda- pest in 1927, in which the Commission urged authors to cite at least once in each paper either (i) the name of the author and the date of publication of every name (generic, specific, or subspecific) referred to in that paper or (ii) a full bibliographical reference therefor. The resolution referred to by Dr. Stiles has since been embodied in the Commission's Declaration 7 (see 1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 49-56). Before, therefore, the International Commission could formulate, for the consideration of the International Congress of Zoology, a recommendation for the amendment of Article 22 of the Code in the sense proposed by the late Dr. Jacot, it would be necessary for them to revoke Declaration 7. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 91 ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 23 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE IN RELATION TO THE USE OF BRACKETS WHEN CITING THE NAME OF AN AUTHOR OF A SUBSPECIFIC TRIVIAL NAME WHEN THAT NAME APPEARS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SAME GENERIC NAME BUT NOT IN THE SAME RELATIONSHIP THERETO AS WHEN ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED By R. Chester Hughes. {Department of Zoology, Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College, School of Arts and Sciences, Stillwater, Oklahoma.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)129.) I am writing to solicit an Opinion on the interpretation of Articles 11 and 23 of tke International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature as applied to three differing situations, respectively explained below in questions (1), (2), and (3), concerning the use of brackets in citing the authorship of a subspecific trivial name when that name appears in combination with the same generic name but not in precisely the same relationship as originally used. That prominent taxonomists do not agree on any of the three points is clearly indicated by the below-cited examples of conflicting practice taken from the well-known check lists of Stejneger and Barbour (1933, A Check List of North American Amphibians and Reptiles), Peters (1931, Check-List of Birds of the World 1), and Miller (1924, " List of North American Recent Mammals 1923 ", Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 128). Question (1) When a name, used at first only as a specific trivial name, later appears in repeti- tion as specific trivial and subspecific trivial names, but in combination with the original generic name, should the name of the author be cited in brackets ? Conflicting examples in current usage : (a) A subspecies of Rana aurora Baird & Girard, 1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 6 : 174, is hated by Stejneger and Barbour (1933 : 39) as " Rana aurora aurora (Baird and Girard) " ; whereas (b) A subspecies of Didelphis virginiana Kerr, 1792, Anim. Kingd. : 193, is hsted as " Didelphis virginiana virginiana Kerr " by Miller (1924 : 3). Question (2) When a name, used originally as a specific trivial name, appears as a subspecific trivial name in combination with a different specific trivial name but in the same genus, should the author name be enclosed in brackets ? Conflicting examples in current usage : (a) Batrachoseps leucopus Dunn, 1922, Copeia 109 : 60, is listed by Stejneger and Barbour (1933 : 9) as " Batrachoseps attenuatus leucopus (Dunn) ", whereas (b) Mergus americanus Cassin, 1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 6 : 187, is listed by Peters (1931 : 187) as " Mergus merganser americanus Cassin ". Question (3) When a name, used originally as a subspecific trivial name, appears in combination with a different specific trivial name but in the same genus, should the author citation occur in brackets ? Conflicting examples in current usage : (a) Didelphis marsupialis tabascensis Allen, 1901, Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 14 : 173, is listed by Miller (1924 : 3) as " Didelphis mesamericana tabascensis (Allen) ", whereas (b) Buteo japonicus toyoshimai Momiyama, 1927, Annot. Om. orient., Tokyo 1 : 73, is listed as ^^ Buteo bunnanicus toyoshima Momiyama" by Peters (1931 : 236). BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (AUGUST 1945.) 92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Althougli these authorities usually agree in the manner of citing author names, it will be noted that no two of them are in agreement on all three of the points imder consideration. The difficulties arise, apparently, from the fact that the meaning of Article 11, especially in its bearing on Article 23, is not precisely clear. ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 23 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE IN CASES WHERE A SPECIES IS ORIGINALLY DESCRIBED AS BEING BOTH IN A GENUS AND IN A SUBGENUS AND LATER THE SUBGENUS IS ELEVATED TO GENERIC RANK AND THE SPECIES IS TRANSFERRED TO THE GENUS SO ERECTED By C. F. W. MuESEBECK. {Officer in Charge, Division of Insect Identification, United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)128.) Article 23 provides that " when a species is transferred to another than the original genus, or the specific name is combined with any other generic name than that with which it was originally published, the name of the author is to be retained but placed in parentheses ".^ A species of teypetidae (Order Diptera) was described under the designa- tion Anastrepha {Pseudodacxis) macrura Hendel, 1914, Wien. ent. Ztg, 33 (1/2) : 66. It is now proposed to elevate Pseiidodacus Hendel, 1914, Wien. ent. Ztg, 33 (1/2) : 66, to generic status, and the question has been raised as to the applicability of Article 23 in this case. Is the trivial name to be con- sidered as being combined with a new generic name when the subgenus in which it was originally described is elevated to generic rank? We are very frequently confronted with cases of exactly this type and the members of our staff have been divided in dealing with them, some considering the subgeneric name to be a part of the generic name and to have full generic significance in nomenclatorial treatment, others contending that the very fact that the sub- generic name was placed in parentheses indicates that it did not form a part of the original binomial, especially since Article 10 provides that the subgeneric name may or may not be cited. The first group therefore would omit paren- theses from the author name when the subgeneric name is made generic, while the second group would use parentheses. ^ The French text of the Code is the sole authentic text, the Enghsh, German and Italian texts being only translations of the French text. The substantive French text of paragraph (1) of Article 23 (the passage here quoted) reads as follows :— Quand une espece est transferee dans un genre autre que celui ou son auteur I'avait placee, ou quand le nom specifique est combine avec un nom g^nerique autre que celui auquel il dtait primitivement accoM, le nom de I'auteur de ce nom specifique est conserve dans la notation, mais mis entre parentheses. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 93 PROPOSAL TO DELETE ARTICLE 23 FROM THE INTERNATIONAL CODE Resolution adopted by the American Malacological Union (communicated by Mrs. Harold E. Robertson, Financial Secretary, American Malacological Union). (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)142.) Whereas the practice of placing the names of authors of species in paren- theses has ceased to be of any practical value and causes endless research on the part of taxonomists, therefore, be it Resolved, that the American Malacological Union recommend to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature the wisdom of eliminat- ing, in future, the use of such parentheses. ON THE QUESTION WHETHER A GENERIC, OR A SPECIFIC, NAME BASED UPON THE WORK OF AN ANIMAL BUT NOT ON THE ANIMAL ITSELF HAS ANY STANDING UNDER ARTICLE 25 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE By J. Chester Bradley. {Professor of Entomology aiid Curator of Invertebrate Zoology, New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell University, Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, Ithaca, N.Y.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)140.) M. V. Walker (" Evidence of Triassic insects in the Petrified Forest National Monument, Arizona ", 1938, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 85 (No. 3033) : 137-14:1) has described three new alleged genera involving five new alleged species of beetles {Paleobuprestis maxima; P. minima; Paleoscolytus divergus; Paleoi- pidits perforatus ; and P. marginatus). No specimen of these insects has ever been seen by human eyes, and no description whatsoever is given of any one of their life-stages. In connection with the name of each alleged species is given a description of certain channels, cuttings and castings found in petrified Triassic trees and ascribed to the larvae ; nothing further. Opinion 2 of the International Commission states that : " Names based upon hypothetical forms have no status in nomenclature . . ." ^ A similar situation arises in connection with gall insects, where authors have sometimes based alleged species names on description^ of the galls. A. C. Kinsey (" The gall wasp genus Cynips . . ." Indiana University, Bloom- ington, Ind., 1930, 578 pp., incl. front., pi. {Indiana Univ. Studies, vol. 26. Studies Nos. 84, 85, 86 ; Waterman Institute for Scientific Research, Publication No. 42 ; Contribution from the Department of Zoology, Indiana University, No. 220, Entomological Series No. 7)) listing pre-occupied names in Cynips states : " Names applied to galls only . . . have not been considered to have nomenclatorial standing and are not included in this list ". * See 1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 87-94. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (AUGUST 1945.) 94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Is it the opinion of the International Commission that such names as these, based on the description of the work of an animal, but not of the animal itself, have any nomenclatorial standing whatsoever ? The burrows of many species of Scolytidae are characteristic of the species that made them, and so are the galls produced by insects and mites. Likewise many nests, tracks, and other structures may be readily associated by an expert with the species that produced them. But they are not the creatures and it is theoretically untenable to use them as the sole basis of specific description. To those who would from a practical or realistic view-point adopt such names, on the ground that we know what animal was intended, it may be replied that it is not always clear with what degree of certainty we do. In describing; for example, poly form gall of Cynips pezoTnachoides, Kinsey (1930, loo. dt. : 3T5) says : " The gall characters may bear no more relation to the iQsect characters than the color of a man's eyes bears to his height." Is it better that such alleged genera as Paleobuprestis Walker, 1938, Paleo- scolytus Walker, 1938, and Paleoipidus Walker, 1938, should be given nomen- clatorial status, and stand as hypothetical forms, the status of which can never be resolved from any knowledge of their morphology, than it is to have different types of biirrows made by beetle larvae in Triassic tree-trunks described and figured but left without names ? ON THE STATUS, UNDER ARTICLE 25 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE, OF GENERIC NAMES WHERE THE GENERA CONCERNED ARE FOUNDED UPON FIGURES ONLY By Harald a. Kehder. (Assistant Curator, Division of Mollusks, Smithsonian Institution, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)68.) Is a genus based solely on one or more recognisable figures validly proposed ? A great many of the plates of the molluscan part of the Encyclopedie niethodique, which was begun by Brugiere and continued by Lamarck (for bibliographical data, see Sherborn and Woodward, 1906, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7) 17 : 577-582), were published a number of years before the accompanying explanations or text appeared. These plates were inscribed at the top with the name of the genus to which the shells depicted below belonged. Among these generic names are several which make their first appearance in Literature in this fashion. In Opinion 1 ^ a published figure is construed to be included under the term " indication " of Article 25 (a) as regards specific names,* but it is not mentioned in connection with generic names. ^ See 1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 73-86. * The intention of Opinion 1 in the passage here referred to is to define the status not of " specific names " (i.e. combinations of generic and trivial names) but of " trivial names " (i.e. the second only of the two terms which together under Article 2 of the Code constitute the binominal combination of which every " sj)ecific name " is necessarily composed). See Note 4 to Opinion 1 (1944, loc. cit. 1 : 78-79). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 96 From Opinion 46 we might conclude that such names are valid, the fourth paragraph of the " Discussion " reading as follows : — " If an author clearly shows that the name he proposed is to be applied in a generic sense, and if this sense is uninomial, the name in question becomes available under the Code, for his paper shows that he applied the principles of binary nomenclature,^ although he may have failed to name the species." Brugiere's names are undoubtedly generic, and under this interpretation would be available. These genera in question have generally been accepted by Dall, and others, as dating from these plates, but Winckworth (1934, J. Conch. 20 (2) : 52) has disputed their validity. A ruling on this question is very desirable. ON THE PROBLEM RAISED BY DR. HARALD A. REHDER REGARDING THE STATUS OF GENERIC NAMES WHERE THE GENERA CONCERNED ARE FOUNDED UPON FIGURES ONLY By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. {Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)68.) The problem of the status of generic names, where the genera concerned are founded upon figures only, which has been raised by Dr. Harald H. Rehder, is not a single homogeneous problem but in fact consists of three problems, namely : — (1) The status of a generic name published on or after 1st January 1931, where the name is that of a genus founded upon figures (illustrations) only ; (2) The status of a generic name published on or before 31st December 1930, where the name is that of a genus founded upon figures (illus- trations) only, but whei^e there is a " definite citation or designation of a type species ", i.e. where (a) a type is designated by the author, or (b) the species figtu^ed, or one of the species figured, is figured under the specific trivial name " typicus " or "typus", (c) the tjrpe is fixed by absolute tautonymy, or (d) the genus is monotypical, only one species being figured under the generic name ; (3) The status of a generic name published on or before 31st December 1930, where the name is that of a genus founded upon figures (illustra- tions) only, and where (a) two or more species are figured under the generic name in question and (b) no species is cited or designated as the type of the genus. 2. Names falling in class (1) above require, in order to be valid, to satisfy the requirements of proviso (c) added to Article 25 of the International Code by the Tenth International Congress of Zoology at Budapest in 1927. Under that proviso, which became operative as from midnight 31st December 1930/lst January 1931, a generic name would not be valid if published on a plate without a summary of characters of the genus and the definite unambiguous ^ The meaning of the expression " nomenclature hinaire " is at present sub judice. See the paper by the Secretary to the International Commission on pp. 108 to 111 below. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL, (AUGUST 1945.) 7* 96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. designation of the type species. (For the text of proviso (c) to Article 25, see 1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 77.) 3. Names falling in classes (2) and (3) above are not subject to the proviso (c) to Article 25, since they were published before the date on which that pro\aso came into operation. In order to ascertain whether a name falling in either class (2) or class (3) is a valid name, it is necessary to determine whether it was pubUshed with an " indication " within the meaning of proviso (a) to Article 25, since ex hypothesi no such name was published with either a " definition " or a " description ". The meaning to be attached to the expres- sion " indication " as used in the foregoing proviso is laid down in Opinion 1 (see 1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 73-86). It will be seen, by reference to Opinion 1, that a name belonging to class (2) was published with an " indica- tion " and, therefore, satisfies the requirements of proviso (a) to Article 25. Such a name must accordingly be taken into consideration as potentially available under the Law of Priority. This does not mean that the name is necessarily an available name, since it may be unavailable for some other reason, for example by being invalid, as a homonym, under Article 34. 4. A name falling in class (3) does not satisfy any of the requirements of Opinion 1 and the natural conclusion is, therefore, that such a name is a name pubUshed without an " indication " and therefore a name which is not avail- able, since it does not satisfy the requirements of proviso (a) to Article 25. It might be argued, however, that since " a published figure (illustration) " is accepted in Opinion 1 as constituting an " indication " in the case of a specific trivial name, the omission, in that Opinion, of a corresponding provision in the case of generic names was due to inadvertence. This is a question on which it is most desirable that any doubts should be laid to rest at the earliest possible moment and Dr. Eehder's application to the Commission provides a convenient opportunity for the Commission to reach a decision on this ques- tion. (This is a question which constantly confronts the systematist and on ■which, for his own work, he has to form a conclusion one way or the other. In my own work, I have hitherto concluded that the definition of the expres- sion " indication ", as applied to a generic name, given in Opinion 1 is what it purports to be, namely an exhaustive definition and therefore that nothing wluch is not iucluded in that definition can be accepted as constituting an " iadication ". Accordingly, as will be seen from my paper on certain names published almost simultaneously by Fabricius and Illiger,^ I have treated as unavailable under the Code certain names published by IlUger without a designated type and with more than one included species. Naturally, however, I shall review my conclusions in that and similar cases, in the light of what- ever conclusion the International Commission may reach in regard to the general question of principle raised by Dr. Rehder.) ' The paper here referred to will be published in an early Part of this journal. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 97 ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 25 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE IN RELATION TO THE AUTHOR TO WHOM SHOULD BE ATTRIBUTED A SPECIFIC OR SUBSPECIFIC TRIVIAL NAME ORIGINALLY PUB- LISHED CONDITIONALLY : CASE OF HALICTUS MORBILLOSUS AEGYPTIELLUS (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) By T. D. A. COCKERELL. {University of Colorado, Boulder, Col.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)45.) In 1909, Archiv Naturgesch. 75 (Bd. 1) : 11-12, E. Strand described a race from Egypt of the bee Halictus morbillosus Kirchbauxner, 1873, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 23 : 61. Strand added : — " Ob die agyptiscbe Form schliesslich als distinkt abzutrennen ware, lasst sich nach diesem Material nicht mit Sicberheit entscbeiden ; eventuell moge sie den Namen aegyptiellus m. bekom- men." Later (1924, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (9) 14 : 582), I bad occasion to give a synopsis of the races of Halictus morbillosus, and included aegyptiellus as if validly published by Strand. More recently, Bluthgen and Alfken, having concluded that the name aegyptiellus represents a distinct species, have cited it as Halictus aegyptiellus Cockerell. This appears to me inadmissible; but it would be useful to obtain a ruUng on the point from the International Commission. ON THE STATUS, UNDER ARTICLE 25 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE, OF THE NAMES OF SPECIES OF PARASITES PUBLISHED, PRIOR TO 1ST JANUARY 1931, WITH NO DESCRIPTION, DEFINITION, OR INDI- CATION OTHER THAN THE NAME OF THE HOST By Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.K.S. (British Museum {Natural History), The Zoological Museum, Tring). (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)167.) Miss Theresa Clay, British Museimi (Natural History), has asked me to place before the International Commission the case of the names of external parasites pubUshed with no description, except such as is provided by the name of the host. Numerous names of this kind were published in the Order Mallophaga (Class Insecta) by Nitzsch, 1818, in Germar, Mag. Ent. 3 : 290-305. The following are examples of new trivial names published in this way by Nitzsch in the new genus Philoptems Nitzsch, 1818, ibid. 3 : 281, 288 : — Ph. pertusus (Fulicae atrae) Ph. melanocephalus (Larorum et Sternarum) Ph. auratus (Scolopac. rusticolae) Ph. latifrons (Cuculi eujopaei). In the above cases there is given no description or definition ; no figure is given; and no bibliographical reference is given to any such description, BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL, (AUGUST 1945.) 98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. definition or figure. The name of the host or the names of the hosts are the sole indication given of the identity of the new species named. A similar example is provided by the list of mammals and birds on which epizoa are found pubUshed by Gurtl, 1857, Arch. Naturgesch. 23 (No. 1) : 276-311, in which new names of parasitic insects are published without any indication of the species concerned, other than that provided by the name of the host. Under the name '■' Mustela vulgaris ",'' for instance, there is Pulex mustelae Schill., a new name for a flea. SchilHng was responsible for some of the new names in this paper. A trivial name published for a parasite -nath no indication other than that afforded by the name of the host seems to me to be in a position exactly similar to that of a trivial name published for a non-parasitic species with no indication other than that afforded by the type locality. In the last-named case, the International Commission have already, in Opinion 52, laid it down that the citation of a type locality unaccompanied by any other indication is insufficient to render a name available under proviso (a) to Article 25 of the Code. Accord- ingly, I now petition the Commission to render a complementary Opinion, laying it down that the citation of the name of a host unaccompanied by any other indication is insufficient to render a trivial name for a parasite available under pro\aso (a) to Article 25. The Opinion asked for relates only to trivial names published on, or before, 31st December 1930, the last day prior to the coming into force of the amendment to Article 25 agreed upon by the Tenth International Congress of Zoology at Budapest in 1927, since clearly no trivial name published after that date with no indication other than the name of the host satisfies the requirements of proviso (c) then added to Article 25. THE PROCEDURE PROPOSED TO BE ADOPTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE IN PREPARING THE REPORT ASKED FOR BY THE TWELFTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY IN REGARD TO THE MEANING TO BE ATTACHED TO THE EXPRESSION " NOMENCLATURE BIN AIRE " IN THE INTER- NATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE AND ON MATTERS INCIDENTAL THERETO By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. {Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)112.) At the meeting held at Padua on 10th September 1930, of the Section on Nomenclature of the Eleventh International Congress of Zoology, a proposal regarding the meaning to be attached to the expression " nomenclature binaire " as used in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature was brought forward by the late Dr. Walther Horn (Berlin). The Resolution so brought for^vard (which later came to be known as the " Horn Resolution ") was put to the vote at the meeting of the Section on Nomenclature and was carried by a majority. ' Gurtl gave neither the name of the author nor a bibliographical reference for the host species which he cit«d. The species here intended is Mustela vulgaris Schreber, [1776], Die Sdugthiere 3 : pi. 138; [1777], ibid. 3 : 498. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 99 2. The Standing Orders of the International Congress contained no pro- visions for dealing with resolutions carried by a majority vote at meetings of Sections of the Congress. Accordingly, the resolution referred to above was dealt with in the same way as that laid down for resolutions adopted unani- mously by Sections of the Congress. It was, therefore, reported to the Secretary-General of the Congress for the purpose of being brought before the whole Congress at the final Concilium Plenum. In accordance with the established procedure of the Congress, no discussion of resolutions so brought forward is permitted, the Congress being asked to signify by a show of hands whether or not they approve and adopt the resolutions in question. Under this procedure, the resolution in regard to the meaning of the expression " nomenclature binaire " adopted by the Section on Nomenclature was brought before the final Concilium Plenum of the Eleventh International Congress of Zoology, by which, on a show of hands, it was adopted by a majority. 3. At their meeting held during the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at Lisbon in" September 1935, the Permanent Committee of the Inter- national Zoological Congresses had under consideration the action to be taken in the light of the resolution adopted at Padua in 1930. After full considera- tion, the Permanent Committee agreed to refer back to the President of the Section on Nomenclature (Section XII) of the Lisbon Congress for further study the questions raised by the Padua resolution. On receiving this request from the Permanent Committee, the President of the Section on Nomenclature decided to submit the issues involved to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for deliberation and report. 4. The foregoing request by the President of the Section on Nomenclature was reported to the International Commission at their meeting held on the morning of Wednesday, 18th September 1935. The following is an extract from the portion of the Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission dealing with this matter (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclu- sion 3, published in 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 45) : — THE COMJIISSION :— (a) took note of the above statement by the President of the Commission; (b) agreed to take into consideration after the Congress the question in regard to the definition of binary nomenclature dealt with in the so-called " Horn Resolution " voted upon at the Eleventh International Congress of Zoology held at Padua in 1930 and, in accordance with the request of the President of Section XII of the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, to whom the matter had been referred by the Permanent Committee of the International Zoological Con- gresses, to submit a report thereon to the International Congress of Zoology at its next meeting; (c) agreed to include a paragraph recording the foregoing decision in the report now to be submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. 5. The report imanimously adopted by the International Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 5) for submission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology contained the following paragraph dealing with this subject : — 14. The method of dealing with the so-called " Horn Resolution " relating to the definition of binary nomenclature, voted upon at the meeting of the International Zoological Congress held at Padua in 1930, has been considered by the Permanent Committee of the International Zoological Congresses during the Lisbon meeting, and that body has referred the question dealt with in that resolution back to the Chairman of the Section on Nomenclature at the Lisbon Congress for further > study. The Chairman of that Section has, in turn, submitted it to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for deliberation and report. The matter will accordingly be further considered by the Commission in due course. 100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 6. The report of the International Commission was considered on the afternoon of Wednesday, 18th September 1935, at the Public Meeting of the Commission, held jointly with the Section on Nomenclature (Section XII) of the Congress. After discussion, the Commission's report was unanimously approved by the Meeting, both as the Public Meeting of the International Commission (Lisbon Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 3, published in 1943, Bidl. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 51) and as Section XII of the Congress, for submission to the ConciUum Plenum of the International Congress of Zoology to be held on Saturday, 21st September 1935. 7. The report of the International Commission was unanimously approved and adopted by the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at the Con- cilium Plenum held on 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress (see 1943, BiiU. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 63). 8. A special report on the questions raised by the " Horn Resolution " will accordingly be prepared by the International Commission for submission to the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology. The main issues which will need to be dealt with in that report are the following : — (1) What is the meaning which, under a due construction of the wording employed in the Regies Internationales de la Nomenclature zoologique, is properly applicable to the expression " nomenclature binaire " as used in those Regies ? (2) In the light of the answer to be given to question (1) above, is it desir- able to make any, and, if so, what, changes in the wording of the relevant provision of the Regies Internationales for the purpose either of clarifying, or altering, the meaning of the Regies, as respects the ex- pression " nomenclature binaire " ? (3) Is it desirable that any, and, if so, what, provisions should be incor- porated in the Standing Orders of the International Zoological Con- gresses governing the procedure to be followed as regards (a) the bring- ing forward of resolutions in the Sections of the Congress, (b) the putting of such resolutions to the vote at meetings of Sections, and (c) the subsequent handling of resolutions adopted, either unanimously or by a majority, by Sections of the Congress ? 9. Owing to the outbreak of war in 1939, no conclusions of even the most provisional or tentative character have yet been reached by the International Commission on any of the foregoing aspects of the question referred to them. It is very desirable, however, that, as soon as may be practicable after the war, progress should be made in the consideration of this important subject. For this purpose, the Executive Committee of the International Commission are anxious to begin at once the collection and collation of the factual material which the International Commission will need to have before them when considering this question. 10. Accordingly, the Executive Committee of the International Com- mission invite specialists in all groups in the Animal Kingdom to assist the International Commission in this important investigation by furnishing them with the following material as respects the literature covering their own speciality (Phylum, Class or Order, as the case may be) : — (A) a statement giving the name of the author, the date of publication, and the title of the principal works and papers dealing with their Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 101 speciality in which the system of nomenclature employed for species is not strictly binominal ; Note : — Where a given work falling in the above class deals with a wider field than that of a particular worker's speciality, it is requested that the work in question should be included in the statement to be furnished but that a note should be added indicating that it deals also with other divisions of the Animal Kingdom. (B) a note showing, as respects each of the works enumerated in the list referred to in (A) above, the extent to which new generic names pub- lished in that work are in general use in the systematic literature of the group concerned ; (C) an estimate of the extent to which existing nomenclatorial practice in the group concerned would need to be changed and confusion would be likely to arise if the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature were amended, in order to make it clear : — Either (i) that generic names are to be accepted as available under Article 25, when published before 1st January 1931 (or such earlier date as it may be found convenient to select) in a work in which the author clearly employed for species a system of nomenclature which recognised the existence of two categories (namely the genus and the species), but which was not consistently binominal in character ; Note : — The date 1st January 1931 is clearly the latest date which could be selected for such a purpose, since every generic name published after that date now needs to satisfy the rigorous provisions contained in proviso (c) added to Article 25 of the Code at Budapest in 1927 (see 1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 73-86). Or (ii) that no generic name is to be accepted as available under Article 25, unless throughout the work in which that name is published the author clearly accepts a system of nomenclature which, as respects species, is strictly binominal in character. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (AUGUST 1945.) 102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. ON THE MEANING TO BE ATTACHED TO THE EXPRESSION " LE PLUS AXCIEXXEMENT DESIG\]& " USED IN ARTICLE 25 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE CASE OF OPHIOTAEXIA RANARUM IWATA AND MATUDA, 1938, AND OPHIOTAEXIA RAXAE YAMAGUTI, 1938 (CLASS CESTOIDEA, ORDER TETRAPHYLLIDEA) By Satyu Yamaguti, M.D. (Lecturer i7i Parasitology, Kyoto Imperial University, Japan.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)125.) May I ask for an Opinion on the priority of the names proposed for the same species on the following dates : — (1) " Ophiotaenia ranarum Iwata et Matuda, 1938 ", described by Iwata and Matuda in Japanese in Nippon Dohutii Bunrui, Volume 4, Part 3, published on 9th March 1938 (translation of their original (then unpub- lished) English paper). (2) '■ Ophiotaenia ranae n. sp.", described by myself in English in the Japanese Journal of Zoology, Volume 7, Part 4, published on 30th March 1938. (3) " Ophiotaenia ranarum n. sp.", described by Iwata and Matuda in EngUsh in the Zoological Magazine, Volume 50, Part 4, pubhshed on 15th April 1938. ON THE STATUS, UNDER ARTICLE 25 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE, OF SPECIFIC NAMES PUBLISHED WITH DESCRIPTIONS BUT WITH- OUT COMPARISON WITH ALLIED SPECIES By H. B. HUNGERFORD. {Department of Entomology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.) (Commission's reference Z.N. (S.) 61.) According to pro-\nso (c) to Article 25 of the Kules of Zoological Nomen- clature,^ new species must be compared with others, etc. During the past year we have seen any number of descriptions such as the following pubhshed by Auten (M.) & Johnson (D. M.), 1936, Annals of the Entomological Society of America 29 : 62 : — Erythroneura contrasta n. sp. (Fig. 3) Background of vortex and pronotum yellowish white, vittae of head, pronotum and scutellum orange, of elytra scarlet. Vertex with even-sided inverted V, arms very slightlj' broadened toward eyes ; vittae continued across pronotum, inner margins parallel, outer diverging, at posterior margin equal in width to basal angles of scutel- lum ; scutellum, basal angles yellow orange, tip orange ; elytra, inner vittae sharply defined, bright and even, costal margin washed with translucent orange yellow, three dusty spots, the outer large, before crossveins; apical cells fumose. Below creamy, washed with orange on face, some outer spines on hind tibiae dark. Length 3 mm. Genitalia: Style slender with rather large, heavy foot; heel large, projecting; * For the text of proviso (c) to Article 25, see 1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 77. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 103 base somewhat convexly curved ; anterior point projecting cephalad, short and sharp • posterior point heavy as long as base, its outer margin in straight line with that of anterior pomt, pointed at apex, widening rapidly on outer half, then parallel-sided to base ; oedagus m lateral view long, stout at base, curved dorsad, a pair of lateral leaf- ■ like expansions at apex; outer fourth narrowing gradually to apex; pair of slender, foSrthSflfs feTt^^^ ^^"^ ^''^* ''^''*''**^ ^ ^^*^* ^'''^ ^""^"^^ '* ""^^^^y ^°'' ^^■ One male (holotype), two females (allotype and paratype), on Japonica, iv-6-34. iQof^/n7'^"'f *° the Rules, may Erythroneura contrasta Auten & Johnson 19db (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera Homoptera) be itrnored ? If during the same year but later month, another named the same insect should not the latter name stand if it fulfils the rules ? ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 34 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE IN RELATION TO A GENERIC NAME IDENTICAL WITH A NAME f,?JJi°^i^^ PUBLISHED FOR A GENUS IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM, WHERE THAT GENUS HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE VEGETABLE KINGDOM IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 1 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission, on Zoological Nomenclature.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)155.) The substantive French text ^ of Article 1 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature reads as follows :— n.J'Z!'^^ ^^ Nomenclature zoologique est independante de la Nomenclature botani- que en ce sens qu un nom d'ammal ne peut etre rejete pour ce seul motif qu'il est identique a un nom de plante. ^ botiSmSMr^*'^ ^'* transpose du Regne vegetal dans le Regne animal, ses noms prS iiicorpores a la Nomenclature zoologique avec tous leurs droits a la oini?! f! T ^*^f sttransporte du Regne animal dans le Regne vegetal, ses noms zoolo- giques sont maintenus dans la Nomenclature zoologique. » ^"uio 2. The substantive French text » of Article 34 of the International Code -ot Zoological Nomenclature reads as follows :— r,r<;.^M~^°"V''°™ generique est rejete comme homonyme, quand il a ete employe precedemment pour quelque autre genre d'animaux. ^ '^ *" t^mpioye ov f{J^ question has arisen as to the way in which the provisions of Article 34 ^hall be mterpreted m the case where a generic name is pubUshed for a genus ?.'??/ ^i^.r^^.^ belong to the Animal Kingdom, but subsequently is transferred to the \egetable Kmgdom, and later the same word is pubHshed ^s the name of another genus in the Animal Kingdom. Is the later name so pubhshed an available name m view of the fact that at the time of its publica- tion there was no genus in the Animal Kingdom possessing that name, the only earher genus of that name having been transferred to the Vegetable Kmgdom? Or IS the later generic name invalid as a homonym under Article 34, m view of the fact that at some earlier date, though not at the NnT^-iof ^ °^ "Sp^!^' *^f only substantive text of the International Code of Zoological BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (AUGUST 1945.) 104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. date on whicli the later name was published, there had been a genus possessing the same name which it had then been believed (though erroneously) belonged to the Animal Kingdom ? 4. The practical difficulties — and the risk of confusion^arising from the present state of doubt in this matter are well exemplified in the case of the generic name (Oscillaria) used in the original description of Oscillaria malariae Laveran, 1881, the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite. The facts of that case are given in detail in my forthcoming paper on the nomenclature of that Parasite and the Quartan Malaria Parasite. ^^ The point at issue is brought out in the following summary : — (1) In 1823 Schrank {Nova Acta Acad. Caes. Leopold. Carol. 11 (No. 2) : 533) proposed the name Oscillaria for a genus which on balance he believed to be a genus belonging to the Animal Kingdom. (2) Later, it was found that the genus Oscillaria Schrank, 1823, was not a genus of animals but a genus of algae; in consequence, the name Oscillaria Schrank, 1823, was transferred to the Vegetable Kingdom. At this stage, therefore, there was no genus in the Animal Kingdom possessing the name Oscillaria. (3) In 1881 Laveran (Nature parasit. Accid. Impaludisme : 87) described as Oscillaria malariae the species now known to be the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite. In doing so, Laveran made it clear that he regarded the above organism as belonging to the Animal Kingdom. (4) Laveran did not indicate whether he regarded the genus Oscillaria as a new generic name or whether he considered that his new species belonged to the genus Oscillaria Schrank, 1823, and therefore described it under that generic name. 5. If at the time of the publication in 1881 of Laveran's paper the genus Oscillaria Schrank, 1823, had still been a genus in the Animal Kingdom, Laveran's action in placing the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite in this genus (if that is what Laveran then conceived himself as doing) would have been a taxonomic error but it would not have created any nomenclatorial problem, since he would not have created a new genus (having the name Oscillaria) in the Animal Kingdom. 6. If at the time of the publication in 1881 of Laveran's paper the genus Oscillaria Schrank, 1823, had still been a genus in the Animal Kingdom and if Laveran had conceived himself to have erected on that occasion a new genus having the name Oscillaria, no nomenclatorial difficulty would have arisen, since clearly under Article 34 of the Code the name Oscillaria Laveran, 1881, would have been a homonym of Oscillaria Schrank, 1823, and therefore an invalid name. 7. If at the time of the publication in 1881 of Laveran's paper there never had been a genus in the Animal Kingdom named Oscillaria, the name Oscillaria Laveran, 1881, would have been an available name nomenclatorially, since,, being a monotypical genus (type : Oscillaria rnalariae Laveran, 1881), it would have been a generic name published with an " indication " as that expression is defined in Opinion 1.^^ 8. The question now to be settled is whether the name Oscillaria is avail- able for a genus in the Phylum Protozoa or whether, having regard to the 1" The paper here referred to will be published in an early Part of this journal. *^ See 1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 73-86. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 105 fact that, before its transfer to the Vegetable Kingdom, there had been a prior generic name Oscillaria (i.e. Oscillaria Schrank, 1823) in the Animal Kingdom, the name Oscillaria Laveran, 1881, is invalid as a homon)^! under Article 34 of the Code. 9. It might be argued that, as Article 34 speaks only of the situation arising when a generic name has been " employe precedemment pour quelque autre genre d'animaux ", and as, in fact, the name Oscillaria had been applied by Schrank to a genus of plants (doubtfully, and as it now appears mistakenly, treated by him to be animals), Article 34 does not apply to the name Oscillaria Laveran, 1881, there being no previously published genus of animals having that name. If this is the correct interpretation of Article 34, that Article has no bearing on a generic name, where the only previously published generic name consisting of the same word has been found to be a genus of plants, not of animals, and has accordingly been transferred from the Animal Kingdom (to which, in fact, it never belonged) to the Vegetable Kingdom in accordance with the provisions of Article 1 . 10. On the other hand, it might also be argued that in this matter the operative portion of the Code is not Article 34 but Article 1 and that, in view of the provision in the last sentence of that Article that, where " un etre est transporte du Regne animal dans le Regne vegetal, ses noms zoologiques sont maintenus dans la Nomenclature zoologique ", a genus transferred to the Vege- table Kingdom in this way nevertheless retains its status in zoological literature to the extent that, for the purpose of Article 34, the name of the genus con- cerned is still to be treated as the name of a genus in the Animal Kingdom. If this is the correct interpretation of these two Articles of the Code, then it would be entirely immaterial for the purpose of Article 34 whether or not the older of any given pair of generic names was the name of a genus which, at some time subsequent to its original publication, had been transferred from the Animal Kingdom to the Vegetable Kingdom; in either case the existence in zoological literature of the older of the two generic names would render the later published of the two names invalid as a homonym. On the basis of this argument, the name Oscillaria Laveran, 1881, is an invalid name by reason of being a homonym oi' Oscillaria Schrank, 1823, notwithstanding the fact that at the time of the publication of Laveran's paper there was no genus in the Animal Kingdom possessing the name Oscillaria, the genus of that name described by Schrank in 1823 having been transferred to the Vegetable Kingdom, where it properly belongs. 11. From the theoretical standpoint, the interpretation indicated in para- graph 10 above appears to be the correct one, since the opposite interpretation would make it impossible for circumstances ever to arise in which the provisions of paragraph (3) of Article 1 would be applicable, a result which would be mani- festly contrary to the intentions of the framers of the Code. From the practical point of view also, there can be no doubt that the balance of advantage lies in favour of the interpretation set out in paragraph 10 above, since if the opposite interpretation {i.e. that set out in paragraph 9 above) were declared to be the correct interpretation, there would always be some risk of confusion, as it would be possible to establish a genus with a nomenclatorially available name, although that same name had previously been published as the name of a genus believed (though erroneously) to be a genus in the Animal Kingdom, where that genus had later been transferred to the Vegetable Kingdom. 12. This is clearly a case where it is desirable that all doubts regarding the meaning of the Code should be set aside by an authoritative ruling and I BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (AUGUST 1945.) 106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. accordingly invite the International Commission to adopt an Opinion making it clear that, for the purposes of Article 34, the expression " employe precedem- ment pour quelque autre genre d'animaTix " applies not only to a name " pre- viously employed for some other genus of animals " but also to a name " pre- viously employed for a genus of plants where at the time in question that genus was believed to be a genus of animals ", ON THE QUESTION OF RECOGNISING " NEOTYPES " By Don L. Frizzell and Harry E. Wheeler. (Stanford University, California.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)24.) In a case in which the original tjrpes of a species " A " are lost or otherwise unavailable, and in which two or more species — all fitting the description of species " A " — occur at the type locality, can the identity of species " A " be established by the designation of one or more neotypes * ? If so, should the terms " neoholotype " and " neoparatype " (corresponding to " holotype " and " paratype " in the original type material) be employed ? If the designa- tion of " neotypes " is not accepted, how is the identity of species " A " to be determined 1 The following case is submitted to the Commission in the hope of obtaining a ruling on the validity of the term " neotype " and the principle involved, rather than merely to solve the specific problem ofiered by the following example. Example. — Shumard, writing in 1858, Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis 1 : 297 (pubhshed in 1860), described Fusulina elongata as follows : — Shell nearly cylindrical, very slender and much elongated, pointed at the extremi- ties, which are slightly curved; chambers very numerous; aperture very narrow, linear, extending the entire length. Surface covered with fine, somewhat flexuous striae. Dimensions. — Length, from one to two inches; width, fpom one to two lines. This species is at once distinguished from F. cyKndrica by its remarkable length. Occurs in the White Limestone [Capitan formation]. Dark Limestone and Sand- stone [Delaware Mountain formation] of the Guadalupe Mountains of New Mexico and Texas. No illustration accompanies Shumard's original description, and his types, unfortunately, have been lost. There are at least seven species, belonging to two genera, at the type locality of " J." elongata Shumard, all answering to the original description (according to J. Skinner, letter to H. E. Wheeler, dated 15th June 1932). Skinner also * The term " neotype " was proposed by Cossmann (1896, Essais de Paleoconchologie comparee 2 : 2) in two senses; first, as a genotype by subsequent designation or elimina- tion ; and second, as a specimen from the type locality of a species, chosen as type of that species in the event of loss or destruction of the original types. The second use of the term was adopted by Schuchert (1905, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 53 (1) : 13) and is in somewhat general use among paleontologists. The term was recommended by Banks and Caudell {Entmnological Code) but has not been recognised, as far as we know, by the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. Howell (1929, Bull. geol. Soc. Amer. 40 : 219) proposed the term " neoholotype " to apply to a specimen of the neotype series corresponding to the holotype in the original type material. Plummer and Howell (1932, Bull. geol. Soc. Amer. 43 : 266) proposed the term " neoparatj^pe " which is to bear the same relationship to " neoholotype " that " paratype " bears to " holot3T)e ". Both are special kinds of neotypes. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 107 states in the letter that Girty (1908, U.S. geol. Surv., Prof. Paper 58 : 62), in his figures and description of " F." elongata Shumard, based on specimens from the type locality, includes at least four species belonging to two genera. Dunbar and Skinner (1931, Amer. J. Sci. (5) 22 : 262) rejected the name " F.'' elongata Shumard, reasoning that : " Since several species and at least two genera occur within the stratigraphical limits indicated, all of which fall within the extremes of the dimensions given, there is no possibility of deciding which was actually described by Shumard ". These authors propose the genera Parafusulina Dunbar & Skinner 1931, Amer. J. Sci. (5) 22 : 252, and Polydiexodina Dunbar & Skinner 1931, ibid. (5) 22 : 252, with the new species Parafusulina wordensis, Polydiexodina capitanensis and Polydiexodina shumardi. The latter two species were described from the type locality of " F." elongata Shumard ; and the text strongly suggests that the first, P. wordensis, also occurs there. Discussion. — It is obvious that, if the law of priority is to hold, the name " Fusulina " elongata Shumard must be used for some species occurring in the Capitan or Delaware Mountain formations of the Guadalupe Mountains. It is most desirable that all workers apply the name to the same species. Since the original types of this species have not been preserved, there seems only one way of tying the name to a definite species, namely by the selection of neotypes. An alternative solution might be to declare the name " F." elongata Shumard a nomen duhium. There are important objections to regarding " i^." elongata Shumard as a nomen duhium. The description was adequate when made, and distinguished elongata from other described species. Further, an adequate type locality was added. Rejection of a name merely because several species fit the descrip- tion would establish a dangerous precedent. No author of a species can describe against the future, especially since there is an increasing tendency toward finer difEerentiation of species. To allow a reviser to reject a specific name as "unrecognizable", and to rename the biological units. upon which that obviously was based, would certainly not tend toward a stabilisation of nomen- clature. Article 25 of the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature ^^ states plainly that : " The valid name of a genus or species can be only that name under which it was first designated on the condition : — [a) that this name was published and accompanied by an indication, or a definition, or a description ; and (6) that the author has applied the principles of binary nomenclature ".^^ Thus it seems inevitable that " Fusulina " elongata Shumard must be -a valid name for some species.^* Dunbar and Skinner {loc. cit.) make the point that : " there is no possi- bility of deciding which [of the several species] was actually described by Shumard ". However, since all of the several species occurring at the type locality fit the original description of " F." elongata Shumard, and since they all occur within the stratigraphic limits indicated for that species, we can ^2 In case of dispute, the French text is the only substantive text of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the English, German and Italian versions being no more than translations of the French text. ^* It should be noted that the version of Article 25 here quoted is the (English trans- lation of the) text of that Article as it existed up to 1927 and does not include the modi- fications and additions approved by the Tenth International Congress of Zoology at Buda- pest in September of that year. See 1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 76-78. 1* For a note on the portion of Article 25 here quoted, see pp. 110-111 below. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (AUGUST 1945.) 108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. infer only that they were all included in Shumard's species, and the species, in eflEect, has been divided by a subsequent reviser. In this regard, Article 24 of the Rules states ^^ : " When a species is divided [as ' F.' elongata Shumard certainly has been], the restricted species to which the original name of the primitive species is attributed may receive a notation indicating both the name of the original author and the name of the reviser " — thus implying, at least, the procedure that should be followed in the case of " F." elongata Shumard. If the holotype of a composite species such as " F." elongata Shumard were in existence, there would be no doubt that it would represent the species to which the original name must be attributed. When the original types are completely unavailable, however, the reviser must select arbitrarily the species to bear the name. If at the same time he can designate a " neotype " (or " neotypes ", if " neoholotype " and " neoparatype " can be admitted) which will be accepted by the Coimnission as they now accept holotypes, such pro- cedure will certainly tend to stabiUse nomenclature and prevent some of the shuffling about of names, which is so common at present. ON THE PROPOSAL THAT THE INTERNATIONAL CODE SHOULD BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF " NEOTYPES " By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E, (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)24.) Systematic workers in every Phylum of the Animal Kingdom are constantly embarrassed by the difficulties caused by ambiguous and inadequate descrip- tions, more particularly (though by no means exclusively) in the case of specific names published in the XVIIIth century.^ Where the collection of the author of such a name has been preserved and it is therefore possible to identify the material on which he based his ambiguous or inadequate description, it is possible to identify with absolute certainty the species to which the specific name in question is correctly applicable. A specimen so preserved in the original author's collection can properly be regarded as a " co-ty^e " even if the name in question was published in the period which preceded the formal acceptance of the principle that the description of a species should be based upon a definite specimen or certain definite specimens. Similarly, where such an author clearly indicated that he based his description upon a single example, that specimen, if preserved, can properly be regarded as the holotype of the species. Where a co-type or the holotype can be found in the collection of the original author, it frequently happens that, what had previously appeared to be an ambiguous or inadequate description, is perfectly sufficient to enable the species in question to be recognised and indeed is quite a good description according to the standards of the time at which it was written. Where, however, the original type material is lost, or is believed to be lost, a name such as that discussed above is a source of great embarrassment in the taxonomy of the group concerned, where it stands as a nomen dubium, which, ^* See footnote 12 above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 109 though available noraenclatorially, cannot at the moment be used for any known species because the species to which it was applied by its original author is not identifiable. Such a name is a menace to the stability of the nomenclature of the group, owing to the possibility that, through the redis- covery of the type material or for some other reason, the species to which it was applied by its original author may at some later date become recognisable and the name will cease to be a nomen duhimn and will therefore replace a name currently in use for the species concerned. Any scheme which would overcome these difficulties, without at the same time creating as great or even greater difficulties of a different kind would, therefore, be extremely welcome. The proposal that authority should be given for the establishment of " neotypes ", which has been submitted to the International Commission by Messrs. Don L. Frizzell and Harry E. Wheeler, deserves, therefore, the most careful and sympathetic study. The problem is, however, one of considerable complexity and it will be necessary to take into account a number of important considerations in addition to those set out in the " statement of the case " submitted in support of the present proposals. These considerations include the following :^ (1) In view of the fact that there exists no central or other register showing the disposal and present location either of the types of species or sub- species or of the collections made by the authors by whom species or subspecies have been described, what preliminary action is it proposed that the International Code should require to be taken by an author to satisfy himself that, in fact, the whole of the type material of a given species (or subspecies) has been lost, before that author shall be entitled to establish a " neotype " for the species in question? (Note : — It is obvious that a definite procedure on this matter would be an essential condition precedent to the grant of any juridical status to a " neotj'pe ". Otherwise, serious difficulties would arise through competition between " neotypes " established without due care and the original holotype or paratypes of the species concerned.) {2) For the reasons explained in (1) above, it would inevitably happen that, in spite of all reasonable care having been taken, a " neotype " would sometimes be established for a species, some part of the original type material of which was still in existence and that examination would show in some of such cases that the " neotype " was referable to a different species from that represented by the original type material. "What provisions is it proposed should be inserted to regulate such a situation when it arose 1 Is it proposed that the name should continue to attach to the species to which the " neotype " belonged or is it con- templated that the name should be transferred back to the species to which the original type material was found to belong 1 ^3) The types of the majority of the species in the Animal Kingdom described in the XVIIIth century and the types of thousands of species described since that period have either disappeared or their present location is not known. What safeguards is it proposed should be inserted in the Code to prevent the commercial exploitation of the right proposed to be given to establish " neotypes ". At the present time holotypes and paratypes have a considerable monetary value and museums compete with one another to acquire them. It is obvious, therefore, that in the absence of special provisions to deal with this aspect of the matter, " neotypes " wovdd be established in large nimibers 110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. for the sake of the financial benefits accruing from the possession, and subsequent sale, of such specimens. (Note : — The estabUshment of " neotypes " for purely commercial reasons, if permitted, would inevitably lead to an increase, rather than a decrease, in the taxonomic difficulties of the group concerned, through the selection, as " neotypes ", of specimens belonging to species which, would have been carefully avoided for such a purpose by any experienced and disinterested worker, in order (for example) to avoid the need for sinking in the synonymy the well-known name of one of the possible species, when the " neotype " could with equal ease have been attached to some other species, the sinking of the name of which as a synonym would have caused little or no confusion or inconvenience in the taxo- nomy of the group concerned.) (4) The " Code of Ethics " {Declaration 1 ^^) was designed to secure that, so far as practicable, an author should not publish a substitute name for a genus or species, the name of which was invalid by reason of being a homonym, so long as the original author was still alive, until the author proposing to give the substitute name had notified the original author of the need for a new name and had given him ample opportunity himself to publish a substitute name. Is it proposed that the " Code of Ethics " should be extended to restrain an author from establishing a " neo- type " for a species (or subspecies), the type of which was known ta have been destroyed, until the original author of the specific (or sub- specific) trivial name in question had been given ample opportunity himself to select a " neotype " in cases where the original author is still alive ? The proposal that the establishment of " neotypes " should be permitted afiects all systematic workers in every group of the Animal Kingdom and would apply to living species equally with fossil species. The far-reaching character of the proposal will be realised when it is noted that, if this proposal were to be adopted, it would be open to any person possessing, or having access to, material from the original localities, to establish " neotypes " for all the species established by Linnaeus and other early historical writers, except in the relatively small number of cases where the collections of those authors are still in existence. In considering the proposal submitted to them, the International Com- mission would accordingly greatly welcome the views of specialists on the question of the probable effect, as regards their respective groups, of the incorporation in the International Code of a provision authorising the estab- Ushment of " neotypes ", For example, is it considered that it would be helpful to the taxonomy of the groups concerned if it were permissible for any person to select " neotypes " for the species described by Linnaeus in the genus Helix Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Gastropoda), by Fabricius in 1775 for species in such genera as Carabus Linnaeus, 1758, Ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758, or Musca Linnaeus (Class Insecta), except for those species, the Linnean or Fabrician types of which are known to be in existence, or for the species described by Linnaeus in such genera as Salmo Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Actino- perygii), Lacerta Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Keptilia), or Mvs Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Mammalia) ? In the " statement of the case " submitted to the International Com- ^^ See 1943, Oj)ini» MoUufcumt Tcftaceuin, Univalve, MultilocuUre, Siphone inreriorl communicans, Spirale rotundatum NAUTILUS. Elongatum re£liusculum ORTHOCEROS. Siphone exieriori communicans - AMMONIA. Uniloculare, Spirale, Aperrura Integra, Dilatata, Tefta cymbiformis, Spira involuta occulta ARGONAUT A. Tefta auriformis, Spira Tateralis occulta HALIOTIS. Coav£lata, Orbicularis TURBO. Tctragonorotundata TROCHUS. Lunaris HELIX. Semiorbicularls NERITA. Longitudinaliter oblonga, ^ Columella laevisv.pUcata - - BULLA. Aperrura effufa, CoarSata, Linearis, Columella laevis CONUS. Columella pi icata VOI.UTA. Columella & labrum multiden- tata CYPR/EA. MoUw it may be noted tliat the descriptions there given correspond very closely with the descriptions of the same genera in Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) and 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 115 I have stressed the close adherence to the wording of the Systema Naturae of Linnaeus (Briinnich was clearly acquainted with both the tenth and the twelfth editions), because, when that is recognised, the new genera can be directly interpreted from the Systema ; on that understanding species available as types can be listed. Among authors mentioned by Briinnich, Brisson and Pallas are given in the chapters on Mammata and Aves ; " Pallas 1766 " is again given as an author on Zoophyta; in the chapter on Insecta " ingeniosus Geoffroy " follows " Systematicorum princeps C. de Linne ". Of fifteen of the genera not found in Linnaeus, the authorship appears to be attributable as follows : — (i) Mammata To Brisson, 1762 : — Lutra, Hyaena, Giraffa, Tapirus, Ceratodon. To Pallas, 1766 :—Antilope. (u) Aves To Brisson, 1760 : — Torquilla, Galbula, Momotus, Colius, Ficedula. To Pallas, 1768 : — Xanthornus. (iii) Insecta Cryptocephala from the errata on page 254 seems to be a lapse for Cryptocephalus Geoffroy, 1762. (iv) Zoophyta To Pallas, 1766 : — Antipathes, Brachionus. There remain the following nine genera which must be regarded as new : — (1) Manatus and (2) Rosmarus ( : 38, also listed : 34). These correspond to the species Trichechus manatus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 34, and Trichechus rosmarus Linnaeus, 1766, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 49 respectively. In Opinion 112 suspension of the rules was declined for Manatus Briinnich, 1772, versus Trichechus Linnaeus, 1758, respectively, but the status of Manatus Briinnich was not questioned. (3) Cercopithecus ( : 40, also listed : 34). The table separates Cercopithecus " Cauda elongata " from Simia " cauda abrupta vel nulla ", so that the name is equivalent to Linnaeus' section of Simia " Cauda elongata. Cercopitheci ". Sherborn gives Cercopithecus Gronovius, 1763, but the Zoophylacium of Gronovius (1763) has been suppressed by the Inter- national Conamission under their plenary powers in Opinion 89. Quite apart from this, Briinnich did not refer to Gronovius in this chapter and the name Cercopithecus must, therefore, be regarded as a new proposal by Briinnich. Opinion 104 places Cercopithecus on the Official List as from Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 26, with Simia diana Linnaeus, 1758, as type. This decision, however, requires reconsideration in view of Opinion 124, which does not recognise the names of subdivisions published by Linnaeus, 1758, as being of sub- generic status as of that date, and also the recent Opinion 183,^^ by which generic names published in the plural have no status until repub- lished in the nominative singular. (4) Hydrochaeris ( : 44, also listed : 36) appears to be an emendation of Hydrochoerus Brisson, 1762, Regn. anim. : 80, and to refer to Sus hydrochaeris Linnaeus, 1766, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 103. ^* For an explanation regarding the present position of the name Cercopithecus in rela- tion to the Official List will be published in an early Part of this journal, together with certain proposals in regard to that name. 116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (5) Xiphosura ( : 208, also listed as Xiphisura : 184), clearly intended for Monocfiilus polyphemus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 634, for which species " Xiphosura Gronovius " is quoted by Linnaeus in 1767 {Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 1057). By Opinion 104, lAmulus Muller, 1785, has been placed on the Official List with the same species as type. That decision will need to be re-examined in the light of whatever decision may be taken by the International Commission in regard to Brunnich, 1772. (6) Orthoceros and (7) Ammonia ( : 246, also listed : 232) are separated from Nautilus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 709. Orthoceros " Elongatum, rectiusculum " is equivalent to the Linnean subdivision " Elongati, erectiusculi " of Nautilus, which includes Nautilus raphanus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1:711 (the type of Orthocera Lamarck, 1799, Mem. Sac. Hist. nat. Paris 1799 : 80) and Nautilus orthocera Linnaeus, 1758 ( : 711), a fossil, and other species. Ammonia " Siphone exteriori communicans " can be interpreted from the pre-Linnean Gualtieri, 1742 (referred to by Briinnich and frequently cited by Linnaeus). Plate 19 of Gualtieri's Index Testarum figures three genera of Polythalamia ; these are referred to in the legend as (i) Nautilus, (ii) Ammonia, which includes figures of Nautilus spirula Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 710, and Nautilus beccarii Linnaeus, 1758, ibid. (ed. 10) 1 : 710, and (iii) Orthocera. The case of Ammonia is a difficult one. If N. spirula Linnaeus were to be taken as the type of this genus, the name Ammonia Briinnich would antedate Spirula Lamarck, 1799, Mem. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris 1799 : 80. In that event, the name should be suppressed by the International Commission under their plenary powers, since the replace- ment of Spirula Lamarck in this way would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. On the other hand, it is possible that workers in Foraminifera would see no objection to the designation of N. beccarii Linnaeus as the type of Atnmonia Briinnich. As regards Orthoceros, the type must be one of the species numbered 240-249 in the section " Elongati erectiusculi " of the genus Nautilus Linnaeus, 1758. I do not think that Nautilus orthocera Linnaeus, 1758 (sp. no. 249) should be regarded as the type by absolute tautonymy, for Briinnich's work is not concerned with fossils. (8) Tonna and (9) Cassida ( : 248, also listed : 232) are separated from Bucdnum Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 734. Reference to pages 734 and 735 of the 10th edition shows that these new genera correspond to the first two subdivisions, " AmpuUacea " and " Cas- sidea ", of the genus Buccinum Linnaeus, as defined in that edition. Tonna Briinnich, however, is used by many authors for Dolium Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. sans Vert. : 79, e.g. by Dall, 1909, Prof. Pap. U.S. geol. Surv. 59 : 71 ; by Suter, 1913, Manual N.Z. Moll. : 314, where Buccinum galea Linnaeus, 1758, is designated as type of Tonna Briinnich; and by Hedley, 1919, Rec. Aust. Mus. 12 : 329. As already stated, I recommend that the name Tonna Briinnich (type : Buccinum galea Linnaeus, 1758) be added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. If the name Tonna Briinnich were to be rejected, the next available name would be Cadus Boding, 1798, Mus. Bolten. (2) : 150 (type : Buccinum perdix Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 734, so designated by Woodring, 1928, Carnegie I.nst., Wash. 385 : 311 (" Miocene MoUusks from Bowden, Jamaica, Part 2 ")). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. II7 '''' FR?Y7ET!°?7fi'?T''^'' ^=^™^ ''^^ES PUBLISHED BY GEOF- f ROY (E. L.), 1762, HISTOIRE ABREGEE DES INSECTES niir^r PROVISO (b) TO ARTICLE 25 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.) (Commission's reference Z.N. (S.) 168.) thelUus'aS'w nf'.^ International Commission for a decision regarding ptra 2o"p;^^^^^ r"'^ Gorixa Geoffroy, 1762 (Order Hemi^ question oithTl?' ^-^^^Seviovd mevitably raises also the much broader S A ' ? f ' ^^«<^^er bmary or otherwise, of Geoffroy (E L ) 1762 Hutmre ahregee des Insectes qui se troicvent anx environs de Pari ^ '^' ' in^pif, T''%T^' ^' '' ^f ^^°^' ^«^I« witli all the principal Orders of problem and nit oneTf' '^r'^' '^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^ g-'-^ rntomotg ca proDlem and not one of special mterest to the specialists of a single Order wl,i \ Ja '^^^"''^ elsewhere, the whole question of what Stitutes' and taKen Dy tlie International Comrmssion at the rpniiP<^f nf <-}i<. t^^u/t, t ^ national Congress of Zoology (Lisbon, 1935) ^ '^' ^^'^^'^ ^^*^^- vJol """"n "'^T^^ *f ^^^^^ ««^^ai^s an appeal made on behalf of the Executive Committee of the International ComS^^ssion to specialists to asstt trdirrrtTe ':.^^rn '^ ^™^^ ^^- -^^^^^^^^ -s regaramg (i) the extent to wlich generic names first published in works em plojmg a system of nomenclature not strictly HnomL in cWacIer are at presen commonly used in the systematic literature of the groups concerned °Th?f"u?S?tr^""?"T<^'^^^^ '"""'" facnlarly requested to assist the International Commission by £^1^1^ Zom:^tZtZ' ''' position as respects their own%ral.Kch SHOULD BE SUPPRESSED FOR NOMENCLATORUL PURPOSES ' By the late H. J. Carter, B.A. (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)57 ) priJatTSbTHZetS'^Sr^ln"' '■'^^^r'*^ "^"P^^^^^^^ 20 rp, ,. -^ P ^^"^^- ^^^^ paper aroused some stu: in 1867 (see - No? ??p'Sc:5 ''" "'^"^^ *^ ""^ ^ P"^^^«*^-i - - -rly Part of this journal. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (AUGUST 1945.) 118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. [1868], Proc. ent. Soc. Lond. (3) 5 : cix-cx). There is a reference to it also hy Edward Saunders in 1868, Tram. ent. Soc. Lond. 1868 : 1-67. These references make it possible to estimate the trouble that is arising in systematic entomology through the publications by Dr. Jan Obenberger of Prague on the family buprestidae. The object of this appeal is to call attention to the confusion arising from the recognition by Dr. Obenberger of the validity of the names contained in Hope's pamphlet, in spite of the fact that it has been repudiated by authors in this group ever since 1868, on the ground that it was not published in a true sense. I have already protested elsewhere (1934, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10) 14 : 551^ 553) against the recognition of this pamphlet. Is it possible to prevent further recognition of it? The genus Stigmodera Eschscholtz, 1829, Zool. Atlas 1 : 9, for example, contains some 400 species. When, therefore, a large number of obsolete names are revived as the result of the publication of a Catalogue of the BUPRESTIDAE, further serious confusion arises. ON THE PAMPHLET " BUPRESTmAE " ANONYMOUSLY ISSUED BY HOPE (F. W.) IN 1836 By Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. {British Museum {Natural History), The Zoological Museum, Tring.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)57.) According to what critics have said, the 13-page pamphlet " Buprestidae "" is not a publication, but a privately printed and privately distributed list. It has no title-page, no author's name, no price. Hagen, 1862, Bihl. entom. 1 : 379, has the entry :— " Buprestidae. (1836). 8. pg. 13. (nicht publicirt, Bibl. Hope)." The Secretary to the Entomological Society of London (either J. W. Dun- ning or David Sharpe, who were joint Secretaries at the time, but more prob- ably the latter) criticised the pamphlet " Buprestidae " at a meeting of the Society held on 6th January 1868 (1868, Proc. ent. Soc. Lond. (3) 5 : cix-cx). The following is an extract from the criticism there advanced : — The paper in question consists of thirteen pages, at the top of which is the word " Buprestidae " ; this is the only title it bears. There is no title-page, preface, introduc- tion or explanation whatsoever; no author's name, no printer's name, no date; no name of any bookseller or of any other place at which the public might obtain it ; and as to many of the insects described, there is nothing to show that they are Aus- tralian species, or to point out the collections in which the type-specimens were deposited. . . . I submit that the unpubUshed names of the anonymous print " Bupres- tidae " must give way to published names, whatever the date of the latter may be. In the Transactions of the Entomological Society of London for 1868 ( : 1-67), where Edw. Saunders ■'published a revision of the Australian buprestidae, Saunders said in a footnote ( : 2) : — " I have abandoned the names of the unpublished tract ' Buprestidae ' in favour of published names, though later in point of date." Printbd nj Great Britain bt Richard Clay and Company, Ltd., Bungay, StrpFOLK. {continued from front wrapper) Proposal that Article 22 of the International Code should be amended by the adoption of a " Recommendation " that authors' names should not normally be cited. By the late Arthur P. Jacot P- 90 The implications of Dr. Jacot's proposal for the amendment of Article 22 of the International Code. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ....... p. 90 On the interpretation of Article 23 of the International Code in relation to the use of brackets when citing the name of an author of a subspecific trivial name when that name appears in conjunction with the same generic name but not in the same relationship thereto as when originally published. By R. , Chester Hughes, Department of Zoology, Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College, School of Arts and Sciences, Stillwater, Oklahoma p. 91 On the interpretation of Article 23 of the International Code in cases where a species is originally described as being both in a genus and in a subgenus and later the subgenus is elevated to generic rank and the species is transferred to the genus so erected. By C. F. W. Muesebeck, Officer in Charge, Division of Insect Identi- fication, United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C. . . p. 92 Proposal to delete Article 23 from the International Code. Resolu- tion adopted by the American Malacological Union . . . p. 93 On the question whether a generic, or a specific, name based upon the work of an animal but not on the animal itself has any stand- ing under Article 25 of the International Code. By J. Chester Bradley, Professor of Entomology and Curator of Invertebrate Zoology, New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell Uni- versity, Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, Ithaca, N.Y. . . . p. 93 On the status, under Article 25 of the International Code, of generic names where the genera concerned are founded upon figures only. By Harald A. Rehder, Assistant Curator, Division of Mollusks, Smithsonian Institution, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C. . . . . . ■ p. 94 On the problem raised by Dr. Harald A. Rehder regarding the status of generic names where the genera concerned are founded upon figures only. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature .......... p. 95 On the interpretation of Article 25 of the International Code in rela- tion to the author to whom should be attributed a specific or sub- specific trivial name originally published conditionally : case of Halictus morbillosus aegyptiellus (Class Insecta, Order Hymeno- ptera). By T. D. A. Cockerell, Universitv of Colorado, Boulder, Col ' . . . p. 97 On the status, under Article 25 of the International Code, of the names of species of parasites published, prior to 1st January 1931, with no description, definition, or indication other than the name of the host. By Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S., British Museum (Natural History), The Zoological Museum, Tring . p. 97 The procedure proposed to be adopted by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature in preparing the Report asked for by the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology in regard to the meaning to be attached to the expression " nomen- clature binaire " in the International Code of Zoological Nomen- clature and on matters incidental thereto. By Francis Hem- ming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ....... p. 98 On the meaning to be attached to the expression " le plus anclenne- ment designe " used in Article 25 of the International Code, with special reference to the case of Ophiotaenia ranarum Iwata and Matuda, 1938, and Ophiotaenia ranae Yamaguti. 1938 (Class Cestoidea, Order Tetraphyllidea). By Satyu Yamaguti, M.D., Lecturer in Parasitology, Kyoto Imperial University, Japan . p. 102 On the status, under Article 25 of the International Code, of specific names published with descriptions but without comparison with allied species. By H. B. Hungerford, Department of Entomology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas . . p. 102 On the interpretation of Article 34 of the International Code in rela- tion to a generic name identical with a name previously pub- lished for a genus in the Animal Kingdom, where that genus has been transferred to the Vegetable Kingdom in accordance with Article 1 of the International Code. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . p, 1 03 On the question of recognising " neotypes ". By Don L. Frizzell and Harry E. Wheeler, Stanford University, California . . p. 106 On the proposal that the International Code should be amended to provide for the establishment of " neotypes ". By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . . . p. 108 On the status of the generic names published by Brisson (M. J.), 1762, Regnum animale. By G. H. H. Tate, Assistant Curator of South American Mammals, American Museum of Natural History, New York p. 112 Proposal by the late Commissioner C. W. Stiles for the addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of certain names proposed by Brisson (M. J.), 1762, Regnum animale, and by Oken (L.), 1815-1816, Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . p. 112 On the generic names published by Brunnich, 1772, Zoologiae Fundamenta. By R. Winckworth, London . . 1 facsimile p. 113 On the question whether generic names published by Geoffroy (E. L.), 1762, Histoire abregee des Insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris, are available under proviso (b) to Article 25 of the International Code. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . p. 117 Proposal that the pamphlet entitled " buprestidae " privately and anonymously issued by Hope (F. W.) in 1836 should be sup- pressed for nomenclatorial purposes. By the late H. J. Carter, B.A p. 117 On the pamphlet "buprestidae" anonymously issued by Hope (F. W.) in 1836. By Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S., British Museum {Natural History), The Zoological Museum, Tring . . . p. 118 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The above work, which is obtainable from the Publications Office of the Inter- national Commission at 41, Queen's Gate, London, S.W.7, is being published con- currently in three volumes of which the following Parts have so far been published : — Volume 1, Parts 1-20 (containing Declarations 1-9 and re-issues of Opinions 1-11). When complete this Volume will contain all the pre-Lisbon Opinions. Volume 2, Parts 1-35 (containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-165). When complete, this Volume will contain all the Opinions adopted by the International Commission at Lisbon in 1935. Volume 3, Parts 1-8 (containing Opinions 182-189). The Opinions adopted by the International Commission since their Lisbon meeting are being published in this Volume. VOLUME 1. Part 7. Pp. 119-160. 25th SEPTEMBER 1945 THE BULLETIV OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE pO^^ Edited by FRANQS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission On the importance of facsimile reproductions of rare works of importance in systematic zoology, with special reference to Meigen (J. G.), 1800, Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a deux Ailes. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . pp. 1 1 9-1 20 Meigen (J. G.), 1800, Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a deux Ailes (facsimile) ......... pp. 121-160 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 ten shillings (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION A. 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). B. The Members of the Commission Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. W. ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Bela von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. T. JACZEWSKI (Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLE (U.S.A.). Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Dr. Fred CHAPMAN (Australia). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) {Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) {President of the Commission). 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. YOKES (U.S.A.). C. The Staff of the Secretariat in London Secretary to the Commission : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Archivist : Mr. Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A. Publications Clerk : Mrs. F. R. Langstadt. D. The Address of the Commission 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. ON THE IMPORTANCE OF FACSIMILE REPRODUCTIONS OF RARE WORKS OF IMPORTANCE IN SYSTEMATIC ZOOLOGY, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO MEIGEN (J. G.), 1800, NOUVELLE CLASSIFICATION DES MOLCIIES A DEUX AILES By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)191.) The period between the two World Wars witnessed a considerable develop- ment in the use of facsimiles and complete facsimile editions were published of a number of rare zoological works, thereby making the works in question . available to every student. Unfortunately, this process was interrupted by the outbreak of war in 1939 and there remain today many works of importance to systematic zoology (by reason of their containing new names), which are extremely scarce and of which no facsimile has ever been published. Apart, therefore, from the small nimaber of zoologists who have access to one or other of the libraries which contain one of the few extant copies of such works or photostatic reproductions of such copies, it is necessary for zoologists in such cases to rely upon transcripts (either published or manuscript). Reliance upon such transcripts is extremely dangerous, since it almost invariably happens that such transcripts are either incomplete or inaccurate or both. A striking example of the evil results likely to follow upon the use of transcripts in lieu of facsimiles is provided by the celebrated pamphlet entitled " Nauvelle Classification des Mouches a deux Ailes ", by Jean Guillaume Meigen (usually known as Johann Wilhelm Meigen), published by J. J. Fuchs of 334, Rue des Mathurins, Paris, in the year 1800.^ This pamphlet, of which only very few copies are known, has been a constant source of controversy among dipterists, ever since in 1908 Hendel (Verh. zool.-hot. Ges. Wien 58 (2/3) : 43-69) published a paper in which he gave what purported to be a textual transcript of the diagnoses given by Meigen for the 88 genera recognised by him in the Nouvelle Classification. The status of the generic names first published in Meigen's Nouvelle Classi- fication has twice been referred to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature; on the first occasion in the period 1908-1910 by the late Dr. J. M. Aldrich, on the second occasion in 1932 by the Fifth International Congress of Entomology. The decision of the Commission on the first of these applications is embodied in their Opinion 28,^ that on the second apphca- tion in Opinion 152.^ On the first of these occasions, the International Com- mission ruled that the new generic names in this pamphlet must be accepted as having been published (" divulgue dans une publication " in the substantive French text of the Regies Internationales) and that, as these names had been published with diagnoses, they must be regarded as satisfying the requirements of Article 25 of the Regies. Accordingly, each such name was available nomen- clatorially as from 1800, in every case where the name was not itself a homonym of some earlier generic name and the species later identified as the type species was not itself the type also of some other genus having an earlier available name. On the second occasion on which Meigen's Nottvelle Classification was before the International Commission (i.e. at Lisbon in 1935), the Commission re- affirmed the decision embodied in Opinion 28, but added the following quaU- ^ For a bibliography of the papers on Meigen, 1800, see Smart, 1944, Ann. Mag. not. Hist. (11) 11 : 261-272. * See 1910, Smithson. hist. Publ. 1989 : 6&-67. ' See 1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2 '. 181-196. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (SEPTEMBER 1945. 120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. fication : — " Where, in the case of any given name first published in the above work, speciahsts in the group concerned are of the opinion that the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, the specialists in question should submit full particxilars to the International Commission with such recommendations for the suspension of the rules in the case of that generic name as they may consider the most appropriate." Owing to various causes, including the outbreak of War in 1939, Opinion 152 was not formally rendered imtil April 1943 and publication did not take place until May 1944. In the period which has since elapsed, no formal application has been received by the International Commission that they should use their plenary powers as respects any of the generic names first pubhshed in the Nouvelle Classification, but signs are not wanting that such appHcations may be expected as regards certain of these names, the acceptance of which would displace other names in very -wide use in appKed entomology (as well as in systematic entomology), owing to the confusion which, it is alleged, would result from the acceptance of the names published in 1800 in preference to the names given to the genera in question in 1803 by Meigen in his " Vers^ich ". 4 In anticipation of any such application, I accordingly thought it prudent to compare the copy of Meigen's Nouvelle Classification preserved in the library of the Zoological Society of London with the transcript published by Hendel in 1908. The result of this comparison was very illuminating, for it showed (i) that Hendel had omitted both the very interesting " Avant-Propos " by Meigen (pp. 11-12), which contains some valuable information regarding the locaUties of the species studied by Meigen and also the " Introduction " by Meigen's friend Baumhauer (pp. [5]-10), which contains a most interesting account of Meigen's objects and methods, (ii) that Hendel omitted the footnote given by Meigen (on p. 13) to the number of species cited for Flabellifera Meigen, 1800, and (iii) that Hendel's transcript contained seven errors of transcription. These errors are as follows : — Name of genus and Erroneous transcript by Passage as published by page Hendel Meigen (1) Petaurista ( : 15) Les ieux lissent manquent. Les ieux lisses manquent. (2) Fungivora ( : 16) Antennes a treize articulations : Antennes a seize articulations : (3) Fungivora ( : 17) Les ieux lissent manquent. Les ieux lisses manquent. (4) Polyxena ( : 19) L'extremite du tibia armee de L'extremite du tibia armee de deux piquants. deux piquans. (5) Philia ( : 20) Le corselet arme de deux rangs Le corselet arme de deux rangs de piquants. de piquans. (6) Ceria ( : 23) Antennes flechues Antennes flechies (7) Statinia ( : 36) 3 especes. Of the foregoing errors, some are of a minor character, but error no. (2) (relating to the name Fungivora) alters the sense completely and is most mis- leading, through the inadvertent substitution of " treize " (13) for " seize " (16). In order to place upon a firm foundation any further discussions in regard to the new generic names in Meigen's Nouvelle Classification, it has been decided to devote Part 7 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature to the reproduction of a facsimile of this much discussed, but Uttle known, pamphlet. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature desire to record their grateful thanks to the Zoological Society of London for the facilities kindly afforded to them in the preparation of the facsimile now published. * See Versuch einer neuen GattiingsEintheilung der europdischen zweiflugligen Insekten von J oh. With. Meigen in Stolberg bei Aachen (Meigen, 1803, 3Iag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 2:259-281). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclatiire. 121 NOUVELLE CLASSIFICATION D Z S OUCHES A DEUX AILES. 122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 123 NOUVELLE CLASSIFICATION B £ S MOUCHES A DEUX AILES, ( D I P T E R A L. ) , d'aPRES UN PI-AK TOUT NOUYEAU. Par J. G. M EI GEN. A PARIS, Chez J. J. FUCHS, iibraibe, rue DES MaTHURINS, N''. 334. De e'imprimerie de H. L. Perronneau RUE DU BaTTOIR , No. 8. A N V I I I ( 1800 V. S. ) 124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 125 INTRODUCTION 1^' AUTEUR de ce petit essai , le Citoyen Meigen ayant commence a rassembler des insectes indigenes depuis long-temps, s'atta- cha principalement a observer ceux de la classe des Dipt^res , ou Mouches a deux ailes. La predilection qu'il montroit pour eux , provenoit de son desir ardent d'^claircir , par des observations reitdrees et soutenues, cette interessante branche de TEntomologie , en- core dans le berceau, et susceptible d'une quantity de nouvelles d^couvertes. En con- sequence , il commen^a par peindre tous les Dipt^resquilput rassembler , ainsi que les parties , grossies au microscope, les plus re- marquables de leur corps, telles que les ailes, lespieds etJa trompe. ^ En examinant ces parties dans le plus grand detail, il observa bient6t que les genres des Dipteres, contenus dans les methodes les plus connues , etoient insuffjsans pour y rapporter telle ou telle espece ; que les caracteres en dtoient trop generaux , trop equivoques ; et qu'ils ren- A 5 126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 6 INTRODUCTION. fermoient souventdes especes qui navoi'ent aucune analogie entr'elles. Aussi, faut-il avouer que cette partie de TEntomologie n'^toit encore quebauchee , et qu il ne falloit rien moins qu'une attention soutenue , une patience sans bornes , pour examiner aussi scrupuleusement , pour ne pas dire minu- tieusement , toutes les parties apparentes de rinsecte , a Texemple de mon ami ; et ^ta- blir , d'apr^s cela et ses dessins , les carac- tferes de chacun des genres contenus dans cet essai. Parmi toutes les parties qui cons- tituent le corps du Diptere , les ailes , par leur singulidre structure et les ramifications de leurs nervures varices k Tinfini , mais toujours constantes dans les especes du meme genre , lui parurent plus propres que tout autre moins apparente , a former les ca- ract^res essentiels de chaque genre. II me communiqua son plan qui me parut heu- reux et unique. Je Tencourageai de mon inieux,et lui fis part des Dipt^reS rapportds d'un voyage entrepris en Italie, pays ex- tremementricheeninsectes, mais en revan- che bien pauvre en observateurs zeles ou intelligens. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 127 INTRODUCTION. 7 'D6]h. son travail avan^oit , Jorsqu'a mon regret, des affaires majeures Toblig^rent k en suspendre la continuation. Je tentai ^diverses fois de lelui faire reprendre , mais inutile- ment : laBotaniqueoccupoit alors exclusive- ment ses momens de loisir. Cette science of- froit un champ plus vaste a son esprit actlfet curieux. Enfin k mon retodr d un voyage a Paris , oil j'avois en Thonneur de faire la connoissance de plusieurs"" Entomologistes distingu^s qui gouterent son plan , je revins a la charge et finis par le persuader de pu- blier, non louvrage en entier ; (une entreprise aussi dispendieuse auroit exc^dc^ pour le mo- ment, ses forces et ses moyens) : mais au moins une espfecede prodrome, qui pourroit servirdintroduction^louvrage , et qui , pour ne pas anticiper sur ce dernier, ne contien- droit absoluraent que les genres. — Comme je devois retourner a Paris, il me confia le soin de le faire imprimer. Je me suis aquitt^ de cette tdche avec plaisir , sachant par experience quele plus mince trait^ ento- mologique attire plus ou moins ['attention des amateurs.' Voici done le petit essai cjue je leur a" 4 128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 8 INTRODUCTION, offre esperant qu il meritera leurs suffra- ges , et qu'encourag^ par un aiguillon si puis- sant, le Citoyen Meigen reprendra avec une nouvelle ardeur son travail projett^ sur les Dipteres , et enricliira de ses d^couvertes cette partie de TEntomologie encore si peuap- profondie. Cependantavant de terminer, je dois fixer un moment Fattention du Natura- ]iste surJe dernier genre de la classification > nomme Cyanea : son simple et unique ca- ract^re , sans antennes , est tr^s-frappant ; aussiluidoit-il paroitre bien etrange, quand il ne sauroic ignorey , que jusqu'a ce jour ^ 111 Linn^e , ni Fabricius n'ont fait mention dans leurs nomenclatures immortelles, d'une seule espece de Dipteres , qui fut d^nuee de cet organe. — Ceite exception h. la regie g^ndrale, estcependant, quoiqu'on en disc, hors de doute ; car , outre Tespece dont parle I'auteur, j'en ai ddcouvert une aulre dans les environs d'Aix-Ja-Chapelle , au mois de rnessidor an 6 , qui figurera en son temps, dans Touvrage projette. — Cette observation importante , en meme temps qu'elle alt^re Topinion g^n^ralement reque , que dans les insectes, les antennes artistement orgauisees, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 129 INTRODUCTION. 9 servent de si^ge a un ou plusieurs sens , nous confirme encore cette v6nt6 constante , que la Nature, dans ses ouvrages, aime a s'^carter des regies que nous lui pretonsaussi gratui- tement. En remarquant la diminution pro- gressive de la longueur des antennes dans les differens genres des Dipteres , p. e. , de rHippobosca qui les a trds-petites , Fobser- vateur devoir deja prdsumer quil pourroit fort blen en exister dont les antennes seroient nulles, ou du nioins imperceptibles a nos ieux quoiqu'aides desmeilleurs microscopes. Au reste si Tamateur me sait quclque gr^ de lui avoir fait connoitre un z6\6 Entomo- logiste , il me pardonnera sans-doute, delui dire unmotsur une petite collection de Lepi- dopteres rassemblt^ depuis bien long- temps dans mon pays natal , ettoujours accrue dans mes differens voyages en Allemagne, enltalie et en Suisse. Je me reserve d'en donner par la suite uncataloguesystematique; en attendant je prie I'amateur d'etre persuade queje me preterai avec plaisir a la voie des ^changes ; moyen si simple et si usite , pour se procurer sansfrais, les especes indigenes qui manquent a Fuiie ou a Tautre des deux parties. La 130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. lo INTRODUCTION. planche i4i- Noct. 63, ainsi que la 84° Con- tin. Bomb. Tab. 5 , fig. 1 , de rouvrage allemand d'Esper , sur les Lepldopteres eu- ropeens , oa se trouvenr representees cinq es- pecesquej'ai communiqu^es al aiiteur, entre autresla./Vr)cA//^ or/cA^/ceadeFabriciusqui, selon lui , se trouve a Tranguebaren Asie , poiirront donner aux connoisseurs une idee de ma collection , ainsi que des richesses en- core inconnues et existantes en Italie leur pays natal. Paris , le 10 Messidor an 7. -M. B A U M H A U E R. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 131 AVANT-PROPOS. T JL L y a mainrenant sept ans , qu en contem- plant ma petite collection de mouches a deux ailes , 1 idde me vintden faire une nouvelle classification d'apres les veines ou nervures des ailes. Je cominuniquai mon idee a plu- sieurs amateurs qui lapprouv^rent Je mb mis done a faire des dessins enlunrines de ces petites crt^atures et a les arranger Je vis bientot qu'un systeme form^ d'apres ce plan , s'accorderoit beaucoup mieux avec les pre- miers etats et la metamorphose de ces insec- tes, quetous ceuxqu on en a faitsjusqu'a pre- sent. Je me proposal de publier un jour mes observations lorsqu'elles auroient ^t^ assez multipli^es. L'essai present peut ^tre regarde comme le prodrome de cet ouvrage , avec la difference, (ju'au lieu de prendre pourcarac- t^res des genres, les veines des ailes, j'y en ai substitue dautres plus a la portee des ama- teurs. Toutesles especes qu'on trouveici,ont ^tedt^couvertes dans noscontrees, a Texcep- tion d'un petit nombre, indigenesen Italic, qui m'ontetdcommuniqu^es par un amateur zdle, leCitoyenBaumhauer, d'Aix-Ia-Chapelle. It est Evident qu'en y ajoutant les especes exo- tiques , le nombre des genres seroit beaucoup plus considerable ; mais je n'en connois au- 132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 12 AVANT-PROPOS. cune que pardes descriptions on des figures pen exactes. Je prie les connoisseurs et amateurs de juger avec indulgence ce premier essai qui pourra ^tre suivi , s il m'acquiert leurs suf- frages, d un GUV rage bien plus developp^ et enrlchi de figures exactes, qui toutes seront faitesdapr^s nature. Aureste, jen'epargnerai rien pour rectifier les erreurs qui pourroient s etre glissees dans cette petite brociiure , afin d'eclaircir cette branche de Vhistoire natu- relle , autant qu il dependra de moi. Holberg , pres d'Aix-la-Chapelle , le premier Germinal an 7. J. G. M E I G E N. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 133 NOUVELLE CLASSIFICATION D E S MOUCHES A DEUX AILES, D I P T E R A. CARACTjfeRES DE LA CLASSE. DEUX AILES TRANSPARENTES , VEIN^ES. DEUX BALANCIERS. 1. F1.ABELLIFERA. A.NTENNES h. treize articulations : la premiere cylindrlque; la seconde spherique ; la trolsl^me un peualongee J lessuivantes avec des appen- dices en forme de peigne(le male), ou pres- que spheriques ( la femelle ). — Ailes a de- mi -etalees , lanceolees. — Les vers vivent dans les troncs d'arbres pourris. 4 especes (*). ( * ) Le nombre des especes, indique celles que j'ai vues moi-m^me en nature, et qui sont toutes europeennes. 8** 134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. ( i4) 2. T I p u r A. Antennes atreize articulations : la premiere cyUndrique j la s^conde splierique j les sui- ■vantes cylindriques , herissees de poils k la base. — La tete alougee par-devant. — Les jambes longues. — Les ailes a demi-etalees. — Les vers vivent dans la terre. j4 especes. 3. POLYMEDA. Antennes a seize articulations velues : la premiere cylindrique j les suivantes ovoides , diminuant en grandeur. — Les jambes longues- — Les ailes panachees , croisees. 11 especes. 4. L I B. I o P E. Antennes a seize articulations , velues et legerement herissees de poils : la premiere petite , cylindrique j la seconde spherique ; la tioisienie longue, cylindrique 5 les suivantes OYo'ides. 2 especes. 5. Pales. Antennes a dix-nenf articulations : la pre- Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 135 (i5 ) ml^re cylindrique ; la seconde cyathiforme; la troisi^me cylindrique j les sulvantes reni- formes , vers Textremite presque cylindriques ^ herissees de poils. 1 espece. 6. O R I T H E A. Antennes k quinze articulations : la pre- miere cylindrique j les autres splieriques. — Les jambes tres-longues , sans piquans. 1 espece. 7, Amphinome. Antennes k seize articulations herissees de poils : la premiere cylindrique ; la seconde presque spherique ; les suivantes ovoides. — Les jambes longues. — Les ailes croisees. 5 especes. 8. Petaurista. Antennes s^tacees , legerement velues : les deux premieres articulations grosses, , presque spheriques j les suivantes oblongues , d'un nombre indetermine. — Les ailes croisees. — Les ieux lisses raanqtient. 3 especes. 136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. ( 16) O. E U P H R O S Y N E. Antennes deux fois longues comme le corps, tresdeliees , velues : la premiere articulation spherique ; les suivantes cylindriques , d'un nombre indetermine. — Les ailes crolsees- — Les ieux lisses manquent. 1 espece. 10. P H B. Y N E. Antennes a seize articulations velues : la premiere cylindrique j les suivantes presque spheriques. — Sur le soramet de la tete , trois ieux lisses. — Les ailes croisees. 5 especes. 11. Z E I. M I K. A. Antennes a seize articulations presqu'egales , legereraent velues. — Les jambes garnies a I'ex- tremite du tibia de deux piqirans. — Trois ieux lisses sur la tete , et d'inegale grandeur. — Les ailes croisees. 3 especes. 12. F u N c J V o il A. Antennes a seize articulations : les deux premieres Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 137 (17) premieres herissees de polls roides jles suivantes values. — Le tibia des jambes du milieu et posterieures arme de piquans. — Les ieux Jisses manquent. — Le corps comprime. — Les alles croisees. — Les vers vivent dans les cliam- pignons. 6 esp^ces. i3. L Y c o R I A. Antennes a seize articulations, legerement velues : les deux premieres plus grosses que les suivantes qui sont cylindriques. — Les ieux k reseau renlformes. — Trois ieux lisses sur le sommet. < — Les ailes croisees. 6 especes. 1^. T E N D I P X S, Antennes filiformes : celles du male garnies de longs polls en forme de cone j celles de la femelle a six articulations , qui ( a I'exception de la derniere) sont herissees de poils a leur base. — Les ieux a reseau reniformes. — Les ieux lisses manquent. --Les jambes ante'rieures etendues. — Les alles portees en toit. — Les vers ( du molns en partie ) vivent dansl'eau. 2.0 especes. B 138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. { 18) i.5. P E I. O P I A. Antennes du male filiformes, garnies de longs polls en forme de cone ; celles de la fe- melle a quinze articulations qui sont splie- riques, seulement la derniere est plus grosse et oblongue. — Lesieux a reseau reniformes.— ■ Les ieux lisses manquent. — Les alles portees en tolt. 3 especes. 16. H E L E A. Antennes filiformes k treize articulations , dont les premieres sont spheriques et les sui- vantes oblongues : celles du male garnies de longs polls en forme de plnceau ; celles de la fe- melle velues. — Les ieux h. reseau reniformes — Les ieux lisses manquent. — Les ailes por- tees en toit. 11 especes. 17. PHAiAENUlA. Antennes filiformes en grains : les deux premieres articulations oblongues , grosses , glabres j les autres enfilees , herissees de poils. — Les ailes velues , larges, portees en toit. 2. especes. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 139 ( 19) 18, I T O N I D A. Antennes longues a vingt-quatre articula- tions, enfilees^ herissees de polls : la premiere grosse, glabre. 2. esp^ces. 19. C IT I, E X. Antennes filiformes , composees d'un grand nombre d'articulations piumeuses (le male), ou herissees de polls a la base (la fetnelle). — La trompe perpendiculaire. — Les ieux lisses man- quent. — Les ailes croisees , garniesd'^cailles. — Les vers vivent dans I'eau. especes. 20. POLYXENA. Antennes k douze articulations , cylindrl- ques, obtuses. — Les jambes longues. L'extre- mite du tibia armee de deux piquans. — Les ailes croisees. 1 esp^ce. 21. MjEiUSINA. Antennes en forme de fuseau , h. onze ar- ticulations. — Les ieux lisses manquent. 1 espece. B 2 140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (20) !22. A M A S I A. Antcnnes filiformes a onze articulations. — Les ieux a reseau ovales. — Sur le somaiet trois ieux lisses. 1 espece. 2.3. SCATHOPSE. Antennes h onze articulations. — Les ieux a T^seau reniformes. — Sur le sommet trois ieux lisses. — Les ailes croisees. 3 especes. 24- H I R T E A. Antennes a neuf articulations. — Le tibia des jambes anterieures garni a I'extremite d'un piquant. — Trois ieux lisses sur le sommet. — Les alles croisees. — Les vers vivent en terre. 9 especes. 2.5. P H I I. I A. Antennes a neuf articulations. — Le corselet arme dedeux rangs depiquans. — Le tibia des iarnbes anterieures arrae a I'extremite de sept Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 141 (ai ) piquans enforrae de rayons.— Troisieux llsses sur le sommet. ■ — Les ailes croisees. 3 especes. z6. E R I N N A. Antennes cylindriques k trois articulations : la premiere cylindrique ; la seconde cyathi- forme: la troisiemeleoerement divisee en huit pieces qui diininuent en longueur. — Ecussons sans piquans. — Les ailes croisees. — Les vers "vivent dans les troncs d'arbres pourris. 2. especes. 27. S I c u s. Antennes en forme de fer d'alene h. trois articulations : la premiere cyliadrique ; la se- conde cyathiforme ; la troisieme legerement divisee en huit pi^ce^, diminuant en grosseur. — Ecussons avec deux piquans. — Les ailes croisees. 3 especes. 28. E U I. A I, I A. Antennes cylindriques k trois articulations : les deux premieres de meme grandeur , he- riss^es de polls ; la troisieme longue , Jegere- B 3 142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (22) merit divisee en cinq pieces. — Ecusson arme de deux piq'uans. — Les ailes croisees. — Les vers vivent dans Teau. 5 especes. 29. Stratiomys. Antennes a trois articulations : la premiere longue , cyllndrique ; la seconde petite, cya- thiforme ; Ja troisierae longue , plate , lege- rement divisee en cinq pieces. — Ecusson arme de deux piquans. — Les ailes croisees. — Les vers vivent dans Teau. 5 especes* 3o. POTAMIDA. Antennes en forme de fer d'al^ne k trois articulations : les deux premieres petites, d'e- gale grandeur , herissees de poils j la troisi^me j[ongue,nue, divisee leg^rement en sept pieces. — Corseletet ecusson arm^sde piquans. — Les ailes croisees. 1 esp^ce. 3i. Hermione. Antennes k trois articulations : la premiere Bulletin of Zoological NomenckUure. 143 (23) longue , cylindrlque ; la seconde en cone ren- verse } la dernlere avec un poil lateral simple. — Ecusson arme de deux petits piquans. — Les alles croisees. 3 especes. 32. C E R I A. Antennes flechies en coude k trois articu- lations : la premiere longue , cylindrique ; les deux autres applaties , elargies j la derniere se termine en pointe aigue. 1 esp^ce, 33. Ckrysops. Antennes cylindriques k trois articulations : les deux premieres d'egale longueur, herissees de polls 5 la troisleme leg^rement divisee en plusieurs pieces. — Les ieux k reseau d'un beau vert dore , tachetes. — Trois ieux lisses sur le somraet. ' — Les ailes k demi-^talees. 5 especes. 24' Chrysozona. Antennes en forme de fer d'alene a trois articulations : la premiere oblonguej la se- B 4 144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclaiure. conde tres-petite , cyathiforme j la trolsieme avec quelques incisions tres-legeres vers I'ex- tremite. — Les ieux a reseau verds avec des bandes ondees. — Les ieux liases manquent. — Les ailes a demi-etalees. 2 especes. 35. T A B A N U S. Antennes k trols articulations : les deux premieres cyathiformes ; la troisieme echan' cree , articulee a I'extremite, — Trompe per- pendiculaire. — Les ailes h demi«etalees. — Les vers vivent en terra. 9 especes. 26. B I B I o. Antennes en forme de fer d'alene k trois arti- culations : la premiere cylindrique ; la seconds sph^rique ; la jtroisieme conique. — Trois ieux lisses sur la tete. — Ecusson sans piquans. — Les ailes k demi-etalees. — Les vers vivent dans les troncs d'arbres pourris. 5 especes. 37. D I O N AE A. Antennes en forme de fer d'alene a trois Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 146 (a5) articulations : la premiere oblongue ; la se- conde spherlque ; la troisieme conique. — Trompe perpendiculaire. - Les ailescrois^es. tres-Iarges. 2. especes. 38. E M p 1 s. Antennes en forme de fer d'alenek cinq arti- culations : la premiere cylindrique ; la seconde presque spherique j la troisieme conique ; les deux derni^res petites. — Trompe perpen- diculaire. — Les ailes croisees. 24 especes. 39. A s I L ir s. Antennes en forme de fer d'alene k cinq arti- culations : la premiere cylindrique; la seconde cyathiforme j la troisieme longue , applatie , elargie au milieu ; les quatri^me et cinqui^me petites, en forme depoil roidi. — Trompe pres- que horizontale. — Les ailes croisees. — Les vers vivent en terre. 7 especes. 4o. L A P R I A. Antennes k trols articulations : la premiere ^*^ bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (26) cyllndrique , longue ; la scconde cyathlforme;' la troisiemeen forme de massue pJate.-Trom- pe presque horlzontale. -- Les aiJescroisees.— Les vers vivent en terre. 5 especes. 4»- Era X. Antennas k quatre articulations r la pre- miere cylindrique, longue ; la seconde cya- thiforrae ; la troisierae longue, plate j la der- niere petite. — Trompe presque horizontale. — Les ailes croisees. 10 especes. 42. C O N O P S. Antennes a trois articulations : la premiere cylindrique j les deux autres en forme de massue , termin^e par une pointe articul^e. — Trompe presque horizontale. — Les ailes croisees. 3 especes. 43. M Y O P A. Antennes cylindriques k trois articulations : la premiere petite j la seconde cylindrique , velue ; la troisieme spiierique ou un peu Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 147 (^7) ovoide , garnie d'un petit poU articul^. — Trompe presque horizontale. — Tete gonflee. — Les alles croisees. 9 especes. 4i^. CORYNETA. Antennes k deux articulations : la pre- miere petite , herissee de poils j la seconde conique, termineeparunpoil barbu. —Trompe perpendiculaire. — Cuisses des Jambes du mi- lieu enflees. — Le tibia arme a I'extreraite d'un piquant. — Les ailes croisees, 3 especes. 45, N O B Z A. Antennes k deux articulations : la premiere petite , he'rissee de poils ; la seconde conique , terminee par un poil barbu . — Trompe horizon- tale. — . Les ailes croisees. 3 especes. 46. I P H I s. Antennes k trois articulations : la premiere ovoide 5 la seconde cyathiforme , herissee de poils J la troisieme applatie, de figure variable, terminee par un poil legerement barbu. — Tete 148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. hemisplierlque. —* Jambes alongees. — Tibia garni de petits polls roides du cote interieur. — Les ailes croisees. — Les vers viventen terre. 6 especes. 4y. S A R G u s. Antennes a trols articulations : les deux premieres courtes , herissees de polls roides j la troisi^me en forme de palette avec trois jncisions, terminee par un poll un peu barbu k la base. — Les ieux chatains, bandes de violet. — Les ailes croisees." — Les vers vivent dans les bouses de vaches. 5 especes. 48. R H A G I O. Antennes a trols articulations : les deux premieres spheriques j la troisierae conique , terminee par un poll long, recourbe et barbu. T^te presque hemispherique. — Les ieux sans bande. — Ailes a dernietalees. — Les vers vi- vent en terre. 7 especes. 4^. A K T H R A X. Antennes a trois articulations ; la premiere Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 149 C^9> cylindrique on un peuoblongue; la seconde spherique j la troisleme conlque , terminee en pointe droite. — Tete spherique. — Corps ve- lu. — Les ailes etalees. 7 especes. 5o. Oestrus. Antennes placees en deux cavites presque spheriques , k trois articulations : la derniere garnie a I'extr^inite d'un poll simple. — Les ailes un peu etalees. — Les vers vivent dans le corps ou sous la peau des quadrupedes. 3 especes. 5i, B O M B Y L I u s. Antennes k trois articulations : la premiere cylindrique ; la seconde spherique j la troi- si^me longue , plate , terminee en pointe. — Trompe horizontale , tres-longue. — Tete spherique. — Les ailes etaldes. ' 6 especes. 52. O RI P H R A L E. Antennes inclinees a deux articulations : 150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (3o) la premiere cyathiforme ; la seconde presque cylindrique , obtuse. — Le corps applati. 1 'espece. 53. C L Y T H I A. Antennes k trois articulations : les denx premieres cyatliiformes^ herissees de poils ; la troisieme en palette , terminee par un poil isimple. — Tarses desjarabesposterieures elar- gis. — Ailes obtuses , croisees. 1 espece. 5^. MUSIDORA. Antennes a trois articulations : les deux pre- mieres cyathiformes, herissees de poils roides; la troisieme en palette , terminee par un poil barbu. — Jambes longues , minces. — Ailes lanceol^es , croisees. 2. especcs. 55. C L E o N A. Antennes a trois articulations : les deux premieres cyathiformes, herissees j la troisieme conique , terminee par un poil barbu. — Ailes lanceolees , croisees. 1 espece. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 151 (3i ) 56. C Y P S E L A. Antennesa deux articulations : la premiere petite , herissee de poils ; la seconde en pa- lette ronde , garnie a la base d'un poil barbu. — Ailes croisees. — Tarses des jambes pos- terieures elargis. -_ Les vers vivent dans les excremens et les cadavres. 4 especes. 5j, D O R I L A s. ^ Antennes a deux articulations ; la seconde inclinee , garnie a la base d'un poll simple, — T^te hemispherique. — Ailes croisees, obtuses. 1 espece. 58. Atalanta. Antennes k trois articulations , en forme de cone, terminees par un poil barbu, re- courbe. — Ailes croisees , obtuses. 1 espece. 59. T Y L o s. Antennes k deux articulations : la premiere 152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (30 petite ; la seconde en palette ronde , avec un poll long et barbu a la bise. — La tete prolongee en cone. — Jambes minces. — Les ailes croi- sees. 1 espece. 60. R H I N G I A. Antennes k trois articulations : la derni^re en palette , avec un poil simple k la base. — La bouclie prolongee en c6ne qui revolt la trompe articulee. — Les ailes croisees. 1 espece. 61. Chkysogaster. Antennes a trois articulations : la troisleme en palette , avec un poil simple k la base. — Le front crenele. — L'abdomen plat, ovale. — Les ailes croisees. 4 especes. 62. A N T I P A. Antennes inclin^es k trois articulations : les deux premieres peiites , herlssees j la troi- sleme longue , presque prlsmatlque , garnie k la Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 153 (33 ) ^ la base d'unpoll long, barbu. — Balanders nus. — Corps presque glabre.— Ailes crois^es* 3 especes. 63. T H E R B V A. Antennespetltes, perpendlcniaires, a deux articulations de merae grandeur, cy lindriques : la seconde avec un poil simple k la base. Ailes larges. — Balanciers couverts d'une ecaille. 6 especes. , 64. S Y R P H U S. Anlennes a trois articulations : la derniere en palette avec un poil simple k la base. — Balanciers couverts d'une petite ecaille — Ailes croisees. — Les vers vivent de pucerons. 45 especes. 65. T R I T o N I A. Antennes a trois articulations cylindriques : Ja troisiemeun peu cornprimee avec un poil simple a la base. — Ailes croisees Corps nu. 4 especes. C 154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (34) 66. Z E L I i\i A. Antennes a trois articulations : la derniere en palette oblongue , garnie d'un poll sim- ple a la base. — ^Cuisses des jambes poste- rieures armees d'un rang de piquans. — Ailes crolsees. a especes. 6j. L A M P E T I A. Antennes h. trois articulations : la derniere en palette , garnie k la base d'un poll simple. — Culsses des jambes post^rieures enflees , arraees a I'extremite d'une dent. — Les ailes a deml-etalees. 3 especes. 68. TUBIFERA. Antennes a trois articulations : la derniere en palette garnie h la base d'un poll ou simple , ou un peu barbu. — Culsses des jambes pos- terieures un peu comprlmees. — Ailes a de- ml-etalees, resplendlssantes. — Les vers vi- vent dans I'eau et les. immondices. ( Vers k queue de rat. RSau?niir). 12, especes. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 155 {35) 6g. C I N X I A. Antennes k trois articulations .la dernlere en palette , garnie a la base d'un poll plu- meux. — Ailes croisees. 4 especes. 70. Penthesilea. Antennas a trois articulations : la derniere en palette ovale, garnie k la base d'un poil simple. — Cuisses des jambes posterieures en- ilees y sans piquans. • — Ailes croisees. 1 espece. 71. Trepidaria. Antennes k deux articulations : la seconde oblongue , obtuse , garnie a la base d'un poil leg^rement barbu. — Tete presque spherique. — Front large. — Ailes redressees. — Corps cylindrique , glabre. 3 especes. 72. T I T A N I A. Antennes a deux articulations : la seConde C 2 156 Btdletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (36 ) oblongue , obtuse , garnie a la base d'un poll barbu. — Front large. — Ailes croisees. — Corps glabre , plat. 7 especes. yS. SCOTEUIVIA. Antennes k deux articulations : la seconde prismatique , un poil barbu a la base. — Front large. — Tete spherique. — Corps velu. — Ailes croisees. — Les vers vivent dans les excremens. 7 especes. 74' Statinia. Antennes h. deux articulations : la seconde echancree , avec un poil plumeux a la base. — Tete spherique. — Front large. — Ailes croisees , reticulees. 8 espies. y5. E U R I B I A, Antennes a deux articulations : la seconde oblouguc , avec un poil leg^ieinent barbu a la base. , — Front large. — Ailes croisees , ta- chet^es et bandees. — Tarriere de la femelle Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 157 (37) longue , corneuse. — Les vers vivent dans les semences , etc. 18 especes. y6. A p I V o R A. Antennes h. deux articulations : la seconde prismatique , garnie a la base d'un poll long , tres-plumeux. — Bouche prolongee. — Corps velu. — Les vers vivent dans les nids des bour- dons et abeilles sauvages. 5 especes. 77. M U S C A. Antennes a deux articulations : la seconde prismatique , garnie a la base d'un poil plu- meux ou barbu. — Corps herisse de poils. — Balanciers couverts d'une ecaille. — Les vers vivent dans les cadavres , le fumier , etc. 70 especes. 78. S A r P Y G A. Antennes k trois articulations : la deml^re oblongue, avec un poil tr^s-peu barbu k la base, — Balanciers couverts d'une Ecaille. — Corps herisse de poils roides. — Ailes k derai-etalees. 6 especes. 158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (38) 79. T I T I A, j^ntennes petites, a trois articulations, ovoi- des , de meme grandeur : ladernlere avec un poll simple a la base. — Corps herisse depoils. — Ailes a demi-etalees. 1 espece. 80. Salmacxa. Antennas k deux articulations ; la seconde longue , prismatique , garnie k la base d'un poil simple , flechi en coude. — Balanciers couverts d'une ecaille. — Corps herisse de poils roides. a espece. 81. ECHINOSES. Antennes k trois articulations : la derni^re plate , elargie , avec un poil simple k la base articule. — Corps herisse de poils. — Ailes k demi - etalees. — Les vers vivent dans les bouses des vaches. 5 especes. 82. LARVjffiVORA. Antennes k deux articulations : la seconde Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 159 (39) prismatique avec un poll simple a la base. — ^ Corps herisse de polls roides. — Alles a de- mi-etalees. — Les vers vivent dans les che- nilles , etc. 2.5 esp^ces. 83. Rhodogyne. Antennes inclin^es h. trois articulations •. la premiere petite j la seconde longue , herissee de polls J la troisleme lanceolee , obtuse , avec UQ poll simple a la b^se. — Le corps glabre. — Alles k demi etalees. a especes. ^^, C R o c u T A. Antennes h. deux articulations : la seconde longue , comprimee, obtuse, un poll simple a la base. — Trompe horizontale, articulee. — Ailes a demi-etalees. 1 esp^ce. 85. Calirrhoe. Antennes k deux articulations : la seconde prismatique , un poll plumeux k la base. — Trompe horizontale. — ■ leux ovales. — Ailes a denii-etalees. I esp^ce. 160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (4o) 86. Stomoxys. Antenncs k deux articulations : la seconde prismatique , un poll plumeux a la bdse. — Troinpe horizontale. — leux rdniibrmes. — Ailes ^ demi-etalees. 1 esp^ce. 87. HlPPOBOSCA. Antennestr^s-petites, filiformes. — Trompe droite , filiforme. •— Corps plat. ~ Ailes un peu etal^es. 3 esp^ces. \. C Y A N E A. Sans antennes. 1 esp^ce. INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has been criticised at times for the delays that have occurred in the consideration of particular cases. In part these delays have been due to faults in the organisation and procedure of the Commission and, in so far as this has been the case, steps have been, and are being, taken to prevent their recurrence. To a considerable extent, however, these delays have been due to the incomplete and inaccurate way in which proposals have been submitted to the Commission for consideration. 2. Zoologists are accordingly invited to co-operate with the Commission by complying strictly with the following instructions when submitting proposals for the consideration of the Commission and in consequence when submitting papers for publication in the Bulletin. By doing so zoologists will : — (a) avoid unnecessary delays in securing decisions on questions submitted ; and (b) reduce to a minimum the expenditure incurred by the Commission in dealing with applications submitted. 3. The instructions in question are the following : — (1) Proposals should be in the form of papers and should not be raised incidentally in course of correspondence ; these papers should be as short and concise as is consistent with the clear presentation of the problem to be considered. (2) Wherever possible papers should be typewritten and, whether typewritten or in manuscript, should be on one side of the paper only. (3) The printing of papers in foreign languages adds greatly to their cost. For so long therefore as the present financial difficulties of the Commission persist, zoologists are asked to submit all manuscripts in English. (4) Each application should be confined to a single subject except where the status of two or more names forms part of a single problem. (5) Where a proposal refers to status of a particular name, a clear indication should be given, either in the title or at the beginning of the paper, of the Class and Order to which the genus or species belongs. Wherever possible the name of the family should be added. (6) The full bibliographical reference should be given for every name, wherever generic or specific, cited. (7) In the case of generic names the type species should be clearly stated and a refer- ence given to the circumstances in which that species became the type, i.e. : — (i) whether so designated at the time of original publication ; or (ii) whether designated at a later date under Article 30 of the Code, and, if so, by what author it was so designated. (In these cases the full biblio- graphical reference should be given to the place where the species in question was designated as the type.) (8) Specific names should be cited in the same combination of generic and trivial names as that employed by the original author when first naming the species. (9) A full bibliographical reference consists of: — (a) the generic or specific name in question; (b) the name of its author; (c) the date of its publication ; (d) the title of the work in which the name was so published ; (e) where the work in question consists of more than one volume, the volume number; (f) the page number. (10) The titles of journals should be abbreviated in the form shown in the " World List of Scientific Periodicals," ed. 2, 1934; the names of separate works should be cited in full. (11) Volume numbers should be cited in Arabic (and not in Roman) numerals. ( 1 2) Page references should be cited in accordance with the Harvard system of notation, i.e., the page number preceded by a colon should follow immediately after the title of the work, or, where that work is in more than one volume, the volume number. The word " page " and the abbreviation " p." should not be used. 4. Priority of treatment will in all cases be given to proposals prepared in accordance with the foregoing instructions. BY ORDER OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission. Secretariat of the Commission, At the British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. May, 1943. THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION {obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at A\, Queen's Gate, London, S.W.I.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This journal was established by the International Commission 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 (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The above work is being published in three volumes concurrently, 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 (containing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions 1-11) have now been published. Further Parts are in the press and 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 1^0, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-170, have now been published. Further Parts are in the press and will be published shortly. Volume 3. This volume, which will commence with Opinion 182, will contain the Opinions adopted by the International Commission since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-11, containing Opinions 182-192, have been pubUshed. Further Parts will be published shortly. PursTED IS Great BRnADj by Eichard Clay and Company, Ltd., Bungay, Suffolk. VOLUME 1. Part 8. Pp. 161-192. 26th JUNE 1946 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE r^ Edited by FRANaS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission On the validity of the genotypes designated by Koch (C. L.), 1837-1842, Ubersicht des Arachnidensystems, for genera, the names of which had been first published by that author in 1835-1842, Deutschlands Crtis- laceen, Myiiapoden iind Aiachniden. By the late Arthur P. Jacot . p. 161 On the question of the oldest available trivial name for the species re- named Diaptomus vulgaris by Schmeil in 1897 (Class Crustacea, Order Copepoda). By Robert Gurney, Oxford . . . p. 162 Proposed suppression of the name Graptoliihus Linnaeus, 1768 (Class Graptolithina, Order Graptoloidea). By O M. B. Bulman, Sc.D., F.R.S., University Lecturer in Palaeozoology, Cambridge University . p. 163 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Monograptus Geinitz, 1852 (Class Graptolithina, Order Graptolithoidea). By O. M. B. Bulman, Sc.D., F.R.S., Lecturer in Palaeozoology, Cambridge University . . p. 164 (continued on back wrapper) 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. 1946 Price six shillings and seven pence (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION A. 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). B. The Members of the Commission Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. W. ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom), Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Bela von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. T. 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). Dr. Th. MORTENSEN (Denmark). 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. YOKES (U.S.A.). C. The Staff of the Secretariat in London Secretary to the Commission : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Archivist : Mr. Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A. Publications Officer : Mrs. F. R. Langstadt. D. The Address of the Commission 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. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 161 ON THE VALIDITY OF THE GENOTYPES DESIGNATED BY KOCH (C. L.), 1837-1842, UBERSICHT DES ARACHNIDENSYSTEMS, FOR GENERA, THE NAMES OF WHICH HAD BEEN FIRST PUBLISHED BY THAT AUTHOR IN 1835-1842, DEUTSCHLANDS CRUSTACEEN, MIRIAPODEN UND ARACHNIDEN By the late Arthub P. Jacot. (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)90.) In 1835-1844 ^ Carl Ludwig Koch published his " Deutschlands Crustaceen, Myriapoden und Arachniden " at Regensberg, for the exact dates of publica- tion of which see Sherborn, 1923, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (9) 11 : 566-568. This was immediately reprinted by George WolfEgang Panzer as part of his " Faunae Insectorum Germanicae initia oder Deutschlands Insecten ". In the above work are described many species imder generic names never before published. Under date of 1837 to 1842 Koch in his " Ubersicht des Arachnidensystems " 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 zimi dritten Uebersichtheft ") published in 1842, where the following passage occurs : — Die Gattungsbezeichnungen beschaftigen sich nur mit den ausserlich 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 Gharaktere. Some authors have used as types the species first mentioned under a generic name, as though the genus was monotjrpic. 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 con- cerned as p^t 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 th#efore request the Commission to render an Opinion on the validity of Koch's types as appointed by him in the last paragraph to the Foreword of hie Ubersicht published in 1842. 1 Koch's Deutschlands Crustcaeen, 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 hia Ubersicht des Arachnidensystems. Accordingly, for the purposes of the present appli- cation the terminal date of pubhcation for both these works is 1842 and^ so given above. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (jUNE 1946.) 162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. ON THE QUESTION OF THE OLDEST AVAILABLE TRIVIAL NAME FOR THE SPECIES RENAMED DIAPTOMVS VULGARIS BY SCHMEIL IN 1897 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER COPEPODA) By Robert Gurney. {0.rford.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)8.) In 1853 (Bull. Sac. imp. Nat. Moscou 26 (No. 1) : 75) Fischer published a description under the name Cyclopsina coerulea and gave, inter alia, as synonym Cyclops coendeiis 0. F. MUller, 1785. 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 Midler's species is unrecognisable. Schmeil stated : — " Da Fischer seine Cyclopsina coerulea mit dem vollkommen unsicheren Cyclops coeruleus Miiller identifizierte, so musste ich leider — um den fiir die Mitarbeiter am ' Tierreich ' massgebenden ' Regeln ' etc. gerecht zu werden — diese Art neu benennen." Schmeirs new name has been generally, but not iiniversally, 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 is 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 (0. F. Miiller) or Diaptomus coeruleus (Fischer) ? It can hardly be the former, since Miiller's species is unrecognis- able, 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 SchmeU's name vulgaris, even if it is not strictly correct. Postscript (dated 15th August 1944) : Since the foregoing case was sub- mitted 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 j&nds 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 Diaptmmis vtdgaris Schmeil on the ground that no ambiguity attaches to it, whereas Diaptom,us 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. Bidletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 163 PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF THE NAME GRAPTOLITHUS LINNAEUS, 1768 (CLASS GRAPTOLITHINA, ORDER GRAPTOLOIDEA 2) By 0. M. B. BuLMAN, Sc.D., F.R.S. {University Lecturer in Palaeozoology , Cambridge University.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)11.) ' The name Gmptolithus 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 Gmptolithus 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, Nov. 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 Tahl. Petrif. sued. (ed. 2) : 29). This name, being preoccupied by Priodon Cuvier, 1829, Regn. 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 Lacepede, 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, 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, Silur. Syst. 2 : 696) as the type of the genus Graptolithus. Barrande (1850, Grapt. Boheme : 34) considered it identical with G. Sagittarius Liimaeus, but ^ 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, GraptoUthina. (int'd) F.H. 31st January, 1945. ' A proposal that the International Commission should suppress Gesner, 1758, Tract, phys. Petrif. for nomenclatorial purposes under their plenary powers has been received from Dr. J. Brookes Knight. See p. 222 below. * 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. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (jUNE 1946.) 164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. this was denied by Hall (1868, 20th Ann. Rep. N.Y. State Cab. nat. Hist. : 228), wlio adhered to G. scalaris Lianaeus as the type. It may probably be accepted that GraptoUthus 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 Climaco- graptus scalaris (His.) by EUes 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 GraptoUthus Linnaeus, 1768, be placed on the list of obsolete generic names. PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES FOR MONOGRAPTUS GEINITZ, 1852 (CLASS GRAPTOLITHINA, ORDER GRAPTOLITHOIDEA) ^ By 0. M. B. BuLMAN, Sc.D., F.R.S. {University Lecturer in Palaeozoology, 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 GraptoUthus Linnaeus, 1768.^ The name Lomatoceras Bronn was employed by Eichwald in 1840 {Ueber silur. Schichten- syst. Esthland : 101), but not, apparently, by any other author, and it was withdrawn by Bronn,'' presumably in deference to Beck's assertion, in 1848 {Index palaeont. (1) Nomencl. palaeont. : 551, 667) when the species was referred to GraptoUthus Linnaeus. Barrande, in 1850 {Grapt. Boheme : 15), divided the genus GraptoUthus 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] ifi 1852 {Verstein Grauwackenform. 1 : 19, 32) to cover the subgenus Monoprion and another of Barrande's genera, Rastrites Barrande, 1850 {Grapt. Boheme : 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 {loc. cit. : 19) that the change in name from Monoprion to Monograpsus was made with the object of securing uniformity with the name Diplograpsus McCoy, 1851, Brit. « See footnote 2. * See p. 163 above. • Under the Regies 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 pubhshed. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 165 paheoz. 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 " ex- amples " to be regarded as typical species (and stated as much for the sub- genera of Diplograptus ^ on page 557), he did not definitely state a ty^jc 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 Didymograptus 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 secimd. (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 Monograptiis Gernitz, 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 EUes and Wood) 16 are named after species of the genus Monograptus and zones have 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 {Lomotoceras) originally bestowed under the impres- sion that the graptolites belonged to the Cephalopoda ; and the name Mono- prion 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 International Commission should * The name Diplograpsus McCoy, 1851, is an emendation of the name Diplograpsis McCoy, 1850, Ann. Mag. nut. Hist. (2) 6 : 271. * The name Diplograptus Hall, 1865, Geol. Surv. Canad. Fig. Descr. Canad. org. Remains 2 : 110, is an emendation oi Diplograpsis McCoy, 1850. See preceding 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. Sum. Canad. Fig. Descr. Canad. org. Remains 2 : 41. ^^ It may be noted also that in the latest Nomenclator (Neave, 1939, Nomend. 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 supposed that it had priority over the name Lomatoceras Bronn, 1834. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (JUNE 1946.) 166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. suppress the names Lomatoceras Bronn, 1834, and Monoprion Barrande, 1850, and should validate Monograptus Geinitz, 1852 (= an emendation of Mono- grapsus 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. PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES FOR RETIOLITES BAR- RANDE, 1850 (CLASS GRAPTOLITfflNA, ORDER GRAPTOLITHOIDEA) ^2 By 0. 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. Boheme : 68, erected the genus Gladiolites with the species Gladiolites geinitzianus Barrande as the genotype, by monotypy. He appended a footnote ( : 68) : — Si I'affinite entre le nom generique Gladiolites et Gladiolus, designant une plante, pouvait fair elever quelque objection contre le premier, nous proposerions de lui substituer celui de RetioUtes. The name RetioUtes Barrande was used in the following year by Suess (1851, Naturw. Ahhandl. 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 RetioUtes 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 RetioUtes Barrande, 1850, is widely employed in stratigraphical 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 RetioUtes 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 in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology under suspension of the rules and that the name Gladiolites Barrande, 1850, be suppressed. " See footnote 2. ^^ Article l(i) of the Ragles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature) reads (in the substantive French text) : " La Nomen- clature zoologique est independante de la Nomenclature botanique, en ce sens qu'un nom d'animal ne peut etre rejete pour ce seul motif qu'il est identique a un nom de plante." " See p. 164 above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 167 ON THE TYPE OF THE GENUS DIPLODINIUM SCHUBERG, 1888 (CLASS CILIOPHORA) By Charles A. Kofoid. {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 difl&culty 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 JahrbUcher filr 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 overlooked 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 orthogenetic 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 ". 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 Diplodiniufn Schuberg, but that Schuberg was wrong in assuming that this was the same as Stein's dentatum ? If the trivial name dentatum is not available, may we designate some other species as the type of Diplodinium Schuberg and thus preserve the generic name ? BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (JXJNE 1946.) 168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. ON PROFESSOR CHARLES A. KOFOID'S APPLICATION RELATING TO THE TYPE OF THE GENUS DIPLODINIUM SCHUBERG, 1888 (CLASS CILIOPHORA) By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. {Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)13.) The application made to the International Commission by Professor Charles A. Kofoid for a ruling as to the type of the genus Diplodinittm 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 imtil 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 dentattim 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 appUcation 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 Mac- Lennan, 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 pub- lished below, in order that all the available data may be assembled for the consideration of this case. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 169 ON THE TYPE OF THE GENUS DIPLODINIUM SCHUBERG, 1888 (CLASS CILIOPHORA) By Harold Kirby. {Department of Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California.) (Extract from a letter dated 17tli March 1945 from Professor Kirby to the Secretary to the International Commission). (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)13.) I do not know the date of Professor Kofoid's communication \g the Com- mission 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 Entodinitim (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 Diplodiniiim entitled " Type species of Diplodinium Schuberg " wrote : — Eberlein (1895) disputed the existence of the two membranelle zones reported by Schuberg in Stein's E. 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 mono- graphic 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 Diplodin- ium dentatum (Stein, 1858) Schuberg, 1888. It is the ciUate that Stein studied and that Schuberg had before him. The distinctive caudal structure of six spines is not found in any other opliryoscolecid, and there is no doubt that Stein and Schuberg were concerned with the ciliate that Fiorentini later (and un- necessarily) named Diplodinium denticulatum. Eberlein was clearly mistaken in supposing that he found an Entodinium corresponding 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 BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (jUNE 1946.) 9* 170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. is reasonably clear cut, and the exercise of the plenary powers should not be required. It was the only named species included in Diplodinimn when that genus was estabUshed, 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 Diplodinmm dentatum. It is impUed in his use of the name Entodinium detitati(m and his assignment of that ciliate to the new genus Diplodinwm.^^ References. Ebeelein, R., 1895. tjber die im Wiederkauermagen vorkommenden ciliaten Infusorien. Z. toiss. Zoo}. 59 : 233-304. FiORENTiNi, A., 1889. Intorno ai Protisti dello stomaco dei Bovini. (Pa via, frat. Fusi). KoForD, C. A., and MacLennan, R. F., 1932. Ciliates from Bos hidicus Linn. II. A revision of Diplodinium Schuberg. Unii\ Calif. Piibl. Zool. 37 : 53-152. Schuberg, A., 1888. Die Protozoen des Wiederkauermagens. I. Butschlia, Isotricha, Dasytricha, Entodiniinn. Zool. Jb. Syst. 3 : 365-418. Stein, F., 1858. tJber 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.). Veteri- narsl-og Arhiva 5 : 388-526. ^* The Regies Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique do not require that, in order to be valid, a generic name should, when first pubhshed, be actually cited in combination with the trivial name of the species selected as the type, though such citation is commended by the " Recommandation " attached to Article 29 of the Regies. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 171 ON THE STATUS OF THE GENERIC NAME ASPIDOPROCTUS NEWSTEAD, 1901 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA) By T. D. A. COCKERELL. (University of Colorado, Boulder, Col.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)46.) In 1901 Newstead, [April 1901], Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1900 (4) : 948 de- scribed a species of coccidae, of which he said that he had intended to place it in a new genus Aspidoproctus, but that he had decided that this was unneces- sary. He therefore called the insect Walkeriana pertinax Newstead, [1901], ibid. 1900 (4) : 947 pi. 59. Later (August 1901, Entomologist 34 : 227), the name Lophococcus Cockerell was proposed for a different species (Lophococctis mirabilis Cockerell, 1901, ibid. 34 : 248, which is now considered congeneric with Walkeriana pertinax Newstead, [1901]. Still later, authors have resurrected the name Aspidoproctus Newstead, and this is now used as the generic name for the species in question (see Morrison (H.), 1928, Tech. Bidl. U.S. Dep. Agric. 52 : 151). My idea has been to accept the first published name, but there is confusion as to the meaning of the Code in this matter and this confusion should be cleared up by the International Commission. ON THE STATUS OF THE GENERIC NAME PHORANTHELLA TOWNSEND, 1915 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) By the late J. M. Aldrich. (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)103.) Townsend, 1915, Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 18 : 23, has this :— Phoranthella new genus Genotype, Phoranthella morrisoni Townsend new name for Phorantha (Hyalomyia) occidentis CoquiUet p.p., 1897, Rev. Tach. 44 (nee Hyalomyia occidentis Walker, 1856 Diptera Saundersiana, 260) — Holotype labeled by Coqt. as above, loc. Georgia (Morrison).— Type No. 19139 U.S.N.M. ?. Coquillet's series included specimens from 12 localities, in probably 40 specimens. Without stating that the whole series was misidentified by CoquiUet (note the " p.p."), Townsend has taken out one specimen as misidentified 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 CoquiUet. Question : Does morrisoni have any standing ? Of course without the " pro parte " this would be 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. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (jUNE 1946.) 172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES FOR THE GENERIC NAME DIADEM A HUMPHREYS, 1797 (CLASS ECHINOIDEA, ORDER AULODONTA) By Th. Mortensen. (Universitets Zoologiske Museum, Kobenhavn.) (Commission's reference Z,N.(S.)52.) 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 Centrechimis. With the exception of Jackson, H. L. Clark, Deichmann, Fisher, and Hawkins, all Echinologists sided with me in recommending that the name Diadema (Qrder 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 until the use of this name in the " Museum Calonnianum ", 1797, had been made the object of a careful investi- gation. 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 " I 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. Humphreys) 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 miliaris (MiilL). 1184. orbiculatum. L'Orbiculaire — Orbicular. Normandy. Echinus esculen- tus Lirm. * 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 Linn6. 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. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 173 This is clear enough. It is curious that Humphreys 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 — Green-spined. New- foundland. Has the spines on. This can clearly only be Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis (0. Fr. Miiller). 1187. 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). 1188. ovatum. (a) Native colour, with the teeth and some of the spines; (6) bleached; (c) opened to show the internal structure. L'Oeuf — Egg. West Indies. This may probably be Tripneustes esculentus (Leske). 1189. rotundum. Le Circulaire — Circular. East Indies. Unidentifiable. 1190. 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. 1191. subulatum. Les Epines en forme d'Alene — Awl-like, spined. West Indies. This may perhaps be Lytechinus variegatus (Lamarck). 1192. maculatum. Les Epines Tachetees — Spotted red-spined. Mediterra- nean. Eare. This must evidently be Sphaerechinus granularis (Lamarck). 1193. striatum. Les Epines Longues Striees — Long striated spined. Mediter- ranean. 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 ajfflnis (Philippi). 1194. sceptiferum. Les Epines au Sceptre Couronne — 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, p. 80. fig. L, the only specimen of its kind in England." De Favanne. Conchyliologie, 1780, pi. Ixxx. fig. L, is evidently Plococi- daris verticillata (Lamarck). Thus, among the identifiable species under Humphreys' Diadema is one species, limatulum, which may very well be the species always imderstood as Diadema, the Diadema antillarum Philippi, and since all the other identifiable species belong to long-established genera, Himiphreys' Diademu limatulum would be the only suitable species to select as the genotype of Diadem/i. 174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The Echinoid genus name Diadetna thus originates from Humphreys, 1797, not from Gray, 1825 (" An Attempt to divide the Echinida, or Sea Eggs, into Natural Families," Annah 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 Echinanthtis 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 anonymous. Unfortunately this argimient is not conclusive, since he does not add any " nob." either at Asiropyga, 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 /or an Echinoid. The name dates f rani 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 Diademes " in 1816 — and the nams 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, estab- lished the genus Coronula. Schumacher's and Ranzani's Diadema is, of course, only a dead synonym of Coronula Oken,* but the Echinoid name Diadema Humphreys remains imafiected 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 dis- cussion about the " Museum Calonnianimi ", resulting in the Opinion 51, which says : " The Museimi 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 " Museimi 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 imanimously by the Com- missioners. 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 fixed, Himiphreys' species limatulum would have to be selected as the genotype, since it may be identical with the species now unanimously named Diadetna 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 Calon- nianum " that could be made the genotype of Diadema is limatidum possibly = Diadona antillarum Philippi, this latter being at that time (as a matter of fact up till 1904) regarded as identical Avith the Indo-Malayan " Echino)netr.a setosa " of Leske, the name litnatulum thus being apparently synonymous with the older name setosum. Having regard to the foregoing considerations, to the universal use of the * 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. "I 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." Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 175 name Diadetna for the Echinoids since Gray's time (up till 1912), and to the very unfortimate consequences (cf. " Vote on some Echinoderm 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 Calon- nianum " — -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 of the generic name Diadema Humphreys (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 descrip- tion 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-liJce ", and, if special weight is given to the word " blunt ", it is more likely that the Diadema limatulum of Humphreys was Eucidaris tribuloides, the spines of Diadema antillarum, if well preserved, being certainly not to be described 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 ^Ze-h'^e. Accordingly the Diadetna limatulum of Humphreys may have been either Eucidaris tribuloides or Diadema antillarum. Anyhow, it is unquestionable that the name Diadetna was fixst used as a genus of Echinoids, including several recognisable species, one of which may very well be identical with Diadetna antillarum Philippi, closely related with the species that Gray selected as the genotype of Diadetna. 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 Diadettxa in the Echinoids. On the other hand, there is nothing to speak 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 Diadetna (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 Diadetna and must emphatically recommend to have it placed on the official list of generic names as a nomen conservandum. BULL. ZOOL. KOMENCL. (JUNE 1946.) 176 Bulletin of Zoological Notnenclature. ON THE RELATIVE MERITS OF THE NAMES POLYPLACOPHORA AND LORICATA AS THE NAME FOR THE CLASS KNOWN AS " CHITONS " OF THE PHYLUM MOLLUSCA By the late Edwin Ashby. (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)20.) I beg to ask that a ruling be given as to which of the two names poly- PLACOPHORA or LORICATA should be used as the ordinal name of that group of the Phylum Mollusca known as " Chitons ". It is undesirable to make changes in well-established names unless adequate justification is shown. The ordinal name polyplacophora dating from Gray (J. E.), 1821, Land. med. Repos. 15 : 234, has been used by the majority of workers from that date till now. Schumacher in 1817, Essai now. Syst. Habit. Vers testae. : 92, used the name loricata for the inclusion of multi- valve Mollusca, recognising one genus only, but this name has not been used again in this respect till Iredale aiid Hull proposed it in 1923, Avst. Zool. 3 : 186. The Law of Priority does not apply to ordinal names and therefore its adoption on such grounds cannot be valid. But it is thought by some that the word " Loricata " (lorica meaning a leather tunic) is more euphonious than " Polyplacophora ", and some workers would like to use it for this reason, although the name loricata has been used for crocodiles, for armadilloes and also, more or less loosely, for certain types of Protozoa. The meaning of the compound word " Poly-placo-phora " cannot be bettered, namely " many-plates-form " and, if it was only the practice of scientists to pronounce scientific words in accordance with their meaning, any lack of euphony would disappear. If well-established ordinal names are to be altered at the whim of any worker, it is surely making a farce of the avowed desire for uniformity in nomenclature and doing a disservice both to science and the public. ON THE HOLOTYPE OF FASCIOLA OVATA RUDOLPHI, 1803 (CLASS TREMATODA, ORDER DIGENEA) By G. Witenberg. (Department of Parasitology, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)126.) M. Braun (1901, Zbl. Bakt (Abt. 1) 29 : 12-19) found that the original vial containing specimens determined by Rudolphi as Distoma ovatum Rudolphi, 1809, Entoz. 2 (1) : 357 (= Fasciola ovata Rudolphi, 1803, Archiv Zool. (Wiede- mann) 3 (2) : 25) contained two species. One of these species was accordingly selected by Braun as being the species described by Rudolphi and the species so selected was treated by Braun as Prosthogonimus ovatus (Rudolphi). Do the rules in the International Code provide for the selection of a lectotype in such a case ? Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. yjfj ON THE RELATIVE STATUS OF THE NAMES PETALIFERA GRAY 1R47 By H. Engel. {Conservator, Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)150.) rir.1 ?^v^' i?^^ P^f\ *'''(• "^^ Aplysiens), describes sufficiently •— ^wZ^/Ma dolahr^fem Rang ( : 51) and Aplysia petalifera Rang ( • 52) ' ^ ^ Gray, 1847, Proc. zool. Soc. Loncl. 15: 129-219 mvek • " A T i«f «f fi, Gener^of Recent Mollusca, their Synonyms and T^peT^anZ on page' 1^62 1 No. 316. ^^I^^Bol^^la, sp. Cuvie. 1817; E.russ. A.tysia b.* Rang. llV'fJ^P''^' Swains., 1840, 357. rA. ornatus Sw. [Fetahfera. Aplysia petalifera. So we see that Gray promotes the trivial names dolahrifera and petalifera to generic status and then gives them as synonyms of each other ^^'"'''J^'' nolabnfera Gray then passed in literature %iys^Uam2ev ' ''^' ""^"^ "'" '^^" ^^^ P^^^^^ ^^ »^*-^*-«' --ely Graf IS?? ^"^f J' f Tryon's^an^aJ o/CWoZo^y 16 : 128, restores Petalifera S.Z'xoS. 19 (3) : SsI '"" '^"^"^' ^^^^ '^^ ^'^^'^^^^^^ (1^-^^' ^-- The question is : — (1) Is Petalifera Gray, 1847 sufficiently designated as a generic name ? sufficLtTTfi' '■ .J""' ^^' designation A. petalifera is absolutely sufficient to define the genus, as the species was clearly described by (2) Can a new generic name, given as a synonym of another new generic name be regarded as available, when later authors are of the opS tJiat they are not synonyms ? f^^^u. It is clear that Gray wanted to deal in the same way with the two species tt Cr tudlTelt^'r^ T/ ^^¥ja ^e^a/^>a Rang,';hich were described be^en:^^^^^^^^^^^^^ '^""^' ^°"P^"^^ *^ P^^-«*« both the trivial names to ^^^l h. ^?^^ ^^^"^^ ^y^^- ^^^^^- Mollusca Brit. Mus 1 • 199) aives tliA genus Z^o^6n>. Gray with three species : (1) AplysiaJoLrifJrTi^::^^^^^^^ nl^^oA r-^"'\^'^l' ^^^^' "^^^ (3) Dolnbrifera oahouLis Gray, nom ?^a/^C R^atrS" ^^^y' ^f 0-", . At the sam'e time Gray placed ^;,Zy.sTa petalijera Rang m the genus Aplysia Lmnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat.(ed 12) 1 (9) • eithe'rTh^r" "°- ^' '^^^1 -f ""« ^^^^3% 1857 : 199 and no longer mamtaitd Are we to use the name Petalifera Gray, 1847, or Aplysiella Fischer, 1872 ? (section'^' b"ToflX?ynT"^^^^^^ '"'"''^^^^^ ^^"^ ^^ ^^^^ - *^^ ---^ -tion trai^'thTspederSfeU^^^^^ "^TheHlft';:'- f "^"^ f .-f ^-nces to plates illus- published in Mrs. E M Grav? p^wI. 3 L ,,P *^'' ^^.e^P'^ined in his " Preface," were three species placed bv GrTv in ffi / ^^j^""*^'^ ^^Y^aZ.. The plates so cited for the 220 fig.^5 resi^^cti^eV.^ T:Ly.:^':t::n%ZSyi; IZ''- '' ''■ ''' ''■ '' ^^' ^' BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (jUNE 1946.) 178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE NAME ACMAEA ESCHSCHOLTZ, 1830 (CLASS GASTROPODA, ORDER ARCHAEOGASTROPODA) IS A HOMONYM OF AC ME A (= EMENDED FORM OF ACME) HARTMANN, 1821 (CLASS GASTROPODA, ORDER MESOGASTROPODA) By Avery R. Test.^' (Laboratory of Vertebrate Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.) (Commission's reference Z.N. (S.) 27.) I have been very much troubled by a difficult taxonomic tangle, which has cropped up in the literature again and again. The evidence in the case is as follows : — Acmaea Eschscholtz versus Acmea Hartmann 1821 Hartmann [in Sturm, Deutsch. Fauna (VI. Wiirm.) 5 : 37) described a terrestrial gastropod, now known as Truncatella Risso, 1826, Hist. nat. princ. Prod. Eur. merid. 4 : 124, naming it Acme. Later, in the same year, he (Hartmann, 1821, N. Alpina 1 : 204) changed the name to Acmea. The Greek root of this word assertedly is aKfj-i] (see Willcox, M. A,, 1900, Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist. 29 : 217-218, " A revision of the system- atic names employed by writers on the morphology of the Acmaeidae "). 1830 Eschscholtz {in Kotzebue, 0., 1830, Reise 2 (Appendix) : 350 " A new Voyage roimd the World ") briefly but sufficiently, in my opinion, described a genus of marine gastropod, naming it Acmaea (which has been called a notnen nudum by Sherborn, but, since the original description includes the chief generic character, I do not believe the name to be a nomen nudum). 1833 Eschscholtz's genus was again described, more thoroughly, and the derivation of the name given as from the Greek d/nomt^ cordatus Sowerby (J.), 1813, Min. Conch. Great b1 Hi ■ 51 That name has been m continuous use as zonkl index, for aU tr a restricted paxt of, the zone for which it was origmally proposed, dotn' Z t^pr^S <^iaSr(sltlf Im^? 'T"'''^ ? the history of the zone of Cardwceras Ti'nl-^ nol'^: ^ ^^ ^wwwHito cordatus Sowerby, 1813) 182 Btilletin of Zoological Nomenclature. the zone for the whole of the Paris Basin. Tombeck (1874), who was also on& of the earlier writers to deal wath Upper Jurassic zones, adopted the " Cordatus Zone " for the department of the Haute-Marne, using the term in its modern sense. Oppel, often (erroneously) claimed as the foimder of the zonal idea, but certainly the greatest and most accurate of its early exponents, at first did not distinguish between the " Lamberti " and " Cordatus " zones, for in south-west Germany, where he principally worked, these zones are condensed and the fossils mixed. In his last work, however, Oppel (1866) took over these zones from his French colleagues. They had already been adopted for North Germany by Credner (1863), and the succession has not since been questioned. H. Douville (1881), by his study of the Upper Jurassic on the north side of the Paris Basin and in the Normandy cliffs in particular, gave greater pre- cision to the zonal sequence by establishing a " Mariae Zone " between the " Cordatus " and " Lamberti " zones. These three zones — Lamberti, Mariae and Cordatus — are the appropriate zones for the English Upper Oxford Clay also, and after a revision of English collections and a study of all the relevant English exposures and of the Norman collections in Paris and Caen, I have adopted these three zones with the three zonal indices established by H. Douville in 1881, both in the papers referred to above and in my monograph on the Ammonites of the English Corallian Beds, now in course of publication by the Palaeontological Society. The arrangement proposed by H. Douville was followed by all subsequent French writers on the subject, of whom the most modern were his son R. Douville, who wrote a series of monographs on the fossils from these zones (1912, 1914, 1915), and Raspail (1901), who published the most detailed and authoritative stratigraphical account of the classic sections on the coast of Normandy. Thus up to 1915, all French writers on the subject used a " Cordatus Zone ", and its meaning was unambiguous and had never been questioned. It was the " OoUthe ferrugineuse " of the Normandy coast and of Neuvizy in the Ardennes — to cite two of the best known and most highly fossiliferous localities. To trace the history of the zone all over Europe would take much space, but that the " Cordatus Zone " was used everywhere is shown by numerous works, of which perhaps the most important is Lahusen's monograph (1883) on the Ryasan fauna of Russia. Hang's great Traite (1908-1911) standardised the " Cordatus Zone ", among other " zones classiques " for all Europe. In England work comparable with that cited for France and certain other countries is only now being done. No monographs have been published on ammonites or faunas from the Oxfordian, except those recently completed, or now in progress, by the present writer. The " Cordatus Zone " was, however, used officially for the Upper Oxford Clay by the Geological Survey at least since 1895 (see Woodward (H. B.), 1895). The " Ammonites cordatus " referred to as the characteristic fossil of the " Cordatus Zone " was not always the same species. D'Orbigny himself figured three difierent species imder this name, and many geologists took d'Orbigny's figures as the standard rather than Sowerby's. But this is un- important, in view of the fact that they are all contemporary species. In his original description of Ammonites cordatus, Sowerby (1813) figured two specimens which he referred to this species. Those specimens were repre- sented in figures 2 and 4 of Sowerby's plate 17. These figures are reproduced in facsimile on plate 2 in the present paper. Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 1. Plate 2. Fig. 1. Fig. 2. Facsimile reproductions of the figures given by Sowerby (J.), 1813, Min. Conch. Great Brit. 1 : plate 17 of the two co-types oi Ammonites cordatus Sowerby, 1813. FIG. 1. — Facsimile of fig. 2 on Sowerby's plate 17 (= the specimen selected as the holotype oi Ammonites cordatus Sowerby, 1813, by Miss M. Healey in 1905). FIG. 2. — Facsimile of fig. 4 on Sowerby's plate 17 (= the specimen which the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature are now asked to designate as the holotype oi Ammonites cordatus Sowerby, 1813, under their plenary powers). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 183 Botli Sowerby's specimens are preserved in the British Museum. The specimen represented in Sowerby's figure 2 is a nucleus only 20 mm. in diameter and not definitely identifiable ; the specimen represented in Sowerby's figure 4, although also wholly septate {i.e. lacking the body-chamber) is easily identifi- able and is well representative of a whole fauna of Cardiocerates characteristic of the top of the Oxford clay and the Wiltshire Lower Calcareous Grit (the " Cordatus Zone "). Unfortunately Miss M. Healey (1905), in a short note, chose the smaller figure {i.e. Sowerby's fig. 2) to be the " holotype " of Ammonites cordatus Sowerby. She pointed out that the smaller specimen did not come from the Oxford Clay but from the " Lower ( ?) Corallian ". As I have showm (Arkell, 1936), its true horizon is the Upper Corallian, namely the " Plicatilis Zone ". Hence, if Miss Healey's type designation must be accepted, the name Ammonites cordatvs Sowerby, 1813, must be used for an ammonite of the " Plicatilis Zone " or Upper Corallian, a species not known from the Oxford Clay, of which the original " Cordatus Zone " was part; and the " Cordatus Zone " of the literature of the last 80 years wdll have to be renamed. Miss Healey's procedure, as is apparent from the references cited above, has been ignored by nearly all geologists and palaeontologists. In 1913, however, A. P. Pavlow, in a description (in Russian) of some fossils from northern Siberia collected on Baron Toll's polar expedition, gave the new name Cardio- ceras subcordatum Pavlow, 1913, Mem. Acad. Sci. St. Petersb. (8) 21 (4) : 48, to the species figured by Sowerby as fig. 4 on his pi. 17. Seven years later S. S. Buckman, 1920, Type Am)nonites : 15, not knowing of Pavlow's action, gave the name Cardioceras cardia nom. nov. to the same species. Buckman's tri^^al name " cardia " has been adopted for the " Cordatus Zone " by Dr. L. F. Spath, who advocates rejecting the name " cordatus " on the grounds of technical ineligibility in view of Miss Healey's type designation (Spath, 1943). Dr. Spath, however, rejected Pavlow's name " subcordatum " on the ground that its use might be " misleading ". As I have pointed out, however (Arkell, 1941), Cardioceras subcordatum Pavlow, 1913, is technically the correct name for the species figured by Sowerby tmder the name Ammonites cordatus in fig. 4 of his pi. 17 (if Sowerby's fig. 2 of pi. 17 is taken as the type of Amtnonite^ cordatus Sowerby), notwithstanding the existence of the species Ammonites subcordatus d'Orbigny, 1845, in Murchison, Geol. Russia 2 : 434 pi. 24 figs. 6, 7. This latter species is a Kimeridgian species of the genus Amoeboceras Hyatt, 1900, in Eastman-Zittel, Text-Book Palaeont. 1 : 580, and does not belong to, and was not first described in, the same genus as Cardioceras subcordatum Pavlow, 1913. The following points should be noted : — (1) Miss Healey's procedure, setting aside the " obvious " type specimen in favour of another, too small and badly preserved to be interpreted with certainty, runs coxmter to Recommendation " n " set out in Part III of Article 30 of the Rules. (2) Miss Healey did no systematic work on ammonites. She merely refigured a few isolated type-specimens for Palaeontologia Universalis. Her work therefore does not carry the authority of a revision. (3) Miss Healey's choice of figure 2 as the type of Ammonites cordatus Sowerby reversed the decision impHcit in the works of the leading Jiurassic stratigraphers and palae- ontologists of several generations and countries, including d'Orbigny, Credner, Oppel, Hebert, Tombeck, H. B. Woodward, H. & R. Douvill^, Haug, Raspail, Lahusen, and de Grossouirre. (4) Since the first submission of the present application to the International Commission, Sowerby's fig. 4 has again been quoted as the genotjrpe of Cardioceras Neumayr & Uhhg, 1881, Palaeontogr. 27 : 140 (under the trivial name cordatum Sowerby) by 184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Professor F. Roman (1938) in his monumental Ammonites jitrassiques et cretaces ( : 228), which will be a standard work of reference for generations to come. (5) The fact that the technically correct prior substitute name for Sowerby's fig. 4 is Cardioceras mhcordatmn Pavlow, 1913, means that the name Cardioceras cardia Buck- man, 1920, and the term " Cardia Zone " adopted by Buckman and Spath will in any case have to be changed again. Spath's course, to continue to use the synonym cardia rather than risk the confusion involved in the second change, is no solution. In view of this history, I make formal application for the setting aside of Miss Healey's type designation, as the type of Ammonites cordatus Sowerby, 1813, of the species figured by Sowerby as fig. 2 on pi. 17, and for the stabilisa- tion of Cardioceras cordatiim (Sowerby, 1813) as index of the " Cordatus Zone ", with Sowerby's fig. 4 (pi. 17) as type. Only so can confusion and unnecessary changes in strati graphical nomenclature be avoided, and a historical name be usefully retained. References Arkell, W. J., 1936, " The Ammonite Zones of the Upper Oxfordian of Oxford, and the Horizons of the Sowerbys' and Buckman's Types." Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond. 92 : 146-187. , 1939, " The Ammonite Succession of the Woodham Brick Co.s pit, and its bearing on the classification of the Oxford Clay." Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond. 95 : 135-222, 4 pis. , 1941, " The Upper Oxford Clay at Purton, Wilts, and the zones of the Lower Oxfordian." Geol. Mag. 78 : 161-172. , 1935-1945 (in progress), " Monograph on the Ammonites of the English Corallian Beds." Palaeontolographical Society. , 1946, " Standard of the European Jurassic." Bull. Amer. geol. Soc. 57: 1-34. Buckman, S. S., 1920, Type Ammon,ites (privately printed). Crednee, H., 1863, Ueher die Gliederung der oheren J uraformation und der Wealdenbildung im ncrdwestlichen Deutschland. Prague. Table A. DoTTViLLE, H., 1881, " Note sur la partie moyenne du terrain jurassique dans le bassin de Paris, et sur le terrain coralhen en particulier." Bull. Soc. giol. France (3) 9 : 443 et seq. DotrvTLLE, P., 1912, " ifitude sur les Cardioceratides de Dives, Villers-sur-Mer et quelques autres gisements." Mem. Soc. geol. France 19 (2) : 10 (reference to " Cordatus Zone "). , 1914, " fitudes sur les Oppeliid^s de Dives et Villers-sur-Mer." Mem. Soc. geol. France 21 (2). , 1915, " Etudes sur les Cosmoc^ratides des collections de r;ficole nat. sup. des Mines." Mem. serv. Carte geol. det. France. BUuG, E., 1908-1911, Traite de Geohgie : 1004, 1006, et seq. Healey, M., 1905, in Palaeontologia universalis No. 94. Hebert, E., 1857, Les Mers anciennes et leurs rivages dans le bassin de Paris. Paris (see p. 44). , 1860, " Du terrain jurassique sup^rieur sur les cotes de la Manche." Bull. Soc. geol. France (2) 17 : 302. Lahxjsen, I., 1883, " Die Fauna der jurassischen Bildungen des Rjasanschen Gouverne- ments." Mim. Coni. geol. St. Petersb. 1 (1). Oppel, a., 1866, " Uber die Zone des Ammonites transver sarins." In Benecke's Geogn.- palaeont. Beitr. 2 : 214. D'Orbigny, 1845, in Murchison, Geol. Bussia 2 : 434 pi. 24 figs. 6, 7. , 1850, Paleontologie Jrangaise, terrains jurassiques, Cephalopodes. Paris. , 1852, Cours elhnentaire de Paleontologie et de Geologic stratigraphiques. 2. Pa\tlow, a. p., 1913, " Les Cephalopodes du Jura et du Cretace inferieur de la Sib^rie septentrionale." Metn. Acad. imp. Sci. St. Petersb. (8) 21 (No. 4). Rasp AIL, J., 1901, "Contribution a I'^fitude de la Falaise jurassique de Villers-sur-Mer." Feuille des jeunes Naturalistes (4) 31 (Nos. 365, 366, 368). Spath, L. F., 1943, Geol. Mag. 80 : 111. ToMBECK, H., 1874, " Note sur les Stages oxfordien et callovien de la Haute-Marne." Bull. Soc. geol. France (3) 3 : 22. Woodward, H. B., 1895, Jurassic Rocks of Britain 5 (Middle & Upper Oolitic Rocks) : 8 et seq. (Mem. geol. Surv.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 185 ON THE SCOPE OF THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION BY DR. W. J. ARKELL IN RELATION TO THE NAME AMMONITES CORD AT VS SOWERBY, 1813 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA) By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. {Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)58.) The proposal now before the International Commission in relation to the name Ammonites cordatus Sowerby, 1813, is : — (1) that the International Commission should : — (a) suppress the designation by Miss Healey (1905) of the species figured by Sowerby (1813) as fig. 2 on pi. 17 as the type of Ammonites cordatus Sowerby, 1813 ; and should (6) designate as the type of the above species the species figured by Sowerby (1813) as fig. 4 on pi. 17 ; (2) that the International Commission should stabilise Cardioceras cordatum (Sowerby, 1813) as index of the stratigraphical zone known as the " Cordatus Zone ", with Sowerby's fig. 4 as type. Of the above proposals, proposal (1) would be within the power of the International Commission to grant if they were satisfied that the strict applica- tion of the rules as applied to this case would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity; for in that case the International Commission would be enabled to use the plenary powers granted to them by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at Monaco in 1913 for the purpose of suspending the rules as applied to this case. The question whether proposal (1) is one which could properly be granted by the Commission depends, therefore, on whether the evidence so far brought forward, together with any additional evidence which may be brought forward during the consideration of this case, satisfies them that the strict application of the rules as applied to the present case would clearly result in greater con- fusion than imiformity. No limitation is imposed on the Commission as to the type of confusion of which account may be taken by them when consider- ing in any given case whether they should make use of their plenary powers. It is, therefore, open to the Commission in such a case to take accoimt not only of confusion in the taxonomic field but also (for example) of confusion in strati- graphical or other technical literature and confusion in textbooks and other standard works used in the teaching of zoology at the universities and elsewhere. Proposal (2) relates to an entirely different matter; it is concerned not with a question of zoological nomenclature but with a question of palaeonto- logical terminology. As such, proposal (2) is concerned with a matter which falls outside the scope of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and is, therefore, a matter with which, under their existing powers, the Inter- national Commission is not authorised to deal. If the discussion arising from the initiative taken by Dr. Arkell in his recent paper on the " Standard of the European Jurassic " ^^ shows that there is a general desire on the part of palaeontologists that the nomenclature of stratigraphical zones should be brought under regulation, the International Commission will be glad to co- operate in the formulation of any such scheme, in so far as it raises, or impinges upon, questions relating to the nomenclature of the index fossils of such zones. 18 Arkell, 1946, Bull. Amer. geol. Soc. 57: 1-34. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (JUNE 1946.) 186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES FOR ACTINOTE HtJBNER, [1819] (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. {Secretary to the Intematicxnal Commission on Zoological Nomenclature), and N. D. KiLEY. (Keeper of the Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History).) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)63.) HiJBNER ([1819], Verz. hekannt. Schmett (2) : 27) founded the genus Actinote Hiibner for four species wliich he cited as follows : — 208. Actinote Thalia Linn. Syst. Pep. [sic] 67. Cram. 246. A. 210. A. Epaea Cram. 230. B.C. 211. A. Eurita Cram. 233. A.B. 212. A. Amesis Cram. 104. F. Scudder (1875, Proc. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 102) designated the third of these species, Papilio eurita Cramer, as the type. Accordingly, it is necessary to determine the identity of the species so named by Cramer. An examination both of Cramer's published plate and of the original drawings for that plate now in the British Museum (Natural History) show that Cramer figured two species under this name. Figure A on plate 233, which Cramer regarded as representing the ^ of Papilio eurita, in fact represents a specimen of Bematistes umbra (Drury), '^-iorm fasciata (Auriv.).* Figure B on the same plate, which Cramer regarded as representing the $ of Papilio eurita in fact represents a $ of Bemastistes macaria (Fabricius).* It is clear from the text given by Cramer (1779, Vitl. Kapellen 3 (20) : 69, 70) that he did not regard himself as the author of the name Papilio eurita, for on the top of page 70 at the end of his account of this species he added the reference ' " Linn. Syst. Nat. pag. 757. n. 69. Pap. Helicon. Clerck, icon. Tab. 31 Fig, 7.8." This is the species first described as Papilio eurytus by Linnaeus in 1758 (Syst. Nat. ed. 10 : 487 no. 180), which is the species known to-day as Pseudacraea eurytus (Linnaeus). The position is, therefore, that Actinote Hiibner is a genus, of which the species selected as the type by a later author (Scudder, 1875) is a species which was erroneously determined by the author of the genus (Hiibner), for what Hiibner intended to include in the genus as species no. 211 was a species of the genus Bematistes Hemming figured by Cramer on plate 233 (though he did not realise that, in fact, Cramer had figured two different species of that genus as Figs. A and B respectively on that plate). Hiibner referred the species figured by Cramer to Papilio euryttis Linnaeus, 1758, because Cramer had done so and he did not realise that Cramer had made a mistake of identification; Hiibner certainly had no intention of including under the name Actinote euryta (Cramer) the species of the genus Pseudacraea Westwood, [1850], to which in fact Linnaeus had given the name Papilio eurytus in 1758. * Until recently these species were always referred to the genus Planema Doubleday. Hemming has shown (1935, Trans. R. ent. Soc. Land. 83 : 435) that this use of the name is invalid and has proposed the name Bematistes Hemming (he. cit. 83 : 374) for these species. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 187 The genus Actinote Hiibner is, therefore, a genus based upon an erroneously- determined species : first, because Cramer confused together two species (of the genus Bematistes Hemming), and, second, because he confused his com- posite Bemalistes species with the Pseudacraea species which in 1758 Linnaeus had named Papilio eurytxis. The status of genera based upon erroneously determined species has been dealt with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in ■Opinion 65 (published in 1914) ; and the decision there laid down has since been •elaborated by the Commission by the further decisions taken at Lisbon in 1935 and now embodied in Opinion 168. Under those decisions, it is necessary to assume that the species designated as the type of a genus is correctly identified by the original author of the genus and, where the type is designated by a later author, both by that author and by the original author, when including the species in question in the genus concerned. The Commission have, however, made it clear that, where in the opinion of specialists in the group concerned any of the foregoing assumptions is at variance with the facts, the case should be submitted to the International Commission for decision. Under the foregoing decisions of the International Commission, it is neces- sary therefore to conclude that the type of the genus Actinote Hiibner is Papilio eurytus Linnaeus, 1758. In other words Pseudacraea Westwood ([1850], in Doubleday, Gen. diurn. Lep. (2) : 281) to which Papilio eurytus Linn, has hitherto been assigned, is a synonym of Actinote Hiibner. The position is, therefore, that if the rules were strictly applied in this case, the name Actinote Hiibner, which has till now been used for a genus of the sub- family ACRAEINAE, woidd be transferred from that subfamily to the subfamily NYMPHALiNAE, and would replace the name Pseudacraea Westwood, the species of which mimic those of the genus Acraea Fabricius, the leading genus in the subfamily acraeinae. It is hardly possible to imagine a case in which the strict application of the rules could lead to greater confusion than would arise if the name Actinote Hiibner were transferred in this way. All these difficulties could be avoided if the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature were to cancel Scudder's designation of Papilio eurita Cramer as the type of Actinote Hiibner, and were to declare its type to be Papilio thalia Linn., 1758, which is the first of the four species placed in this genus by Hiibner, and which has ever since been assigned to that genus. We accordingly recommend to the International Commission : — (a) that in virtue of the plenary powers conferred upon them by the Inter- national Zoological Congress, they should suspend the Regies in the case of the generic name Actinote Hiibner, [1819] ; (6) that they should cancel the designation by Scudder in 1875 of Papilio eurita Cramer, [1779], (recte Papilio eurytus Linn., 1758) as the type of Actinote Hiibner, [1819] ; (c) that they should declare the type of Actinote Hiibner, [1819] to be Papilio thalia Linnaeus, 1758 {Syst. Nat (ed. 10) 1 : 467) ; and Id) that they should add Actinote Hiibner, [1819] with the type designated in (c) above, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (JUNE 1946.) 188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES FOR HEMEROBIVS LINNAEUS, 1758, AND CHRYSOPA LEACH, 1815 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER NEUROPTERA) By John Cowley, M.A. [Bridgrvater, Somerset), F. J. KiLLINGTON, D.Sc. [Parkstone, Dorset), D. E. KiMMINS {Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History).), and C. E. LONGFIELD. {Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History).) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)42.) In the case of the two following generic names, the strict application of the rules embodied in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature would cause a very serious, and quite unnecessary, disturbance in existing practice and would, in our view, cause greater confusion than uniformity. For these names we are, therefore, in favour of a partial suspension of the rules. In each case, the object that we have in view can be effected by a very slight departuft from the strict application of the Code. The following is an extract from the paper prepared by Mr. KUlington : — Hemerobius Linnaeus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 549. Linnaeus, 1761, Faun. svec. : 383. Latreille, 1810, Consid. gin. Anim. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 435. Leach, 1815, Brewster's Edinb. Encycl. 9 (1) : 138. Curtis, 1828, Brit. Ent. 4 : text to pi. 202. Westwood, 1838, Introd. class. Ins. 2 Syn. : 48. Rambur, 1842, Hist. not. Ins., Nivropt. : 420. Banks, 1906, Trans. Amer. ent. Soc. 32 : 29. Killington, 1931, Entomologist, 64 : 112. Type (fixed by Banks) = Hemerobius humuli Linnaeus, 1761 (= Hemerobius humulinus Linnaeus, 1758). Latreille (1810) fixed the type of this genus as Hemerobius perla Linnaeus, which was one of the- original species described by Linnaeus in 1758 and therefore a perfectly valid selection. In 1828,. Curtis cited Hemerobius hirtus Linnaeus, 1761, as the genotype, but apart from the fact that Latreille had already fixed Hemerobius perla as the genotype, Curtis's selection could not stand as Hemerobius hirtus was not included among the original species in the LLnnaean genus. Westwood, 1838, also cited Hemerobius hirtus LLnn. The next author to fix a genotype was Banks, who in 1906 selected Hemerobius humuli Linnaeus, 1761, which has been shown by Killington (1931) to be a synonym of Hemerobius humulinus Linnaeus (the later spelling was probably due to a printer's error). This selection would be valid, were it not for Latreille's action in 1810 in selecting Hemerobius perla Linnaeus. It is unfortunate that for over a century Hemerobius perla Linn, has been generally recognised as representing the genus Chrysopa Leach (family chrysopidab) and Hemerobius humulinus the genus Hemerobius Linnaeus (family hemerobiidae), for in 1815, apparently unaware of Latreille's action, Leach raised the genus Chrysopa for Hemerobius perla (and for Chrysopa reticulata, although the latter name was not accompanied by a description, and is, in any case, a synonjrm of H. perla), and the two genera Hemerobius and Chrysopa became the typical genera, respectively, of the families HEMEROBIIDAE and CHRYSOPIDAB. With Very few exceptions Neuropterists have, since 1816, accepted Hemerobius perla as the genotype of Chrysopa. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 189 Thus it will be seen that if recognition be accorded to Latreille's fixation of Hemerobius perla Linnaeus, as the genotype of Hemerobius (i.e. if strict adherence to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature be enforced), not only will the name Chrysopa, so long applied to a section of the green lacewings, have to sink as a synonym to Hemerobius, but the family name hemeroehdae will have to be transferred from the brown lacewing group to take the place of the name chbysopidae. Such a change would now be highly undesir- able for the following reasons : — (1) — the long and universal usage of Leach's division of the two groups ; (2) — the two families contain together more species than any other two families of Neuroptera ; (3) — both families are practically world-wide in distribution and the literature dealing with them is far more extensive than in the case of the other families ; (4) — both families are of great economic importance, and an important change in the nomenclature would result in confusion not only to Neuropterists, but also to economic entomologists ; (5) — many compound names have been based on the names Hemerobius and Chrysopa, and, where valid, these would have to remain, with their perpetual and misleading sug- gestions of non-existent affinities. For the reasons given above I consider that the strict appUcation to Hemerobius Lin- naeus of the rules laid down in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature would produce a state of confusion which the International Zoological Congress intended to avoid when they empowered the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to suspend the rules in cases where their strict application would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity.-" We are in full agreement both with Dr. Killington's conclusions and with his recommendations, which we summarise as follows : — ■ (a) The generic name Hemerobius Linnaeus, 1758. We are of opinion that it would be highly undesirable to disturb the use of the name Hemerobius Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 549, for Hemerobius humulinus Linnaeus, 1758, and its congeners, having regard to the fact : — (i) that that name has been applied (with one exception : the genus Mucropalpus Kambur, 1842, contained Hemerobius humulinus Linnaeus (under the name M. lutescens Fabricius)) to species congeneric with Hemerobius humulinus since 1758; (ii) that the strict application of the rules would transfer the name Hemerobius Linnaeus to Hemerobius perla Linnaeus, thus dis- placing the name Chrysopa Leach, 1815, which has been almost universally applied to that species for over a century ; (iii) that the strict application of the rules would transfer the name hemerobiidae from the world-wide and numerous group of species now universally grouped under that name to another 2" The above is an extract from the Second Report of the Sub-Committee on Neuro- pteroid Groups of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature of the Royal Entomological Society of London. At that time the above Committee was composed of: — Sir Guy Marshall, K.C.M.G., F.R.S. {Chaimuxn), Dr. K. G. Blair, Dr. F. W. Edwards, Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Dr. 0. VV. Richards, Mr. N. D. Riley, and Professor W. A. F. Balfour-Browne (Hon. Secretary). The Sub-Committee's Report was attached to the Fourth Report of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature, which, on 24th February 1937, was submitted by the Committee to the Coxmcil of the Royal Entomological Society of London, with a recommendation that this case should be forwarded to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for favourable consideration. The Committee's recommendation was approved by the Council of the Society and, on the publication, on 30th June 1937, of the Committee's Fourth Report, the recommendation regarding this case was forwarded to the International Commission by the Council of the Society. 190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. ' world-wide and numerous group of species known universally as the CHRYSOPIDAE. The fixation of Hemerobius humulinus Linnaeus, by Banks (1906^ Trans. Amer. ent. Soc. 32 : 29) as the type of Hemerobius would be valid but for the fact : — (i) that Latreille (1810, Consid. gen. Anim. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 435) cited Hemerobius perla Linn, as the tjrpe ; and (ii) that the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature had expressed the view in Opinion 11 that Latreille's " table des genres avec I'indication de I'espece qui leur sert de type " " should be accepted as designation of types of the genera in question ". We are of opinion that it is highly desirable that in the exercise of the plenary power conferred upon them by the International Zoological Congress, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect : — Opinion 1 1 of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature regarding the designation of genotypes by Latreille, 1810, shall not be interpreted to mean that in the work referred to in that Opinion Latreille designated Hemerobius perla Linnaeus, 1758, as the type of the genus Hemerobius Linnaeus. Consequently the fixation by Banks in 1906 of Hemerobius humulinus Linnaeus, 1758, as the type of that genus is valid, and the name Hemerobius Linnaeus as thus defined is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (b) The generic name Chrysopa Leach, 1815. We are of opinion that it would be highly undesirable to disturb the use of the name Chrysopa Leach, 1815, for Hemerobius perla Linnaeus, 1758, Brewster's Edinb. Encycl. 9 (1) : 138, and its congeners, having regard to the fact : — (i) that that name has been almost universally applied to those species since its establishment by Leach in 1815 ; (ii) that the strict application of the rules would involve not only the transfer of the name Hemerobius Linnaeus, 1758, to the species almost universally placed under Chrysopa since the establishment of the latter genus by Leach in 1815, but would also involve the transfer of the name hemerobudae from the world-wide and numerous group of species now universally grouped under that name to the world-wide and numerous group of species known imiversally as the chrysopidae. Hemerobius perla Linnaeus, 1758, the only vaUd species cited by Leach, 1815, in his original description of the genus Chrysopa, could be recognised as the genotype of Chrysopa but for the fact : — (i) that Latreille (1810, Consid. gen. Anim. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 435) cited Hemerobius perla Linnaeus as the type of Hemerobius Linnaeus, 1758, and that if this fixation be accepted Chrysopa becomes a synonym of Hemerobius ; and (ii) that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature had expressed the view in Opinion 11 that Latreille's " table Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 191 des genres avec I'mdication de I'espece qui leur sert de type " " should be accepted as designation of tjmes of the genera in question ". _ We are of opinion that it is highly desirable that in the exercise of the plenary power conferred upon them by the International Zoological tongress, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect :— .A^A^""^^^ ^i''y.*7'« Leach, 1815 (type Hemerobim peria Linnaeus, 1758) is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names. The name Hemerobius Linnaeus, 1758, IS, therefore, not to be substituted for Chrysopa Leach, 1815, on the ground that it has priority over that name, though it is available for Hemerobius humulinus Linnaeus, ON THE QUESTION WHETHER ACARUS ALATUS HERMANN 1804 IS DJVALIDATED BY ACARUS ALATUS SCHRANK, 1803, AN UNRECOG- NISABLE SPECIES (CLASS ARACHNIDA, ORDER ACARINA) By the late Aethur P. Jacot. (Commission's reference Z.N. (S.) 131.) Acarus alatus Schrank, 1803, Fauna boic. 3 : 214, is an unrecognisable species I.e. potentially a nomen nudum. Acarus alatus Hermann 1804 Mem apt. : 92 pi. 4 fig 6, is a recognisable species. Is the latter a usable name or a Homonym ? That is to say, does a trivial name applied to an unrecognisable species or a nornen nudum make the same trivial name invahd for subsequent use, It published in combmation with the same generic name ? BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (jUNE 1946.) 192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES FOR PALAEANEILO HALL (J.), 1869 (CLASS PELECYPODA, ORDER PROTOBRANCHIA) By L. R. Cox, Sc.D. (Afisifitant Keeper in the Department of Geology, British Museum (Natural History).) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)62.) I beg to submit the following application to tbe International Co mmi ssion on Zoological Nomenclature : — That Rule 19 be suspended in the case of the generic name Palaeaneilo J. Hall, 1869, Prelim. Not. Lamellibr. Shdh, Pt. 2 and that the emended name Palaeoneilo be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The genus " Palaeaneilo " was foimded by J. Hall in 1869 in a pamphlet entitled " Preliminary Notice of the Lamellibranchiate Shells of the Upper Helderberg, Hamilton and Chemimg Groups, with others from the Waverly Sandstones, Part 2 ", distributed by the New York State Cabinet of Natural History. The generic name was intended to suggest that the genus was ancestral to the li^'ing genus Neilo Adams, [1854], Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 20 (243) : 93, but is spelt as above throughout Hall's paper, occurring no fewer than fifteen times. A further species belonging to the genus was described in 1873 in a paper by J. Hall and R. P. ^^^litfield (23»yZ Ann. Rep. N.Y. State Cabinet : 241) in which the emended name Palaeotieilo is iatroduced without comment. This emended form is used in all subsequent papers by Hall, and has been adopted by all subsequent authors, few of whom, probably, have been able to consult the rare pamphlet in which the genus was first described. Palaeoneilo Hall is an important genus of Palaeozoic Lamellibranchia foimd in most parts of the world and much cited in the literature. The original form of the word, Palaeaneilo, cannot, however, be rejected as a lapsus calami, typographical error, or error of transcription, and so, by Article 19 of the International Rules, should be accepted as the valid name for this genus. I consider that this coiirse would be most imdesirable, both on etymological grounds, and because unnecessary confusion would result. It would therefore, in my opinion, be preferable for the International Commission to decide upon the official stabiUsation of the form " Palaeoneilo ". The type of this genus is Nnculites constricta Conrad (T. A.), 1842, J. Acad, nat. Sci. Philad. 8 : 249, pi. 15 fig. 8, that species having been so designated by Hall (J.), 1885, Nat. Hist. New York (Palaeontology) 5 (1) Lamellibranchiata 2: xxvii. I recommend that the generic name Palaeoneilo (emended from Palaeaneilo) Hall, 1869, with the above species as t}^e be added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. p. 166 p. 167 p. 168 p. 169 p. 171 {conlinued from front wrapper) Proposed suspension of the Regies for RetioUies Barrande 1850 f Class Graptohthina, Order Graptolithoidea). By O. M. B. Bulman Sc D i-.K.h., Lecturer m Palaeozoology, Cambridge Universitv ' . ' ' ^^RvV^^fr^Jl'^i^'v""^ ^>/^^///H«/« Schuberg, 1888 (Class Ciliophora) Blrkel^Tcahf^nd^^ On Professor Charles A Kofoid's application relating to the type of the genus D,plod,mum Schuberg, 1888 (Class Ciliophora). By^Francis Hemming, C M G., C B.E., Secretary to the International CommSn on Zoological Nomenclature ... ^vnimniion On the type of the genus Diplodinium Schuberg, 1 888 (Class Ciliophora) Ber'^'if^'^^nia"'"'''"''^ o/Z../.^v, UniJsity of CafifZt: On the status of the generic name Aspidoproclus Newstead 1901 rciass ^^n'sect'o^d1/Sip?efaf BTthe^£;Tl^''A]^^^^^^^ Proposed suspension of ih^ Regies for the generic name Diadema Hum- phreys, 1 797 (Class Echinoidea, Order Aulodonta). By Th M^ tensen, Umversitets Zoologiske Museum, Kobenhavn . ^""SL'^f^^^J^ri^^ °[ ^^^ names Pplyplacophora and Loricata as the By"?hettfldSm"AX"" " '^''^°" " °' ^'^ "'^'""^ ^°"--- On the holotype oi Fasciola ovata Rudolphi, 1803 (Class Trematnrf^ Order Digenea). By G. Witenberg, DeUtment ofZasltoTgyne Hebrew University, Jerusalem ... '^s.tjine °"Fkchff''y87:>'^rri.°rr "f'"^^^^^"/'/^'-^ Gray, 1847, and Aplrsiella Fischer 1872 (Class Gastropoda, Order Aplysiomorpha). By H Engel, Conservator, Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam . On the question whether the name Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1830 (Class ?^'1T£| ?'■''"' Archaeogastropoda) is a homonym of icS (= emended form of Acme) Hartmann, 1821) (Class Gastronod^ Order Mesogastropoda. By Avery R. Test, ii^J.aLn './XS-' brate Biology, University oj Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan On the holotype oi Ammonites cordatus Sowerby, 1813 (Class Cenhain On the scope of the proposal submitted to the International Commission by Dr W J Arkell m relation to the name Ammonites cordaVus Sowerby 1813 (Class Cephalopoda, Order AmmonoideaT Rv Francis Hemming, C.M.G C.B^E., Secretary T^eFntrfatioml Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . ^".t:, nuuonai Proposed suspension of the Regies for Actinote Hubner, [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By Francis Hemming C M G C B E InlT'uS^lTZnTlf^rT^^^^^ '" Zoological Nomenclature, Mi7unFiNftliHZ:W^.''' ^'P-'-^'--^' of Entomology, British Proposed suspension oUhj Regies for Hemerobius Linnaeus, 1758 and C/io-5.7pa Leach 1815 (Class Insecta, Order Neuroptera) By John Cowley M.A., Bridgwater, Somerset, F. J. Killington D Sc Par/^ stone, Dorset, DE.Kimn.ins, Department ofEnZwlo^v-'iiitsh Museum {Natura History) and C. E. Lon^field, Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History) . ^>'P"'-'nient oj On the question whether /(fan« alatus Hermann, 1804,' is invalidated by Acarusalatus Schr^nk, 1803, an unrecognisable species (Class Arach nida. Order Acarina). By the late Arthur P Jacot p. 172 p. 176 p. 176 p. 177 p. 178 p. 181, pL 2 p. 185 p. 186 p. 188 p. 191 p. 192 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The above work, which is obtainable from the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) at its Publications Office, 41, Queen's Gate, London, S.W. 7, is being published in three volumes concurrently, as follows : — Volume 1. Parts 1-21 (containing Declarations 1-9 and re-issues of Opinions 1-12) have now been published. When complete, this volume will contain all the pre-Lisbon Opinions. Volume 2, Section A. This Section is now complete in 31 Parts (Parts 1-30, 30 A) and con- tains the first instalment of the Lisbon decisions embodied in Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-160. Volume 2, Section B. This Section will contain the remainder of the Opinions adopted at Lisbon (Opinions 161-181). Parts 31-50, containing Opinions 161-180, have now been published. Volume 3. Parts 1-1 1 (containing Opinions 182-192) have now been published. The Opinions published in this volume are those which have been adopted by the International Com- mission since their Lisbon Session. Additional Parts of all of the above volumes are in the press and will be published as soon as possible. APPEAL FOR FUNDS FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE WORK OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE There is no endowment or other source of permanent income available to ensure the continuation of the work of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, which depends entirely upon gifts received from Zoological Museums and other Scientific Institutions, Learned Societies and individual zoologists, apart from such income as is obtain- able by the sale of its publications. The International Commission earnestly appeal to all Institutions and individuals concerned with, or interested in, zoological nomenclature to give assistance either by making gifts of money or by becoming regular subscribers to the publica- tions of the Commission or both. Contributions of any amount will be most gratefully received. Contributions should be sent to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature at 41, Queen's Gate, London, S.W. 7. Bankers' drafts, cheques, etc., should be made payable to the " International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature " and crossed " Account payee. Coutts and Co.". PiUMTED IN Great Biutain by Richard Clay and Compaky, Ltd., Bungay, Suffolk. VOLUME 1. Part 9. Pp. 193-224. 28th FEBRUARY 1947 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE t4 rvVv^^ Edited by RANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission On the relative status of the names Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856, and Schistosoma Weinland, 1858 (Class Trematoda, Order Digenea). By H. Vogel, Institut fiir Schiffs- und Tropenkrankheiten, Hamburg . p. 193 On the status of the generic name Schistosoma Weinland, 1858 (Class Trematoda, Order Digenea) in relation to Opinion 77. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. , Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . p. 195 On the relative merits of the names dissotrematidae, gyliauchenidae, and opistholebetidae as the name of the family containing the genus Dissotrema Goto & Matsudaira, 1918 (Class Trematoda, Order Digenea). By H. W. Manter, Department of Zoology and Anatomy, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska ..... p. 197 On the date as from which the names published in Pallas (P. S.), Zoo- graphia rosso-asiatica are available nomenclatorially. By the late W. L. Sclater, M. A., with an Annex by the late C. D. Sherborn, D.Sc. p. 198 {continued on back wrapper) 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 five shillings and seven pence (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION A. The OfTicers 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). B. 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. YOKES (U.S.A.). Class 1955 Professor Dr. Hilbrand BOSCHMA (Netherlands). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Bela von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. T. JACZEWSKI (Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLE (U.S.A.). C. The Staff of the Secretariat in London Secretary to the Commission : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Archivist : Mr. Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A. D. The Address of the Commission Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Personal address oj the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. E. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature The Officers of the Trust : Chairman: Colonel Right Hon. Walter Elliot, M.C., M.P., F.R.S. Managing Director and Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Registrar : Mr. A. S. Pankhurst. The address of the Trust and its Publications Office : 41, Queen's Gate, London, S.W. 7. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclainre. 193 ON THE RELATIVE STATUS OF THE NAMES BILHARZIA MECKEL VON HEMSBACH, 1856, AND SCHISTOSOMA WEINLAND, 1858 (CLASS TREMATODA, ORDER DIGENEA) By H. VoGEL. {Institutfiir Schiff,<<- und Tropenkrankheiten, Hamburg.) (translation from the German original) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)138.) Has the generic name BiJharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856 (originally spelt BiUliarzia, i.e. with a double " 11 " through what is obviously a spelling mistake) or Schistosoma Weinland, 1858, validity under the International Code? The original references to the above names are as follows : — (a) Billharzia (recte BUharzia) Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856, Mikro- geologie : 114 (Uber die Concremente im thierischen Organismus von Heinrich Meckel von Hemsbach. Nach dem Tode des Verfassers herausgegeben von Dr. Th. Billroth, Berlin im JuU 1856). (Meckel died on 30th January 1856.) (b) Schistosoma Weinland, 1858, Human Cest. : 87. (c) BUharzia Cobbold, 1859, Tram. linn. Soc. Lond. 22 (4) : 363-366. The type of each of the above genera is Distomum haematobium Bilharz, 1852, in Siebold, Z. iviss. Zool. 4 (1) : 59-62. Meckel writes in his Mikrogeologie ( : 114), published in July 1856 : " Bil- harz beschrieb zuerst in v. Siebold und Kolliker's Zeitschr. f. Zoologie, 1852, emen neuen Eingeweidewurm des Menschen, sehr den Distomen ahnlich und deshalb von ihm Distomum haematobitim genannt. Der Artname ist sehr bezeichnend, der Gattungsname darf nicht fUglich Distoma bleiben, ist durch Billharzia zu ersetzen. Dies Geschlecht weicht von alien bisher bekannten Arten von Trematoden ab durch getrenntes Geschlecht mit dem idealen Mono- gamie-Verhaltnis, dass das Mannchen sein kleines Weibchen mit sich tragt (im Canalis gynaecophorus) ". On page 113 he talks about " Billharzien- Eiern " and on page 189 of " Billlmrzia haematohia [Distomum haem.) ". The chief reason which induces me to stand for the introduction of the old name BUharzia is to honour the memory of Th. M. Bilharz, and to give expres- sion to the appreciation of his great merits. As is known, Bilharz not only discovered the parasite, but also connected it for the first time with the symp- toms of the disease. Apart from this he was the discoverer of two other human parasites, Hymenolepis nana and Heterophyes heterophyes, and the students of natural science in his time were well acquainted with his name through his pioneer work on the electric organ of the " Zitterwels ".^ At the age of 37 Bilharz died of t}'phoid, while carrying out his researches. The name BUharzia, which was formerly much in use, was gradually superseded by Schistosoma in the literature, as it was erroneously supposed that this name had the right of priority. In spite of this, the name BUharzia is today still well known to all parasitologists and especially to doctors dealing with tropical diseases. Up to this day, the disease, when not called Schistosomiasis, is ^ The species here referred to is the " Electric-Wels " or " Electric Catfish " of the Nile. BULL. ZOOL. NOMEXCL. (FEB. 1947.) 10 194 Bulletin of Zoological N omendahtre. called either Bilharziosis or Bilharziasis. In the last (1935) edition of his widely read " Manual of Tropical Diseases ", Manson-Bahr again used the old names BiUiarzia Imematohia, B. mansoni and B. japonica. If I support the re-introduction of the old name Bilharzia, this does not mean that scientific men would have to deal with a name very much out of use, having fallen into oblivion and then been dug up again. The supersession of the old name Bilharzia has been regretted by many workers. As early as 1896 {Mem. Inst, egypt. 1896 : 158) Looss urged that the name Bilharzia should be retained in honour of its discoverer and he even went so far as to express the view that an exception to the Law of Priority would be justified in this case. (The existence of Meckel's prior Bilharzia of 1856 was obviously not known to Looss when he made these observations.) My teacher Fiilleborn also frequently expressed in his lectures his regret that the name Bilharzia should have been displaced. In 1932 Leiper wrote : " Those, who regretted the displacement of the generic name Bilharzia Cobbold, 1859, by Schistosoma Weinland, 1858, under the Law of Priority will rejoice in the restoration of Bilharzia Meckel, 1856, under the same Law " {Trop. Dis. Bull. 29 : 168). I am convinced that I am right in believing that students of natural science who support the retention of old-established names will welcome the restora- tion of the old name Bilharzia in its rightful place, which was once disputed as a consequence of an error as regards the question of priority. I desire, therefore, to ask the International Commission to be good enough to give this matter their renewed attention. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 195 ON THE STATUS OF THE GENERIC NAME SCHISTOSOMA WEINLAND, 1858 (CLASS TREMATODA, ORDER DIGENEA) IN RELATION TO OPINION 77 By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)138.) The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has the power (granted to it by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at Monaco in 1913) to place nomenclatorially available names (with their types) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. When such a name is placed on the Official List, that name and no other is the correct name for the genus in ques- tion and the type of the genus is the species indicated in the Offiicial List. 2. Further, the International Commission has the power, also conferred upon it by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at Monaco in 1913, to suspend the rules in certain cases. When the International Commission uses the plenary powers so conferred upon it either to validate an otherwise invalid name or to designate as the type of a genus some species .other than that which is the type under the International Code, the Commission has the power to place the name so validated and with the type so designated on the Official List and such action is final and not subject to revision. 3. The International Commission does not, however, possess — nor would it be reasonable that it should possess — the power to place on the Official List a name which is invalid under the Code, unless the Commission first uses its plenary powers to validate the name in question. 4. It follows, therefore, that, if it can be shown that, through a given case having been incompletely presented to the Commission or for some other cause, a nomenclatorially invalid name has been placed on the Official List, the decision of the Commission as respects that name is itself invalid, since it is ultra vires the powers of the Commission. In such a case, the Opinion (or portion of an Opinion) embodying the decision in question would remain as the record of the view of the Commission at the time that it was adopted but it would have no binding force. 5. The " statement of the case " submitted by Dr. Vogel in regard to Bil- harzia (emendation of Billharzia) Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856, shows beyond possibility of dispute that the name Schistosoma Weinland, 1858, is no more than an objective synonym of Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856, of which the same species {Distomum haematobium Bilharz, 1852) is the type. It follows, therefore, that, in placing the name ScJiistosoma Weinland, 1858, on the Official lAst in Opinion 11, the International Commission committed an error of the kind discussed in paragraph 4 above and acted ultra vires their powers. 6. What happened, no doubt, was that at the time when the International Commission had this case under consideration in connection with Opinion 11, they were not aware of the existence of the name Bilharzia Meckel von Hems- bach, 1856, and believed that the name Bilharzia was first published by Cobbold in 1859. On these premises, the International Commission were correct in concluduig that the name Schistosoma Weinland, 1858, was the oldest avail- able generic name for Distomum haeytmtobium Bilharz, 1852, and, therefore, that that name was eligible for inclusion in the Official List. As shown above, BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (FEB. 1947.) 196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. the premises on which the International Commission reached this conclusion were, however, incorrect, because of the existence of the name Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856, which has two years' priority over Schistosoma Weinland, 1858. It should be noted, further, that the genus Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach is monotypical and was, therefore, published with an " indica- tion " as defined in Opinion 1 ^ and accordingly satisfies the requirements of proviso (a) to Article 25 of the International Code. 7. Clearly, it is essential that the above error should be rectified as soon as possible. It would be possible to do this in either of two ways : — (a) The International Commission could delete the invaUd name Schistosoma Weinland, 1858, from the Official List and could insert in its place the valid name Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856 ; or (6) The International Commission, if satisfied that the strict application of the rules as applied to the present case would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, could use their plenary powers (i) to suppress the name Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856, and (ii) to validate the name Schistosoma AVeinland, 1858, thereby giving retrospectively valid effect to the entry regarding the last-mentioned name in Opinion 11. 8. Specialists are, therefore, invited to inform the International Commission which, in their view, of the alternative courses indicated above is the one to be preferred. * See 1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 73-86. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 197 ON THE RELATIVE MERITS OF THE NAMES DISSOTREMATIDAE, GYLI- AUCHENIDAE, AND OPISTHOLEBETIDAE AS THE NAME OF THE FAMILY CONTAINING THE GENUS DISSOTREMA GOTO & MATSU- DAIRA, 1918 (CLASS TREMATODA, ORDER DIGENEA) By H. W. Manter. {Department of Zoology and Anatomy, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)29.) I would appreciate an Opinion on the following problem. Goto and Matsudaira in 1918 {J. Coll. Sci. Tokyo 39 (Art. 8) : 1) named the trematode genus Dissotrema and considered it as type of the family disso- TREMATiDAE. In 1919 (J. Parosit. 6 : 44-47), Goto recognised Dissotrema Goto & Matsudaira, 1918, as a synonym of Gyliauchen Nicoll, 1915, Para- sitology 8 : 37. Although re-aflBxming the view that this genus justifies the new family. Goto did not rename the family which would, I believe, become G YLI AUCHENID AE . Poche (1925) lists the family dissotrematidae with both genera {Disso- trema and Gyliauchen) either considering them as distinct or not aware of the synonymy. I cannot convince myself of generic differences between the two and feel that Dissotrema Goto & Matsudaira must be considered a synonym of Gyliauchen Nicoll. Fukui in 1928 {Jap. J. Zool. 2 : 336-339) considered Gyliauchen Nicoll, with its synonym Dissotrema Goto & Matsudaira, to be in the same family as Opistholebes Nicoll, 1915, Parasitology 8 : 36, and named a new family OPISTHOLEBETIDAE to accommodate them. It seems to me that he had no right to do this. He is actually changing the type genus from Gyliauchen to Opistholebes. I believe that the name of the family should be gyliauchenidae or, if Dissotrema is valid, the name would be dissotrematidae. Or does the fact that Goto did not change the name of the family when he changed the name of its type genus, make it possible for someone else to change the type of the family? That is the question involved. Would not gyliauchenidae be a new name if implied but not actually expressed by Goto ? Supplementary Note on the literature of the case : — I enclose a brief synopsis of the situation to date, together with a statement of the problem as I see it :— Dissotrenm Goto & Matsudaira, 1918 : type of the family dissotrematidae Goto & Matsudaira, 1918. Dissotrema Goto & Matsudaira, 1918, reduced to a synonym of Gyliauchen Nicoll, 1915, by Goto in 1919; family name not mentioned by Goto. Note : — Goto (1919) did state : — " That it [Gyliauchen'] is sufficiently distinct ... to justify the erection of a new family name has been pointed out ". Poche (1925) and Fuhrmann (1928), considering Dissotretna Goto & Matsu- daira and Gyliauchen Nicoll distinct, used the family name dissotre- matidae. * Fukui (1928) considered Gyliauchen Nicoll (and its synonym Dissotrema Goto & Matsudaira) in the same family with Opistholebes Nicoll (hitherto un- classified) and named a new family (opistholebetidae). Osaki (1933), considering Dissotrema Goto & Matsudaira a synonym of Gyli- BULL. zool. nomencl. (feb. 1947.) 198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. auclien Nicoll, referred it to the family " gyliauchenidae (Goto & Matsu- daira) ", saying nothing about Fukui and the opistholebetidae. Yamaguti (1934) included Gt/liaucJien Nicoll and its synonym Dissotretna Goto & Matsudaira in the family opistholebetidae Fukui, 1928, thus accepting Fukui's type of a family which includes a genus which had already been indicated as a type of a family. Travassos (1934), considering Oplstholebes Nicoll and Gyliauchen Nicoll in different families and accepting opistholebetidae, included Gyliauchen Nicoll in the family gyliauchenidae Ozaki, 1933. Problem : Considering Dissotrema Goto & Matsudaira, 1918, a synonym of Gyliauchen Nicoll, 1915 (thus ruling out the name dissotrematidae) and con- sidering Opistholebes Nicoll, 1915, and Gyliauchen Nicoll, 1915, in the same family, is the correct name : — (i) opistholebetidae Fukui, or (ii) gyliau- chenidae (Goto & Matsudaira), or (iii) gyliauchenidae Ozaki, 1933 ? ON THE DATE AS FROM WHICH THE NAMES PUBLISHED IN PALLAS (P. S.), ZOOGRAPHIA ROSSO-ASIATICA ARE AVAILABLE NOMEN- CLATORIALLY By the late W. L. Sclater, M.A. (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)25.) The question of the date of publication of Pallas, Zoographia rosso-asiatica is one which has caused us a good deal of troubled discussion and I have been asked to inquire whether the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature would take the matter up and give a decision. The facts are well known and are given in some detail in a short paper in the Ibis 1934 : 164 by Dr. C. D. Sherborn, a copy of which is attached hereto (see Annex). The question really resolves itself into what constitutes publication. Some copies of Pallas are dated " 1811 ", and there can be no doubt that the book Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 199 was in the hands of some zoologists soon after that date, but owing to political troubles in Russia at that time and the Napoleonic invasion, the bulk of the edition was not issued till many years later. Most of the copies are dated " 1831 ". From the point of view of the nomenclature of our British birds the matter is of considerable importance, as a number of new names were introduced in the work which, if dated as from 1811, would be valid but, if dated as from 1827 or 1831, would be invalidated by other names introduced by authors whose work was published between 1811 and 1827. ANNEX TO APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY MR. W. L. SCLATER ON THE DATES OF PALLAS'S ZOOGRAPHIA ROSSO-ASIATICA By the late C. D. Sherborn, D.Sc. In order to clear away the numerous misunderstandings surrounding the dates of this work, my friend Mr. Norman Kinnear has asked me to codify and publish the notes made by me over a period of forty-five years. Pallas's work consisted of three volumes. There were two issues, which differ slightly in the title-pages. Some of these copies are dated : Vol. 1. 1811 ; vol. 2. 1811; vol. 3. no date. Other copies, and these the most common, were dated : Vol. 1. 1831 ; vol. 2. 1831 ; vol. 3. 1831. Of the former, I have known copies in the British Museum (Nat. Hist.), 0. Salvin, A. Newton, G. M. Mathews, E. Eversmann, and other libraries. Of the latter numerous copies are known, and need not be detailed. The work was known to many of the principal zoologists of Europe when it first appeared (see note to Cuvier no. 9), and the following notes mil be of interest as proving the point : — 1. Rudolphi {Beitr. z. Anthrop. (Berlin), 1812, p. 70) refers to Pars Prima (1811), 568 pp.; Pars Secunda (1812); no pp. These he received after Pallas's death, which occurred on 8th September 1811, and, there- fore, he may have received the Pars Secunda later than the Pars Prima. Rudolphi also refers in his Entoz. Syn. 1819, pp. 56 and 59, to Pallas, vol. 3, pp. 102 and 409, as " Petrop. 1813 ". 2. In Isis (Oken), 1819, Litt. Anz. p. 186, a note says the plates are being engraved under the direction of Tilesius, and the first two volumes are printed off (Mamm. Birds, Reptiles, Fishes). 3. Tilesius, Add. Conch, ad Zoogr. Rosso-Asiat. in Mem. Ac. Imp. Sci. St. Petersbourg, \dii. 1817-1818 (1822), read 1st November 1820, p. 293. The opening sentence of this paper leads one to infer that Pallas's work was then accessible. See entry under Isis (no. 2). 4. Eversmann {Reise von Orenburg, Berlin, 1823) refers on p. 117 to the Zoographia as " Petrop. 1811, 3 vols. 4to ", and in his text quotes vols. 1, 2, and 3 (up to p. 31). 5. Lichtenstein (Abh. k. pr. Ak. Wiss. 1822-23 (1825), p. 6) refers to Zoogr. 1, p. 117. In Ersch & Gruber, Allg. Ency., xix, 1829, p. 255, he refers to Zoogr. 3, p. 255. BULL. ZOOL. NOMEXCL. (FEB. 1947.) 200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 6. Meyendorff (Voy. dVrenbourg, 8°, Paris, 1826, p. 381) says : " Petrop. 1811, 3 vol. in 4to, ouvrage qui n'est pas encore assez connue." 7. Gloger (N. Acta Ac. Caes. 13 (2) 1827, p. 484) quotes Zoogr. 1, 135 as a rare book. 8. Nitzsch (Ersch & Gruber, Allg. Ency. xvi, 1827, p. 152) quotes vol. 2. 9. Cuvier {Regne Anim. ed. 2, ii, 1829, p. 163, and iii, 1829, p. 398) says : " Ouvrage que Ton n'a pu rendre public parceque les cuivres en sont egares. Neanmoins I'Academie de Petersbourg a bien volu en accorder le texte a quelques naturalistes ". In the Hist. Poiss. i. 1828, p. 200, he says : " n'a point encore ete public ". Further, in the Hist. Poiss., Cuvier and Valenciennes in ii, 1828, p. 117, and iv, 1829, p. 152, quote the Zoogr. vol. iii, pp. 126 and 246. 10. Eschscholtz (Zool. Atlas, iii, 1829) quotes the Zoogr. 2, p. 362. 11. In Froriep, Notizen, xxviii, 1830, p. 151, there is a notice of vol. 3. 12. In Rev. Ency. xlix. March 1831, p. 726, is a note to say that the drawings and plates have been recovered from Leipzig by v. Behr (Baer) and presented to the Academy of St. Petersburg on 18th and 25th October 1830. The Zoographia formed the subject of a paper by von Baer in 1831 (re-issued in 1832) in a thin quarto of 36 pp. published in Koenigsberg. From this I can only quote some essentials. Baer says : — The text of the Mammals and Birds was sent by Pallas in 1806. Printing began towards the end of 1807 under the eye of Tilesius, and these portions were completely printed just after Pallas's death. The printing of the Fishes was finished in the year 1814. In 1826 the Academy held a commission to put the three volumes on sale : " L'Academie s'est determinee a le mettre a vente ". For all the elaborate details I must refer the reader to this pamphlet. The Zoographia was also the subject of remarks by Strauch in 1873 {Mem. Ac. Imp. Sci. St. Petersbourg (7) xxi, p. 7), who says the Herpetology was all printed by 1811, but plates were delayed for 20 years later. The work appeared in 1831 with new title-pages, and was put into the booksellers' hands. Seebohm in 1882 wrote a note to " The Ibis ", 1882, p. 425, but Alfred Newton in a letter to me of 7th March 1891, calls it an " extraordinary assertion ", and says that Seebohm in " The Ibis ", 1882, p. 611, was satisfied that he had been in error, and declared his former statement to be a " myih ". Alfred Newton, who was most learned on the subject, wrote me four letters upon it between 1891 and 1906. The general delay was caused by Pallas's obstinate determination to have his plates done by Geissler, the Leipzig engraver, as is stated in a note issued by the Academy of St. Petersburg in 1826, p. 16. From what has been quoted above it is quite clear that vols. 1 and 2 were available to the first zoologists of Europe in 1811 and vol. 3 in 1814, and these are the dates that I adopted in my Index Animalium and those which should be accepted. Some prints from certain missing plates (unpublished) are said to exist in Berlin (where, also, are Pallas's types), as well as in St. Petersburg. The British Museum (Nat. Hist.), Rothscliild, Tweeddale, Salvin, and Zoological Society's copies of the work seem to be all alike as to plates. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 201 ON THE STATUS OF THE NAME CLAVELLARWS OLIVIER, 1789 (CLASS mSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) By H. H. Ross and B. D. Burke. (Illinois State Natural History Survey, Urhana, Illinois.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)120.) The vote of the International Zoological Congress, 1935, to place the name Cimhex Olivier, 1790, on the Official List of Generic Names ^ opens up an interesting piece of historical nomenclature. Cimbex has been mentioned in controversies only in connection with Crabro Geoffroy. The name Cimbex for a group of sawflies, however, is antedated not only by Crabro Geoffroy but also by Clavellarius Olivier. This latter name has been almost completely ignored since its original publication. Briefly, the history of the situation is as follows. Geoffroy in 1762 proposed the name Crabro for the large sawflies now generally known as Cimbex. Thirteen years later Fabricius used the name Crabro for a group of wasps. At this time authority and not priority was followed, so that the hymenopterists of that time followed the Fabrician usage without question. In 1789 Olivier, in the Encyclopedie methodique, apparently decided that the group of sawflies called Crabro by Geoffroy needed a name, yet felt that the name Crabro itself should be preserved in its Fabrician sense. Hence he proposed for Geoffroy 's group Crabro the name Clavellarius ( : 22) : — Clavellaire Clavellarius. Crabro, Geoff. Tenthredo Lin. Fab. Antennes en masse, un peu plus courtes que le corcelet. Quatre antennules filiformes ; les deux anterieures un peu plus longues, composees de cinq, articles, les deux posterieures de quatre. In the next volume of the Encyclopedie methodiqite, 1790, he uses the name Cimbex for this group, without any explanation. This appears in the alphabetic part of the Encyclopedie and in the next volume, in due course alphabetically, he mentions once more the name Clavellarius, indicating that he considered it too close to a name used in botany and hence changed it to Cimbex. The passage referred to reads as follows : — Clavellaire, Clavellarius. Ce mot trop ressemblant a celui de Clavaria, deja em- ploye en Botanique, nous ayant paru peu convenable, nous lui avons substitue le mot de Cimbp.r, employe par les Grecs pour designer des insectes semblables a des Abeillcs ou a des Guepes, & qui paroissent etre les memes que ceux que nous avons a fairs connoitre sous ce meme nom. Voy, Cimbex. Since Cimbex was proposed as a new name for Clavellarius the type of one automatically becomes the type of the other. Latreille, 1810, designated the genotype of Cimbex, so its type becomes the type of Clavellarius. Lamarck in 1801 introduced the spelling Clavellaria with a sole included species, Tenthredo lutea Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 555, but this is not, according to Ojyinion 79 of the International Rules, a type designation. The synonymy is as follows : — Crabro Geoffroy, 1762, p. 261. Genotype by subsequent designation of Bradley, 1919, Crabro humeralis Fourcroy. Name voted to be set aside by International Zoological Congress, 1935.* * See Opinion 144 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature 2 : 89-98). BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (FEB. 1947.) 10* 202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Clavellarius Olivier, 1789, p. 22. Genotype by subsequent designation of Latreille, 1810, Tenthredo Itttea Linnaeus. Cimhex Olivier, 1790, p. 762. New name for Clavellarius, as explained in Olivier, 1791, p. 18. Genotype by subsequent designation of Latreille, 1810, Cimhex lutea (Fabricius) (= Tenthredo lutea Linnaeus). Clavellaria Lamarck, 1801, p. 264. Emendation for Clavellarius Olivier. 1789. ON THE RELATIVE STATUS OF THE GENERIC NAMES CIMBEX OLIVIER, 1790, AND CLAVELLARIUS OLIVIER, 1789 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. {Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature). (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)120.) The case of Cimhex Olivier, 1790 versus Crabro GeofEroy, 1762, was one of thirteen cases dealt with in a memorial signed by sixty hymenopterists, which was submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature prior to the meeting of the Commission held at Lisbon in September 1935. The object of the petition was to secure a valid nomenclatorial foundation for the commonly accepted use of the generic name Cimhex Olivier, 1790, for Tenthredo lutea Linnaeus, 1758, and species congeneric therewith. For this purpose, the petitioners recommended that the name Crahro GeofEroy, 1762, should be suppressed by the International Commission under their plenary powers. 2. The memorial containing this case was referred by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature for their observations. The International Committee were due to hold a meeting at Madrid in September 1935 imme- diately before the meeting of the International Commission at Lisbon and it was arranged, therefore, that the recommendations submitted by the Inter- national Committee should be considered by the International Commission at their Lisbon Session. 3. The International Committee at their Madrid meeting agreed to recom- mend the International Commission to grant the request submitted by the petitioners in the present case. This recommendation was considered and approved by the International Commission at their meeting held at Lisbon on Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 2, for the text of which see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 27-30). This decision was embodied in paragraph 27 of the Report (for the text of which see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 59-60) submitted by the International Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, by whom it was unanimously approved and adopted at the final plenary session held on Saturday, 21st September 1935 (see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 63). 4. In accordance with the procedure agreed upon by the International Commission at their Lisbon Session (2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9, for the text of which see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 11-12), advertisements relating to Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 203 this and other cases involving the suspension of the rules dealt with by the International Commission at Lisbon were published in the prescribed manner in the spring of 1936. As respects the present case no objection of any kind was received by the International Commission in the period of twelve months following the action described above. By 1938, therefore, all the necessary formal action had been taken and the stage had been reached at which an Opinion giving effect to the Commission's Lisbon decision could be issued. Owing, first to lack of funds and later to the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939, it was not found possible to publish the Opinion {Opinion 144) dealing with this case until 1943 {Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature 2 : 89-98). 5. The object of the International Commission at Lisbon was to take all necessary steps to validate the name Cimbex Olivier, 1790, with Tenthredo lutea Linnaeus, 1758, as type. It was only because the Commission had not been apprised of the problem presented by the name Clavellarius Olivier, 1789, that they did not suppress that name under their plenary powers at the same time that they suppressed the name Crabro Geofiroy, 1762. The present position is that, as the result of the Commission's action at Lisbon (now embodied in Opinion 144), the only valid generic name for Tenthredo lutea Linnaeus, 1758, is Cimbex Olivier, 1790, and, therefore, that, although not formally suppressed, the name Clavellarius Olivier, 1789, cannot be used as the generic name for that species. This situation is admittedly not satis- factory and it is accordingly proposed to ask the International Commission to put matters on a logical footing by rendering an Opinion suppressing the name Clavellarius Olivier, 1789, and the emended form Clavellaria Lamarck, 1801, imder their plenary powers. 6. The fact that from now onwards all such petitions will be published in the Commission's Official Organ, the Bidletin of Zoological Nomenclature, before any decisions are taken thereon by the Commission will, it is hoped, prevent difficulties similar to those discussed above from arising in the future. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (FEB. 1947.) 204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES FOR BOMBUS LATREELLE, 1802 (CLASS mSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) By R. B. Benson, M.A. {Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History)), Ch. Ferriere (Imperial Institute of Entomology, London), and 0. W. Richards, D.Sc. (Imperial College of Science and Technology, London). (Commission's reference Z.N. (S.) 133.) Latreille (1802, Hist. nat. Fourmis : 437) founded the monobasic genus Bomhus, type Apis terrestris Linnaeus, 1758. Panzer ([1801], Faun. Ins. germ., 85 : plates 19-21) published the genus Bremus and included three species, Brermis fasciatus (= Apis terrestris Lin- naeus, 1758), Bremus agrorum (= Apis agrorum Fabricius, 1787) and Bremus silvarum (= Apis sylvarum Linnaeus, 1758). Morice and Durrant (1914, Trans, ent. Soc. Lond. 1914 : 429) fixed the type of Bremxts as Apis terrestris Linnaeus. Hymenopterists have almost universally employed the generic name Bombus, except that since 1914 most American authors have adopted the name Bremus Panzer- Jurine, 1801 (Intelligenzblatt der Literatur-Zeitung, Erlangen : 160-165, i.e. the " Erlangen List "). In view of the extensive literature associated with the name Bomhus, we are of the opinion that the adoption of the name Bremus would cause more confusion than uniformity. We are of the opinion that in the exercise of the plenary power conferred on them by the International Zoological Congress, the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect : — The name Bombus Latreille, 1802 (type Apis terrestris Linnaeus, 1758) be added to the Official List of Generic Names. The name Bremus Panzer, 1801 (with the same type) is to be set aside and have no status in nomenclature.*' ^ * The above is an extract from the First Report of the Hymenoptera Sub-Committee of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature of the Royal Entomological Society of London. At that time that Committee was composed as showTi in footnote 20 on p. 189 above. On receiving the Sub-Committee's Report, the Committee on Generic Nomenclature, their Fifth Report, recommended the Council of the Royal Entomological Society of London to transmit the Hymenoptera Sub-Committee's recommendations to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for favourable consideration. This recommendation was approved by the Council of the Society and, on the publication of the Committee's Fifth Report on 14th August 1937, the Sub-Committee's recommendations were forwarded to the Inter- national Commission by the Council of the Society. ° Since this petition was submitted, the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature have rendered Opinion 135 (1939, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2 : 7-12), in which they have suppressed the " Erlangen List " under their plenary powers. Accordingly, the name Bremus Panzer- Jurine, 1801, referred to in the present petition, no longer has any status in nomenclature and the object desired in the petition can be obtained by the Commission placing the name Bombus Latreille, 1802, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, without it being necessary for them first to use their plenary powers to suspend the Regies Internationales. (int'd.) F.H. 11th August 1944. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 205 PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES FOR CERATINA LATREILLE, [180^-1803] (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) By R. B. Benson, M.A. (Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History)), Ch. Ferriere (Imperial Institute of Entomology, London), and 0. W. Richards, D.Sc. (Imperial College of Science and Technology, Lotidon). (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)133.) Latreille ([April 1802] ^ Hist. nat. Fourmis : 432) published the genus Clavicera for Hylaeus alhilabris Fabricius, 1793 = Ajiis curcurbitina Rossi, 1792. The name Clavicera, in this sense, has only once been used again, by Walckenaer (July-Sept. 1802). Latreille ([Oct. 1802-Sept. 1803] '' in (Sonuini's Bufion), Hist. nat. gen. par tic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 380), without any explanation, published the genus Ceratina to contain the same species. The name Ceratina has been universally accepted by hymenopterists and forms the basis of a family (or subfamily) name. In our opinion the substitution of the name Clavicera for Ceratina would cause far more confusion than uniformity. We are of the opinion that in the exercise of the plenary power conferred on them by the International Zoological Congress, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect : — The name Ceratina Latreille, May-July, 1802 (type Hylaeus alhilabris Fabricius, 1793 = Apis cucurbitina Rossi, 1792) be added to the Official List of Generic Names. The name Clavicera Latreille, April 1802 (with the same type) is therefore to be set aside and to have no status in nomenclature.* * For the date of publication of Latreille's Hist. nat. Fourmis, see Griffin i7i Richards, 1935, Trails. R. ent. Soc. Loud. 83 : 174. ' The date of pubUcation of volume 3 of the Hist. nat. gen. partic. Crust. Ins. was dis- cussed by Richards in 1935 (Trans. B. ent. Soc. Land. 83 : 174), where, on the basis of in- formation furnished by F. J. Griffin, he concluded that this volume was published in 1802 on some date between the beginning of May and 21st September, the latter being the last day of the French Revolutionary Year " An X " (which appeared on the title page of vol. 3). Later, this question was further investigated by Grif&n, who has shown (1938, J. Soc. Bibl. nat. Hist. 1 : 157) that vol. 3 contains a quotation from Walckenaer's Faune Parisienne, which is dated " An XI " (i.e., 22 Sept. 1802-21 Sept. 1803) and in consequence that vol. 3 must have been published on some date subsequent to 22nd September 1802 sufficiently late to have enabled Latreille (i) to have received a copy of Walckenaer's Faune Paris, and (ii) to have inserted an extract therefrom in the final proof of vol. 3. In these circumstances, it is clear (a) that vol. 3 of the Hist. nat. was pubhshed after 21st September 1802, (b) that publication can hardly have taken place before some date near the end of October 1802, and (c) that publication may have taken place at any date subsequent thereto but not later than 21st September 1803, the last date of " An XI." * See footnote 4 above. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (FEB. 1947.) 206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES FOR DIODOMTUS CURTIS, 1834 (CLASS mSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) By K. B. Benson, M.A. (Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History)), Ch. Ferriere {Imperial Institute of Entomology, London), and 0. W. Richards, D.Sc. {Imperial College of Science and Technology, London). (Commission's reference Z.N,(S.)133.) Ciirtis (1834, Brit. Ent. 11 (124) no. 496 : pi. 496) descnhed a. genus Diodontus^ for which he designated as type a species he called " Psen ■pallipes Panzer." He gave Pemjyliredon tristis Van der Linden, 1829, as a doubtful synonym of his type-species, but it was later discovered that P. tristis Van der Linden was the correct name for his species and that he had misidentified Panzer's species (cf. Shuckard, 1837, Essay Fossor. Hymen. : 184). All European .hymeno- pterists have treated Pemphredon tristis Van der Linden as the type of Diodontus Curtis. Rohwer (1915) insisted on taking Curtis' statement literally, and therefore made Psen pallipes Panzer, 1798, the type of Diodontus, and published a new name, Xtjlocelia, for Diodontus of authors. At the time that Rohwer was writing, it was thought that Psen pallipes Panzer was the same as the species now known as Trypoxylon atratmn Fabricius, 1805 = Psenulus atratus (Fab.). It is now thought (cf. Harttig, 1931, Stett. ent. Ztg, 92 : 206) that Psen pallipes Panzer is an unrecognisable species of which even the generic position is uncertain. Diodontus (in the sense of European authors) is a well-known genus round which a considerable bionomic and zoo-geographical literature has grown up. The substitution of another generic name for Diodontus would cause more confusion than uniformity. We are therefore of the opinion that it is highly desirable that in the exercise of the plenary power conferred on them by the International Zoological Con- gress, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect : — The genus Diodontus Curtis, 1834, with type Pemphredon tristis Van der Linden, 1829, is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names. The fact that Curtis in his original description of his genus erroneously referred to the type-species as Psen pallipes Panzer is not to be regarded as fixing the latter species as the type oi Diodontus.* * See footnote 4 above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 207 PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES FOR THE NAMES FORMICA LINNAEUS, 1758, AND CAMPONOTIJS MAYR, 1861 (CLASS INSECTA. ORDER HYMENOPTERA) By R. B. Benson, M.A. (Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum [Natural History)), Ch. Ferriere {Imperial Institute of Entomology, London), and 0. W. Richards, D.Sc. {Imperial College of Science and Technology, Londoii). (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)133.) Linnaeus (1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10a) 1 : 579) founded the genus Formica for a number of species of ants, including Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1758, and Formica hercideana Linnaeus, 1758. Latreille (1810, Consid. gener. : 437) cited the latter species as the type of the genus. This citation is valid although the name Formica herculeana is followed by the words " ejusdem rufa," indicating that Formica rufa was also a member of the genus. Curtis (1839, Brit. Ent. 16 : plate 752) designated Formica rufa as the type and his designation has been universally followed by hymenopterists. Meanwhile, Formica hercideana IS now placed in the genus Camponotus Mayr (1861, Europ. Formicid. : 35) (type Formica ligniperda Latreille, 1802, by designation of Bingham, 1903 Faun. Brit. India, Hym. 2 : 347). Camponotus and Formica in the generally accepted sense are both very large genera of world-wide distribution and any change in their generic nomen- clature would cause great confusion. We are of the opinion that it is highly desirable that in the exercise of the plenary power conferred on them by the International Zoological Congress, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following efEect : — The names Formica Linnaeus, 1758 (type Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1758) and Camponotus Mayr, 1861 (type Formica ligniperda Latreille, 1802) be added to the Official List of Generic Names. The designation by Latreille (1810) of Formica hercu- leana Linnaeus, 1758, as the type of Formica is therefore to be set aside and the desig- nation by Curtis (1839) of Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1758, is to be upheld.i". " ^^ See footnote 4 above. 11 Supplementary Note by the Secretary to the International Commission : In view of the clarification of the Commission's Opinion 11 given in Opinion 136 (which was not published at the time when the present application was drawn up), the difficulties m regard to Formica Linnaeus, 1758, discussed in that application have disappeared, for under Opinion 136 Latreille did not in 1810 make a valid designation of the type of Formica Linnaeus In consequence the designation by Curtis (1839) of Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1758, as the type of that genus is valid. Thus, the names Formica Linnaeus, 1758, and Camponotus Mayr, 1861, can now be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, without the prior ".^^,°3' *^,^ Commission of their plenary powers to suspend the Regies Internationales. (mt'd.)F.H. 11th August 1944. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (FEB. 1947.) 208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES FOR GORYTES LATREILLE, 1804, AND HOPLISUS LEPELETIER, 1832 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) By K. B. Benson, M.A. {Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museam [Natural History)), Ch. Ferriere (Imperial Institute of Entomology, London), and 0. W. Richards, D.Sc. {Imperial College of Science and Technology, London). (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)133.) Latreille (Marcli 1804, Nouv. Diet. Hist. nat. 24 : 180) described a genus Gorytes, citing only a single species, Mellinus quinquednctus Fabricius, 1793, which is therefore the type. Latreille ([Sept. 1804], in (Sonnini's Buffon), Hist. nat. gen. partic. Crust. Ins. 13 : 308) published another description of Gorytes, including this time the species Sphex mystacea Linnaeus, 1761. Latreilfe (1810, Consid. gener. : 438) fixed Sphex mystacea Linnaeus, 1761, as the type of the genus, an action in which he has been followed by nearly all hymenopterists. Lepeletier (1832, Ann. Sac. ent. France 1 : 61) founded a genus Hoplisus (type Mellinus quinquecinctus Fabricius, 1793, by designation of Westwood, 1839). The name Hoplisus has been universally used as a generic or sub- generic name for the species allied to Mellinus quinquecinctus. In our opinion the transference of the name Gorytes to the cosmopolitan group now known as Hoplisus and the erection of a new name for the group now known as Gorytes would cause greater confusion in nomenclature than would a suspension of the rules in the sense indicated above. We are of the opinion that it is highly desirable that in the exercise of the plenary power conferred on them by the International Zoological Congress, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect : — The names Gorytes Latreille, Sept. 1804 (type Sphex mystacea Linnaeus, 1761), and Hoplisus Lepeletier, 1832 (type Mellinus quinquecinctus Fabricius, 1793) be added to the Official List of Generic Names. The description of Gorytes by Latreille (March 1804, Nouv. Diet. Hist. nat. 24 : 180), with type Mellinus quinquecinctus Fabricius, 1793, is therefore to be set aside and to have no status in nomenclature.^^- ^* *^ See footnote 4 above. ^' Supplementary Note by Dr. 0. W. Richards : This case has been discussed by V. S. L. Pate in " The generic names of the Sphecoid wasps and their type species " (1937, Mem. Amer. ent. Soc. 9 : 103), where he holds that Hoplisus Lepeletier, 1832, is antedated by Euzonia Kirby in Stephens, 1829, Syst. Cat. Brit. Ins. : 363, with tj^e Mellinus quinque- cinctus Fabricius, 1793, by designation of Pate, loc. cit. I still put forward the proposal of maintaining the names Gorytes Latreille, 1804, and Hoplisus Lepeletier, 1832. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 209 PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES FOR HARPACTUS SHUCKARD 1837 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) By R. B. Benson, M.A. {Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Musenm Natural History)), Ch. Ferriere (Imperial Institute of Entomology, London), and 0. W. Richards, D.Sc. (Imperial College of Science and Technology, London). (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)133.) Panzer (1806, Kril. Rev. 2:164) and Jurine (1807, Nouv. Mefh. Class Hym.) founded a genus Arpactus including amongst other species Arpactus campestns Panzer = Sphex mystacea Linnaeus, 1761, which Morice and Durrant (1914, Trans, ent. Soc. Lond. 1914 : 403) fixed as the type Arpactm is thus a synonym of Gorytes Latreille," 1804, having the same iS?" ^^"cl^,f d (1837, ^05wmZ Hymen. : 220) cited Arpactusformosus Jurine, 1807 = Mntilla laevis Latreille, 1792 as type of Arpactm Jurine, 1807 At the same time he pomted out that on etymological grounds the generic name should be spelled Harpactus. Harpactus has since almost universally been used in hhuckard s sense. frpactns Jurine 1807, is invalid, being antedated by Arpactus Panzer, 1806. Ihe emended form Harpactus is therefore also invalid, but in view of the very general acceptance of the name in its emended form, the introduction ot a new generic name for A. formosus Jurine would clearlv lead to greater contusion than uniformity. " We are of the opinion that it is highly desirable that in the exercise of the plenary power conferred upon them by the Liternational Zoological Congress the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soSn as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect :— Shuckard (1837, Fossorial Hymen. : 220) shall be deemed to have published a new generic name Harpactus and to have specified Arpactus formosus Jurine, 1807 i-M^'tMa laevis Latreille 1792) as its type. The generic name Harpactus Shuckard, Sr" it " "" Optmon, is hereby added to the Official List of Generic mv 'ItfpnHnn r' 1 vTf f ^/u '^^^''^^""^'"^^"^ Commission : Dr. O. W. Richards has drawn ^l Q? fh / ^"\^ ^^ ^ lu^ T^' P"* ^"""^^'^ ^y ^- ^- L- Pate (1937, 3Iem. Amer. ent. flQl/V ' '^°"*r^'-y to the statement in the present application, Morice and Durrant (1914, rm«.,. ent. Soc Lond. 19H : 403) did not make a valid type designation for the <.enus ^r;.ad». Panzer 1806. After examining the passage in question, I agree with the v^ew expressed by Pate, (mt'd.) F.H. I5th December 1945. > S "n See footnote 4 above. i« Supplementary Note by Dr. 0. W. Richards : According to V. S. L. Pate 1937 " The Sw Xren/Sllf S^l^'^P^ ^"^ *^^^ '^' ^P^"^^ (Hymenoptera : Acul'eata) " ''S!Tl80T'Monobat':" ""• '"'"• '' ' "" '"'' '^^ '^^' '''"'''"' ^>^'^''''- ^^b- Arpactus Panzer 1806, Krit. Rev. Insektenf. Deutschl. 2: 164, has type Mellinus 4- fasciatus Fabricius, [1805], by designation of Pate, 1937, loc. cit. : 11. The type of Arpactus Panzer is congeneric with that ot Hoplisus Lepeletier, 1832 Shuorrd 1 8^7^ nn ?K /^l w'f '! latreille, 1804, Hoplisus Lepeletier, 1832, and / arpactus - Sh ' ^^^^' °" the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the types which I have Jerome a's^onym ''"''"' """"'' "'*^°"^^ ''''^'' ^^"'^ ^°^'*'^^ Lepektier, would then BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (FEB. 1947.) 210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES FOR MACROPIS (KLUG MS.) PANZER, [1806-1809], AND MEGILLA FABRICIUS, [1804-1805] (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) By K. B. Benson, M.A. {Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History)), Ch. Ferriere (Imperial Institute of Entomology, London), and 0. W. ElCHARDS, D.Sc. (Imperial College of Science and Technology, London). (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)133.) Klug {in Panzer, [1806-1809], Faun. Ins. germ. 109 ; fig. 16) founded the genus Macro^ is on the single species Megilla lahiata Fabricius, [1804-1805]. Macropis is a very distinct genus round which a considerable bionomic and zoo- geographical literature has grown up. Fabricius ([1804-1805], Syst. Piez. : 328), however, founded a composite genus Megilla of which Westwood (1840, Introd. Mod. Class. Ins. 2 : synopsis, 158) fixed the type as M. lahiata Fabricius, [1804-1805], thus making Macropis Klug a synonym of Megilla Fab. Kichards (1935, Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 83 : 172), overlooking Westwood's type-fixation, chose Apis acervorum Linnaeus, 1758, as the type, thus making Megilla Fabricius a synonym of Anthophora Latreille, 1803.^' In our opinion the substitution of the name Megilla for Macropis would cause far more confusion than uniformity. The easiest way of getting over this difficulty would be for the International Commission to set aside Westwood's designation of Megilla lahiata Fab. as the type of Megilla Fab., since Richards' action in 1935 would thus become valid, and Megilla Fab. would sink as a synonym as explained above. We are of the opinion that it is highly desirable that in the exercise of the plenary power conferred on them by the International Zoological Congress, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect : — The name Macropis Klug in Panzer, [1806-1809] (type Megilla lahiata Fabricius, [1804-1805]) be added to the Official List of Generic Names. The type of Megilla Fabricius, [1804-1805] (Sy.'it. Piez. : 328) shall be deemed to be Apis acervorum Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 579), notwithstanding the action of Westwood (1840, Introd. mod. Class. Ins. 2 : s3niopsis, 158) in designating Megilla labiata Fabricius as the type of that genus.^' ^' See Opinion 151 in 1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2 : 169-180. ^* See footnote 4 above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 211 PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE RkGLES FOR MEGACHJLE LATREILLE, 1802 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) By R. B. Benson, M.A. {Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History)), Ch. Ferriere {Imperial Institute of Entomology, London), and 0. W. Richards, D.Sc. (Imperial College of Science and Technology, London). (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)133.) Latreille (1802, Hist. nat. Fouimis : 434) published the genus Megachile, including a number of species. Latreille (1810, Consid. gener. : 439) fixed the type as Apis rmiraria Retzius, 1783, though the name of the type-species was followed by certain other names (including Apis centuncularis Linnaeus, 1758), prefixed by the word " ejusdem." Ciirtis (1828, Brit. Ent. 5 : plate 218) designated Apis centuncularis Lin- naeus, 1758, as the type of Megachile. Lepeletier (1841, Hist. nat. Ins. Hymen. 2 : 309) described a genus CJmUco- doma of which the type was fixed by Girard (1879, Traite d'Ent. 2 : 778) as Apis muraria Retzius, 1783.* Hymenopterists have almost universally used the generic name Chalicodoma for Apis muraria and its allies and Megachile for Apis centuncularis and its allies. A large literature, both taxonomic and bionomic, has grown up round this usage. The two groups are generically distinct, or, at least, form very distinct subgenera. In our opinion the transference of the name Megachile to the group of which Apis muraria Retzius, 1783, is the type would cause far more confusion than uniformity. If the type-fixation of Latreille (1810) were set aside and that of Curtis (1828) upheld, this difficulty would be avoided. We are therefore of the opinion that in the exercise of the plenary power conferred on them by the International Zoological Congress, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect : — The name Megachile Latreille, 1802 (type Apis centuncularis Linnaeus, 1758) be added to the Official List of Generic Names. The designation by Latreille (1810, Consid. gener. : 439) of Apis muraria Retzius, 1783,* as the type is, therefore, to be set aside and the designation by Curtis (1828, Brit. Ent. 5 : plate 218) of Apis centuncularis Linnaeus, 1758, is to be upheld, ^s-^" * There appears to be some doubt as to the real identity of the bee described by Retzius as Apis muraria. Until this question is settled, it is suggested that the bee referred to above be regarded as Chalicodoma muraria Lepeletier (1841, Hist. nat. Ins. Hym. 2 : 309). The position of the genera Megachile and Chalicodoma is not affected by the name ultimately shown to be the right one for C. muraria. ^* See footnote 4 above. 2" Supplementary Note by the Secretary to the International Commission : The case of Megachile Latreille, 1802, is exactly parallel to that oi Formica Linnaeus, 1758, discussed in footnote 1 1 above, for the difficulties apprehended by the applicants have been completely eliminated by the publication of the Commission's Opinion. 136, clarifying Opinion 11, as it is now seen that Latreille in 1810 {Consid. gin.) did not make a valid designation of the type of Megachile Latreille. In consequence, the designation by Curtis (1828) of Apis centuncularis Linnaeus, 1758, as the type of this genus is valid and the currently accepted usage is correct. Thus, the name Megachile Latreille, 1802, can now be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, without the prior use by the Commission of their plenary powers to suspend the Regies Internationales, (int'd) F.H. II th August 1944. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (fEB. 1947.) 212 Bullet in of Zoological Nomenclature. PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES FOR MET HOC A LATREILLE, 1804 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) By R. B. Benson, M.A. (Assistant Keeper hi the Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History))^ Ch. Ferriere (Imperial Institute of Erttomology, London), and 0. W. Richards, D.Sc. {Imperial College of Science ami Technology, London). (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)133.) Latreille (March 1804, No^iv. Diet. Hist. nat. 2A : 179) published a genus Methoclia for the single species Mutilla articuJata Latreille, 1792. Latreille ([Sept. 1804-Sept. 1805], {in Sonnini's Buffon), Hist. nat. gen. partic. Crust, Ins. 13 : 268) included two species, Mutilla articiilala Latreille, 1792 and Mutilla formicaria Latreille, 1792. The name of the second species is pre- occupied by Mutilla formicaria Linnaeus, 1758. The name Mutilla arliculata, Latreille changed to Methoca ichneumonides, without giving any reasons for the change. There is only a single European species of Methoca and there is no certainty as to the identity oi Mutilla formicaria of Latreille, 1802. The emended spelling Methoca and the trivial name ichneumonides have been universally accepted by hymenopterists. On the former has been foimded the family name methocidae, while round the latter a large bionomic literature has accumulated. The use of the spelling Methocha and of the trivial name articidata or the erection of a new generic name for " Methoca " in its modern sense would cause far more confusion than uniformity. We are of the opinion that it is highly desirable that in the exercise of the plenary power conferred on them by the International Zoological Congress, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible take the steps laid dowm by the Congress for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect : — The name Methoca Latreille, March, 1804 (emend. Latreille, Sept. 1804) (type Methoca ichneumonides Latreille, Sept. 1804) is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names. The spelling Methocha Latreille, March 1804 and the trivial name articulata (Latreille, 1792) are therefore not to be substituted for Methoca and ichneumon ides, respectively.^^ ''1 See footnote 4 above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclatvre. 213 PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES FOR NOTOZUS FORSTER, 1853 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) By R. B. Benson, M.A. {Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History)), Ch. Ferriere {Imperial Institute of Entomology, London), and 0. W. Richards, D.Sc. {Imperial College of Science and Technology, London). (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)133.) We are of the opinion that it is highly undesirable to replace Notozus Forster, 1853, by Elampus Spinola, 1806. The former generic name (type Hedtfchmm spina Lepeletier, 1806, fixed by Ashmead, 1902, Canad. Ent. 34 : 228) has been in constant use for the last thirty years. During a very much longer period Elampus Spinola (in Agassiz' emendation Ellampus) has been widely used for the group of species more recently placed in Omalus Panzer, 1801. The use of the name Elampus for the species now placed in Notozus would cause greater confusion than uniformity. Latreille (1810, Comid. gener. : 437), however, fixed the type of Elampus as Chrysis panzeri Fabricius, 1805. We are of the opinion that it is highly desirable that in the exercise of the plenary power conferred on them by the International Zoological Congress, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an Ojnnion to the following efiect : — The name Notozus Forster, 1853 (type Hedychrum spina Lepeletier, 1806) is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names. The name Elampus Spinola, 1806 (with the same type) is therefore not to be substituted for it.^^ ^^ See footnote 4 above. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (fEB. 1947.) 214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. PROPOSED EMENDATION TO XYSSON OF THE NAME NYSSO LATREILLE, 1796 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) By R. B. Benson, M.A. (Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History)), Ch. Ferriere {Imperial Institnte of Entomology, London), and 0. W. Richards, D.Sc. (Imperial College of Science and Technology, London). (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)133.) Latreille (1796, Prec. Car. gener. Ins. : 125) published the genus Nysso- without included species. Later, [Oct. 1802-Sept. 1803],^^ (in Sonnini's Buffon, Hist. nat. gen. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 340), Latreille emended the name to Nysson and included two species. In 1810 (Consid. gener. : 438), he fixed one of these species, viz. Mellinus tricinctus Fabricius, 1775 = Sphex spinosa Forster, 1771, as the type. The emended spelling has universally been used by hymenopterists and the family (or subfamily) name nyssonidae has been founded on it. We are of the opinion that it is highly desirable that in the exercise of the plenary power conferred upon them by the International Zoological Congress, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect : — The name Nysson Latreille, 1802 (type Sphex spinosa Forster, 1771) is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names. The name Nysso Latreille, 1796, is not to be substituted for it.** -* For the date here assigned to this volume, see footnote 7 above. 2* See footnote 4 above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 215 PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES FOR ODYNERUS LATREILLE, [18021803] (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) By R. B. Benson, M.A. {Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History)), Ch. Ferriere {Imperial histitute of Entomology , London), and 0. W. Richards, D.Sc. {Imperial College of Science and Technology, London). (Commission's reference Z.N. (S.) 133.) Latreille ([1802-1803] ^^ in (Sonnini's BuSon), Hist. nat. gen. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 362) founded the genus Odynerus for two supposed species, Vespa spinipes Linnaeus, 1758, and for what he termed " Vespa muraria Linnaeus ". Latreille ([1804-1805], {in Sonnini's BufEon) Hist. nat. gen. partic. Crust. Ins. 13 : 347) states that his so-called Vespa muraria is the same as the species whose habits are described in detail by Reaumur (1742, Mem. serv. Hist. Ins. 6 : 285, pi. 26). Shuckard (1837, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 1 : 493) and Saussure (1852, Monogr. Guepes solit. 1 : 233) show that Reaumur's species was really Vespa spinipes Linnaeus. Thus Odynerus was effectively monobasic. Bequaert, the foremost living authority on the vespidae, accepts Vespa spinipes as the type of Odynerus {e.g. 1919, Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 39 : 290). Neverthe- less, Westwood (1840, Introd. mod. Class. Ins. 2 Synopsis : 83) cited Vespa muraria Linnaeus, 1758, as the type of Odynerus. Westwood's action might be regarded as fixing the type, if Latreille's words (and not his meaning) are rigidly construed. Since Bequaert's works are now the basis of most taxonomic studies in the VESPIDAE, it is very undesirable that his treatment of Odynerus should be upset (Vespa muraria Linnaeus, 1758, not being congeneric with Vespa spinipes Linnaeus, 1758). Such a change in the type of Odynerus would tend to cause, more confusion than uniformity. We are of the opinion that it is highly desirable that in the exercise of the plenary power conferred on them by the International Zoological Congress, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect : — The genus Odynerus Latreille, [1802-1803], with type Fcspa spinipes Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names. The citation by Latreille, 1802, of Vespa muraria Linnaeus, 1758, as an original member oi Odynerus was due to a mis- identification and his Vespa muraria was in reality the same as Vespa spinipes. Westwood's action, therefore, in citing Vespa muraria Linnaeus, 1758, as the type of Odynerus is not to be treated as a valid type-fixation.^^ ^^ For the date here assigned to this volume, see footnote 7 above. ^* See footnote 4 above. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (FEB. 1947.) 216 Bvlletin of Zoological Nomenclatvre. PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES FOR POXERA LATREILLE, 1804 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) By R. B. Benson, M.A. {Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural Histori/)), Ch. Ferriere {Imperial Institute of Entomology, London), and 0. W. Richards, D.Sc. (Imperial College of Science and Technology, London). (Commission's reference Z,N,(S.)133.) Latreille (March 1804, Nouv. Did. Hist. nat. 24 : 179) described the genus Ponera for his " Fourmis etranglees." This group was defined in 1802, Hist, nat. Fourmis, where it included, amongst other species, Formica contracta Latreille, 1802, and Formica crassinodd Latreille, 1802. Latreille (1810, Consid. gener. : 437) cited Formica, crassinoda as the type. Westwood (1840, Introd. mod. Class. Ins. 2 : synopsis 83) cited Formica contracta Latreille, 1802, as the type. In 1858 {Cat. Hym. Brit. Mus. 6 : 105), F. Smith erected the genus Pachy- condyla for the species with which Formica crassinoda Latreille, 1802, is con- generic. The names Ponera Latreille (in the sense of Westwood) and Pachy- condyla Smith have been universally accepted by hymenopterists and a large bionomic literature has grown up round the former name. Any modification of this practice would cause far greater confusion than uniformity. We are of the opinion that it is highly desirable that in the exercise of the plenary power conferred on them by the International Zoological Congress, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an 'Opinion to the following effect : — The name Ponera Latreille, March, 1804 (type Formica contracta Latreille, 1802 = Formica coarctata Latreille, 1801) be added to the Official List of Generic Names. The designation of Formica crassinoda Latreille, 1802, as type of Ponera by Latreille (1810) is therefore to be set aside and the designation of Formica contracta Latreille, 1802, by Westwood (1840) to be accepted." *' See footnote 4 above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 217 PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES FOR RHOPALUM (KIRBY MS.) STEPHENS, 1829 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) By R. B. Benson, M.A. {Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History)), Ch. Ferriere {Imperial Institute of Entomology, London), and 0. W. Richards, D.Sc. {Imperial College of Science and Technology, London). (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)133.) Stephens (1829, Nomencl. Brit. Ins. : 34) described a genus Rhopaliim and Curtis (1837, Brit. Ent. 14 : pi. 656) fixed the type as Crabro rufiventris Panzer, 1799 = Sphex clavipes Linnaeus, 1758. Pate (1935, Ent. News 46 : 246) has recently discovered that Risso described a genus Euplilis in 1826 {Hist. nat. Europ. merid. 5 : 227) and he has fixed Crabro rufiventris Panzer, 1799, as the type. Risso's genus has apparently not otherwise been noticed since its original publication, whereas Rhopalmn is a well-known genus on which a subfamily name has been based. In our opinion the resurrection of the name Euplilis and the sinking of the name Rhopalum would cause more confusion than uniformity. We are of the opinion that it is highly desirable that in the exercise of the plenary power conferred on them by the International Zoological Congress, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect : — The name Rhopalum Stephens, 1829 (type Crabro rufiventris Panzer, 1799 = Sphex clavipes Linnaeus, 1758) be added to the Official List of Generic Naines. The name Euplilis Risso, 1826, with the same type is therefore to be set aside and to have no status in nomenclature.^* ^8 See footnote 4 above. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (fEB. 1947.) 218 BvUetin of Zoological Nomenclatttre. PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES FOR SOLENIUS LEPELETIER AND BRULLE, 1835 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) By R. B. Benson, M.A. (Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History)), Ch. Ferriere {Imperial Institute of Entomology, London), and 0. W. Richards, D.Sc. {Imperial College of Science and Technology, London). (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)133,) Lepeletier and Brulle (1835, Ann. Soc. ent. France 3 : 713) founded a genus Solenius for a number of species including one which they termed " Solenius ragiis." In the synonymy of this species they placed Sphex vaga Linnaeus and Crabro vagus of Fabricius, Panzer, etc. They cited no genotype. West- wood (1839, Introd. mod. Class. Ins. 2 Synopsis : 80) cited " Sphex vaga Linn. Pz. 46.10 " as the type. From Lepeletier and Brulle's description of their Solenius vagus it is clear that they had before them the well-known Crabronid Solenius continuus (Fabricius, 1805) and not the true Sphex vaga Linnaeus, 1758 (= MelUnus arve7i^is (Linnaeus, 1758)) [see Richards, 1935]. Therefore, either (a) West- wood was citing as the type a species not originally included, or (6) he was referring to Sphex vaga in the sense of authors, not of Linnaeus. His reference to Panzer (1797, Faun. Ins. germ. 46 : 10) makes it clear that alternative (6) is the correct one. The genus Solenius (including species congeneric with S. continuus (Fab.)) has an important bionomic literature attached to it, and it has been made the basis of a subfamily name (soleniinae) by some authors. The substitu- tion of another name for Solenius would, in our opinion, cause more confusion than uniformity. We are therefore of the opinion that it is highly desirable that in the exercise of the plenary power conferred on them by the International Zoological Con- gress, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect : — The genus Solenius Lepeletier and BrulM, 1835, with type Solenius continuus (Fabri- cius, 1805) is hereby added to the Official List of Getieric Names. The fact that they re- ferred to this species as Sphex vaga Linnaeus, 1758, and that Westwood (1839) cited the same species as the genotype is not to be taken as fixing the true Sphex vaga Linnaeus as the type, since there is good evidence that they had misidentified Linnaeus' species.*' ^* See footnote 4 above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 219 PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES TO PRESERVE THE TRIVIAL COMPONENT {ARVENSIS) OF THE SPECIFIC NAME VESPA ARVEN- SIS LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) By R. B. Benson, M.A. (Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum [Natural History)), Ch. Ferriere {imperial Institute of Entomology, London), and 0. W. Richards, D.Sc. {Imperial College of Science and Technology, London). (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)134.) Vesfa arvensis Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 573 versus Sfhex vaga Linnaeus, 1758, ibid. (ed. 10) 1 : 571 In the Systema Naturae (ed. 10) 1, Linnaeus described a Vesfa arvensis and a Sfhex vaga. Richards (1935, Trans. R. ent. Sac. Land. 83 : 169) has recently examined the types of these species and has shown that they are the female and male respectively of the species commonly known as Mellimis arvensis (L.) (SPHECIDAE, subfamily mellininae). Hitherto Sphex vaga Linnaeus has been used as the name of a common species of Solenius (sphecidae, subfamily crabroninae). Under the name of Crabro vagus or Solenius vagus a large literature has grown up around this species, which must in future be known as Solenius continuus (Fabricius, 1805). In our opinion to replace the trivial name arvensis by the trivial name vagus would cause more confusion than uniformity and would, in particular, render a large bionomic literature much more difficult of access. We are of the opinion that in the exercise of the plenary power conferred on them by the International Zoological Congress, the International Commis- sion on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect : — The Law of Priority be suspended in the case of Sphex vagus Linnaeus (1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 571), the use of the name Vespa arvensis Linnaeus (1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 573) being allowed to continue in use for the species commonly known as Mellinus arvensis (Linnaeus).^" *" See footnote 4 above. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (fEB. 1947.) 220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES TO PRESERVE THE TRIVIAL COMPONENT {AGRORUM) OF THE SPECIFIC NAME APIS AGRORUM FABRICIUS. 1787 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) By R. B. Benson, M.A. (Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History)), Ch. Ferriere {Imperial Institute of Entomology , London), and 0. W. Richards, D.Sc. {Imperial College of Science and Technology, London). (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)135.) Afis agrorum Fabricius, 1787, Mant. Insect. 1 : 301 versus Apis agrorum Schrank, 1781, Enum. Insect. Austr. : 397 Fabricius (1787, Mant. Insect. 1 : 301) described as Ajpis agrorum a species which is common over the whole of Europe and Western Asia. The trivial name has been used as the basis of a subgenus, Agrohomhus Vogt, 1911. There is a very large literature, both bionomic and zoo-geo- graphical, associated with the name B. agrorum (Fabricius). Unfortunately Schrank (1781, Enum. Insect. Axistr. : 397) had already described an Apis agrorum, antedating Fabricius' species by six years. Schrank's species is also a Bomhus, but cannot certainly be recognised as to species; it may be the species now known as Bomhus distinguendus Morawitz, 1869. In our opinion, the replacement of the name Bomhus agrorum (Fabricius, 1787) by any other name would cause more confusion than uniformity. We are of the opinion that in the exercise of the plenary power conferred on them by the International Zoological Congress the International Commis- sion on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect : — The Law of Priority be suspended in the case of Ajpis agrorum Schrank (1781^ Enum. Insect. Austr. : 397), the use of the name Apis agrorum Fabricius (1787, Mant. Insect. 1 : 301) being allowed to continue for the species commonly known as Bombus agrorum (Fabricius) {e.g. as defined by Saunders, 1896, Hym. Acul. Brit. Islands : 367).^' '^ See footnote 4 above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 221 PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES FOR THE GENOTYPE OF ERYCINA LAMARCK, 1805 (CLASS PELECYPODA, ORDER HETERODONTA) By Harald a. Rehder. {Associate Curator, Division of Mollusks, Smithsonian Institution, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)69.) In 1805, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris 6 (36) : 413, Lamarck proposed the genus Erycma for a heterogeneous assemblage of six species, all fossils of the Paris basin. In 1807 Froriep {Lamarck'' s Neues System der Conch/lien, Weimar : 38) mentioned Erycina laevis Lamarck, 1805, loc. cit. 6 (36) : 414 (the first of the six species cited by Lamarck) as an example of the genus. This is not a type designation, although Dall apparently so considered it (1900, Trans. Wagner Free Inst. Sci. 3 (5) : 1141 footnote). In 1823, Children {Quart. J. Sci. 14 : 299) selected Erycina cardioides Lamarck, 1818, Hist. nat. Anim. sans Vert. 5 : 486, as the type, but this choice cannot be accepted, as that species was not one of the six species included in the original description of Erycina Lamarck. In 1844 Recluz {Rev. zool. 7 : 291-299, 325-336) monographed the genus Erycina Lamarck, having been able, as he states, to examine Lamarck's types. Of the six original species he considered Erycina frag His Lamarck, 1805, loc. cit. 6 (36) : 415 and Erycina elliptica Lamarck, 1805, loc. cit. 6 (36) : 415 to belong to Diplodonta Bronn, 1831, Ergeb. nat. Reisen 2:484; Erycina in- aequilatera Lamarck, 1805, loc. cit. 6 (36) : 415, Erycina laevis Lamarck, 1805. to be members of Tellina Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 674, restricting Erycina Lamarck to the single species Erycina pelhcida Lamarck, 1805, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris 7 (37) : 53 ; Erycina trigoiia Lamarck, 1805, Ann. Mus. Hist, nat. Paris 6 (36) : 414 he did not mention, probably because it was a single valve in poor condition. Deshayes, 1858 {Description des Animaux sans Vert. dec. dans le Bassin de Pans 1 : 700-704), agreed in general with Recluz, making, however, Erycina fragihs Lamarck the type of the new genus Psathura Deshayes, 1858, loc. cit. 1 : 478, and doubtfully identifying Erycina trigona Lamarck as the valve of a species of Corbulomya Nyst, [1844], Mem. coiir. Acad. roy. Belgique 17 : 59. This has been, on the whole, the view of all subsequent workers. Follow- ing this viewpoint, Stoliczka in 1870 {Cretaceous Fauna of Southern India 3 (Pelecypoda) : xix) designated Erycina pellucida Lamarck as type, which has to the present been generally accepted. Of course, it may logically be considered that Recluz in 1844 designated Erycina pellucida Lamarck as type by restriction, making Erycina Lamarck monotypic (see Opinion 6).32 However, five years before Recluz's careful study, '* Opinion 6 does not provide for the restriction of a genus containing three or more species, such as Erycina Lamarck ; but is expressly confined to the case of a genus " A ", estabhshed with two species only, where one of the two originally included species is sub- sequently made the type of a monotypical genus. For the text of Opinion 6, with notes thereon, see 1944, Opinimis and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological N omenclatxire 1 : 127-138. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (FEB. 1947.) 222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. appeared Anton's Catalogue of his collection (1839, Verzeichniss der Conchylien icelche sich in der Smmnhmg von H. E. Anton hefinden), which contains valid type designations for all the genera and subgenera mentioned. Here, on page 6, he designates Erycina eUiptica Lamarck as type, the species which Recluz and Deshayes had placed in the genus Diplodonta Bronn, 1831 (now known by the name Taras Eisso, 1826, Hist. tiat. Europe 4 : 344). The acceptance of Anton's type designation would mean (i) that the name Erycina Lamarck would be used for the group long known as Diplodonta Bronn and Taras Risso and (ii) that the genus Erycina of authors would need a new name. This transposition would cause endless confusion, especially as both groups are common as Tertiary fossils and used as index fossils in stratigraphy. In view of this, it is advisable that the International Commission stabilise the status of Erycina Lamarck, 1805, under suspension of the rules, by placing Erycina Lamarck on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Erycimt pelhwida Lamarck, 1805, as type. PROPOSAL THAT GESNER (J.), 1758, TRACTATUS PHYSICUS DE PETRIFICATIS, SHOULD BE SUPPRESSED FOR NOMENCLATORIAL PURPOSES By J. Brookes Knight. (Dejxirtment of Geology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)146.) I wish to have an Opinion from the International Commission on the status of the names of Gesner (J.), 1758, Tractatus physicus de Petrificatis . . . Gesner apparently names and describes (in Latin) genera, without refer- ring species to them. Later authors have used the same generic names, usually without any statement as to the authorship of the names, and have included species in them. However, since about 1830 most of these names, all ending in " -ites ", have gone out of fashion. Such as are still used are attributed to authors subsequent to Gesner. A few authors have noted Gesner's names and have rejected them out of hand as not being binominal. As a rule, they are overlooked. Sherborn accepted Gesner's names as available. If the International Commission should decide that Gesner's generic names are technically available, it is suggested that the whole work be made unavail- able under suspension of the rules, on the grounds that the adoption, as from 1758, of the names that appear in Gesner's Tractatus physicus would cause considerable confusion in various fields of taxonomy. Nothing would be gained by retaining them as available, save priority of the most sterile sort. Such of the names as are taken up by later authors (with, or without, reference to Gesner) should be considered valid or not on the merits of such later usage and should date from such usage, without jeopardy of homonymy with Gesner's. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 223 ON THE QUESTION WHETHER UODES HEYDEN, 1826 (CLASS ARACHNIDA, ORDER ACARINA) IS A HOMONYM OF LEIODES LATREILLE, 1796 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA) By the late Arthur P. Jacot. (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)64.) Is the genus Liodes Heyden, 1826, Isis (Oken) 1826 : 611 (Class Arachiiida, Order Acarina) a homonym of Leiodes Latreille, 1796, Precis Caract. Ins. : 22 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) ? The whole question is whether the two words are different enough both to be available as generic names. In America some beetle specialists spell Latreille's name Leiodes in the emended form Liodes, as proposed by Erichson, 1845, Deidsclil. Ins. (Col. 1) 3 : 87, thus engendering confusion. As a specialist in mites, I should like to know whether the name Liodes Heyden, 1826, is available for the mite genus. It has been in use, was sub- sequently abandoned, and now an acarologist is reviving it. Is it technically available ? ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE NAMES LIODES HEYDEN, 1826 (CLASS ARACHNIDA, ORDER ACARINA) AND LEIODES LATREILLE, 1796 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA) ARE OF THE SAME ORIGIN AND MEANING By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.) (Commission's reference Z,N.(S.)64.) In Ofinion 147,3^ published on 30th September 1943, the International Commission set out certain decisions which they had taken at Lisbon in 1935 (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 14), 3* regarding the principles to be observed in interpreting Article 34 of the International Code in relation to the rejection, as homonyms, of generic and subgeneric names of the same origin and meaning as names previously published. Under the decision embodied in Opinion 147, " a generic name of the same origin and meaning as a previously published generic name is to be rejected as a homonym of the said name if it is distinguished therefrom only by . . . the use of " ei ", " i ", and " ?/ ". . . . In the case submitted to the Commission by the late Dr. Jacot, the point which requires to be determined is whether the name Liodes Heyden, 1826 (Class Arachnida, Order Acarina) is of the same origin and meaning as the prior name Leiodes Latreille, 1796 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). If the examination of the origin and meaning of these two generic names were to show that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 19, the name Leiodes ^' See 1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2 : 123-132. 3* See 1943, Bull. zool. Notnencl. 1 : 39-40. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (FEB. 1947.) 224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Latreille, 1796, should be emended to Liodes (as proposed by Ericbson, 1845), then the name Liodes Heyden, 1826, would fall as a homonym of Liodes (emendation of Leiodes) Latreille, 1796. If, however, the examination of the origin and meaning of these names were to establish that, although there was no case for emending Leiodes Latreille to Liodes, the names Leiodes Latreille, 1796, and Liodes, 1826, were of the same origin and meaning, then, under Opinion 147, Liodes Heyden would fall as a homonym of Leiodes Latreille. If, however, the examination of these names either (i) failed to establish that these names were of the same origin and meaning or (ii) definitely established that they were not, then the name Liodes Heyden, 1826, would not be invali- dated by Leiodes Latreille, 1796, and would, therefore, be an available name. In order, therefore, to assist the International Commission in reaching a conclusion on the case submitted by Dr. Jacot, specialists commenting on that case are particularly asked to address themselves to the questions indicated above. {continued from front wrapper) On the status of the name Clavellarius Olivier, 1789 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By H. H. Ross and B. D. Burke, Illinois State Natural History Survey, Urbana, Illinois . p. 201 On the relative status of the generic names Cimbex Olivier, 1790, and Clavellarius Olivier, 1789 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ..... p. 202 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Bombus Latreille, 1802 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History), Ch. Ferridre, Imperial Institute of Entomology, London, and O. W. Richards, D.Sc, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London ........... p. 204 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Ceratina Latreille, [1802-1803] (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Ch. Ferridre, and O. W. Richards, D.Sc p. 205 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Diodontus Curtis, 1834 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Ch. Ferriere, and O. W. Richards, D.Sc p. 206 Proposed suspension of the Regies for the names Formica Lirmaeus, 1 758, and Camponotus Mayr, 1861 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Ch. Ferridre, and O. W. Richards, D.Sc. . p. 207 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Gorytes Latreille, 1804, and Hop- lisus Lepeletier, 1832 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Ch. Ferriere, and O. W. Richards, D.Sc. p. 208 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Harpactus Shuckard, 1837 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Ch. Fer- riere, and O. W. Richards, D.Sc p. 209 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Macropis (Klug MS.) Panzer, [1806-1809], and Megilla Fabricius, [1804-1805] (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Ch. Ferriere, and O. W. Richards, D.Sc p. 210 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Megachile Latreille, 1802 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Ch. Ferriere, and O. W. Richards, D.Sc p. 211 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Methoca Latreille, 1804 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Ch. Fer- riere, and O. W. Richards, D.Sc p. 212 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Notozus Forster, 1853 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Ch. Fer- riere, and O. W. Richards, D.Sc p. 213 Proposed emendation to Nysson of the name Nysso Latreille, 1 796 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, Ch. Ferriere, and O. W. Richards, D.Sc p. 214 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Odynerus Latreille, [1802-1803] (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Ch. Ferriere, and O. W. Richards, D.Sc. p. 215 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Ponera Latreille, 1804 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Ch. Fer- riere, and O. W. Richards, D.Sc p. 216 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Rhopalum (Kirby MS.) Stephens, 1829 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Ch. Ferriere, and O. W. Richards, D.Sc p. 217 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Solenius Lepeletier and Brulle, 1835 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Ch. Ferriere, and O. W. Richards, D.Sc p. 218 Proposed suspension of the Regies to preserve the trivial component (arvensis) of the specific name Vespa anensis Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Assistant Keeper in the Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History), Ch. Ferridre, Imperial Institute of Entomology, London, and O. W. Richards, D.Sc, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London ........... p. 219 Proposed suspension of the Regies to preserve the trivial component (agrorum) of the specific name Apis agrorum Fabricius, 1787 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A., Ch. Ferriere, and O. W. Richards, D.Sc. p. 220 Proposed suspension of the Regies for the genotype of Erycina Lamarck, 1805 (Class Pelecypoda, Order Heterodonta). By Harald Rehder, Associate Curator, Division of Mollusks, Smithsonian Institution, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C. p. 221 Proposal that Gesner (J.), 1758, Tractatus physicus de petrificatis, should be suppressed for nomenclatorial purposes. By J. Brookes Knight, Department of Geology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey . p. 222 On the question whether Liodes Heyden, 1826 (Class Arachnida, Order Acarina) is a homonym of Leiodes Latreille, 1796 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By the late Arthur P. Jacot .... p. 223 On the question whether the names Liodes Heyden, 1826 (Class Arach- nida, Order Acarina) and Leiodes Latreille, 1796 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) are of the same origin and meaning. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission ' on Zoological Nomenclature ....... p. 223 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The above work, which is obtainable from the Publications Office of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature (the corporation formed for managing the financial affairs of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) at its Publications Office, 41, Queen's Gate, London, S.W. 7, is being published in three volumes concurrently, as follows : — Volume 1. Parts 1-25 (containing Declarations 1-9 and re-issues of Opinions 1-16) have now been published. When complete, this volume will contain all the pre-Lisbon Opinions. Volume 2, Section A. This Section is now complete in 31 Parts ((Parts 1-30, 30 A) and con- tains the first instalment of the Lisbon decisions embodied in Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-160. Volume 2, Section B. This Section will contain the remainder of the Opinions adopted at Lisbon {Opinions 161-181). Parts 31-51, containing Opinions 161-181, have now been published. Part 52 containing the index and title page is in the press. Volume 3. Parts 1-11 (containing Opinions 182-192) have now been published. The Opinions published in this volume are those which have been adopted by the International Commission since their Lisbon Session. Additional Parts of all the above volumes are in the press and will be published as soon as possible. Pkintkd in Uheat Bkiiain by Richard Clay and Company, Ltd., BCNQAY, Suffolk. VOLUME 1. Part 10. Pp. 225-256. 28th FEBRUARY 1947 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Oflficial Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE \^ '^\k'?:^ Edited by ^^feiNCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission Proposed suspension of the Regies to suppress the name Raphistoma Rafines- que, 1815 (Class Pisces, Order Synentognathi) and to validate the name Raphistoma Hall, 1847 (Class Gastropoda, Order Archaeogastropoda). By^. Brookes Knight, Department of Geology, Princeton University, New Jersey ; L. R. Cox, Sc.D., Department of Geology, British Museum (Natural History); K. P. Oakley, Department of Geology, British Museum {Natural History) ; Josiah Bridge, Palaeontologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Wash- ington, D.C.; Edwin Kirk, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.; the late J. R. Norman ; Ethelwynn Trewavas, D.Sc, Department of Zoology, British Museum {Natural History) ; the late E. O. Ulrich ; Leonard P. Schultz, Division of Fishes, Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. ; and George S. Myers, Professor of Biology and Head Curator of Zoological Collections, Natural History Museum, Stanford University, California ......... p. 225 Proposal to suppress the generic name Teleosteus Volger, 1 860, and the specific name Teleosteus primaevus Volger, 1860 (Class Anthozoa). By Adolf Zilch, Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Natur-Museum, Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M p. 228 On the relative merits of the names Bryozoa and Polyzoa as the name for the Class in the Animal Kingdom now known by one or other of these names. By Sir Sidney F. Harmer, D.Sc, F.R.S., formerly Director of the British Museum {Natural History) ......... p. 230 {continued on back wrapper) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Committee 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 five shillings and seven pence (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION A. The Oflicers 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). B. 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. YOKES (U.S.A.). Class 1955 Professor Dr. Hilbrand BOSCHMA (Netherlands). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Bela von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. T. JACZEWSKI (Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLE (U.S.A.). C. The Staff of the Secretariat in London Secretary to the Commission : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Archivist : Mr. Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A. D. The Address of the Commission Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. E. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature The Officers of the Trust : Chairman : Colonel Right Hon. Walter Elliot, M.C., M.P., F.R.S. Managing Director and Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Registrar: Mr. A. S. Pankhurst. The address of the Trust and its Publications Office : 41, Queen's Gate, London, S.W. 7. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 225 PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES TO SUPPRESS THE NAME RAPHISTOMA RAFINESQUE, 1815 (CLASS PISCES, ORDER SYNENTOGNATHI) AND TO VALIDATE THE NAME RAPHISTOMA HALL, 1847 (CLASS GASTROPODA, ORDER ARCHAEOGASTROPODA) By J. Brookes Knight (Department of Geology, Princeton University, New Jersey), L. K. Cox, Sc.D. (Department of Geology, British Museum {Natural History)), K. P. Oakley (Department of Geology, British Museum (Natural History)), JosiAH Bridge {Palaeontologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.), Edwin Kirk {U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.), the late J. R. Norman, Ethelwynn Trewavas, D.Sc. {Department of Zoology, British Museum {Natural History)), the late E. 0. Ulrich, Leonard P. Schultz (Division of Fishes, Smithsonian Institution, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.), and George S. Myers {Professor of Biology and Head Curator of Zoological Collections, Natural History Museum, Stanford University, California).^ (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)145.) The undersigned, specialists in the fields of Palaeozoic Gastropoda and of living fishes, petition the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature to suppress the name Raphistoma Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse Nat. : 89 (Pisces), under suspension of the rules, in favour of its subsequent homonym Raphistoma Hall, 1847, Nat. Hist. New York (Pal.) 1 : 28 (Mollusca, Gastro- poda), and of its subsequent objective synonym Belone Cuvier, 1817, Regn. anim. 2 ; 185, on the ground that the application of the rules would lead to greater confusion than uniformity. As matters stand today, the name Raphistoma Rafinesque has been largely overlooked, and is not employed by systematists in fishes, though it is seemingly a valid prior objective synonym of the widely employed name Belone Cuvier, 1817, while the invalid Raphistoma Hall, 1847, has been widely employed for a genus of Palaeozoic gastropods since its proposal some ninety years ago. The name Raphistoma Rafinesque appeared in that author's Analyse de la BULL. ZOOL. nomencl. (feb. 1947.) 11 226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Nature, published in Palermo in 1815, an excessively rare work. Here we find on page 89 the following ; — III. 0. Gastripia Lea Abdominaux 1. Sous-Ordre. Brachistomia, Les Brachistomes [defined — ] 19. Famille Siagonia, Les Siageniens. 2. S. F. ESOXIDIA. Les Esoxides. Une seule nageoire dorsale, dos non aquillonne. G. 5. Esox L. 6. Baphistoma R. Belone Gr. 7. Lepiosteus Lac. 8. Synodvs Lac. 9. Megalops Lac. 10. Elops L. 11. Stomias R. In a memorandum furnished in 1934 Mr. J. K. Norman, Assistant Keeper, Department of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History), one of the co- signatories of the present petition, who was consulted relative to the validity of Raphistoma Rafinesque and its status among ichthyologists, stated : — Rafinesque refers to Belone Gronovius. No trace of Belone is to be found in Grono- vius's Zoophylacium, 1763-1781, or in the Museum Ichthyol, 1754-1756, except in the index to the former work. Here we find " Bellone No. 362 ", but on turning up No. 362 in the text we find no trace of this word. However, the species referred to under No. 362 is clearly the Gar-fish of European seas, i.e. Esox belone Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 314. Thus it seems that the species Esox belone Linnaeus is genotype of Raphi- stoma Rafinesque, 1815, by monotypy. But Esox belone Linnaeus is also genotype of Belone Cuvier, 1817, by absolute tautonymy and hence Belone Cuvier, 1817, a name widely used and currently in good standing for the genus in question, is a subsequent exact or objective synonym of Raphistorna Rafin- esque, 1815, a name that has been almost wholly overlooked. If the rules are rigidly enforced, the almost unknown name Raphistoma must of necessity replace the well-known and widely used Belone Cuvier, 1817, a substitution that is highly undesirable from any point of view save that of the most sterile priority. Furthermore, unless the name Raphistoma Rafinesque, 1815, is set aside under the plenary power, the rigid enforcement of the rules would require the suppression of Raphistoma Hall, 1847, Nat. Hist. New York (Pal.) 1 : 28, a name widely in use for a genus of Palaeozoic gastropods since it was first pro- posed, and currently in good standing, as a subsequent invalid homonym of Raphistoma Rafinesque, 1815. This again would serve no good purpose, and would inevitably lead to confusion. J. Brookes Knight J. R. Norman {Paleozoic Gastropoda, Princeton Uni- {DepartmetU of Zoology, British Mu- versiiy) ^ seum {Natural History)) {Department of Geology, British Mu- Ethelwynn Trewavas skcm {Natural History)) (see my iDepartimnt of Zoology, British Mu- attached note) (Annex 1) seum {Natural History)) K. P. Oakley E. 0. Ulrich {Department of Geology, British Mu- {U.S. National Mtiseum, Washington, seum {Natural History)) D.C.) ^ Dr. J. Brookes Knight has since become Research Associate in Palaeontology, Smith- sonian Institution, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C. I Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 227 Josiah Bridge Leonard P. Schultz [Palaeontologist, U.S. Geological Sur- {Dimsion of Fishes, U.S. Natwnal vey, Washington, D.C.) Museum, Washiju/ton, D.C.) Edwin Kirk G. S. Myers (U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, {Stanford University) (see my attached D.C.) ' note) (Annex 2) ANNEX 1. Supplementary Note by L. R. Cox, Sc.D. [Assistant Keeper, Department of Geology, British Museum [Natural History).) Since no bibliographic reference is given by Rafinesque and the trivial name belone was not applied by Gronovius to any species, we can only guess that Rafinesque intended to found the genus Raphistoma upon the species Esoz bdlone Linnaeus. Hence the name Raphistoma would appear to have been published without a definition, description, or indication as defined by Opinion 1 , and may be ignored. It further appears doubtful if the " Bellone " of Gronovius' index can be accepted as more than a vernacular name, and, according to Opinion 1 again, " In no case is the word ' indication ' to be con- strued as including vernacular names ". However, since other workers may object to this interpretation of the rules, it seems desirable to have Raphistoma Rafinesque ruled out by a definite Opinion. ANNEX 2. . Supplementary Note by George S. Myers. {Professor of Biology and Head Curator, Zoological Collections, Natural History Museum, Stanford University.) I have not seen the original of Rafinesque's Analyse, but, if the passage quoted in the accompanying memorandum is correct, I am inclined to agree with Dr. Cox that Raphistoma of Rafinesque, 1815, is not available under the rules. My reasons are exactly those put forward by Dr. Cox. It should be noted that Mr. Fowler, of the Philadelphia Academy, has rejected Raphistoma Rafinesque, evidently with much the same things in mind (see his " Marine Fishes of West Africa " in 1936, Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 70 (1) : 438). The late Dr. D. S. Jordan (1917, Genera of Fishes (1) : 91) attempts to explain Rafinesque's reference to Gronovius, but says : " This reference does not seem to justify the substitution of Ramphistoma [sic] for Belone.'' It will be noted that the accompanying memorandum, as well as Jordan, quotes Rafinesque's page 89, whereas Fowler [loc. cit.) gives the page as " 15 ". This should be investigated. It should be impressed upon the Commission that Belone Cuvier is today a universally recognised genus in ichthyology, and the family of the marine gars (a world-wide group) is based on it. I have come across only one recent author who has accepted Rafinesque's name. De Buen (1935, Instituto esp. Oceanogr., Madrid, Notas y Resumenes (2) 88 : 69) quotes " Rhamphistoma [sic] Rafinesque 1810 [sic] ", and in the synonymy of Rhamphistoma [sic] belone (Linn.) he lists " 1810, Rhamphistoma [sic] vulgaris Rafinesque ". He gives no more exact reference to any of Rafinesque's papers. So far as I know, BULL. zooL. nomencl. (feb. 1947.) 228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Rafinesque published only two papers on fishes in 1810 (the Indice d'ittiologia siciliana and his Caratteri) and I find no reference to a name " Rhamphistoma " or a " R. vulgaris " in either. The synonymic quotation directly above — " 1810, Belone acus Risso "■ — is also non-existent, and I think that we may safely discount these references. I fully agree with Dr. Cox that, in view of the possibility of disagreement on the availability of Rafinesque's Raphistoma, it would be desirable to have this name ruled out definitely by the Commission. Its use, in ichthyology, would certainly lead to greater confusion than uniformity. PROPOSAL TO SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAME TELEOSTEVS VOLGER, 1860, AND THE SPECIFIC NAME TELEOSTEVS PRIMAEVUS VOLGER, 1860 (CLASS ANTHOZOA) By Adolf Zilch. (Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Natur-Museum Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M.) (translation from the German original) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)132.) Volger, 1860, Ber. Offenbach. Ber. Naturk. 1 : 37, described from the Hunsriick-slate of Caub (Lower Devonian, Siegen division) a distinctive fossil as Teleosteus primaemis, which he believed to be " the first trace of an osseous fish " found " in the Transition Rocks ". Volger said about this find ( : 52) : " Everyone who inspects it recognises it at once as the tail-fin, united with the last joints of the spine, of an osseous fish, which shows itself to be a true scaled fish by the strong development of the vertebrae as well as by the absence of any trace of an integumental covering. Moreover, according to this relic, the species is seen to be a perfectly symmetrically forked fish ". . . . " This remnant, therefore, is the first and so far the only proof that osseous fishes existed in the Transition Era. Hence, it appears to me provisionally to deserve the name by which I have designated it : ' der Ur-Grrathenfisch ' {Teleosteus primaevus) ". Although Volger preferred " eine treue Abbildung einer auf Grund der Aufiassung verdeutlichten Darstellung ", he described this new genus and species as follows : — Man erkennt drei kraftige Wirbelkorper, ohne eine Spur ansitzender Dornen. Von facherformig gestellten platten Knochenstiicken an der Wurzel der Schwanzfinne oder von einer plattenartigen Ausbildung eines letzten Wirbels ist nichts zu erkennen. Die Wurzel der Schwanzfinne erscheint ziemlich verdickt und ohne deutliche Spur der Strahlen. Um so scharger treten letztere auf der ganzen ausgebreiteten Flache der Schwanzfinne hervor. Man erkennt eine nach hinten zunehmende Zahl von solchen Strahlen. . . . Jedenfalls haben wir hier auf dem Uebergangs- schiefer von Caub den gleichgabeligen Schwanz eines Grdtherifisches vor uns — und damit eine neue Thatsache, welche allerdings berechtigt ist, auf unsere Auschauungen von der Geschichte der Thierwelt einen bedeutenden Einfluss zu beanspruchen. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 229 According to Volger's own statements, eminent contemporaries — like vom Rath — saw the specimen, but it was less the systematic position of the fossil and much more the high geological age of the rocks which was doubted. It was assumed to be, perhaps, a fish-slate from Glarus. During the preparation of the Catalogue of Types in the Natur-Museum Senckenberg, the original specimen of Teleosteus frimaevus Volger, 1860,^ has been found, correctly arranged among the corals of the Hunsriick-slate. It is indeed, in fact, a Devonian tetra-coral ; it belongs to the same species as that which Sandberger (1889, Jh. nass. Ver. Nalurh. 42 : 100 pi. 1 figs. 1-4) named Rhipiclophyllum viilgare. If the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature are strictly applied, the species Rhipidophylhtm vulgare Sandberger, 1889, and the genus Rhipido- phyllum Sandberger, 1889, will have to receive the names Teleosteus primaevus Volger, 1860, and Teleosteus Volger, 1860, respectively. As the name " Teleo- steus " would be misleading for a genus of corals and as, further, Sandberger's designation " Rhipidophyllum-slate " (= Hunsriick-slate) is of historical importance, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature are asked to make use of its plenary powers to suspend the rules and to declare the names Teleosteus Volger, 1860, and Teleosteus primaevus, 1860, to be un- available ^ For a figure of the type of Teleosteus primaevus Volger, 1860, see Zilch, 1937, Sencken- bergiana 19 : 431-432. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (FEB. 1947.) 230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. ON THE RELATIVE MERITS OF THE NAMES BRYOZOA AND POLYZOA AS THE NAME FOR THE CLASS IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM NOW KNOWN BY ONE OR OTHER OF THESE NAMES By Sir Sidney F. Hahmer, D.Sc, F.K.S. (formerly Director of the British Museum (Natural History).) (Communicated by W. L. Sclater, M.A., at the request of the " Zoological Record Committee " of the Zoological Society of London.) (Commission's reference Z.N. (S.) 72.) The name " Bryozoa " was introduced by Ehrenberg; but I am under the disadvantage of not having the memoirs of that author bearing on the subject. In the Zoological Record for 1880 (1881, Zool. Rec. 17 : 113 (Mollus- coidea)), the date of Bryozoa is given as 1831, with a query. This seems to be Ehrenberg's Symbolae physicae of that date; but I do not think that " Bryozoa " occurs there. This is, however, irrelevant, because Thompson (1830) is admittedly earlier in date, and the decision which name should be used does not depend entirely on the question of priority. I fully admit that (1) Ehrenberg formally introduced " Bryozoa " as the name of a Class in 1839 {Ahh. K. Akad. Wiss., Berlin a.d. Jahre 1838, Table 1, following page 120), and (2) that Thompson, 1830, Zool. Researches, Mem. 5, did not do so. Thompson understood by " Polyzoa " an animal inhabiting, or associated with, certain zoophytes. On page 92 he stated that his discovery " must be the cause of extensive alterations and dismemberments in the Class (' Zoo- phites ') with which they have hitherto been associated ", and later, " I shall merely mention here in a general way the whole of the Flustraceae, in many of which I have clearly ascertained the animals to be Polyzoae ". He pointed out, in particular, that the species of the old genus Sertularia Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 807, were some Hydroids and some Polyzoae. He described various members of the latter group, with reasonably good figures; and all the species thus indicated are definitely Polyzoa. " Polyzoa " Thompson was thus neither introduced formally as a class nor as a genus. In one place, however (and I do not know that this point has previously been brought out in discussions on the subject), he used the word in such a way that he may fairly be considered to have employed it as the name of a group. " POLYZOA ", without qualification, appears as a heading of the explanation of his figures, on page 101 ; and it appears also as the heading of the alternate pages of his text. These facts, it may be argued, are a sufficient justification for the contention that "Polyzoa" was the name of a group; and his remarks, in the text, on the subject of classification strengthen the argument. J. V. Thompson is, I think, the most striking example I know of really remarkable work being done by a man who may be described as an amateur naturalist. He was the first to describe the metamorphoses of Crustacea; and his five thin Memoirs contain a wealth of accurate information, far in advance of his time, particularly with regard to the metamorphoses of Crus- tacea, the description of specially interesting members of that group and with regard to the luminosity of the Ocean. The work of so distinguished a naturalist Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 231 deserves the recognition which would be given to it by accepting Polyzoa as the correct name for a very isolated group of animals : — a group which he was the first (with the possible exception of an earlier paper by Gray) to recognise as distinct. I ought, lastly, to refer to a discussion of this question at the Linnean Society of London (" Proceedings " of Session 123, 1910-1911, pp. 61 et seq.). The opinions, on that occasion, were by no means unanimous. I also admit, finally, that " Bryozoa " is in more general use (except in this country) than " Polyzoa ". BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (fEB. 1947.) 232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 19 OF THE REGLES INTERNATIOMALES IN RELATION TO THE NAME CHROMODORIS MCFARLANDI COCKERELL, 1902 (CLASS GASTROPODA, ORDER OPISTHOBRANCHIA) By D. P. COSTELLO. {Department of Zoology, University of North Carolina.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)122.) Cockerell (1901 ; 1902) named and described three new species of the genus Chrmnodoris Alder & Hancock, 1855, Man. Brit. Nudibranch. {Moll. 7 App. : xvii) on the basis of animals collected at San Pedro and La JoUa, California. These were : — Chromodoris universitatis Cockerell ; C. porlerae Cockerell ; and C. nicfarlandi. The first of these species was later considered to be identical with Chromo- doris californiensis Bergh, 1879, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1879 (1) : 71 (see Cockerell, 1908, Nautilus 21 : 106 ; O'Donoghue, 1926, Trans. Roy. Canad. Inst. 15 : 199). According to O'Donoghue (1926), Bergh intended this species to be called Chromodoris calensis, and so named it in his manuscript plate. Later the term " calensis " was interpreted as a contraction for " californiensis ", and so appeared in the text published in 1879 (not 1789, as misprinted in O'Donoghue's article). The trivial name californiensis has, therefore, been retained for this species by subsequent writers. Cockerell (1902) states that Chromodoris mcfarlandi was named in honor of Professor F. M. McFarland of Stanford University. The name of this investigator of the Nudibranchiata is F. M. MacFarland. MacFarland (1906) has corrected the spelling of his name, in as much as he refers to the species in question as Chromodoris macfarlandi, but no reference is made to the erroneous spelling in Cockerell's paper. The corrected spelling was also used by Cockerell (1908) and by O'Donoghue (1926). However, on the basis of the International Code of Nomenclature, and the same argument that was applied to Chromodoris californiensis Bergh, 1879, the trivial name mcfarlandi should stand unless modified by an Opinion of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. O'Donoghue, who has made an extensive study of the taxonomy of the Nudibranchiata, has indicated (1926) that the genus Chromodoris Alder & Hancock, 1855, should be changed to Glossodoris Ehrenberg, 1831, Symbolae physicae (Moll.) : sign. " f ". Therefore, O'Donoghue considers that the correct name of the first species in question is Glossodoris californiensis (Bergh, 1879). The present name of the other species in question is Glossodoris mcfarlandi (Cockerell, 1902). According to Article 19 of the International Code, the original orthography of a name is to be preserved unless an error of transcription, a lapsus calami, or a typographical error is evident. The error involved in the first use, by Cockerell, of mcfarlandi is probably not typographical, as it occurs in several places in two papers. It is possible, however, to consider it a lapsus calami. Judging from Opinions 41, 60, and 63, an Opinion by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature would be required to make the necessary change in this trivial name, i.e. the change from mcfarlandi to macfarlandi. Literature cited Bergh, R., 1879, "On the nudibranchiate gasteropod Mollusca of the North Pacific Bulletin of Zooltjffical Nonmtctalure. 233 C^ca^. with special rference to those of Alaska, Pt. I." Proc. Acai. nut. Sri. Philad. —-,1908, MoUusca of La Jolla, California." Nautilus 21 • 1 06 ON THE STATUS OP THE NAME COMMONLY CITED AS PmoPLASM4 By G. WiTENBERG. {Department of Parasitology, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)127.) papS'ttrtlT!'f)'''p-^^^'' ^^^^' ?^- ^"^'- (^^^^^ Abt.) 35 : 486-492; in a Hsease of cattlfin^rPp"'"'"''^ '^T ^''^'' " ^^^^^^ed but did not name " form?'' nf itf . Caucasus. In this article, reference is made to two the oXr in a^' r"' '' "''" ""'n^u'"^^^ ^^ "^ " "^'^^^ " ^^^^ «f ^^^ disease and tneotherina chrome one. These authors later wrote of this species under the name Pnoplasma annulatnm, but it has not so far been poss ble to tracTthe paper m which this name was first so pubUshed Both the above " forms " of this parasite may now be distinguished as BoT;"' mi TrrkfTn' ^V^' ^'T ^''^^^ Bettencourt Frata & identical with » ,^11 i « / >t .t* ?.• -^ ^^ ^^^^^^''^^ species is apparent y Sergent well-defined North African, namely TAeama dllar Ed Ed. Sergent (1923, Bull. Soc. Path. exot. 16 : 23-30) expressed the vipw th.i- the trivial name ann»^a.^.n of Dschunkowsky and Luhs Eld no be Tecof nised because the species so named by those authors is a '^mixed spec'es ^" uX thri "'^ '^'' '^' l^'&' "^ '^^^'^'^'^ ^^«-^bed by the abov Sors ^oundintheMldir'^' ""'^^' ^'^' ^'''' '''^'' °^ ^^° «P««i«« «f that gem The pathot^f n r "'"!' •''^' P^tl^«g«"i« and the other non-pathogenic. Hs lator Sr. T 1 T^^ incorrectly called m^7e^•a ;,arm, though in ms later papers he replaced that name by the name Theileria disvar the non-pathogemc species he called TheUeria m^Uans ^ ' BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (FEB. 1947.) ii: 234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. However, the arguments advanced by Sergent cannot be accepted, for it is quite certain that there exists only one pathogenic species of the genus Theileria in the Mediterranean area. It seems, therefore, that the name Theileria dispar Sergent, should be regarded as a synonym of Theileria annulata (Dschun- kowsky & Luhs, 1904) and not the contrary, as Sergent treats it in all his recent papers. I should be much indebted for an Opinion on the question whether the rejection by Sergent of the trivial name anmdatum Dschunkowsky & Luhs is in accordance with the provisions of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. ON THE QUESTION OF THE PLACE AND DATE OF FIRST PUBLICATION OF THE NAME PIROPLASMA ANNULATUM DSCHUNKOWSKY AND LUHS (CLASS SPOROZOA, ORDER COCCIDIIDA) COMMONLY TREATED AS HAVING BEEN FIRST PUBLISHED IN 1904 By Francis HemminCx, C.M.G., C.B.E. {Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)127.) Since it is a condition of publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature that a full bibliographical reference should be given in any paper containing an application submitted to the International Commission for decision, I attempted, when preparing Dr. Witenberg's application for pubhcation, to identify the paper in which it was stated in that apphcation Dschunkowsky and Luhs had in 1904 first published the name Piroplasma annulatum (Class Sporozoa, Order Coccidiida). When, however, I consulted the paper pubhshed by those authors in 1904 under the title " Die Piroplasmosen der Kinder " (1904, Zbl. Bakt. (Erste Abt.) 35 : 486-492, pis.), I found that, although that paper was a preUminary communication, it contained a full description of the new species, but that nowhere did it contain a scientific name for it. Accordingly in September 1944, I wrote toth to Dr. Witenberg and to Dr. C. M. Wenyon, C.M.G., C.B.E. , F.R.S., The Wellcome Foundation, London, asking for assistance in this matter. Dr. Wenyon replied (6th September 1944) saying that he was examining the Uterature and would write again as soon as his investigations were complete. On 11th October 1944, Dr. Wenyon reported as follows : — We have made researches and have arrived at the following, which seems to be as far as we can go at present. If we get any more information, we will let you know. We have been unable to trace the paper to which Dschunkowsky and Luhs's " Vor- laufige Mitteilung " in the Centralblatt, 1904, was intended to be a preliminary. If it appeared at all, it is possible that it was in some obscure Russian journal. The earliest use we have discovered of the name Piroplasma annulatum (and there it is used as if it were already an accepted term) is in a paper read in the name of Dschunkowsky and Luhs by : — Tartakowsky [M. G.] (1906). [Remarks on Dschunkowsky and Luhs's observa- tion on Piroplasmosis of Cattle in Trans-Caucasia.] Report of the Vlllth International Veterinary Congress, Budapest, 1905, Vol. Ill, p. 290. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 235 The author appears as Herr Tartakowsky : we have taken his initials from the list of persons present (and on comparison with the rest, the " M " does not appear to stand for "Monsieur"). There is no title to his remarks; he is third speaker in a discussion on " Les maladies tropicales des animaux domestiques " and " Le role des protozoaires dans les maladies des animaux," and starts with the words : " Als Beitrag zu den bis jetzt erstatteten Referaten sci mir gestattet, im Namen des Herrn Dschunkowsky . . . under seines Assistenten Herrn Luhs in kurzer Fassung einige Resultate ihrer Untersuchungen und Beobachtungen betrefF der tropischen Rinderkrankheiten, welche in Transkaukasien ver- breitet sind der Sektion mitzuteilen . . ." Later, at the end of a list of names of diseases he gives : — " tropische Piroplasmose Dschunkowsky's und Luhs. Der Parasit : Piroplasma aimulatum " [not in italics] . . . " Bemerkungswert ist, dass Piroplasma annulatum unter verschiedenen Umstanden in drei Grundformen auftrifft : 1. die Hauptform, kleine ring- und birnenformige Parasiten; 2. lange und kleine bacillenartige Form ; 3. punktformige . . . P.-Sporen genarmt. In akuten Fallen beobachtet man die kleinen Ring- und Birnenformen im Sommer und P. Sporen im Winter. In dieser Hinsicht treten die Autoren von ihrer friiheren Ansicht, dass die Punktform nur dem chronischen Berlauf der Krankheit eigen ist, zuriick. In chronischen Fallen beobachtet man P.-Sporen im Winter und grosse bacillenartige Formen (3-5 y.) im Sommer . . ." Immediately before Tartakowsky spoke, Herr Bitter (Cairo) concluded remarks he had made on Egyptian piroplasmosis with the words : " Es ist sehr wahrscheinlich, dass der Parasit identisch ist mit dem von Dschunkowsky und Luhs beschriebenen und ebenfalls auf dem Kongress demonstrierten Parasit." Possibly Dschunkowsky and Luhs were present at the Congress and demonstrated their parasite, though in the discussion Tartakowsky spoke for them. In a further letter dated 18th October 1944, Dr. Wenyon stated : — We have now seen and examined very carefully the 1st and 2nd volumes of the Report of the 8th International Veterinary Congress, Budapest, 1905 (published in 1906) and can find no mention of any paper by Dschunkowsky and Luhs and no account of the description and demonstration mentioned by Bitter in vol. III. I add two new references, unfortunately to journals which, according to the World List of Scientific Periodicals, are not available in this country : — 1. Dzhunkovski, E. P. Tropical Piroplasmosis or African shore fever. Protk. zasid. Kavkask. med. obsh., Tiflis, 1903-4, XL, 742. 2. Dzhunkovski, E., & Lus, I. Piroplasmosis of cattle. Vestnik obsch. vet., St. Petersb., 1903, XV, 769. The second of the above papers is quoted twice by Laveran, A., (1906) in " Tropische ELrankheiten der Haustieren," Rep. 8th Intemat. Vet. Congr., Budapest, 1905, under the spelling " Dschunkowsky & Luhs " and the date " Sept. 1904." On 25th October 1944 I received from Dr. Witenberg the following letter dated 15th October 1944 :— Referring to the publication in which Piroplasma annulatum was first proposed, I am sorry to say that I was not able to trace it. I corresponded with Dschunkowsky on this question but he was not able to help. I quote below a translation of a part of his letter of 13th July 1938, which contains hints in the matter : — ". . . in the same year (1903) I published, together with my collaborator, the late I. Luhs, a preliminary note in a small Russian journal, possibly ' Veterinamii Vratch.' In 1904 I reported on this species in the International Congress in Budapest . . ." On receipt of the above letter, I consulted Mr. D. A. E. Cabot, Chief Veterin- ary Officer, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, London, who (in a letter dated 22nd November 1944) informed me that the Imperial Bureau of Animal Health had located copies of the journals containing the papers referred to by Dr. Wenyon in his letter of 18th October and were seeking to obtain microfilms of these papers, in order to ascertain whether the name Piroplasma annulatum 236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. had been published in either of them. These microfilms have not yet been obtained and, if any speciaUst reading the present note has access to either of these papers, it will be of great assistance to the Commission if he will be so good as to furnish them with information on the above subject. It will be seen from the foregoing particulars that it has not yet been possible to trace the original reference for the name Piroplastna annulatum or even to determine whether it was first published by Dschunkowsky alone or by that author jointly with Luhs. The fact that these questions have not yet been finally determined fortunately does not mean that there need be any delay in reaching a decision on the problem submitted by Dr. Witenberg, since the question raised in Dr. Witenberg's application is one of principle and is not dependent upon the exact manner in which the name Piroplasma annulatum was first published. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 237 PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF TB^ReGLES FOR TREMATASPI^ " °" ''''"r "''■ *»" " without reducing the seneric namlTftt^ f tjpe species from a genus was the type of 'tJJ'^^^^^.^J^, 7Z:^^M W b!""^'' IT' synonymy, ,-.e. should havefollowed it; t™s3trib™iyi^/'T'^^^ T^:;^Zr '"^'^' ^"^ B^onbuS^retrg^'n' In Rohon's next contribution (5) to the literaf-nr^ ^.r. t , ■ . sf ^i^^^;^-^^'^^ Of i i^ction that the svec^ZvZnfJ^ specirnens demonstrated to my satis- it and give it a S generiTame mtZ T "^?. ^ P'"*^^^^^^^ ^« ^^^^^^ibe in which the fossirwereTund Th^l^^^^ T ^^' T^^^^ ""'^^ Rotsikiilla of Harvard. 1^10^. over tZlZT7^ T' ^^'^^^^ted to Dr. Romer taxonom^erulesandtS^dlyTalled^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^« -^-t.on of receling^TergeStam^^^^^^^ ^ ^'^^^^ «?--' -^ead of ^.^™nLpec-r^^^^ BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (FEB. 1947.) 238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Scliraidt and Rohon identified a number of Pander's other species with Tremataspis schmidti. These other species Pander had founded on small fragments of shields. Their microscopic structure, as seen in thin sections, resembles that of Tremataspis shields. However, they do not seem to me to resemble Tremataspis any more closely than they do Cephalaspis, and, since a number of genera of Osteostraci occur together in the formation, it is not sufficiently established that these Pander fragments belong to one rather than to some other of these genera. I would question their identification as Tremataspis too much to regard them as possible genotypes, whose generic designation should replace Tremataspis. In the International Code, there is a provision made for suspension of the rules in certain cases.^ In the present instance, it seems to me that the incon- venience which would result from adherence to the rules would more than offset the advantage resulting from correcting Schmidt's error. The designa- tion " Tremataspis " has attached to the polished shields from Oesel for some 72 years. To redescribe Pander's " Cephalaspis schrenckii " as Tremataspis and to change the genus and family names of what we have known as Trema- taspis to something different only makes for confusion. It appears to the -nTiter that in this case we have a very good instance in which " the strict application of the rules will clearly result in greater con- fusion than uniformity ".^ I, therefore, suggest that the rules be suspended in this case, leaving us the well-established Tretnataspis with Tremataspis schmidti Rohon as the genotype, and gi\'ing the Pander species the new generic name Witaaspis Robertson, 1939, J. Geol. 47 (6) : 652. References. 1. Pander, C, 1856, " Monographie der fossilen Fische des Silurischen Systems der Russischen-baltischen Gouvernements," St. Petersb. : 47 pi. 4 fig. 2. 2. Schmidt, F., 1866, " Ueber Thyestes verrucous Eichwald und Cephalaspis schrenckii Pander, nebst einer Einleitung liber das Vorkommen sUurischer Fischreste ayif der Insel Oesel." Verh. russ. min. Oes. St. Petersb. (2) 1. 3. Rohon, J. V., 1892, " Die Obersilurische Fische von Oesel. I Theil. Thyestidae und Tremataspidae." Mem. Acad. imp. Sci. St. Petersb. (7) 38 (13) : 61. 4. Schmidt, F., 1893, " Ueber neue silurische Fischfunde auf Oesel." Neues Jahrb. filr Mineralogie 1 : 99. 5. Rohon, J. V., 1894, " Zur Kenntniss der Tremataspiden." 3Iel. Geol. et Pal. Bull. Acad. imp. Sci. St. Petersb. 1. 6. Robertson, G. M., 1938, " The Tremataspidae." Amer. J. Sci. (4) 35 : 172-206, 273-296. ^ See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 239 PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE RtlGLES TO mENTIFY A]>iOMIA PECTEN LINNAEUS, 1758, WITH THE SPECIES BELONGING TO THE ORDER PROTREMATA (CLASS BRACHIOPODA) COMMONLY KNOWN AS STROPHOMENA PECTEN (LINNAEUS, 1758) By Alan Wood, Ph.D. {Department of Oeology, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)130.) Linnaeus, in 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 702, described a fossil shell under the name Anomia pecten in the follo\ving words : — 103. A. testa semi-orbiculata depressa multistriata : valvula altera plana. List. angl. 243. t. 9. /. 49. Habitat . . . fossilis. Testa infeme s. inargine cardinis linea recta, s. transversa. No locality was given by Linnaeus, as will be seen from the above quotation, but a specimen is contained in his cabinet at the Linnean Society of London. Lister's figure, cited by Linnaeus, is of a specimen " ex fodinis carbonum FossiUum juxta Hallifax ", and is quite recognisable as the lamelUbranch Dunbarella pajpyracea (J. Sowerby, 1822) (= Pecten papyraceus Sowerby, 1822, 31in. Conch. 4 : 75 pi. 354), which is known to occur in the Halifax Hard Marine Band in the Coal Measures. This is the species widely known as Pterinopecten papyraceus (Sowerby, 1822). The description given by Linnaeus quoted above could be held to apply to this shell. On the other hand, the shell preserved in the Linnean cabinet is a Silurian brachiopod to which the name Strophomena pecten (Linnaeus, 1758) has long been given. This is the species now known as Schuchertella pecten (Linnaeus, 1758). This Silurian form is the shell with which Linnaeus was actually dealing, and knowledge of its characteristics was spread by personal contact among Swedish palaeontologists, till Dahnan in 1828 {K. Vet. Akad. Handl. 1827) published typical figures. By strict application of the rules, it would seem that the trivial name papyraceus Sowerby should be displaced by pecten Linnaeus, and that the brachiopod long known as Strophotnena pecten (Linnaeus, 1758) is without a valid tri^^al name. Since both Pterinopecten papyraceus (Sowerby, 1822) and Strophomena pecten (Linnaeus, 1758) are widely distributed shells, cited by many authors for more than 100 years, strict application of the rules in this case would lead to con- fusion. It is, theMore, asked that the rules be suspended in this case, so that the trivial name pecten Linnaeus, 1758, can be applied to the Silurian brachiopod now commonly known as Strophomena pecten (Linnaeus, 1758). BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (FEB. 1947.) 240 BnUetin of Zoological Nomenclature. ON THE TYPE OF THE GENUS CHINCHILLA BENNETT, 1829 (CLASS MAMMALIA, ORDER RODENTLA) By Wilfred H. Osgood. {Chicago Natural History Museum.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)141.) Is Mits laniger Molina, 1782, necessarily the type of Chinchilla Bennett, 1829, under the rules? If not, is the type to be determined as the next valid or invalid name definitely applied to the species described by Bennett and referred to the genus ? The facts are as follows : — Mvs laniger Molina, 1782 {Saggio Stor. nat. Chili : 301-302, 342) was described from tales of natives, notes and memories, after its describer had left Chile. There is no evidence that any specimens were in the author's hands at the time of writing nor at any other time. Since he coupled the native name " chinchilla " with it, it was accepted by various authors prior to 1829, who supposed it referred to the fur-bearing rodent then known in Europe only by incomplete market skins. In 1829 Bennett received complete speci- mens of the animal and observed living examples in the London zoo. He determined these to represent a new genus which he fully described and figured {Gardens and Menag. Zool. Sac. Lond. 1 : 1-12, October 1829). His account, although thorough and detailed, was semi-popular in nature and a more technical and more fully illustrated treatment was later issued (1833, Trans, zool. Soc. Lond. 1 : 35-64 pis. 5, 7), in which he characterised the family chin- CHILLIDAE. His first paper bears a good woodcut of several chinchillas, beneath which is the heading : " THE CHINCHILLA Chinchilla lanigera ". Then follows a historical accoimt and detailed description. No other trivial name is mentioned and, although the name laniger is changed to the feminine form lanigera without coupling Molina with it as authority, there is no doubt that Bennett assumed that Molina's species was the same as the one that he had in mind. In doing this, he may have been influenced by the general accept- ance of the name by other authors, for he was clearly aware that Molina's dpscription was defective. This is evidenced by the following extracts from his text : ( : 2) " the description given in his work added little of truth and much of error " ; ( : 5) " it is impossible to place in his descriptions that implicit confidence to which his acknowledged good faith would otherwise entitle him " ; ( : 7) " we have thus fortunately placed within our reach the means of correcting many of the errors into which former writers have fallen with regard to it ". These statements apparently do not justify the assump- tion that Molina's species was " doubtfully referred " or that it was a " species inquirenda " from Bexmett's standpoint, but they seem to border on it and perhaps deserve some consideration in judging the case. Authors subsequent to Bennett, with some exceptions {e.g. Lichtenstein), have followed him in accepting MoUna's name for the chinchilla, and the generic name Chinchilla, with the family name chinchillidae derived from it, has been current in literature. In some cases (e.g. Palmer, 1904, Faun. N. Amer. 23 : 181, 844) the Mus laniger of Molina is definitely stated to be the tj'pe of the genus Chinchilla Bennett. No very critical examination of Molina's description appeared until 1934, when Prell {Zool. Garten 7 : 207) carefully analysed it and concluded that it does not apply to the true chinchilla but to Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 241 the so-called false chinchilla or chinchilla rat, an animal belonging to a different genns {Abrocoma Waterhouse, 1837, Proc. zool. Soc. Land. 5 (50) : 30) and family. Whether this be true or not, Prell makes it quite clear that the description does not apply to the chinchilla. Only two conclusions are possible in regard to it. Either it is applicable to the genus now called Abrocoma as Prell believed, or it is composite and unidentifiable, as seems evident to others. Therefore, if it is properly the type of the genus Chinchilla Bennett, it will be necessary either to transfer that name to what has been called Abrocoma or to suppress it as based on an unidentifiable species. It is to be noted that Bennett did not designate Miis laniger as the type of Chinchilla. In fact it is clear that the genus was based only on his speci- mens and his remarks are specific to the effect that, until the specimens were available, the generic determination of Molina's supposed species was im- possible. Subsequent authors who have cited Mus laniger as the type of Chinchilla Bennett obviously did so because it was the only name mentioned by Bennett, and few if any ever consulted Molina's text. What Bennett actually did was to provide a generic name for an animal not previously named either as species or genus. His assumption that Molina's Mus laniger referred to the same animal is decidedly qualified ; therefore, subsequent designation of Mus laniger as the type of his genus is at most doubtfully justified. The genus was monotypic from Bennett's standpoint and, although three forms (Chilean, Peruvian and Bolivian) are now recog- nised, they are so closely related that subspecific status for all of them is not improbable. However this may be, it is obvious that the type must be a name based on the animal described by Bennett, that is, the Chilean form as at present understood. This excludes the first specific name properly applied to a true chinchilla which is Eriomys chinchilla Lichtenstein, 1829 (Darst. neu. o. wenig. bekannt. Saugth. 2 pp., pi. 28) based on the Peruvian form. Eriomys Lichtenstein, 1829, therefore is a synonym of Chinchilla Bennett, 1829,* and the trivial name chinchilla Lichtenstein is valid for the Peruvian form but not available as type of the genus Chinchilla Bennett, in spite of the tautonymy. The combination Cricetus chinchilla was used by Fischer in 1814 {Zoognosia (ed. 3) 3 : 55) but only as a substitute for Mus laniger and it does affect the later use of the trivial name chinchilla by Lichtenstein for a species not congeneric with Mus laniger Molina. Owing to the continued mistaken use of the trivial name laniger, the Chilean chinchilla had no other name applied to it until 1934, when Prell {Zool. Anz. 108 : 100) called it Chinchilla velUgera and plainly stated that the name was intended to apply to the animal described by Bennett. This, therefore, is the only name providing the requirements for a type for the genus Chinchilla Bennett, if 3Ius laniger Molina is removed from consideration. It might be contended that the type should be the species first referred to the genus after its characterisation (see Opinion 46). This, however, would bring us to a * Evidence is not wholly conclusive as to the priority of Chinchilla Bennett, 1829, over £riow!/s Lichtenstein, 1829,* but the first author to consider the question (Waterhouse, 1848, Nat. Hist. Mamm. 2 : 2.33, footnote) has definitely given preference to Chinchilla Bennett on the grounds that its description is more complete and more accurate. An earlier reference to Bennett's is found in the number for January 1829 of the Zoological Journal (4 : 317), where Yarrell uses only the vernacular name " chiBchUla " but sig- nificantly places a question mark after the name Mits laniger Molina, which he refers to it, thus indicating the uncertainty about this name which prevailed at the time. * According to Neave, 1939, Nomencl. zool. 2 : 285, the correct date of publication of the name Eriomys Lichtenstein is 1830 not 1829. 242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. species (or subspecies ?) " not included under the generic name at the time of its original publication " {i.e. the Peruvian form rather than the Chilean), for in this case it is plainly evident what species is involved even though it had not at the time received a name. Theoretically or nomenclatorially, it must be assumed that the Chilean and Peruvian forms are different species. If Mus laniger Molina be suppressed or excluded as a possible type of Chinchilla Bennett, considerable confusion would be avoided. In fact, nothing would be lost except the trivial name laniger. The happy combination Chin- chilla chmchilla would remain for the Peruvian form and the family name CHINCHILLIDAE would Stand as at present. The Chilean form, if ever proved to be only subspecifically different from the Peruvian, would be Chinchilla chinchilla velligera Prell, 1934. On the other hand, if it be attempted to make Mus laniger Molina the type, the name ChincJiilla Bennett might be transferred to Abrocoma Water- house, 1837 (which would pass out), and the true chinchillas apparently take the name Eriomys Lichtenstein. A new family name would also be needed and there would be long-continued confusion of technical and vernacular names. The question whether or not Mus laniger Molina is identifiable would remain to plague, and both Chinchilla Bennett and Abrocoma Waterhouse (perhaps some others also) would be affected. Whether or not Molina's Mus laniger is identifiable is perhaps not a ques- tion for action by the Commission. The question at issue, then, seems to be this. Assuming that Mus laniger Molina, 1782, is unidentifiable, what is the type of Chinchilla Bennett, 1829 ? Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 243 ON THE STATUS OF THE NAME ATUROIDEA VREDENBURG, 1925 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER NAUTILOIDEA) By M. H. Haas, Ph.D., LL.D. (Department of Geology, British Museum (Natural History).) (Commission's reference Z.N. (S.) 139.) I beg to submit the following case for examination : — tl) The name Aturoidea was created by Vredenburg, 1925, Mem. geol. Surv. India 1 : 9 in the following words : — These three species [soil. Nautilus parkinsoni Edwards, N. spathi Vredenb. and N. serpentinus Blanford] lack the funnel shaped septal sheaths round the siphuncle characteristic of Aturia and may be referred to a section " Aturoidea " of Nautilus. <2) The name Paraturia was created by Spath, 1927, Pal. ind. (n.s.) 9 (Mem. No. 4) : 22 for a genus of the family hercoglossidae with Nautilus parkinsoni Edwards as its genotype. Spath specified : — The forms with more angular sutures and an entomarginal siphuncle, like Nautilus parkinsoni Edwards, Hercoglossa paucifex (Cope) Whitfield . . . both of which are genoparatjrpes of Hercoglossa, further Nautilus schweinfurthi (Zittel MS.) Quaas are here referred to the new genus Paraturia. <3) Dr. G. de P. Cotter, when editing Vredenburg's posthumous MS. (Cotter, 1928, in Vredenburg, Pal. ind. (n.s.) 10 (Mem. No. 4) : 18 :— (a) at first adopted Spath's generic name, adding the following footnote : — In Mr. Vredenburg's manuscript a new name was proposed for this section of Nautiloids, but quite recently Dr. Spath ("Revision of the Jurassic Cephalopod Fauna of Kacch (Cutch) ", Mem. 2, p. 22, 1927) separated this form under the sub- generic designation of Paraturia, which, therefore, replaces the name suggested by Mr. Vredenburg. (6) but later, yet still before the publication of this paper, he rectified his opinion and substituted, both in the specific description of Nautilus spathi Vredenburg and in the generic (subgeneric) diagnosis, the name Aturoidea for the name Paraturia and replaced the footnote quoted above by the following : — The name Paraturia was proposed by Dr. Spath for this section of Nautiloids in 1927 (Revision of the Jurassic Cephalopoda of Kacch, Pal. Ind., Vol. IX., Mem. 2, p. 22) but the name Aturoidea has the priority, having been first suggested by Mr. Vredenburg in 1925 (see Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India, Vol. 1, page 9). (4) Spath, 1929, Naturalist 1929 : 269, approved the latter point of view, saying :— Aturoidea Vredenburg, 1925 (Mem. geol. Survey, Vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 9) antedates Paraturia Spath, 1927 (Pal. Indica, N.S., Vol. IX., Mem. No. 2, pt. 1, 26th January 1927, p. 22). (5) Subsequently (1931, Bull. Dep. geol. Sci. Univ. Calif. 19 : 435) Schenck agreed to this solution, though he quoted a wrong paper of Spath's for the establishment of the name Paraturia. This solution was agreed to also by Miller and Thompson in 1933 (J. Paleont. 7 : 298) and 1935 {ihid. 9 (7) : 563). In the second of these papers Miller and Thompson explicitly BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (fEB. 1947.) 244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. designated Nautilus parkinsoni Edwards as genolectotype of Aturoidea Vredenbiirg, 1925. In my opinion, the name Paraturia Spath ought not to have given way to the name Aturoidea Vredenbiirg, for the following reasons : That Vreden- burg omitted to designate a genotype would not have made invalid the estab- lishment of a genus (subgenus), since his paper appeared in 1925 (International Code Article 25).^ But, as he used the indefinite expression " section " (instead of " genus " or " subgenus "), it must be doubted whether there was, in fact, established a genus (subgenus) Aturoidea Vredenburg, 1925. It may also be doubtful whether Vredenburg intended to establish a new genus, in view of the fact that he used the expression " section " and the termination ". . . -oidea" often used for Classes. Further, it seems as if Vredenburg would have had in view the word Aturoidea as neuter plural but not a feminine singular; that also would exclude the intention of formally establishing a genus (subgenus) {Aturoidea).^ Spath, on the other hand, doubtless did have such an intention, since he established his genus Paraturia within a new classi- fication of the post-triassic Nautiloidea and explicitly designated B. parkinsoni Edwards as genotype. Since Spath himself has already in a published paper acknowledged the priority of Aturoidea Vredenburg over Paraturia Spath and other authors — though not having thoroughly examined the matter^have followed him, the question arises whether, notwithstanding the objections set out above, there would not result greater confusion than uniformity if the name Aturoidea Vredenburg were cancelled and its place taken by Paraturia Spath. I, therefore, beg to request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to decide : — {a) whether the creation of the name Aturoidea by Vredenburg in 1925 is to be acknowledged as being in accordance with the rules and the name Aturoidea Vredenburg consequently accepted as an available name for a genus (or subgenus) ; and if not, [b) whether the name Aturoidea Vredenburg, 1925, should be retained under suspension of the rules and the name Paraturia Spath, 1927, sunk as a synonym. * The amendment to Article 25 of the Code adopted by the Tenth International Con- gress of Zoology at Budapest in 1927 did not come into operation until midnight 31st December 19.30/lst January 1931. Accordingly, the name Aturoidea Vredenburg, pub- lished five years earlier (in 1925), is not invalid by reason of no type having been desig- nated by its original author. For the text of the Budapest amendment to Article 25,. see Note 3 to Opinion 1 (1944, Ojnnions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclatitre 1 : 76-78). " The status of generic (and subgeneric) names published otherwise than in the nomina- tive singular has been dealt with by the International Commission in Opinio7i 183 (see 1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 3 : 13-24). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 245 ON THE TYPES OF THE GENERA BRADYCELLUS ERICHSON, 1837, AND TRICHOCELLVS G ANGLE AUER, 1892 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA) By H. E. Andre WES. {Leicester.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S,)158.) Bradycellus Erichson. Erichson, 1837, Kaf. Mark Brand. 1 (1) : 64. Westwood, 1838, Syn. gen. Brit. Ins. : 5. Hope, 1838, Col. Man. 2 : 89. Andrewes, 1935, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10) 16 : 20. Both Westwood and Hope cited as type Harpalus placidus Gyll., 1827, and, after showing in my paper quoted above, what great confusion in our present nomenclature would arise if this citation were allowed to stand, I proposed Carabus collaris Payk. as a substitute. An Opinion of the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is required to confirm this action. Trichocellus Ganglbauer. Ganglbauer, 1892, Kdf. Mitldeur. 1 : 365-6. Andrewes, 1934, Ent. mon. Mag. 70 : 201. Andrewes, 1935, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10) 16 : 20. Harpalus placidus Gyll. was cited by both Westwood and Hope as the type of the genus Bradycellus Erichson, and the arguments in favour of its supersession by Carabus collaris Payk., and its adoption as the type of Tricho- cellus Ganglbauer, have already been set forth in my two papers quoted above.'' " The above is an extract from the paper entitled " The generic names of the British CAKABIDAE " prepared by Mr. H. E. Andrewes for the Coleoptera Sub-Committee of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature of the Royal Entomological Society of London. At the date in question the composition of the above Sub-Committee and of the above Committee was as shown in footnote 8 below. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (FEB. 1947.) -46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES FOR BRADYCELLUS ERICHSON, 1837 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA) By Sir Guy A. K. Marshall, K.C.M.G., D.Sc, F.R.S. (formerly Director, Imperial Institute of Entomology, Lm^don), H. E. Andrewes {Leicester), W. A. F. Balfour-Browne (formerly Professor of Entomology, Department of Entomology, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London), K. G. Blair, D.Sc. (formerly Deputy Keeper of the Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History))^ and M. Cameron. (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring). (Commission's reference Z.N. (S.) 158.) In the case of the following generic name the strict application of the rules embodied in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature would cause a serious, and quite unnecessary, disturbance in existing practice and would, in our view, cause greater confusion than uniformity. For this name we are in favour of a partial suspension of the rules. The object we have in view can be effected by a very slight departure from the strict application of the Code. The portion of Mr. Andrewes' paper relating to this name and to the name TrichoceUus Ganglbauer, 1892, which is bound up in the same problem, was- written by him in consultation with us, and we are in full agreement both with his conclusions and with his recommendations, which we summarise as. follows : — The generic names Bbadycellus Erichson, 1837, and Trichocellvs Ganglbauer, 1892. Westwood, 1838, and Hope, 1838-39, both cited Harpalus placidus Gyllenhal, 1827, as type of Bradycellus. Seidlitz, however, 1887, proposed a new genua Tachycellus for Harpalus placidus Gyllenhal, 1827, and H. cognatus Gyllenhal, 1827, but, this name being pre-occupied, Ganglbauer, 1892, substituted for it TrichoceUus, for which Andrewes, 1934, specified H. placidus as the type. In order to avoid the confusion that would ensue were Westwood's type citation maintained, Andrewes, 1935, formally cited Carabus collaris Paykull,. 1798, as type of Bradycellus, thus stabilising present usage in adopting the procedure followed by Seidlitz, Ganglbauer, Reitter and all modern writers. It is very desirable that this action be confirmed and an Opinion promul- gated that Westwood's and Hope's citations be over-ruled and that C. collaris Paykull be specified as the genotype of Bradycellus Erichson, H. placidus Gyllenhal serving as the genotype of Trichocelhis Ganglbauer. We are therefore of the opinion that in the exercise of the plenary power conferred upon them by the International Zoological Congress the International Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 247 Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following efEect : — The name BradyceUus Erichson, 1837 (type Carabus coUaris Paykull, 1798), is added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The designation by Westwood of Harpalus placidus Gyllenhal, 1827, as the type of BradyceUus is therefore to be set aside, and that by Andrewes, 1935, of Carabus collaris Paykull is to be accepted.* ON THE TYPE OF THE GENUS CARABUS LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA) By H. E. Andrewes. (Leicester.) (Commission's reference Z.N. (S.) 158.) Carabus Linnaeus, 1758. Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 413. Latreille, 1810, Consid. gen. Anim. Crast. Arach. Ins. : 426. Curtis, 1833, Brit. Ent. 10 : pi. 446. Hope, 1838, Col. Man. 2 : 47. Solier, 1848, in Truqui and Baudi, Studi Ent. 1 : 58. C. G. Thomson, 1875, Opiisc. Ent. 7 : 640. Andrewes, 1935, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10) 16 : 14. Breuning, 1932-1937, Best.-Tab. Eurof. Col. 104-110. Latreille cited as type Carabus auratus Fab., 1801 (= Linn., 1761), a species not originally mentioned by Linnaeus, so that the citation is invalid. Curtis, 1833, and Westwood, 1838, made Carabus violaceus Linn, the type. C. G. Thomson divided the genus into a number of subgenera, and, following Hope, made C. granulatus Linn, the type of his subgenus Carabus s.s. Most recent writers, including Breuning in his revision quoted above, also treat C. granu- latus Linn, as the genotype. For the reasons given in my recent paper, it is very desirable that the International Commission should express an Opinion confirming Hope's citation and overruling that of Curtis.^ * The above is an extract from the First Report of the Coleoptera Sub-Committee of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature of the Royal Entomological Society of London. At the time of the submission of the above Report, the Coleoptera Sub-Committee was composed as follows : — Sir Guy Marshall, C.M.G., F.R.S. {Chairman), Mr. H. E. Andrewes, Professor W. A. F. Balfour- Browne, Dr. K. G. Blair, and Commander M. Cameron, R.N. At the same period the Committee on Generic Nomenclature was composed as follows : — Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Chairman), Dr. K. G. Blair. Dr. F. W. Edwards, F.R.S., Dr. 0. W. Richards, Mr. N. D. Riley, and Professor W. A. F. Balfour-Browne (Hon. Secretary). On receiving the Sub-Committee's Report, the Committee on Generic Nomen- clature, in their Sixth Report, recommended the Council of the Royal Entomological Society of London to transmit the Coleoptera Sub-Committee's recommendations to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for favourable consideration. This recommendation was approved by the Council and, on the publication of the Committee's Sixth Report by the Society on 15th December 1939, the Sub-Committee's recommendations were forwarded to the International Commission by the Council of the Society. * See footnote 7 above. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (FEB. 1947.) 248 Btdletin of Zoological Nomenclature. PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES FOR CAR A BUS LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS mSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA) By Sir Guy A. K. Marshall, K.C.M.G., D.Sc, F.R.S. (formerly Director, Imperial Institute of Entomology, London), H. E. Andrewes (Leicester), W. A. F. Balfour-Browne (formerly Professor of Entomology, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London), K. G. Blair, D.Sc. (formerly Deputy Keeper of the Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History)) , and M. Cameron. (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring). (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)15S.) In the case of the following generic name the strict application of the rules embodied in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature would cause a serious, and quite unnecessary, disturbance in existing practice and would, in our view, cause greater confusion than uniformity.. For this name we are in favour of a partial suspension of the rules. The object we have in view can be effected by a very slight departure from the strict application of the Code. The portion of Mr. Andrewes' paper relating to this name was written by him in consultation with us, and we are in full agreement both with his con- clusions and with his recommendations, which we summarise as follows : — The generic name Car a bus Linnaeus, 1758. The first valid type-citation is that of Carabus violaceus Linnaeus, 1758, by Curtis, 1833. Hope, 1838, cited Carabus granulatus Linnaeus, 1758, and C. G. Thomson, 1875, in his revision of the genus, made this the type of the subgenus Carabus s.s. ; in this action he has been followed by all subsequent writers. To maintain Curtis' citation would cause considerable confusion in the subgenera of this genus, with a profuse literature, so that it is very desirable that this citation should be set aside in favour of that of Hope. We are therefore of the opinion that in the exercise of the plenary power conferred upon them by the International Zoological Congress the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect : — The name Carabus Linnaeus, 1758 (tj^pe Carabus granulatus Linnaeus), is added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The designation by Curtis, 1833, of Carabus violaceus Linnaeus as the type is therefore to be set aside, and that by Hope, 1838, of Carabus granulatus Linnaeus is to be accepted.^" ^° See footnote 8 above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 249 ON THE TYPES OF THE GENERA HARPALUS LATREILLE, [1802-1803] AND OPHONUS STEPHENS, 1827 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEO- PTERA) By H. E. Andrewes. (Leicester.) (Commission's reference Z,N.(S.)158.) Harpalus Latreille Latreille, [1802-1803]," (in Sonnini's BufTon), Hist. nat. gen. parlic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 92. Latreille, 1810, Consid. gin. Anim. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 426. Curtis, 1827, Brit. Ent. 4 : pi. 191 (Ophonus). Westwood, 1838, Syn. gen. Brit. Ins. : 4 (Ophonus). Hope, 1838, Col. Man. 2 : 84. Andrewes, 1935, Ann. Mag. nat. Hifl. (10) 16 : 18. Note 1. — Latreille (1810) cited as type Carabus nificornis Fab., 1775 (= Carabus rufipes Degeer, 1774), and in my paper, quoted above, I have pointed out (i) the great disorganisation which would ensue in the present system of nomenclature if this citation were allowed to stand, and (ii) the conse- quent advantages which would follow the adoption of Carabus affinis Schrank (= aeneus Fabricius) as the genotype. Fabricius refers to aeneus three times : (i) 1775, Syst. Ent. : 245, (ii) 1792, Ent. syst. 1 (1) : 156, and (iii) 1801, Syst. Eleuth. 1 : 197, but (iii) is merely a reproduction of (ii). The descriptions given in numbers (i) and (ii) do not quite agree, and in the latter there is no reference to the prior description. In my paper I had assumed the accuracy of Csiki's Catalogue, but on the whole it seems best to treat the two descrip- tions as referring to the same species, unless and until an examination of the types proves this assumption to be inaccurate. In these circumstances it seems desirable to apply to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature for an Opinion setting aside the type fixation by Latreille. Note 2. — Ophonus Steph. (1st Nov. 1827, key only) is now generally regarded as a subgenus of Harpalus. Curtis (1st Dec. 1827) first actually described the genus, citing as type Carabus germanus Linn., 1758 ; Westwood (1838) desig- nated it as Carabus obscurus Fab., 1792. Here again great confusion would be caused by the acceptance of Curtis' citation, and, as suggested in my paper quoted above, I propose that it should be set aside in favour of that of Westwood. ^2 ^^ Griffin (1938, J. Soc. Bibl. nat. Hist. 1 : 157) has shown that, notwithstanding the fact that the title-page of the volume in which the name Harpalus Latreille was published bears the date " An X " of the French Revolutionary Calendar (i.e. Sept. 1801-Sept. 1802), that volume was not in fact published until some time in " An XI " (i.e. Sept. 1802-Sept. 1803). See also footnote 7 on page 205 above. ^^ See footnote 7 above. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (FEB. 1947.) 250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. * PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES FOR HARP ALUS LATREILLE, [1802-1803] AND OPHONVS STEPHENS, 1827 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA) By Sir Guy A. K. Marshall, K.C.M.G., D.Sc, F.R.S. {formerly Director, Imperial Institute of Entomology, London), H. E. Andrewes (Leicester), W. A. F. Balfour-Browne {formerly Professor of Entomology, Department of Entomology, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London), K. G. Blair, D.Sc. {formerly Deputy Keeper of the Department of Entomology , British Museum {Natural History)), and M. Cameron. {British Museum {Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring). (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)158.) In the case of the following generic names the strict application of the rules embodied in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature would cause a serious, and quite unnecessary, disturbance in existing practice and would, in our view, cause greater confusion than uniformity. For this reason we are in favour of a partial suspension of the rules. The object we have in view can be effected by a very slight departure from the strict application of the Code. The portion of Mr. Andrewes' paper relating to these names was written by him in consultation with us, and we are in full agreement both with his conclusions and with his recommendations, which we summarise as follows : — The generic names Harpalus Latreille, [ 1802-1803], ^^ and Ophonus Stephens, 1827. Latreille, 1810, cited Carabus ruficornis Fabricius, 1775 (= C. rufipes Degeer, 1774), as the type of Harpalus Latreille, but Motschulsky, in subdividing the genus (1845), put this species into his new section Pseudophonus, by many authors now considered a distinct genus. In this action he has been followed by all later writers. To obviate the confusion that would inevitably arise were Latreille's citation to be maintained, Andrewes, 1935, proposed the adop- tion of Carabus affinis Schrank, 1781 (= C. aeneus Fabricius, 1775), as the type, a proposal with which we agree. We are therefore of the opinion that in the exercise of the plenary power conferred upon them by the International Zoological Congress the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect : — The name Harpalus li&tTeHle, [1802-1803]^' (t3npe Carabus aeneus Fabricius, 1775), is added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The designation by LatreUle, 1810, of Carabus ruficornis Fabricius (= rufipes Degeer) as the type of Harpalus Latreille is therefore to be set aside, and that by Andrewes, 1935, of Carabus aeneus Fabricius is to be accepted. ** See footnote 11 above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 251 It is also desirable that the genotype of the genus (or subgenus) Ophonus Stephens, 1827, should be definitely settled. Curtis, 1827, cited Carabus gerrmnus Linnaeus, 1758, as type, the fourteenth and last of the species included by Stephens, for which Erichson, 1837, proposed a new genus Diachromus, in which it has remained ever since. Westwood, 1838, cited Carabus obscurus Fabricius, 1792, the second species on Stephens' list, in which action he has been followed by all later writers. It is very desir- able, in order to avoid confusion, that Curtis' type citation be set aside, and that of Westwood accepted. AVe are therefore of the opinion that in the exercise of the plenary power conferred on them by the International Zoological Congress the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect : — The name Ophonus Stephens, 1827 (type Carabus obscurus Fabricius, 1792), is added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The designation by Curtis, 1827, of Carabus germanus Linnaeus, 1758, as the type of Ophomis Stephens is there- fore to be set aside and the designation by Westwood, 1838, of Carabus obscurus Fabricius is to be accepted, i* ON THE TYPES OF THE GENERA LEBIA LATREILLE, [1802-1803], AND DROMIUS SAMOUELLE, 1819 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA) By H. E. Andrewes (Leicester.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)158.) Lebia Latreille. Latreille, [1802-1803]," (in Sonnini's Buffon), Hist. n%t. gin. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 85. L,atreiJle, 1810, Consid. gin. Anim. Crust. Arack. Ins. : 426. Andrewes, 1935, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10) 16 : 24. 17Q9^^^^ l~I^^*reille (1810) cited the type as Carabus quadritmcuhfus Fab., 179^ (= Linn., 1758). In my memoir, quoted above, will be found cogent reasons for the rejection of this citation, which, if it were allowed to stand, would greatly disorganise present nomenclature in the very large genus Lebia and m the considerable genus Dromim Samouelle, which would have to be known as Lebia Latreille. An Opinion of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is required to confirm my action (1935) in selecting Buprestis marginatus Fourcroy, 1785, as the type oi Lebia Latreille. Note 2.— It should perhaps be mentioned here that Curtis, Westwood, and Hope all made Carabus crux-minor Linn, the genotype, an invalid citation, as the species was not amongst those enumerated by Latreille. ^* See footnote 8 above. ^* See footnote 11 above. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (FEB. 1947.) 252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Dromius Samouelle (Bonelli in litt.). SamoueUe, 1819, Ent. Useful Comp. : 155. Andrewes, 1935, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10) 16 : 24. Note 1. — Any consideration which the International Commission may be asked to give to the fixation of a genotype in the case of Lebia Latreille will affect also the position of this genus, for its type (and sole original species) is Carahus qiiadrimaculatus Linn., 1758, which (as explained above) is, under a strict appUcation of the Code, the type of the earlier genus Lebia Latreille, [1802-1803]. Note 2. — The name Dromius had been previously proposed, presumably by Borkhausen, for a genus of birds (1797, Allg. Lit. Ztg 4 (316) : 27), but it is a nomen nudum. The name Dromiasa Hofmann, 1834 {Verz. Ins. Latreille : 1) for Dromius Samouelle is therefore superfluous.^^ PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES FOR LEBIA LATREILLE [1802-1803] (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA) By Sir Guy A. K. Marshall, K.C.M.G., D.Sc, F.R.S. (formerly Director, Imperial Institute of Entomology, London), H. E. Andrewes (Leicester), W. A. F. Balfour-Browne (formerly Professor of Entomology, Department of Entomology, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London), • K. G. Blair, D.Sc. (formerly Depviy Keeper of the Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History)) and M. Cameron (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)158.) In the case of the following generic name the strict application of the rules embodied in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature would cause a serious, and quite unnecessary, disturbance in existing practice and would, in our view, cause greater confusion than uniformity. For this name we are in favour of a partial suspension of the rules. The object we have in view can be effected by a very slight departure from the strict application of the Code. The portion of Mr. Andrewes' paper relating to this name and to the name Dromius Samouelle, 1819, which is bound up in the same problem, was written by him in consultation with us, and we are in full agreement both with his conclusions and with his recommendations, which we summarise as follows : — ^* See footnote 7 above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 253 The genkric names Lebia Latreille, [1802-1803] and Dromius Samouelle, 1819. Latreille, 1810, cited Carabn^ quadrimaculatus Fabricius (= Linnaeus, 1758), as the genotype of Lebia Latreille, but this is the type, the sole species cited, of Dromins Samouelle, 1819 ; hence if Latreille's action be allowed to stand, the name Lebia Latreille would replace Dromius Samouelle, while the Lebia of current usage would require another name. To avoid the confusion that would follow such a drastic change, Andrewes, 1935, has proposed that Latreille's citation be overruled, and that Buprestis marginatus Fourcroy, 1785, already included in Lebia s.s. of modern authors, should be deemed the genotype. We are of the opinion that in the exercise of the plenary power conferred upon them by the International Zoological Congress, the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect : — The name Lebia Latreille, [1802-1803] (type Buprestis mirginatus Fourcroy, 1785), is added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The designation by Latreille, 1810, of Carabus quadrimaculatus Fabricius as the type of Lebia Latreille is therefore to be set aside, and that by Andrewes, 1935, of Buprestis marginatus Fourcroy is to be accepted.^' ON THE TYPE OF THE GENUS TACHYS STEPHENS, 1828 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA) By H. E. Andrewes. {Leicester). (Commission's reference Z.N. (S.) 158.) Tacliys Stephens (Dejean, Cat. 1821). Stephens, 1828, III. Brit. Ent. (Hand.) 2 : 2 and 4. Westwood, 1838, Syn. gen. Brit. Ins. : 6. Hope, 1838, Col. Man. 2 : 61. Motschulsky, 1862, Etudes ent. 9 : 27. Andrewes, 1935, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10) 16 : 17. In my paper quoted above, being unaware at the time of Hope's selection, I had myself proposed scutellaris Stephens as type of the genus. Westwood cited Bembidium obtusum Serv. as type, but this citation, if accepted, would throw Tachys into synonymy with Bembidion, a very undesirable arrange- ment. To obviate the difficulty, I suggest that the International Commission should promulgate an Opinion, ruling out Westwood's selection, and accepting that of Hope in its place. ^^ ^' See footnote 8 above. ^* See footnote 7 above. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (fEB. 1947.) 254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE REGLES FOR TACHYS STEPHENS, 182S (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA) By Sir Guy A. K. Marshall, K.C.M.G., D.Sc, F.R.S. {formerly Director, Imperial Institute of Entomology, London), H. E. Andrewes (Leicester), W. A. F. Balfour-Browne (formerly Professor of Entomology, Department of Entomology, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London), K. G. Blair, D.Sc. (formerly Deputy Keeper of the Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History))^ and M. Cameron (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring). (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)158.) In the case of the following generic name the strict application of the rule* embodied in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature would cause a serious, and quite unnecessary, disturbance in existing practice and would,, in our view, cause greater confusion than uniformity. For this name we are in favour of a partial suspension of the rules. The object we have in view can be effected by a very slight departure from the strict application of the Code. The portion of Mr. Andrewes' paper relating to this name was written by him in consultation with us, and we are in full agreement both with his con- clusions and with his recommendations, which we summarise as follows : — The generic name Tachys Stephens, 1828. Westwood, May, 1838, cited Bemhidium ohtusum Sturm, 1825 (= Serville, 1821) as the type of Tachys ; but this citation, though valid under the Code, would, if adopted, throw Tachys into synonymy with Bembidion Latreille. To obviate the difficulty and the confusion that would ensue, Andrewes, 1935, being unaware at the time of Hope's citation of T. scutellaris Stephens, 1828, (end of 1838 or probably Feb. 1839), independently proposed the same speciea as type of the genus. We are therefore of the opinion that in the exercise of the plenary power conferred upon them by the International Zoological Congress the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect : — The name Tachys Stephens, 1828 (type T. scutellaris Stephens, 1828), is added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The designation by Westwood, 1838, of Bembidion ohtusum Sturm as the type of Tachys is therefore to be set aside, and that by Hope, [1838-39], of T. scutellaris Stephens is to be accepted.^* * ^* See footnote 8 above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 255 ON THE TYPES OF THE GENERA TRECHUS SCHELLENBERG, 1806, AND ACUPALPUS LATREttLE, 1829 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEO- PTERA) By H. E. Andrewes. {Leicester). (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)158.) Trechus Schellenberg. Schellenberg, 1806, Helv. Ent. 2 : 23. Latreille, 1810, Consid. gin. Anim. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 426. Jeannel, 1927, Mon. des Trechinae (2), Abeille, 33 : 113 and 114. Latreille cited as type Trechus meridianus Clairville [i.e. Schellenberg), 1806 (= Linn., 1761), one of the two species mentioned by the author of the genus ; this is now placed in the genus Acupalpus, and a strict interpretation of the law of priority would mean the substitution of the name Trechus for Acupaljnts. Recognising how completely such a change would disorganise the present scheme of classification in these two very large genera, Dr. Jeannel designated Carahus quadristriatus Schrank, Schellenberg's second species, as the type of Trechxts. I quite agree with this view. It is therefore very desir- able that the International Commission should be asked to pronounce an Opinion setting aside Latreille's citation, and specifying Carahus quadristriatus Schrank as the genotype. This and other genera, commonly attributed to Clairville, were in fact described by Schellenberg : Clairville only translated the German work into French (seeHagen, 1862, Bibl. Ent. : 131 ; Sherborn, 1902, Ind. Anim. (1) : xlvii). Acupalpus Latreille. Latreille, 1829, in Cuvier'a Rlgne anim. (ed. 2) 4 : 391. Schauberger, 1930, Koleopt. Rdsch. 15 : 20; id., 1930, Coleopt. Zhl. 4 : 218. Andrewes, 1934, Ent. mon. Mag. 70 : 200. Latreille (1810) made Trechus meridianus Clairville (= Schellenberg) the type of the genus Trechus; nevertheless Carahus meridianus Linn, is one of the species mentioned after the description of the genus Acupalpus. In my paper (1934), and under the genus Trechus, I fixed Carahus meridianus Lirm., 1761 , as the type of the genus.^o *" See footnote 7 above. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (FEB. 1947.) 256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF TKERiiGLES FOR TRECHUS SCHELLENBERG, 1806 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA) By Sir Guy A. K. Marshall, K.C.M.G., D.Sc, F.R.S. (formerly Director, Imperial Institute of Entomology, London), H. E. Andrewes (Leicester), W. A. F. Balfour-Browne (formerly Professor of Entomology, Department of Entomology, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London), K. G. Blair, D.Sc. (formerly Depxtty Keeper of the Department of Entmnology, British Museum (Natural History)), and M. Cameron (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring). (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)158.) In the case of the following generic name the strict application of the rules embodied in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature would cause a serious, and quite unnecessary, disturbance in existing practice and would, in our view, cause greater confusion than uniformity. For this name we are in favour of a partial suspension of the rules. The object we have in view can be effected by a very slight departure from the strict application of the Code. The portion of Mr. Andrewes' paper relating to this name was written by him in consultation with us, and we are in full agreement both with his con- clusions and with his recommendations, which we summarise as follows : — The generic names Trechus Schellenberg, 1806, and Acvpalpus Latreille, 1829. Latreille, 1810, cited Carabus meridianus Clairville, 1806 {i.e. Schellenberg, 1806), (= Linnaeus, 1761), as type of Trechus Schellenberg, yet in 1829 he placed this species in his new genus Acupalpus, of which Andrewes, 1934, made it the genotype. Jeannel, 1927, recognising how completely Latreille's citation of meridianus as the type of Trechus would disorganise the present scheme of classification in these two large genera, proposed Carabus qtiadristriatus Schrank, 1781, Schellen- berg's second species, as the type of Trechus. Andrewes' citation of C. meri- dianus as genotype of Acupalpus is in accord with Dr. Jeannel's action. It is very desirable that this action should be confirmed and Latreille's type citation set aside. We are therefore of the opinion that in the exercise of the plenary power conferred upon them by the International Zoological Congress the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect : — The name Trechus Schellenberg, 1806 (type Carabus quadristriatus Schrank, 1781 ), is added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The designation by Latreille, 1810, of Carabus meridianus Clairville as the tj^e of Trechus is therefore to be set aside, and that by Jeannel, 1927, of Carabus quadristriatus Schrank is to be accepted.^^ *^ See footnote 8 above. (continued from front wrapper) On the interpretation of Article 19 of the Regies Internationales in relation to the name Clvomodoris mcfariandi Cockerel), 1902 (Class Gastropoda, Order Opisthobranchia). By D. P. Costello, Department of Zoology, University of North Carolina ........ p. 232 On the status of the name commonly cited as Piroplasma annulatum Dschun- kowsky and Luhs, 1904 (Class Sporozoa, Order Coccidiida). By G. Witenberg, Department of Parasitology, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem ■ p. 233 On the question of the place and date of first publication of the name Piro- plasma annulatum Dschunkowsky and Luhs (Class Sporozoa, Order Coc- cidiida) commonly treated as having been first published in 1904. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature ....... p. 234 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Tremataspis Schmidt, 1866 (Class Cephalaspidomorphi, Order Osteostraci). By George M. Robertson, Department of Biology, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire . p. 237 Proposed suspension of the Regies to identify Anomia pecten Linnaeus, 1758, with the species belonging to the Order Protremata (Class Brachiopoda) commonly known as ^/zop/itf/ne/wpec/ew (Linnaeus, 1758) . . p. 239 On the type of the genus Chinchilla Bennett, 1829 (Class Mammalia, Order Rodentia). By Wilfred H. Osgood, Chicago Natural History Museum . p. 240 On the status of the name Aturoidea Vredenburg, 1925 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Nautiloidea). By M. H. Haas, Ph.D., LL.D., Department of Geology, British Museum (Natural History) ...... p. 243 On the types of the genera Bradycellus Erichson, 1837, and Trichocellus Gangl- bauer, 1892 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By H. E. Andrewes, Leicester P- 245 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Bradycellus Erichson, 1837 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By Sir Guy A. K. Marshall, K.C.M.G., D.Sc, ¥ .K.S., formerly Director of the Imperial Institute of Entomology, London; H. E. Andrewes, Leicester; W. A. F. Balfour-Browne, formerly Professor of Entomology, Department of Entomology, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London ; K. G. Blair, D.Sc., formerly Deputy Keeper of the Department of Entomology, British Museum (^Natural History) ; and M. Cameron, British Museum {Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring ■ p. 246 On the type of the genus Carabus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Coleo- ptera). By H. E. Andrewes, Leicester ....... p. 247 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Carabus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By Sir Guy A. K. Marshall, K.C.M.G., D.Sc, F.R.S., H. E. Andrewes, W. A. F. Balfour-Browne, K. G. Blair, D.Sc, and M. Cameron P- 248 On the types of the genera Harpalus Latreille, [1802-1803] and Ophonus Stephens, 1827 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By H. E. Andrewes, Leicester p. 249 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Harpalus Latreille, [1802-1803] and Ophonus Stephens, 1827 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By Sir Guy A. K. Marshall, K.C.M.G., D.Sc, F.R.S., H. E. Andrewes, W. A. F. Balfour-Browne, K. G. Blair, D.Sc, and M. Cameron . . p. 250 On the types of the genera Lebia Latreille, [1802-1 803], and Dromius Samouelle, 1819 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By H. E. Andrewes, Leicester p. 251 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Lebia Latreille, [1802-1803] (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By Sir Guy A. K. Marshall, K.C.M.G., D.Sc, F.R.S., formerly Director of the Imperial Institute of Entomology, London ; H. E. Andrewes, Leicester ;w. A. F. BaKour-Brownc, formerly Professor of Entomology, Department of Entomology, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London ; K. G. Blair, D.Sc, formerly Deputy Keeper of the Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History) ; and M. Cameron, British Museum {Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring . p. 252 On the type of the genus Tachys Stephens, 1828 (Class Insecta, Order Coleo- ptera). By H. E. Andrewes, Leicester ....... p. 253 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Tachys Stephens, 1 828 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By Sir Guy A. K. Marshall, K.C.M.G., D.Sc, F.R.S., H. E. Andrewes, W. A. F. Balfour-Browne, K. G. Blair, D.Sc, and M. Cameron P- 254 On the types of the genera Trechus Schellenberg, 1806, and Acupalpus Latreille, 1829 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By H. E. Andrewes, Leicester ............ p. 255 Proposed suspension of the Regies for Trechus Schellenberg, 1806 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By Sir Guy A. K. Marshall, K.C.M.G., D.Sc, F.R.S., H. E. Andrewes, W. A. F. Balfour-Browne, K. G. Blair, D.Sc, and M. Cameron P 256 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The above work is being published in three volumes concurrently, namely : — Volume 1. This volume, which will be published in Sections with continuous pagination, 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 1-25 (containing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions 1-16) have now been published. 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. Volume 2. This volume, which contains the record of the decisions taken by the International Commission at Lisbon in 1935. is being published in two Sections (Sections A and B) with continuous pagination. Of these. Section A, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-160, is now complete. Of Section B, which will contain Opinions 161-181, Parts 31-51 (containing Opinions 161-181) have now been published. Part 52 containing the index and title page will be published as soon as possible. Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182, will contain the first instalment of the Opinions adopted by the International Commission since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-13 (containing Opinions 182-194) have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Pristbd is Great Britain bt RicHAitD Clay asd Company, Ltd., BlTNQAY, SUFFOLK. VOLUME 1. Part 11. Pp. 257-288. Slst MARCH 1947 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ^ ,-n^0 Edited by oOVvOt'^^^ANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Conuuission On the type of Dinornis novae-zealandiae Owen, 1843 (Class Aves, Order Dinornithiformes). By Gilbert Archey, Director, Auckland Institute and Museum, Auckland, New Zealand and R. S. Allan, Canterbury University College, Christchurch, New Zealand ••••... p. 257 On the question whether the name Corixa Geoffroy, 1762 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) satisfies the requirements of proviso (b) to Article 25 of the Regies Internationales and, if it is an available name, what is its type. By H.-B. Hungerford, Department of Entomology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas •••••..... p. 258 Procedure proposed to be adopted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in considering the questions submitted by Pro- fessor H. B. Hungerford in regard to the name Corixa Geoffroy, 1762 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature '. p. 259 On the status of Martin (W.), 1793, Fig. Descr. Petrif. Derbyshire, and 1809, Petrificata Derbiensia. By J. Brookes Knight, Department of Geology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey ••.... p. 260 {continued on back wrapper) 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 five shillings and seven pence (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION A. 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). B. 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. Th. MORTENSEN (Denmark). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia). Kerr 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. YOKES (U.S.A.). Class 1955 Professor Dr. Hilbrand BOSCHMA (Netherlands). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Bela von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. T. JACZEWSKI (Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A.). C. The Staff of the Secretariat in London Secretary to the Commission: Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Archivist : Mr. Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A. D. The Address of the Commission 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. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 257 ON THE TYPE OF DINORMIS NOVAE-ZEALAMDIAE OWEN, 1843 (CLASS AVES, ORDER DINORNITHIFORMES) By Gilbert Archey (Director, Auckland Institute and Museum, Auckland, New Zealand), and , R. S. Allan [Canterbury University College, Christchurch, New Zealand). (Commission's reference Z.N. (S.) 136.) We are writing to ask for a ruling or an Opinion from the Commission as to what specimen should be regarded as the type of Owen's species Dinornis novae-zealandiae, in connection with which we give the four relevant references as follows : — (1) In July 1843, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 11 (120) : 8, 10, Owen published the name Dinornis novae-zealandiae, the species being based on a femur, a tibio-tarsus and a tarso -metatarsus described in that order. These three specimens are the co-tjrpes, and are the fl2 (femur), t2 (tibia) and m3 (metatarsus) of No. (3) below. (2) In March 1844, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 11 (129) : 144, Owen published the names Dinornis struthoides and Dinornis ingens, both nomina nuda. (3) In June 1844, Trans, zool. Soc. Lond. 3 (3) : 244-249, Owen published in full the paper of which No. (2) above was a preliminary notice. He ignored his earlier proposal of Dinornis novae-zealandiae and described instead two species : — page 244. Dinornis struthoides, the holotype of which is the meta- tarsus m3. page 247. Dinornis ingens, the holotype of which is the tibio-tarsus t2. On page 249 he referred the femur fl2 to Dinornis struthoides. It was not, however, a co-type of Dinornis struthoides. (4) In 1891, Lydekker, Cat. foss. Birds Brit. Mus. : 224, employed the name Dinornis novae-zealandiae, and on page 224, footnote, and again on page 227 designated the tibia t2 (type of Dinornis ingens Owen) as the lectotype of Dinornis novae-zealandiae Owen. On page 244 he cited Dinornis struthoides Owen, accepting the tarso- metatarsus m3 as its type. The point at issue is whether Owen's designation of the tarso-metatarsus m3 as the type of Dinornis struthoides, and of the tibio-tarsus t2 as the type of Dinornis ingens, invaUdates Lydekker's subsequent selection of t2 as the lectotype of Dinornis novae-zealandiae Owen. BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (MARCH 1947.) 12 258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE NAME CORIXA GEOFFROY, 1762 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA) SATISFIES THE REQUIRE- MENTS OF PROVISO (b) TO ARTICLE 25 OF THE REGLES INTERNATIONALES AND, IF IT IS AN AVAILABLE NAME, WHAT IS ITS TYPE By H. B. HUNGERFORD. {Department of Entomology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)137.) I desire an Opinion concerning the following nomenclatorial questions : — (1) Louis GeofEroy in, 1762, Histoire abregee des Insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris, 1 : 478, proposed the genus Corixa. Is this generic name to be accepted as of 1762 ? (2) If Geoffroy's work is considered binary, what is to be considered the type of the genus Corixa, Geofiroy ? According to Opinion 65,^ the case of a genus based upon erroneously determined species should be submitted. This is such a case. Geoffroy writes : — 1. CORIXA Planch. 9, fig. 7. Linn. Syst. Nat. edit. 10, p. 439, n. 2, Notonecta striata. However, the drawing on plate 9 is natural size and his description " Lon- gueur b\ lignes, Largeur 2 lignes " represents a species far too large for Notonecta striata Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 439, and not congeneric with it. Until recently the species figured and described by Geoffroy has been known as Corixa geoffroyi Leach, 1817, Trans, linn. Soc. Lond. 12 (1) : 17. Reutter, 1888, considered Geoffroy's work of 1762 invalid since, in his view, it did not as a whole follow the binary system of nomenclature. Kirkaldy, 1900, believed that Geoffroy's work should be accepted and claimed that Miiller, 1764, in his Fauna Ins. Fridrichsdalina also validated Geoffroy's generic names in a table comparing Geoffroyian and Linnean types. Mr. W. E. China (1938, Ent. mon. Mag. 74 : 34-39) questioned whether MuUer's work validated the Geoffroyian generic names, because Miiller did not mention species in his table of genera, although the remainder of the book is binominal. Perhaps we should have an Opinion on this point. Mr. China assumes that the type of Corixa Geoffroy, which he accepts as from 1785, is Corixa geoffroyi Leach, 1818 (= Sigara punctata Illiger, 1807, in Rossi, Fauna etrusc. (ed. 2) : 354). That is to say, he accepts as the type of Corixa Geoffroy the species figured by Geoffroy and not Notonecta striata Linnaeus, 1758, the species cited by Geoffroy. The question should be settled officially. As far as I can see, Notonecta striata Linnaeus remains a contender for consideration as the type of the genus Corixa Geoffroy, until : — (1) the vaUdity of the Geoffroyian generic names is settled ; and (2) the genotype of Corixa Geoffroy is fixed as provided in Opinion 65. ^ The question of genera based upon erroneously determined species was further con- sidered by the International Commission at Lisbon in 1935. For the text of the decision then taken (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23), see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 23-25. That decision has since been embodied in Opinion 168 (1945, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2 : 411-430). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 259 ^holTh^rU^T ^ ^^""^ ^""^ ^^^'^ «^ *h« nomenclatorial questions cited By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Comm^ssio,^ on Zoological Nomenclature.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)137.) from which the name^SL Srov i^T^I. '' T^^^ ^'^ ^^^ ^^*« ^« Article 25 of the Code andT^i fh^.1^- l^ accepted as available under of that genus ^^ *^' 'P''^'' ^^^^ '' *° be accepted as the type a mth'^broS fuSn'^nd't^hfi. ^ f'' °' *'^^^ ^^^^^^°- -- -1- number of Orders rthTn^S, T . '' ^ ''r^'^^ *« specialists in a large to Article 25 ofthe Code Sf 'l*i'^'' *^" requirements of proviso (6 by the t>;LLion b consfder^rttT *^^ fT^^^ P^^P^^^^ *« ^e ^^^P^^^ problem, see the notrpSdlTgt '^ZT^oTr '''''' '' ^^^ ^^ '^^ Considerable mconvenience and, owing to the ' renetitinn ,^,..1 a separate comm^unilijna oJTS subier '"' °°™"^'™ V famishing BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (MARCH 1947.) 260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclati^re. ON THE STATUS OF MARTIN (W.), 1793, FIG. DESCR. PETRIF. DERBYSHIRE, AND 1809, PETRIFICATA DERBIENSIA By J. Brookes Knight. (Department of Geology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)147.) 1 wish to have an Opinion from the International Commission on the status of the names in Martin (W.), 1809, Petrificata Derhiensia ; or Figures and descriftions of petrifactions collected in Derbyshire. Martin seems to have been familiar with Linnean binominal nomenclature (see Petrif. Derb. : footnote bottom page opposite Plate 41) and yet he con- sistently employs for fossils trinominals such as Conchyliolithus Anomites productus, where, for example, he calls Conchyliolithus the " genus ", Anomites the " family ", and productus the " species ". He even employs designations of four terms such as Conchyliolithus Nautilites Ammonites listeri. He explains his system of terms, I am uncertain as to whether or not they are names, in a separate work published at about the same time and referred to in Petrif. Derb. on page VIII. This separate work is : Outlines of an attempt to establish a knowledge of extraneous fossils on scientific principles, 1809. To make my question more precise : — (1) Have the names that Martin considered " generic ", for example Conchyliolithus any standing in nomenclature ? (2) Have the names that Martin considered as pertaining to " families ", for example Anomites, Ammonites, Nautilites, any standing in nomen- clature from Martin's usage of them, and more specifically standing as generic names ? (3) Have the names that Martin considered as " specific " any standing in nomenclature as trivial names ? Later authors have almost universally adopted Martin's trivial names, citing them from Petrificata Derbiensia, 1809. His terms of higher rank have been universally ignored. His earlier usage of some of the names may help throw some light on the matter. Thus in 1809 he uses the name Conchyliolithus Helicites catillus. In 1793 (Martin (W.), Figures and descriptions of petri- factions collected in Derbyshire (which is not his Petrificata Derbiensia of 1809, but a predecessor of that work)) he describes this species for the first time as " CONCHYLIOLITHUS (catillus) HELICIS "—followed by a Latin diagnosis. It is perfectly clear here from the discussion in English in the following para- graph that he does not here regard " Concliyliolitlms " as a name but merely a designation for fossilised shells. He begins his English discussion : "A fossil shell, of the genus Helix ". Thus to rewrite the name in its correct form and in the nominative ^ case we would have " Helix catillus ". Are the trivial names that appear in Martin, 1793, for example catillus as cited above, vaUd ? 2 See Opinion 183 (1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature 3 : 13-24). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 261 ON THE QUESTION WHETHER EIGHT GENERIC NAMES IN THE ORDER LEPIDOPTERA (CLASS INSECTA) COMMONLY ACCEPTED AS HAVING BEEN FIRST PUBLISHED BY FABRICIUS IN 1807 WERE PUBLISHED BY ILLIGER EARLIER IN THE SAME YEAR By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. {Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S,)148.) In volume 6 of the Magazin filr Insektenkunde (Illiger), the title page of which is dated 1807, there appeared an article (pp. 277, 278) entitled " Die neueste Gattungs-Eintheilung der Schmetterlinge aus den Linneischen Gat- tungen Papilio und Sphinx," to which was attached a synopsis (pp. 279-289) of the characters of 49 genera entitled " Schmetterlings-Gattungen. A. Nach Fabricii Systema Glossatormn Tom. I." The article itself was anonymous, but there is practically no doubt that it was written by Illiger. The synopsis of genera was, as the title shows, taken from Fabricius' unpublished Systema Glossatorum, and it is therefore perfectly correct to attribute to Fabricius the new generic names included therein and not to Illiger or whoever was the anonymous author of the article beginning on p. 277. M. Felix Bryk in 1938 edited a facsimile (published by the Verlag Gustav Feller, Neubrandenburg) of one of the two surviving proof copies of Fabricius' impublished Systema Glossatorum, in which all the 49 genera mentioned in the synopsis given in Illiger's Magazin are given in a preliminary Key (" Characteres Generum "), which includes also a fiftieth name for a genus of butterflies [Casinia Fabricius) which did not appear in the synopsis in the Magazin. 2. In the issue dated 19th December 1807 of the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung, which, though normally treated as being of Jena, was in fact at this time published at Halle, there is an anonymous article written by Illiger, which contains a detailed review of the first 34 plates of the Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge pubUshed by Jacob Hiibner. A facsimile of this article is given on pp. 43^5 of volume 2 of my Hiibner published by the Royal Entomological Society of London in 1937. In this article each of the species figured on the 34 plates in question is considered critically, and, as explained in a preliminary note, the generic name according to the system of Fabricius is added. In the following table, I give the names of the species figured by Hiibner, the number of the plate on which each species is so figured, the genus assigned to each species by Hiibner, and the genus of the Fabrician system allotted to each species by Illiger in the review referred to above : — BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (MARCH 1947.) 262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Generic names applied to the species figured on the first 34 plates published of Hiibner's Samml. exot. Schmett. by Dliger in his anonymous review of the species so figured which appeared in the issue of 19th December 1807 of the Allgem. Lit. Ztg, Halle [Jena]. Name of species. PI. no. Generic name used by Hiibner. Generic name used in Allgem. Lit. Ztg, Halle [Jena]. aetolus [102] Rusticus Hesperia gnidus [104] Rusticus Helicopis demoleas [sic] [116] Princeps Papilio hellica [141] Mancipium Pontia fabius [148] Consul Brassolis ? licus [150] Urbanus Castnia thraso [151] Urbanus Thymele protetts , [155] Urbanus Thymele niveus [159] Urbanus Thymele cymo [2] Nereis Hymenitis doto [1] Nereis Hymenitis neso [5] Nereis Hymenitis ninonia [6] Nereis Hymenitis polymnia [7] Nereis Hymenitis dianasa [8] Nereis Mechanitis eunice [9] Nereis Neptis vesta [11] Nereis Mechanitis thelxiope [12] Nereis Mechanitis thamar [15] Nereis Mechanitis dido [17] Nereis Mechanitis cora [25] Lemnas [sic] Euploea nemertes [26] Lemnas [sic] Euploea halimede [27] Limnas Eurybia leucosia [29] Limruxs Nymphidium pharea [32] Limnas Emesis genutia [21] Limnas Euploea zygia [35] Lemonias Lemonias Julia [43] Dryas Mechanitis vanillae [44] Dryas Mechanitis amphinome [47] Hamadryas Apatura astina [56] Hamadryas Brassolis themis [60] Najas Brassolis leonte [79] Potamis Brassolis leilaria [200] Lars Urania 3. It will be seen from column 4 of the preceding table that lUiger dis- tributed the 34 species in question among 17 of what he called genera of the Fabrician system. Of these genera 15 belong to the sub-order Khopalocera and 2 to the sub-order Heterocera, although (as can be seen from the synopsis of Fabrician genera published in volume 6 of lUiger's Magazin and also from the unpublished Systema Glossatorum of Fabricius, discussed in paragraph 1 above) it is clear that both lUiger and Fabricius regarded these two genera as also belonging to what is now accepted as the sub-order Rhopalocera. 4. Two of the generic names used by lUiger in 1807 in the Allgemeine- Literatur Zeitung (namely Papilio and Hesperia) were published by other authors (Linnaeus and Fabricius respectively) long before 1807. These names are, therefore, not involved in the problem with which this paper is concerned. 5. Three of the names used by Illiger in the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung were not used by Fabricius in the paper published in volume 6 of Illiger's Magazin. These three names {Eurybia, Hymenitis, and Lemonias) are, there- fore, also not involved in the present problem. 6. There are thus 12 names, the first publication of which may have occurred Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 263 either (i) in the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung (in which case they should be attributed to Illiger) or (ii) in volume 6 of Illiger's Magazin (in which case they should be attributed to Fabricius). 7. Each of the generic names published by Fabricius in volume 6 of Illiger's Magazin was accompanied with a short definition and these names accordingly satisfy the requirements of proviso (a) to Article 25 of the International Code. The names published by Illiger in the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung stand in an altogether different position. Illiger gave no description or definition of these genera and it is necessary, therefore, to consider whether he gave an " indication " for these genera within the meaning of that expression as used in Article 25. The meaning to be attached to that expression has been laid down by the International Commission in Opinion 1 (see 1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission of Zoological Nomen- clature 1 : 73-86). Of the provisions in Opinion 1 relating to generic names, the only one imder which any of the names published by Illiger in 1807 could qualify as having been published with an " indication " (and, therefore, as being available under Article 25) is the provision which lays it down that the " definite citation or designation of a type " is to be accepted as constituting an " indication ". As pointed out in Note 5 to Opinion 1 (1944, ibid. 1 : 79- 82), it is clear from Opinion 17 that, where a genus is monotjrpical, it is to be deemed for this purpose to have been published with " definite citation or designation of a type ". In the case of the names published by Illiger in 1807 in the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung, it is necessary, therefore, to reject, as failing to satisfy proviso (a) to Article 25, any name published for a genus, for which no explanatory matter is given and in which two or more species were cited, none being specified as the type. 8. An examination of the table given in paragraph 2 above shows that 5 of the genera established by Illiger were cited with more than one contained species and must, therefore (for the reasons explained above), be rejected as not being available nomenclatorially as from the date of their publication by Illiger in the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung. The names which must be rejected on these grounds are: Brassolis; Euploea; Hymenitis; Meckanitis; and Thyrnele. Of these, all except Hymenitis were published by Fabricius in volume 6 of Illiger's Magazin and this accordingly becomes the undisputed place of their first publication. All 5 of these names cease to be involved in the problem dealt with in the present paper, since none of them was validly published both by Illiger (in the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung) and by Fabricius (in volume 6 of Illiger's Magazin). 9. It will be seen, therefore, that of the 17 generic names used by Illiger in the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung (i.e. the names enumerated in column 4 of the table given in paragraph 2 above), 9 are not affected by the question of the^ relative dates of publication of Illiger's article in the above journal and of the paper giving the list of Fabrician genera which appeared in volume 6 of Illiger's Magazin. Of these names, 2 were eliminated because they were published by previous authors (paragraph 4) ; 3 were eliminated because they were not in- cluded in the list given in volume 6 of Illiger's Magazin (paragraph 5) ; and 4 were eliminated because in the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung they were not published in such a way as to satisfy the requirements of Article 25 of the Code (paragraph 8). There remain therefore 8 generic names, the first publica- tion of which may have been in (i) the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung or (ii) volume 6 of Illiger's Magazin. These names are : — Apatura ; Castnia ; Emesis; Helicopis; Neptis; Nymphidium; Pontia; and Urania. I 264 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 10. It is necessary therefore at tliis stage to consider what evidence, whether direct or indirect, is available to determine whether or not the article in volume 6 of lUiger's Magazin appeared before that in the Allgemeine-Literatiir Zeitung ; and therefore whether Fabricius is the author of the 8 names given in para- graph 9 above (as he would be in the former event) or whether Illiger through his review of Hiibner's plates is the author of the 8 names in question (as would be the case in the latter event). This is not a matter of theoretical interest only, but is one of great practical importance, since in most cases the included species in the two papers are different, with the result that, if it proved to be the case that Illiger's review of Hiibner's plates was published before the extract from Fabricius' Systema given in Illiger's Magazin, the types of the genera in question would need to be changed. The evidence available on the point at issue is given in the following paragraphs. 11. Illiger's review of Hiibner's plates which appeared in the AUgemeitie- Literatur Zeitung is known to have been published in 1807 on 19th December, since it was included in Number 303 of that journal which bears that date. As regards the article in Illiger's Magazin, the volume in question (vol. 6) is dated 1807, and in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary must be accepted as having been published in that year. There is no direct evidence as to what month in that year the portion concerned (pp. 277-289) was published. 12. In paragraph 1 above, I have shown that the title of the article in Illiger's Magazin expressly states (p. 277) that the genera (49 in number) given in the synopsis (pp. 279-289) represent the latest revision of the Linnean genera Papilio and Sphinx, and that the title to the synopsis shows that this re\'ision was the work of Fabricius. Further, in the same paragraph, I have shown that at the time in 1807 when Fabricius finished the manuscript of his Systema Glossatorum he had sUghtly modified the ideas set out in the article in Illiger's Magazin and had increased the number of genera from 49 to 50. There can therefore be no doubt that the article in IlUger's Magazin was not only written but also passed for final printing on some date in 1807 prior to the date in the same year on which Fabricius wrote the manuscript of his Systema Glossatorum. 13. IlUger's unsigned article published in the 19th December 1807 issue of the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung was concerned only with the first 34 plates of Hiibner's Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge and the genera of Fabricius are mentioned only incidentally in relation to the species figured by Hiibner on the plates under reA^ew. Nevertheless of the 17 Fabrician genera among which (as shown in paragraph 2 above) the species figured on these 34 plates were distributed, there were no less than 3 genera which appeared neither in the article in volume 6 of Illiger's Magazin nor in the proof of Fabricius' Systona Glossatorum, both of which expressly claimed, as at the dates concerned, to set out the latest revision by Fabricius of the genera Papilio Linnaeus and Sphinx Linnaeus. There can therefore be no doubt whatever that Illiger's review of Hiibner's plates published on 19th December 1807 in the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung was written, and therefore printed, subsequent to the date on which the paper in voliune 6 of IlUger's Magazin was printed and passed for publi- cation, and subsequent also to the date still later in 1807 on which Fabricius sent the manuscript of his Systema Glossatorum to the printer. 14. There thus remains one question only for consideration, namely the possibility that the IlUger Magazin article, though admittedly written before Illiger's review of the Hiibner plates, was nevertheless actually published after the appearance of that review. Both are dated 1807 and the latter is dated 19th December of that year. In order therefore to sustain an argument Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 265 that these articles were published in 1807 in the reverse order to that in which they were written, it would be necessary to show (i) that the publication of vol. 6 of Illiger's Magazin was delayed until after 19th December 1807 and therefore took place during the twelve-day period from 20th December 1807 to 31st December 1807; and (ii) that, although by 19th December Fabricius had subdivided the Linnean genera Papilio and Sphinx into 53 genera (50 given in the proof of the Systema Glossatorum which was sent to the printer in 1807 prior to the date on which Illiger wrote his review of Hiibner's plates, plus three genera the names of which appeared for the first time in the said review), both Fabricius, as author, and Illiger, as editor of the Magazin, allowed the publication of a paper which expressly claimed to give the latest particulars relating to Fabricius' system but which was in fact already out of date, in that it omitted 4 of the 53 genera which, on the hypo- thesis here under consideration, Fabricius had already adopted. 15. I must, however, add that in correspondence with me the late Dr. Foster H. Benjamin put forward the view that vol. 6 of Illiger's Magazin was published after the close of 1807 (although it bears the date of that year), and therefore that Illiger's review in the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung was pub- lished well before the synopsis of Fabricius' genera given in vol. 6 of Illiger's Magazin. Dr. Benjamin based this view upon the following considerations. In the first place, he considered that the fact that volumes 3 and 4 of Illiger's Magazin were not reviewed in the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung until the early part of 1807, and that vol. 5 was reviewed in the same journal later in that year indicated that for some reason the publication of the successive volumes of Illiger's Magazin was retarded and did not necessarily take place in the years given on the title pages of the volumes concerned. Dr. Benjamin then drew attention to the fact that in the case of one set of Illiger's Magazin pre- served in the United States which appeared to be in contemporary binding, volumes 3 and 4 were bound in a single volume. From this he deduced that some cause — perhaps lack of funds — led to a delay in the distribution of vol. 3 with the result that that volume was not distributed until 4 was ready for distribution also. Dr. Benjamin then referred to the Reichard fire in which admittedly a large part of the stock of vol. 6 of Illiger's Magazin was destroyed. He stated that he was aware of three copies in the United States, which he accepted as originals, but he took the view that this volume was not dis- tributed {i.e. was not published) in 1807 or indeed at any date sufficiently early to permit of it being reviewed by Illiger in the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung. In other words, according to this argument, this volvune was not distributed at least until the end of 1808. Dr. Benjamin considered that, having regard to the fact that the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung was issued at intervals of three days only and that Illiger would be the first p«rson in the world to have at his disposal for review purposes a copy of vol. 6 of his own Magazin, he would certainly have reviewed that volume if it had been published during the period in which he was writing reviews for the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung. Finally, Dr. Benjamin drew attention to the fact that the main text of vol. 4 of Latreille's Gen. Crust. Ins., published in 1809, contained no reference to vol. 6 of Illiger's Magazin, while the addenda to the above volume of Latreille's work was full of such references. From this, Dr. Benjamin concluded that Latreille did not receive vol. 6 of IlUger's Magazin until about 1809, when it was too late for him to include any references thereto in the main portion of vol. 4 of his own work. 16. It is now necessarv to examine the various arguments summarised in BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (MARCH 1947.) 12* 266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. the preceding paragraph. Dr. Benjamin, it should first be noted, attached great importance to the slow and spasmodic way in which lUiger reviewed his own Magazin in the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung, and to the fact that vol. 6 of the Magazin was never reviewed in it at all. It must be remembered, how- ever, that the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung was primarily concerned with the reviewing of separate works and not with that of journals; and, insofar as journals were reviewed, it would not cause surprise if the reviewer (in this case Illiger) exhibited a certain modesty in reviewing a journal (in this case lUiger's Magazin) of which he was himself the editor, except perhaps when there was a shortage of other material and it was necessary to fill up a space. The point made by Dr. Benjamin that in one set of Illiger 's Magazin preserved in the United States volumes 3 and 4 are bound in a single volume in what appears to be a contemporary binding, cannot mean more than that the original owner of that copy found it convenient to bind up these two volumes in this way, since there are numerous copies in Europe which equally appear to be in contemporary binding though volumes 3 and 4 are separately bound. In any case, the way in which the volumes of this work were bound depended on the choice of the purchaser and not upon Illiger, since there was certainly in this case no such thing as a publisher's binding. As regards the Reichard fire, there is no doubt that part of the stock of vol. 6 of Illiger's Magazin was destroyed in this way, but, judging from the number of complete sets of Illiger's Magazin extant in Europe, a considerable number of copies had either been sold before the fire took place or escaped destruction on that occasion. The evidence afforded by vol. 4 of Latreilje's Gen. Crust. Ins. certainly shows almost beyond doubt that Latreille did not obtain a copy of vol. 6 of Illiger's Magazin until some time in 1809; but it throws no light upon the question of the date on which that volume of Illiger's Magazin was published. Indeed, when it is remembered that the Napoleonic wars were in full swing during the period in question, it is perhaps surprising to find that in 1809 a French naturalist was able to secure a copy of a German publication within two years of its publication. As regards the suggestion that perhaps Illiger found himself in financial difficulties — a suggestion supported by no concrete evidence whatever — it must be observed that vol. 6 of Illiger's Magazin is dated 1807 on the title page and therefore that the type at least must have been set up in that year. This being so, the main cost, that of printing, had already been incurred in 1807, and, if Illiger had been in financial difficulties, he would certainly not have delayed the actual publication of the volume on that account. On the contrary, his first consideration would have been to secure that publication took place at the earliest possible moment in order that through sales he might recoup himself to some extent at least in respect of the expenditure already incurred on printing. 17. The considerations advanced in the preceding paragraph appear to me to show, as conclusively as is possible in the absence of direct evidence, that there are no groimds for concluding that the publication of volume 6 of Illiger's Magazin was postponed until after the close of 1807. Nor do there appear to me to be any groimds for holding that the portion of volume 6 of Illiger's Magazin containing the list of Fabrician genera was published after the publi- cation (on 19th December 1807) of Illiger's paper in the Allgemeine-Literatur Zeitung, which (as shown in paragraph 13 above) was undoubtedly written (even it was not published) after, and not before, the compilation of the list of Fabrician genera in volume 6 of Illiger's Magazin. I recognise, however, that these are no more than personal opinions on a question on which opinions Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 267 may differ. I recognise also that there is always a chance that, in spite of the care with which the early entomological literature has been examined by many workers, evidence may some day be found which may show that, in fact, the publication of volume 6 of lUiger's Magazin was delayed and in consequence that the list of Fabrician genera contained in that volume was not published until after the publication of Illiger's review in the Allgemeine-Idteratur Zeitung. 18. The fact that there is a doubt regarding the place where these important generic names were first published and in consequence that there is a doubt regarding the types of the genera concerned introduces a serious element of uncertainty into the nomenclature of some of the most representative genera in the sub-order Rhopalocera. Further, the risk that the lUiger names may at any time be found to have been published before their Fabrician counter- parts means that there is a serious contingent risk of confusion arising in the nomenclature of the groups concerned. How serious the confusion would be if the Illiger names were to take priority over those proposed by Fabricius can be gauged from the following examples : — (1) If Neptis Illiger, 1807, were found to be an older name than Neptis Fabricius, 1807, the type of the genus bearing the name " Neptis " would cease to be Papilio aceris Esper, [1783], and would become Nereis eunice Hiibner, [1807], the sole species placed by Illiger in the genus Neptis. In other words, the generic name Neptis would cease to apply to the very large group of Old World species universally referred to the genus Neptis and would be transferred to the equally well-known New World genus now universally known as Phyciodes Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (2) : 29. (2) If Apatura Illiger, 1807, were found to be an older name than Apatura Fabricius, 1807, the type of the genus bearing the name " Apatura " would cease to be Papilio iris Linnaeus, 1758, and would become Papilio amphinome Linnaeus, 1767. In other words, the generic name " Apatura " would cease to apply to the extremely well-known European and Asiatic genus now universally so named and would be transferred to the very well-known Neotropical genus, the oldest available name for which is Hamadryas Hiibner, [1806], but which is commonly known as Ageronia Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (3) : 42. (3) If Emesis Illiger, 1807, were found to be an older name than Emesis Fabricius, 1807, the type of the genus bearing the name " Emesis " would cease to be Hesperia ovidius Fabricius, 1793, and would become Limnas pharea Hiibner, [1807]. In other words, Emesis, which is a very well-known genus in the family eiodinidae, would be transferred from the extensive group now universally known by that name to the genus in the same family now known by the name Mesene Doubleday, 1847, List Spec. lep. Ins. Brit. Mus. 2 : 7. 19. It will be seen from the foregoing examples that, unless and until definite evidence is forthcoming regarding the relative dates of publication of the Illiger and Fabrician names, the strict application of the rules to the eight generic names enumerated in paragraph 9 above can never secure any stability in the nomenclature of the groups concerned. On the contrary, it would be open to any worker to form his own conclusion regarding the relative dates of publication of these names and, having done so, either to accept I 268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. these names as having been first published by Fabricius or to accept them as having been first published by Illiger. In either case, the worker concerned would be acting perfectly correctly under the Code. The result could only be confusion rather than uniformity. The present problem is, therefore, one which can only be resolved by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature deciding to use for this purpose the plenary powers conferred upon them in 1913 for settling cases where, in their judgment, the strict appli- cation of the rules would clearly lead to greater confusion than uniformity. 20. In 1935 the International Commission were confronted with a very similar case which involved the question whether a particular paper by Fabricius (actually the paper in volume 6 of lUiger's Magazin, with which also the present case is concerned) was published before, or after, certain plates in volume 1 of Hiibner's Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge. In the absence of a decision by the Commission, it was in that case a matter of doubt whether the oldest available names for the three genera concerned were the names published by Fabricius or those published by Hiibner. This case was considered by the Commission at Lisbon on 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 21, published in 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 20) and the decision then taken has been embodied in Opinion 137 (1942, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2 : 21-28). That Opinion provides that, unless and until evidence to the contrary is forth- coming the names proposed by Fabricius shall have precedence over those proposed for the same genera by Hiibner and that, in the event of evidence later being found to show that Hiibner's plates (on the legends of which the names in question occur) were published before the paper by Fabricius, the names proposed by Hiibner are, under suspension of the rules, to be sup- pressed in favour of the names proposed by Fabricius. This decision repre- sented a complete and satisfactory solution of the difficulty presented by that case and a parallel decision in the present case would provide an equally satis- factory solution. 21. I accordingly petition the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to render an Opinion stating : — (i) that unless and until further evidence is forthcoming regarding the precise date on which was published the paper by Fabricius in volume 6 ( : 277-289) of lUiger's Magazin fiir Insektenkunde, issued under the date " 1807 ", the generic names published in that paper shall have precedence over the names proposed by Illiger in the review of the portions so far published of volume 1 of Hiibner's Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge published on pages 1177-1181 of Part 303 of the Allgem. Lit. Ztg, Halle [Jena], issued on 19th December 1807 ; and (ii) that in the event of evidence later being found to show that lUiger's review was published before Fabricius's paper, the names Apatura, Castnia, Emesis. Helicopis, Neptis, Nymphidium, Pontia, and Urania, as published by Illiger are, under suspension of the rules, to be suppressed in favour of the same names as published by Fabricius. 22. In order that the position may be settled beyond possibility of further argument, I consider that it is desirable that the names Apatura, Castnia, Emesis, Helicopis, Neptis, Nymphidium, and Urania as published by Fabricius should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. If the recommendation in paragraph 21 above is approved, no such action is needed Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 269 as regards Pontia Fabricius, 1807, since that name was added to the Official List as the result of the decision embodied in Opinion 137. 23. I accordingly further petition that the International Commission, when acting in the manner recommended in paragraph 21 above, should place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the undermentioned generic names, with types as shown, each of which has been duly designated in accord- ance with the provisions of Article 30 of the International Code : — Name of genus (1) Apatura Fabricius, 1807, Mag.f. Insek- tenk. (Illiger) 6 : 280 (2) Castnia Fabricius, 1807, Mag.f. Insek- tenk. (Illiger) 6 : 280 (3) Emesis Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insek- tenk. (Illiger) 6 : 287 (4) Helicopis Fabricius, 1807, Mag.f. Insek- tenk. (Illiger) 6 : 285 (5) Neptis Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insek- tenk. (Illiger) 6 : 282 (6) Nymphidium Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 286 (7) Urania Fabricius, 1807, Mag.f. Insek- tenk. (Illiger) 6 : 279 Type of genus Papilio iris Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 476 (type designated by Curtis, 1831, Brit. Entom. 8 : pi. 338) Papilio icarus Cramer, [1775], Uitl. Kapellen 1 (2) : 26 (type designated by Latreille, 1810, Consid. gen. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 440) Hesperia ovidius Fabricius, 1793, Ent. syst. 3(1) : 320 (type designated by Westwood, [1851], in Doubleday, Gen. diurn. Lep. (2) : 421, 446) Papilio cupido Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 482 (type designated by Scudder, 1875, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 186) Papilio aceris Esper, [1783], Die Schmett. 1 (Bd. 2) Forts. Tagschmett. : 142 pi. 81 figs. 3,4 (type designated by Crotch, 1872, Cistula ent. 1 : 66) Papilio caricae Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 484 (type designated by Crotch, 1872, Cistula ent. 1 : 66) Papilio leilus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 462 (type designated by Latreille, 1810, Consid. gen. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 440) I BULL. ZOOL. NOMENCL. (MARCH 1947.) 270 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. PROPOSED EMENDATION TO HYGROBIA OF HYGRIOBIA LATREILLE, 1804 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA) By H. E. Andrewes {Leicester), W. A. F. Balpour-Browne {formerly Professor of Entomology, Department of Entomology, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London), K. G. Blair, D.Sc. {formerly Deputy Keeper of the Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History)), M. Cameron {British Museum {Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring), , and C. E. Tottenham {University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge). (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)159.) In 1804 {Nouv. Diet. Hist. nat. 24 : 139) the name Hygriohia Latreille was proposed to replace Hydrachna Fabricius, 1801, Syst. Eleuth. 1 : 255, a name already applied to a genus of water-mites, Hydrachna Miiller, 1776, Zool. dan. Prodr. : xxvi, 188. Latreille repeated this spelling in 1806 (1806, Gen. Crust. Ins. 1 : 233) but in 1817 {Nouv. Diet. Hist. nat. (ed. 2) 15 : 500) he changed the spelling to Hygrobia without explanation. As this latter spelling has been universally adopted, we are of opinion that in the exercise of the plenary powers conferred upon them by the Inter- national Zoological Congress, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect : — Acting under their plenary powers, the International Commission hereby emend to Hygrobia the name Hygriobia Latreille, 1804 (type : Dytiscus hermanni (emendation of herrmanni) Fabricius, 1775). The name Hygrobia Latreille, 1804, with the above tj^e, is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. In this case the strict application of the rules embodied in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature would cause a serious, and quite unnecessary, disturbance in existing practice and would, in our view, cause greater confusion than uniformity. For this name we are, therefore, in favour of a suspension of the rules.^ ' The above is an extract from the Second Report of the Coleoptera Sub-Committee of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature of the Royal Entomological Society of London. At that time the composition of that Committee was as shown in footnote 8 (p. 247 above). On receiving the Sub-Committee's Report, the Committee on Generic Nomenclature, in their Seventh Report, recommended the Council of the Royal Entomological Society of London to transmit the Coleoptera Sub-Committee's recommendation to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for favourable consideration. The recom- mendation was approved by the Council of the Society and, on the publication of the Comiliittee's Seventh Report on 15th February 1940, the Sub-Committee's recommenda- tions were forwarded to the International Commission by the Council of the Society. Since the publication of t