;r:.;>t^

:^j:MS

*%U-7i^'--

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

VOLUME 2

Edited by

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

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature

and

Sold on behalf of the International Commission by the

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

at the Publications Office of the Trust

4i> Queen's Gate, London, S.W.7.

1951-1952

{All rights reserved)

lU

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.) (to 19tli April 1952)

Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) (from 27tli November 1952)

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) (died 19th April

1952)
Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) {Vice-President) (1st January 1944)
Professor Lodovico di Caporiacco (Italy) (1st January 1944 (died 18th July

1951)
Professor J. R. Dymond (Canada) (1st January 1944)
Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) {President from 27th November 1952)

(28th March 1944)
Professor Harold E. Vokes (U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944)
Dr. William Thomas Cahnau (United Kingdom) (1st January 1947) (died 29th

September 1952)

Professor Bela Hanko (Hungary) (1st January 1947)

Dr. Norman R. StoU (U.S.A.) (1st January 1947)

Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands) (1st January 1947)

Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Argentina) (27th July 1948)

Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) (Secretary) (27th July 1948)

Dr. Joseph Pearson (Australia) (27th July 1948)

Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) (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, C.B.E.
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 present is the first volume of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
dealing with individual nomenclatorial problems to be published since the end
of the war. The first Part was published in April 1951 and the last Part
(Part 11), exclusive of the present index Part, was published in September
of that year. The total period covered by the publication of these eleven
Parts was therefore five months. Volume 1 (apart from the index Part —
Part 12) was completed in March 1947, and the long interval before the
commencement of pubUcation of the present volume is due to the fact that
it was decided in 1948 to give priority to the three volumes of the Bulletin
(Volumes 3 to 5) devoted to the documents considered in Paris in that year
by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, and of the Official Recwds of
the Proceedings of those bodies. Thus it is that, although the second of the
series of volumes of the Bulletin, the present was, in fact, the fifth of those
volumes to be started.

2. The present volume, which contains 474 pages (T.P.-xxvi, 1-448), com-
prises 135 papers, of which 62 are original applications submitted to the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and 73 are comments
by specialists upon those applications and, in one case {Gryphaea Lamarck)
upon an applicationa already published in another volume (Volume 3).

3. Of the 62 original applications, two deal with names belonging to two
different Classes of the Animal Kingdom. For practical purposes, therefore,
the present volume contains 64 applications submitted to the International
Commission for decision. Similarly, four of the applications pubUshed in the
present volume are joint applications by two or more joint authors. When
account is taken of this fact, the number of applicants is found to amount
to 84.

4. Of the 64 applications published in the present volume, two ask for
Declarations from the International Commission on the meaning of individual
provisions in the Regies, three relate to the status of names published in certain
books, while fifty-nine are concerned with individual scientific names.

5. The 59 applications relating to individual names published in the present
volume, when grouped by references to the Classes of the Animal Kingdom

Bvil, zool, Nomencl., Vol. 2 (December 1952)

to which the genera or species concerned belong, are distributed as follows : —

Distribution of applications, by Classes of the Animal Kingdom

Nairn of Class Number of applications

Rhizopoda 2

Nematoda 1

Crustacea 6

Insecta 19

Merostomata 1

Gastropoda 4

Pelecypoda 6

Cephalopoda 17

Brachiopoda 1

Reptilia 1

(indeterminate) 1

59

6. When the 84 applicants are arranged by reference to the countries in
which they are resident, applications are seen to have been received from
residents of the following countries (arranged in alphabetical order) : -

Distribution of applicants, by country of residence

Country Number of applicarUs

United States of America 33

Argentina 1

Great Britain 40

Denmark 1

Germany 1

Netherlands 6

Norway 1

Switzerland 1

84

7. The exceptionally large number of applications relating to the names
of genera and species of the Class Cephalopoda is due to the receipt of a large
number of such applications in relation to ammonites submitted by Dr. W. J.
Arkell, the author of the relevant portion of the forthcoming international
Treatise mi Invertebrate Paleontologij (General Editor : Professor Raymond C.
Moore, University of Kansas) for the purpose of assuring a sound legal founda-
tion for the names to be used in that important standard work.

8. Forty-nine (77 per cent.) of the apphcations published in this volume
are applications by specialists for the use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers for the purpose of promoting
stability and uniformity in nomenclature and of preventing the confusion
which, in the opinion of the applicants, would result from the strict application
of the ordinary provisions in the Regies in these cases.

Vll

9. The appKcations published in this volume contain proposals for the
addition of 145 names to the Officml List of Generic Names in Zoohgy, and
of 277 names to the Offidul List of Sjiedfic Trivial Natnes in Zoology. In
addition, 86 generic names are pro})osed for final burial l)y being placed on the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology and 21 trivial
names for similar final disposal on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Specific Trivial Names in Zoology.

10. Of the 73 comments published in this volume, 5 relate to more than one
appUcation. AMien account is taken of this fact, the total number of comments
on applications published is found to be 89. Of these, 4 are comments on
proposed Declarations and one is a comment on a proposal relating to the status
of a book. The remaining 84 comments relate to applications concerning
indi%ndual names. All the applications to which these comments relate have
been published in the present volume, except one (relating to the name Gryphaea
Lamarck) which was submitted to the Commission during its Session held in
Paris in 1948 and which was therefore published in volume 3 of the present
work.

11. When the applications on which comments have been received, are
grouped by reference to the genera and species concerned, it is found that the
distribution of those comments is as foUows : —

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

Name of Class Number of comments

Ehizopoda 1

Nematoda 1

Crustacea 23

Insecta 31

Merostomata 2

Gastropoda 2

Pelecypoda 9

Cephalopoda 9

Brachiopoda 3

Reptilia 2

(indeterminate) 1

84

12. The exceptionally large number of comments received in regard to
appUcations relating to the names of Crustacea and Insecta are concerned
mainly with two applications which aroused particular interest. The first of
these was the appUcation (Application Z.N.(S.)231) regarding the names
Orangon Weber, 1795, and Crangen Fabricius, 1798 ; the second was the group
of applications relating to generic names in the Order Diptera pubUshed by
Meigen in 1800.

VIU

13. On many of the applications published in this volume comments were
received too late for inclusion. These comments will be found in volume 6.

14. Of the 73 comments published in the present volume, three were sub-
mitted by two or more joint authors. Taking this into accoimt, the total
number of specialists who submitted conaments is found to be*85.

15. When the 85 authors of conmients published in this volume are grouped
by reference to their country of residence, it is found that the distribution is
as follows : —

Distribution of authors of comments by country of residence of
the authors concerned

Country Number of authors of cotnmerUs

United States of America 29

Argentina 2

Australia 1

Great Britain 39

British West Indies 1

Canada 1

Denmark 2

France 4

Germany 4

Netherlands 2

85

16. Under the procedural decisions taken by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature at Paris in 1948, the " Summaries " of Declarations
or, as the case may be, of Opinions rendered by the International Commission
on the apphcations published in the present volume will be published in the
first available Part of the then current volume of the Bulletin, directly those
Declarations or Opinions are adopted by the International Commission.

FRANCIS HEaiMING,

Secretary to the International Commissimh
on Zoological Nomenclature

28 Park Village East,

Regent's Park, London, N.W.I,

England.

Uth October 1952.

IX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Principles adopted in the selection of applications for immediate pub-
lication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature : Decisions taken
by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.
Note by Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . . . 2

Personnel of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :

Death of Commissioner Paul Rode . . . . . . . . 4

Retirement of Commissioner Karl Jordan . . . . . . 4

Election of Commissioners . . . . . . . . . . 5

Report on the question whether, in order to avoid confusion in nomen-
clature, it is desirable that the plenary powers should be used by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to vary
the type species of the genus Pleurocera RaJ&nesque, 1818 (Class
Gastropoda, Order Mesogastropoda). By Francis Hemming,
C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Proposed vahdation of Aphidius Nees, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order
Hymenoptera) under the plenary powers. By W. D. Hincks,
Department of Zoology, University Museum, Manchester, England . . 18

On the proposed validation of Aphidius Nees, 1818 (Class Insecta,
Order Hymenoptera) under the plenary powers. By E. 0. Essig,
Division of Ento^twlogy and Parasitology, University of California,
Berkeley, California . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

On the question of the availability of the generic name Leptopsylla
Rothschild and Jordan, 1911 (Class Insecta, Order Siphonaptera).
By Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S., British Museum {Natural History),
Zoological Museum, Tring . . . . 21

On the relative merits of the generic names Ctenopsyllus Kolenati, 1863,
and Leptopsylla Jordan and Rothschild, 1911, as the generic name
of the House-Mouse Flea (Class Insecta, Order Siphonaptera).
By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . , . , . . . , 22

Page
Proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress the trivial name ajax
Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio
ajax) commonly but incorrectly applied to the species named
Papilio marceUus by Cramer in 1777 (Class Insecta, Order Lepi-
doptera). By the late A. Steven Corbet, British Museum {Natural
History), London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

On the proposal that the trivial name ajax Linnaeus, 1758 (as published
in the binominal combination Papilio ajax) should be suppressed
by the Liternational Commission on Zoological Nomenclature under
its plenary powers. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary
to the International Conunission on Zoological Nomenclature . . 29

Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate MtjtUus edulis Linnaeus,
1758. as the type species of tlie genus 3Iytilus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class
Pelecypoda, Order Filibranchiata) (Proposed validation of an entry
in the Official List made in Opinion 94). By Harold E. Voices,
Department of Geology, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
Maryland, U.S.A 31

Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name
Scaphander Montfort, 1810 (Class Gastropoda, Order Tectibran-
chiata). By Henning Lemche, Universitetets Zoologiske Museum,
Copenhagen, Denmark . . . . . . . . . . 35

Proposed suppression under the plenary powers of the generic name
Mmocidus Linnaeus, 1758. By H. Munro Fox. F.R.S., Bedford
College, London University . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Proposal that the generic name Rantus Dejean, 1833 (Class Insecta,
Order Coleoptera) should be emended to Rhantus under Article 19
and that the type species of this genus should be determined under
the procedure laid down for dealing with genera based upon mis-
identified type species. By J. Balfour-BrowTie, M.A., Department
of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History), London . . . . 40

Proposed validation under the plenary powers of the names Acantholyda
Costa, 1894 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) and Acanthocne/na
Becker, 1894 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By R. B. Benson,
M.A., Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History),
London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic names Rhina
Latreille, [1802-1803], and Magdalis Germar, 1817. for use respec-
tively in the accustomed sense (Class Insecta, Order C'oleoptera).
By J. Chester Bradley, Department of Entomology , Cornell University,
Ithaca-, N.Y 47

Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the
names of thirteen genera in the order CoUembola (Class Insecta).
By Hermann Gisin, Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, Geneve . . . . 56

Page
Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name Cardinia
(Class Lamellibranchiata) as from Agassiz, [1841], for use in its
accustomed sense. By L. R. Cox, Sc.D., F.R.S., Department of
Geology, British Museum {Natural History), London . . . . 59

Proposed determination imder the plenary powers of the species to which
the trivial name sirtalis Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the
binominal combination Coluber sirtalis) (Class Reptilia) is to be
applied. By Karl P. Schmidt, Chief Curator of Zoology, Chicago
Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A., and Roger
Conant, Curator, Philadelphia Zoological Gardens, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, U.S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name Crangon
Fabricius, 1798, for the Common Shrimp and the generic name
Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, for the Snapping Shrimps (Class Crustacea,
Order Decapoda). By L. B. Holthuis, Rijksmuseum van Natmtrlijke
Historic, Leiden, The Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . 69

On the confusion which would arise from the acceptance of the generic
names Crangon Weber, 1795, and Alpheus Weber, 1795 (Class
Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By Poul Heegaard, University of
Copenhagen, Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

On Dr. Poul Heegaard's proposal that the names Crangon Fabricius,
1798, and Alpheus Fabricius, 1798 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda)
should be validated under the plenary powers. By the lat€ Robert
Gurney, Oxford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

On Dr. L. B. Holthuis' proposals relating to the generic names Crangon
Weber, 1795, and Crangon Fabricius, 1798. By Albert H. Banner,
University of Haxvaii, Honolulu 14, Territory of Hawaii . . . . 74

On Dr. L. B. Holthuis' proposals relating to the generic names Crangon
Weber, 1795, and Crangon Fabricius, 1798. By Fenner A. Chace,
Jr., Smithsonian Institution. U.S. National Museum. Washington,
D.C., U.S.A 75

On the proposed validation of the names Crangon and Alpheus as from
Fabricius, 1798, by the suppression of the names Crangon Weber,
1795, and Alpheus Weber, 1795 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda)
by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.
Supplementary note by L. B. Holthuis, Rijksmuseum van Natuur-
lijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands . . . . .... 79

Proposed use of the plenary powers to render the generic name Scyllarides
Gill, 1898 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) the oldest available
name for the species currently referred thereto. By L. B. Holthuis,
Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands . . 81

xu

Page,
Proposed use of the plenary powers to render the generic name Lysio-
squilh Dana, 1852 (Class Crustacea, Order Stomatopoda) the oldest
available name for the species currently referred thereto. By L. B.
Holthuis, Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden, The
Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

On Dr. L. B. Holthuis' proposal that the plenary powers should be used
to preserve the use of the generic name LysiosqiiiUa Dana, 1852
(Class Crustacea, Order Stomatopoda) in its accustomed sense.
By the late Robert Gurney, Oxford . . . . . . . . 85

Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name
Odontodactyhis Bigelow, 1893 (Class Crustacea, Order Stomatopoda).
By L. B. Holthuis, Rijksmnseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden,
The Netherlands . . 86

Proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress certain names published
for fossil animals by Linnaeus in 1768 and by other authors in later
editions of the works of Linnaeus. By the late R. Winckworth,
London . . . . . . . . . . 88

Proposed use of the plenary powers to prevent the confusion which
would result, under a strict application of the Regies, from the
sinking of the name Conchidium as a synonym of Pentameriis
Sowerby, 1813 (Class Brachiopoda) and the transfer of the latter
name to the genus now known as Conchidium. By F. Elizabeth S.
Alexander, M.A., Ph.D., Sedgmck Museum, Cambridge University,
Cambridge . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

On the proposal that the plenary powers should be used to conserve the
names Conchidium and Pentamerus for the fossil Brachiopod genera
to which those names are customarily applied. By J. K. St. Joseph,
M.A., Ph.D., Sedgunck Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge 95

On Dr. F. Elizabeth Alexander's proposal for the use by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers to
validate current usage of the generic name Pentamerus Sowerby,
1813 (Class Brachiopoda). By Thomas W. Amsden, Department of
Geology, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A. 96

On Dr. F. Elizabeth Alexander's proposal for the use by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers to
vaUdate current usage of the generic name Pentamerus Sowerby,
1813 (Class Brachiopoda). By G. Arthur Cooper, Curator, Inverte-
brate Paleontology and Paleohotatiy, Smithsonian Institution, U.S.
National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. . . . . . . 96

Page

Proposed validation under the plenary powers of the generic names
Ligia Fabricius, 1798 (Class Crustacea, Order Isopoda) and Carcinus
Leach, 1814 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By the late
Alida M. Buitendijk and L. B. Holthuis, Rijksnmseum van Natuur-
lijke Historic, Leiden, The Netlverlands . . . . . . . . 99

On the generic name Ldgia as used by Weber, 1795, and by Fabricius in
1798 (Class Crustacea, Orders Decapoda and Isopoda respectively).
By Poul Heegaard, University of Copenhagen, Denmark . . . . 102

Proposed use of the plenary powers to vary the type species of Capsiis
Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptcra) in order to validate
existing nonienclatorial practice. By W. E. China, Sc.D., Deputy
Keeper, Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural
History), London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Request for views of speciahsts on the question whether the substitution,
as required by the Regies, of the name quadralus Fabricius, 1787,
for the name albicans Bosc, [1801-1802], as the trivial name of the
Sand Crab (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) would give rise to
confusion or instability. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Notnenclature 105

Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the terms Tettigonia and
Acrida (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera) as subgeneric names as
from Linnaeus, 1758 (Application submitted in response to the
invitation given in Opinion 124). By Ashley B. Gumey, Bureau of
Entmnology and Plant Quarantine, Agricultural Research Adminis-
tration, United States Department of Agricidture, Washington, D.C.,
U.S.A 106

On Dr. Ashley B. Gumey's proposal that the name Tettigonia should be
validated as from Linnaeus, 1758, as of subgeneric status in the
Order Orthoptera (Class Insecta), by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature under its plenary powers. .By W. E.
China, Esq., M.A., Sc.D., Deputy Keeper, Department of Entomology,
British Museum {Natural History), London . . . . . . 109

On the proposed validation of the generic name Tettigonia Linnaeus,
1758, in the Order Orthoptera (Class Insecta). By R. G. Fennah,
Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture, St. Augustine, Trinidad . . 110

On Dr. Ashley B. Gurney's proposal that the names Tettigonia and
Acrida should be vaUdated, as from Linnaeus, 1758, by the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature under its plenary
powers. By B. P. Uvarov, C.M.G., D.Sc, Anti-Locust Research
Centre and British Museum {Natural History), London . . . . Ill

XXV

Page

First Report ou matters left unsettled in Opinion 124, in relation to the
status of the t«rms used by Linnaeus, 1758, to denote subdivisions
of genera established in the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae :
The subdivisions of the genus Gryllus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta,
Order Orthopt^ra). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
Secretary to tlte International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 112

Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of
the names of certain non-marine genera in the Phylum Mollusca.
By A. E. Ellis, Epsom College, Surrey, England . . . . 119

Proposed addition to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology
of the names of certain non-marine species in the Phylum Mollusca.
By A. E. ElUs, Epsom College, Surrey, England . . . . 125

Report ou the procedure proposed by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature to put an end to the confusion in the
nomenclature of the Order Diptera (Class Insecta) resulting from
the controversy regarding the generic names published by Meigen
in 1800 m his Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a Deux Ailes ;
first instalment of appUcations. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G.,
C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomendature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Application for the use of the plenary powers to vaUdate the generic
name Chlorops Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By
C. \V. Sabrosky, United States Departtnent of Agriculture, Bureau of
Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C. . . . . 134

On Dr. C. W. Sabrosky's proposal relating to the generic names Titania
Meigen, 1800, and Chlorops Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order
Diptera). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . . . 138

On the proposed suppression imder the plenary powers of the name
Titania Meigen, 1800, in favour of the name Chlorops Meigen, 1803
(Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By H. Oldroyd, Department of
Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London . . 139

On the proposed suppression of Titania Meigen, 1800, and validation of
Chlorops Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) under the
plenary powers. By John Smart, M.A., D.Sc, University of
Cambridge, Department of Zoology, Cambridge 139

Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name
Pipunmlus Latreille, [1802-1803] (Class Insecta, Order Diptera).
By A\'illiam F. llapp, Jr., Department of Biology, Doane College,
Crete, Nebraska, U.S. A 140

XV

On the proposal that the name Dorilas Meigen, 1800, be suppressed under
the plenary powers in favour of Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803]
(Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By H. Oldroyd, Department of
Entomology, British Museum (Natttral History), London .. . . Ul

Objection to the proposal that the name Dorilas Meigen, 1800, should
be suppressed and Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803] (Class Insecta,
Order Diptera) vaUdated in its place. By Alan Stone, United State's
Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant
QnaratUine, Washington, D.C 142

Proposal that the name Dorilas Meigen, 1800, should he retained and
the name Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803] (Class Lisecta, Order
Diptera) should be treated as a synonym. By D. Elmo Hardy,
University of Hawaii, Agricultural Experiment Station, Honolulu,
Territory of Hawaii I44

Support for the proposal that the name Dorilas Meigen, 1800, should be
retamed and that the name Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803]
(Class Insecta, Order Diptera) should be treated as a synonym.
By Martin L. Aczel, Institute of Entomology, National University of
Tucumdn, Tucumun, Argentina . . . . . . . . 145

Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the name Pipwiculus
Latreille [1802-1803], and to suppress the name Dorilas Meigen,
1800 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By John Smart, M.A., D.Sc.^
University of Cambridge, Department of Zoology, Cambridge . ' 148

Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name
Chironomus Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By John
Smart, M.A., D.Sc, University of Cambridge, Department of Zoology,
Catnbridge . . . . _ j^q

Objection to the proposal that the plenary powers should be used to
suppress the name Tendipes Meigen, 1800, for the purpose of
validating the name Chironomus Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order
Diptera). By Alan Stone, United States Department of Agriculture,
Bureau of Entmmlogy and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C. .. 152

Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the
generic name Philia Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera).
By D. Elmo Hardy, University of Hawaii, Agricultural Experiment
Station, Honolulu, Territory of Haivaii I53

Proposed addition of the name Philia Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order
Diptera) to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; support
for application submitted by Professor D. Elmo Hardy. By
Martm L. Aczel, Institute of Entomology, National University of
Tucumdn, Tucumdn, Argentine 155

XVI

Page

Proposed addition of the name Philia Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order
Diptera) to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; comment
on the appUcation submitted by Professor D. Elmo Hardy. By
Alan Stone, United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of
Entotnologij and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C. . . . . 155

Proposed addition of the generic name Tylos Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta,
Order Diptera) to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and
of Micropeza IMeigen, 1803, to the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. By Martin L. Aczel, Institute of
Entmnology, National University of Tucumdn, Tucumdn, Argentina 156

Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the name Micropeza
Meigen, 1803, and to suppress the name Tylos Meigen, 1800 (Class
Insecta, Order Diptera). By John Smart, M.A., D.Sc, University
of Cambridge, Department of Zoology, Cambridge 158

Proposed addition of the name Tylos Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order
Diptera) to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; comment
on the application submitted by Professor Martin L. Aczel. By
Alan Stone, United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of
Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C. . . . . 160

Introductory note on appUcations submitted to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in regard to the names
of certain Jurassic Ainmonites. By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc,
F.R.S., Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge . . 163

Proposed use of the plenary powers to vahdate the generic name
Sphaeroceras Bayle, 1878 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea)
(Jurassic). By AV. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S., Sedgwick Museum,
Cambridge University, Catrdmdge . . . . 164

Appendix : On the question whether the suppression of the
name Sphaeroceras Hope, 1840 (Class Insecta, Order
Coleoptera), under the plenary powers would cause any
inconvenience to Coleopterists (Memorandum, dated 5th
November, 1949). By C. E. Tottenham, Zoological
Museum, Cambridge University, Cmnbridge . . . . 165

Proposed designation, under the plenary powers, of the type species of
the genus Procerites Siemiradzki, 1898 (Class Cephalopoda, Order
Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S.,
Sedgwick Museum, Cavfirridge University, Cambridge . . . . 167

Proposed designation, under the plenary powers, of the type species of
the genus Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884, and of the type specimen of
Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813 (Class Cephalopoda,
Order Ammonoidea). By W. J. ArkeU, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S.,
Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge . . . . 170

Page
Dr. W. J. Arkell's application to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature for rulings (a) on the question of the type
species of Macrocephaliles Zittel, 1884, and {b) on the question of
the type specimen of Ammonites macroceplialas Schlotheim, 1813
(Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). By Francis Hemming,
C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

Proposed designation, under the plenary powers, of the type species of
Pictonia Bayle, 1878, and Rasenia Salfeld, 1913 (Class Cephalopoda,
Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc,
F.R.S., Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University . . . . . . 178

On the proposals relatuig to the determination of the type species of the
nominal genera Pictonia Bayle, 1878, and Rasenia Salfeld, 1913
(Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) submitted to the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by W. J. Arkell.
By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the Internatioiml
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . . . 181

Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate the type species of the
genus Aulacostephanus Tornquist, 1896 (Class Cephalopoda, Order
Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S.,
Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge . . . . 188

Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate the type species of
Waagen's (1869) ammonite genera Kosmoceras, Harpoceras and
Perisphinctes (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic).
By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S., Sedgwick Museum,, Cambridge

University, Cambridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress the name Planites de
Haan, 1825, and to determine the use of the name Nautilus poly-
gyratus Reinecke, 1818 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Annnonoidea)
(Jurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc, Y.Vi.k., Sedgwick Museum,
Cambridge University, Cambridge . . . . . . . . . . 194

Application for the suppression under the plenary powers of five early
generic names now fallen into disuetude published for ammonites
(Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). By W. J. Arkell, M.A.,
D.Sc, F.R.S. , Sedgwick Museum., Cambridge University, Cambridge 198

Proposal to suppress the generic name Ammonites Bruguiere, 1789,
under the plenary powers and to place the generic name Arietites
Waagen, 1869 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. By W. J. Arkell, M.A.,
D.Sc, F.R.S., Sedgwick Museum,, Cambridge University, Cambridge 200

Page
On the generic names Schlotkeimia Bayle, 1878, and Scamnocems Lange,
1924 ; proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the name
Ammonites anguJatm Schlotheim, 1820 (Class Cephalopoda, Order
Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S.,
Sedguick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge . . . . 204

On the relative 'status of the names Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885, and
Seguenziceras Levi, 1896 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea)
(Jurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc. F.R.S., Sedgtvick Museum,
Cambridge University, Cambridge . . . . . . . . . . 208

On the relevance to the availabiUty of a name under the Regies of the
question whether the author, when pul)lishing that name, intended
it to be available for use as a scientific name. By Francis Hemming,
C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Cmnmission on
Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

Proposed validation of the name Arisphinctes Buckman, 1924, by the
suppression, under the plenary powers, of the name Toxosphinctes
Buckman, 1923 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic).
By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S., Sedgwick Mmeum, Cambridge
University, Cambridge . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate the type species of the
genus Arnioceras Hyatt, 1867 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Am-
monoidea). By W. J. Arkell, M. A. , D.Sc. . F.R .S. , Sedgwick Museum,
Cambridge University, Cambridge . . . . . . 217

Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate the type species of
Liparoceras Hyatt, 1867, a genus based upon a misidentitied type
species (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By
W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S., Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge
University, Cambridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate the type species of
Nornmnnites Munier-Chalmas, 1892, a genus based upon a mis-
identified type species (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea)
(Jurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc, F.B,. 8., Sedgwick Museum,,
Cambridge University, Cambridge . . . . . . . . . . 222

Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the
names of twenty-one genera of Jurassic Ammonites (Class Cepha-
lopoda, Order Ammonoidea) and matters incidental thereto. By
W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S., Sedgwick Muse^im,, Cambridge
University, Cambridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

Proposed use of the plenary powers for the purpose of making the trivial
name virgula Deshayes, 1831 (as published in the binominal
combination Gryphaea virgula) (Class Pelecypoda) (Jurassic) the
oldest available name for the species in question. By W. J. Arkell,
M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S., Sedguick Museum, Cambridge University,
Cambridge . . . . , . . . , , . , . . 234

Page
Proposed use of the plenary powers for the purpose of making the trivial
name asper Lamarck, 1819 (as published in the binominal com-
bhiation Peclen asper) (Class Pelecypoda) the oldest available name
for the species in question. By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S.,
Sedgwick Musatni, Cantbridge University, Canihridge . . . . 2:Ui

On Dr. \\' . J. Arkell's proposal for the validation, under the plenary
powers, of the trivial names asper Lamarck, 1819 (as published in
the binominal combination Pecten asper) and virgula Deshayes,
1831 (as published m the binominal combination Gryphaea virgula)
(Class Pelecypoda). By L. R. Cox, Sc.D., F.R.S., Departynent of
Geology, British Museum [Natural History), London . . . . 238

On an application, the grant of which would require that the name
Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, should be suppressed, under the plenary
powers, thus vaUdating the name Gryphaea Lamarck, 1819 (Class
Pelecypoda). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to

the International Cmnmission on Zoological Nomenclature . . . . 239

Entamoeba coli versus Endamoeba coli (Class Rhizopoda). By Harold
Kirby, Department of Zoology, University of California, Berkeley,
California, U.S. A 243

On the problems embraced in Opinion 99 (relating to the names
Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, and Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo,
1895) rendered by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature. By Ellsworth C. Dougherty, Ph.D., M.D., Depart-
ment of Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A. 253

REPORT on the investigation of the nomenclatorial problems associated
with the generic names Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, and Entamoeba
Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895 (Class Rhizopoda). By Francis
Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Notuenclature . . . . ... . . . . . . 277

On the question of the correct name for the type species of the genus
Ste])hanurus Diesmg, 1839 (Class Nematoda, Order Rhabditida),
with recommendations for the placing of certain names on the
Cffficial Lists. By Ellsworth C. Dougherty, Ph.D., M.D., Department
of Zoology. University of California, Berkeley, California . . . . 282

On the question of the desirability of retaining the trivial name dentalus
Diesing, 1839 (as pubHshed in the binominal combination
Stephanurus dentatus) as the trivial name of the kidney worm of
swine (Class Nematoda, Order Rhabditida) ; an appeal to para-
sitologists for views on the question raised by Dr. Ellsworth C.
Dougherty. By Francis Hemming, C.M.Cx., C.B.E., Secretary to
tlie Intenmtional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . . . 291

XJi

Page

Proposed use of the plenary powers to vary the type species of the genus
Eysarcoris Hahu, 1834 (Class Insect a, Order Hemiptera), in order
to validate existmg uonienclatorial practice. By W. E. China.
Sc.D., Deputy Keeper, Depariment of Entomology, British Museum
(Natural History), London . . . . . . . . 294

Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the specific trivial name
acuminata loff & Tiflov, 1946 (as pubhshed in the combination
Rhadinopsylla (Rectofrontia) acuminata) as applied to the species
numbered " 08 " by those authors (Class Insecta, Order Siphon-
aptera). By G. H. E. Hopkins, O.B.E., M.A., British Museum
{Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts . . .. .. 296

Application for the addition of the name iSpirula Lamarck, 1799 (Class
Cephalopoda) to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, and
matters incidental thereto. By the late R. Winckworth, London 298

Application for a ruling that the Prodromo of S. A. Renier and the
Prospetto della Classe dei Verf)ii (dated 1804) prepared for inclusion
in the Prodromo were not published within the meaning of Article
25 of the Regies. By L. R. Cox, Sc.D., F.R.S., Departmeyit of
Geology, British Musemn {Natural History), London . . . . 299

Proposed addition of Cercopis Fabricius, 1775, and sanguinolenta' Scopoh,
1763 (as published in the binominal combination Cicada sanguin-
olenta) to the Official Lists of Generic Names and Specific Trivial
Names in Zoology respectively. By Wilhelm Wagner, Hamburg-
Fuhlsbuttel .. ' 301

Request for a ruling that the distribution of a microfilm does not
constitute publication for the purposes of Article 25 of the R^les.
Application submitted jointly by the Joint Committee on Zoological
Nomenclature for Paleontology in America and by the Nomenclature
Committee of the Society of Systematic Zoology .. .. .. 306

Support, for the request submitted to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature for a ruling that the distribution of a
scientific paper on microfihn does not constitute publication for the
purposes of Article 25 of the Regies. Communication received from
the Committee on Nomenclature of the American Museum of Natural
History, Neiv York 308

On the request submitted to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature for a ruling that the distribution of a scientific paper
on microfilm does not constitute " publication " for the purposes
of Article 25 of the Regies. By Charles H. Blake, Department of
Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 3Iass.,
U.S.A. .. .. .. 309

Pnffe
On. the request to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature for a ruling that the distribution of a scientific paper on
microfilm does not constitute " publication " for the purposes of
Article 25 of the Regies. By E. H. Behre, Louisiana State University,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A. . . . . . . . , . . 310

Support for the proposal that the distribution of scientific papers on
microfilms should be ruled as not constituting publication for the
purposes of Article 25 of the Regies. By the Zoological Record
Committee oi ihe Zoological Society of London, .. .. .. 311

On Dr. L. R. Cox's proposal that S. A. Renier's Prodromo and the
Prospetto della Classe dei Vermi should be declared not to have
been published within the meaning of Article 25 of the Regies. By
the late R. Winclcworth, io9i<?an .. .. .. ., .. 312

Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate type species for the
genera Nysius Dallas, 1852, and Artheneis Spinola, 1837 (Class
Insecta, Order Hemiptera). By R. L. Usinger, United States Public
Health Service, and R. I. Sailer, United States Department of
Agriculture, Washington, B.C., U.S.A. . . . . . . . . 313

On the application for the use of the plenary powers to designate type
species for the genera Nysius Dallas, 1852, and Artheneis Spinola,
1837 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) submitted by Professor
Robert L. Usinger and Dr. R. I. Sailer. By Francis Hemming,
C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the Jnternatio^ial Commission on
Zoological N omenclatmre . . .. .. \. ., .. .. 315

On the proposed use of the plenary powers to designate type species for
Nysius Dallas, 1852, and Artheneis Spinola, 1837 (Class Insecta,
Order Hemiptera) : support for the proposals submitted by
Professor Robert L. Usinger and Dr. R. I. Sailer. By W. E. China,
Sc.D., Depiity Keeper, Department of Entomology, British Museum,
{Natural History), London . . . . . . . . • . . . . 318

Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the entry on the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology of the name Limulus Miiller, 1785
(Class Merostomata) : proposed correction of an error in Opinion
104. By Leif Stormer, Paleontohgisk Institut. Oslo, Norway . . 319

On the question whether it is desirable that the generic name Limulus
Miiller, 1785, should be validated under the plenary powers and
confirmed in its position on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology. By H. Munro Fox, F.R.S.. London University, Bedford
College, London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322

Page
Support for the proposal that the name Limulus Miiller, 1785 (Class
Merostomata) should be ^•alidated under the plenary powers and
confirmed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. By
Carl 0. Dimbar, Yale University, Peabody M^iseum of Natural
History, New Haven, Conn., U.S.A. . . 323

On the question of the t}'pe species of Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801 (Class
Pelecypoda) : comment on proposal submitted by M. Gilbert
Ranson, together with a supplementary request for the use of the
plenary powers to suppress the trivial name gryphus Linnaeus, 1758
(as published in the binominal combination Anomia gryphus). By
L. R. Cox, Sc.D., F.R.S., Department of Geology. British Museum
{Natural History), London . . . . . . . . . . 324

Objection to the proposal that Gryphaea angukita Lamarck, 1819 (Class
Pelecypoda) should be designated as the type species of the genus
Gryphaea Lamarck, 1819, by the suppression of the name Gryphaea
Lamarck, 1801. By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S., Sedgwick
Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge . . . . . . . . 331

Objection to the proposed acceptance of Gryphaea angulata Lamarck,
1819, as the tj'pe species of the genus Gryphaea Lamarck, 1819
(Class Pelecypoda) : comment on proposal submitted by M. Gilbert
Ranson. By Myra Keen, Curator of Paleontology, and Seimon W.
Muller, Professor of Geology, Stanford University, Stanford, Cali-
fornia, U.S.A 332

Objection to the proposed acceptance of Gryphaea angulata Lamarck,
1819, as the type species of the genus Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801
(Class Pelecypoda) : cormnent on proposal submitted by M. Gilbert
Ranson. By D. T. Donovan, B.Sc, Ph.D., University of Bristol,
Department of Geology, Bristol . . . . . . . . . . 333

Support for Dr. L. R. Cox's proposal for the use of the plenary powers
to vaUdate the name Cardinia (Class Lamelhbranchiata) as from
Agassiz [1841]. By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S., Sedgicick
Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge . . . . . . . . 334

Support for Dr. Henning Lemche's proj)Osals relating to the generic
name Scaphander Montfort, 1810 (Class Gastropoda). By Joshua L.
Baily, Jr., San Diego, California, U.S.A. . . . . . . 334

Support for the proposal submitted by Dr. W. J. Arkell in regard to
the generic names Ammonites, Arnioceras and Liparoceras and the
tri\-ial name angulatus Schlotheim, 1820 (as published in the
binominal combination Ammonites angulatus) (Class Cephalopoda,
Order Ammonoidea). By D. T. Donovan, B.Sc, Ph.D., Bristol
University, Department of Geology, Bristol . . . . . . . . 336

XXUl

Pagr
Support for the proposal subniittcii by Dr. W. J. Arkell that the generic
name Ammonites Bruguiere, 1789 (Class Cephalopoda, Order
Ammonoidea) should be suppressed under the plenary powers.
By C. W. Wright, London 336

Support for the proppsal submitted by Dr. W. J. Arkell for the sup-
pression imder the plenary powers of five early names for genera of
armnonites (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). By C. W.
Wright. Lotulon ." . . . 337

On the question whether the generic name Arieticeras Quenstedt, 1883
(Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) is an available name :
comment on the view expressed by Dr. W. J. Arkell. By H. Engel,
Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands . . 337

Support for the proposals relating to the generic name Pleurocera
Rafinesque, 1818 (Class Gastropoda) set forth in the report sub-
mitted by the Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature. By Joshua L. Bailv, Jr.. San Diego,
California, U.S.A. .. " ' 338

Support for Dr. W. E. China's proposal relating to the type species of
the genus Capsus Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera).
By S. v. K6ler, Chief of the Hemiptera Department. Zoologisches
Museum der Universitdt, Berlin . . . . . . . . 338

Support for the proposal submitted by Professor Harold E. Yokes
relating to the entry of the name Mytilus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class
Pelecypoda) on the Officicd List of Generic Names in Zoology. By
Joshua L. Baily, Jr., San Diego, California, U.S.A. . . . . 339

Support for the retention of the generic names Crangon Weber, 1795,
and Crago Lamarck, 1801 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) :
objection to proposal submitted by Dr. L. B. Holthuis. By Waldo
L. Schmitt, Smithsonian Institution. U.S. National Museum.
Washington, D.C., U.S.A 340

Support for the proposal submitted by Dr. L. B. Holthuis regarding the
names Crangon Fabricius, 1798, and Alpheus Fabricius, 1798 (Class
Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By Marie V. Lebour, D.So.. The
Laboratory, Citadel Hill, Plymouth, England . . . . 340

Objection to Dr. L. B. Holthuis' proposals relating to the names Crangon
Fabricius, 1798, and Alpheus Fabricius, 1798 (Class Crustacea,
Order Decapoda). By Frank A. McNeill, Australian Museum,
Sydney, New South Wales , , , . 341

XXIV

Page

Support for the proposal siihmitted by Dr. L. B. Holthuis regarding the
names Crangon Fabricius, 1798, and Alpheus Fabricius, 1798 (Class
Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By A. B. Needier, Fisheries Research
Board of Canada, Atlantic Biological Station, St. Andrews, N.B.,
Canada . . . . . . • . 342

A propos de la proposition du Dr. L. B. Holthuis au sujet des noms
generiques Crangon Weber, 1795, Crangon Fabricius, 1798, et
Alpheus Fabricius, 1798. Par H. Nouvel, Facidte de Sciences de
Toidouse, France . . 342

Support for the proposals submitted by Dr. L. B. Holthuis in regard to
the generic names Crangon, Ligia, Scyllarides. LysiosquiUa. and
Odontodactyhis (Class Crustacea). By Heimich Balss, Hauptkon-
servator der Zoologischev Staatssamnditng, Munchen. a D.. Germany 344

Support for the proposals submitted by Dr. L. B. Holthuis in regard to
the generic names Crangon, Ligia, Scyllarides, LysiosquiUa and
Odontodactylus (Class Crustacea). By E. Sollaud. Universite de
Lyon, Faculte des Sciences, Lyon . . . . . . . . . . 344

Support for the proposals relating to the generic name Ligia Fabricius,
1798 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) and associated problejiis
submitted by the late Miss M. Buitendijk and Dr. L. B. Holthuis.
By A. Vandel, Laboratoire de Zoologie, Universite de Toulouse,
France 345

Support for Professor Munro Fox's proposal that the generic name
Monocidus Linnaeus, 1758, should be suppressed under the plenary
powers. By Joshua L. Baily, Jr., San Diego, California, U.S.A. . . 345

Request that the name Dorylas, an emendation by Kertesz (1910) of
the name Dorilas Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), lie
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names
in Zoology. By D. Elmo Hardy, University of Hatvaii, Department
of Zoology and JE?itomology, HonohUu. Territmy of Hatvaii . . 346

Objection to proposal submitted by Professor Martin L. Aczel in favour
of the addition of the name Tylos to the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology. By A. Vandel, Laboratoire de Zoologie. Universite
de Toulouse, France . . . . . . 347

Comments on the applications submitted to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature regarding the generic names
Titania, Dorilas, Tendijjes, Philia and Tylos Meigen, 1800 (Class
Insecta, Order Diptera). By W. Hennig, Deutsches Entoniologisches
Institut, Berlin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348

XJtV

Fage
On the proposal that tlie trivial name ajax Linnaeus, 1758 (as published
in the binominal combination Papilio ajax) should be suppressed by
the International Connnission on Zoological Nomenclature under
its plenary ])o\vers. By Cyril F. Dos Passos, LL.B., Reseaich
Associate, Department of Insects and Spiders, American Museum of
Natural Historij, New York . . . . . . . . . . 349

Sujjport for the proposal submitted by the late Dr. A. Steven Corbet
for the suppression of the trivial name ajax Linnaeus, 1758 (as
published in the binominal combination Papilio ajax) (Class
Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By Erich Martin Hering, Zoologisches
Museum der Humholdt-UniversitM, Berlin . . . . . . . . 350

Proposed use of tlie plenary powers to determine the species to which
the trivial name sirtalis Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the bi-
nominal combination Coluber sirtalis) (Class Reptilia) is to be
applied : support for application submitted by Dr. Karl P. Schmidt
and Mr. Roger Conant. By Laurence M. Klauber, San Diego,
California, U.S.A. .. 351

Support for the proposal submitted by Dr. Karl P. Schmidt and Mr.
Roger Conant that the trivial name sirtalis Linnaeus, 1758 (as
pubUshed in the binominal combination Coluber sirtalis) (Class
Reptilia) should be preserved for use in its existing sense under the
plenary powers. By Murray L. Johnson, M.D., Tacoma, Washington,
U.S.A 352

Annual Report of the Committee of Management of the International

Trust for Zoological Nomenclature for the year 1949 . . . . 353

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature :

Accounts for the year 1949 . . . . . . . . . . . . 357

Balance Sheet : 31st December 1949 368

Income and Expenditure Accounts for the year ended 31st

December 1949 360

Annual Report of the Committee of Management of the International

Trust for Zoological Nomenclature for the year 1950 . . . . 362

Page
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature :

Accounts for the year 1 950 . . . . . . 367

Balance Sheet : Slat December 1950 . . 3(j8

Income and Expenditure Accounts for the year ended 31st

December 1950 370

Corngenda . . . . . . . . • • • ■ • • • • • • 372

Index to authors of applications and of comments on applications . . 373

Subject Index 377

Particulars of dates of publication of the several Parts in which Volume 2

of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature was pubUshed . . 4:'17

Instructions to Binders . . . . . . . . . . . . 448

VOLUME 2. Part. 20,H April, mv

pp. 1-32.

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
^e^OLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

' ^^ Edited by

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

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

Contents :
Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Page

Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published
m the present Part ,

Notice of possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain
cases •••.....

{continued on back wrapper)

LONDON :

Printed iby 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.

1951

Price Ten shillings

{All rights reserved)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

A. The Ofl&cers 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 tc 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. Yokes (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. StoU (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 (Denmark) (27th July 1948)

Professor Teiso Esaki (Japan) (17th April 1950)

Professor Peirre Bonnet (France) (9th June 1950)

Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (United Kingdom) (9th June 1950)

Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Poland) (15th Jime 1950)

Professor Robert Mertens (Germany) (6th July 1950)

Professor Erich Martin Hering (Germany) (5th July 1950)

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 and 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

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 2, Part 1 (pp. 1-32) 20th April 1951

NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS

OF ZOOLOGY

The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the
recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56, 57-59), by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 5-13,
131).

(a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the

" Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature "

Notice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will
start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of publica-
tion in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who may
desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present
Part (vol. 2, Part 1) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in wTiting
to the Secretary to the Commission as quickly as possible and, in any case,
in sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secre-
tariat of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred
to above.

(b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases

1 . Notice is hereby given that the possible use by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers, is involved in appli-
cations published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
in relation to the following names : —

(1) Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 (Class Gastropoda) (Z.N.(S.)83).

(2) Aphidius Nees, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Z.N.(S.)
149).

(3) Trivial name ajax Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal
combination Papilio ajax) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera)
(Z.N.(S.)192).

(4) Mytilus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pelecypoda, Order Filibranchiata
(proposed validation of an error in Opinion 94) (Z.N.(S.)193).

2. Comments received in sufficient time wiU be published in the Bulletin ;
other comments, provided that they are received within the prescribed period
of six calendar months from the date of publication of the present Part will

2 Bvlletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued)

be laid before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at
tlie time of commencement of voting on the application concerned.

3. In accordance with the arrangement agreed upon at the Session held
by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature iii Paris in
1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 56) corresponding Notices have been
sent to the journals '' Nature " and " Science."

FRANCIS HEMMING,

Secretary to the Intenmtional Commission on

Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretariat of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
28, Park Village East, Regent's Park,
London. N.W.I, England.
lOth April, 1951.

PRINCIPLES ADOPTED IN THE SELECTION OF APPLICATIONS
FOR IMMEDIATE PUBLICATION IN THE " BULLETIN OF ZOO-
LOGICAL NOMENCLATURE"

Decisions taken by the International Commission on Zoological

Nomenclature

1 . In the latter part of the year 1950, the International Conmiission had
under consideration the question of the principles to be adopted in the selection
of applications for immediate publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature. This matter clearly required careful consideration, for at the date in
question (31st October, 1950), it was estimated that there were about 270
applications awaiting consideration ; it was evident that the publication of
this large body of applications would inevitably require a considerable period
of time (both because of the fact that the Commission possessed no assured
annual income and also because it possessed no whole-time salaried staff and
had, therefore, to rely for the discharge of the whole of the work of the Secre-
tariat upon its honorary spare-time officers). Accordingly, in any given case
the date on W'hich a decision would be taken by the Commission would necessarily
turn to a considerable extent upon the order selected for the publication of the
applications awaiting consideration by the International Conmiission.

2. As the result of the consideration of this question, the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature decided that the selection of applica-
tions for immediate publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
was to be made in accordance with the following principles and requested
the Secretary to the Commission to proceed accordingly : —

(1) Subject to the qualification noted in paragraph 3 below, applications
are, so far as practicable, to be published in the order in which they
were originally received, except where this would interfere with the
prompt pubhcation of applications falling in the classes specified
in (2) below.

(2) Preference is to be given to applications which for any reason are
of exceptional urgency, such as applications falling in the following

BvHetin of Zoological NomenclMure

(a) applications relating to matters which the International
Commission has indicated or may in the future, indicate are
to be treated as of exceptional urgency, e.g., appUcations
submitted, in accordance with the invitation issued by the
International Commission at its Paris Session, with the object
of putting an end to the confusion in the nomenclature of the
Order Diptera (Class Insecta) arising out of the long-standing
controversy regarding the names published by Meigen in
1800 in his Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a deux Ailes
(see Bidl. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 558) ;

(6) applications on which decisions are needed as a preliminary
to the publication of important books, e.g., the Treatise on
Invertebrate Paleontology, now in preparation under the General
Editorship of Professor Raymond C. Moore (University of
Kansas) ;

(c) applications relating to well-known names suddenly threatened
by the excavation of long-forgotten and totally overlooked
names.

3. Applications received by the International Commission range from
(1) applications which (a) contain all the data (including bibliographical
references) necessary to enable the Commission to reach a decision on the
question submitted and (6) which are presented in the desired manner, that
is, typed, double-spaced, on one side of the page only and with wide margins,
and furnished in duplicate, to (2) applications which comply with some only,
or with none, of the foregoing requirements. Applications of the latter kind
involve a considerable amount of correspondence with, specialists and/or
additional clerical and typing work in the Secretariat, before they can be
submitted to the Commission ; the Commission has accordingly decided that,
while every effort should be made to complete appUcations of this kind as
rapidly as possible, the pubHcatiou of later appUcations submitted with all the
necessary particulars is not to be held up, while this is being done.

4. Applications are given Registered Numbers in the Z.N. (S.) Series
immediately upon receipt. Normally therefore, the relative date of receipt
of any two applications may be determined in this way. It should be noted
however, that this is not always the case ; for (1) preliminary enquiries and
tentative applications are sometimes registered initially in the Z.N. (G.) Series,
until it is clear that an application is going to be made ; (2) Some appUcations,
when received, deal with more than one subject and it is sometimes found
convenient at a later stage, to break up such applications, assigning a separate
Registered Number to each of the component items, with the result that the
applications so separated liear a higher number than would correspond to
their original date of receipt.

FRANCIS HEMMING,

Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.
\sl March, 1951.

Bulletin of Zoological Notnendature

PERSONNEL OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION
ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Death of Commissioner Paul Rode

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature much regret
to announce the death of their colleague Commissioner Paul Rode (France).

Retirement of Commissioner Karl Jordan

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature much regret
to announce that in May, 1950, they were informed by Commissioner (and
Honorary Life President) Karl Jordan (United Kingdom) that on account of
age and increasing deafness he had decided to resign his active Membership
of the Commission. The Commission felt bound to respect Commissioner
Jordan's wishes in this matter. They are, however, happy to think that there
will be no break on this account in their close association with Dr. Jordan,
an association which began thirty-seven years ago when at Monaco in 1913
he was elected a Member of the Commission and which became still closer
when in 1929 he was elected to be their President in succession to the late
Professor F. MonticelU (Italy), for, although Dr. Jordan is no longer an active
Member of the Commission, he retains the Office of Honorary Life President,
to which he was elected by acclamation by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology at its meeting held in Paris in July, 1948.

BuUetin of Zoological Nomenclature 5

Personnel of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature {continued)

Election of Commissioners

In accordance Avith the procedure prescribed by the Thirteenth Inter-
national Congress of Zoology, Paris, July, 1948, the following elections to the
Membership of the Commission have been made by the Executive Committee
of the Commission, with effect from the dates severally specified below : —

Teiso Esaki (Japan), Professor of Entomology, Kyushu University, Kyushu
(re-election) (17th April, 1950).

Pierre Bonnet (France), Professor of Zoology, University of Toulouse (9th
June, 1950).

Norman Denbigh Riley (United Kingdom), Keeper, Department of Ento-
mology, British Museum (Natural History), London (9th June, 1950).

Tadeusz Jaczewski (Poland), Professor of Entomology, University of Warsaw,
Warsaw (re-election) (15th June, 1950).

Robert Mertens (Germany), Professor, Natur-Museum Senckenberg der
Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a. Main (5th
July, 1950).

Erich Martin Hering (Germany), Professor, Zoologisches Museum der Uni-
versitat, Berlin (5th July, 1950).

FRANCIS HEMMING,

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretariat of the Commission :

28, Park Village East, Regent's Park,

London, N.W.I, England.

1st December, 1950,

6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

REPORT ON THEQUESTION WHETHER, IN ORDER TO
AVOID CONFUSION IN NOMENCLATURE, IT IS DESIR-
ABLE THAT THE PLENARY POWERS SHOULD BE USED
BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE TO VARY THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE
GENUS "PLEUROCERA" RAFINESQUE, 1818 (CLASS
GASTROPODA, ORDER MESOGASTROPODA)

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
{Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nmnenclature)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)83)

I. Statement of the case

1 . The purpose of the present Report is to examine the question whether
or not it is desirable that, in order to avoid confusion in nomenclature, the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should use its plenary

■ powers for the purpose of designating, as the type species of the genus Pleurocera
Rafinesque, 1818, the species {Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831), which for
nearly eighty years has been accepted as the type species or whether the
general interest would be better served by accepting as the type species the
species {Pleurocera verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820), which is undoubtedly the
type species under the Regies, but which is regarded by interested specialists
as being referable to a genus distinct from Pleurocera Rafinesque as currently
understood.

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

(1) The generic name Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 {Atner. mon. Mag.
3 : 355) was published with a generic diagnosis ; no type species
was designated or indicated ; the names of six new nominal species
were cited under the generic name Pleurocera, but no description,
definition or other " indication " was given for any of these nominal
species. The names so used by Rafinesque are therefore noniina
nuda and accordingly have no bearing on the choice of the species
to be selected as the type species of the genus.

(2) In 1819 {J. Phjs. Bruxelles 87 : 423) Rafiinesque gave a revised
definition of the genus Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818, but he did not,
when doing so, cite the name of any nominal species as being referable
to this genus.

(3) It was not until 1820 that the name of a nominal species possessing
rights under the Law of Priority was cited as belonging to the genus
Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818. This was when Rafinesque himself
published the specific name Pleurocera verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820
{Ann. Nat. 1820 : 11) and characterised the nominal species so named.

(4) In 1831, Rafinesque {Enum. Account : 2) published the name
Pleurocera acuta as the name of a new nominal species, which he duly
characterised.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7

(5) In 1864, Tryon brought into use the name Pleurocera Rafinesque,
1818, which until then had been neglected. As so reintroduced by
Tryon, the generic name Pleurocera Kafinesque appUed to the group
of species whicli includes the species Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque,
1831.

(6) In 1912, Hannibal {Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 10 : 169) selected
Pleurocera verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820, as the type species of the
genus Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818.

(7) In 1917, Pilsbry {Nautilus 30 : 110) accepted the action taken by
Hannibal in 1912.

(8) In 1917, following upon the foregoing paper by Pilsbry, Bryant
Walker {Occasional Papers Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich. 38 : 10) argued
that the conclusion reached by Hannibal (1912) and Pilsbry (1917)
was not in conformity with the ruling given in the Commission's
Opinion 46 and that, under a correct reading of that ruling, the type
species of Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818, was under the Regies not
Pleurocera verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820 (as alleged by Hannibal and
Pilsbry) but Pleurocera acuta Rafinescpie, 1831.

3. In spite of having in 1917 accepted Hannibal's view that Pleurocera
verrucosa Rafinesque was the type species of the genus Pleurocera Rafinesque,
Dr. H. A. Pilsbry (Academy of Sciences. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.)
must have felt doubts about the wisdom of disturbing the uninterrupted
practice of the preceding 50 years, for in 1925 he decided to refer this question
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature with a view to
obtaining a decision by which to guide himself in a book which he was then
engaged in writing. Accordingly, on 15th January, 1925. Dr. Pilsbry addressed
a letter, with enclosures, on this subject to the Secretary to the Commission.
In his covering letter. Dr. Pilsbry, after explaining that at that stage he was
concerned only to obtain from Dr. Stiles a preUminary opinion on the question
of the type species of the genus Pleurocera on the basis of the documents
enclosed with his letter, proceeded as follows : —

If you think P. acuta can stand as type, I will accept that in a work I have in hand without
further discussion, as this will not modify the usage current for fifty years. But, if you think that
P. verrucosa will have to stand as type, I will expand the statement and submit to the Commission,
in order to have authority for making a change in the names of two weU-known genera.

4. The following is the text of the two documents enclosed with Dr.
Pilsbry 's letter of 15th January, 1925 :

(1) Enclosure No. 1 to Dr. Pilsbry's letter of 15th January, 1925.

Type of Pleurocera Kaf.
The terms of Rafinesque's original diagnosis of Pleurocera, 1818, were sufiBciently general
to cover species of several subsequent genera, such as Augitrema Hald. or Trypanostoma Lea.
He mentioned several species but none of them was ever described or recognised otherwise. In
1819, he redefined the genus in terms fully applicable to the later genus Trypanostoma.

In 1820 Rafinesque described Pleurocera verrucosa, a species which might fall within the
very general terms of his first definition of Pleurocera, but it would certainly be excluded from

8 BuUetin of Zoological Nomenclature

Pleurocera as redefined in 1819. This species was designated type of Pleiirocera by Hannibal
in 1912. It was the first species described under that generic name.

In 1831 Rafinesque described three species of Pkurocera, of which one, P. acuta of Lake
Erie, is a well-known mollusk, clearlj^ identical with the later Trypanosloma subulare Lea,
described from Niagara River. P. acuta agrees fully with Rafinesque 's generic definitions.
P. acuta was designated type of Pleurocera bj' Walker {Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich. No. .38,
p. 9, 1917). He took the ground that Rafinesque erred in referring the species verrucosa to
Pleurocera. and that Hannibal therefore had made an imlawful type designation.

Question : Can Walker's designation of P. acuta as type of Pleurocera be upheld?

Bemarks : Opinions vary as to whether P. verrucosa falls within the terms of Rafinesque's
1818 definition. I am inclined to grant that it does, though if I had moUusk and definition before
me unprejudiced by names, I probably would not think to connect them. Walker thinks them
incompatible. It is a matter of individual opinion. That P. verrucosa would certainly not fall
within the terms of Rafinesque's second (1819) definition of Pleurocera all admit.

Pleurocera has been universally used for species congeneric with P. acuta Raf. since 1872,
when Tryon adopted it in a monograph of the family (Smithsonian Misc. Coll. No. 2.53).

(2) Enclosure No. 2 to Dr. Pilsbry's letter of I5th Januanj 1925

As to Pleurocera : P. acuta Raf. was described from Lake Erie, but it is a widely spread
species, very common in the Ohio and upper Mississippi valleys generally. It may well have been
one of Rafinesque's 1818 species — in fact he must have seen it time and again — but I believe that
there is no actual evidence whatever to connect it with any of his 1818 species. Of the latter,
several have names applicable enough to acuta, which may be either banded or plain " corneous ",
and could be called turreted.

There is no hope of finding any of Rafinesque's specimens of the genus. We have here a set
of his Unionidae, but no gastropods ; and in a long acquaintance with practically all the old
collections in the country, I never came upon any Bafinesquian specimens other than ours. His
own collection is supposed to have been burned.

There is a manuscript by Rafinesque, " Conchologia Ohioensis ", in the U.S.N.M. from which
W. G. Binney copied a figure of Pleurocera in Smiths. Misc. Coll. No. 144 (1865), p. 62, fig. 126.
This figure is a fair (or for Rafinesque, unusually good) representation of a two-thirds grown
Pleurocera neglectum Anthony, which is now considered to be a form of P. acutum Raf. Goodrich,
who has looked into the matter, considers it a synonym of P. subulare Lea, which is now acknow-
ledged to be the same as P. acutum Raf. {Nautilus Vol. 30, p. 124).

This figure applies to Pleurocera as that genus was defined in Rafinesque's second diagnosis.
It was so understood by Tryon {Smith. 3Iisc. Coll. No. 253, p. 49) and followed by everybody until
Hannibal named P. verrucosa Raf. as type. The latter is a wholly different shell — and I would not
think that any of the 1818 specific names of Rafinesque could apph^ to it.

5. On 18th January, 1928, Dr. Stiles consulted Dr. Paul Bartsch (then
Curator of Mollusks and Cenozoic Invertebrates, United States National
Museum, Washington, D.C.) who on 20th January, 1928, replied as follows : —

Glancing merely at the evidence presented here, which seems to be complete, for both
Pilsbrj' and Walker have gone over it, the case appears to me quite plain. Rafinesque in defining
Pleurocera in 1818, gives such a broad definition that it wiU hit almost anything in the large conic
North American fresh water gastropods. The six names which are associated with this definition
are nude names and therefore have no status whatever in nomenclature. The genus consequently
at its creation had no type. If my interpretation of Opinion 46 is correct, then the first species
described under the generic name after the creation of a genus without type becomes ipso facto
the type of that genus. If this is the case, the Rafinesque's Pleurocera verrucosa will have to
serve for that species [i.e. for the type species], unless Pilsbry makes a strong case, that following
the Code will cause greater confusion than getting a special ruhng from your Commission.

6. On 8th August, 1928, Dr. Stiles forwarded copies of the papers relating
to this case to the under-mentioned specialists with a request for their com-
ments thereon : (1) Dr. B. B. Woodward (London) ; (2) Mr. Frederick Chapman
(National M\iseum, Melbourne, AustraUa). The replies received from these

Bulhlin of Zoological Nomenclature 9

specialists were as follows : —

(1) Reply, dated 23rd August, 1928, received from Dr. B. B. Woodward :

The type of Pleurocera Raf., if the Rules be followed, is clearly P. verrucosa.

Rafinesque's genus as defined by him in 1818 and again in 1819 was obviously a composite,
while the species named were not described and cannot, therefore, be considered. In 1820 he
described P. verrucosa and this by the Rules and Opionion 4(5 manifestly becomes the type.

Jlr. Brj'ant Walker asserts that verrucosa does not fall within Rafinesque's original diagnosis,
while the statement is made, without proof, in one of the appended papers that it might fall
within the first definition, but not within that of 1819. Surely, however, the author himself
must have had a better idea of Irs own conception of his genus Pleurocera than those who sought to
interpret it later, and who unfortunately in subdividing the genus assigned its rightful type to
one of the new genera. Hence the present trouble.

('2) Reply, dated '3rd October, 1928, received from Mr. Frederick Chapman :

Aft«r studying the opinions and literature on the subject of the type of Pleurocera Raf., it
seems clear by the evidence submitted that, by Article 30, Rule 11(g), verrucosa, by subsequent
designation (by the author himself in this case) becomes the type species.

7. In December 1928, Dr. Stiles wTote to Dr. Pilsbry, stating that he had
been collecting the views of specialists on this case and asking, with reference
to the concluding portion of his letter of 15th January, 1925 (see paragraph 4
of the present Report), whether Dr. Pilsbry desired to add anything 1x) his
application before he (Dr. Stiles) submitted it to the Commission for con-
sideration. Dr. Pilsbry replied, on 20th December, 1928, as foUows : —

I have been thinking about the case of Pleurocera since receiving yoiu- note. It appears to
me that the path of least resistance for all concerned would be to rule Pleurocera verrucosa Raf.
out as a genotype on the ground that it does not agree with the definition and select the later
species PI. acuta Raf. as genotype.

Rafinesque's first definition {Amer. Monthly Mag. and Crit. Rev. Ill, 1818, 355) was in
rather general terms, but he stated that the mouth was diagonal, rhotnboidal, the columella
flexuous, entire (that is, without plaits or other interruptions). In the following year, he added
some further characters (Journ. de Physique, 1819, 423) (Tryon's reprint p. 25). No described
species was mentioned in either paper.

In the comparison below I have used both diagnoses, as it appears only fair to make use of
all the data he published for the elucidation of his genus, up to the time when a type would give
any other criterion.

Rafinesque's definition of his Pleurocera verrucosa differs from the original diagnosis of
Pleurocera in several important respects, recognised as of generic value before the midcUe of the
last century. I quote two important characters : —

Pleurocera P. verrucosa

" mouth diagonal, crooked, rhom- [mouth nearly in plain of axis, not

boidal " rhomboidal]

" ouverture oblique, oblong, base " base of the opening obtuse "

prolongee tordue, sommet aigu "
" Columella flexuous, entire"

"la columeUe qui est lisse et J" " inside lip thickly plaited '
tordue "

This very well expresses the generic differences in the shells. Pleurocera has the base
(anterior end) of the aperture produced in a somewhat twisted spout, and the columellar margin is
smooth. In Angitrema verrucosa the aperture is obtuse at base, and the " inside lip ", or columellar
lip, has thick callous deposits above and below, which Rafinesque referred to as plaits (a term
formerly much used for such columellar structures). This is directly opposed to the " entire " or
" lisse " of his two diagnoses of Pleurocera. The aperture of P. verrucosa is not rhomboidal, as
called for in the original description of Pleurocera. This form of aperture is characteristic of
Pleurocera.

Idonotexpectyoutogointothcconchology of the question, but I am sending you specimens
so that you may readily see that Rafinesque's fii-st species [i.e. P. verrucosa] did not agree with
the specifications he had set forth for Pleurocera. His later described P. acuta does agree.

10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

The group Rafinesque originally intended was doubtless the horn-shaped species common in
the Ohio. etc. This is shown by the definitions, the name, and the figure he drew for his " Concho-
logia Ohioensis " (unpublished), which Binney published in " Land and Fresh Water Shells of
N.A. ", part 3, page 62. fig. 126 {Smith-son. Misc Coll. No. 144). When he referred the ovate,
knobby " P. verriicasa " to the genus, probably he had forgotten the characters of his earlier
group, or it may be that the devH prompted him.

Pleurocera has never been used for any species of the group of " P. verrucosa " except by
Rafinesque in this one case, though it was designated type by Hamubal. It has universally
been used for the numerous gi'oup of horn-shaped species of which P. acuta Raf. is a good example.
To accept verrucosa as type would muddle the names of two large genera, and for the life of me I
cannot see who would gain by it.

I have wi'itten Bartsch about this, and asked him to consult with j'ou. He has never worked
with these fresh-«ater mollusks, but he knows how universally Pleurocera is accepted. I think
that, if you could get the consensus of opinion of those dealing with these animals, it would be
practically unanimous for conserving the present nomenclature.

8. The case of Pleurocera was not placed on the agenda for consideration
by the Commission either at its Session held at Padua in 1930, or at that held
in Lisbon in 1935, and no reference was made to it on either of these occasions.

9. When, following my election in 1936 as Secretary to the Commission,
the records of the Commission were transferred to my custody, I found among
them the correspondence relating to the case of Pleurocera suumiarised in
paragraphs 3 to 7 above. This case was thereupon allotted the Registered
Number Z.N. (S) 83, in the new series then established. Unfortunately,
pre-occupation with the serious administrative and financial problems facing
the Commission consec^uent upon the transfer of the Secretariat to London,
made it impossible for me to make any progress with this and other old cases
before the outbreak of war in Europe in September, 1939, put a stop for the
time being to the work of the Secretariat of the Commission. When in 1942
it was found possible to reopen the Secretariat, I devoted myself in the first
instance to arranging for the publication in the newly established Bulletin
of Zoological Nomenclature of all those of the applications awaiting the attention
of the Commission which had reached a sufficiently advanced state to permit
of that course. It was not until towards the end of 1944 that I was able to
turn to those of the outstanding applications on which further inquiries were
necessary before they could be placed before the Commission by being published
in the Bulletin.

10. On reading the papers relating to the present case, it was evident that
in 1928 — the latest date covered by the correspondence concerned — notmth-
standing the fact that Pleurocera verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820, was the first
nominal species to have been cited under the generic name Pleurocera Rafinesque
1818, all interested speciahsts at that time employed the generic name
Pleurocera as though the type species was not the above species but was the
species Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831. The evidence on this subject was,
however, by this time sixteen years old and, as I reahscd, the situation might
easily have changed during that period as the result of the acceptance by
specialists of Pleurocera verrucosa Rafinesque as the type species of Pleurocera
Rafinesque. I considered, therefore, that my first step must be to ascertain
whether, since 1928 there had been any change in the practice of specialists
in regard to the generic name Pleurocera.

Bullelin of Zoological Nomenclature 11

1 1 . Not myself possessing any first hand knowledge of the group concerned,
I asked the late Mr. R. Winckworth (London) whether he had any information
throwing light on the current use of the generic name Pleuroeera. Mr. Winck-
worth very kindly made a search of the volumes of the Zoological Record for the
purpose of ascertaining what changes, if any, had occurred in the practice of
specialists in this group of fresh-water moUusks. The following is the Report,
dated 16th September, 1944, furnished by Mr. Winckworth on the completion
of his search of the literature : —

As far as I can gather from references in the Zoological Record for 1931 and later years the
name Pleuroeera is still regularly used for the genus typified by P. acuta, e.g. by C. Goodrich,
"Studies of Pleuroceridae ", i-vi (1934-1937) {Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan); by
H. J. van Cleave, " Studies on Pleuroeera " {Xautiliw 40 : 29 (1932) and 47 : 48 (1933)) ; by E. M.
Kindle in 1934 (Bull. Wagner Free InM. 9 : 136) ; so that Hannibal's observations in 1912 seem
to have had no effect.

12. This Report showed that there had been no change since 1928 in the
way in which the generic name Pleuroeera Rafinesque, 1818, was used by
interested specialists. The question in 1944 remained therefore substantially
the same as it had been in 1928, namely whether the strict application of the
Regies (by the acceptance of Pleuroeera verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820, as the
type species of this genus) would lead to greater confusion than uniformity,
the only difference, as compared with 1928, being that that the strict applica-
tion of the Regies would overthrow the universal practice not of 50 years but
of nearly 70 years. The conclusion w^hich I then formed was that a prittm facie
case had been established for the use of the plenary powers by the designation
of Pleuroeera acuta, Rafinesque, 1831, as the type species of Pleuroeera
Rafinesque, 1818. In view, however, of the length of time which had elapsed
since the consultations carried out by my predecessor, I felt that it was
desirable to carry out further soundings before the case was submitted to the
Commission by being published in the Bulletin, even though the prescribed
" advertisement " procedure, when later carried out (see paragraph 16 below)
would aiford an opportunity to interested speciaUsts to place their views before
the Commission. Accordingly, in January, 1945, I wrote letters to Dr. Harold
A. Rehder (Associate Curator, Division of MoUusks, United States National
Museum, W^ashington, D.C.) and Professor H. J. van Cleave (Department
of Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana, III., U.S.A.), asking what would
be their attitude towards a settlement of this case, under which, for the pur-
pose of avoiding confusion and promoting uniformity, the plenary powers
would be used for the purpose of designating Pleuroeera acuta Rafinesque, 1831,
as the type species of the genus Pleuroeera Rafinesque, 1818. At the same
time I wrote to Dr. Pilsbry, the original applicant in this case, putting the
same question. The advice received as the result of these further consultations
is set out in the following paragraphs.

13. Advice received front Dr. H. A. Pikbnj (letter dated I'ith February, 1945).
The following is the reply which on 5th March, 1945, 1 received from Dr. Pilsbry
in answer to my letter of 24th January, 1945 :

In the matter of a genotype for Pleuroeera Rafinesque, I still believe that an Opinion
confirming P. acuta Raf. as type of Pleuroeera would be logical under the conditions existing.
As the genus has many species in the eastern U.S. and Canada, such regularisation of current
nomenclature would, I think, be accepted gratefully by our fresh-water zoologists.

12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

14. Advice received from Dr. Ha raid A. Rehder {memorandum forwarded
wider date Srd March, 1945) ; On 26tli March, 1945, I received a letter dated
3rd March, 1945, with which Dr. Harald A. Rehder enclosed the following memo-
randum setting out his views on the question raised in my letter of 24th January.
In his covering letter Dr. Rehder stated that the views expressed in the enclosed
niomorandum represented the view of Dr. Paul Bartsch (see paragraph 5 of
the present Report) and that of Dr. J. P. E. Morrison as well as that of himself :

1. The genotype of Pleiirocera Rafinesque, 1818, must be Pleurocem verrucosa Rafinesque
bv moiiotypy. The original generic diagnosis by Rafinesque (Amer. Monthly Mag. 3(5) 355,
Sept. 1818) is sufficiently broad and general to cover both P. verrucosa Rafinesque and acuta
Rafinesque. Walker's principal argument (Occ. Papers Mus. Zool. Mus. Univ. Michigan, No. 38,
1917) is therefore based on a faulty premise.

2. The early European workers (Blainville, Rang, Menke, Deshayes, Sowerby, etc.) con-
sidered Pleiirocera Rafinesque a genus of doubtful position, and the name Ceriphasia Swainson,
1840, came to be adopted for the group now usually called Pleurocera. It was so used by Gray,
1847. H. and A. Adams, 1854, and Chenu, 1859. In this country the elongated shells of this
subfamily were all placed in Melania until Lea in the decades 1840-1860 began splitting off well-
marked groups as genera. Gill in 1863 separated these American shells from the other Melaniids
in a distinct subfamily. Ceriphasiinae. a group that Haldeman in the same year raised to family
rank, calling it Strepomatidae (after the unpublished Rafinesquean genus Strepoma, which he
considered to equal Ceriphasia ; Pleurocera he equated with Goniobasis Lea). Tryon in 1863
was the first to use Pleurocera Rafinesque for the caniculata Say group (the same as the acuta
Rafinesque group), and he has been generally followed by all subsequent writers except Hannibal
(Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 10, 169, 1912) and Pilsbry (Nautilus, 30, 110, 114. 1917), both of whom
used Pleurocera correctly.

3. It is my opinion that we should adhere to the rules in this case, and that Pleurocera
should stand, with verrucosa Rafinesque as type : —

(1)1 am in favour of suspending the rules only in exceptional cases, where, for instance,
the names concerned cover large or world-wide groups with a long nomenelatorial
history, or where the groups in question play an important role outside of the
purely taxonomic field, in medicine (parasitology) for instance, or economic
geology (stratigraphy, oil geology, etc.).

(2) The genera concerned here are relatively small and restricted. If we follow the
rules, Pleurocera will replace Angitrema Haldeman, a group of about ten species
inhabiting a small circumscribed area from southern Indiana and Illinois through
Kentucky and Tennessee to the northern part of Alabama.

(3) The whole subfamily is sadly in need of revision, and, when this is done, its classi-
fication will be considerably altered, and changes in the names of genera and their
limits will have to be made anyway. One of the members of our staff is under-
taking this problem now. There are several other valid names of Rafinesque, not
now generally accepted, which will have to be used for certain groups in this sub-
family.

(4) We can, I believe, arrive at a greater stability in nomenclature bj' keeping excep-
tions to the rules at a minimum. Suspensions set a precedent and I am afraid
that, if any leniency in this respect is shown, a flood of requests for suspension to
the rules will ensue which, if accepted, will result in greater uncertainty and con-
fusion than stability in nomenclature.

We must remember that our personal preferences and habits as far as the use of
certain names goes, should play little part in this question, for there are generations
stiU to come who will not know these prejudices.

15. Advice received from Professor H. J. van Cleave {letter dated Wth March
1945) .• The following is the reply which on 10th April, 1945, I received from
Professor H. J. van Cleave in answer to my letter of 25th January, 1945 : —

I have not had access to the original 1818 description of Pleurocera by Rafinesque. If
verrucosa, the first described species to be assigned to the genus, fails to conform to the generic
concept of Pleurocera, the designation of verrucosa as tj'pe of Pleiirocera by Hannibal would
necessitate the rejection of the original concejit of the genus.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 13

In the meantime, American authors, whetlier riglitly or wrongly, liave followed the [)ractice
of accepting the concept oi acuta as exemplifying the genus Pleurocera. The concejjt of the genus
and the association of the name acuta as type have become firmly fixed in the literature, in the
textbooks, and in the minds of American zoologists.

I am certain that the formal acceptance of verrucosa as type of Pleurocera would result in
widespread confusion. Therefore I favour the retention of the current practice of recognising
acuta as type of the genus Pleurocera. Personally, I am not familiar enough with the original
literature to be certain that verrucosa would nominally become the acceptetl tj'pe of Pleurocera
under strict interpretation of the rules. However, I feel certain that the best interests of stability
in nomenclature would be served if the Commission and the Congress were to accept acuta
Rafinesque, 1831, as type of the genus Pleurocera, even though in so doing the Commission
might find it necessary to exercise their plenary powers to suspend the rules.

16. On 20tli November, 1947, an "advertisement " regarding a number of
applications received by the Commission for the use of the plenary powers
was despatched to Science and Nature, and was published shortly thereafter.
Included in the foregoing " advertisement " was the following item : " Class
Gastropoda : to fix Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831, as the type of Pleurocera
Rafinesque, 1818." No objection to the use of the plenaiy powers in this
manner was lodged with the Commission from any source.

II. The twofold issue involved

17. Two issues are involved in the present case : the first, factual, the
second, a question of policy. The first of these issues is : what species is,
under the Regies, the type species of the genus Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 ?
The second question is whether, if the type species under the Regies is different
from the species commonly accepted as such, the change in nomenclatorial
practice which would follow upon the strict application of the Regies in this
case would be calculated to cause such confusion that the Commission should
step in to stabilise current nomenclatorial practice by using its plenary powers
to designate as the type species of the genus Pleurocera a species in harmony
with the accepted concept of this genus. These questions are discussed
separately in the following paragraphs.

18. Question of the type species of the genus Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 :
Prior to the meeting at Paris in 1948 of the Thirteenth International Congress
of Zoology, there might have been scope for argument as to what species was,
under the Regies, the type species of the genus Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818,
for up to that date the only guidance available for determining the type species
of a genus established without any species being cited by name was that
afforded by the Commission's Opinion 46, which, as anyone who has tried to
apply that Opinion is aware, and as was recognised by the Commission itself
at its Paris Session, is both obscure and in part self-contradictory. An entirely
new situation was however, created by the decision taken by the Paris Congress,
on the advice of the Commission, to clarify and amend the ruling given in
the foregoing Opinion, to incorporate in the Regies the decision so clarified
and amended, and at the same time to cancel Opinion 46. Under the decision
so taken (1950, Bull. zool. Nornencl. 4 ." 159-160, 346) it is provided that,
where a generic name was published prior to 1st January, 1931, and no species
was cited by name as referable to the genus so named, the first species sub-
sequently published under that generic name is, or are, to be regarded as the

14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

sole originally included species and therefoie that, if on that occasion only
one such species was so cited, that species becomes automatically the type
species of the genus by monotypy. Turning now to the generic name which
forms the subject of the present Report, we find (1) that, when the name
Pleurocero Rafinesque, 1818, was first published, no species was or were
referred to it by name by its original author, and (2) that, when on the first
subsequent occasion (1820) this generic name was first published in conjunction
with a specific name, the author by whom it was so published (Rafinesque
himself) cited only one species under this name, that species being a new species
Plewocera verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820. Under the Regies, that species is
therefore unquestionably the type species of Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818, by
monotypy.

19. Question whether greater confusion than uniformity would result from the
acceptance, as the type species of Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818, of Pleurocera
verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820 {which is the type species under the Regies) in place
of Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831, the species which has been commonly
treated as the type species of this genus : Having now established that under
the Regies the type species of Pleurocera Rafinesque is a species {Pleurocera
verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820) which is not considered by speciaHsts to be con-
generic with the species {Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831) which has com-
monly been treated as the type species of this genus, we have to consider a
question of an entirely different order, namely whether the strict appUcation
of the Regies in this case would lead to greater confusion than uniformity.
In this field all that it is possible to do is (1) to ascertain, so far as possible,
what is the practice followed by workers who have published papers on the
group concerned and to collect the views of present day workers, and (2) having
done so, to reach the best decision possible in the light of the evidence so
afforded.

20. On the question of what is the current practice in regard to this generic
name and what are the views of interested specialists, the available evidence
shows : —

(1) that it was not until 1912 {i.e., until 94 years after the pubHcation
of the name Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818) that it was suggested by
Hannibal that under the Regies the type species of Pleurocera
Rafinesque was Pleurocera verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820, and not
Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831, which had been selected as the
type species by Taylor in 1864, and had been accepted as such by
subsequent workers ;

(2) that an inspection of the volumes of the Zoological Record for the
years subsequent to the publication of Hannibal's paper (carried
out for the Commission by the late Mx. R. Winckworth) shows that
Hannibal's contention was either rejected or ignored by subsequent
workers, who continued to treat Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque as
the type species of the genus Pleurocera Rafinesque ;

(3) that two authors who are shown by the Zoological Record to have
published papers on this group, namely. Dr. H. A. Pilsbry (Phila-

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 15

delphia, Pa., U.S.A.) and Professor H. J. van Cleave (Urbana, III.,
U.S.A.), were specially consulted on this question and both emphati-
cally support the use by the Commission of its plenary powers to
designate Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831, as the type species
of Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 : —

{a) Dr. Pilsbry replying that : " such regularization would, I
think, be accepted gratefully by our freshwater zoologists "' ;

(6) Professor van Cleave replying : " I am certain that the formal
acceptance of verrucosa would result in widespread confusion.
Therefore, I favour the retention of the current practice of
recognizing acuta as the type of the genus Pleurocera f

(4) that Dr. Harald A. Rehder (Washington, D.C., U.S.A.), who was
also consulted, replied that he favoured the strict application
of the Regies in this case, partly on the ground that the genera
concerned were relatively small and restricted but mainly on the
ground that, in his opinion ; " We can arrive at a greater stability
in nomenclature by keeping exceptions to the rules at a minimum."
Dr. Rehder added that his views in this matter were shared by
Dr. Paul Bartsch and Dr. J. P. E. Morrison;

(5) that, although the possible use of the plenary powers to designate
Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831, as the type species of the genus
Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818, was notified to " Science " and
" Nature " in November, 1947, and was published in those journals
shortly thereafter, no objection of any kind to the use of the plenary
powers in the manner proposed was subsequently received from
any source.

II. Conclusions and recommendations

(rt) Conclusions

21. In submitting the present Report to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature for its consideration, I summarize my principal
conclusions as follows : —

(1) Under the Regies the type species by monotypy of the genus Pleu-
rocera Rafinesque, 1818 (a genus established without any included
species cited by name) is Pleurocera verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820
(the sole species cited under the generic name Pleurocera on the first
occasion on which any nominal species was so cited).

(2) The generic name Pleurocera Rafinesque is currently used as though
the type species of the genus so named were Pleurocera acuta
Rafinesque, 1831, that species having in fact (though erroneously)
been selected as the type species by Taylor in 1864.

16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(3) The species Pleurocera verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820, and Pleurocera
acuta Rafinesque, 1831, are not currently regarded by specialists
as congeneric with one another.

(4) In consequence of (3) above, the strict apphcation of the Rexjles in
the present case would lead to the transfer of the generic name
Pleurocera Rafinesque (which forms the basis of a family name
PLEUROCERiDAE or, more correctly, pleuroceratidae) from the
genus which at present is known by that name to a genus to which
that name has not hitherto been appUed.

(5) Two specialists in the group concerned (Pilsbry ; van Cleave) con-
sider that in order to prevent confusion, the species Pleurocera acuta
Rafinesque, 1820, at present currently accepted as the type species
of the genus Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 should be standardised
as such ; one specialist (Rehder), Avho was specially consulted, is
opposed to the use of the plenary powers in the present case, partly
because the group is relatively small but mainly on the general
ground that, in his view, stability in nomenclature will be best arrived
at by keeping exceptions to the Regies as few as possible. The case
has been duly advertised and no other specialist has lodged any
objection to the use of the plenary powers for the purpose of
designating Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1820, as the type species
of the genus Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818.

(6) The position is thus that the use of the plenary powers in the present
case is advocated by two specialists who have published on this
group and who claim that this view is shared by other workers in
the group concerned ; none has claimed that the Regies could
be strictly appUed in the present case without causing confusion
in the group concerned ; three other malacologists are opposed to
the use of the plenary powers in this case on grounds not
directly connected with the question whether the immediate effect
of applying the Regies strictly in the present case will or will not
lead to greater confusion than uniformity in the nomenclature
of the group concerned.

(7) In xaew of (5) and (6) above, it appears to me to be clear that some
confusion would certainly arise if the Regies were to be strictly
applied to the generic name Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818. The
question which has next to be considered is wdiether the degree of
confusion so caused would be likely to be greater than the uniformity
obtained by applying the Regies strictly in tliis case, and therefore
whether this is a case in which it would be appropriate for the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its
plenary powers to prevent that confusion from arising.

(8) In considering the question raised in (7) above, it is necessary to
pay strict regard to the purposes for which in 1913 the International
Congress of Zoology conferred plenary powers upon the Inter-

Biilletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17

national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and, in doing so,
to note that one of the purposes expressly stipulated by the Congress
was the avoidance of confusing transfers of names from one taxo-
nomic unit to another. In the present case the strict application
of the Regies would involve such a transfer, for the generic name
Pleurocera Rafinesque. 1818, would need to be transferred from the
genus to which it has for long been apphed to a genus which has
hitherto been known by some other name.

(9) Having regard to the evidence set forth in the jjresent Report and
summarised in (5) and (6) above, I have reached the following
conclusions : —

(a) that, unless there has been any material change in the situation
since this case was " advertised " in 1947, greater confusion
than uniformity would arise from the strict application of the
Regies to the generic name Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 ;

{b) that, in view of (a) above and having regard also to the fact
that in the present case the strict application of the Regies
would lead to a result (the transfer of a name from one
taxonomic unit to another), the prevention of which was one
of the express purposes for which the plenary powers were
instituted, the proper course in the present case would be
for the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature to use its plenary powers for the purpose of desig-
nating as the type species of the genus Pleurocera Rafinesque,
1818, the species {Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831)
currently accepted as such.

(6) Recommendation

22. In the hght of the conclusions set forth above, I recommend that
the International Commission Zoological Nomenclature should :

(1) use its plenary powers —

(a) to set aside all designations or selections of type species for the
genus Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818, made prior to the decision
now proposed to be taken ;

{h) to designate Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831, to be the
type species of the foregoing genus :

(2) place the generic name Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 (type species,
by designation under the plenary powers under (1) (6) above :
Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831) on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology ;

(3) place the trivial name acuta Rafinesque, 1831 (as pubhshed in the
binominal combination Pleurocera acuta) on the Official List of
Specific Trivial Names in Zoology.

18 Bttlletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED VALIDATION OF " APHIDIUS " NEES, 1818

(CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) UNDER THE

PLENARY POWERS

By W. D. HINCKS

{Department, of Zoology, University Museum, Manchester, England)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)149)

The well-known genus Aphidius Nees, 1818, was established in Nova Acta
Acad. Caes. Leop. Carol. 9 : 302, for two species, namely Bracon picipes Nees,
1811. Mag. Ges. Nat. Fr., Berlin 5 (1) : 28, and Bracon exoletus Nees, 181L
ibid. 5 (1) : 30.

Ichneumon aphidum Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 568, was selected
as the type species by Curtis, 1831 {Brit. Ent. 8 : 383) but this selection is
invalid since that species was not originally included in the genus by Nees.
Foerster's selection (1862, Verh. naturh. Ver. preuss. Rheinl. 19 : 248) of
Aphidius rosae Haliday, 1833 {Ent. Mag. 1 : 261) as the type species is untenable
for the same reason.

Viereck, 1914 {Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 83 : 14) stated that the type species
of Aphidius Nees was Bracon picipes Nees, 1811, but as this is a species in-
quirenda, he preferred to follow Foerster's interpretation.

In 1942, Essig published a work under the title of " College Entomology "
(New York, The Macmillan Company), in which he used ( : 644) the family
name incubidae for aphidiidae and ( : 645) sank Aphidius Nees as a synonym
of Incubus Schrank, 1802.

Incubus Schrank, 1802, was established in Fauna boica 2 : 315, for Ich-
neumon aphidum Linnuaes, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 568, and is monotypical.
This genus is identical with Aphidius Nees but the nanie Incubus Schrank
has never previously been used. The replacement of Aphidius Nees by the
obsolete name Incubus Schrank and the alteration of the family name from
APHIDIIDAE to INCUBIDAE would clearly cause more confusion than uniformity.
This seems to me therefore a case where the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature could properly exercise their plenary powers to
prevent confusion from arising in the nomenclature of this group.

The identity of neither of the two species originally included by Nees in
the genus Aphidius Nees is altogether free from doubt, though personally I
consider that Bracon picipes Nees can properly be idertified with Aphidius
avenae Haliday, 1834, Ent. Mag. 2 (1) : 99. This is the view taken by the
former leading authority, Marshall (1896, in Andre, Spec. Hymen. Eur. 5
(1) : 574), though it is true that on that occasion Marshall overlooked the
prior description (1811) of Nees, as will be noted from the following quotation :
" Le synonyme picipes Nees, portant la meme date que le nom specifique
impost par Haliday, la priorite reste dans le doute ; j'ai done prefere I'auteur

Bulletin of Zoological Notnendatnre 19

de la meilleurc description." The first authur to introduce the doubt reflected
by Viereck, as mentioned above, was the cataloguer Dalla Torre, 1898, Cat.
Hymenopt. 4:5.

If the rules are to be suspended for the purpose of validating the name
Aphidius Nees, 1818, it is very desirable that at the same time the International
Commission should designate as the type species of this genus a species the
identity of which is free from doubt, for, in the case of a group of species of
considerable economic importance such as that now under consideration, it
is important to secure that there shall be no opportunity for doubt by reason
of the nomenclature employed. The most appropriate type species for the
genus Aphidius Nees, 1818, appears to me to be Aphidius avenae Haliday, 1834,
(a) because the type specimen of this species is in the British Museum (Natural
History) and therefore readily available for consultation and {b) because that
species (as already stated) is almost certainly identical with Bracon ]ncipes
Nees, 1811, the species which, under the Code, is the type species of the genus
Ajihidius Nees.

The difficulties in the present case would, therefore, be completely solved if
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting under their
plenary powers, were to (i) suppress the name Incubus Schrank, 1802, (ii)
vahdate Aphidius Nees, 1818, (iii) designate Aphidius avenae Haliday, 1834,
as the type species of Aphidius Nees, 1818, (iv) place the name Aphidius Nees,
1818 (gender masculine), and with the above species as its type species, on
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, (v) place the trivial name avenae
Haliday, 1834 (as published in the binominal combination Aphidius avenae),
on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, and (vi) place the generic
name Incubus Schrank, 1802, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology.

20 Bidktin of Zoological Nmnendature

ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF " APHIDIUS "

NEES, 1818 (CLASS INSECTA ORDER HYMENOPTERA)

UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

By E. 0. ESSIG
{Division of Entomology and Parasitology, University of California, Berkeley

California)

(Extract from a letter dated 20th October, 1943, from Professor Essig to the
Secretary to the Interuational Commission)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)149)

I very greatly appreciate your kind letter of 22nd Septemlaer, in which
you indicate that application has been made for the suspension of the Rules
for the purpose of suppressing the name Incuhns Schrank and for validating
Aphidiiis Nees.

I heartily recommend this procedure. I was very hesitant to make the
radical changes which appear in " College Entomology," but I reasoned that
only by so doing can these matters be permanently straightened out.

Bulleliii of Zfjoloyicul NoiKoiclalure 21

ON THE QUESTION OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE
GENERIC NAME " LEPTOPSYLLA " ROTHSCHILD &
JORDAN, 1911 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER SIPHONAPTERA)

By KARL JORDAN, Ph.D., F.R.S.

{Brilish Museum {Natural Histonj), Zoological Museum, Trimj)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)166)

I petition the International Commission to terminate a controversy
regarding the correct generic name for the House-Mouse Flea. This species
was first described as Pulex segnis by Schonherr in 1811, K. Vet. Acad. Nya
HamU. 32 (2) : 98. As this flea is frequently referred to in the literature of
Public Hygiene as CtenopsyUus segnis and also as Leptopsylla segnis, it is a
matter of practical importance that the International Commission should
decide which of these generic names is the correct one for this species.

The name CtenopsyUus appears for the first time in print in Kolenati, 1856,
Die Parasiten der Chiroptem : 31. Kolenati's book was issued in identical
form at Brunn in 1856 and at Dresden in 1857. The latter is the issue usually
found and in consequence new names published by Kolenati in this work are
commonly (but erroneously) dated " 1857 " instead of " 1856 ". There is a
copy of the scarce original Briinn issue in the library of the Zoological Museum,
Tring. Kolenati there described several species of bat-flea, employing for
them the generic name Ceratopsyllus Curtis, 1838, Brit. Entom. 15 (180) : errata
in Index (an emendation of CeratophyUus Curtis, 1831, Guide brit. Ins. (7) : 201).

In a footnote to the name Ceratopsyllus Curtis, Kolenati said ( : 31) (trans-
lation) : " From Kspas, KEpoTos liorn and ^^uAAog flea, should really be called
CtenopsyUus from kteis, ktevos the comb, because the species bear combs,
so-called ctenidia, at the posterior margin of the pro- and meta-notum and
often also on some terga, by means of which they hold on, hairs of the host
bemg caught in between when the combs are pressed on to the segments ".

In 1863, Hor. Soc. ent. ross. 2 : 37, Kolenati gave to a " subgenus " of
CtenophtJialmus Kolenati, 1857. Paras. Chiroptem : 33, the name CtenopsyUus,
Ignoring altogether the fact that he had previously published this name in
1856. On this occasion, Kolenati described two species, the first as CtenopsyUus
quadridentatus (which is the same species as Pukx segnis Schonherr. 1811,
referred to above), the second as Ctenopsyllm bidentatus, a distinct and at that
time new species. The first of these species was selected as the tj'pe species
of this genus by Baker in 1904 {Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 27 : 371) (as Pulex
musculi).

In 1911, Novit. zool. 18 :85, Jordan and Rothschild published the name
Leptopsylla nom. nov. for " CtenopsyUus Kolenati, 1862 nee 1856 " (the first of
these years should have been cited as " 1863 " not " 1862 "). The tyi^e species
of this genus by original designation is Pulex musculi Duges, 1832 {Ann. Sci.
nat. 27 : 163), which is the same species as Pulex segnis. This name Lep-
topsylla for the House-Mouse Flea and some similar species has been rejected
by some specialists and accepted by others.

The question on which an Opinion from the Conunission is now desired is

22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

whether the action by Jordan and Rothschild, 1911, was correct or wrong.
In other words, was Ctoiopsyllus pubhshed in 1856 as another name for
Ceratopsyllm Curtis, 1838, and is it available from 1856 ?

The decision one way or the other will affect a number of similar cases,
where authors have tentatively published names which they thought were
" better " or otherwise more suitable names than names already published.

ON THE RELATIVE MERITS OF THE GENERIC NAMES
" CTENOPSYLLUS " KOLENATI, 1863, AND " LEPTOPSYL-
LA " JORDAN AND ROTHSCHILD, 1911, AS THE GENERIC
NAME OF THE HOUSE-MOUSE FLEA (CLASS INSECTA,
ORDER SIPHONAPTERA)

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
{Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)166)

The point raised by Dr. Karl Jordan regarding the relative merits from
the nomenclatorial point of view of the generic names Ctenopsyllus Kolenati
and Leptopsylla Jordan and Rothschild turns on the question whether the
maimer in which the name Ctenopsyllus was published by Kolenati in 1856
was such as to confer availability upon it under the Regies. If the answer
to this question is in the affirmative, the name Ctenopsyllus Kolenati, 1856,
applies not to the House-Mouse Flea, but to a group of Bat Fleas. If, on the
other hand, the answer to the foregoing question is in the negative, the name
Ctenapsijllus ranks for purposes of priority as from Kolenati, 1863, and is
applicable to the House-Mouse Flea. This question was reviewed in 1911
by Jordan and Rothschild, who came to the conclusion that, despite the
unsatisfactory way in which the name Ctenopsyllus had been published by
Kolenati in 1856, that name has nevertheless acquned rights under the Law

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenckdure 23

of Priority in virtue of having been so published, and was accordingly applicable
to the Bat Fleas. In the light of this conclusion, the name Clenopsyllus Kolenati,
1863, as applied to the House-Mouse Flea became an invalid (becaiise junior)
homonym of the name CtenopsylJus Kolenati, 1856. The House-Mouse Flea
was thus left without an available generic name and it was to meet this de-
ficiency that Jordan and Rothschild published the name Lepto])sylla. The
Commission are now asked to decide whether the argument advanced by
Jordan and Rothschild was in accordance with the Regies or not and therefore
whether the name Ctenopsglhis Kolenati, 1863, or the name Leptopsylla Jordan
and Rothschild, 1911, is the generic name properly applicable to the House-
Mouse Flea.

2. The question with which we are here confronted is the status to be
accorded under the Regies to a name that was rejected by its author at the
time when it was first published and was treated by that author as a synonym
of some other name. One aspect of this case was dealt with by the Commission
as long ago as 1907 when they rendered Opinion 4, in which they ruled that a
manuscript name acquired availability under the Regies when it was published
with an " indication ", irrespective of whether or not the author by whom
it was published himself accepted the name as an available name or whether
he sunk it as a synonym of some other (older) name. Another aspect of this
case was dealt with by the Commission in 1912 when in Opinion 49 they ruled
that the status of a name was not to be regarded as being adversely affected
by reason of the name having been published conditionally. Both the foregoing
interpretations of Article 25 were incorporated into the Regies by the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held in Paris in 1948. (For
the terms of the decision in relation to Opinion 4. see Proceedings of the Com-
mission, Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 4, and for that in relation to
Opinion 49, ibid. 6th Meeting, Conclusion 17, published in 1950, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 4 : 144-146.)

3. The name CtenopsylJus was admittedly published by Kolenati in 1856
as a conditional name, but, as we have seen, this does not deprive that name
of any rights which it may otherwise possess under the Law of Priority. It
is agreed also that, when Kolenati published this name in 1856, he himself
rejected it and treated it as a synonym of an earlier name {Cemtophyllus Curtis,
1838) ; but, as we have seen, the rejection of a name by its original author
at the time of its first publication does not deprive that name of its rights
under the Law of Priority if as here (through its identification with Cerato-
phyllus Ciu-tis) it is published with an indication. We see therefore that the
name Ctenopsyllu^, as published by Kolenati in 1856, cannot be rejected
either on the ground that it was published conditionally or on the ground
that it was rejected by its original author. It was in fact published as an
emendation (on etymological grounds) of an earlier generic name ; its status
from the present point of view is therefore the same as that of any other emen-
dation. Now we know from the decision in Opinion 148, since clarified and
incorporated into the Regies (Proceedings of the Commission, Paris Session,
6th Meeting, Conclusion 44, see 1950, Bull zool. Nomencl. 4 : 163) that " a
generic name is to be rejected as a homonym, where the word of which that

24 Bulletin of Zooluyicul Noineitclalurc

name consists lias previously been published as an emendation, whether
valid or invalid, of another generic name ". It is dear from the foregoing
passage, which is a direct cjuotation from the Paris Proceedings, that the
Ctc)wpsi/lh(s as published by Kolenati in 1856 renders invalid, as a jimior
homonym, any later use of the word Clenopsyllus as a generic name applied
to some other group, for example, the later use of this name by Kolenati
himself in 1863. (It is of interest to note that at Paris, 9th Meeting, Con-
clusion 20, the record of which was published in 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
4 : 256, the Commission considered a case relating to a trivial name, which
resembles very closely the case here under discussion, for that was a case where
(as here) an author (Strand) published a name {aegyptiellus) which he in fact
rejected (just as in 1856 Kolenati rejected the emendation Ctenopsyllus which
he then published for the first time). In this case the Commission ruled that
the trivial name negyptielhts having been published by Strand with an indication
was not damnified by reason of having been rejected by its original author
at the time when it was first published, and, therefore, that this trivial name
was available, as from the date on which it had been first published by Strand.)

4. For the reasons set forth above, it is clear that Jordan & Rothschild
acted in strict accordance with the Regies, when, in 1911, they rejected Ctenop-
syllus Kolenati, 1863, as an invalid homonym of Ctenopsyllus Kolenati, 1856,
and therefore those authors were fully justified when they gave a new generic
name (Leptopsylla) for the House-Mouse Flea.

5. In his application in relation to this case Dr. Jordan raised a point of
importance, which requires to be considered, when he observed that the name
to be given to the House-Mouse Flea was a matter of concern to workers in
the field of Public Hygiene, some of whom had adopted the name Leptopsylla,
while others had continued to use the name Ctenopsyllvs. From this point
of view, the present case resembles closely the case of the names Bilharzia
and Schistosoma dealt with by the Commission in Paris (Paris Session, 12th
Meeting, Conclusion 11, for the record of which see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
4 : 319-323). In that case the Commission was satisfied that the name
Bilharzia had been validly published with an indication by Meckel von
Hemsbach in 1856, and therefore had priority over the name Schistosoma
Weinland, 1858, but decided that, in view of the view of the fact that in medical
literature the name Schistosoma had come to be much more widely used than
the name Bilharzia, the balance of advantage lay in suppressing the latter
name under their plenary powers, and in validating the name Schistosoma. In
these circumstances, it appeared to me desirable to obtain a preliminary
expression of opinion from a leading Public Hygiene authority, in order to
ascertain whether on public hygiene grounds there was any case for using the
plenary powers in order to validate Ctenopsyllus Kolenati, 1863 (by suppressing
the earlier name Ctenopsyllus Kolenati, 1856) in preference to applying the
Regies in this case in the ordinary way.

6. At this point therefore, I consulted Sir John Charles, Principal Medical
Officer of Health, Ministry of Health in the United Kingdom, who replied
(on 17th August, 1950) that " though references to the house mouse flea in

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 25

Public Health literature are not numerous, there seems to be general agree-
ment with the name of Leptopsylla segnis, and that so far as the literature of
public hygiene is concerned, it would be preferred."

7. In these circumstances it appears to me that there is no case for the
use of the plenary powers and that the appropriate course would be for the
Commission, after noting that the name Ctenopsyllus Kolenati, 1863 (applied
to the House Mouse Flea) is an invalid junior homonym of the name Ctenop-
syllus Kolenati, 1856 (a name applied to a group of Bat Fleas), (1) to place
the generic name Leptopsylla Rothschild & Jordan, 1911 {Novit. Zool. 18 : 85),
(type species, by original designation : Pulex musculi Duges, 1832 (Ann. Sci.
nut. 27 (106): 163) {=Pulex se^ms Schiinherr), 1811 [K. Sv. Vetensl Acad.,
Nya Handl. 32 (No. 2) : 98) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology,
(2) to place the generic name Ctenopsyllus Kolenati, 1863 {Hor. Soc. ent. ross.
2 : 37) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology,
and (3) to place the trivial name segnis Schonherr, 1811 (as published in the
binominal combination Pnlex segnis) on the Official List of Specific Trivial
Names in Zoology.

26 BnUetin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO
SUPPRESS THE TRIVIAL NAME "AJAX" LINNAEUS, 1758
(AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMINAL COMBINATION
"PAPILIO AJAX") COMMONLY BUT INCORRECTLY
APPLIED TO THE SPECIES NAMED " PAPILIO
MARCELLUS" BY CRAMER IN 1777 (CLASS INSECT A,
ORDER LEPIDOPTERA)

By the late A. STEVEN COEBET
{British Museum (Natural History), London)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)192)

In Linnaeus' original diagnosis of Papilio ajax in 1758, Systema Naturae
(ed. 10) 1 : 462, the very brief description {" P/apilio/ E/qnes/ alis obtuse
candatis concoloribus fuscis : fasciis falvescentibus, angulo ani fulvo ") is
followed by two citations and an indication of the habitat as follows : —

Baj. ins. 111. n. 2

E(hv. av. 34

" Habitat in America boreali."

There is no mention of P. xuthus in the lOtli edition and the description of
P. ajax is followed by that of P. machaon.

There is no mention of P. ajax in 1764, Mus. Lnd. Ulr. but in 1767, in the
12th edition (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 750) the description of P. ajax is repeated
precisely as in the 10th edition. On the following page in the 12th edition,
appears the first description of P. xanthus (corrected to xuihus in the index),
with " Habitat in India orientali " and " Simillimus P. Ajaci." The diagnosis
of P. xuthus is more detailed than that of P. ajax and there are no references
to works of other authors.

A\Tiile there has been no doubt regarding the identity of P. xuthus, much
confusion has been associated with the determination of P. ajax ; in fact,
so involved had the position become that Rothschild and Jordan abandoned
the name in their " Revision of the American Papilios " in 1906 {Novit. zool.
13 : 413-414). This confusion would not have arisen, had the Linnean collec-
tion been adequately studied, for therein is an undoubted Linnean specimen,
low-set on a long, black, headless pin of the type which I called a " Cantonese
pin " in an earlier paper (Corbet, 1942. Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (B) 11:91), and
labelled " ajax " in Linnaeus' writing and " xuthus 751 " by Smith. The
specimen in question is P. xuthus and the pin may be taken as evidence
of its Cantonese origin ; almost certainly, it is one of the butterflies obtained
by Peter Osbeck when he visited Canton in 1751.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 27

In Linnaeus' own copy of the 10th edition of the Syst. Nat., there is the
following manuscript note added to the description of P. ajax.

" Simillimus Machaon, sed magis flavis. Valde affinis Ajax,
Machaon, Podalirius, Antilochus, Protesilaus.'"

P. ajax is among the species marked by Linnaeus as being in his collection
in his own copy of the 12th edition, while xuthus is not so marked.

There is nothing in the description of P. ajax in either the 10th or 12th
editions, which conflicts with what must clearly be regarded as the type
specimen. It appears that Linnaeus described this same species again under
the name xanthus (recte xuthus) from the same or another specimen, but this
is not a unique occurence for both P. aonis and P. lemonias were described
"in the 10th edition from specimens of the dry-season form of the same species
of Precis and, in the same volume, Linnaeus published names for three nominal
" species ", based upon specimens of two species only {Papilio perius and
P. hylas). Unfortunately, however, the Linnean collection was not avail-
able to the early authors and, even if it had been, no convincing conclusion
could have been drawn without research into the manner of setting, pinning
and labelling, in order to judge the authenticity of any supposed Linnean
specimens. The early entomologists were obliged to identify P. ajax on the
basis of the meagre description and the conflicting citations and in consequence
mistakes were inevitable.

The Linnean description of P. ajax applies ecjually well to several
species of Papilio {sensti stricto) of similar facies and the references to Edwards
and Kay, do nothing to clarify the position. The reference to Edwards, 1743,
Natural History of Uncommon Birds 1 : 34, t. 34 given in the 1758 description
of P. ajax was cited under P. protesilaus by Linnaeus in 1764, Mus. Lud. Ulr.,
and yet again referred to P. ajax in 1767 in the 12th edition of the Syst. Nat.
According to Rothschild and Jordan (1906, Novit. zool, 13 : 413), Edwards'
figure cannot be reconciled with the Linnean description of P. ajax and, in
fact, represents the American species well known as Papilio marcelhis Cramer
[1777]. The reference to Ray, 1710, Historia Insectorum : 111 (no. 2), depends
on a reference by the latter author to a rather fantastic figure in INIoufet, 1634,
Insectorum sive Minimorum Animalium Theatrutn : 98 which Rothschild and
Jordan identified as the American species P. glauctis Linnaeus, 1758. The
coloured figure labelled " ajax 26 " in Clerck, 1764, Icones Insectorum rariorum
2 '. t. 33. fig. 3 (a figure which was certainly seen by Linnaeus before publica-
tion) represents yet another American species, P. polyxenes Fabricius, 1775.

In view of this confusion of figures by Linnaeus, Rothschild and Jordan
considered the wisest course was to discard the name ajax altogether ; on the
other hand, Holland (1931, The Butterfly Book, Revised Edition : 321) continued
to employ the name for the species P. marcellus Cramer, to which the name
ajax had been applied since Linnaeus' day. In the interests of stability of

28 Bulletin of Zooloqical Nnmenclalure

zoological nomenclature, it is clearly undesirable to leave the matter as it
stands. Either the name ojax should be employed for the species which
would be so designated under the usual procedure based on the Regies Inter-
iiatiomles or application should be made to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature for a suspension of the Rules in order to invalidate
the name ajax on the grounds that a strict enforcement of the law of priority
would result in greater confusion than uniformity.

In my opinion, there is no doubt that the name Papilio ajax Linnaeus,
1758, should be applied to the oriental species universally known as Papilio
xut/ius Linnaeus, 1767. In previous papers I have attempted the identifica-
tion of the Linnean names of oriental Rhopalocera by taking as the type
specimen of the respective nominal species :

(a) the specimen(s) in the Museum of Queen Ludovica Ulrica in
the case of species where Linnaeus added the letters " M.L.U.," to his
original description. (With a few species marked " M.L.U." in the
descriptions, the specimens were missing from the Queen's collection
but I found them in the Linnean collection.)

{b) the specimen(s) in the Linnean collection when these were
identifiable as Linnean with reasonable certainty and where the original
description contained no reference to " M.L.U."

(c) a figure cited by Linnaeus when the species was not in the Queen's
or the Linnean collection. It appears that in only two instances among
the oriental butterflies {P. helena and P. eryx) did Linnaeus rely entirely
on figures.

It has been found that, if the above principles are followed, there is little
or no trouble regarding the Linnean names of oriental Rhopalocera as these
woidd continue to be employed in the sense used by the older authors. On
the other hand, if preference were given to figures cited by Linnaeus over
specimens in the Queen's museum and the Linnean collection, ambiguity
and uncertainty must follow.

It has been pointed out in a previous paper (Corbet, 1942, loc. cit : 91)
that, although Sir James Edward Smith added to the Linnean collection
after he purchased it, there is no evidence of label-changing and in very few
instances is there more than a single pin-hole in the original label. Every-
thing points to the specimen of P. xuthus referred to above as having been
labelled " ajax " by Linnaeus, and it has every claim to be regarded as the
type specimen of P. ajax and as such I consider it.

Thus, if the International Rules are followed the species long-known as
P. xulhus will in future have to be known as P. ajax Linnaeus and the former
name will sink as a synomym. This would be deplorable, not so much
because a well-known name would disappear, but because of the uncertainty
which has surrounded the name P. ajax in the past.

Bulletin of ZoologicM Nomenclature 29

The name P. ajax Linnaeus has been applied almost consistently although
incorrectly, to P. nmrcellus Cramer and a voluminous literature has grown
up around this name, and I think it will be conceded that its suppression is
m the best mterests of entomology. It is accordingly hoped that the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature will exercise the plenary
power conferred upon them by the International Congress of Zoology and
promulgate an Opinion to the following effect :—

The name Papilio ajax Linnaeus, 1758, is not to be employed for
the species generally known as Papilio xuthus Linnaeus, 1767, although
it has priority over this latter name, nor is it to be used for any other
species.

ON THE PROPOSAL THAT THE TRIVIAL NAME "AJAX"
LINNAEUS, 1758 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMINAL
COMBINATION " PAPILIO AJAX ») SHOULD BE SUPPRES-
SED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLO-
GICAL NOMENCLATURE UNDER ITS PLENARY POWERS

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
{Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)192)

The late Dr. A. Steven Corbet, who at the time of his death was undoubtedly
the foremost authority on the Linnean butterflies, has shown that the type
specimen of the nominal species Papilio ajax Linnaeus, 1758, is still preserved
in the Linnean collection in London and that, contrary to the universal belief
of all previous workers (none of whom had studied the Linnean collection)
the name Papilio ajax was not bestowed by Linnaeus upon a Nearctic species
but upon the well-known Palaearctic and Oriental species to which Linnaeus
himself in 1767 gave the name Papilio xuthus, by which it has ever since
been known.

On making the foregoing disconcerting discovery, the late Dr. Corbet
realised at once the appalling nature of the confusion which would ensue if
after having been applied for nearly two hundred years to Nearctic species'
the trivial name ajax Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal com-
bination Papiho ajax) were now to be applied to a very well-known species
belonging to an entirely different zoo-geographical region, a species, moreover
which had been known by the trivial name {xuthus Linnaeus, 1767) currently
applied to It ever since that name had been published nearly two hundred
years ago. It was for this reason that in 1946 Dr. Corbet submitted to the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature a request that it
should use Its plenary powers to prevent the confusion which would be quite
inevitable if the Regies were to be strictly applied in the present case

30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

The question which has now to be considered is therefore how best the
International Commission could use its plenary powers to secure the desired
end. There are two possible courses of action, each of which possesses certain
advantages :

(1) to suppress the trivial name ajax Linnaeus, 1758, altogether ;

(2) to secure that the foregoing trivial name shall in future apply not to the
species (Papilio xuthus Linnaeus, 1767) to which, as Dr. Corbet has
shown, it properly belongs under a strict application of the Regies,
but to the Nearctic species to which it is now usually applied.

Course (1) would suffice to secure the principal object in view, namely, to
prevent the confusion which would follow if the trivial name ajax Linnaeus,
1758, were to replace the trivial name xuthus Linnaeus, 1767, for the well-
known species to which that name has always been applied. If this course
were to be adopted, the Nearctic species to which the name ajax Linnaeus,
1758, is currently applied would need to be found a new name.

Course (2), like Course (1), would prevent the confusion which would
result from the transfer of the trivial name ajax Linnaeus to the species now
known as Papilio xuthus. In addition, Course (2) would preserve the trivial
name ajax Linnaeus for the Nearctic species, to which it is commonly applied.
Course (2) corresponds exactly to the action taken by the Commission in
regard to the trivial name iris Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal
combination Papilio iris) ; in that case also, Dr. Corbet had brought forward
evidence to show that a trivial name (iris) invariablyappliedtoa very well-known
European species (" The Purple Emperor ") properly applied to an allied,
and also very well-known European species (Papilio ilia [Schiffermijller
and Denis], 1775). In that case, the Commission, in order to prevent the
confusion which such a transfer of the trivial name iris would inevitably
entail, used their plenary powers to direct that this trivial name was in future
to apply to the common European " Purple Emperor," and selected a well-
known and easily accessible figure of that butterfly to be the figure by which
the nominal species Papilio iris Linnaeus, 1758 (= Apatura iris (Linnaeus,
1758) ) was in future to be identified (see 1950, B%ill. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 540-
542). Under Course (2) similar action could be taken to preserve the
trivial name ajax Linnaeus, 1758, for the North American Swallowtail
commonly known by that name.

The question whether or not it is desirable that the trivial name ajax
Linnaeus, 1758, should be preserved in the manner described above for the
species to which that name is commonly used, is a matter of special interest
to American lepidopterists, and is accordingly a question on which it would
be valuable to the Commission to have the advice of such specialists. It is
therefore particularly requested that any lepidopterist who is interested in
this subject, should notify his views to the Commission as soon as possible.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomendalure 31

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGN-
ATE " MYTILUS EDULIS " LINNAEUS, 1758, AS THE TYPE
SPECIES OF THE GENUS "MYTILUS" LINNAEUS, 1758
(CLASS PELECYPODA, ORDER FILIBRANCHIATA)
(PROPOSED VALIDATION OF AN ENTRY IN THE
"OFFICIAL LIST" MADE IN OPINION 94

By HAROLD E. VOKES

[Department of Geology, The J ohm Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland,
U.S.A.)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)193)

The generic name Mylilus was proposed by Linnaeus, 1758, with 17 species
numbered 205 to 222 inclusive (Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, (ed. 10)
1 : 704-706) ; the species concerned in this request being edulis, No. 215,
cygneus, No. 218, and anatinus. No. 219. No type species was designated nor
indicated in this publication.

Lamarck (1799, "Prodrome d'une nouvelle classification des coquilles " :
(Mem. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris 1799 : 88) cited M. edulis as an example, but this
cannot be construed as fixing the type species.

Schumacher (1817, Essai d'un nouveau systeme de habitations de Vers
Testaces : 107) cites "the figure of a hinge of" Anodonta anatina (Mytilus
anatinus Linnaeus) as type species of the genus Mytilus. This selection transfers
the generic name Mytilus to the fresh-water bivalve Anodonta Lamarck, 1799
(supra cit. L87, monotype A. cygneus [MijtHus cygeus Linnaeus)).

Children [April 1823, Lamarck's Genera of Shells : Quart. J. Sci. 1823 : 33]
selected Mytilus magellanicus Lamarck as type of Mytilus " Lamarck ". This
species was not on the Linnean list and was therefore not available for selection
as the type species of Mylilus Linnaeus.

Anton (1839, Verzeichniss der Conchylien : 17) selected Mytilus edulis
Linnaeus as the type species oi Mytilus, and this is apparently the first selection
of this species, which is today universally considered as the type species usually
mth a reference to Gray's citation of 1847. (Gray, J. E., 1847, " A list of the
genera of recent mnllusca their synonyma and types." Proc. zool. Soc Lond
15.: 198).

So far as I am aware, no subsequent author has followed Schumacher's
selection of Mytilus anatinus as the type species of the genus Mytilus Linnaeus,
and to do so now would result in complete confusion, requiring the substitution
of the name Mytilus for the fresh-water Anodonta, and apparently the proposal
of a new name for the group of species which now bear that name ; so far as
I am aware, no other name has ever been proposed for the species of the edulis
group.

32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Furthermore, both the generic name Mytilus Linnaeus, with type species
M. edulis Linnaeus, and Anodonta Lamarck, with type species A. cygneus
(Linnaeus), have been placed on the Official List of Generic Names, under
Opinion 94. This procedure, however, was clearly the result of inadequate
study, since, in the " Statement of Case " issued with this Opinion, it is said :
" It appears from the reports reaching the Secretary's office that . . . [these]
names are valid under the International Rules and that, therefore, they
do not have to be adopted as ' nomina conservanda ' under ' Suspension of
the Rules '."

From the evidence cited above, the latter statement is clearly inaccurate,
and the position of Mytilus, with type Mytilus edulis, is an equivocal one.
It is, therefore, requested that the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, using the plenary powers granted it by the International
Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco (1913), suspend the Rules
in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, and declare Mytilus
edulis Linnaeus to be the type species of Mytilus Linnaeus under such suspension
of the Rules.

2UPR19SI

Proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress the trivial name
ajax Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combin-
ation Papiho ajax) commonly but incorrectly applied to the
species named Papiho marcellus by Cramer in 1777 (Class
D ^fw^',?^"^^^ Lepidoptera). By the late A. Steven Corbet,
British Museum {Natural History), London

On the proposal that the trivial name ajax Linnaeus, 1758 (as
published m the binominal combination Papilio ajax) should
be suppressed by the International Commission on Zoo-
logical Nomenclature under its plenary powers. By Francis
Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International
(commission on Zoological Nomenclature

Contents :

(continued from front zorapper)

Principles adopted in the selection of applications for immediate Pace
pubhcation in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature:
Decisions taken by the International Commission on Zoo-
logical Nomenclature . . . . . . 2

Personnel of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature :

Death of Commissioner Paul Rode 4

Retirement of Commissioner Karl Jordan 4

Election of Commissioners . . . . 5

REPORT on the question whether, in order to avoid confusion
in nomenclature, it is desirable that the plenary powers
should be used by the International Commission on Zoo-
logical Nomenclature to vary the type species of the genus
Pleiirocera Rafinesque, 1818 (Class Gastropoda, Order
Mesogastropoda). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature . . . . . . g

Proposed vahdation of Aphidius Nees, 1818 (Class Insecta,
Order Hymenoptera) under the plenary powers. By W. D.
Hincks, Department of Zoology, University Museum, Man-
chester, England 28

On the proposed validation of Aphidius Nees, 1818 (Class Insecta,
Order Hymenoptera) under the plenary powers. By E. O
^^^}S'.P^^"^on of Entomology and Parasitology, University
oj California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A 20

On the question of the availability of the generic name Leptop-
sylla Rothschild & Jordan, 1911 (Class Insecta, Order
Siphonaptera). By Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (Honorary
Lxje President, International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature), British Museum {Natural History), Zoological
Museum, Tring, England ....

On the relative merits of the generic names Ctenopsyllus Kolenati,
1863, and Leptopsylla Rothschild & Jordan, 1911, as the
generic name of the House-Mouse Flea (Class Insecta,
Order Siphonaptera). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G ,
(<..ii.h.. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoo-
logical Nomenclature

21

22

26

29

(continued from overleaf)

Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate Mytilus edulis Page
Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of the genus Mytilus
Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pelecypoda, Order Filibranchiata)
(proposed validation of an entry in the " Official List " made
in Opinion 94). By Harold E. Yokes Department of Geology,
The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A. 31

NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS

The concluding Part (comprising Title Page and indexes) of Volume 1 is now
in the press and will be published shortly.

INQUIRIES

All inquiries regarding publications should be addressed to the International
Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, and all inquiries regarding the scientific work of
the Commission to the Secretary to the Commission at the following addresses : —

International Trust for. Zoological Nomenclature : 41, Queen's Gate,
London, S.W.7, England.

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : Secretariat of the
Commission, 28 Park Village East, Regent's Park, London, N.W.I, England.

Printed in Great Britain by Mbtchim and Son, Ltd., Westminster, London

VOLUME 2. Part 2 20th April, 1951

pp. 33-64.

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE /C«

Edited by

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

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

Contents :

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Page

Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published
m the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 33

Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain
cases

(continued on back wrapper)

LONDON :

Printed by Order of tlie 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.

1951

Price Ten shillings

(All rights reserved)

34

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

A. The Ofl&cers of the Commission

Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom)

President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.)
Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afrani9 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. Yokes (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. StoU (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 (Denmark) (27th July 1948)

Professor Teiso Esaki (Japan) (17th April 1950)

Professor Peirre 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) (6th July 1950)

Professor Erich Martin Hering (Germany) (5th July 1950)

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 and 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

\im'

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 2, Part 2. (pp. 33 - 64)

20tli April, 1951

NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS

OF ZOOLOGY

The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the
recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56, 57-59), by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Noniencl. 5 : 5-13,
131).

(a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoo-
logical Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the
" Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature "

Notice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will
start to vote upon applications pubhshed in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of publica-
tion in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who may
desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present
Part (Vol. 2, Part 2) of the Bulletin, is accordingly invited to do so in writing
to the Secretary to the Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in
sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secretariat
of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above.

34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology {continued)

(b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases

Notice is hereby given that the possible use by the International Coni-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers is involved in
applications published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature (Volume 2, Part 2) in relation to the following names :—

(1) Scaphander Montfort, 1810 (Class Gastropoda, Order Tectibranchiata
(Z.N.(S.)378).

(2) Monoculus Linnaeus, 1758 (Z.N.(S.)377).

(3) Rantus Dejean, 1833 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) (Z.N.(S.)171).

(4) Acantholyda Costa, 1894 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) and
Acanthocnema Becker, 1894 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera)
(Z.N. (S.) 175).

(5) Rhina Latreille, [1802-1803], and Magdalis Germar, 1817 (Class
Insecta, Order Coleoptera) (Z.N.(S.)202).

(6) Cardinia Agassiz, [1841] (Class LameUibranchiata) (Z.N.(S.)208).

2. In accordance with the procedure agreed upon at the Session held by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 56), corresponding Notices have been sent
to the journals " Nature " and " Science."

FRANCIS HEMMING,

Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Notnenclature.

Secretariat of the
International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature,

28, Park Village East, Regent's Park,

London, N.W.I, England.

lOth April, 1951.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomencktturc 35

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALID-
ATE THE GENERIC NAME " SCAPHANDER " MONTFORT,
1810 (CLASS GASTROPODA, ORDER TECTIBRANCHIATA)

By HENNING LEMCHE

{Universitetets Zoologiske Mtiseum, Copenhagen, Deninark)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)378)

The object of the present application is to seek the assistance of the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in providing a valid basis
for the well-known generic name Scaphander Montfort, 1810 (Class Gastropoda,
Order Tectibranchiata). The facts relating to this case are set out in the follow-
ing paragraphs.

Gioeni (G.) in 1783 (Descr. miov.fam. . . . di Testacei trovati net littomle di
Catania : 25) described an " animal ", which proved to be the stomach of
Bulla lignaria Linnaeus, 1758, {Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 727). The specimen
described was given the name " Gioeni " ; this, being uninominal, possesses
no status in zoological nomenclature. A year later, however, Philipsson (not
Retzius, as incorrectly stated by some authors) cited the record of " Gioeni "
under the binominal name Tricla gioeni (1788, Diss. Hist. nat. sist. nova Test.
Gen. : 8). Further, Bruguiere in 1789 (Ency. meth. Hist. nat. Vers 1 : XII)
referred to the reference to Gioeni's " Gioeni ", which he cited under the generic
name Gioenia ; the sole species referred to by him — and therefore the type
species by monotypy — he later cited under the name Gioenia sicula (1792,
ibid. 2 : 502).

These " stomach-names " were not accepted by zoologists who have univer-
sally applied to the species in question the first generic name to be applied to
the shell proper. This name is Scaphander Montfort, 1810 {Conch, syst. Class,
meth. Coquilles 2 : 335) ; the type species of this genus is Bulla lignaria
Linnaeus, 1758, by monotypy. Further information is to be found in a paper
by the present writer (Lemche, 1948, Danske Vid. Selsk. biol. (5)3 : 86-88), in
which are enumerated all available records of this species from the North
Atlantic ; in the same paper is given a list of all known synonyms of this species.

Winckworth (1932, J. Conch. 19 : 232 ; id., 1933, ibid. 19 : 334) is the only
author who has argued in favour of reverting to the name Tricla Philipsson,
1788, in preference to the later but universally accepted name Scaphander
Montfort, 1810. Winckworth's action in re-instating the name Tricla has, so
far as can be ascertained, been followed in only three subsequent papers, namely :
(1) Fisher, 1935, J. Conch. 20 : 120 ; (2) Moore, 1937, Proc. Liverpool biol.
Soc. 50 : 186 ; (3) Brouwer, 1945, Basteria 9 : 64.

The large animals with which we are here concerned are extremely well
known to zoologists, and the name Scaphander is known widely outside the
narrow circle of specialists engaged in the study of the tectibranchs. The

36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalure

abantloniuent of the name Scaphaiider which has been universally used for
these animals for about 150 years (except in the few papers referred to above)
would lead to quite unnecessary confusion and would be quite unwarranted.
It is for this reason that I now ask the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature : —

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the undermentioned names for
the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of
Homonymy : —

(a) the generic name Tricla Philipsson, 1788 ;

(h) the generic name Gioenia Bruguiere, 1789 ;

(c) the specific trivial name gioeni Philipsson, 1788 (as published in
the binominal combination Tricla gioeni) ;

(d) the specific trivial name sicula Bruguiere, 1792 (as published in
the binominal combination Gioenia sicula) ;

(2) to place the generic name Scaphander Montfort, 1810 (type species,
by monotypy : Bulla lignaria Linnaeus, 1758) on the Official List
of Generic Names in Zoology ;

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

(4) to place the generic names specified in (l)(a) and (b) above, as proposed
to be suppressed under the plenary powers, on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ;

(5) to place the trivial names specified in (l)(c) and (d) above, as proposed
to be suppressed under the plenary powers, on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

37

PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY

POWERS OF THE GENERIC NAME " MONOCULUS "

LINNAEUS, 1758

By H. MUNRO FOX, F.R.S.
{Bedford College, London University)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)377)

The Linnean genus Monoculus (1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 634) has now
vanished from zoological literature. Each of its nine species has been jDut into a
different newer genus. The genera are the following (using the enumeration
in the Sy sterna Naturae) : —

Name of species

1. Monoculus Polyphemus

2. M.foliaceus

3. M. Apus . .

4. M. Pulex . .

5. M. Pediculus

6. M. quadricornis

7. M. concJiaceus

8. M. lenticularis

9. M. Telemus

Genus in which species now placed

Limulus Miiller, 1785
Argulus Miiller, 1785
Lepidurus Leach, 1819
Daphnia Miiller, 1785
Polyphemus Miiller, 1776
Cyclops Miiller, 1776
Cypris Miiller, 1776
Limnadia Brongniard, 1820
Cavolina Abildgaard, 1791.

For the first seven species of Monoculus, Linnaeus gave references to
publications, usually quoting figures, and from these figures and the description
in the text we are certain to what animals the names apply. But species Nos. 8
and 9 cannot immediately be recognised from their descriptions and for each
of them Linnaeus gave only a reference to one person. These were, for species
No. 8, Uddman, a pupil of his, studying in Finland, and, for species No. 9,
E. Brander, the Swedish consul at Algiers ; presumably they had sent him the
specimens.

Species No. 8, Monoculus lenticularis, is difiicult to recognise from its short
description in 1758 in the Systema Naturae, but this description was improved
in 1761 by the addition of the word " pellucida " in the Second Edition of the
Fauna Svecica{: 499). Hermann (1804) thought that his Dajj^nm^fil^as might be
Monoculus lenticularis. Brongniard (1820) named the same animal Limnadia
hermanni. Lilljeborg (1871) was sure that these animals, since they occur in
Sweden, were Monoculus lenticularis, because there is no other flat antl pellucid
species of this kind in that country. Sahlberg (1875) pointed out that, as it is
also found in Finland, it must be the Linnean species. It is now called Umnadia
lenticularis (Linnaeus).

38 BuUetin of Zoological Nomenclatnre

Species No. 9, Monoculus Telemus, is a pteropod mollusc belonging to
the genus Cavolina Abildgaard, 1791. Telemus was a soothsayer in Homer's
" Odyssey ". The species is today called Cavolina tridentata (Forskal). Davila
(1767, vol. 1, plate 20 figs. D and E) figured the shell. Forskal (1775, Descr.
Anim. : 124) described it as Anomia tridentata. Abildgaard (1791) named it
Cavolina natans, because Cavolini of Naples had told him how this animal
swims ; he referred to Davila. Hermann (1804) recognised that the species
described by Davila, Forskal and Abildgaard corresponds to Monoculus Telemus
Linnaeus. I have been able to confirm this from a handwritten entry by
Linnaeus in his copy of the 12th Edition of the Systema Naturae (1767), now in
the library of the Linnean Society of London, which refers to the plate and
figures of Davila. Philippi (1853) renamed the genus Cavolinia, but there is
no justification for this. No advantage of any kind would be served by the
re-introduction of the trivial name telemus Linnaeus, 1758, for this species, in
place of the well-known trivial name tridentata Forskal, 1775, by which it has
been known continuously for nearly 150 years. I accordingly ask the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers
to suppress the trivial name telemus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the
binominal combination Monoculus telemus) and, having done so, (i) to place
that trivial name on the Official Index of Rejected, and Invalid Specific Trivial
Names in Zoology, and (ii) to place the trivial name tridentata Forskal, 1775
(as published in the binominal combination Anomia tridentata) on the Official
List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology.

While the nine species of Monoculus are now placed in nine other genera,
the Linnean genus itself is still nomenclatorially available and every one of the
generic names at present used for the nine species is liable to be superceded if
one or other of those species were to be selected as the type species of Monocidus
Linnaeus. This is highly undesirable, since the generic names in question have
come to be very well known to zoologists. One of these names, Limulus Miiller,
has indeed already been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
I accordingly apply herewith to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature to suppress the name Monoculus Linnaeus, 1758, under its
plenary powers, on the grounds that reintroduction of this name would clearly
lead to greater confusion than uniformity, and, having done so, to place this
name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

References

Abildgaard, P. E., 1791. " Nyere Efterretning om det Skaldyr fra Middel-
havet, som Forskal har beskrevet under Navn af Anomia tridentata.'"
Skr. naturhist. Selsk.. Copenhagen 1 : 171.

Brongniard, A., 1820. " Memoire sur la Limnadia." Mem. Mus. Hist. nat.
Paris 6 : 83.

Davi]a (1767). Catalogue systematique et raisonne des curiosites de la Nature
et de I'art qui composent le cabinet de M. Davila, Paris.

Forskal, P. (1775). Descriptiones Aninmlium., Copenhagen.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalure 39

Hermann, J. F., (1804). Memoire apterologique, Strassburg.

Leach, W. E. (1819). " Entomostraces " in Dictionnaire des Sciences naturelles
14.

Lilljeborg, W. (1871). " Limmidia gigas (J. F. Hermann) forekommande i
Sverige." Ofvers. Vetensk. Akad. Stockh. 28 : 823.

Muller, 0. F. (1776). Zoologiae danicae Prodromus, Copenhagen.

Miiller, 0. F. (1785). Entomostraca, seu Insecta Testacea., Leipzig and Copen-
hagen.

PhiHppi, R. A. (1853). Hatidbuch der Conchyliologie und Malacozoologie, Halle.

Sahlberg, J. R. (1875). " Om Finlands hilttiUs kanda phyllopodet och ater-
finnandet af Linnes Monoculus lenticularis." Faun. Flar. Fenn. Notiser,
Helsingfors.

40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSAL THAT THE GENERIC NAME " RANTUS "
DEJEAN, 1833 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA)
SHOULD BE EMENDED TO " RHANTUS " UNDER ARTICLE
19 AND THAT THE TYPE SPECIES OF THIS GENUS
SHOULD BE DETERMINED UNDER THE PROCEDURE
LAID DOWN FOR DEALING WITH GENERA BASED UPON
MISIDENTIFIED TYPE SPECIES

By J. BALFOUR-BROWNE, M.A.

(Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History),

London)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)171)

I originally submitted the present proposal to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature for the purpose of securing authority for the
retention of the spelling Rhantus for the well-known coleopterous genus con-
cerned, notwithstanding the fact that as originally published by Dejean in
1833, this name was spelt " Rantus." At the time when I submitted this
appUcation (April 1940), it was impossible for the Commission to take decisions
on new cases, and I reahsed that considerable delay would be inevitable.
Later, a second element entered into this case, when it was realised that iinder
a strict interpretation of the expression " indication ", as given in the Com-
mission's Opinion 1, it would be necessary to review the literature for the
purpose of determining the place where this generic name was first published.
This particular difficulty disappeared in 1948 as the result of the decision of
the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, to liberalise the provisions
of Proviso (a) to Article 25, and to cancel the relevant portion of the Opinion
referred to above (1950, BuU. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 78-80). Finally, it was
found that, when the generic name Rantus was published at what is now
seen to be the first occasion on which this name appeared in the literature, in
conditions which satisfy the provisions of Article 25, the genus so named was
based upon a misidentified type species. In order that this matter also may
be placed on a satisfactory footing, it is necessary to ask the Commission to
give a rufing regarding the type species of this genus under the clarified and
amended rules for dealing with genera based upon misidentified type species,
laid down by the International Congress of Zoology in 1948 (see 1950, Bull,
zool. Nomencl. 4 : 158-159).

In the circumstances I have redrafted my application, in order both to
take account of the decisions taken by the Paris Congress and to include
within its scope, each of the three problems involved. I deal with these
separately in turn, in the following paragraphs.

(1) Author and date of publication of the name " Rantus "

The generic name Rantus first appeared in print in 1833 in Dej can's Cat.
Coleopt (ed. 2) : 54. It was there attributed to Eschscholtz, by whom pre-
sumably it had been originally suggested in manuscript. Dejean cited four

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

41

species as belonging to this genus and for three of them citied what he regarded
as synonyms In all he cited under this generic name eight trivial names
previously validly published for nominal species. He did not give any verbal
^agnosis for this genus, nor did he designate or indicate a type species.
Nevertheless, under the liberalisation of the definition of the expression
indication adopted by the Paris Congress, the name Rantus Deiean, 1833
satisfies the requirements of Proviso (a) to Article 25 of the Regies and accord-
ingly possesses rights under the Law of Priority. It is not a homonym of
any previously published generic name consisting of the same word, and it is
therefore an available name. Further, it is the oldest available generic name
tor the group of species associated with the species, hitherto recognised as
the type species of the genus concerned.

(2) Type species of the genus " Rantus " Dejean, 1833

The first author to select a type species for the genus Rantus Deiean was
Hope, who in 1839 (Col. Mon, 2 : 131) selected what he called " WcL

^TTL T\ .^^ ^¥ ^^P' '^''''' ^^ ^^'^ g^^"«' ^lii^li however, he
attributed to Eschscholtz, by whom (as shown above), this name was originaUv
proposed in manuscript. Knoch never published the name Dytiscus pul-
verosus hut there is no doubt that the species to which Hope was referring
when he made the foregoing tyn?e selection was the species which in 1825
Stephens had named Colymbetes pulverosus (Stephens, 1825, Cat ■ 49 no 489)'
tor when dealing with the same species in 1828 (///. Brit. Ent. Hand 2 • 69)
Knir^ , *^' f«"«^"^^g synonymy for this species: - Dy. pulverosus

,W nSo^"; ''tf ^*'P^- ^^**^-' P- ^9' ^^- ^89." This species, as I have
shown (1939, ^n«. Mag. nat. Hist. (11)3: 109. is the same as that to which
MacLeay in 1825 (Annul, javan. (ed. 1) : 135) gave the name Colymbetes
sut^rahs. On the basis of the foregoing identification, the oldest available
trivial name for the species selected as the type species of Rantus by Hope
m 1838 IS suturahs MacLeay, 1825. ^

The generic name Rantus is universally interpreted in the sense indicated
by Hopes type selection, but, before we can accept that as a valid tvpe
SwTk T?f ^"""^'^7 l^^^ ^^ slio^ld satisfy ourselves that the species

hlf fiy 7l^.T^l ^'' ^"'^ "^ ^'^'"^^'^ ^"gi^^">^ i^^l^ded species. It
is at this point that difficulties begin to arise. The trivial names cited by
-Uejean under the generic name Rantus are as follows :—

1. notatus Fabr.

Synonyms : conspersus Gyll.
pulverosus Knoch

2. agilis Fabr.

Synonym : suturalis Harr. [recte suturellus Harr.]

3. adspersus Fabr.

Synonym : collaris Gyll.

4. suturalis Dejean (a new name)

Synonym : notatus Gyll.

42 Bulletin of Zooloc/ical Nomenclature

It will be seen from the foregoing list that Dejean did include in his genus
Rantus, a species having the trivial name pvlverosus, attributed by him to
Knoch (doubtless for the same reasons as those explained above in connection
with Hope's 1839 type selection) and doubtless denoting the species named
Colymbetes pulverosus by Stephens in 1825. This nominal species (as already
explained) and also that referred to by Dejean as " conspersus Gyll." { = Dytiscus
conspersus Gyllenhall, 1808, Ins. suec. 1 : 482 {nee. Marshani, 1802)), are
currently regarded as identical with the species represented by Colymbetes
siitumlis MacLeay, 1825 ; but, contrary to the view expressed in Dejean's
Catalogue, the species so named is considered to be quite distinct from the
species cited by Dejean as Rantus noiatiis Fabr. Dejean was doubtless
referring to Dytiscus notatus as published by Fabricius in 1781 {Spec. Ins. 1 :
296), where, however, Fabricius did not publish this as a new name, the name
in question having already been published by Bergstrasser in 1778 {Nomencl.
Ins. Hanau 1 : 31).

It is, however, not now accepted by specialists that the species referred
to Dytiscus by Gyllenhal, 1808, under the trivial name notatus, is the same
species as Dytiscus notatus Bergstrasser, 1778 ; on the other hand, it is accepted
that the species so referred to by Gyllenhall is the same species as that referred
to by Fabricius in 1781, as Dytiscus notatus. It is now considered by specialists
that Fabricius inisidentified the Dytiscus notatus of Bergstrasser (which is
now considered to be the same species as Dytiscus nebulosus Forster, 1771,
Nov. Spec. Ins. 1 : 56) and that Gyllenhal followed Fabricius in this mis-
identification. Accordingly, the species possessing the misapplied name
Dytiscus notatus Fabricius, 1781 {nee Dytiscus notatus Bergstrasser, 1778),
is now referred to as Rantus frontalis (Marsham, 1802) { = Dytiscus frontalis
Marsham, 1802), the name frontalis Marsham being the earliest available
name for the species {vide Balfour-Browne (J.), 1944, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist.
(11)11 : 354). Since Dejean listed as distinct species (1) notatus Gyllenhal
(a preoccupied name which he proposed to replace by the name suturalis
Dejean (not suturalis MacLeay, 1825) and (2) notatus Fabricius (with synonyms
conspersus Gyllenhall and pulverosus Knoch), it is perfectly clear that he
misconceived the Fabrician species and that the species which he identified
as notatus Fabricius is not that species but suturalis MacLeay, 1825 {=pul-
verosus (Knoch MS.) Stephens, 1828).

Two conclusions emerge from the data summarised above : (a) that the
S])ecies Colymbetes pulverosus (Knoch MS.) Stephens, 1825, selected as the
type species of Rantus (Eschscholtz MS.) Dejean by Hope in 1839, is a species
which, under the decision taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of
Zoology in Paris in 1948 (1950. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 177-180), is to be
treated as having been originally included in the genus, and therefore that
Hope's selection of this species as the tjq^e species of the genus Rantus, being
the first such selection to be made, is valid under the Regies ; {b) that Dejean,
in identifying the above species with Dytiscus notatus Fabricius. 1781, com-
mitted an error of identification and therefore that, as the above species was
later validly selected to be the type species of this genus (by Hope in 1839),

Bulletin of Zoological Nontenclalure 43

the genus Rantus Dejean, 1833, is a genus based upon a misidentified type
species.

The position of a genus established on a misidentified type species (which
already had been the subject of Opinions 65 and 169) was reviewed by the
Commission and the Congress in 1948, when it was agreed that, where the
Commission was satisfied that such an error had been committed by the original
author of a genus, it should use its plenary powers to designate as the type
species of the genus concerned, the species intended by the original author
of the genus (or, if the identity of that species was doubtful, some other species
in harmony with current nomenclatorial usage) but that, where the Com-
mission was of the opinion that greater confusion than uniformity would result
from using the plenary powers in this way, it should direct that the designation
or indication, or, as the case might be, selection as the type species of the genus
concerned, of the species cited by the original author of the genus be accepted
(1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 158-159). When we consider the present case
in the light of the foregoing decision, it is immediately apparent that greater
confusion than uniformity w^ould result if the Commission were to use its
plenary powers to designate as the type species of the genus Rantus Dejean
the nominal species " Rantus notatus Fabr.," with which Dejean synonymised
the nominal species Cohjmbetess pulverosus Stephens, 1825, for such a type
designation would run entirely counter to the currently accepted treatment
of this genus. It follows therefore that the present case is one which should
be dealt with under the second part of the decision summarised above. I
accordingly ask the Commission to direct that, notwithstanding the error
of identification committed by Dejean at the time (1833) when he published
the generic name Rantus, the nominal species Colymbetes pulverosus Stephens,
1828, included by him in this genus and (in 1839) selected by Hope, as the
type species of this genus, is to be accepted as such.

(3) The question whether the name " Rantus " Dejean, 1833, should be
emended to " Rhantus " under Article 19

The name Rantus was published by Dejean in 1833, without any indication
of the origin of the word so selected. Thirteen years later Agassiz (1846,
Nomencl. zool. Index univ. : 321) pointed out that the correct orthography
of the Greek word pavTos, when transliterated into the Latin alphabet,
was not " rantus '' but " rhantus,'" and he accordingly emended the spelling
of this generic name to Rhantus. This emended spelling has ever since been
generally adopted ; in 1935 however, F. Balfour-Browne restored the original
spelling (Rantus), arguing that no emendation of a generic name should be
accepted " unless made by the original author and within the same volume
of the publication in which the original spelling appeared." The question
of the interpretation of Article 19 of the Regies was, I am aware, carefully
considered by the Commission and the Congress in Paris in 1948, when certain
clarifications were agreed upon and arrangements made for a comprehensive
review of the problems involved in the emendation of names to be carried
out by the Secretary to the Commission, in consultation with interested

44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

specialists, with a view to a thorough-going clarification of Article 19 at the
next (Copenhagen, 1953) meeting of the Congress (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
4 : 141-144). It is quite clear from the decisions taken in Paris that the
grounds on which F. Balfour-Browne (1935) sought to justify the abandon-
ment of the long established spelling Rhantus, in favour of the original spelling
Bantus, are invalid, because not in accordance with the Regies. In view
of the ambiguity of the wording of Article 19 (and, in particular, the absence
of guidance as to how to interpret the governing word, " evident "), it is
possible that for other reasons the emendation of the name Rantus toRJiantus
is not justified under the provisions of this Article. In any case, there can
clearly be no finaUty in this matter until the Commission has given a definite
ruling one way or the other.

When I originally raised this question with the Commission (April, 1940)
I did so because my correspondent Dr. Hugh B. Leach (Vernon, B.C.), had
draAvn my attention to the fact that in the then recently published Fourth
Supplement to the Leng Catalogue of the Coleoptera of North America North
of Mexico, Dr. R. E. Blackwelder (United States National Museum, Wash- ,
ington, D.C.), had used the accustomed spelling " RJiantus," notwithstanding
the paper pubHshed in 1935 referred to above. At the same time. Dr. Leach
sent me an extract from a letter which he had received from Dr. Blackwelder,
which reads as follows : " Ranttis and Dytiscus do come under Article 19,
in my opinion, but each not as a lapsus calami but as an error of transcription.
The reasons given by Balfour-Browne for not accepting the corrections seem
to me to have no basis in the Rules, or in our attempts to get a stable nomen-
clature. And this in spite of the fact that I do not hesitate to back any change
that seems necessary. There is nothing in the Rules that requires that
corrections of original spellings must be made by the original author or within
a set period of time, but the Appendix to the Rules does indicate tha the
proper way to transliterate Rantus from the Greek is Rhantus." It was
because I agreed with Dr. Blackwelder that the emended spelling (Rhantus)
ought to be retained in this case, that I then asked the Commission to give a
ruling in this sense. I am still of the opinion that nothing but unnecessary
confusion and instability would result from the reversion from the spelling
Rhantus to the original but defective spelling Rantus, and I accordingly ask
the Commission to rule that under Article 19 the emended speUing Rhantus
is to be accepted and therefore that this genus should be known as Rhantus
(emend, of Rantus) Dejean, 1833.

Recommendation submitted to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature

In the light of the considerations advanced in the present appUcation, I
ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : —

(1) to give a ruling that the genus Rantus Dejean, 1833, is based upon
a misidentified type species, since Colymbetes pulverosus Stephens,
1828, which was selected as its type species by Hope in 1839. is not,
as erroneously stated by Dejean, the same species as that which
he called Rantus notatus Fabr. (i.e., notatus Bergstrasser, 1778) ;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclaticre 45

that greater confusion than uniformity would result if the species
with which Dejean misidentified Colynibetes pulverosus Stephens,
1828, were now to be designated under the plenary powers as the
type species of the genus Rantus Dejean ; and therefore that the
species Colymbetes pulverosus Stephens, 1828, is to be accepted as
the type species of this genus ;

(2) to declare that under Article 19 the spelling of the generic name
published by Dejean in 1833 is to be emended from Rantus to Rhantus ;

(3) to place the generic name Rhantus (emend, of Rantus) Dejean, 1833
(type species, by selection by Hope, 1839 : Colynibetes 'pulverosus
Stephens, 1828) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ;

(4) to place the trivial name suturalis MacLeay, 1825 (as published in
the binominal combination Colymbetes suturalis) on the Official List
of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology.

46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS
OF THE NAMES " ACANTHOLYDA " COSTA, 1894 (CLASS
INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) AND " ACANTHOC-
NEMA " BECKER, 1894 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA)

By R. B. BENSON, M.A.
{Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History) )

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)175)

In 1859 A. Costa in 0. Costa, Fauna Regno Napoli, Imen. 3, Lididei : 2,
described a genus Acanthocnema without any included species. In 1894 in
Prosp. Im. Ital. : 232, he emended the name to AcantJiolyda. There is no
possible doubt that AcantJiolyda was meant to replace Acanthocnema because
there is only one group in the family lydidae (now known as pamphiliidae)
in which the key character used, the presence of a pre-apical fore-tibial spine,
is present. The name Acantholyda Costa, 1894, has been in general use in
the Order Hymenoptera now for about 30 years, and the group to which it is
attached contains a number of forestry pests in the Old and New Worlds and
occurs frequently in economic literature.

The name Acanthocnema Costa, 1859, on the other hand, has been entirely
overlooked in the Order Hymenoptera and has never been used since its
inception. Furthermore, Becker, 1894, Berlin, ent. Z. 39 : 136, gave the
name Acanthocnema to a valid genus of cordylueidae (Order Diptera) and
the name is at present in use in that Order.

The strict application of the Regies in this case would clearly result in
greater confusion than uniformity, since it would involve the transfer of the
well-known name Acanthocnema from the Order Diptera to the Order Hymen-
optera. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature are
accordingly asked to use their plenary powers to suppress the name Acan-
thocnema Costa, 1859, and to validate the names Acantholyda Costa, 1894
(Order Hymenoptera) and Acanthocnema Becker, 1894 (Order Diptera). At
the same time the International Commission are asked to place the above
names, so validated, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The
gender of the name Acantholyda Costa is feminine, as also is that of Acan-
thocnema Becker. The type species of the first of these genera is Tenthredo
erythrocephala Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 558, that species having
been so selected by Rohwer in " The Genotypes of the Sawflies and Wood-
wasps, or the Super-Family Tenthredinoidea," published in 1911 (Tech. Ser.
U.S. Bur. Ent. 20 : 73). The type species of Acanthocnema Becker, 1894, is
Cordylura nigrimana Zetterstedt, 1846, Dipt. Scand. 5 : 2040, by original
designation. The foregoing names are regarded as being the oldest available
names for the species concerned and it is accordingly proposed that the trivial
name erythrocephala Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination
Tenthredo erythrocephala) and the trivial name nigrimana Zetterstedt, 1846
(as published in the binominal combination Cordylura nigrimana) should
be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. Finally,
on the suppression of the name Acanthocnema Costa, 1859, that name should
be placed on the Official Indea: of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

Bulletin of Znnlogirnl Nomenclature 47

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALI-
DATE THE GENERIC NAMES "RHINA" LATREILLE, [1802-
1803], AND "MAGDALIS" GERMAR, 1817, FOR USE
RESPECTIVELY IN THE ACCUSTOMED SENSE (CLASS
INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA)

By J. CHESTER BRADLEY
[Department of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)202)

In " An XI " of the French Revolutionary calendar (September 1802-
September 1803), Latreille pubHshed the generic name Rhina. (Hist Nat
Gen. part. Crust. Ins. 3 : 198), (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). Latreille
cited two species under this generic name, the second with a query. The
species so cited were : " Curculio barbicornis F." and " Curculio cerasi ? F."

Since Latreille did not at that time designate or indicate a type species
and his second species is excluded as a possible type species under Rule (e),
(y) in Article 30 of the Code, the type species of this genus is barbicornis
Fabricius, by monotypy. But the name " barbicornis F." applied by Latreille
to that species, was a lapsus calami for " barbirostris F.", as is proven bv the
following considerations.

Fabricius in 1775 (Syst. Ent. : 134) described one species under the name
Curcuho harbicorms and on the following page ( : 135) a second species under
the name Curculio barbirostris. Of C. barbicornis he savs amongst other things •
" Rostrum corpore longius . . . Antennae . . . filiformes, hirtae, articulis
undecim cylindricis versus apicem rostri insertae . . .". But Latreille, when
publishing the generic name Rhina, wrote of the species which he then mis-
takenly called " barbicornis F." : " Trompe de la longueur de la moitie du
corps . . . le huitieme article des antennes formant la massue ". Under the
generic description Latreille wrote : " Antennes inserees vers le miheu des
cotes de la trompe ".

barbicornis F. barbicornis Latreille

Rostrum as long as body one half as long as body

Antennae filiform with a club

: of eleven segments of eight segments

: inserted towards the apex inserted towards the middle

of the beak of the beak

The nommal species Curculio barbirostris Fabricius is ordinarily identified
with a very large common Neotropical weevil with which the description given
by Fabricius agrees in all respects, including such conspicuously characteristic
matters as the bearded beak (but this is sexual) and the tridentate anterior
femora. The characters given by Latreille for " barbicornis F.", although not
m all respects those mentioned by Fabricius for C. barbirostris, agree perfectly

48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomendahire

with the insect itself, including the statement made in the generic description
in regard to the antennae : " le huitieme ou neuvieme article paroissant former
a lui seul une massue tres-allonge, ellipsoide ".

The nominal species CurcuHo barbicornis Fabricius, 1775, is ordinarily
identified with a large and common New Zealand species of brentidae now
placed in the genus Lasiorhynckus Dejean.

It seems clearly apparent that Latreille, confused by the two similar
Fabrician names appearing on facing pages of the same work, simply wrote
" barbicornis F." when he meant " barbirostris F."

In volume 2 of his Histoire naturelle des Crustaces et des Insectes (1804 : 101)
Latreille ^vrote further of his genus Rhina. In volume 3 he had been giving a
synopsis of the genera with brief mention of species. In volume 11 he treated
each genus more fully. He now dwelt upon the essential characters of the
genus Rhina and there again included two species, which I believe he meant
to be the same two ; but he rectified his error in regard to the name of the
first, which he now called Rhina barbirostris, citing as a synonym Lixus bar-
birostris F. (but making no mention of the fact that he himself had pre\T[ously
called it barbicornis). In the meanwhile he had evidently reaUsed that his
second species was not cerasi F. and rechristened it Rhina barbicornis. (Authors
currently list both barbicornis Latreille and cerasi F. in the same genus but as
distinct species.) But the species which Latreille now called Rhim barbicornis
was a totally different barbicornis from Curculio barbicornis Fabricius ; in
the hght of current knowledge it is a well-known European species of the
genus Magdalis Germar. 1817, which is now also adventive in North America,
and a species of some economic importance.

Latreille in 1810 {Consid. gen. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 431) cited " Lixus bar-
birostris F." as the type species of Rhina, without mentioning other species.

Current usage (e.g., Csiki, Coleopt. Catalogus 149 : 87, published in 1936)
employs the name Rhina as though C. barbirostris F. were the type species,
although there has been some attempt to make it replace the Magdalis, the
type genus of the sub-family magdalinae, which it could only do if the second
species (first called by Latreille " cerasi ? F." and later named by that author
barbicornis as a new species) were the type species.

The method to be pursued in determining the type species of a nominal
genus, which, as in the present case, was based upon a misidentified type
species, has twice in the past been the subject of rulings by the Commission
(in Opinions 65 and 168 respectively) and in 1948 was further clarified by
the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, which agreed to the insertion
in the Regies of an express provision on this subject. This new provision
makes it clear that an author who publishes a name for a genus is "to be
assumed to have identified correctly the nominal species referred by him to
the genus so named and therefore that, where . . . the original author himself
designates or indicates or the same or some other author later selects one of

BnUetirt of Zoological N omendahm

49

the originally included nominal species to he the type species of the aen...
the designation indication or, as the case may be/^he sLctL so Lde 3
not to be rejected on the ground that the original author misidentifiTd some
other nominal species with that nominal species, but that, where there a^e
grounds for considering that such a species had been misidentmed by the
original author of the genus, the case is^o be submitted trthe nternadona
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, which, if satisfied tha tTe specl
n question had been so misidentified, is, under it« plenary powers to desTgnate
as the tjT)e species of the genus concerned, either (a) tli species ^tended bv
the original author when citing the name of the erroLLly dXlne^^^^^
or (b) If the Identity of that species is doubtful, a species in harmony S
current usage" see 1950, BnU. zool. Nomencl 4: 158-159), exceTincaes
where the Commission considers that greater confusion than uXmity\^uld
result from so doing In the present case I have shown bothThatTif speci s

ZslTeiZ of ;f ' " 'f '^'^ ^P^^^" '^'^ ' ^P--« -hich, as the S
(as 1 believeO of a lapsus calami, was a misidentified species and also that the
pecies which LatreiUe intended to include in the genSs Rhina^Zl he i ted
775 TL ^;^^7«- /•" was the species Curculio barbirostr^YlS^
llll'Jj 7't"t^I '^°r '^^* *^^ g«^^« ^^^'^ Latreille is interpreted as
species and that great confusion would result if, under a strict interpretation

Comn, ssio^to'T^^^^^^^^ ''".r"^" \ ^^^^^^^"^'>' ^^^ ^^^ Internationai

^ommishion to apply to tbs case the procedure agreed upon in Paris bv nsina

the,r plenary powers to designate Curaulio hJbirostrl Fabn>r 1775 a?
the type species of the genus Rhim Latreille [1802-1803].

Prior to the Paris Congress of 1948, the availability of the name Rhina
Wfe^carm. Latreille, 1804 (which, as I have explained, applies to aTl-Wn

WbVen heldTat T'^'''^ "^^^' ""T '^^'^ -atter'o'f doubt f:r it r^ht
ow nV to tt T"^^ ^^' ^^^"^^^ '^^ ^^^«"^t °f secondary homonyi^y

bnnn • 1 ^"''' ^^^^^^^^ent) use by Latreille in 1802-1803 of the S

50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Although, as explained, the generic name Rhina Latreille [1802-1803],
is in general use, it has in the past been suggested that it was invalid, on the
ground that it was a junior homonym of Rhina Schieffer, 1760, and of Rhina
Wahlbaimi, 1792 (in a reprint of Klein, 1744), both of which are names which
have been appUed to genera of fish. It was for this reason that Rafinesque
in 1815 {Analyse : 165) replaced the name Rhina Latreille by the substitute
name Rinostomus. Rafinesque was, however, mistaken in rejecting the name
Rhina Latreille, which is not a homonym of any available name of older date
and is perfectly valid. Of the two names, by which it was alleged that Latreille's
name Rhina was preoccupied, the first, Rhina Schseffer, 1760, was examined
by the late President David Starr Jordan (1917, Genera of Fishes) and rejected
as having been published by a non-binominal author, while the second, Rhina
Wahlbaum, 1792, is unavailable nomenclatorially under the decision in the
Commission's Opinion 21 that Wahlbaum's reissue of Klein's pre-1758 work
does not confer availability on the names published therein.

In view of the decision taken by the Commission in 1948 that in future
Opinions should deal fully with all aspects of the problem under consideration
(1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 355), coupled with the instruction given to the
Commission by the Congress to foster the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 267-269), I recommend that, at the
same time that the generic name Rhina Latreille is placed on the Official List,
there should be added thereto also the name Magdalis Germar, 1817, owing
to the connection of that generic name with the present case through the name
Rhina barbicornis Latreille, 1804, the name of a species currently referred
to Germar's genus. (It may be noted that, prior to the Paris Congress, this
well-known name, Magdalis, would have been considered as having been first
estabhshed by Samouelle in 1819, mth the definitely designated type species
CurcuUo aterrimus Fabricius, 1775, since Germar in 1817 published it without
any definition or description, but with included nominal species, none of which
was designated or indicated as the type species. Under the liberalisation of
the expression " indication " in proviso (a) to Article 25 then agreed to (1950,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 78-80), the name Magdalis Germar, 1817, acquired
availabilitv as of that date.)

Type Species of Magdalis Germar, 1817

The name Magdalis was first used by Germar in 1817 {Mag. Ent. 2 : 140).
No description was given and no indication except that three nominal species
were included : " Rhynch. Pruni, violaceus, aterrimus ". No authors' names
were mentioned and no bibliographical references given. " Rhynch." is an
abbreviation of the Fabrician generic name Rhynchaenus.

The following question arises : Since Germar, 1817, in giving the specific
names Rhynch. aterrimus, etc., to the species that he included in his new genus
Magdalis, failed to cite the authors of those names and gave no bibliographical
clue to what species were meant, (a) did he fail to establish Magdalis or (b)
can the species named be accepted as those, if any, that at the time of his
•writing bore or had borne those complete specific names (i.e., generic and

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51

specific name) ?*

If the answer to (a) were to be " yes ", then Magdalis was not established
by Germar, 1817, nor by Samouelle, 1819, since neither gave the author's
name nor any bibUographical reference to the trivial name or names. In
that case the genus was established by Germar in Neue Annalen Wetterauisehe
Gesellsch. fur die gesammte Naturkunde zu Hanau 4 : 130. Germar here
included : —

(1) M. violacea Fbr., Linn., Rossi, Pzr., Payk., Laich., DeGeer, Hrbst.

(2) M. nassata (descr. follows) " Ob sie vielleicht Rhynck. carbonarius
Fabr. ist 1 "

(.3) M. duplicata (descr. follows) " Vielleicht Curcidio cernsi L. und
vielleicht auch Curculio cerasi Hrbst., Payk. (mas) ".

(4) M. aterrima Fbr., Hrbst., Oliv.

(5) M. cerasi Fbr., Clairv., Hrbst. (fern.).

(6) M. Lymexylon Fbr., Panz., Payk., Hrbst.
No type species was either designated or indicated.

The first type selection known to me was by Schoenherr in 1823 (Isis
(Oken) 2 : 1136), who there proposed Thanmophilus as a substitute name for
Magdalis, designated Rhynch. violaceus auct. as type species and therefore
ipso facto made it also the type species of Magdalis.

If, on the other hand (as appears inevitable from reasons stated in the
preceding footnote), the answer to (b) is " yes ", then it becomes necessary
to ascertain whether any or all of three nominal species bearing the names
" Rhynch.'' (i.e., Rhynchaenus) " Pruni., violaceus and aterrimus " stood in
the genus Rhynchaenus in the year 1817 or had earlier been placed in it. We
need here only consider aterrimus. In Syst. Eleuth. (2 : 486), Fabricius trans-
ferred Curculio aterrimus (see 1792, Ent.Syst. 1 : 439, No. 189) to Rhynchaenus
This was the species which Germar meant by " Rhynch. aterrimus " in 1817,
a fact which he himself corroborated in 1819 by giving a reference to Fabricius
as the first authority cited after his " Magdalis aterrima ".

If, therefore, citation of " Rhynch. aterrimus " and others is accepted as
adequate to validate the publication of the generic name Magdalis. and it is
apparent that it must be, then Samouelle in 1819 validly selected the originally

* The answer to this question seems to be explicit in the action taken by the International
('ommission on Zoological Nomenclature at Paris in 1948 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 80. concl. 13,
))ar. 1). '■ A generic name published before 1st January, 1931, shall be available (under Art. 25)
. . . when the name, on being first published, was accompanied by no verbal definition or
description, the only indication given being that provided by the citation under the generic
, . . name concerned of the names of one or more previously published nominal species." Since
the only requirement is the name of the species, the name of the author is not required and equally
no other bibliographic reference,

52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

included species R. aterrimus as its type species.*

The identity of Rhyncfiaenus aierrirtms

Schenkling in the Coleopterorum Catnlogus and other authors attribute
Magdalis aterrima to Fabricius. But Fabricius never had any intention of
establishing a new species under that name, and no act of his could be construed
as doing so. He first mentioned aterrinms as a species of Curculio in 1792
{Ent. Syst. 2 : 439, No. 189), but in doing so cited Curculio aterrimus
Linnaeus, Syst. naturae and Fauna suecica. In 1801 {Syst. Eleuth, 2 : 486,
No. 225) he transferred Curculio aterrimus Linnaeus to his new genus Rhyn-
cfiaenus, citing Curculio aterrimus by name, and giving a reference to his own
Ent. syst. as well as both the Linnean references above mentioned.

Consequently, only one species has been established, namely, Curculio
aterrinms Linnaeus, changed in 1801 to Rhynchaenus aterrimus (Linnaeus)
(Fabricius) and in 1817 to Magdalis aterrima (Linnaeus) (Germar).

While I am not familiar with the taxonomy of these beetles, and have no
basis for a subjective opinion as to what actual species Linnaeus meant by
Curculio aterrimus, it is clear that coleopterists are in doubt. This is
evident from the fact that Schenkling [Catalogus Coleopterorum 29 (pt. 141)
: 12) refers under Magdalis to " aterrima Fabricius " (as a s5Tion}Tn of armigera
Geoff., 1785), but gives no reference to aterrimus Linnaeus, and that Wagner
(loc. cit. 28 (pt. 6) : 40) cites Curculio aterrimus Linnaeus as a synonym of
Apion marchicum Herbst. He does not query the synonymy, but since Curculio
aterrimus Linnaeus is the older name, he either was sufficiently in doubt about
the identification to be unwilUng to use it to replace marchicum, or else he
simply disregarded priority in order to avoid overthrowing that name.

The general presumption in all such cases is that Fabricius correctly
identified Curculio aterrimus Linnaeus when he transferred it to Rhynchaenus,
and that therefore Germar really meant Curculio aterrimus in the sense of
Linnaeus when he cited Rhynch. aterrimus as one of the three original species
of Magdalis. Nevertheless, in view of the strong probability that they actually
were misidentifying the Linnean species, it seems appropriate that the Com-
mission, acting under their plenary powers, as directed at the Paris Session,
should set aside the selection by Samouelle, 1819, of Curculio aterrimus Linnaeus
as type species of Magdalis, and all other selections (if any) prior to 1823,

* Samouelle, George. The Entomologists' useful compendium. 1919, p. 204. " In . . .
Germar's and Zincker Sommers Magazin der Entomologie, v. Ill [sk\, should read 11] for
1817, notice is given of the following genera lately established (the species mentioned may be
considered the types).

" Genus Magdalis Germar. Sp. 1. aterrimus."

(Then followed eight more genera, in one or two instances, two species being mentioned
under each).

In the two cases where Samouelle named two species, he did not effect a type-selection.
In the other ca.ses he certainly did. imder even the most rigorous construction.

BuUetin of Zoological Noinenclalure 53

and should validate the selection of CurcuUo violaceus Linnaeus, 1758, by
Schoenherr in 1823 in his von Oken (2 : 1136) as type species not only of
Thamnophilus, which was there proposed as a substitute for Magdalis Germar,
but also ipso faclo, as type species of Magdalis.

It will be noted that Curmlio violaceus Linnaeus is one of the three s})ccies
originally included in Magdalis, that it was treated as type species of the
subgenus Magdalis by Daniel in his revision of the subgenera, 1903. and is
included in that subgenus by Schenkhng in the Catalogus Coleopterorum, but
that " atermm L." is placed by Daniel as a synonyni of annigera GeofTroy
and that CurcuUo aterrima Fabricius, treated as a svnonym oiarmigera, is placed
by Schenkling in another subgenus.* To select CurcuUo violaceus Linnaeus as
type species would therefore be to select " a species in harmony wath current
usage," as the Commission is now directed to do [Bull, zool Nomencl. 4 : 158-
159).

In the Ught of the considerations set out above, I ask the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to stabiUze the generic names Rhina
Latredle and Magdalis Germar each in its accustomed sense, by using for this
purpose their plenary powers to such extent as may be necessary, and, having
done so, to place these names on the Official Ust of Generic Names in Zoologij
and to take such other consequential action as may be necessary. The pro-
posal which I accordingly submit is that the Commission should :

(1) use their plenary powers

(a) to set aside all selections of type species for Rhina Latreille
[1802-1803], and for Magdalis" Germar, 1817, made prior to
the date of the proposed decision ;

(b) to designate CurcuUo barbirostris Fabricius, 1775, to be the
type species of Rhina Latreille [1802-1803] ;

(c) to designate CurcuUo violaceus Linnaeus, 1758, to be the
type species of Magdalis Germar, 1817 :

(2) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology, with the type species specified below,
together with a note that the gender of the generic names in question
is that specified below :

(a) Rhina Latreille, [1802-1803] {type species by designation
under the plenary powers under (1) (b) above : CurcuUo
barbirostris Fabricius, 1775) (gender of generic name :
feminine*) ;

The subgenenc name " Magdalinus Germar " is incorrectlv applied to this subgenus.
Magdalmus was proposed by Germar (in Schoenherr. Gen. Spec. "Curc. 7 (2), : 13o. footnote.)
as a substitute for the preoccupied Thamnophilus. and therefore has vidacea as type s,>ecies.
1 he subgenus ui question probably has no valid name.

54 Bulletin of Zoological N&mendature

(b) Magdalis Germar, 1817 (type species by designation under
the plenary powers under (1) (c) above : Curculio violaceus
Linnaeus, 1758) (gender of generic name : feminine*) ;

(3) place the under-mentioned invalid or non-existent generic names
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

(a) Rhina Schaeffer, 1760 ;

(b) Rhina Wahlbaum, 1792 ;

(c) Rhinostomus Rafinesque, 1815 ;

(d) Thainnophilus Schoenherr, 1823| ;

(e) Magdalinus Germar, 1843J ;

(4) place the under-mentioned specific trivial names on the Official List
of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :

(a) barhicornis Latreille. 1804 (as published in the binominal
combination Rhina barhicornis) (a species now currently placed
in Magdalis Germar).

(b) barhicornis Fabricius, 1775 (as published in the binominal
combination Curculio barhicornis) (a species now currently
placed in the brentid genus Lasiorlnjnclms Dejean) ;

(c) barhirostris Fabricius, 1775 (as published in the binominal
combination Curculio barhirostris) (the type species of Rhina
Latreille) ;

(d) violacea Linnaeus, 1758 (as published m the binominal com-
bination Curculio violaceus (the type species of Magdalis
Germar).

Postscript. Dated 16th October 1950. (1) The present application
was originally submitted in November, 1945 ; it was " advertised " in
November, 1947, as a case possibly involving the use by the Commission of
its plenary powers. It was not however, brought before the Commission at
its session held in Paris in July, 1948, for it was realized that fresh light had
been thrown on some of the issues involved through decisions in regard to
the meaning of the Regies then taken by the International Congress of Zoology.

* See Annexe.

t Thamnophilus was jiioposed by Schoenherr (1823, I.sis von Oken, 2 : col. 1130) as a
substitute for Magdalis with the specified type species Cure, violacea L.

J Magdaliniis was proposed by Germar (in Schoenherr. 1843. Gen. 8])ec. Cure. 7 ('!) : 135,
footnote) as a substitute name for the pre-occupied Thamnophilus.

BuUetitt uf Zoological Notnenclalure 55

I liavo since re-examined this case in the light of the Paris decisions and have
accordingly, revised the apphcation to such extent as I have found to be
necessary. The revision includes a request for plenary action involving
Magdalis tliat was not previously suggested.

(2) I am informed by the Secretary to the Commission that no objection
to the use of the plenary powers in the manner proposed in the case of the
name Rhina, has been lodged, as the result of the " advertisement " of this
case made over two years ago. I am confirmed, therefore, in the belief that
the action recommended in regard to Rhina corresponds with the desires of
interested specialists.

Annexe

Genderjof Rhina

Pliny (32, 11, 53) used the word rhiiui in the feminine gender for a kind
of shark. The word was taken over from the Greek feminine noun 'pw>j
(a rasp or file, but also applied to a shark with a rough skin). The gender
is therefore clearly feminine.

Gender of Magdalis

The gender is feminine, from three considerations :

(1) The name magdalis does not occur in that form in either Greek or Latin,
except in Greek with the prefix diro-

The Greek feminine noun nay5aAid is a later form of dTTOnoySaAid
The variant dfroiJaySaAs ~i5as was also used (see Eust. 1857, 17) as a
feminine noun.

(2) Greek nouns in -is are universally feminine.

(3) Germar in 1919 was the first author to combine trivial names with
Magdalis. In doing so he placed them all in the feminine gender.

56 BullMin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE "OFFICIAL LIST OF

GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY" OF THE NAMES OF

THIRTEEN GENERA IN THE ORDER COLLEMBOLA

(CLASS INSECTA)

By HERMANN GISIN

{Museum tVHistoire Naturelle, Geneve)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)207)

I submit to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
the proposal that the imder-mentioned thirteen names of genera in the Order
CoUembola (Class Insecta), should be placed on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology. Each of these names is an available name and has, as its
t>T)e species, the species specified below, that species having been duly so
designated, indicated or selected under the Regies. The names now submitted
are among the most important and most generally used in the Order CoUem-
bola. Each forms the basis, moreover, either of a family or subfamily name.

Names proposed to be added to the " Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology".

Actaletes Giard, 1889, Le Naturaliste (2) 11 : 123 (type species, by monotypy :
Actaletes neptuni Giard, 1889, Le Naturaliste (2) 11 : 123).

Bourletiella Banks, 1899, J. N. Y. ent. Soc. 7 : 194 (type species, by origmal
designation : Sminthurus hortensis Fitch, 1863, Hh Ami. Rep. N, Y. agric.
Soc. : 668).

Cyphoderus (emend, of Cyphodeirus) Nicolet, 1842, N. D. Ally, schweiz.
Ges. 6(3) : 63 (type species, by selection by Borner, 1903 {S. B. naturf.
Fr. Berlin 1903:180): Cyphoderus albinus Nicolet, 1842, N. D. Ally,
schweiz. Ges. 6(3) : 67).

Isotoma- Bourlet, 1839, Mew. Soc. R. Sci. Lille 1839(1) : 399 (type species,
by selection by Borner, 1903 (S. B. Ges. naturf. Fr. Berlin 1903 : 171):
Isotoma viridis Bourlet, 1839, Mem. Soc. R. Sd. Lille 1839(1) : 401).

Isotomurus Bonier, 1903, S. B. Ges. naturf. Fr. Berlin \903 : 171 (type species,
by original designation : Podura palustris Miiller, 1776, Zool. dan. Prodr. :
184).

Lepidocyrtus Bourlet, 1839, Mem. Soc. R. Sci. Lille 1839(1) : 391, 392 (type
species by monotypy : Lepidocyrtus curvicollis Bourlet, 1839, Mem. Soc.
R. Sci. Lille 1839(1) : 392).

BuUetin of Zoological Nomenclature 57

Neelus FoLsoin, 1896 Psnc),o 7 • 101 /f,.. 1

murinus Fobon,, iWe^'ftyl 7 39?/" '' "'°""'''''" ^ *'"'"'

Onychiuru, Getyais, 1841, Echo UmA savant 8 : 372 (type sneoies bv „r,„i„,l
dos,g„at,on : PA™ „.«„„ Linnaeus, 1768, 4'^ ^^MeTiofl f™,'

""Tr") •w'^^vnl.'''' '®*- r"* ^'*«^*^"- /W/., Stockholm 19(4)

'"S"1ro6'^z^s*'^„.-^'?x:13''?82?T^r ^"="

Bourlet, 1842, ^«„. Soc. «^ f^li*: xfi)' *™ '"«''''''«''

^"3"*7''oT™""™'- °f *''!'f*''™») LatreiUe, 1802, Hist. mt. Crusl Ins

1 608) ■ * ■ ""^" Linnaeus, 1768, S,jsl. Nat. (ed. 10)

TuIIbergia Lubbock, 1876, Ann. Maa. not Hal u\ is ■ wa u

Con^t';S„™*tt:f[rtour« '"T \'^' ™^'°* International

t'^^l^fonlfT^^"^'^^^^^^^^^^

IppStntt MWsr"'""*'"^ "■' «™^™ ""'"^^ '-'""^^ '" •'- P-™t
(a) J^a.c«ii^ „„„,«: AOaktes Giard. 1889; Cyy,o&rm Nicolet

S ?2'rT«Q«°T' l'"' ' ^"^''-i""- Bourlet, 1839 ;
B?mTr S) 'i J 0»!/o*.«™. Gervais, 1841 ; S„«(;m,,fc
£)orner, lyuo ; bmtnthurus Latreille, 1802 •

i^ F^inim nouns: B^^^^^ Banks, 1899; Isotoma Bourlet

to the addition of namP, tn f V. n^ ?/ r ^^ }^^ P'"'""* proposals relating
involve also the nirrrn5...T''^^ ^'' '^ ^'"^''^ ^«^«^ ^'^ Zoology will

.neta,t.enan':-.\t?in:;-»ol\r^^^^^^^^^

58 Bxdletin of Zoological Noniendature

of Generic Names in Zoology. In every case the trivial name concerned is
both itself an available name and also the name currently accepted by
specialists as the oldest such name for the species concerned.

Trivial names proposed, to he added to the " Official List of
Specific Trivial Names in Zoology "

albinus Nicolet, 1842 (as published in the binominal combination Cytho-
derus albinus).

ambulans Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination
Podura ambulans).

antarctica Lubbock, 1876 (as published in the binominal combination
Tullbergia antarctica).

aquaticus Bourlet, 1842 (as published in tlie binominal combination
Sminthurus aquaticus).

cincta Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Podura
cincta).

curvicollis Bourlet, 1839 (as published in the binominal combination
Lepidocyrtus curvicollis).

fusca Schott, 1893 (as published in the binominal combination Paronella
fusca).

hortensis Fitch, 1863 (as published in the binominal combination

Sminthurus hortensis).

murinus Folsom, 1896 (as pubUshed in the binominal combination Neelus
murinus).

neptuni Giard, 1889 as published in the binominal combination Actaletes
neptuni).

palustris Miiller, 1776 (as published in the binominal combination Podura
palustris).

viridis Bourlet. 1839 (as published in the binominal combination Isotoma

viridis).

viridis Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Podura
viridis).

BuUetin of Zoolof/ical Noineiiclatiire 59

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALID-
ATE THE GENERIC NAME " CARDINIA " (CLASS LAMELLI-
BRANCHIATA) AS FROM AGASSIZ, [1841], FOR USE IN ITS
ACCUSTOMED SENSE

By L. R. COX, Sc.D., F.R.S.

{Dejmriitient of Geology, British Museum {Natural History), London)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)208)

The purpose of the present appUcation is to ask the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to validate,
as from Agassiz [1841], the well-kno^\^l generic name Cardinia in its accus-
tomed sense, i.e., with Unio listeri Sowerby (J.), 1817 (Min. Conch. 2 : 123)
as type species.

The earliest described representatives of this genus were mainly referred
by J. Sowerby and other authors to the genus Unio Retzius, 1788 {Diss, nova
Test. Gen. : 16). In 1833 a shell from the Lower Lias of the neighbourhood
of Coburg was described by a Dr. Berger {Neues Jahrb. Min. 1833 : 69) under
the name Thalassides coburgensis (gen. et sp. nov.). The description reads as
follows : " Sie gehoren zu den Dimyarien, und haben eine der Lange nach
eiformige Gestalt. Die aussere Flache scheint glatt, nur etwa mit Zuwachs-
Streifen versehen ? An einem Exemplar fand ich an der Stelle des Schlosses
ein seichtes Griibchen, wahrend die andern weder Griibchen noch Zahn besitzen.
Beiderseits des Schlosses ist ein Seitenzahn. Das randliche Band liegt in einer
Vertiefung des Schlossrandes. Die zusammenliegenden Klappen sind nicht
klaffend." No figure was given by Berger.

Subsequent authors have recognized that the fossil so named and described
was some representative of the genus now known as Cardinia, but its specific
identity is doubtful and the trivial name coburgensis has nowhere been adopted.

The generic name Cardinia, now universally employed for the genus typified
by Unio listeri Sowerby, was first published by Agassiz (I.) in 1838 {Verh.
schweiz. naturf. Ges. 23 : 104). No species was cited and the genus was merely
defined as including " ci-devant Unio des terrains secondaires." This cannot
be regarded as sufficient to constitute an " indication " for the purposes of
Article 25 of the Regies. Accordingly, the name Cardinia has no status in
zoological nomenclature as from Agassiz, 1838.

The name Cardinia was next published by F. A. Roemer in 1839 {Verstein.
norddeutsch. Oolithengebirges, Nachtr. : 38), where the following passage appears
immediately after the description of an unfigured species to which was applied
the name Cardita obtecta, attributed to Goldfuss : '' Agassiz bildet aus dieser
Art seine Gattung Cardinia, und nennt jene Cardinia sulcata ; wir haben
indessen keine Kennzeichen zu finden vermocht, welche die Trennung der

60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Gattung verlangten." Goklfuss never describctl a species under the name
Canlita obtecta, and this name should therefore be attributed to Roemer.
Brauns considered that the species to which Roemer appUed this name was
identical with Unio listen Sowerby ; he was, however, notoriously sweeping
in his svnon\anies and his judgment in this matter cannot be accepted in the
absence of supporting evidence from other sources. The name Cardinia
sulcata referred to by Roemer as having been given by Agassiz was not published

by that author until 1843 {Etudes crit. Moll. foss. (3) : 227). The species so
named by Agassiz was (like Cardita obtecta) regarded by Brauns as identical
with Unio listen Sowerby ; Brauns accordingly treated the trivial name
sulcata Agassiz as a junior synonym of listen Sowerby. Although Roemer
did not accept the genus Cardinia (erected, as he believed, by Agassiz), it
could be argued that his use of the name Cardinia constituted the estabhshment
of a nominal genus Cardinia Roemer with Cardita obtecta Roemer as type
species, by monot}'py. The genus Cardinia, so established, would be indeter-
minate, it being impossible definitely to establish the identity of its type
species. The status of the nominal genus Cardinia (Agassiz MS.) of Roemer,
1839, is therefore just as unsatisfactory as that of Thakissides Berger.

The next occasion on which the name Cardinia appeared in print was in
the German edition by Agassis of Sowerby 's Minercd Conchology (: 58). The
exact dates on which the various parts of the German edition were published
are not known, but the portion containing page 58 was considered by Sherborn
(Index Anim. Pars secunda : cxviii) as having been published in 1840. That
date is accepted here, though it is possible that the portion in C[uestion was
not published until 1841. In this work it was suggested that the two Car-
boniferous species Unio subconst rictus Sowerby, 1813, and Unio acutus Sowerby,
1813, and the Cornbrash species Unio uniforniis Sowerby, 1813, should be
referred to this genus, " welche ich nach einer iasischen [? liasischen] Species
desselben Tj'pus aufgestellt habe." The distinctive characters of the hinge
were described. The work referred to in the above passage (the Etudes crit.
Moll. foss. (3)) in which the genus was founded on Liassic species was at that
time still in manuscript. Of the three species cited under the name Cardinia in
the passage referred to above, the first and second are now referred to the
genus Carbonicola McCoy, 1855 {in Sedgwick & McCoy, Synop. Class, bril.
palaeozoic Rods 2 : 514), and the third to the genus Pleuromya Agassiz [1842-
1844] (German ed. of Sowerby's Min. Conch. : 439). In consequence, the
selection of any of these species as the t>'pe species of Cardinia Agassiz [1840],
would be most undesirable and would certainly lead to confusion.

The name Cardinia was next published in 1841, again by Agassiz, on page
207 of the same translation of the Mineral Conchology. No descriptive remarks
were given for the genus, but three species were cited as being referable to it,
namely Unio crassissima Sowerby, 1817, Unio listen Sowerby, 1817, and
Unio hybrida Sowerby, 1817. Up to July. 1948, the name Cardinia as published
by Agassiz in the foregoing manner would, apart from any other consideration,
have been invalid, for. being published without a generic diagnosis and without
either a designated or indicated type species, it would have been a name
published without an " indication " within the meaning of that expression

Bulletin of Zoological NoiiieHclature 61

as used iu Proviso (a) to Article 25 of the Regies. Under a decision taken
by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology at its Paris meeting in
Jftly, 1948, the definition of the expression " indication " as ai^plied to generic
names published prior to 1st January, 1931, has been liberalised (see 1950,
Bull. zool. Nonioicl. 4 : 78-80) and in consequence a name such as Cardiniit
Agassiz [1841], now ranks as a name published with an " indication," and,
if not invalidated in some other way, such a name is now an available name.
Unfortunately, however, as we have seen, the name Cardinia Agassiz [1841],
is invalid by reason of being a junior homonym of Cardinia Roemer, 1839.
We may note, however, that if this difficulty were to be overcome b)- the
suppression by the Commission of the name Cardinia Roemer, 1839, under
its plenary powers, Cardinia Agassiz [1841], would become the oldest available
generic name objectively available for the genus now universally known as
Cardinia, provided that Unio listeri Sowerby (the second of the species cited
by Agassiz) was the type species of this genus ; it would still be necessary,
however, for the Commission to suppress under its plenary powers all generic
names of earlier date that are subjectively identical with Cardinia Agassiz,
[1841], as defined above, before the name Cardinia Agassiz could validly be
applied to this genus.

As regards the type species of the genus Cardinia, it may be noted that
in the year following the second publication of this name by Agassiz in the
German edition of the Mineral Conchology, an anonymous reviewer, discussing
the genus Cardinia wrote (1842, Neues Jahrb. f. Min. 1842 : 497) wrote " Unio
listeri Dow. dient am besten als Typus." This observation was made, however,
with reference not to Agassiz's use of the name Cardinia in the Mineral Con-
chology, but to the use of this name by Strickland (H. E.), when discussing
Agassiz's then unpublished Etudes critiques, in the Report of the British
Association for the year 1842. Under a ruling given by the Thirteenth Inter-
national Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (see 1950, Bidl. zool. Nomencl. 4 :
348), such action does not constitute the selection of a type species for the
nominal genus Cardinia Agassiz (that genus not having been under con-
sideration at the time when the anonymous reviewer of Strickland's paper
made the foregoing selection (even if the passage quoted above could be
regarded as a selection under Rule (g), if " rigidly construed," as required
by the Regies). Quite apart from the foregoing special consideration^ relating
to the action of the anonymous reviewer of 1842, it cannot be supposed that
Agassiz's use of the generic name Cardinia on page 207 of the German edition
of the Mineral Conchology (in a sense not, in his eyes, materially different
from the manner in which he had used this name on page 58 of the same work)
constitutes the establishment of a new generic name ranking from the later
of the two pages cited above. In order to secure such a status for Cardinia,
as so used, it would be necessary for the Commission to use its plenary powers ;
similarly, those powers would be needed to provide a type species for this genus.

From the particulars given above, it will be seen that the difficulties in
the present case could be overcome, (1) if the generic names Cardinia Roemer,
1839, and Cardinia Agassiz [1840], were to be suppressed by the Commission
under its plenary powers (thereby making the name Cardinia Agassiz [1841],

G2 Bulhtin of Zoological Nomenclature

objectively available). (2) if all generic names of older date that have as their
type species species which are today subjectively regarded as being referable
to the genus Cardinia (as universally understood) were to be suppressed under
the same powers, and (3) if Unio listen Sowerby were to be designated as the
type species of Cardinia Agassiz [1841].

In addition to the generic name Thalassides Berger, 1833 (to which reference
has already been made), there is another generic name which is subjectively
identical with Cardinia Agassiz [1841], and may have priority over that name.
This is the name Sinemuria de Christol, 1841 {Bull. Soc. geol. France (1) 12 :
92), which was applied by its original author to a species which is now con-
sidered to belong to the genus Cardinia. The difliculty which arises in this case is
that, whereas it is known that the name Sinemuria de Christol was published
in 1841 just before 26th May (the date of the recorded receipt by the Geological
Society of London of the part of the Bull. Soc. geol. France in which this name
appeared), no evidence has yet been found as to the exact date of publication
of page 207 of Agassiz's German edition of the Mineral Conchology, although
it is believed to have been in the same year. Thus, Sinemuria may have been
published before the foregoing publication of the name Cardinia. In any
case, the latter can at present rank for priority only as from 31st December,

1841 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 223-225). Accordingly, as matters
now stand, the name Sinemuria de Christol, May, 1841, has priority over
Cardinia Agassiz [1841] (ranking as from 31st December of that year). It is
essential therefore that, as part of the general settlement of the problem raised
by the name Cardinia, the name Sinemuria de Christol should be suppressed,
since otherwise it would take precedence over the name Cardinia.

In addition, there are several names which, on the validation of the name
Cardinia Agassiz [1841], it would be desirable should be finally disposed of,
by being placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names
in Zoology. Three of these names are objective synonyms of Cardinia Agassiz
[1841] ; one is a nomen nudum ; two are invalid junior homonyms of older
names. The six names in question are : (1) Ginorga Gray, 1840 {Syn. Contents
Brit. Mus. (ed. 42) : 150) (a nomen nmlum) ; (2) Ginorga (Gray, nom. nud.)
Strickland, 1842 {Rep. Brit. Ass. {Plymouth, 1841) Trans. Sect. : 65) (cited as a
synonym of Cardinia) ; (3) Dihora (" Gray ") [Anon.], 1842 {Neues Jahrb.
Min. 1842 : 496) (cited as a synonym of Cardinia) ; (4) Pachyodon Stutchbury,

1842 {Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 8 : 481) (a homonym of Pachyodon Meyer, 1838,
Jahrb. f. Min. 1838 : 414) ; (5) Thalassites Quenstedt, 1843 {Floezgeb. Wuertemb.

1843 : 143) (an emendation of Thalassides Berger, 1833) (a homonym of
Thalassites Swainson, 1837, Nat. Hist. Classif. Birds 2 : 372) ; (6) StortJwdon
(" Brown ") Zittel, 1881 {Palaeozool. 2 : 62) (name attributed to Brown without
a bibliographical reference and cited as a synonym of Cardinia).

Mter careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that, in order
to prevent the most serious confusion, accompanied by a far-reaching dis-
turbance in the nomenclature of this group, it is essential that the International
Commission on Zoological- Nomenclature should use its plenary powers to such
extent as is necessary to validate the generic name Cardinia Agassiz [1841]

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63

(as published on page 207 of the German edition of Sowerby's Mineral Con-
chology) with Unio listeri Sowerby, 1817, as type species. The proposal which
I accordingly submit is that the International Commission should : —

(1) use its plenary powers : —

(a) to suppress the under-mentioned names for the j)urposcs both
of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy : —

(i) Cardinia Roemer, 1839 ;

(ii) Cardinia Agassiz [1840] ;

(b) to suppress the under-mentioned generic names for the purposes
of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of
Homonymy : —

(i) Tlmlassides Berger, 1833 ;
(ii) Sinemuria de Christol, 1841 ;

(c) to validate the generic name Cardinia Agassiz [1841] (as
published on page 207 of the German edition of Sowerby's
Mineral Conchology), with Unio listeri Sowerby, 1817, as type
species ;

(d) to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not
for those of the Law of Homonymy the trivial name coburgensis
Berger, 1833 (as published in the binominal combination
Tlmlassides coburgensis) ;

(2) place the generic name Cardinia Agassiz [1841], as proposed under
(1) (c) above to be validated under the plenary powers (type species,
by designation under the plenary powers under (1) (c) above : Unio
listeri Sowerby, 1817) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ;

(3) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names
in Zoology the under-mentioned rejected or invalid names : —

(a) the two names specified in (1) (a) above, proposed to be sup-
pressed for all purposes under the plenary powers ;

(b) the two names specified in (1) (b) proposed to be suppressed
for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of
the Law of Homonymy, under the plenary powers ;

(c) the name Cardinia Agassiz, 1838 (an invalid name, because
not published with an indication) ;

(d) the name Ginorga Gray, 1840 (a nomen nudum) ;

(e) the under-mentioned objective synonyms of Cardinia Agassiz,
1841 (as proposed under (1) (c) to be validated under the
plenary powers) : —

(i) Ginorga Strickland, 1842 ;

64 BuUelin of Zoological Nomenclature

(ii) Dihora [Anon.], 1842 ;
(iii) Storthodon Zittel, 1881 ;

(f) the under-mentioned invalid homonyms : —

(i) Pachyodon Stutchbury, 1842 ;
(ii) Thalassites Quenstedt, 1843 ;

(4) place the specific trivial name listen Sovverby, 1817 (as published
in the binominal combination Unio listen) on the Official List of
Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ;

(5) place the specific trivial name coburgensis Berger, 1833 (as published
in the binomuial combination Thalassides coburgensis) (as proposed
under (1) (d) above to be suppressed under the plenary powers for
the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of
Homonymy) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific
Trivial Natnes in Zoology,

•^ixi!*^'

Contents :

{continued from front wrapper)

Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name Pago
Scaphmider Montfort, 1810 (Class Gastropoda, Order Tecti-
branchiata). By Henning Lemche {Universitetets Zoologiske
Museum, Copenhagen) . . . . . . . . 35

Proposed suppression under the plenary powers of the generic
name Monoculus Linnaeus, 1758. By H. Munro Fox, F.R.S.
(Bedford College, London University) . . . . . . . . 37

Proposal that the generic name Rantus Dejean, 1833 (Class
Insecta, Order Coleoptera), should be emended to Rhantus
under Article 19 and that the type species of this genus
should be determined under the procedure laid down for
dealing with genera based upon misidentified type species.
By F. Balfour-Browne, M.A. {Department of Entomology,
British Museum {Natural History), London) . . . . . . 40

Proposed validation under the plenary powers of the names
Acantholyda Costa, 1894 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera),
and Acanthocnema Becker, 1894 (Class Insecta, Order
Diptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A. {Department of Ento-
mology, British Museum {Natural History), London) . . . . 46

Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic names
Rhina Latreille [1802-1803], and Magdalis Germar, 1817,
for use respectively in their accustomed sense (Class Insecta,
Order Coleoptera). By J. Chester Bradley {Department of
Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.) . . . . 47

Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
of the names of thirteen genera in the Order Collembola
(Class Insecta). By Hermann Gisin {Museum d'Histoire
Naturelle, Geneve) . . . , . . . . . . . . 56

Proposed use of the plenary powers to vaUdate the generic name
Cardinia (Class LamelUbranchiata) as from Agassiz [1841],
for use in its accustomed sense. By L. R. Cox, Sc.D.,
F.R.S. {Department of Geology, British Museum {Natural
History), London) . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Notice to Subscribers

The concluding Part (Part 12) of Volume 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Ncmenclature
(containing the Title Page, indexes, etc., for that volume) is now in the press and
will be published shortly.

Form of Applications to the International Commission on Zoological

Nomenclature

Zoologists proposing to submit applications to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature arc requested to submit those applications, in duplicate
and typed, double-spaced, on one side of the page only, and with wide margins. Owing
to the lack of staff available for copying applications not submitted in the foregoing
form, preference for publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature will
necessarily be given to applications submitted in the form requested.

Full particulars of the bibliographical and other data required to be included in
applications submitted to the International Commission will be found in the " In-
structions to Authors " given on page 88 of Volume 1 of the present journal.

Publications of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

The publications issued by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature are on sale
at the Offices of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 41, Queen's
Gate, London, S.W.7. All communications on this subject should be addressed to
the Publications Officer.

Printed ia Great Britain by Metchim and Son, Ltd., Westminster, London

V

VOLUME 2. Part 3 20th Aprils 1951

pp. 65-96.

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
SSSbLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

^m"^'

Edited by

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

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

Contents :

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Page

Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published
in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . 65

Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain
cases . . . . . . . . . . 66

{continued on back wrapper)

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.

1951

Price Ten shillings

(,All rights reserved)

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. Yokes (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. StoU (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 (AustraUa) (27th July 1948)

Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) (27th July 1948)

Professor Teiso Esaki (Japan) (17th April 1950)

Professor Peirre Bonnet (France) (9th June 1950)

Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (United Kingdom) (9th June 1950)

Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Poland) (15th Jime 1950)

Professor Robert Mertens (Germany) (6th July 1950)

Professor Erich Martin Hering (Germany) (5th July 1950)

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 and 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

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 2, Part 3 (pp. 65-93) 20th April, 1951

NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERNATIONAL
CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY

The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the
recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
(see 1950, Bull zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56, 57-59), by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 5-13,
131).

(a) Date of commencement by the International Commission

on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published

in the " Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature "

Notice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will
start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of publica-
tion in the Bulletin of the appUcations in question. Any specialist who may
desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present Part
(vol. 2, Part 3) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so, in writing, to
the Secretary to the Commission as quickly as possible and in any case in
sufl&cient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secretariat
of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above.

66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued)

(b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases

Notice is hereby given tliat the possible use by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers is involved in applica-
tions published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(Volume 2, Part 3) in relation to the following names : —

( 1 ) the trivial name nirtalis Linnaeus. 1758 (as published in the binominal
combination Coluber sirtalis) (Class Reptilia. Order Ophidia) (Z.N.(S.)
433);

(2) Crangon Weber, 1795, Crangon Fabricius, 1798, Alpheua Weber,
1795, and Alpheus Fabricius, 1798 (Class Crustacea. Order Deca-
poda) (Z.N.(S.)231) ;

(3) Scyllarides Gill, 1898 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) (Z.N.(S.)473) ;

(4) LysiosquUla Dana, 1852 (Class Crustacea, Order Stomatopoda)

(Z.N.(S.)474) ;

(5) Odontodactylus Bigelow, 1893 (Class Crustacea. Order Stomatopoda)
(Z.N.(S.)475) ;

(6) all names for " Petrificata " in Volume 3 of Linnaeus, 1768, Syst.
Nat. (ed. 12) and in corresponding portions of the following later
editions of the above work : —

(a) GmeUn (J. F.), 1793, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13), vol. 3 ;

(6) Houttuyn (M.), 1785, Natuurlyke Historie, vol. 3 ;

(c) Turton (W.), 1806, Gen. Syst. Nature, vol. 7 (Z.N.(S.)418);

(7) Conchidium Oehlert, 1887, and Pentamerus Sowerby (J.), 1813
(Class Brachiopoda) (Z.N.(S.)286).

2. In accordance with the procedure agreed upon at the Session held by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 56), corresponding Notices have been sent
to the journals " Nature " and " Science."

FRANCIS HEMMING

Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature

Secretariat of the
International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature,

28. Park Village East, Regent's Park.
London. N.W.I. England.

10//( April, 1951.

bulletin of Zoological Nomendalure 67

PROPOSED DETERMINATION UNDER THE PLENARY
POWERS OF THE SPECIES TO WHICH THE TRIVIAL
NAME "SIRTALIS" LINNAEUS, 1758 (AS PUBLISHED
IN THE BINOMINAL COMBINATION "COLUBER
SIRTALIS") (CLASS REPTILIA) IS TO BE APPLIED

By KARL P. SCHMIDT
{Chief Curator of Zoology, Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois,

U.S.A.)

and

ROGER CONANT

{Curator, Philadelphia Zoological Garden, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)433)

Changes of currently used trivial names of North American snakes are
proposed by L. M. Klauber, 1948 (Copeia 1948 (No. 1) : 1-14). The changes
in question are all valid under the International Rules, and the changes are
based on an exhaustive examination of both the nomenclatorial and zoological
questions at issue.

One of the names in question involves two of the most abundant snakes
in the North American fauna, which have appeared under their currect check-
list names (e.g., Stejneger, L., and Thomas Barbour. A check-list of North
American Amphibians and Reptiles : 171-172) for more than 100 years and
have accumulated very large numbers of references. The double transfer of
the great list of references would work an especial hardship on the non-tax-
onomic zoologist, and would require an explanatory phrase accompanying
use of the names in the sense proposed by Klauber.

We accordingly ask the Coimnission to use their plenary powers to direct
that the trivial name sirtalis Linnaeus. 1758 (as published in the binominal
combination Coluber sirtalis) shall apply to the species described and figured
as Tropidonotus sirtalis by J. E. Holbrook in 1842 in North American Her-
petology ; or, a description of the reptiles inhabiting the United States. Phila-
delphia, Dobson : 5 vols., illus. (Vol. 4 : 41, pi. 11), and that " Canada "
(restricted to the vicinity of Quebec, see Robert F. Inger, 1946, Copeia, 1946 :
254) is to be treated as the type locality of the species, the nomenclature of
which is so stabilised.

We further request that the above name, so stabilised, be added to the;
Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, together with the trivial
name saurita Liimaeus, 1766 (as published in the binominal combination Coluber
saurita), the names of these two species being thus placed beyond the range
of further dispute. It is to be noted that the currently recognised generic
combinations Thamnophis sirtalis and Thamnophis sauritus have been in use
since 1892 and 1893 respectively (cf. Stejneger (L.) and Barbour (T.). 1917.
A check-list of North American Amphibians and Reptiles (1st ed.) : 103).

68 Bulletin of Zoological Noineiidature

The use of the trivial name sirtalis Linnaeus for the common garter snake
has been unquestioned for more than 100 years. Of the American herpetologists
canvassed on the subject of the ])rosent application, the majority give it their
support. Tlie specialists in favor of the above recpiest are : —

S. C. Bishop, University of Rochester.

C. M. Bogert, The American Museum of Natural History.
Fred R. Cagle, Tulane University.

A. F. Carr, University of Florida.

Doris M. Cochran, United States National Museum.

D. Dwight Davis, Chicago Natural History Museum.

E. R. Dunn, Haverford College.

J. A. Fowler, George Washington University.

Helen T. Gaige, 1211, Ferdon Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Howard K. Gloyd, Chicago Academy of Sciences.

Coleman J. Goin, University of Florida.

Chapman Grant, 2970, 6th Avenue, San Diego, California.

A. B. Grobman, University of Florida.

Norman Hartweg, Museum of Zoology of Michigan University.

R. F. Inger, Chicago Natural History Museum.

Murray L. Johnson, 1207, Medical Arts Building, Tacoma 2, Washington.

Arthur Loveridge, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard.

M. Graham Netting, Carnegie Museum.

J. A. Oliver, University of Florida.

Grace Orton, Carnegie Museum.

C. H. Pope, Chicago Natural History Museum.

Benjamin Shreve, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard.

J. R. Slater, College of Puget Sound.

W. H. Stickel, Fish and Wildlife Service.

R. C. Stebbins, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California.

These in favor of the change sensu Klauber : —

L. M. Klauber, 233, West Juniper Street, San Diego, California.
C. D. Perkins, Zoological Society of San Diego.
H. M. Smith, University of Illinois.

Not voting : —

G. S. Myers, Stanford University.
E. H. Taylor, University of Kansas.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 69

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALID-
ATE THE GENERIC NAME " CRANGON " FABRICIUS, 1798,
FOR THE COMMON SHRIMP AND THE GENERIC NAME
"ALPHEUS" FABRICIUS, 1798, FOR THE SNAPPING
SHRIMPS (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA)

By L. B. HOLTHUIS

{Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden, The Netherlands)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)231)

The present application relates to two generic names in the Crustacea
Decapoda, each of which is commonly used by the majority of carcinologists,
but each of which, under a strict application of the Regies, is inapplicable in
the sense in which it is employed. For each of these names {Alpheus Fabricius,
1798, and Crangon Fabricius, 1798) is an invalid junior homonym of an identical
generic name published in a different sense by Weber in 1795. The strict
application of the Regies to these names would involve the transfer of the
generic name Crangon (as from Weber, 1795) from the Common Shrimp to a
genus of Snapping Shrimps. The ruthless application of the Regies in this
way would lead to enormous confusion, not only in systematic literature but
also in economic fisheries literature. It would also cause the most serious
confusion in the teaching of zoology.

The following are the original references to the generic names dealt with
in the present application : —

Alpheus Weber, 1795, Nomencl. ent. : 91.

Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, Snppl. Ent. syst. : 380, 404 (type species, by subsequent
selection by Latreille, 1810 {Consid. gen. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 422) : Alpheus
avarus Fabricius, 1798. Suppl. Ent. syst. : 404).

Crangon Weber. 1795, Nomencl. ent. : 94 (type species, by monotypy : Astacns
malaharicns Fabricius, 1775. Syst. Ent. : 415).

Crangon Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 387, 409 (type species, by absolute
tautonymy : Cancer crangon Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 632).

Crago Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. sans Vertebr. : 159 (type species, by mono-
typy : Cancer crangon, Linnaeus. 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 632).

Prior to the year 1904, Weber's generic names had been ignored and the
Common Shrimp had been placed in the genus Crangon Fabricius, 1798, while
the generic name Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, had been used for Snapping Shrimps.
In the year 1904, however, Rathbun revived the names in Weber's Nomenclator
entomologicus of 1795 and accordingly pointed out (Proc. biol. Soc. Wash.
17 : 170) that under the Law of Priority the name Alpheus was not available
for the Snapping Shrimps, the name Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, having, as its

70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

type species, a species {Alpheiis avarus Faliricius. 1798) that was congeneric
with the species {Astacus malabaricus Fabricius. 1775) which was the type
species of the earlier generic name Crangon "Weber, 1795. Under the Regies,
Rathbun was entirely correct in the contention which she so advanced. The
generic name Crangon Weber, 1795, though published wthout any description,
contained four nominal species of which one {Astacus malabaricus Fabricius)
was the name of a previously published nominal species ; the generic name
Crangon AVeber, 1795. thus satisfies the requirements of Proviso (a) to Article
25, even under the narrow definition laid down in the Commission's Opinion 1,
for. being a monotypical genus, it had an indicated type species. Rathbun
further argued that the name Alpheus Fabricius. 1798, was invalid as a junior
homonvm of the generic name Alpheus Weber, 1795. a gen\is established
without a description or definition, with no designated or indicated type species
and with more than one previously published nominal species referred to it.
At that time generic names published in this manner were commonly treated
as satisfying the requirements of Proviso (a) to Article 25 (not^vithstanding
the explicit provisions in Opinion 1). It was not until 194:8 that all doubt
on this subject was removed by the Thirteenth International Congress of
Zoologv, when it inserted words in the Regies to secure " that a generic or sub
generic name published before 1st January, 1931, shall be available under
Article 25 as from the date of its original publication not only when (as at
present) it was then accompanied by a definition or description or when the
genus was monotypical or when a t^'pe species was designated or indicated
by the original author when publishing the name but also when the name,
on being first published, was accompanied by no verbal definition or description,
the only indication given being that provided by the citation under the generic
or subgeneric name concerned of the names of one or more previously published
nominal species (" Official Record of Proceedings of the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in July, 1948 ",
in 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 78-80). Thus, under the Paris amendment
of Article 25 Rathbun's rejection of the name Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, as a
junior homonjTii of the name Alpheus Weber, 1795. is retrospectively rendered
quite correct.

Rathbun pointed out also that the name Crangon Fabricius, 1798, was a
junior homonym of the name Crangon Weber, 1795 (which, as explained
above, she applied to the Snapping Shrimps) and therefore that for this reason
also the Common Shrimp could no longer be known by the name Crangon.
She accordingly adopted for the Common Shrimp the name Crago Lamarck,
1801, the next oldest published generic name for that species.

Rathbun thus used the generic name Crangon Weber, 1795, for the genus
of Snapping Shrimps hitherto called by the name Alpheus Fabricius, 1798,
and the name Crago Lamarck, 1801, for the Common Shrimp hitherto called
by the name Crangon Fabricius, 1798, Prior to the publication of her paper,
all authors used the name Crangon Fabricius, 1798, for the Common Shrimp
and the name Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, for the genus of Snapping Shrimps ;
since the publication of her paper, the majority of workers have continued
to use these names in this way, Rathbun being followed almost exclusively
by American authors only. Thus, in the literature which I have myself

BvUetin of Zoological Nomenclature 71

examined, more than 340 authors (of whom 170 published their papers after
1904) have used the name Crangon Fabricius, 1798, for the Common Shrimp
while only about 40 have used the name Crago Lamarck, 1801, for that species'
The name Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, has, to my knowledge, been used for the
Snappmg Shrimp by more than 220 authors (of whom 110 pubUshed their
papers after 1904), while only about 50 authors have used the name Cranaon
Weber, 1795, in this sense.

The genus Crangon Fabricius { = Crago Lamarck) is the commonest genus
of shrmips on the coasts of the northern parts of the Atlantic and Pacific
Oceans and is of great economic importance ; the genus Alpheus Fabricius
(-Crangon Weber) is the largest genus of Snapping Shrimps, containing over
180 species, and is widely distributed throughout the tropical and sub-tropical
regions of the globe. It is therefore of the highest importance to put an end
to the present state of confusion and to secure that for the future there shall
be uniformity in the names applied to these genera. Further, both Crangon
Fabricius and Alpheus Fabricius are the type genera of families ; these famUies
are known by European workers as crangonidae and alpheidae respectively,
but by American authors as cragonidae and crangonidae ; this difference
m the names used for these well-known families is extremely confusing, more
especially as it involves the transfer of the name crangoxidae from one^'family
to another and the use for the two families of names craxgonidae and
CRAGONiDAE which, being derived from the same word, are undesirably similar
to one another. The transfer, as between these two families, of the name
CRAXGOXiDAE would give rise to a further confusion through the fact that
the family known by this name by European workers contains a number of
genera, the names of which are based upon the word Crangon, e.g.. Notocrangon
Coutiere. 1900; Sclerocrangon Sars, 1882; Prionocrangon Wood-Mason,
1891 ; Paracrangon Dana. 1852. The existence of these names would be
extremely anomalous if the generic name Crangon were to be removed to a
different family and would be a permanent cause of confusion and misunder-
standing. Similarly, the family known as alpheidae by European workers
contains genera, the names of which are based on the word Alpheus, e ^
Symlpheus Bate, 1888 ; Alpheopsis Coutiere, 1897 ; Alpheinus Borradaite,'
1899. The existence of genera with such names in a familv called craxgoxidae
would be further source of confusion.

Accordingly, I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature to use their plenary powers to prevent the permanent confusion that
IS otherwise unavoidable. The concrete proposals which I therefore submit
for consideration are that the Commission should :—

(1) use their plenary powers : —

(a) to suppress the under-mentioned generic names : —
(i) Alpheus AVeber. 1795 ;

(ii) Crangon Weber, 1795 ;

(b) to validate the under-mentioned generic names : —
(i) Alpheus Fabricius, 1798 ;

(ii) Crangon Fabricius, 1798 ;

72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(2) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology, with the type species severally specified
below : —

(a) Alpheus Fabricius, 1798 (type species, by subsequent selection
by Latreille (1810) : Alpheus avarus Fabricius, 1798) ;

(b) Crangon Fabricius, 1798 (type species, by absolute tautonymy :
Cancer crangon Linnaeus, 1758) ;

(3) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Natnes in Zoology : —

(a) Alpheus Weber, 1795, as suppressed under (1) (a) (i) above ;

(b) Crangon Weber, 1795, as suppressed under (1) (a) (ii) above ;

(c) Crago Lamarck, 1801 (an objective synonym of Crangon Fab-
ricius, 1798, as validated under (1) (b) (ii) above ;

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

(a) avarus Fabricius, 1798 (as published in the binominal combination
Alpheus avarus) ;

(b) crangon Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination
Cancer crangon).

I should add, with reference to the decision by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, that in future the gender of every generic name added
to the Official List is to be specified therein (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 341),
that the gender of the generic name Alphetis is masculine and that of the
generic name Crangon is feminine.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomeiiclalure 73

ON THE CONFUSION WHICH WOULD ARISE FROM THE
ACCEPTANCE OF THE GENERIC NAMES " CRANGON "
WEBER, 1795, AND " ALPHEUS " WEBER, 1795 (CLASS
CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA)

By POUL HEEGAARD

{University of Copenfutgen, Denmark)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)231)

The urgent need for securing a definite ruling on the manner in which the
generic names Crangon and Alpheus should be used and thus putting an end
to the confusion which has arisen through the use by some authors of these
names in the nianner adopted by Weber in 1795 instead of in the manner
adopted by Fabricius in 1798, which had hitherto been accepted by all authors,
led me in March, 1949, to submit an application to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature asking (1) that the plenary powers should
be used to suppress the above names as published by Weber, and (2) to validate
the use of those names in the accustomed Fabrician sense. I am informed,
however, by the Secretary to the Commission that an application in a similar
sense was submitted to the Commission by Dr. L. B. Holthuis of the Rijks-
museuni van Natuurlijke Historic, Leyden, in November, 1946. The Secretary
to the Commission has communicated to me the text of Dr. Holthuis' appli-
cation, with which I find myself in complete agreement. In these circumstances
I do not think it necessary to proceed with my application. It will be sufiicient
if I express my strong hope that the Commission will, as proposed, solve this
problem by validating the names Crangon Fabricius and Alpheus Fabricius
with the type species severally specified in Dr. Holthuis' application.

74 Bulletin of Zoological NoiiieHclaiure

ON DR. POUL HEEGAARD'S PROPOSAL THAT THE
NAMES ♦' CRANGON " FABRICIUS, 1798, AND " ALPHEUS "
FABRICIUS, 1798 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECA-
PODA) SHOULD BE VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY

POWERS

By the late ROBERT GURNEY

{Oxford)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)231)

I understand that Dr. P. Heegaard has made application to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to restore the names Crangon
Fabricius, 1798, and Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, to their original meaning by over-
riding the earlier use of the first of these names by Weber in 1795 which were
declared to be available under the Commission's Opinion 17. I should like to
su])port Dr. Heegaard's application.

Weber's Nomenclator entomologicus is a compilation of noniina nuda which
has not, and presumably never had, any scientific value. So far as the Crustacea
are concerned, the only claim to validity that any of the specific names have
is derived from their reference to Fabricius' Entomologia systematica. The
generic names, on the other hand, are borrowed from Fabricius' Supplementum,
which was not published until 1798, but these names are applied by Weber
in a sense entirely different from Fabricius' intention. Opinion 17 places us
in the ridiculous position of accepting specific names when they refer to the
Entomologia systematica, but rejecting those taken from the Supplementum
because this had not then been published ; while generic names taken from
the Supplementum, and misplaced, are accepted as available because they were
published before it ! The minority view expressed by Hoyle at the time when
Opinion 17 was rendered gives the commonsense view.

The conseciuences of Opinion 17 have been disastrous. The name Ormujon,
unless accompanied by some explanation, has ceased to be intelligible to
anyone not a specialist in Crustacean systematics. Any student of geographical
distribution, for instance, might be seriously misled by species of Crangon
appearing in faunistic lists.

ON DR. L. B. HOLTHUIS' PROPOSALS RELATING TO

THE GENERIC NAMES " CRANGON " WEBER, 1795, AND

" CRANGON " FABRICIUS, 1798

By ALBERT H. BANNER

(Univcrsily of Hawaii, Honolulu 14, Territory of Hauaii)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)231)

(Extract from a letter dnted 'iltli October, 1950)
1 have been ap])rised by Dr. Fenner A. Cliace. of the U.S. National Museum,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalure 75

of the proposal of Dr. L. B. Holthuis that the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature use its plenary powers to suppress the names Crangon
Weber and Crago Lamarck for Alpheus and Crangon of Fabricius. As I have
devoted some time to the taxonomy of the Hawaiian members of the cran-
GONIDAE (or alpheidae) and as I have reviewed the literature on this change in
names, I should like to submit my views.

I believe that it was most unfortunate that this most confusing change
in names was made. However, on the basis of Opinion 17 of the Commission,
any carcinologist abiding by the rules of nomenclature had two alternatives :
to accept the ruling or to appeal for a suspension of the rules. In the forty
years since the decision there has been no official appeal in proper form until
now, and many later taxonomists have used the names of Weber in good faith,
abiding by the rules of nomenclature and the rulings of the Commission.

I Ijolievc that a suspension of the rules at this late date would not only
confuse the literature further, but would also in effect penalise those who
followed the rulings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature. I suggest, therefore, that the proposal of Dr. Holthuis be rejected.

ON DR. L. B. HOLTHUIS' PROPOSALS RELATING TO

THE GENERIC NAMES " CRANGON " WEBER, 1795, AND

" CRANGON " FABRICIUS, 1798

By FENNER A. CHACE, Jr.

{Sniil/itiOHian Indilulion, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)

(Commission's references Z.N.(S.)231)

(Extracts from letters dated 15th September and 20th October, 1950)

A. K.rlract fruiii <i letter dated Ibt/i September, 1950.

Thank you very much for your letter of 29tli August, 1950, and the enclosed
copy of your letter to Dr. Holthuis regarding the Crangon- Alpheus-Crago
matter. It is good to knoAv that some action can be expected on this question
l)efore long.

I do not liave time just now to review the literature as carei'uliy as I would
like to do before submitting a comprehensive statement of my views. 1 assume
that such a statement is not needed or even wanted until after the ])ublication
of Dr. Holthuis's application. As I have written Dr. Holthuis, however, it is
my feeling that suspension of the rules regarding this question at this late
date will not entirely clarify the situation. All of the American carcinologists
have, to my knowledge, accepted Crangon for Alpheus and Crago for Crangon
and this change has become firmly established in the American literature.
I also know of one European — and there may be others — who has also made
this change. Had tlie application been made when Miss Rathbun proposed

76 Bulletin of Zooloffical Nomenclature

the adoption of Weber's name, I would have been inclined to uphold it, in-
asmuch as the names of two very large genera were involved. I have also
written Dr. Holthuis that I personally will be willing to accept any measures
recommended by the Commission and I feel fairly certain that most American
authors would eventually follow suit. However, this would not remove the
confusion from synonymies any more than would the eventual adoption of
Miss Rathbun's changes by workers in other parts of the world.

I will try to submit a more detailed analysis at a later date.

B. Extract from a letter dated 20th October, 1950.

Please excuse the delay in replying to your letter Z.N.(S.)231 of 30th
September, 1950, regarding the application of Dr. L. B. Holthuis, of the Eijks-
museum at Leiden, for a decision by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature covering Crangon versus Alpheus and Crago versus Crangon.
It has taken some time to compile and analyse a bibliography for these genera
for the past 45 years, and there is always too little time to devote to such
research. I must confess that I owe a very real debt of gratitude to Dr. Holthuis
in this connection ; without a copy of an unpublished synonymy and bib-
liography of the caridean decapod crustaceans which he prepared a few years
ago, this survey would have required a great deal more time and would have
been much less complete.

As mentioned in my letter of 15th September, 1950, the change from
Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, to Crangon Weber, 1795, and from Crangon Fabricius,
1798, to Crago Lamarck, 1801, is now recognised by practically all of the active
specialists on decapod Crustacea in this country. It has been accepted by
J. C. Armstrong, E. P. Greaser, M. W. Johnson, W. L. Schmitt and myself,
and rejected only by L. Boone. The use of Crangon of Weber and Crago of
Lamarck by most of the specialists has led to the complete acceptance of the
names in all of the ecological and other publications in this country that I
have been able to find. Recent biologists, other than taxonomists, who have
used the names in this sense include : B. R. Coonfield, H. H. Darby, W. M.
Hess, W. G. Hewatt, Johnson and Snock, G. E. MacGinitie, and A. S. Pearse,

In South America, these generic names apparently have not been used in
cither sense by any decapod specialists who arc still active, but Alpheus has
been employed by two Brazilian ecologists, L. H. Matthews and L. P. H. de
Oliveira.

The only active carcinologist in the Hawaiian Islands who has published
extensively on decapods, C. H. Edmondson, has used Crangon for the snapping
shrhnps since 1923. This name is also being accepted by A. H. Banner in a
forthcoming report on the snapping shrim])s of the eastern Pacific islands.

Alpheus has been retained by E. P. Estam])ador and H. A. Roxas of the
Philip])ine Islands, but neither of these authors can be considered active
crustacean taxonomists.

Biilktin of Zoological Nomenclature 77

In Japan, D. Miyadi and Y. Yokoya have retained AljjJieus, while Maki
and Tsuchikya and T. Urita have accepted Crangon for the snapping shrimps.
All of these may be considered professional carcinologists.

In Australia, both of the specialists on shrimps, H. M. Hale and F. A.
McNeill, made the change to Crangon in 1926 and 1927, and two other authors
who have published little taxonomically, B. H. Anderson and J. A. Tubb,
have followed their example.

The only active Chinese worker to publish on the genera, S. C Yu accepted
Crangon in 1935. '

One Indo-Chinese student, R. Serene, has retained AlpJmis, but there is
no indication that he has published more than a preliminary faunal list.

A Siamese author, C. Suvatti, has employed Crangon, but he also is not a
professional carcinologist.

In India, Alphcm has been used by Panikkar and Aiyar, but these authors
are evidently not primarily taxonomists.

One Soviet publication, by Derjugin and Kobjakova, lists Alpheus, but
there is no evidence that these workers are still active.

In South Africa, K. H. Barnard continues to accept Alpheus in his extensive
monograph on the decapods of South Africa published this year.

Finally, in Europe, the change from Alpheus to Crangon has been accepted
much more slowly than elsewhere. The active carcinologists who continue
to employ Alpheus include : H. Blass, I. Gordon, L. B. Holthuis, M. V. Lebour,
A. Nobre, 0. Pesta, E. Sivertsen, and R. Zariquiey Alvarez. Two active
European specialists, J. Hult and T. Monod, have accepted the change to
Crangon. Of the European authors who are not primarily specialists in the
field at the present time, W. Arndt, P. Audige, M. Kollmann, T. P. Maccagno
L. Nouvel-Van Rysselberge, F. S. Russell, and P. Volz have used Alpheus
and only one, T. A. Stephenson, has accepted Crangon.

This survey shows that of the 26 active carcinologists here recognised who
have published on this genus of snapping shrimps, exactly half have accepted
the change to Crangon and half have retained Alpheus. The shift to Crangon
which became significant soon after 1920 and has steadily increased since then,
has been retarded primarily by the European workers who have been reticent
to change the name of the commercial shrimp of northern Europe from Crangon
to Crago and who have also been averse on purely personal grounds from
accepting any of Weber's generic names.

78 Bulletin of Zoologicnl Nomenclature

As I wrote in my earlier letter, had Dr. Holtluiis's application been made
25 or 30 years ago when Crangon had not become firmly entrenched in much
of the carcinological and ecological literature for the genus of snapping shrimps,
I believe that I would have supported it because of its bearing on two of the
largest families of caridean crustaceans. Now, however, I cannot see that
anything is to be gained by exercise of the plenary powers of the Commission.
If Crangon of Weber is placed on the " Official List," the European shrimps
assigned to Crangon of Fabricius by most European workers will have to be
shifted to Crago of Lamarck. This change is not as radical as it might be
because of the fortunate similarity in names. On the other hand, if Weber's
name is rejected, not only will the name of the commercial shrimps of the
Pacific coast of North America have to be changed from Crago (which has
become firmly established) back to Crangon, but the use of Crangon for the
snapping shrimps, which has been invariably the case in the rather extensive
American technological literature dealing with underwater sound and sonar
devices during and since World War II, will have to be abandoned in favour
of Alpheus. This latter is an important factor for consideration.

The contention might be made that a favourable action on Dr. Holthuis's
application would be more generally accepted than an unfavourable one,
because of the aversion of European workers to the adoption of Weber's names
but I do not think that this factor is of great significance. I feel sure that
Dr. Holthuis, like most of the carcinologists in other countries, vdW follow-
any recommendation made by the Commission in this case. There is little
question that Dr. Holthuis is the foremost authority on the Caridea in the
world today and, as such, his usage will almost surely be followed by nearly
all of the other decapod specialists, especially those of his generation which
will soon become the predominant group in Europe and elsewhere.

Jiullcliii of Zoolof/ical Nomenclature 79

ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF THE NAMES " CRAN-
GON " AND '• ALPHEUS " AS FROM FABRICIUS, 1798, BY
THE SUPPRESSION OF THE NAMES " CRANGON " WEBER,
1795, AND " ALPHEUS " WEBER, 1795 (CLASS CRUSTACEA,
ORDER DECAPODA) BY THE INTERNATIONAL COM-
MISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE : SUPPLE-
MENTARY NOTE

By L. B. HOLTHUIS

{Rijl'siniisnini van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)231)

(Extract from n letter dated 14th December, 1950)

The enumeration of workers in carcinology compiled by Dr. Fenner A.
Chace, Jr., gives a clear picture of the present situation. I should like to add
only a few remarks, mainly concerning the European authors ; these remarks,
however, will not cause many changes to the picture as a whole.

Europe. I should like to omit from Dr. Chace's list the names of A. Nobre
and W. Arndt. since both these authors died some time ago. The opinion
of Nobre, who wrote a handbook on the Decapods of Portugal, will continue
to exercise much influence, especially in his country. Furthermore, I should
like to include among the active European decapod specialists A. Brian, A.
Giordani Soika, H. Nouvel and E. Sollaud, all of whom use the names Alpheus
Fabricius and Crangon Fabricius. It, of course, is possible to add a considerable
number of names to the second group mentioned by Dr. Chace, namely that
containing authors who are not primarily specialists in decapod taxonomy.
However, it certainly has not been Dr. Chace's intention to make this list
complete either for the American or the European authors. Furthermore here
may be mentioned a group of authors, who are still living, but who have not
been active in the field of Decapod Crustacea for a long time : W. T. Caiman,
one of the greatest authorities on Crustacea, H. Coutiere, once the best specialist
of the family alpheidae, A. Schellenberg, who wrote a monographic treatment
of the German Decapods, and B. Parisi, while perhaps 0. Pesta also is better
placed here. All these authors too use the names Alpheus Fabricius and
Crangon Fabricius. Sunnnarising, we may state that when in America the
names Crago Lamarck and Crangon Weber are accepted by practically all
specialists and non-specialists, in Europe the names Crangon Fabricius and
Alpheus Fabricius are equally unanimously accepted. (J. Hult used the name
Crangon Weber, when dealing with material from the Galapagos Archipelago ;
Th. Monod did so with West African material, and J. A. Stephenson with
material from the Great Barrier Reef of Australia.)

Somet Union. J. A. Birstein, one of the foremost Russian authorities on
Decapod Crustacea at present, uses the name Crangon Fabricius for the common
shrimp.

80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomendalurc

China. S. C. Yu died sonic time ago. His work on Cliiuese Decapods,
however, probably will exercise its influence in China for a long period to come,
especially so since he gave a revision of the Chinese species of Alpheus, which
genus was named Crangon Weber by him.

Japan. One of the foremost Japanese specialists of Decapoda Macrura
of the present time. I. Kubo, uses the name alpheidae for the family of
Snapping Shrimps.

Summarising. I get the following numbers of active Decapod specialists :
those using the names Crangon Weber and Crago Lamarck number 13 (I
include A. H. Banner, which Dr. Chace clearly did not), those employing the
names Crangon Fabricius and Alpheus Fabricius number 15. These figures
thus differ quite insignificantly from those given by Dr. Chace. Since it is
very difficult to define an '' active carcinologist," the numbers may be changed
in either direction with reasonable arguments for so doing. It is next to
impossible to give, for active non-specialists working with the two genera in
question, figures similar to those given above for active decapod specialists;
for here it is in most cases hardly possible to determine whether a worker is
active or not. Still, the opinion of these non-specialists is perhaps more
important than that of the specialists, since the former are more numerous
and are more in need of a stabilised name than the latter.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 81

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO RENDER
THE GENERIC NAME " SCYLLARIDES " GILL. 1898 (CLASS
CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA) THE OLDEST AVAIL-
ABLE NAME FOR THE SPECIES CURRENTLY REFERRED

THERETO

By L. B. HOLTHUIS

{Rijkstmiseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)473)

The present application relates to a generic name, Scyllarides Gill, 1898
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), which is in general use, but which is not
the oldest available name for the genus concerned. The ruthless application
of the Regies in the present case would give rise to much quite unnecessary
confusion, and I accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature to prevent this confusion by using their plenary powers in such
a way as to permit the continued use of the above generic name.

The following are the original references to the generic names dealt with
in the present application : —

Scyllarides Gill, 1898, Science (n.s.) 7 : 98 (type species, by original designation :
Scyllarus aequinoctialis Lund, 1793, Skr. naturh. Selsh. Kbh. (2) 2 : 21).

Scyllaridia Bell, 1857, Monogr. foss. malacostr. Crust. Great Brit. 1 : .35 (type
species, by monotypy : Scyllaridia koenigi Bell, 1857, Monogr. foss.
malacostr. Crust. Great Brit. 1 : 35).

Pseudibacus Guerin-Meneville, 1855, Rev. Mag. Zool. (2) 7 : 137 (type species,
by monotypy: Pseudibacus veranyi Guerin-Meneville, 1855, Rev. Mac
Zool. (2) 7 : 137).

The name Scyllarides Gill. 1898, is the generally accepted name for a well-
known genus of large Decapoda Macrura Eeptantia. Strictly, however, this
name, though available nomenclatorially, is not, under current taxonomic
ideas, available for the genus to which it is at present applied, for twice before
the publication of Gill's paper, other authors published different names
for genera, having, as their respective type species, species now regarded as
congeneric vnt}i Scyllarus aequinoctialis Lund, the type species of Scyllarides
Gill, 1898.

First, Guerin-Meneville in 1855 described a new Crustacean from the
Mediterranean under the name Pseudibacus varamji. Later, it was found that
this Crustacean was the natant stage of the species at present best known as
Scyllarides latus (Latreille, 1803) {=Scyllurus latus Latreille, 1803, Hist. nat.
Crust. Ins. 6 : 182), a common inhabitant of the Mediterranean and West
African coasts. The generic name Pseudibacus Guerin-Meneville, 1855. is
the oldest available generic name for any of the species at present recognised
as belonging to the genus Scyllarides Gill, 1898, and accordingly the latter
name should be replaced by the name Pseudibacus Guerin-Meneville.

Second, Bell in 1857 described a new genus of fossil Crustacea, for which

82 Bulletin of Zoologiml Nomenclature

he published the generic name Sci/llarulia . The type species of this genus
is Scylkiridia koemgi Bell, 1857. This species was considered by Woods (1925,
Mon. palaeontol. Soc. Lond. 1922-1923 : 39) and by Glaessner (1929, in Fossilium
Catalogus 9 (41) : 375) to be referrable to the genus at present known by the
name Scyllarides Gill. 1898.

Thus, on the basis of current taxonomic ideas, the generic name Scyllarides
Gill, 1898, is twdce over a subjective synonym of an older available generic
name, first to Pseudihacus Guerin-Meneville, 1855, second, to Scyllaridia
Bell, 1857. Under the Law of Priority, the correct name for this genus is
therefore Pseudibacus Guerin-Meneville, 1855. But the name Pseudihacus
is not at present used as a generic name at all, being employed only to denote
an immature stage (the so-called Pseudihacus stage), while the name Scyllaridia
has never been used for any but fossil species, while even for these it was
dropped by Woods (1925) in favour of the well-known name Scyllarides Gill,
1898. As the name Scyllarides Gill is at present in general use, both for im-
mature and adult forms of living species and also for fossil species, no useful
purpose would be served — and, indeed, only unnecessary confusion caused —
if the well-known name Scyllarides Gill, 1898, were to be replaced by either
of the little-known names {Pseudihacus Guerin-Meneville, 1855, and Scyllaridia
Bell, 1857) referred to above. I accordingly ask the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature to prevent confusion from arising in the nomen-
clature of this group, by using their plenary powers in such a way as to secure
that the generic name Scyllarides Gill, 1898, is the oldest available generic
name for the species at present referred to that genus. The concrete proposals
which I therefore submit for consideration are that the Commission should : —

(1) use their plenary powers to suppress the under-mentioned generic
names for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of
the Law of Homonymy : —

(a) Pseudihacus Guerin-Meneville, 1855 ;

(b) Scyllaridia Bell, 1857 ;

(2) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic
name : Scyllarides Gill, 1898 (type species, by original designation :
Scyllarus aequinoctialis Lund, 1793) ;

(3) place on the Official Index of Rejected ami Invalid Names in Zoology
the generic names (a) Pseudicacus Guerin-Meneville, 1855, and (b)
Scyllaridia Bell, 1857, suppressed under (1) above ;

(4) place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology the
trivial name aequinoctialis Lund, 1793 (as published in the binominal
combination Scyllarus aequinoctialis).

I should add, with reference to the decision by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, that in future the gender of every generic name added
to the Official List is to be specified therein (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 341),
that the gender of the generic name Scyllarides is masculine,

BvIIetin of Zoological Nomenclalure 83

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO RENDER
THE GENERIC NAME " LYSIOSQUILLA " DANA, 1852
(CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER STOMATOPODA) THE
OLDEST AVAILABLE NAME FOR THE SPECIES
CURRENTLY REFERRED THERETO

By L. B. HOLTHUIS

(Rijh-mmeutii van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nelherlanih)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)474)

,rn ^^'P^^^^^^ application relates to a generic name, LysiosquiUa Dana 1852
(Class Crustacea, Order Stoniatopoda), which is in general use and is extremely
well known, but which is not the oldest available generic name for the group
ot species concerned. The ruthless application of the Regies in the present
case would give rise to enormous confusion, without serving any useful purpose
whatever. I accordingly ask the Internationa] Commission on Zoolocrical
JMomenclature to use their plenary powers in such a way as to permit^ the
continued use of the above generic name.

The following are the original references to the generic names dealt with
m the present application : —

LysiosquiUa Dana, 1852, U.S. Explor. Exped. 13 : 616 (type species, by selection
by Fowler, 1912, Ann. Rep. New Jersey State Mus. 1911 : 539 : lA/siosquilla
inornata Dana, 1852, U.S. explor. Exped. 13 : 616).

Erichthus Latreille, 1817, Cuvier's Regn. anim. (ed. 1) 3 : 43 (type species, by
monotypy : Astacus vitreus Fabricius, 1775, Sysf. Ent. : 417).

The name LysiosquiUa is in general use for a genus of Stomatopoda which
inhabits the tropical and sub-tropical regions of the globe. Some of the species
ot this genus are very common, and the name occurs in many places in car-
cmological literature. In fact, every carcinologist who acknowledges the
distinctness of this genus from the genus Squilla Fabricius, 1793 (Ent syst 2 •
viii 511) uses the name LysiosquiUa Dana for the adult forms of the species
of this genus.

As far back, however, as the year 1817 larvae of species of this genus were
placed by Latreille in a genus to which he gave the name Erichthus. As the
name EncMus Latreille, 1817, is much older than the name LysiosquilU
Dana, 1852, it should, under the Law of Priority, be used in place of that
generic nanie by all who subjectively identify these genera with one another,
ihe name Erichthus Latreille was often used by the older authors to denote
larval forms, but is to-day used as a term to denote a certain group of larvae
rather than as a generic name. This may be seen from the fact that at present
the term Lysienchthus is used to denote the larvae of species of the genus

84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclafiire

LijsiosquiUa Dana (i.e., the true Ercihthus of Latrcillo), the term Pseuderichthus
to denote the larvae of the genus PseudosquiUa Dana, 1852, and the term
Gonerichthns to denote the larvae of species of the genus Gonodactylus Berthokl,
1827, while the original name EricMhus has fallen into disuse.

The substitution of the name Erichthus Latreille for the name Lysiosquilla,
Dana would cause such very great confusion that I ask the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to take the necessary preventive
action under their plenary powers. The concrete proposals which I accordingly
submit are that the Commission should : —

(1) use their plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law
of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homon\Tny, the generic
name Erichthus Latreille, 1817 ;

(2) place the generic name Li/siosquiUa Dana, 1852 (type species, by
selection by Fowler, 1912 : Lysiosquilla inornata Dana, 1852) on
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ;

(3) place the generic name Erichthus Latreille, 1817, as suppressed under
(1) above, on the Official Index of JRejected and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology ;

(4) place the tri\4al name inornata Dana, 1852 (as published in the
binominal combination Lysiosquilla inornata) on the Official List of
Specific Trivial Names in Zoology.

The gender of the generic name Lysiosquilla is feminine.

Bullelin of Zoological Noiiienclalure b5

ON DR. L. B. HOLTHUIS' PROPOSAL THAT THE PLENARY
POWERS SHOULD BE USED TO PRESERVE THE USE OF
THE GENERIC NAME " LYSIOSQUILLA " DANA, 1852
(CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER STOMATOPODA) IN ITS
ACCUSTOMED SENSE

By the late ROBERT GURNEY

{Oxford)

(Extract from a letter dated 28th December 1946)
(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)474)

I am eutirely in agreement with Dr. Holthuis' proposal in regard to the
generic name Lt/siosquilla Dana, 1852. I can hardly beheve that any one
would be so anti-social as to propose to use the name Erichthus in place of
Li/siosquilla even if such action were justified under the Rules. But in any
case such a proposal, if made at the present time, could not, I thmk, be success-
fully maintained, since there is as yet no positive proof that "' Erichthus "
is the larva of any species of the genus Lysiosquilla, still less that it is the
larva of any particular species of that genus. There is no reasonable doubt
about Lysiosquilla having a larva of that type ; but, in order to prove his
case, such a mischief-maker would, I take it, have to prove that Erichthus
vitreus (Fabricius) is the larva of a particular species of Lysiosquilla. That
at the moment he could not do, but the proof may be forthcoming some day
and it is very necessary to avoid any more upheavals in nomenclature. I
hope that the Commission will get the name Lysiosquilla permanently
established.

80 DuUcliii of Zoological Notiienclahirr

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALID-
ATE THE GENERIC NAME " ODONTODACTYLUS " BIGE-
LOW, 1893 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER STOMATOPODA)

By L. B. HOLTHUIS

(Rijhinuccuni van NalimrJijke Histoiie. Leiden, The Netlterlaruh)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)475)

The present application relates to a generic name Odo)Uodaclylu>i Bigelow,
1893, which is in universal use for a well-known genus of Stomatopoda. but
which is technically invalid, being a homonym of an earlier generic name
which has hitherto been completely overlooked in the literature. The sub-
stitution of a totally unknown name for the well-established name Odonto-
daclylus would give rise to great confusion and would serve no useful purpose
of any kind. I accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature to prevent the ruthless application of the Law of Priority in
this way by using their plenary powers to validate the generic name Odonto-
dactylus Bigelow, 1893.

The following are the references to the generic names dealt with in the
present application : —

Odontodacti/lus Bigelow, 1893, Joints Hopkins Univ. Circ. 12: 100 (ty])e species,
by subsequent selection by Bigelow, 1931 (BiiU. Mus. comp. Zool. 72: 144) :
Cancer scyllarus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 633).

Gamaris [H.S.], 1876, Ceylon, 2 : 275 (type species, by monotypy : Cancer
scyllarus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 63).

In the second volume of a work piiblished in 1878 under the title " Ceylon,
a general Description of the Island, historical, physical, statistical. Containing
the most recent information, by an Officer, late of the Ceylon Rifles. London.
1876," the author, whose identity is unknown and Avho WTote over the initials
" H.S.", gave, at the end of the twenty-ninth chapter, a list of the species
of Crustacea recorded by H. Milne Edwards (1837, Hist. nat. Crust. 2) as
occurring in the Indian seas. In this list " H.S." inserted the entry " Gamaris
scyllarus, Rump." There is no doubt that the species so referred to is the
species Cancer scyllarxis Linnaeus, 1758.

The above species is, however (as shown above), the type species of the
well-kno^vn genus Odontodactylus Bigelow, 1893.) Accordingly, under the
Law of Priority, the name Odontodactylus Bigelow is invalid, being an objective
junior synonym of the name Gamaris [H.S.], 1876. It would, however,
be ridiculous to abandon so well established a name as Odontodactijlus in a
favour of a name (Gamaris) that has never been in use, is quite unknown
and was published by an author w^ho was almost certainly not a carcinologist.
I accordingly ask the International Commission to use their plenary powers

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature «7

to prevent the quite unnecessary confusion which follow such a change. The
concrete proposals which I therefore submit for consideration are that the
Commission should : —

(1) use their plenary powers (a) to suppress the generic name Gainaris
[H.S.]. 1876, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not
for those of the Law of Homonymy, and (b) to validate the generic
name Odontodactylus Bigelow, 1893 ;

(2) place on the Official List of Generic Nanien in Zoology the generic
name Odontodactylus Bigelow, 1893 (type species, by subsequent
selection by Bigelow, 1931 : Cancer scyllarus Linnaeus, 1758). as
validated in (1) (b) above ;

(3) place the generic name Gamaris [H.S.], 187C, as suppressed under
(1) (a) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology ;

(•4) place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology the
trivial name scyllarus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal
combination Cancer scyllarus).

I should add, with reference to the decision by the Thirteenth Liternational
Congress of Zoology, that in future the gender of every generic name added
to the Official List is to be specified therein (1950, Bull. zool. Noniencl. 4 : 341),
that the gender of the generic name Odontodactylus is masculine.

88 Bulletin of Zooluffical Notnenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUP-
PRESS CERTAIN NAMES PUBLISHED FOR FOSSIL ANI-
MALS BY LINNAEUS IN 1768 AND BY OTHER AUTHORS
IN LATER EDITIONS OF THE WORKS OF LINNAEUS

By the late E. WINCKWORTH

(London)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)418) '

The twelfth edition of Linnaeus' Systema Naturae includes a thinl volume
" Regnum Lapideum," published in 1768. Part of this (pages 153-174) treats
of Petrificata and contains a nunibei' of binominal names for fossil animals.
If, however, an attempt is made to use these names, confusion at once aiises :
for the generic names correspond to the classes, not to the genera, of the first
volume, e.g., Zoolithus is the fossil genus equivalent to Mammalia, and Hel-
viintholithus to Vermes. The trivial names may correspond to species or to
groups of species or to genera. Thus, Helmintholithus Hammonites contains
four general references and nine further references, a ~ i which are stated
to be " totidem distinctae species " : Ilehnintholithus Anomites contains
references to eleven species of Anoniia named in volume 1 : Helmintholithus
GrypJiites is the same as Anomia Gryp/ms of volume 1. It seems difficult to
apply these names of fossils without introducing confusion. Application is
hereby made to the Conunission to sujipress the names introduced in Linnaeus,
1768, Systema Naturae, (ed. 12) 3 : 153-174, and also in such other works as
are later editions of, or amplifications based on, this volume of the Systema.

In particular the suppression should apply to : —
Linnaeus, 1768, Systema Naturae, (ed. 12) 3
J. F. Gmelin, 1793, Systema Naturae, (ed. 13) 3
M. Houttuyn, 1785, Natuurlyke Historic, 3
W. Turton, 1806, A general System of Nature, 7.

This application has the unanimous support of the Nomenclature Connnittee
of the Malacological Society of London.

Bnlletin of Zoological NomeMclatnre 89

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO PREVENT
THE CONFUSION WHICH WOULD RESULT, UNDER A
STRICT APPLICATION OF THE " REGLES », FROM THE
SINKING OF THE NAME " CONCHIDIUM " AS A SYNONYM
pnnA^^^KT^^^^^^" SOWERBY, 1813 (CLASS BRACHIO-
PODA) AND THE TRANSFER OF THE LATTER NAME
TO THE GENUS NOW KNOWN AS "CONCHIDIUM"

By F. ELIZABETH S. ALEXANDER, M.A., Ph.D.

{Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)286)

The object of the present apphcation is to ask the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature to prevent the serious confusion, both in systematic
^r.^^ V, "' «^fatigraphy, which would result from the strict application
ot the Kegles to the generic names Pentamerm Sowerby (J.) 1813 and Con-
cMdium Oehlert, 1887.

I. History of the generic name "Conchidium" commonly, though
erroneously, attributed to Linnaeus

The earliest reference to the generic name Conchidimn which has so far
been traced is in Linnaeus' MuseMm Tessinianum ( : 90, pi. V fig 8) published
in 1753, where a species is described (with a locality) and figured under the
accidentally binominal name Conchidium bilocidare. ' The species so described
and figured IS perfectly recognisable and is the species named Anomia bilo-
cularts by Hismger in 1799. Neither the generic name ConcMdium nor the
trivial name bdoculare, as pubhshed by Linnaeus in the Mus. Tess., possesses
any availability in zoological nomenclature, since that work, being published

Ff !' ^,° ilf ' ^^^"^ Published before the starting point of zoological nomenclature
(Article 26).

1-T^J^^ "?* occasion on which the generic name Conchidium appears is in
1768 m volume 3 of the 12th edition of the Systema Naturae. In that volume
a trmominal system of nomenclature is used and accordingly the name Con-
chidium acquired no standing in zoological nomenclature in virtue of being
so published. (I understand that the late Mr. R. Winckworth submitted an
apphcation supported by the Nomenclature Committee of the Malacological
.Society of London, asking the Commission to remove all doubts regarding
the availability of names published in this volume by suppressing it for nomen-
clatorial purposes (Commission File Z.N.(S.)418). " I feel strongly that this
course is desirable since, until this is done, confusion is bound to arise at least
so tar as the Brachiopods are concerned.)

As already mentioned, Hisinger in 1799 gave the name Anomia bihcularis
to the species described and figured by Linnaeus in 1753 under the name
Lonchidmm bilocvlare. In doing so, Hisinger added the note that the species

90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

had previously been referred to other genera ; his note reads : " Hekiiinth.
Patellaria. Conchidium". He did not, however, either accept or adopt the
name Conchiditim and accordingly, under Opinion 5. he did not bestow any
availability under the Regies on the pre- 1758 name Conchidium. (See Bull,
zool. Nomencl. 4 : 150 for the decision taken in Paris in 1 948 to incorporate
the substance of Opinion 5 in the Regies.)

The term " Conchidium " was next used by Wahlenberg in 1821, where
in a general description of Septate Anomites reference is made to the group
of the " Conchidiums". Wahlenberg used the word " Conchidium " as a
specific trivial name, applying the specific name Anomites conchidium to the
species which he was then describing. The fact that the word " conchidium "
was there printed \vith a capital initial letter (as " Conchidium ") misled
Sherborn (1926, Index Anim. (Pars secund) : 1444, line 11) into thinking that
Wahlenberg had used this word as a generic name. (The description given
by Wahlenberg and the references that he gave make it clear that the species
which he was describing was Anomia hilocularis Hisinger, 1799.)

The next appearance in the literature of the name Conchidium was in
1848 when it was used by Bronn (1 : 322). Like Hisinger (1799), Bronn (1848)
did not reinforce this pre- 1758 name by acceptance or adoption (as required
by Opinion 5) and accordingly he conferred no availability upon this name.

At last in 1887 we come upon the first occason when the name Conchidium
was published in conditions which satisfy the requirements of Article 25;
this was by Oehlert, who (1) gave characters for the genus, (2) designated
what he called " Conchidium bilocularis Linn." as the type species of this
genus. As already explained, the pre-1758 name Conchidium bilocidare
possesses no status in zoological nomenclature, but that does not invalidate
Oehlert's selection, as the type species of Conchidium, of the species represented
by the foregoing invalid name, that is, Anomia bilocularis Hisinger, 1799.

Under the Regies, therefore, Anomia bilocularis Hisinger, 1799, is the
type species of the genus Conchidium, and has been so accepted by all sub-
sequent authors, some of whom, however, have continued to attribute this
generic name to Linnaeus instead of to Oehlert.

II. History of the generic name " Pentamerus " Sowerby (J)., 1813

The generic name Pentamerus Sowerby (J.), 1813 (Min. Conch. 1 : 73*-76*)
was published without a designated type species ; three nominal species were
referred to this genus, of which the first was Pentamerus knighti (incorrectly
spelt Ji'nightii), a new species, and the third Pentamerus Inevis, also a new species.

In 1853, Davidson ( : 97) selected Pentamerus knighti Sowerby (J.), 1813,
to be the type species of the genus Pentamerus Sowerby, 1813. This is a valid
selection under Rule (g) in Article 30 of the Regies, and accordingly this species
is the type species of this genus.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 91

In 1894 ( : 236-240), Hall and Clarke revised the genera Pentamerus and
Conchidium and, in doing so, selected Pentamerus oblongus Sowerby (J. de C),
1839, as the type species of Pentamerus Sowerby (J.), 1813, either being ignorant
of, or ignoring, the earlier selection by Davidson (1853) of Pentamerus knighti
Sowerby (J.), 1813, as the type species of this genus. The nominal species
Pentamerus oblongus Sowerby (J. de C), 1839, was not (and by reason of the
date of the publication of its name, could not have been) one of the nominal
species originally included in the genus Pentamerus Sowerby, but it was regarded
as such by those authors because, following Davidson (1867), they regarded the
names Pentamerus oblongus Sowerby (J. de C), 1839, and Pentamerus laevis
Sowerby (J.), 1813, as names given to the adult and immature forms res-
pectively of a single species, and the latter name had been cited by James
Sowerby when he first published the name Pentamerus.

Although, as shown above, the action by Hall and Clarke was entirely
contrary to the present Regies, it has been generally followed by subsequent
authors, except that Schuckert and Le Vene (1929) and Schuckert and Cooper
(1932) treated the nominal species Pentamerus laevis Sowerby (J.), 1813, and
not Pentamerus oblongus Sowerby (J. de C), 1839, as the type species of the
genus Pentamerus.

III. The result which would follow from the strict application of the
" Regies " in the present case

We have seen in the preceding Section that under the Regies (1) the type
species of Conchidium Oehlert, 1887. is Anomia bilocularis Hisinger, 1799
(the species currently accepted as such) and that the type species of Pentamerus
Sowerby (J.), 1813, is Pentamerus knighti Sowerby (J.), 1813 (a species which
has never been accepted as such by any author, other than Davidson in 1853)
and not Pentamerus laevis Sowerby (J.). 1813. or Pentamerus oblongus Sowerby
(J. de C), 1839, which are commonly accepted as forms of a single species
and one or other of which is universally accepted as the type species of Pen-
tamerus.

According to currently accepted taxonomic ideas, the species Anomia
bilocidaris Hisinger, 1799, and Pentamerus knighti Sowerby (J.), 1813, are
congeneric with one another and are both referable to the genus Pentaynerus
Sowerby (J.), 1813. The acceptance of the application of the Regies in this
way would inevitably lead to the greatest confusion : (1) the well-known
generic name Conchidium would disappear as a synonym of Pentamerus ;
(2) the species now referred to the genus Pentamerus would have to be placed
in a genus with a different name ; (3) the names of the Order, Superfamily
and Family would have to be changed to conform with the change in the
generic name ; (4) stratigraphical literature would suffer also through the
beds known as " Pentamerus beds " being characterised (as they would have
to be) by some genus other than Pentamerus, while the genus which in future
would have to be called by the name Pentamerus would be a genus occurring
in a different horizon,

92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

IV. Action by the International Commission on Zoological Nomencla-
ture recommended

In view of the intolerable confusion both in systematic zoology and in
stratigraphical literature to which the strict application of the Regies in the
present case woiild at once give rise, I think it essential to ask the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers in order
to give valid force to current practice.

Before formulating my proposals for this purpose, I think that consideration
should be given to the question whether Pentamerus laevis Sowerby (J.), 1813,
or Pentamerus oblongus Sowerby (J. de C). 1839, should be designated as the
t}'pe species of the genus Pentamerus Sowerby (J.), 1813. The only advantage
of selecting the first of these species as the type species is that it is one of the
nominal species actually placed in the genus Pentamerus by Sowerby when
he first published that generic name. Against this nmst be set the consideration
that, although it is probable that the name Pentamerus laevis applies to an
immature form of the species, the adult form of which was named Pentamerus
oblongus by Sowerby (J. de C.) in 1839, there can be no certainty about this
identification as James Sowerby's holotype of laevis cannot be traced and in
consequence the name Pentamerus laevis Sowerby (J.) is at present a nomen
(lubium. If at some future date the holotype of P. laevis were to be found and
it was shown that this name was applicable to some species not congeneric
with P. oblongus. fresh confusion would arise in the use of the generic name
Pentamerus. In these circumstances it appears to me that it would be most
unwise to ask the Commission to use its plenary powers for the purpose of
designating the doubtfully identifiable P. laevis as the tjqje species of Pen-
tamerus and that the only way of eliminating all risk of further confusion
would be for the Commission to use its plenary powers to designate P. oblongus
as the type species of this genus.

Having regard to the decision taken by the International Commission
in Paris in 1948 {Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 355) that Opinions should deal with
all questions that arise in connection with any given case submitted, I think
it right to draw attention to the following generic names which are involved
in the synonymy of the name Pentamerus Sowerby : (1) Gypidia Dalman,
1828, is an uncalled-for substitute for the name Pentamerus Sowerby, of which
therefore it is an objective synonym ; (2) the names Trimurus Caldwell, 1934,
and Miopentamerus Alexander, 1936, which were both accidentally published
in an attempt strictly to apply the Regies in the present case, are both nomina
nuda ; (3) Miopentamerus Woods, 1937, which was published with Pentamerus
oblongus Sowerby, 1839, as the sole cited species, which is thus its type species
by monotypy, will become an objective synonym of Pentamerus Sowerby
(J.), 1813, if, as I recommend below, the Commission under its plenary powers
designates P. oblongus as the type species of Pentamerus,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomeitclulure <)3

III the light of the considerations set forth in the present application and,
m particular, the need for avoiding the serious confusion which would result
from the strict application of the Refjles in the present case, 1 ask the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :

(1) to rule :—

(a) that neither Hisinger (1799) nor Bronn (1848) reinforced tlie
pre-1758 generic name Conchidium by adoption or acceptance
{Opinion 5) and therefore that tliat name acquired no rights in
zoological nomenclature in virtue of having been published by
either of those authors ;

(b) that the term Conchidium, as published by Wahlenberg in 1821,
was not used as a generic name and therefore that the alleged
generic name Conchidium Wahlenberg, 1821, is a cheironym ;

(c) that the generic name Conchidium ranks in zoological nomen-
clature from Oehlert (1887), the first author by whom it was
published in conditions which satisfy the requirements of Article
25 of the Regies ;

(2) to use its plenary powers : —

(a) to set aside all selections of type species for the genus Penlamerus
Sowerby (J.), 1813, made prior to the proposed decision ;

(b) to designate Pentamems oblongus Sowerby (J. de C), 1839, to
be the type species of Pentamems Sowerby, 1813 ;

(c) to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority the trivial
name laevis Sowerby (J.), 1813 (as published in the binominal
combination Pentamems laevis) ;

(3) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology : —

(a) Conchidium Oehlert, 1887 (type species, by original designation :
Anomia bilocularis Hisinger, 1799) (gender of generic name:
neuter) ;

(b) Pentamems Sowerby (J.), 1813 (type species, by designation
under the plenary powers as proposed in (2) (b) above : Pen-
tamems oblongus Sowerby (J. de C), 1839) (gender of generic
name : masculine).

(4) to place the under-mentioned generic names and alleged generic
names on the Official Index of Rejected and InvaUd Generic Names in
Zoology : —

(a) the under-mentioned generic names proposed, under (1) (a) above,
to be declared to possess no status in zoological nomenclature :—
(i) Conchidium Hisinger, 1799 ;
(ii) Conchidium Bronn, 1848 ;

94 Btilleliit of Zooloffical Noinenclaiurc

(I)) Conchidium Wahlenberg, 1821, proposed mider (1) (b) to be
declared a cheironyro ;

(c) Gypidia Dalnian, 1828 (an objective synonym of Poitamcnis
Sowerby, 1813) ;

(d) the under-mentioned nomina nuda : —
(i) Trimums Caldwell, 1934 ;

(ii) Miopentamerus Alexander (nee Caldwell), 1936 ;

(e) Miopentamerus Woods, 1937 (type species, by monotypy :
Pentamerus oblongus Sowerby, 1839) (an objective synonym of
Pentamerus Sowerby (J.), 1813, when, as recommended in (2) (b)
above, the foregoing species is designated under the plenary
powers as the type species of Pentamerus Sowerby) ;

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

(a) bilocularis Hisinger, 1799 (as published in the binominal com-
bination Anmnia bilocularis) ;

(b) knighti Sowerby (J.), 1813 (as published in the binominal com-
bination Pentamerus knighti. the trivial name then being in-
correctly given as knightii) ;

(c) oblongus Sowerby (J. de C), 1839 (as published in the binominal
combination Pentamerus oblongus) ;

(6) to place the trivial name laevis Sowerby (J.), 1839 (as pubhshed in
the binominal combination Pentamerus laevis), as proposed under
(2) (c) above, to be suppressed imder the plenary powers, on the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in
Zoology.

Bulletin of Zoological Nantenclattire i>5

ON THE PROPOSAL THAT THE PLENARY POWERS
SHOULD BE USED TO CONSERVE THE NAMES " CON-
CHIDIUM" AND " PENTAMERUS " FOR THE FOSSIL
BRACHIOPOD GENERA TO WHICH THOSE NAMES ARE
CUSTOMARILY APPLIED

By J. K. St. JOSEPH, M.A., Ph.D.

{Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)286)

(Extract from a letter dated 7th November, 1950)

1 understaud that Mrs. Elizabeth Alexander has submitted to the liiter-
tiational Commission on Zoological Nomenclature an application concerning
the names of the fossil brachiopod genera Conchidium auctt. and Pentamerus
auctt.

Since I have also worked on these genera and have had an opportunity
of reading through Mrs. Alexander's statement in the form in which it has
been submitted to the Commission, I write to say that I am entirely in agreement
with the principles of the case as she has outlined them, and that I hope that
action may be taken to render valid the usage of these generic names in the
way they are customarily used at present.

1)6 Bullcthi (if Zooloffical Nnin.cndatuir

ON DR. F. ELIZABETH ALEXANDER'S PROPOSAL FOR THE
USE BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOG-
ICAL NOMENCLATURE OF ITS PLENARY POWERS TO
VALIDATE CURRENT USAGE OF THE GENERIC NAME
" PENTAMERUS " SOWERBY, 1813 (CLASS BRACHIOPODA)

By THOMAS W. AMSDEN

{Department of Geology, The Johns Hopkins Universily, Baltittiore, Maryland,

U.S.A.)

Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)286)

(Extract from a letter dated 31st October, 1950)

I received your letter of 24th October with the enclosed copy of the appli-
cation by Dr. Elizabeth Alexander pertaining to the names Conchidium and
Pentatnerus. The problem concerned with these generic names is a complicated
one and it seems to me -fchat Dr. Alexander has proposed the best possible

solution. , .

'^^'^ .... jJ

^^

ON DR. F. ELIZABETH ALEXANDER'S PROPOSAL FOR THE
USE BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOG-
ICAL NOMENCLATURE OF ITS PLENARY POWERS TO
VALIDATE CURRENT USAGE OF THE GENERIC NAME
" PENTAMERUS " SOWERBY, 1813 (CLASS BRACHIOPODA)

By G. ARTHUR COOPER

(Curator, Invertebrate Paleontology and Paleobotany, Smithsonian Institution.
U.S. National Mnseum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)286)

(Extract from a letter dat^d 30th Noveinber 1950)

Dr. Helen Muir-AVood, who is visiting here at the U.S. National Musemii,
turned over to me your letter concerning Conchidium and Pentanwrus. As
far as I am personally concerned. I would be agreeable to the Conunission
using its plenary powers to designate Pentaniervs oblongus Sowerby, 1839,
as type species of Pentameni^ and to suppress the name Pentamerus laevis,
which has priority over P. oblongus.

Contents

{continued from front wrapper)

Proposed determination under the plenary powers of the species Page
to which the trivial name sirtalis Linnaeus, 1758 (as published
in the binominal combination Coluber sirtalis) (Class Reptilia,
Order Squamata) is to be applied. By Karl P. Schmidt {Chief
Curator of Zoology, Chicago Natural Historv Museum,
Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) and Roger Conant {Curator,
Philadelphia Zoological Garden, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
U.S.A.) f^j

Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name
Crangon Fabricius, 1798, for the Common Shrimp and the
generic name Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, for the Snappmg
Shrimps (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By L. B.
Holthuis {Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden, The
Netherlands) . . . . . . . . ^g

On the confusion which would arise from the acceptance of the
generic names Crangon Weber, 1795, and Alpheus Weber,
1795 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By Poul Heegaard
{University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark) . . . . 73

On Dr. Poul Heegaard's proposal that the names Crangon
Fabricius, 1798, and Alpheus Fabricius, 1798 (Class
Crustacea, Order Decapoda) should be validated under the
plenary powers. By the late Robert Gurney {Oxford) . . 74

On Dr. L. B. Holthuis' proposals relating to the generic names
Crangon Weber, 1795, and Crangon Fabricius, 1798. By
Albert H. Banner {University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Territory
of Hawaii) . . . . . . . . " y^

On Dr. L. B. Holthuis' proposals relating to the generic names
Crangon Weber, 1795, and Crangon Fabricius, 1798. By
Fenner A. Chace, Jr. {Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National
Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) 75

On the proposed validation of the names Crangon and Alpheus
as from Fabricius, 1798, by the suppression of the names
Crangon Weber, 1795, and Alpheus Weber, 1795 (Class
Crustacea, Order Decapoda), by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature : Supplementary Note.
By L. B. Holthuis {Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic,
Leiden, The Netherlands) . . . . 79

Proposed use of the plenary powers to render the generic name
Scyllarides Gill, 1898 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda),
the oldest available name for the species currently referrea
thereto. By L. B. Holthuis {Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke
Historic, Leiden, The Netherlands) 81

Proposed use of the plenary powers to render the generic name
Lysiosquilla Dana, 1852 (Class Crustacea, Order Stoma-
topoda), the oldest available name for the species currently
referred thereto. By L. B. Holthuis {Rijksmuseum van
Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden, The Netherlands) .. . . 83

On Dr. L. B. Holthuis' proposal that the plenary powers should
be used to preserve the use of the generic name Lysiosquilla
Dana, 1852 (Class Crustacea, Order Stomatopoda), in its
accustomed sense. By the late Robert Gurney {Oxford) . . 85

1i
Contents :

{continued from overleaf)

■ \

Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name Page ;

Odontodactylus Bigelow, 1893 (Class Crustacea, Order j

Stomatopoda). By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksnmseum van 1

Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden, The Netherlands) .. .. 86 ^

Proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress certain names
published for fossil animals by Linnaeus in 1768 and by
other authors in later editions of the works of Linnaeus.
By the late R. VC inckworth {London) . . . . . . . . 88

Proposed use of the plenary powers to prevent the confusion
which would result, under a strict application of the Regies,
from the sinking of the name Conchidium as a synonym of
Pentamerus Sowerby, 1813 (Class Brachipoda), and the
transfer of the latter name to the genus now known as
Conchidium. By F. Elizabeth Alexander, M.A., Ph.D.
{Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) . . 89

On the proposal that the plenary powers should be used to
conserve the names Conchidium and Pentamerus for the fossil
Brachiopod genera to which those names are customarily
applied. By J. K. St. Joseph, M.A., Ph.D. {Sedgwick
Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) . . . . . . 95

On Dr. F. Elizabeth Alexander's proposal for the use by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of
its plenary powers to validate current usage of the generic
name Pentamerus Sowerby, 1813 (Class Brachiopoda). By
Thomas W. Amsden {Department of Geology, The John
Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) .. .. 96

On Dr. F. Elizabeth Alexander's proposal for the use by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of
its plenary powers to validate current usage of the generic ,,

name Pentamerus Sowerby, 1813 (Class Brachiopoda). By m

G. Arthur Cooper {Curator, Invertebrate Paleontology and ^

Paleobotany, Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Museum,
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) 96

Publications of the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

All inquiries regarding the publications issued by the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, should be addressed to the Publications Officer, Offices of the
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 41, Queen's Gate, London,
S.W.7, England.

Printed in Great Britain by Mbtchim and Sox, Ltd., Westminster, London

VOLUME 2. Part 4 20th April, 1951

pp. 97-128.

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Ol&cial Organ of

Tip INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
^^5- ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by

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

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

Contents :
Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Page

Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published
in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . 97

Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain
cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

{continued on back wrapper)

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 OfiSce of the Trust

41, Queen's Gate, London, S.W.7.

1951

Price Ten shillings

{All rights reserved)

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 tc 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. Yokes (U.S.A.) (23rd AprU 1944)

Dr. Wilham 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 (AustraUa) (27th July 1948)

Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) (27th July 1948)

Professor Teiso Esaki (Japan) (17th April 1950)

Professor Peirre Bonnet (France) (9th June 1950)

Mi. Norman Denbigh Riley (United Kingdom) (9th June 1950)

Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Poland) (15th June 1950)

Professor Robert Mertens (Germany) (6th July 1950)

Professor Erich Martin Hering (Germany) (5th July 1950)

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 and 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 cf the Trust : 41, Queen's Gate, London, S.W.7

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 2, Part 4 (pp. 97-128) 20th April 1951

NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY

The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the
recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56.. 57-59), by the Thirteenth Inter-
national Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
5:5-13, 131).

(a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on

Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published

in the " Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature "

Notice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will
start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of
publication in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who
may desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present
Part (vol. 2, Part 4) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing
to the Secretary to the Commission, as quickly as possible and in any case, in
sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secretariat
of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above.

98 BuUetin of Zoological Nomenclature

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued).

(b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases

Notice is hereby given that the possible use by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers is involved in
applications published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature (Vol. 2, Part 4) in relation to the following names : —

(1) Ligia Weber, 1795. lAgia Fabricius, 1798, and Carcinus Leach, 1814
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) (Z.N.(S.)209).

(2) Capsus Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera)
(Z.N.(S.)211).

(3) the names quudratus Fabricius, 1787, and alhiams Bosc, [1801-1802],
as alternative trivial names for the Sand Crab (Class Crustacea,
Order Decapoda) (Z.N.(S.)271).

(4) Tettigonia and Acrida : proposed validation of, as from Linnaeus,
1758 (application submitted under Opinion 124) (Z.N.(S.)328).

2. In accordance with the procedure agreed upon at the Session held by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 56), corresponding Notices have been sent
to the journals " Nature " and " Science."

FRANCIS HEMMING,

Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomendature.

Secretariat of the

International Commission on

2ioological Nomenclature,

28, Park Village East, Regent's Park,

London, N.W.I, England.

10th April 1951.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 99

PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS
OF THE GENERIC NAMES " LIGIA " FABRICIUS, 1798,
(CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER ISOPODA) AND " CARCIN-
US" LEACH, 1814 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER
DECAPODA)

By the late ALIDA M. BUITENDIJK and L. B. HOLTHUIS
{Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden, The Netherlands)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)209)

The object of the present appUcation is to secure authority from the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for the continued
use of the well-known generic names Ligia Fabricius, 1798 (Class Crustacea,
Order Isopoda) and Carcinus Leach, 1814 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda)
in their accustomed sense.

Rathbun pointed out in 1904 (Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 17 : 172), that the
generic name Ligia Weber, 1795 {Nomencl. ent. : 92) preoccupies, and therefore
renders invalid, the generic name Ligia Fabricius, 1798 {Suppl. Ent. syst.:
296, 301). Weber in his list of names — he gave no descriptions — was the
first author to publish the name Ligia. In using this name, he cited with it
the name Cancer, which he placed in brackets (parentheses), to indicate that
the species placed by him in the genus Ligia were referred by Fabricius to the
genus Cancer Linnaeus. Under the generic name Ligia, Weber cited three
specific names, namely Ligia inflexa, Ligia S-cuspitata and Ligia granaria.
The first two of these specific names were at that time nomina nuda, but the
trivial name {granaria) comprised in the third of these names had already
been published, in the binominal combination Cancer granarius, by Herbst
in 1783 {Versuch einer Naturgeschichte der Krahben und Krebse 1 : 107, pi. 2,
fig. 28) ; this name had been referred to also by Fabricius in 1793 {Ent. syst.
2 : 442). We see therefore that at the time when Weber first pubUshed the
generic name Ligia, he cited under that name the trivial name of only one
previously described and named species, viz. Cancer granarius Herbst, 1783.
That species is therefore the type species of the genus Ligia Weber, 1795,
by monotypy.

The nominal species Cancer granarius Herbst, 1783, was based upon the
■ langwerpig-vierkante Zee-Krabbe " of Slabber (1769-1778. Naturkuundige
Verlustigingen : 159. pi. 18, Fig. 1), since Herbst's figure is a copy of that
given by Slabber, and his description of this species is an abbreviated trans-
lation of Slabber's Dutch text. It is now known that Slabber's " species "
(and therefore Herbst's) is merely the megalopa stage of the common shore
crab Carcinus maoms (Linnaeus, 175 (= Cancer maenas Linnaeus, 1758, Syst.
Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 627). From the taxonomic standpoint, the genus Ligia
Weber, 1795, is identical with the genus Carcinus Leach, 1814, and accordingly
the name Carcinus Leach is a subjective junior synonym of, and falls to, the
name Ligia Weber. After Weber (1795) the generic name Ligia was never
used for a genus of Brachyura. On the other hand the generic name Carcinus
came into general use for the extremely common shore crab {Cancer maenas
Linnaeus) from the coasts of the North Atlantic.

100 Bulletin of Zoological Notnendature

The name Ligia Fabricius, 1798, was published by that author for a genus
of Isopods, represented by Oniscus oceanicus Liunaeus, 1767 {Syst. Nat.
(ed. 12)1 : 1061), which was selected as the type species of this genus by
Latreille in 1810 {Consid. gen. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 423). It has ever since
been generally used by authors in this sense \ip to the time of the pubUcation
of Rathbun's paper in 1904. Since then, it has been discarded by some
American authors in favour of the name Ligyda Rafinesque, 1815 (Analyse
Nature : 101). This name is quite unfamihar to European authors, while at
least one American author (W. G. van Name), who for a time used this name
later (1936) reverted to the name Ligia Fabricius in his monographic work,
" The American Land and Fresh-water Isopod Crustacea " {Bull. Amer.
Mus. nat. Hist. 71).

In the hght of the considerations advanced above, it is considered most
advisable — in \new of the enormous confusion which otherwise is inevitable
— that the Commission should suppress, under its plenary powers, the generic
name Ligia Weber, 1795, and should validate the generic name Ligia Fabricius,
1798. with Oniscus oceanicus Linnaeus, 1767, as its type species (by subsequent
selection by Latreille (1810) ) and should place this name, so validated, on
the Official List of Geneiic Names in Zoology.

The adoption of the foregoing proposal, by eliminating the name Ligia
Weber. 1795. will serve the further important purpose of removing one of the
two causes which at present invalidate the well-known and still conmionly
used generic name Carcinus Leach. 1814 {in Brewster's Edinburgh Ency. 7: 390)
(type species, by monotypy : Cancer maenas Linnaeus, 1758). Before however
the name Carcinus Leach could become the valid generic name for the common
shore crab, it would be necessary for the Commission to use its plenary powers
to suppress the earlier name Carcinus Latreille. 1796 {Precis Caract. gener.
Ins. : 197), which, as pointed out by Rathbun in 1897 {Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 11 :
164), at present makes Leach's generic name Carcinus an invalid jimior
homonym. On the authority of Stebbing (1888. Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool.
29 : 1669), we may conclude that the genus Carcinus Latreille, in the original
description of which no species was cited by name, is synonymous with
Gammarus Fabricius. 1775 {Syst. Ent. : 418), and thus belongs to the Amphipoda.
The name Carcinus Latreille has never been used by any subsequent author,
and its suppression under the plenary powers would therefore encounter no
difficulty whatever.

Rathbun's re-discovery (1897) of the long-neglected name Carcinus
LatreiUe, 1796, and, more particularly, her substitution (1897) of the new
generic name Carcinides Rathbun for the generic name Carcinus Leach
for the common shore crab, led to a break in the uniformity of the practice
of carcinologists in naming the common shore crab ; some authors {e.g., Pesta;
Monod) followed Rathbun in discarding the name Carcinus Leach in favour
of the name Carcinides Rathbun. 1897 ; while others {e.g., Bouvier, Lebour,
Gurney, Balas) continued to use the name Carcinus Leach, notwithstanding
the fact that, as rightly pointed out by Rathbun, this name is invalid. That,
in spite of this, the name Carcinus Leach has continued to be used by the

Bidlelin of Zoological Nomenclature 101

great majority of carcinologists — only a few using the name Carcinidea —
is striking evidence of the general reluctance to abandon the use of this name.

In order to prevent the great confusion which would follow the strict
application of the Regies in the present case, and to put an end to such con-
fusion as has already arisen through the adoption by a limited number of
workers, of the changes recommended by Rathbun. we ask the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :

(1) to use its plenary powers : —

(a) to suppress the under-mentioned generic names both for the
purposes of the Law of Priority and for those of the Law of
Homonymy : —

(i) Ligia Weber, 1795 ;

(ii) Carcinus Latreille, 1796 ;

(b) to validate the under-mentioned generic names : —
(i) Ligia Fabricius, 1798 ;

(ii) Carcinus Leach, 1814 ;

(2) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology, with the type species severally specified
below : —

(a) Ligia Fabricitis, 1798 (type species, by selection by Latreille,
1810 : Oniscus oceanicus Linnaeus, 1767) (gender of generic name :
feminine) ;

(b) Carcinus Leach, 1814 (type species, by monotjrpy : Cancer
maenas Linnaeus, 1758) (gender of generic name : masculine) ;

(3) to place the imder-mentioned generic names, proposed in (1) (a)
above to be suppressed under the plenary powers, on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : —

(a) Ligia Weber, 1795 (suppressed under (1) (a) (i) above) ;

(b) Carcinus Latreille, 1796 (suppressed under (1) (a) (ii) above) ;

(c) Carcinides Rathbun, 1897 (an objective synonym of Cardmis
Leach, 1814) ;

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

(a) maenas Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combina-
tion Cancer maenas) :

(b) oceanicus Linnaeus, 1767 (as published in the binominal com-
bination Onisciis oceanicus).

102 Bulletin of Zoological NomenclatKre

ON THE GENERIC NAME " LIGIA " AS USED BY WEBER,

1795, AND BY FABRICIUS IN 1798 (CLASS CRUSTACEA,

ORDERS DECAPODA AND ISOPODA RESPECTIVELY)

By POUL HEEGAARD

{University of Copenhagen, Denmark)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)209)

In March, 1949, I submitted to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature an application that it should use its plenary powers in order
to prevent the confusion which would be inevitable if the Regies were to be
strictly applied to the generic name Ldgia, in view of the fact that the name
Ligia Fabricius, 1798, is an invalid junior homonym of the name Ligia Weber,
1795, for this would mean that the name lAgia, which for 150 years has been
almost universally appUed to an extremely well-known genus of Isopods,
could no longer be applied in this way.

I have been informed by the Secretary to the International Commission
that in January, 1946, the Commission received an identical application from
Dr. A. M. Biutendijk and Dr. L. B. Holthuis, of the Rijksmuseum van Natuur-
lijke Historic, Leyden, and that this application will be pubhshed as soon
as possible in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, with a view to an early
decision being taken by the International Commission on this important
question. The Secretary to the Commission has communicated to me a copy
of the joint application prepared by Dr. Buitendijk and Dr. Holthuis, with
which I find myself in complete agreement. Accordingly, instead of myself
submitting an appHcation on this case, I desire fully to associate myself with
and to support the joint application referred to above.

Bulletin of Zoological Noimndature 103

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VARY

THE TYPE SPECIES OF " CAPSUS " FABRICIUS, 1803

(CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA) IN ORDER TO

VALIDATE EXISTING NOMENCLATORIAL PRACTICE

By W. E. CHINA, Sc.D.
{Deputy Keeper, Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History),

London)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)211) ,

The object of the present application is to seek the help of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in preventing the confusion which
would inevitably arise if the Regies were strictly appUed in the case of the
generic name Capsus Fabricius, 1803 {Syst. Rhyng. : 241) (Class Insecta,
Order Hemiptera).

The relevant facts are as follows : The genus Capsus Fabricius, as recognised
by the majority of hemipterists, is based upon the species included in it by
Fabricius as Capsus ater { = Cimex ater Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1:
447). This species is treated as the type species of this genus, Renter, Kirkaldy
and other authors having claimed that Fabricius himself so designated this
species in 1803. Fabricius did not, however, designate any type species in
the work under consideration and it is necessary therefore to ascertain which
of the species included in this genus in 1803 was first subsequently selected
as the type species of the genus.

The first type selection made for this genus was that made by Latreille
in 1810 {Consid. gen. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 433), the species so selected being
cited as Cimex spissicornis Fabr., i.e., the species originally described as Cimex
spissicornis Fabricius, 1777 {Gen. Ins. : 300). The species so named is currently
accepted as being identical with Cimex meriopterus Scopoli, 1763 {Ent. cam. :
131).

The acceptance of this species as the type species of the genus Capsus
Fabricius would involve the transfer of the well-known generic name Capsus
from the sub-family now known as capsinae to the sub-family now known
as CYLLECORiNAE, the introduction of the name mirinae for the sub-family
now known as capsinae, and the replacement of the genus Capsus, as at present
understood, by the genus Rhopalotomus Fieber, 1858 {Wien. ent. Monats. 2 :
307).

The acceptance of the foregoing changes would undoubtedly lead, at the
generic level, to greater confusion than uniformity. Further, such a change
in the meaning to be attached to the generic name Capsiis would involve the

104 Bulletin of Zoological Nmnenclature

loss of a group name based upon the name of this genus. This would be very
regrettable since the term " Capsid " for the family is well established among
economic entomologists in Britain. In order to prevent the confusion which
would follow the strict application of the Regies in this case, I ask the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : —

(1) to use its plenary powers : —

(a) to set aside all selections of type species for the genus Capsus
Fabricius, 1803, made prior to the proposed decision ;

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

(2) to place the generic name Capsus Fabricius, 1803 (type species, by
designation under the plenary powers, as proposed in (1) (b) above :
Cimex ater Linnaeus, 1758) on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology (gender of generic name : masculine) ;

(3) to place the trivial name ater Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the
binominal combination Cimex ater) on the Official List of Specific
Trivial Names in Zoology.

)

Bulletin of Zoological Notnenclature 105

REQUEST FOR VIEWS OF SPECIALISTS ON THE
QUESTION WHETHER THE SUBSTITUTION, AS REQUIRED
BY THE "REGLES", OF THE NAME "QUADRATUS"
FABRICIUS, 1787, FOR THE NAME "ALBICANS" BOSC,
[1801-1802], AS THE TRIVIAL NAME OF THE SAND CRAB
(CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA) WOULD GIVE
RISE TO CONFUSION OR INSTABILITY

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
{Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomendaiure)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)271)

At its Session held iu Paris in 1948, the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature, after reviewing the information available, decided
to cancel its earUer Opinion 13 as being " incomplete and, in part, incorrect."
At the same time the Commission agreed upon the adoption of Opinions on
all the issues raised in Opinion 13, except that regarding the tri\'ial name
to be used for the Sand Crab, which, as explained below, was reserved for
further consideration.

2. On this question the Commission gave a ruling that, imder the Regies,
the correct trivial name for this species was quadratus Fabricius, 1787 (as
pubUshed in the binominal combination Cancer quadratus) and not the name
albicans Bosc, [1801-1802] (as published in the binominal combination Ocypoda
albicans), as had incorrectly been stated in Opinion 13. The Commission
decided, however, before finally rendering an Opinion in this sense, to ascertain
from interested specialists whether the substitution of the name quadratus
Fabricius for the name albicans Bosc as the trivial name of the Sand Crab
would be likely to give rise to " confusion and instability." The Commission
placed on record that, if specialists were to consider that the adoption for this
species of the tri\aal name quadratus Fabricius would lead to these results,
it would forthwith use its plenary powers for the purpose of suppressing the
foregoing name, thus validating the name albicans Bosc.

3. A fuU account of the considerations which led up to the foregoing
decisions is given in the Official Record of Proceedings of the International
Commission at its Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 53 (see 1950, Bull
zool. Nomencl. 4 : 573-580).

4. In accordance with the procedure described above, specialists in this
group are particularly requested to send to the International Commission as
soon as possible, statements describing current nomenclatorial practice in this
matter and setting out their views on the question of the possible use of the
plenary powers in this case. Such statements should be addressed to the
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the
Secretariat of the Commission (28 Park Village East, Regent's Park, London,
N.W.I, England).

106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALID-
ATE THE TERMS " TETTIGONIA " AND " ACRIDA " (CLASS
INSECTA, ORDER ORTHOPTERA) AS SUBGENERIC
NAMES AS FROM LINNAEUS, 1758 (APPLICATION SUB-
MITTED IN RESPONSE TO THE INVITATION GIVEN
IN ' OPINION ' 124)

By ASHLEY B. GURNEY

{Bureau of Entomology ami Plant Quarantine, Agricultural Research
Administration, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington. B.C.,

U.S.A.) "

(Commission's reference Z. N.(S.)328)

The following application is hereby submitted to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature : (!) that Tettigonia Linnaeus be accepted
as of subgeneric value as from 1758 [Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 429), under the
plenary powers, and that it be added to the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology, with Gryllus viridissimus Linnaeus, 1758, as t3'pe species ; (2) that
Acrida Linnaeus be accepted as of subgeneric value as from 1758 (Syst. Nat.
(ed. 10) 1 : 427), under the plenary powers, and that it be added to the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology, wath Gryllus turritus Linnaeus, 1758, as type
species.

1. Tettigonia

Tettigonia is one of six subdivisions^ of Gryllus recognised by Linnaeus,
1758, and used by him in a sense corresponding to subgenera of modern workers.
Although this term was invalidated as of 1758 by Opinion 124 (1936), most
taxonomic workers in the Orthoptera use the generic name Tettigonia Linnaeus,
and the great majority of taxonomists and general entomologists utilise the
orthopterous name tettigoniidae.^ This family name dates from the super-
generic group Tettigoniae of StoU, 1787 (Spectres, Mantes, etc. T. 1, Amsterdam),
which was given the now accepted family ending -idae by Krauss, 1902 {Zool.
Anz. 25 : 538). The only other family names that have been widely ised in
the same sense are locustidae and phasgonueidae.^ The former is obviously
unavailable here because Locusta is restricted to another family by Opinion
158 (1945). The name phasgonuridae dates from Kirby, 1891 {Trans, ent.
Soc. Lond. 1891 : 405), but has been used less generally than tettigoniidae,
and in recent years relatively little, partly becuase of the assumption on the
part of many workers that Phasgonura Stephens, 1835 {III. Brit. Ent., Mand.
6:15) (Type species : Gryllus viridissimus Linnaeus) is a synonym of Tettigonia
Linnaeus, 1758 (see discussion of type species below). Validation of Tettigonia
Linnaeus would permit the continued general use of the family name tetti-
goniidae, thus avoiding further confusion in the nomenclature of an Order,
the family names of which were formerly subject to frequent changes, but
which in recent years have gradually become more standardised. The practice
of working orthopterists indicates the desirability of validating Tettigonia
Lin n aeus.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 107

There are differences of opinion concerning the species to be accepted as
the type species of Tettigonia Linnaeus, and in the event of Tettigonia being
validated, it is important that the type species be fixed beyond further
argument. The use of the plenary powers may be necessary to fix as the
type species the species which will create least confusion in the nomenclature
of the Orthoptera. The majority of current workers accept Gryllus viridissimus
Linnaeus as the type species, but I agree with Roberts, 1941 {Trans, amer.
ent. Soc. 67 : 30;31) that the first definite selection was that of Kirby, 1890
{Sci. Proc. Roy. Dublin Soc. 6 : 481), Gryllus verrucivorus Linnaeus. If the
latter selection is accepted, as should be done under a strict interpretation of
the Rules, the genus Decticus Serville, 1831 {Ann. Sci. nat. Paris 22 : 159)
(Type species : Gryllus verrucivortis Linnaeus) would fall as a synonym of
Tettigonia Linnaeus, at the same time invalidating the well-known subfamily
name decticinae.

Uvarov, 1923 {Trans, ent. Soc. Lond. 1923 : 493) and others have considered
that Leach, 1815 {Edinburgh Encyclopedia : 120) selected Gryllus viridissimus
Linnaeus as the type species of Tettigonia. Since Leach merely listed the
species with no indication of type significance that I have discovered, type
selection is not evident. Karny, 1908 {Zool. Ammlen, Z.f. Ges. Zool. 2 : 202-208)
has argued that G. viridissimus became the type species through the removal
of all the other 16 species originally placed in Tettigonia by Linnaeus, 1758.
Although selection of type species by elimination was once an accepted practice,
it is believed to have no standing under present Rules except in the case of a
genus containing two species when one is removed to be type species of another
genus {Opinion 6, 1910) (Also see Opinion 62, 1914). Rehn, 1901 {Canad.
Ent. 33 : 121) also reasoned by the method of elimination that G. viridissimus
is the type species of Tettigonia, but his conclusion is so definite that it clearly
constitutes a type selection, the first clear cut selection of that species, regardless
of the reasoning involved.

Kirby, 1890 {I.e.) reviewed the originally included species of Tettigonia
Linnaeus and by the method of elimination concluded that G. verrucivorus

should be the type species. (Quotation from Kirby : " which leaves

G. verrucivorus as the type of Tettigonia.") While not accepting Kirby 's
method of arriving at a conclusion on the type species of Tettigonia, I believe,
however, that his concluding statement, quoted above, constitutes a type
selection, irrespective of the method used in reaching that conclusion.

In the interest of nomenclatorial stability, it appears advisable to fix
Gryllus viridissimus Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of Tettigonia Linnaeus,
1758.

2. Acrida

Acrida is the second subdivision of Gryllus recognised by Linnaeus, 1758.
It is of prime importance as the basis of the family name acrididae, and,
since the acridids include a very large number of highly economic locusts
and shorthorned grasshoppers, it is very desirable that stability of the family

108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

name be achieved. A great majority of both systematists and economic
entomologists now use the name acrididae,^ which is derived from the super-
generic group Acridites of Latreille, 1825 (Fatn. Nat. Regne Anim. : 414-416).
AU other names for the family are unsatisfactory because they lack priority,
have had only a small amount of usage, or because they have been applied
to different zoological groups in a manner that leads to confusion. For example,
the name locustidae dates from the group Locustariae of Latrille, 1804 {Hist.
Nat. Crust. Ins. 12 : 127-136), but at that time it was apphed to katydids or
long-horned grasshoppers (the tettigoniidae of most current usage). In
1829, Stephens (Brit. Ins. : 301) applied the name locustidae to grasshoppers
and locusts for the first time, and it has recently been done by Comstock, 1930
(Introd. Ent. : 252), Essig, 1942 {College Ent. : 90) and several others, though
the name acrididae is used by most modern taxonomists.^ To add to the
confusion, Comstock, 1930 (I.e. : 254) used locustinae for the subfamily of
" spine-throated locusts," though the genus Lociista is not included in that
subfamily, actually belonging to the group usually called the oedipodinae.

A family name based on Acrydium has also been used, but Acrydium has
been almost universally^ appUed to the grouse-locusts (tetrigidae), and so
acrydiidae would be confusing if applied to locusts and grasshoppers.

In order for Acrida to be available as a basis for the family name acrididae,
it appears necessary that it be dated from Linnaeus, 1758, as that generic
name was not subsequently brought into general use by orthopterists until
the time of Stal. 1873 {Rec. Orthopt. 1 : 88, 95-100). Between the time of
Linnaeus and Stal, Kirby, 1825 {Zool. J. 1 : 432) and Curtis, 1825 {Brit. Ent.
2 : 82) appUed the name Acrida to katydids rather than to short-horned
grasshoppers (see Roberts, I.e. : 5) so that it becomes essential to establish
the validity of Acrida as from Linnaeus, 1758. Ivrauss, 1902 {Zool. Anz.
25 : 541) first selected a type species for Acrida Linnaeus : Gryllus turritus
Linnaeus, 1758.

Footnotes

1. Regarding the other sub-divisions of Gryllus Linnaeus, 1758 : Locusta was added to
the Official List of Oeneric Names in Zoology under Opinion 158 (1945) ; Bulla was suppressed
as a homonym of Bulla Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 725) (Mollusca) under the amend-
ment to Article 34 of the International Code adopted at Padua, 1930 (referred to in Opinion 124,
1936) ; Mantis, as of 1767 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 689), was added to the Official List under
Opinion 149 (1943). Although, under the existing Rules, Acheta was not at any time validly
proposed by Linnaeus, this generic name is available for use, dating from Fabricius, 1775 {Syst.
Ent. : 279). Curtis, 1830 (Brit. Ent. 7 : 293) selected Gryllus domesticus Linnaeus, as the type
species of the genus " Acheta Fab., Lea., Sam," this being the first valid selection, and it estab-
lishes Acheta in the same sense as formerly used, dating from Linnaeus, 1758. Kamy, 1937
{Oen. Insectorum fasc. 206, Gryllacrididae : 213) listed Acheta Fabricius, 1775 (nee. Linnaeus)
as a synonjTn of Schizodactylus BruUe, 1835, but that is a misappUcation of the name, since
Acheta has priority. Furthermore, no type selection of Gryllus monstrosus Drury, 1773, the
tjrpe species of Schizodactylus and in included in Acheta by Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent. : 826),
prior to 1830 has come to my attention, (Linnaeus, 1767, used Mantis in a generic sense,
Acrida and Acheta in a subgeneric sense.)

2. The general use of TETTiGONnDAE and acrididae is evidence by the utUisation of these
family names in the volumes of the Zoological Record since 1922 (27 years). Both are the names
currently used by the Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, in the United States, and
the Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, for the British Commonwealth. The guidance
in systematic entomology and large number of routine identifications furnished by these two

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 109

organizations constitute a great influence on the nomenclatorial usage of entomologists as a
whole. Specialists in three outstanding centres of systematic work on Orthoptera, namely,
London, Philadelphia and Paris, use the above family names. They also appear in the hand-
book, " Locusts and Grasshoppers," pubhshed by B. P. Uvarov in 1928 and are familiar to
nearly all economic workers on grasshoppers.

ACRiDiDAE is the family name used in correspondence £rom the Anti-Locust Research
Centre, in London, which organization is now co-ordinating most of the international work on
large-scale grasshopper control and research.

Finally, a survey of published work by leading orthopterists throughout the world during
the past fifteen years shows that the preponderance of usage favours the family names tetti-

GONHDAE and ACRIDIDAE.

3. Although the Rules are definite on certain aspects of family names, there is need for
further clarification. (See Sabrosky, 1947, Amer. Naturalist 81 : 153-160). (Articles 4 and 5
of the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, and Opinions 133 (1936) and 141 (1943)
of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature concern family names.)

4. China and Fannah, 1946 {Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (11) 12 : 707-712, 1945) pointed out
the necessity of using tetigonia Geoffroy, 1762, under the rules, and recognized that under
paragraph 1(d) oi Opinion 147 (1943) the slight difference in spelling (one or two t's) in Linnaeus'
and Geofifroy's names permits only one name to be valid.

5. Roberts, 1941 (Trans, amer. ent. Soc. 67 : 24) has recently shown that, contrary to
the traditional orthopterological practice, Acrydium Geoffroy, 1762, actually applies to a
zoological unit included in the acrididae rather than the tetbigidae.

ON DR. ASHLEY B. GURNEY'S PROPOSAL THAT THE
NAME " TETTIGONIA " SHOULD BE VALIDATED AS FROM
LINNAEUS, 1758, AS OF SUBGENERIC STATUS IN THE
ORDER ORTHOPTERA (CLASS INSECTA), BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLA-
TURE UNDER ITS PLENARY POWERS

By W. E. CHINA, Esq., M.A., Sc.D.
{Deputy Keeper, Departmeyit of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History),

London)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)328)

(Extract from a letter dated 11th January, 1949)

No confusion would result in the nomenclature of the Hemiptera from
the disappearance of Tetigonia Geoffroy, 1762 (either by invalidation or as a
homonym of Tettigonia L., 1758). The only change in the nomenclature
resulting from such a disappearance would be the restoration of the well-known
generic name Ledra Fabricius, 1803, type species of the family ledridae.
This would, of course, be all to the good. This fact is set out in China and
Fennah, October, 1945, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (11) 12 : 711-712 : " By the
above dispositions the only nomenclatorial change in Hemiptera which would
result from any future invalidation of Tetigonia Geoffroy or from any validation
of Tettigonia L. (Orthoptera) would be the restoration of the generic name
Ledra."

110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF THE GENERIC

NAME " TETTIGONIA " LINNAEUS, 1758, IN THE ORDER

ORTHOPTERA (CLASS INSECTA)

By R. G. FENNAH
(Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture, St. Augustine, Trinidad)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)328)

(Extracts from letters dated 12th and 30th January, 1949)

A. Extract fro7n letter dated 12th January, 1949.

I understand that Dr. China has supplied you with the technical details
regarding the change which will occur in Hemiptera, if Tettigonia of Linnaeus
is validated.

The consequential suppression of Tetigonia Geoffroy would undoubtedly
be welcomed by hemipterists, as the generic name Ledra, which was displaced
by China & Femiah in 1945, is well-known and long established. Moreover,
the combination Tetigonia aurita (Linnaeus) is still novel and has not entered
into literature, apart from the original proposals, as far as I know.

B. Extract from letter dated 30th January, 1949.

There is one trivial item worthy of mention when you are writing up the
case, and that is the generic name Tetigonia Fourcroy, which was not mentioned
in the China & Fennah paper.

Tetigonia Geoffroy, 1762, is, as you say in your letter of 14th January,
invalid under the decision of the Paris Congress. But the generic name was
cited and validated by Fourcroy, 1785, Etd. paris. 1 : 193. with the original
spelling.

It would accordingly be advisable to make it quite plain that Tettigonia
with two " t's " is, for the purposes of judging preoccupation of the name,
the same as Tetigonia with one " t." This would squarely place Fourcroy 's
Tetigonia in homonymy.

Bulletin of Zoological Noiitenclaiure 111

ON DR. ASHLEY B. GURNEY'S PROPOSAL THAT THE
NAMES "TETTIGONIA" AND " ACRIDA " SHOULD BE
VALIDATED, AS FROM LINNAEUS, 1758, BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLA-
TURE UNDER ITS PLENARY POWERS

By B. P. UVAROV, C.M.G., D.Sc.
{Anti-Locust Research Centre and British Museum {Natural History), London)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)328)

The proposal that Tettigonia Linnaeus, 1758, be accepted as of subgeneric
vahie under the plenary powers, and that it be added to the Official List with
Gryllus viridissimus Linnaeus, 1758, as type species, is supported and it is
considered that such action will ehminate confusion.

Tetigonia Geoffroy, 1762, should be definitely rejected as a homonym of
Tettigonia Linnaeus, 1758, as this action would prevent further confusion.

The proposal that Acrida Linnaeus, 1758, be accepted as of subgeneric
value, under the plenary powers and that it be added to the Official List with
Ghryllus turritus Linnaeus, 1758, as type species, is supported. This action will
stabilise the use of the family name acrididae in the sense in which it is now
used by all taxonomc workers on the group. The name acrididae has formed
the basis of the French designation of five successive international anti-locust
conferences (1931, 1932, 1934, 1936 and 1938) as " Conferences internationales
anti-acridiennes. " It is also incorporated in the name of the " Office National
Anti-Acridien," which is the French central institution for anti-locust research ;
and in the name of the " Comite Interamericano Permanente Antiacridiano "
established in 1948 by a Convention of nine South and Central American States,

Finally, the term " acridology " is now being increasingly used to define
that branch of entomology which deals with acrididae.

112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomendature

FIRST REPORT on matters left unsettled

IN " OPINION " 124, IN RELATION TO THE STATUS OF

THE TERMS USED BY LINNAEUS IN 1758 TO DENOTE

SUBDIVISIONS OF GENERA ESTABLISHED IN THE

lOTH EDITION OF THE " SYSTEMA NATURAE"

The subdivisions of the genus " Gryllus " Linnaeus, 1758
(Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera)

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
{Secretary to the hiternational Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)328)

1 . At its meeting held in Paris in 1948 the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclatm:e placed on record their disapproval of the practice
sometimes adopted in the past, mider which the decision given in an Opinion
dealt with part only of the issues involved, and agreed to invite the Secretary
to the Commission (a) to examine all the Opinions so far rendered, with a view
to ascertaining every instance where an application had been dealt with in-
completely and (b) to submit proposals as soon as possible for the rendering,
as a matter of urgency, of supplementary Opinions dealing with the questions
left unanswered in the earlier Opinions concerned (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
4 : 355). This decision was endorsed by the Thirteenth International Congress
of Zoology (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 104-105).

2. Opinion 124 provides a conspicuous example of the class of case covered
by the foregoing decision, for that Opinion lays down a general principle
applicable to all the terms used by Linnaeus to denote subdivisions of genera,
but discusses the effect of that decision in relation to one only of the genera
concerned (Gryllus Linnaeus, 1758) and, even in that case, in relation to one
only of the six terms used by Linnaeus to denote subdivisions of that genus.
The submission by Dr. Ashley B. Gurney of proposals relating to two other
of the terms used by Linnaeus to denote subdivisions of the genus Grrjllus
provides a convenient opportunity for placing before the Commission proposals
for such further action as is necessary in order to fill in all the gaps in Opinion
124, in so far as that Opinion is concerned with the status to be accorded to
the t€rms used by Linnaeus in 1758 to denote subdivisions of the foregoing
genus. I accordingly decided to devote to this subject the first of the Reports
which, under the decision of the International Congress of Zoology quoted in
paragraph 1 above, I have been asked to prepare in regard to matters left
unsettled by Opinion 124. This Report I now submit for consideration by
the International Conunission on Zoological Nomenclature. Further Reports
dealing with terms used by Linnaeus in 1758 to denote subdivisions of genera,
other than Gryllus Linnaeus, will be submitted, as and when opportunity offers,

3. Arrangement of Report : In the present Report, I deal, in turn, with
each of the six terms used by Linnaeus in 1758 to denote subdivisions of the
genus Gryllus. In each case I indicate such action, if any, as has already been

Bulletin of Zoological N omencloiure 113

taken by the Commission in regard thereto and refer to the proposals in regard
to certain of those terms which have been submitted to the Commission by
Dr. Ashley B. Gurney. Where necessary, I indicate such further consequential
action as is necessary, in order completely to dispose of the cases concerned.

4. The term Mantis as used by Linnaeus : At Lisbon in 1935 the Inter-
national Commission decided to place on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology the generic name Mantis Linnaeus as from 1767, that being the date
on which this name was first validly used as a generic name, its use on that
occasion being acceptable to specialists as it was in accordance with current
nomenclatorial practice. By this decision therefore the Commission decided
also that there were no grounds for the use of the plenary powers for the purpose
of validating the name Mantis as from Linnaeus, 1758 {Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 :
425). All therefore that is now required in this connection is that the reputed
but non-existent generic name Mantis Linnaeus, 1758, should be placed on
the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. It should
be noted that some authors have suggested that the name Mantis Linnaeus,
1767, is ante-dated by the name Mantes Geoffroy, 1762 {Hist, abreg. Ins. Paris
1 : 399), but this is not correct, for the Commission has decided that, in the
work quoted, Geoflfroy did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature
and therefore that no name published therein acquires availability in zoological
nomenclature on that account (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 366-369).
It would be well, however, finally to dispose of this matter by placing the
reputed but non-existent generic name Mantes Geoffroy on the Official Index.
Finally, it is necessary at this point to refer to the decision taken by the Inter-
national Congress of Zoology in 1948 that the trivial names of the type species
of genera placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology should, when
they are the oldest available names for the species concerned, be placed on
the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; this decision is
retrospective and will therefore in any case apply in the present instance
when the foregoing Official List comes to be compiled. It will be convenient,
however, to take the present opportunity to deal with this matter by placing
on the Offiicial List the trivial name religiosus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed.
10) 1 : 426 (as published in the binominal combination Gryllus religiosus),
that being the trivial name of the type species of Mantis Linnaeus, 1767.

5. The term Acrida as used by Linnaeus : Dr. Gurney's proposal (that
Acrida should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with
status as from Linnaeus, 1758 {Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 427), and with Gryllus
turritus Linnaeus, 1758, as type species) covers all the principal matters which
call for action in this case. It should be noted, however, that, since at present
the term Acrida possesses no status as a subgeneric name as from Linnaeus,
1758, it follows automatically that there is at present no nominal genus (or
subgenus) Acrida Linnaeus, 1758, and consequently that, if (as proposed by
Dr. Gurney) the plenary powers are used to bring into existence the subgeneric
name Acrida Linnaeus, 1758, the same powers will need to be used to provide
that newly created nominal subgenus with a type species. Further, for the
reasons explained (in paragraph 4) in connection with the generic name Mantis
Lmnaeus, 1767, it will be necessary to place on the Official List of Specific

1 1 i Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Trivial Names in Zoology the triN-ial name turriti(s Linnaeus, 1758 (as published
in the binominal combination Gryllus turritus), the trivial name of the species
proposed by Dr. Gurney to be designated as the type species of this genus.

6. The term Bulla as used by Linnaeus : The International Commission,
in Opinion 124, pointed out that, even if Linnaeus had in 1758 {Syst. Nat.
(ed. 10) 1 : 427) published the name Bulla as the name of a subgenus of Gryllus
Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta), that name, being a subgeneric name, would
have fallen (under a rule then recommended by the Commission to the Congress)
as a homonym of the Gastropod name Bulla Linnaeus, 1758 {Syst. Nat. (ed.
10) 1 : 725), the latter name having been published as a generic name and
accordingly, being of the same date, possessing priority over its homon}'in
published as a subgeneric name. The Gastropod name Bulla Linnaeus has
now been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (see 1950,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 305) ; all that is called for therefore to complete the
action required in the present case is to place the reputed but non-existent
name Bulla Linnaeus, 1758 (in the Class Insecta) on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

7. The term Acheta as used by Linnaeus : Dr. Gurney has explained in
the first of the footnotes to his applciation that, while in the past some authors
have treated Acheta as having acquired subgeneric status as from Linnaeus,
1758 {Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 428), others have used this name as pubUshed by
Fabricius in 1775 {Syst. Ent. : 279-282. 826), when it was employed in a strictly
binominal sense. It was there used by Fabricius for ten species, of which the
second was Gryllus domesticus Linnaeus, 1758 {Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 428).
This species was selected as the type species by Curtis in 1830 {Brit. Ent. 7 :
293), and this generic name is currently used in this sense. As, under Opinion
124, the name Acheta has no standing as a subgeneric name as from Linnaeus,
1758. and as Fabricius (1775) was the first author to use the word Acheta
as a generic or subgeneric name, the name Acheta Fabricius, 1775, is an available
name. Further, as its type species under the Regies {Gryllus domesticus Lin-
naeus, 1758) is the species currently accepted as such, there is no reason why
the International Commission should use its plenary powers to validate the
name Acheta as from Linnaeus, 1758, the present position by which that name
ranks from Fabricius, 1775, being perfectly satisfactory. All that is required
to make the position clear is (1) to place the generic name Acheta Fabricius,
1775, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and the trivial name
domesticus Linnaeus. 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Gryllus
domesticus) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, and (2)
to place the reputed but non-existent subgeneric name Acheta Linnaeus, 1758,
on the Official Indejc of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Dr.
Gurney and Dr. B. P. L'varov. whom I have consulted, both support this
proposal. Dr. Uvarov points out that his name Gryllulus (Uvarov, 1935,
Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10) 16 : 320) is an objective synonym of Acheta Fabricius,
1775 ; it is accordingly proposed that that name should be added to the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names.

Bulletin of Zoological Nome nclalnre 115

8. The term Tettigonia as used by Linnaeus : Dr. Gurney and Dr. Uvarov
(supported from the point of view of hemipterological literature by Dr. W. E.
China and Mr. R. G. Fennah) recommend that the Commission should use its
plenary powers to validate the name Tettigonia as of subgeneric status as from
Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 429) ; Dr. Gurney and Dr. Uvarov
further propose that the nominal species to be accepted as the type species
of this genus should be Gryllus viridissimus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10)
1 : 430). For the reasons already explained in the parallel case of Acrida
Linnaeus, 1758 (paragraph 5 above), it will be necessary for the Commission
to use its plenary powers for the latter, just as much as for the former, of these
purposes. The only other action called for in connection with this name is
(for the reasons explained in paragraph 4 above in connection with the name
Mantis) to place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology the trivial
name viridissimus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination
Gryllus viridissimus), that being the trivial name of the nominal species
recommended by Dr. Gurney for recognition as the type species of Tettigonia
Linnaeus, 1758.

9. The reputed generic name Tetigonia Geoff roy, 1762 : The action proposed
by Dr. Gurney and Dr. Uvarov will serve two valuable purposes, quite un-
connected with one another : first, it will (as they desire) provide a legal
foundation for the name Tettigonia as a generic name in the Order Orthoptera ;
second, it will eliminate, as an invalid junior homonym (under the provision
which is to replace (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 161-162) subsection (d) in
the third paragraph of Article 35, as applied to Article 34), the confusingly
similar name Tetigonia in the Order Hemiptera. The disappearance of this
name is welcomed by both Dr. China and Mr. Fennah. It is desirable that
the present opportunity should be taken to make the position clear by placing
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology both (1)
the name Tetigonia Geoffroy, 1762, Hist, ahreg. Ins. Paris 1 : 429 (which, quite
apart from the application submitted by Dr. Gurney, is already an invalid
name having been published in a work in which the author (Geoffroy) did not
apply the principles of binominal nomenclature — see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
4 : 366-369), (2) the name Tettigonia Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 678 (which,
pending the approval of Dr. Gurney's proposal, is an available name), (3)
Tetigonia Fourcroy, 1785, Ent. paris. 1 : 193 (an invalid homonym of Tettigonia
Fabricius, 1775), and (4) Tetigonia Blanchard, 1852. in Gav, Hist. Chile (Zool.)
7 : 282.

10. Effect of eliminating the name Tetigonia /row hemipterological literature :
Dr. China has pointed out that the final elimination of the name Tetigonia
from the literature of the Order Hemiptera will be to restore to unquestioned
availabhty the generic name Ledra Fabricius, 1803 {Syst. Rhyngot. : 24), and
consequently also the family name ledbidae. Dr. China, after examining and
(rightly) rejecting the claim advanced by Kirkaldy that Fabricius had himself
designated a type species for the genus Ledra, has reported {in lift., 18th January
1949) that the first valid selection of a type species for this genus was that by
Latreille in 1810 {Consid. gen. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 434) of Cicada aurita Lin-
naeus. 1758. Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 435. In view of the uncertainty that has

116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

existed regarding the status of the generic name Ledra, having regard to the
competing (but now finally rejected) claims of Tetigonia GeofEroy, 1762, it is
clearly desirable that the name Ledra Fabricius should be placed on the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology, with the above species as type species, the
trivial name aurita Lianaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination
Cicada aurita), the trival name of that species, being at the same time placed
on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology.

1 1 . The term Locusta as used by Limiaeus : At Lisbon in 1935 the Inter-
national Commission used its plenary powers (a) to validate the name Locusta,
as from Linnaeus, 1758 {Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 431), and (b) to designate Gryllus
migratorius Lianaeus, 1758, to be the type species of that genus. This decision
was later embodied in Opinion 158. The only supplementary action now
required is (for the reasons explained in paragraph 4 above in connection with
the name Mantis) to place the trivial name migratorius Linnaeus, 1758 {Syst.
Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 432) (as published in the binominal combination Gryllus
migratorius) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology that List
not having been in existence at the time when the Commission dealt with this
name in 1935.

1 2. Having now reviewed (a) the action already taken by the International
Cormnission in regard to the terms used by Linnaeus in 1758 to denote sub-
divisions of the genus Gryllus Limiaeus, and (b) the proposals in regard to
two of those terms submitted by Dr. Ashley B. Gurney, and having submitted
also certain supplementary recommendations on various matters either con-
nected with the status to be accorded to the foregoing terms or arising
incidentally in connection therewith, we may summarise as follows the pro-
posals now laid before the International Commission. These are that the
Commission should :—

(1) use its plenary powers to validate, as of subgeneric status, the names
specified in Column (1) below, those names to be treated as having
been pubUshed by Linnaeus in 1758 on the pages of the 10th edition
of the Systema Naturae there specified, and (b) to designate, as the
type species of the nominal subgenera in question, the species severally
specified in Column (2) below : —

Name of subgenus Nominal species designated as the

type species of subgenus specified
in Col. (!)

(1) (2)

Acrida Linnaeus, 1758, Gryllus turritus Linnaeus, 1758,

Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 427
1 :427

Tettigona Linnaeus, 1758. Gryllus viridissimus Linnaeus,
Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 430

1 :429

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 117

(2) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology, with the type species severally specified
below : —

(a) Acheta Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 279-282, 826 (type species,
by subsequent selection by Curtis, 1830 {Brit. Ent. 7 : 293) :
Gryllus domesticus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 428).

(b) Acrida Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 427 (as proposed,
under (1) above, to be validated under the plenary powers)
(type species, by designation, as proposed in (1) above, under
the plenary powers : Gryllus turritus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst.
Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 427).

(c) Ledra Fabricius, 1803, Syst. Rhyngot. : 24 (type species, by
subsequent selection by Latreille, 1810 (Consid. gen. Crust.
Arach. Ins. : 434) : Cicada aurita Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat.
(ed. 10) 1 : 435).

(d) Tettigonia Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 429 (as pro-
posed, under (1) above, to be validated under the plenary
powers) (type species by designation, as proposed in (1) above,
under the plenary powers : Gryllus viridissimus Linnaeus,
1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 430) ;

(3) place the midermentioned generic names and alleged generic names on
the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : —

(a) Acheta Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 428 (a reputed
but non-existent name).

(b) Bulkt Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 427 (a reputed but
non-existent name).

(c) Gryllulus Uvarov, 1935, Ann. Mag. md. Hist. (10)16: 320
(an invalid junior synonym of Acheta Fabricius, 1775).

(d) Mantes Geoffroy, 1762, Hist, abreg. Ins. Paris 1 : 399 (a name
possessing no status because published by an author who did
not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature).

(e) Mantis Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 425 (a reputed
but non-existent name).

(f) Tetigonia Geoffroy, 1762, Hist, abreg. Ins. Paris 1 : 429 (a
name possessing no status because published by an author
who did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature).

(g) Tetigonia Fourcroy, 1785, Ent. paris. 1 : 193 (an invalid junior
homonym of Tettigonia Linnaeus, 1758, as proposed, under (1)
above, to be validated under the plenary powers).

(h) Tetigonia Blanchard, 1852, in Gay. Hist. Chile (Zool.) 7 : 282
(an invalid junior homonym of Tettigonia Linnaeus, 1758, as
proposed, under (1) above, to be validated under the plenary
powers).

118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(i) Teltigonia Fabricius, 1775, Syst. EyU. : 678 (an invalid junior
homonym of Tettigonia Linnaeus, 1758, as proposed, under (1)
above, to be validated under the plenary powers) ;

(1) place the undermentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific
Trivial Names in Zoology :—

(a) aurita Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal com-
bination Cicada aurita) (trivial name of type species of Ledra
Fabricius, 1803).

(b) domesticus Linnaeus. 1758 (as published in the binominal
combination Gryllus domesticus) (trivial name of type species
of Acheta Fabricius, 1775).

(c) migratorius Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal
combination Gryllus migi-atorius) (trivial name of type species
of Locusta Linnaeus. 1758).

(d) rcligiosus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal com-
bination Gryllus reUgiosus) (trivial name of type species of
Mantis Linnaeus, 1767).

(e) turritus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal com-
bination Gryllus turritus) (trivial name of species proposed,
imder (1) above, to be designated under the plenary powers
as type species of Acrida Linnaeus, 1758).

(f) viridissimus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal
combination Gryllus viridissimus) (trivial name of species
proposed, under (1) above, to be designated under the plenary
powers as type species of Tettigonia Linnaeus, 1758).

Bulletin of Zoological Nometiclalure 119

PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE "OFFICIAL LIST OF

GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY" OF THE NAMES OF

CERTAIN NON-MARINE GENERA IN THE PHYLUM

MOLLUSCA

By A. E. ELLIS

(Epsom College, Surrey, Englaiul)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)470)

I submit herewith for addition to the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology the following names of non-marine genera in the Phylum i\Iollusca.
I have satisfied myself that each of these names is an available name in the
sense that it is not a homonym of a previously published name. Each of the
nominal genera, the names of which are here recommended for admission to
tl\e Official List, is currently accepted by specialists as having the oldest available
name for the taxonomic genus which it represents. In each case the species
proposed to be specified in the Official List as the type species of the genus
concerned has been correctly determined as such under the Regies, that species
having been so designated or indicated by the original author or, as the case
may be, selected by the first subsequent author to select a type species for the
genus concerned. The gender of each generic name is indicated in brackets
immediately after the name concerned.

Class PELECYPODA

Corbicula (feminine) Megerle von Muehlfeld, 1811, Mag. Gesell. Naturf.
Freunde Berlin 5 : 56 (type species, by monotypy : Tellum fluminalis
Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Verm, terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 205).

Dreissena (feminine) van Beneden. 1835, Bull. Acad. Belg. CI. Sci. 2 : 25,
as emended by Dumortier, 1835 {ibid. 2 : 44) from Driessena {type species,
by monotyjjy : Mytulus (error for Mytilus) polymorphus Pallas, 1771,
Reise Prov. russisch. Reichs 1 : 478).

Pisidium (neuter) Pfeiffer, 1821, Naturgesch. deutsch. Land-u. Susswasser-
Mollusken 1 : 17. 123 (type species, selected by Gray, 1847 {Proc. zool.
Soc. Loyid. 15 : 185) : Tellina amnica Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Verm, terrestr.
flumat. Hist. 2 : 205).

Class GASTROPODA

Abida (feminine) Turton, 1831, Man. Land Freshwater Shells brit. I si. : 101
(type species, by monotypy : Pupa secale Draparnaud, 1801, Tabl. Moll,
terrestr. et fluviat. France : 59).

Acanthinula (feminine) Beck, 1847, Amtl Ber. 24 Versamml. deutsch. Naturf.
n. Aerzte Kiel : 122 (type species, selected by Martens, 1860 {in Albers,
Die Heliceen {ed. '2.) : x\i\. 10\) : Helix aculeata MuWer (O.F.), 1774, Verm,
terrestr. flumat. Hist. 2 : 81.

120 Bulletin of Zoological Noniendature

Acroloxus (masculine) Beck, 1837 {Index Moll. Mus. Christ. Freder. : 124)
(t\^e species, selected by Herrmannsen, 1846 {Indie. Gen. Malacoz.
Primordia 1 : 16) : Patella lacustris Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10)
1 : 783).

Ancylus (masculine) Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Verm, terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 201)
(type species, selected by Gray, 1847 {Proc. zool. Soc. Loud. 15 : 181) :
Ancylus fluviatilis Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Verm, terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 201).

Aplesa (feminine) Fleming, 1820, Brewster's Edinb. Ency. 14 : 617 {type
species, by monotypy : Bulla hypnorum Linnaeus, 1758. Syst. Nat. (ed.
10)1:727).

Arianta (feminine) Turton, 1831, Man. Land Fresh-water Shells brit. Isl. :
35 (t}^e species, by monotypv : Helix arbustorum Linnaeus. 1758, Syst.
Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 771).

Arion (masculine) Ferussac, 1819, Hist. nat. Moll, terrestr. et jiuviai. 2 : 50,

• 53 (tj-pe species, selected by Fleming, 1822 {Ency. brit. suppl. 4tli, 5tli

and 6th eds. 5 : 572) : Limax ater Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 652).

Assiminea (feminine) Fleming, 1828. Hist. brit. Anim. : 275 (type species,
by monotypy : Assiminea grayana Fleming, 1828. Hist. brit. Anim. : 275).

Azeca (feminine) Fleming, 1828, Hist. brit. Anim. : 269 (type species, by
monotypy : Turbo tridens Pulteney, 1799, Cat. Birds, Shells. Dorset-
shire : 46, nee Miiller (O.F.), 1774 {=Helix {Cochlodonta) goodalliFeTnssac,
1821, Tabl. syst. Anim. Moll. : 75).

Balea (feminine) Gray. 1824, Zool. J. 1 : 61 (type species, selected by Herr-
mamisen, 1846 {Indie. Gen. Malacoz. Primordia 1 : 103) : Pupa fragilis
Draparnaud, 1801. Tabl. Moll, terrestr. fluviat. France: Qi { = Turbo per-
versus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 767)).

Carychium (neuter) Miiller (O.F.), ]774, Verm, terrestr. fluvicU, Hist. 2: 125
(type species, by monotypy : Carychium minimum Miiller (O.F.), 1774,
loc. cit. : 125).

Cecilioides (feminine) Fenissac, 1814 {Mem. geol. : 48 (type species, by
monotypy : Buccimim acicula Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Verm, terrestr. et fluviat.
Hist. 2 : i50).

Clausilia (feminine) Draparnaud, 1805, Hist. nat. Moll, terrestr. fluviat.
France : 68 (type species, selected by Turton. 1831 {Man. Land FreshnvUer
Shells brit. Isl. : 6) : Turbo bidens Montagu, 1803, Test. brit. 357 { = Turbo
hidentatus Strom, 1765, Trondheim Selskabs Skrifter 3 : 436)).

Cochlicella (feminine) Ferussac, 1821, Tabl. syst. Anim. Moll. : 56 (type
species, selected by Gray, 1847 {Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 : 173) : Helix
conoidea Draparnaud, 1801. Tabl. Moll, terrestr. fluviat. France : 68 (see ./.
Conchol 22 : 62)).

Bulleli)} of Zoolofjical Not>ie)idaluti; 121

Discus (masculine) Fitzinger, 1833. Beitr. Landesk. Oestr. Enns 3 : 99 (type
species, selected by Gray (1847, Proc. zool. Soc. Loivi. 15 : 174) : Helix
ruderata Ferussac. 1821. Tabl. syst. Anim. Moll. : 44).

Euconulus (masculine) Reinhardt. 1883, SitzBer. Ges. Naturf. Freunde.
Berlin 1883 : 86 (substitute name for Conulus Fitzinger. 1833 {Beitr. Latides.
Oesterr. 3 : 94, an invalid junior homonym of Conulus Leske, 1778) (type
species, by selection for Conulus Fitzinger, 1833, by Gray, 1847 {Proc.
zool. Soc. Loud. 15 : 173) : Helix fulva Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Verm, terrestr.
flmmt. Hist. 2 : 56).

Fruticicola (feminine) Held. 1837. Isis (Oken) 30 (12) : 914 (type species,
selected by Herrmamasen, 1847 {Indie. Gen. Malacoz. Primordia 2 : 450) :
Helix fruticum. Miiller (O.F.). 1774. Ver7n. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 71).

Geomalacus (masculine) Allman. 1843. Athenaeum, 1843 : 851 (type species,
by monotypy : Geomalacus nmculosus Allman. 1843, Athenaeum. 1843 : 851).

Hydrobia (feminine) Hartmann, 1821. Neue Alpina 1 : 258 (type species, by
monotypy : Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805, Hist. nat. Moll, terrestr.
fluviat. France: 40 { = Turbo ventrosus Montagu. 1803. Test, brit.: 317)).

Hygromia (feminine) Risso, 1826, Hist. not. Eur. merid. 4 : 66 (type species,
selected by Herrmannsen, 1847 {Indie. Gen. Malacoz. Primordia 1 : 547) :
Helix cinctella Draparnaud. 1801. Tabl. Moll, terrestr. fluviat. France: 81).

Lacinaria (feminine) Hartmann. 1844, Erd-u. Siissw.-Gast. : 216 (t}^e species,
by Monotypy ; Pupa plicata Draparnaud, 1801, Tabl. Moll, terrestr.
fluviat. France : 63).

Lauria (feminine) Gray, 1840, Turton's Man. Land and Freshu: Shells brit.
Isl. (ed. 2) : 193 (type species, selected by Herrmannsen, 1847 {Indie.
Gen. Malacoz. Primordia 1 : 578) : Pupa umbilicata Draparnaud, 1801,
Tabl. Moll, terrestr. fluviat. France : 58 { = Turbo cylindraceus da Costa,
1778, Hist. nat. Testae. Britann. : 89).

Leucophytia (feminine) Winckworth, 1949, J. Conch. 23 : 38 {type species,
by original designation : Valuta bidentata Montagu, 1808, Test. brit.. Suppl. :
100).

Milax (masculine) Gray, 1855, Cat. Pulmoiuita brit. Mus. 1 : 174 (type species,
selected by Hesse, 1926 {Abh. Archiv. Molluskenl: 2 : 31) and by Kennard
and Woodward, 1926 {Synon. brit. non-marine Moll. : 204) : Limax yagate.'t
Draparnaud. 1801. Tabl. Moll, terrestr. fluviat. France: 100).

Otina (feminine) Gray, 1847, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 : 156 (type species, by
monotypy : Helix otis Turton. 1819, Conch. Diet. brit. Isl. : 70. nee Solander,
1786 {Cat. Portland Mus. : 38) { = Gallericul.u,n ovatum Brown. 1844,
Illustr. rec. Canch. Gt. Brit. Ireland : 23)).

122 Bulletin of Zoological Notnendature

Phytia (feminine) Gray, 1821, Lond. med. Rep. 15 : 231 (type species, by
nionotypy : Voluta deniiculata Montagu, 1803, Test. hrit. : 234
(regarded by most authors as referable to Auricula myosotis Draparnaud,
1801. Tahl. Moll, terrestr. fhiviat. France -.m)).

Planorbis (masculine) Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Verm, terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 :
152 (type species, by absolute tautonomy : Helix planorbis Linnaeus,
1758. Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 769).

Pomatias (masculine) Studer. 1789, in Coxe's Travels in Switzerland 3 : 388
(type species, by monotypy : Nerita elegans Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Verm,
terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 177).

Punctum (neuter) Morse. 1864, J. Portland 8oc. 1 : 5, 27 (type species, by
monotypy : Helix minutissima Lea. 1841, Trans, amer. phil. Soc. 9 : 17).

Pupilla (feminine) Fleming, 1828, Hist. brit. Anim. : 268 (type species by
monotypy : Pupa marginata Draparnaud, 1801, Tabl. Moll, terrestr.
fluviat. Hist. 2 : 58 { — Turbo muscorum Linnaeus. 1758. Syst. Nat. (ed. 10)

1 : 767)).

Pyramidula (feminine) Fitzinger, 1833, Beitr. Landesk. Oestr. EnnsZ : 95 (type
species, by monotypy : Helix rupestris Draparnaud, 1801, Tabl. Moll,
terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 71).

Retinella (feminine) Fischer, 1877, Shuttleworth's Notit. Malacol. 2 : 5 (type
species, selected by Kobelt, 1879 {Illustr. Conchylienbuch : 223) : Helix
olivetorum Gmelin. 1791, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 : 3639).

Rumina (feminine) Risso, 1826, Hist. nut. Eur. merid. 4 : 79 (type species, by
monotypy : Helix decollata, Linnaeus, 1758. Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 773).

Segmentina (feminine) Fleming, 1818, Ency. brit. Suppl. 4th, 5th and 6th
eds. 3 : 309 (type species, by monotypy : Nautilus lacustris Lightfoot,
1786, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. 76 : 163 { = Plan(yrbis nitidus Muller (O.F.),
1774, Verm, terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 163)).

Subulina (feminine) Beck, 1837, Ind. Moll. : 76 (type species, selected by
Gray, 1847 {Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 : 177) : Bulimus octonus Bruguiere,
1789, Ency. meth. (Vers.) 1 : 325).

Testacella (feminine) Draparnaud, 1801, Tabl. Moll, terrestr. fluviat. France

2 : 33, 99 (type species, by monotypy : Testacella Jmliotidea Draparnaud,
1801, loc. cit. : 99).

Theodoxus (masculine) Montfort, 1810, Conch, syst. 2 : 351 (type species,
by original designation : Theodoxus lutetianus Montfort, 1810, loc. cit,
2 : 351 {= Nerita fluviatilis Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 777)).

Truncatellina (feminine) Lowe, 1852, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 9 : 275 (type
species, by monotypy : Pupa {Truncatellina) linearis Lowe, 1852, loc. cit.
(2) 9 : 275).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclahiic 123

Vallonia (feminine) Risso, 1826, Hist. nat. Eur. merid. 4 : 101 (type species,
by monotypy : Vallonia rosalia Risso, 1826, loc. cit. : 102 { = Helix pulchella
MuUer (O.F.), 1774, Verm, terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 30)).

Valvata (feminine) Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Verm, terrestr. fluviat. Hisl. 1 : 198
(type species, by monotypy : Valvata eristata Miiller (O.F.), 1774, loc. cit.
2 : 198).

Vertigo (feminine) Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Verm, terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 124
(type species, bv monotypy : Vertigo pusilla Miiller (O.F.), 1774, loc. dt.
2:124).

Vitrea (feminine) FitzingCx, 1833, Beitr. Landesk. Oeslr. Enns 3 : 99 (type
species, by monotypy : Helix diaphana Studer, 1820, Meisner's Naturw.
Anz. Allg. Schweiz. Ges. 3 : 86 (issued separately in 1820 as Syst. Verz.
Schweiz. Conch. : 13)).

Viviparus (masculine) Montfort, 1810, Conch. Syst. 2 : 246 (type species by
original designation : Viviparus fluviorum Montfort, 1810, loc. cit. 2 : 246
(=Helix vivipara Linnaeus. 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 772)).

Zonitoides (masculine) Lehmann, 1862, Malak. Blatter 9:111 (type species,
by monotypy : Helix nitida Miiller (O.F.), 1774. Verm, terrestr. fluviat. Hist.
2:32).

In the case of the generic name Testacella Draparnaud, 1801, proposed
above for inclusion in the Official List, there is one earlier identical name that
was published as a nomen nudum a year earlier and another that was published
in the same year. To prevent confusion, it is desirable that these nomina nuda
should now be placed on the Official hidex of Rejected and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology. The names in question are : —

Testacella Cuvier 1800, Le§ons Anat. comp. 1 : Tabl. 5.
Testacella Lamarck, 1801. Syst. Anim. sans Vertebr. ; 96.

Further, in compliance with the decision taken in this matter by the
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, I ask the International Com-
mission to place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology the
undermentioned trivial names, being the trivial names of nominal species
which are the type species of genera included in the list submitted above : —

Class PELECYPODA
Specific Trivial Name

awmtca Miiller, 1774
flumincdis Miiller, 1774
polymorph us Pallas. 1771

Original Combination

Tellina amnica
TeUina fiuminalia
Mylidus [ex err. pro
Mytilua] polymorphus

1!>4

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Class GASTROPODA

Specitif Trivial Name

ocicwJa Miiller, 1774
acitleata Mutter, 1714
arbiiMorum Linnaeus, 1768
ater Linnaeus, 1758
bidentata Montagu, 1808
cincleUa Draparnaud, 1801
conoidea Draparnaud, 1801
cmtata Miiller, 1774
decollata Linnaeus, 1758
rf/aj^AaMO Studer, 1820 ...
ciegraws Miiller, 1774
/toiah7t« Miiller, 1774 ...
/ruh'cwm Miiller, 1774 ...
fulva Miiller, 1774
gagates Draparnaud, 1801
grayana Fleming, 1828 ...
Jtaliotidea Draparnaud, 1801
hypnorum. Linnaeus, 1758
ZacM«<m Linnaeus, 1758...
linearis Lowe, 1852

lineatus Draparnaud, 1801
maculosus Allman, 1843...
wimt/wMTO Miiller, 1774 ...
«i7ida Miiller, 1774
octonus Brugui^re, 1789
olivetorum Gmelin, 1891...
planorhis Linnaeus, 1758
plicata Draparnaud, 1801
p«.si7&i Miiller. 1774
ruderata Ferussac, 1821
rupeatris Draparnaud, 1801
secale Draparnaud, 1801

Original Combination

Biiccinum aeicula
Helix aculeaia
Helix arbustoriim
Limax ater
Voluta bidentata
Helix cinctella
Helix conoidea
Valvata cristata
Helix decollate
Helix diaphana
Nerita elegans
Ancylus fluviatilis
Helix fruticum
Helix fulva
Limax gagates
Assiminea grayana
Testacella haliotidea
Bulla, hypnorum
Patella lacustris
Pupa ( TruncatelUna)

linearis
Bulimus lineatus
Geomalacus maculosus
Carychium minimum
Helix nitida
Bulimus octonus
Helix olivetorum
Helix planorbis
Pupa plicata
Vertigo pusilla
Helix (Helicella) ruderata
Helix rupestris
Pupa secale

In the case of twelve of the genera, the names of which are herewith proposed
for addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, the name of the
nominal species which is the type species of the genus concerned is not accepted
by specialists as the oldest available name for the taxonomic species represented
by the nominal species in question. These cases are : —

Name of genus

(1)
Azeca Fleming

Balea Gray ...
Hydrobia Hartmann . . .

Lauria Gray ...

Class GASTROPODA

Name of nominal species which
is the type species of the genus
specified in column (1)
(2)

Turbo tridens Pulteney

Pupa fragilis Draparnaud

Cyclostoma acutum Drapar-
naud

Pupa umbilicata Draparnaud

Oldest available name for the
species specified in column (2)

(3)

Helix (Cochlodonta) goodalli
Ferussac, 1821

Turbo per versus Linnaeus, 1 758

Turbo ventrosus MontAgu, 1803

Turbo cylindraceus da Costa

1778

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

125

Name of genus

Oiina Gray

Phytia Gray ...

Fupilla Fleming

iycgmentina Fleming
Thcodoxus Montfort . . .

Vallonia Risso

V i oiparus Montiort ...

Name of type species

Helix Otis Turton

Valuta detiliculata Montagu

Pupa niarginata Draparnaud

Nautilus lacuslris Lightfoot
Theodoxus lutelianus Montfort

Vallonia rosalia Risso
Viviparasfluviorum Montfort

Oldest available name for
species cited in Col. (2)

Gallericulum ovatum Brown,
1844

Auricula myosotis Draparnaud,
1801

Turbo muscorum Linnaeus,
1758

Planorbis tiitidus Miiller, 1774

Nerita fluviatilis Linnaeus,
1758

Helix pulchMa MiiUcr, 1774

Helix vivipara Linnaeus, 1758

III the twelve cases dealt with above, I recommend that, in accordance witli
the decision of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, there should
be added to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, not the trivial
name of the nominal species specified in column (2) of the foregoing table,
but the trivial name of the nominal species specified in column (3) of that
table.

I

PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE "OFFICIAL LIST OF

SPECIFIC TRIVIAL NAMES IN ZOOLOGY " OF THE NAMES

OF CERTAIN NON-MARINE SPECIES IN THE PHYLUM

MOLLUSCA

By A. E. ELLIS

(Epsom College, Surrey, Engkind)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)497)

I submit herewith, for addition to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names
in Zoology, the following trivial names of non-marine species in the Phylum
Mollusca. I have satisfied myself that each of these names is an available
name and is currently accepted by specialists as the oldest available name,
and therefore the valid name, for the taxonomic species that it represents.

126

Bulletin of Zoological Nomendalure

Where in the following list there are several trivial names originally
published in the same work, I have thought it convenient to cite the title of
the work once only, in a list appended at the end of the application. In each
such case I have confined the reference given in the actual list to the name
of the author, the date of publication and the page on which the specific trivial
name in question appeared in the work in question, the page number being
here cited in round brackets (parentheses).

Class GASTROPODA

Specific Trivial Name

oca/a Draparmiud, 1805 (55) ...

ol6»w Miiller, 1774 (164)

alliaria Miller, 1822 {Ann. Phil, (new series) 3 : 379)

alpestris Alder, 1838 (Trans, not. Hist. Soc. Northumb. 2 : 340)

anglicus Wood, 1828 (Index Testaceologicus, suppt. : 19)

angiistior Jeffreys, 1830 (Trans, linn. Soc. Lond. 16 : 361) ...

antivertigo Draparnaud. 1801 (57)

arenaria Bouchard-Chantereaux, 1837 (Mem. Soc. Agric. Boidogne.

(2) 1 -.190)

aspersa Miiller, 1774 (59)

auricular ia Linnaeus, 1758 (774)

bipUcatus Montagu, 1803 (361)

cantiana Montagu, 1803 (422) . . .

carinatus Miiller, 1774 (157) ...

cinereoniger Wolf, 1803 (Sturm's Deutschlands Fauna 6 (Hft. 1)

circumscriphts Johnston, 1828 (Edin. New. Phil. J. 5 : 76) . . .

complanata Linnaeus, 1758 (769)

contorla Linnaeus, 1758 (770) ...

cornea Linnaeus, 1758 (770)

costata Miiller, 1774 (31)

crista Linnaeus, 1758 (709)

crystalline Miiller, 1774(23)

cylindrica Ferussac, 1807 (52) ...

detrita Miiller, 1774 (101)

dilatatus Gould, 1841 (Invertehrata of Massachusetts : 210) ...

draparnaldi Beck, 1838 (Index MoUuscorum, spec. nov. : 7)

d«6w Draparnaud, 1805 (70) ...

edentula Drapaniaud. 1805 (59)

elegans Gmelin. 1791 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 : 3642)

elegans Risso, 1826 (Hist. nat. Eur. merid. 4 : 59) ...
excavatus Alder, 1830 (Trans, nat. Hist. Soc. Northumb. 1 : 38)

/a«cioto Miiller, 1774 (182)

^atJJM Linnaeus, 1758 (652) ...

f ontinalis hinnaexis. 1758. (727)

fuscus Montagu, 1 803 (330)

gigaxi Pfeiffer, 1850 (Zeitschr. f. Malakozool. 7 : 85)

jtoftram Miiller, 1774 (129)

granulata Alder, 1830 (Trans, nat. Hist. Soc. Northumb. 1 : 39)

J^M/>i<ia Linnaeus, 1758 (771) ...

Aorten^is Ferussac, 1819 (2 : 65)

hortensis Miiller, 1 774 (52)

incarnala Miiller, 1 774 (63)

inter medius Normand, 1852 (Description de six Litnaces nou

/ac/'«t Miiller, 1774 (19)

taevis Alder, 1838 (Trans, nat. Hist. Soc. Northumb. 2 : 337)
lameUata Jeffreys, 1830 (Trans, linn. Soc. Lond. 16 : 333) ..

towin««iw Montagu, 1803 (359)

/aptct<fo Linnaeus. 1758 (768) ...

leachi Sheppard, 1823 (Trans, linn. Soc. Lond. 14 : 152) ..

te«« Ferussac, 1821 (41) ...

Original Combination

Physa acuta
Planorbis albus
Helix alliaria
Vertigo alpestris
Turbo anglicus
Vertigo angustior
Pupa antivertigo

Succinea arenaria
Helix aspersa
Helix auricidaria
Turbo biplaticus
Helix cantiana
Planorbis carinatus
Limax cinereoniger
Arion circumscriptus
Helix complanata
Helix contorta
Helix cornea
Helix costata
Nautilus crista
Helix crystalline
Vertigo cylindrica
Helix detrita
Planorbis dilataius
Helicella draparnaldi
Clausilia dubia
Pupa edentula
Helix elegans
Succinea elegans
Helix excavata
Nerita fasciata
Limax flavus
Bulla fontinalis
Turbo fuscus
Helix gigaxi
Buccinum glabrum
Helix granulata
Helix hispida
Arion hortensis
Helix hortensis
Helix incarnata

Arion intermedins
Helix lact^a
Planorbis laevis
Helix lamellaia
Turbo laminatus
Helix lapicida
Turbo leachi
Helix lens

Bulletin of Zoological Notnendalure

127

Specific Trivial Name

UUjeborgi Weaterlund, 1871 (Nova Acta Soc. Set. Upsala, (3) 8

(No.l):90)

iwAnca Muller, 1774 (104)

»«fljor F6ru88ac, 1807 (43)

marginata Michaud, 1831 (Compliment de VHistoire naturelle des

Molln^'ues : 98)

9«ajm«« Linnaeus, 1758 (652)

minuscvla Binney, 1840 (Boston J. nat. Hist. 3 : 435)

moidinsiana Dupuy, 1849 (Catalogue extranmrinorum Galliae

Teslaceorum : 4) ... ...

naticina Monke, 1845 (Z. f. Malakozool. 2 : 129)

ne^fecto Draparnaud, 1805 (108)

JiemoroZtsLainneus, 1758 (773)...

nJ<trf«Za Draparnaud, 1805 (117)

ofcion^a Draparnaud, 1801 (56)

o6ioZi^a MviUer, 1774 (27)

jwZ««<re Miiller, 1774 (131)

paralldus Say, 1821 (J. Acad. nat. Set. Philad. 2 : 164)

^ryuto Ferussac, 1807 (111) ...

pa<itZ«ni Draparnaud, 1801 (39)

/)eZrMct(/o Miiller. 1774 (15)

pereyrMTO Miiller, 1774 (130)

petronella Pfeiffer, 1853 (Monographia Heliceorum vivenlium 3 : 95)

pwci'jjaZis Miiller, 1774 (172)

/)o»w<ia Linnaeus, 1758 (771) ... ...

piimila Pfeiffer, 1828 (Xaturgeachichte deutsch. Land- und SUss-

imsser-Mollnske7i 3 : 41) ...

pura Alder, 1830 (Trans, nat. Hist. Soc. Northumb. 1 : 36)

putris Linnaeus, 1 758 (774)

pygmaea Draparnaud, 1801 (57)

yj(/3»i«ea Draparnand. 1801 (93) ...

/>yrawiida<a Draparnaud, 1805 (80)
pyre/MJi'ca Ferussac, 1821(25) ...

9itarfnde?w Miiller, 1774 (107)

radigueli BoMTgaigna.t, 18&9 (Catal. Moll. Paris : 16)

reticulatus Muller, 1114 (10)

rolphi Turton, 1831 (Manual of the Land and Fresh-water Shells

of the British Islands : 71)

ro<«n4o<a Miiller. 1774 (29)

runtoniana Sa.ndheTgeT, 18S0 (PalaemUographica 27 : 9S) ...
scutidum Sowerby, 1821 (Genera of Recent and Fossil Shells, pt. 1

Tefl<aceHw«. Figs. 3-6)

septemspiralis Razoumowskv. 1789 (Histoire naturelle du Jorat

1:278) '

similis Bruguiere, 1792 (Ency. meth., (Vers.) 1 : 355)
sowerbyi Ferussac, 1823 (Hist. nat. Moll. 2 : 96)
.siogreaZis Linnaeus, 1758 (774) ...

.viriato Miiller, 1774 (38)

striolata Pfeiffer. 1828 (Naturg. deutsch. Land- and Siissw

Mollusk. 3:28)

■5«6/iwcu« Draparnaud, 1805 (125)
s((6ru/iMcen« Miller, 1822 (^nn. PAiV. (new ser.) 3:43)
substriala Jeffreys, 1833 (Trans, linn. Soc. Lond. 16:515)
subvirescens Bellamy, 1839 (Nat. Hist. South Devon. : 420)

<e»e;iu«Miiller, 1774 (11)

/r«7ica<aiMni Miiller, 1774 (130)

»«rae Pennant, 1777 (5n<. Zooi. 4: 132)

nmbrosa Pfeiffer, 1828 (Naturg. deutsch. Moll. 3 : 27)
rewirtcoso Draparnaud, 1801 (62)

'ez-OTicuZato Mullet, 1774 (20)

oirgafa da Costa 1778 (Hist. nat. Testaceorum. Britanniae : 79)

t>or<ej; Linnaeus, 1758 (770)

vorticulus Troachel, 1834 (De Limnaeaceis : 51)

Original combination

Pupa (Vertigo) UUjeborgi
Helix lubrica
Helicolimax major

Palvdina marginata
Limax maximus
Helix minuscula

Pupa moidinsiana
ValvcUa naticina
Helix neglecta
Helix nemoralis
Helix nitidula
Succinea oblonga
Helix obvoluta
Bucciniim palustre
Planorbis paralldus
Clausilia parvala
Cyclostoma patulurn
Helix pellucida
Buccinum peregrum
Helix petronella
Nerita piscinalis
Helix pomatia

Clausilia putnila
Helix pura
Helix putris
Pupa pygmaea
Helix pygmaea
Helix pyramidata
Helicolimax pyrenaica
Helix quadridens
Lartetia radigueli
Limax reticulatus

Clausilia rolphi
Helix rotundxita
NematureUa runtoniana

Testacellus scutuluni

Helix septemspiralis
Bulimus similis
Limax sowerbyi
Helix stagnalis
Helix striata

Helix striolata
Limax subfuscus
Helix subrufeacens
Alaea substriata.
Helix subvirescens
Limax tendlus
Buccinum truncatulum
Turbo ulvae
Helix nmbrosa
Pupa ventricosa
Helix vermiculata
Cochlea virgata
Helix vortex
Planorbis vorticulus

128

Bulldin of Zoological NainenclcUure

Class PELECYPODA

Specific Trivial Name

fl»ia/»n«« Linnaeus. 1758 (706) ... ... ...

cornea Linnaeus. 1758 (678)

crassiis Philipsson, 1788 (Dissertatio . . . nova Testaceorum Genera : 17)

cyjneHS Linnaeus, 1758 (706) ...

h^nslowana Sheppard. 1825 ( Trans. linn. Soc. Loud. 14 : 150)

Zac««/r(s Miiller, 1774 (204)

littoralis Cuvier. 1797 (Tabkau elimentaire de VHistoire nalurelle

des Animanx : 425)

milium Held, 1836 (Isis (Oken) 29 : 281)

moite.ssierianum PaladiUio, 1866 (Rev. Mag. Zool. (2) 18 : 172) ...
nitidum Jenyns, 1832 {Trans. Camb. phil. Soc. 4 : 304)
obtusalis Lamarck. 1818 {Hist. Anim. sans Vertebr. 5 : 559)

pnlchdlnm Jenyns, 1832 {Trans. Camb. phil. Soc. 4 : 306)

rivicola Lamarck. ISIS (Hist. Ani7n. sans Vertebr. 5:558)...
*o//rfa Normand, IS44^ (Cyclades . . . de Valenciennes : &)...
subtruncaliim Malm, 1855 (Gotheborgs K. Vet. Vitt. Samh. Handl.

3:92

supinum Schmidt, 1850 (Z. f. Malakozool. 7 : 119)

<enm7ineaiM>re Stelfox, 1918 (.7. ConcA. 15 : 296)

transversa Say, 1829 (Disseminator of Useful Knowledge, New

Harmony, 2 : 356)

tumidus PiuUpsson, nSS (Nova Test. Genera : 17) ...

vincentianum Woodward, 1913 (Catalogue Brit. Spec. Pisidittm : 127

Original Combination

Mylilus anaiinus
Tellina cornea
Unio crassus
Mytilus cygneus
Tellina henslowana
Tellina lacuUria

Unio littoralis
Pisidiuni milium-
Pisidium moilessieranum
Pisidiuni nitidum
Cyclas obtusalis
Pisidium pulchellum
Cyclas rivicola
Cyclas solida

Pisidium subtrancatuui
Pisidium supinum
Pisidium tenuilineatum

Cyclas transversa
Unio tumidus
Pisidium vincentianum

References

Draparnaud. J. P. R.. 1801 — Tabkau des Mollusques terrestres et fluviaiiles de la France

ibid. 1805 — Histoire naturelle des Mollusques terrestres et fluviaiiles de la France

Ferussac, Babox d'AuDEBARD DE. 1807 — Essai d\ine Methcde Conchylidogique

ibid. 1819 — Histoire ncUurelk . . . des Mollusques terrestres et fluviaiiles

ibid. 1821 — Tableaux systematiques des Animaitax Mollusques

LiiofAETJS, C, 1758 — Systema Naturae, 10th edition. Volume 1

Montagu, G., 1803 — Testacea Britannim, Suppl., 1808

Mi'LLEB, 0. F., 1774 — Vermiuni terrestrium et fiuviatilium Historia 2

Contents :
(continued from front wrapper)

Proposed validation under the plenary powers of the generic Page
names Ligia Fabricius, 1798 (Class Crustacea, Order
Isopoda), and Carcinus Leach, 1814 (Class Crustacea, Order
Decapoda). By the late Alida M. Buitendijk and L. B.
Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Naiuurlijke Historic, Leiden, The
Netherlands) 99

On the generic name Ligia as used by Weber, 1795, and. by
Fabricius in 1798 (Class Crustacea, Orders Decapoda and
Isopoda respectively. By Poul Heegaard ( University of Copen-
hagen, Copenhagen, Denmark) . . . . . . . . . . 102

Proposed use of the plenary powers to vary the type species of
Capsus Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera).
By W. E. China, Sc.D. (Deputy Keeper, Department of
Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London) . . 103

Request for views of specialists on the question whether the
substitution, as required by the Regies, of the name quadratus
Fabricius, 1787, for the name albicans Bosc [1801-1802], as
the trivial name of the Sand Crab (Class Crustacea, Order
Decapoda) would give rise to confusion or instability. By
Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) . . . . 105

Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the terms
Tettigonia and Acrida (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera) as
subgeneric names as from Linnaeus, 1758 (application
submitted in response to Opinion 124). By Ashley B. Gurney
(Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Agricultural
Research Administration, United States Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) 106

On Dr. Ashley B. Gurney's proposal that the name Tettigonia
should be validated, as from Linnaeus, 1 758 as of subgeneric
status in the Order Orthoptera (Class Insecta), by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.
By W. E. China, ScD. (Deputy Keeper, Department of
Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London) . . 109

On the proposed validation of the name Tettigonia Linnaeus,
1758, in the Order Orthoptera (Class Insecta). By R. G.
Fennah (Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture, St.
Augustine, Trinidad) .. .. .. .. .. .. HO

On Dr. Ashley B. Gurney's proposal that the names Tettigonia
and Acrida should be validated, as from Linnaeus, 1758, by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
under its plenary powers. By B. P. Uvarov, C.M.G., D.Sc.
(Anti-Locust Research Centre and British Museum (Natural
History), Londofi) . . . . . . . . . . .. Ill

FIRST REPORT on matters left unsettled in Opinion 124, in
relation to the status of the terms used by Linnaeus in 1758
to denote subdivisions of genera established in the 10th
edition of the Systema Naturae : The subdivisions of the
genus Gryllus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Or-
thoptera). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 112

Contents :
{continued from overleaf)

Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology Page
of the names of certain non-marine genera m the Phylum
Mollusca. By A. E. Elhs {Epsom College, Surrey, England) 119

Proposed addition to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in
Zoology of the names of certain non-marine species in the
Phylum Mollusca. Bv A. E. Ellis {Epsom College, Surrev,
England) .. .. ' ' . 125

Notice to Subscribers

The concluding Part (Part 12) of Volume 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(containing the Title Page, indexes, etc., for that volume) is now in the press and
will be published shortly.

Form of Applications to the International Commission on Zoological

Nomenclature

Zoologists proposing to submit applications to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature are requested to submit those applications, in duplicate
and typed, double-spaced, on one side of the page only, and with wide margins. Owing
to the lack of staff available for copying applications not submitted in the foregoing
form, preference for publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature will
necessarily be given to applications submitted in the form requested.

Full particulars of the bibhographical and other data required to be included in
applications submitted to the International Commission will be found in the " In-
structions to Authors " given on page 88 of Volume 1 of the present journal.

Publications of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

The publications issued by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature are on sale
at the Offices of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 41, Queen's
Gate, London, S.W.7. All communications on this subject should be addressed to
the Publications Officer.

I

l-rinted in Great Britain by Mftchim and Sox, Ltd., Westminster, London

VOLUME 2. Part 5 4th May, 1951

pp. 129-160.

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

pOT^

Edited by

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

Secretary to tke International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

Contents :

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Page

Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published
in the present Part . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Notice of possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain
cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

(continued on back wrapper)

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 Publicadons Office of the Trust

41, Queen's Gate, London, S.W.7.

1951

Price Ten shillings

(All rights reserved)

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. Yokes (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. StoU (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 (AustraUa) (27th July 1948)

Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) (27th July 1948)

Professor Teiso Esaki (Japan) (17th April 1950)

Professor Peirre 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) (6th July 1950)

Professor Erich Martin Hering (Germany) (5th July 1950)

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.

i

D. The Staff of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

Honorary Secretary and 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

I

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 2, Part 5 (pp. 129-160) 4th May 1951

NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS

OF ZOOLOGY

The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the
recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56, 57-59), by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 5-13,
131).

(a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on

Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the

" Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature "

Notice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will
start to vote upon appUcations published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of pubUca-
tion in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any speciaUst who may
desire to comment upon any of the appUcations published in the present
Part (vol. 2, Part 5) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing
to the Secretary to the Commission as quickly as possible and, in any case,
in sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secre-
tariat of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred
to above.

130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology {continued)

(b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases

1 . Notice is hereby given that the possible use by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers, is involved in appU-
cations pubhshed in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
in relation to the following names : —

(1) Titania Meigen, 1800, and Chlorops Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta,
Order Diptera) and associated family names (Z.N.(S.)197).

(2) Dorilas Meigen, 1800. and Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803] (Class
Insecta, Order Diptera) and associated family names (Z.N.(S.)221).

(3) Te)idipes Meigen, 1800, and Chironomus Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta,
Order Diptera) and associated family names (Z.N.(S.)469).

(4) Philia Meigen, 1800, and Dilophus Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta,
Order Diptera) (Z.N.(S.)4:98).

(5) Tylos Meigen, 1800, and Micropeza Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta,
Order Diptera) and associated family names (Z.N.(S.)501).

2. Comments received in sufficient time will be pubhshed in the Bulletin ;
other comments, pro\'ided that they are received within the prescribed period
of six calendar months from the date of publication of the present Part will
be laid before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at
the time of commencement of voting on the application concerned.

3. In accordance with the arrangement agreed upon at the Session held
by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in
1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 56) corresponding Notices have been
sent to the journals " Nature " and " Science."

FRANCIS HEMMING,

Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretariat of the

International Commission on

Zoological Nomenclature,

28, Park Village East, Regent's Park,

London, N.W.I, England.

24e/i April 1951.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 131

REPORT ON THE PROCEDURE PROPOSED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE TO
PUT AN END TO THE CONFUSION IN THE NOMENCLATURE OF
THE ORDER DIPTERA (CLASS INSECTA) RESULTING FROM THE
CONTROVERSY REGARDING THE GENERIC NAMES PUBLISHED
BY MEIGEN IN 1800 IN HIS " NOUVELLE CLASSIFICATION DES
MOUCHES A DEUX AILES ": FIRST INSTALMENT OF

APPLICATIONS

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
{Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)191)

At their Session held iu Paris in July, 1948 (Paris Session, 14th Meeting,
Conclusion 44) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 552-558), the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature had under consideration the con-
tinued state of confusion in the generic nomenclature of the Order Diptera
(Class Insecta) arising in part out of the diflicuity of determining what species
should be regarded as being the tj^De species of the genera established by
Meigen (J.G.) in 1800 in his NouveUe Classification des Mouclies a deux Ailes,
and in part out of the reluctance of some workers to accept the generic names
in question.

2. The first of these difficulties was due, it was recognised, to the ambiguities
of the ruling given in Opinion 46 in regard to the method to be adopted in
determining the type species of genera, the names of which were published
without any included species being cited by name. Accordingly, when con-
sidering the incorporation in the Regies of the rulings given in previously
published Opinions, the Commission gave particular attention to the foregoing
subject when they came to consider Opinion 46. Their object was to secure
a procedure which could be readily applied and which was not marred by the
self-contradictory features which had led to such great difficulties in applpng
the decision given in the foregoing Opinion. As will be seen from the Official
Record of the Proceedings of the Commission at its Paris Session (1950, Bull,
zool. Nomencl. 4 : 159-160, 346), the Commission agreed to recommend to
the Congress, and the Congress approved, that in place of the provisions
specified in Opinion 46 there should be inserted in the Regies a provision making
it clear that, where, prior to 1st January, 1931, a generic name was published
for a genus established (a) with an indication, definition or description, but
(6) with no nominal species distinctly referred to it, the first nominal species
referred to the genus by the same or another author is, or are, to be regarded
as the sole originally included species and therefore that, where that author
did not himself either designate or indicate that species or one of those species
as the type species of the genus, the species in question are alone eligible for
selection as the type species of that genus. It will be seen at once that the
main feature of the foregoing provision lies in the substitution of a purely
objective criterion for determining the type species of a genus established
without cited included species for the subjective provision included in Opinion

132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

46 that, in order that a species included by a later author may be eligible for
selection as the type species of such a genus, that species must be capable of
being " recognized from the original generic publication," a provision that
could never lead to absolute finality for a type selection made for such a genus ;
moreover, the decision taken in Paris eliminates (as already noted) the contra-
diction between the provision quoted above and the later provision in Opinion
46 that " the first species pubhshed in connection with the genus becomes
ipso facto the type." Thus under the decision taken in this matter by the
Commission and the Congress in Paris, the major part of the area in dispute
in regard to the generic names pubhshed by Meigen in 1800, disappears alto-
gether. Under the Paris decision, all that it is necessary to do to ascertain the
type species of any given generic name published by Meigen in 1800, is to
examine Hendel's paper of 1908, and the immediately follo^\ing literature
and to ascertain therefrom what species was first included in the genus in
question ; if a species was then selected as the t}=^e species, that selection is
to be accepted under the Regies, while if two or more species were then placed
in the genus and none was selected as the type species, it is necessary only to
ascertain which of those species was the first to be subsequently so selected.

3. While therefore there is no longer any technical difficulty in determining
the type species of the Meigen (1800) genera, there remains the difliculty
created by the reluctance felt by many dipterists to discard long-estabUshed
and well known generic names published by Meigen in 1803 in favour of the
" 1800 " names unearthed by Hendel in 1908. It appeared evident to the
Commission, when it considered this matter in Paris, that the only means of
putting an end to this iong-drawn-out controversy would be by considering
each of the rival pairs of names in turn and. having done so. in the light of
representations submitted by specialists, to place on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology whichever name appeared to have the greater following
and on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the
name which had the lesser following (the plenary powers being used to such
extent as might be necessary for the foregoing purpose). The Commission
further agreed that the decisions to be taken on these disputed Meigen names
should be taken " on the basis of all available information relating to the
degree of confusion to which the stabilisation or, as the case might be, the
suppression of the Meigen (1800) names concerned would be likely to give rise
and, in particular, of data regarding the relative use (i) in systematic literature,
(ii) in the Uterature of apphed biology, and (iii) in routine identifications carried
out by entomological institutions, of the Meigen (1800) names in question
and the corresponding Meigen (1803) or other names, in successive recent
periods."

4. It was the hope of the Commission that the foregoing procedure would
provide a fair and equitable basis for putting an end to the present state of
confusion in dipterological literature, and the Commission agreed therefore
to take all practicable steps to promote the submission of applications designed
to secure a decision regarding the names to be accepted for the genera in
question ; the Commission decided further to reach decisions as rapidly as
possible on apphcations so submitted. Already by the tune of the Paris

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 133

Congress, two applications had been received by the Commission relating to
generic names published by IMeigen in 1800. The first of these applications
(Z.N.(S.)197) was submitted by Dr. C. W. Sabrosky (U.S. National Museum,
Washington, D.C.) and was designed to secure the validation, under the plenary
powers, of the name Chlorops Meigen, 1803, by the suppression of the earlier
name Titania Meigen, 1800 ; the second (Z.N.(S.)221), which was received
from Mr. William F. Rapp, Jr. (then of the Department of Entomology, Univer-
sity of Illinois, Urbana, 111.), was concerned to secure a similar validation of
the name Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803], by the suppression of the earlier
name Dorilas Meigen, 1800. During the last two and a half years three further
applications have been received in regard to Meigen names. These are :

(1) an application (Z.N.(S.)469) received from Dr. John Smart (Cambridge
University) for the use by the International Commission of its plenary powers
to validate Chironomus Meigen, 1803, by suppressing Tendipes Meigen, 1800 ;

(2) an application (Z.N.(S.)498) received from Professor D. Elmo Hardy
(University of Hawaii) for the addition of the name Philia Meigen, 1800, to the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) an application (Z.N.(S.)501)
received from Professor Martin L. Aczel (University of Tucuman, Argentina)
for the addition of the name Tylos Meigen, 1800, to the Official List of Generic
Natnes in Zoology, and a counter-application received from Dr. John Smart
for the use by the International Commission of its plenary powers to suppress
the foregoing generic name and to validate the name Micropeza Meigen, 1803.
In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission at its Paris Session,
this group of applications was among the first to be sent to the printer for
publication in Volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

5. As will be seen from the decision taken in Paris in regard to the pro-
cedure to be followed in this matter, the International Commission is most
anxious to assist in securing settlements regarding the names to be used for
these genera on whatever basis may be found to command the widest measure
of support and is therefore calculated to put an end to confusion and to restore
uniformity of practice.

134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

APPLICATION FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO

VALIDATE THE GENERIC NAME " CHLOROPS " MEIGEN. 1803

(CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA)

By C. AV. SABROSKY

(United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and
Plant Quarantine, Washington, B.C.)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)197)

The name Titania Meigen is one of the disputed names of Meigen, 1800,
declared available in Opinions 28 and 152. (Foi facsimile, see 1945, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1 : 155-156). Hendel (1908. Verh. zool— hot. Ges. Wien, 58 : 63)
who resurrected the Meigen 1800 paper, stated that Titania was equal to
Chlorops Meigen, 1803, and he was followed in this by Coquillett (1910, Proc.
U. S. Nat. Mus. 37 : 499-647) and Stone (1941, Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 34 : 415).

Except for mere mention in a few lists, and in general papers such as those
of Hendel and Stone, the name Titania has never been applied in any taxonomic
work on the chloropidae in the 145 years since its appearance. The name
Chlorops, on the other hand, has been used constantly since 1803 for a great
number of species in every faunal region of the world, and has given its name
to the family chlouopidae. Change of the name to Titania would be con-
fusing, undesirable and, in view of the patent error involved, as explained
below, particularly inappropriate.

The tj'pe species of Chlorops Meigen, 1803, is considered by the writer to
be Chlorops pumilionis (Bjerkander 1778) (— Miisca pumilionis Bjerkander,
1778). by selection by Westwood (1840), although most workers have cited
the selection of Chlorops laeta Meigen, 1830, by Coquillett (1910). The dis-
cussion of this question is presented by Sabrosky (1941, Ann. ent. Soc. Amer.
34 : 735-765). (For an extract from this paper, see Annexe 1.)

HISTORY OF THE NAME TITANIA MEIGEN

Meigen, 1800 : Titania erected. " 7 especes," none mentioned by name.

Hendel, 1908( : 63) : Titania, 1800 = Chlorops Meigen, 1803.

Coquillett, 1910 (Proc. U. S. nat. Mus. 37) : Titania = Chlorops ; type
species of both, Chlorops laeta Meigen.

Hendel, 1910 {Wien ent. Zfg. 29 : 312) : suggested that Titania was more
like Gaurax than Chlorops (two quite different genera, in different subfamilies !)

Duda, 1933 (Chloropidae, in " Die Fliegen der palaearktischen Region,"
Lfg. 70 : 147) : used Chlorops.

Stone (1941, Ann. ent. Soc. Amer., 34:415): Titania recognized, with
Chlorops as synonym. Type species. Chlorops laeta Meigen,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

135

Sabrosky (1941) : Chlorops recognized. Titania a genus duhium, on
zoological grounds. (For an extract from this paper, see Annexe 2.)

Titania Meigen, 1800 versus Chlorops Meigen, 1803.

Hendel (1908 : 63) stated that these names applied to the same genus.
The writer believes that this is an untenable position zoologically, for the
following reasons : —

(1) The description of Titania will not apply to a single species of
Chlorops. Hendel (1910) quickly saw his error and his 1908
reference must have been ill-considered.

(2) There is no basis whatsoever for associating the brief descriptions
of Titania Meigen, 1800, and Chlorops Meigen, 1803. The former
was said to have an oblong, obtuse distal antennal segment, with a
bearded arista (which fits no Chlorops !) ; the latter, an almost
circular segment with naked arista.

(3) Assuming that the group represented by the name Titania Meigen,
1800, appeared somewhere in Meigen's 1803 paper, a comparison
of the descriptions shows that there is only one which is almost
identical {Chamaemyia), and it is strange indeed that Hendel did
not notice it. The three descriptions can be compared as follows : —

Chlorops Meigen, 1803

Titania Meigen, 1800

Chamaemyia Meigen, 1803

Die Fiihlhorner zweigliederig

das vorderste Glied fast

kreisrund, flach
mit nakkter Borste an der

Wurzel
Die Stime breit, ungestreift
Der Hinterleib flach, nakkt

Die Fliigel parallel

Antennes a deux articulations

la secovde ohlongue, obtuse

garnie a la base d'ttn pail barbn

Front large
Corps glabre, plat

Ailes croisees

Die Fiihlhorner senkrecht,

zweigliederig
das vorderste Glied Idnglich,

flach
mit einer haarigen Borste an

der Wurzel
Die Stime breit, ungestreift
Der Hinterleib feinhaarig oder

nakkt
Die Fliigel parallel

It is obvious that the non-essential details are alike for the three ; in the
only critical points given, Chlorops and Titania are dissimilar, but Titania
and Chamaemyia are the same. The two new points in the 1803 description
(" senkrecht " antennae and " ungestreift " front) were applied to several
genera in the 1803 paper but not in the 1800 paper, and thus were characters
that Meigen added apparently as the result of later study. Even though
it would appear that a mistake was made, it would certainly serve no good
purpose even to consider replacing Chamaemyia, nor would any good result
from overthrowing the properly established and well-known Chlorops.

Therefore, (1) because the name Titania has never been applied in the entire
literature on chloropidae :

(2) because its adoption would overthrow a long established name for

136 BtUletin of Zoological Nomenclature

a large and cosmopolitan genus used as the root of the family name ;
and

(3) because the name Titania was patently associated with the wrong
genus of Meigen 1803.

It is respectfully requested that the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature :

(i) acting in virtue of their plenary powers should suspend the
Regies and :

(a) suppress the name Titania Meigen, 1800, for all purposes
other than Article 34 ;

(b) validate the name CJdorops Meigen, 1803, and

(c) designate Musca futnilionis Bjerkander, 1778, as the
type species of Chlorops Meigen, 1803 ;

(ii) place the name Chlorops Meigen, 1803, with the above species
as type species, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

Annexe 1.

Extract from a paper by Sabrosky (C.W.), 1941, Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 34 : 740

Chlorops Meigen, 1803, Mag. f. Insekt. (lUiger) 2, p. 278. No species.
1830, Syst. Berschr., 6, p. 140. Sixty species. Type, Chlorops pumilionis
(Bjerkander) {— Musca pumilionis Bjerkander 1778) as Chlorops lineata
Fabricius, the twenty-first species. (By designation by Westwood, 1840,
p. 147, referred to in error as " C . pumilionis L."). Synonyms: Oscinis
Latreille, 1804 (isogenotypic). Cotilea Lioy, 1864.

For many years, Chlorops and Oscinis were regarded as synonymous. In
his studies of the Palaearctic Chloropidae, however, Duda (1933) separated
them on the character of the haired vs. bare mesopleura of what he regarded
as their respective genotypes. The controversy affects the generic name of
hundreds of species in all faunal regions.

Coquillett (1910), MaUoch (1913, 1931, 1938), Duda (1933) and others
have accepted Chlorops laeta Meigen as the genotype of Chlorops, by desig-
nation of Rondani (1856, p. 125). They have overlooked the prior designation
by Westwood (1840) cited above. Under the Code {Opinion 71) Westwood's
designations are available if the species were originally included. The species
in question C. pumilionis, was included by Meigen in the synonymy of C. lineata
(Fabricius), and was also represented in Meigen (1830) by the synonymous
names, C. nasuta Schrank, the fifth species, and C. taeniopus Meigen, the ninth
species. The present synonymy as accepted by Duda (1935, p. 192) is as
follows :

Chlorops pum,ilionis Bjerkander, 1778 {Musca)

= Musca lineata Fabricius, 1781,

Bulletin of Zoological Nontetwlulure 13?

= Musca nasuta Schrank, 1781.
— Chlorops taeniopus Meigen, 1830,

It is true that Westwood credited jmmilionis to Linnaeus on j). 147, but
this is an apparent lapse, for in otlier parts of his work (e.g. on p. 574) he,
discussed the species and referred to it properly as of Bjerkander, 1778.

Since Chlorops and Oscinis are found to have the same species as genotypes,
the latter name must fall as an absolute synonym. Of recent workers, both
Balachowsky and Mesnil (1935, Les Insectes nuisibles aux plantcs cultivees,
I, p. 935) and ColHn (1939, Ent. Monthly Mag., LXXV, p. 152) have recog-
nized this fact. Chlorojps in the sense of Duda (including species with hairs
on the mesopleura, as in laeta) is thus left without a name. No name
will be proposed here, however, because the validity of the grouping is doubt-
ful. Collin (1939, loc. cit.) comments that " Duda's character for the sub-
division of the genus Chlorops does not hold good in all specimens."

Annexe 2.

Extract from a paper by Sabrosky (C.W.), 1941, Ann. oil. Soc.
Artier. 34 : 747-748.

Titania Meigen, 1800, Nouvelle Classification, p. 35. No species. Gcniis
dubiiim.

Many authors (e.g. Heiidel, 1908 ; Cocjuilleti:, 1910) have rogaidt-d Titania
1800 as" identical with Chlorops Meigen, 1803, but Hendel (1910, ^Vien. Ent.
Zeit., XXIX, p. 312) suggested that it might be Gaurax. From the brief
description ("la seconde [autennal segment] oblongue "), it seems not to be
Chlorops s.str. and probably not Gaurax. Since the guesses include two
such distinct genera in opposite subfamilies, it seems futile as well as dangerous
to try to place the name. If we follow the dictum that " no species is avail-
able as genotype unless it can Ije recognized from the original generic publica-
tion " [Opinion 4(3), the name Titania can never l)e used, for the description
is unrecognizable as it stands.

Under the rule of the first reviser, we should probably ha\e to accept the
action of Hendel, 1908 (Verb, zool.-bot. Ges. \\'\qi\ LVIII, p. 63), aviio stated
that Chlorops — Titaniu. The genotype of Chlorops would thereupon become
ipso facto the genotyjie of Titania (Article 30, II, f) . and the name Chlorops
would fall as an isogenotypic synonym. Hendel's association of generic
names was based in large part upon a comparison of the wording of the generic
descriptions in the 1800 and 1803 papers. However, when we compare the
descriptions of Chlorops and Titania, it is difficult to understand how Hendel
reconciled them. Under Titania, Meigen wrote : " Antennes a' deux articu-
lations : la seconde oblongue, obtuse, garnie a la base d'un poil barbu " (a
bearded bristle). The description of Chlorops 1803 on the other hand is as
follows : " Die Fiihlhorner zweigliederig : das Vordorste Glied fast kreisrund,
Hach, mit nakkter Borsto an dcr Wurzel." The error of associating a genus

138 BuUetin of Zoological Nomenclature

having an oblong distal antennal segment and plumose arista with one having
a rounded antennal segment and naked arista was later recognized by Hendel
himself (190, op. cit.), when he suggested that Titania was more like Gaurax.
Actually there is little evidence that it is even a Chloropid. The safest course
is to regard it as unrecognizable and a genus dubium.

ON DR. C. W. SABROSKY'S PROPOSAL RELATING TO THE
GENERIC NAMES " TITANIA " MEIGEN, 1800, AND " CHLOROPS "
MEIGEN, 1803 (CLASS INSECT A, ORDER DIPTERA)

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

{Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)197)

It should be noted that the application relating to the generic names
Titania Meigen, 1800, and Chlorops Meigen. 1803, submitted to the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by Dr. C. W. Sabrosky,
was received in November 1945, and was therefore prepared long before the
estabUshment by the International Congress of Zoology either of the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Goieric Names in Zoology or of the Official List
of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. If the Commission approve the proposals
submitted by Dr. Sabrosky^ the action which, under the decisions referred to
above, it will be necessary to take will be somewhat more extensive than that
indicated in the appUcation, for in addition it will be necessary (1) to place
the name Titania Meigen, 1800 (consequent upon its suppression tmder the
plenary powers) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names
in Zoology, and (2) to place the trivial name pumilionis Bjerkander, 1778
(as pubUshed in the binominal combination Musca pumilionis) on the Official
List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. The generic names Titania and
Chlorops are both feminine in gender.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 139

ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY
POWERS OF THE NAME " TITANIA " MEIGEN, 1800, IN FAVOUR
OF THE NAME " CHLOROPS " MEIGEN, 1803 (CLASS INSECTA,

ORDER DIPTERA)

By H. OLDROYD

{Di'puiinienl oj Enlomoloyij, British Museum (Natural History), London)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)197)

(Extract from a letter dated 28th September, 1950)

Use of the names Chlorops & Titania

The name Chlorops is used in the British Museum collection, and generally.
I do not know of any author who uses Titania.

I think there is no doubt of the fact that Chlorops is Titania. The later
(German) description is almost an exact translation of the earlier French.
Neither can honestly be recognized without reference to later work. In 1830
Meigen himself claims Chlorops as an earher name for Oscinis and thereby
identifies it retrospectively.

ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF "TITANIA" MEIGEN,

1800, AND VALIDATION OF " CHLOROPS " MEIGEN, 1803 (CLASS

INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

By JOHN SMART, M.A., D.Sc.

(Univcrsil)/ of Cambridyc, Ik pari mad tf Zoology, Cambridge)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)197)

(Extract from a letter dated 2nd October, 1950)

I am in favour of the suppression of Titania Meigen, 1800, and the validation
of Chlorops Meigen, 1803.

140 Bidletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE

GENERIC NAME "PIPUNCULUS"LATREILLE, [1802-1803] (CLASS

INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA)

By WILLIAM F. EAPP, Jr.

{Department of Biology, Doane College, Crete, Nebraska, U.S.A.)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)221)

I desire to petition the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature to use their plenary powers for the purpose of suppressing the generic
name Dorilas Meigen, 1800 {Nouv. Class. Mouches : 31) and validating the generic
name Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803] {Hist. nat. Crust. Ins. 3 : 463) Class
Insecta, Order Diptera, Family pipunculidae). As it is a well known fact
that the name Dorilas Meigen remained lost to zoological science for over one
hundred years, I believe that it would avoid confusion if this name were to be
suppressed, thus rendering the name Pipunculus Latreille available for the
genus in question. I consider that the name Pipunculus should be allowed to
remain in effective usage because of the vast amount of economic and taxonomic
literature which has been written about " Pipunculus " and " Pipunculidae."
Furthermore, all of our current textbooks of entomology use the name pipun-
culidae. I believe that this matter should be ruled upon as soon as possible,
in order to attain a uniformity of usage in this matter, since both the family
names pipunculidae and dorilaidae are in current usage. At the present
time the great bulk of entomologists are using the term pipunculidae, especially
those workers who are interested in the economic phases of species of this
family, while only a small minority of workers recognize the name dorilaidae.

I therefore ask the Commission (1) to use their plenary powers to suppress
the name Dorilas Meigen, 1800, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but
not for those of the Law of Homonymy, and to validate the name Pipunculus
Latreille, [1802-1803], (2) to place the name Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803],
so validated and with Pipunculus campestris Latreille, [1802-1803] {Hist. nat.
Crust, Ins. 3 : 463) as type species, on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology, (3) to place the trivial name capestrism Latreille, [1802-1803] (as
published in the binominal combination Pipunculus camjjestris) on the Official
List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, and (4) to place the name Dorilas Meigen,
1800, suppressed as recommended under (1) above, on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. The gender of both the generic
names concerned is mascuUne.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 141

ON THE PROPOSAL THAT THE NAME " DORILAS " MEIGEN,

1800, BE SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS IN

FAVOUR OF "PIPUNCULUS" LATREILLE, [1802-1803] (CLASS

INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA)

By H. OLDROYD
(Departtnent of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History), London)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)221)

(Extract from a letter dated 28th September, 1950)

The names pipunculidae and dorilaidae (or dorylaidae) have been
dealt with by Collin (1945, Ent. man. Mag. 81 : 1-6), and I do not think that
I can add any more argument to that. We in the Museum always use
PIPUNCULIDAE. Hardy, the chief present-day worker on this family, uses
DORILAIDAE, for the reasons given by Collin.

My own view, as you know, is that the revival of these names is quite
without scientific value and that the effect of introducing them is wholly
obstructive. I think the greatest contribution to the stabilisation of nomen
clature in Diptera would be to annul the lot of them.

142 Bulhiin of Zoological Nomenclature

OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSAL THAT THE NAME " DORILAS "

MEIGEN, 1800, SHOULD BE SUPPRESSED AND " PIPUNCULUS "

LATREILLE, [1802-1803] (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA)

VALIDATED IN ITS PLACE

By ALAN STONE

{United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant
Quarantine, Washington, D.C.)

(Commissicn's reference Z.N.(S.)221)

(Extract from a letter dated 13th October, 1950)

Thank you for your letter concerning the generic names Dorilas and Pipun-
culus. I am pleased to have this opportunity to comment on these names
prior to publication of the case.

It should first be pointed out, I think, that the genus Dorilas and the entire
family to which it belongs, are of little iniportance to the agriculturist or general
biologist, being of minor economic importance as parasites of Homoptera
(see Oman, " The Nearctic Leafhoppers," 1949, p. 17) and are not used as
experimental animals in laboratories. It is also a relatively small genus and
family, Aczel (1948) listing 90 species of Dorilas out of 388 dorilaidae for
the world. It does serve as the basis for a family name, so comes into some-
what more general use because of this. This raises the question of reducing
family name changes by permitting a family name that is established to be
retained if the generic name goes into synonymy. We would then keep
the family name pipunculidae but use the generic name Dorilas. I see no
serious objection to this except that the family name dorilaidae has come into
considerable use in recant years. If a ruling permitting this could be passed
before taking up these Meigen 1800 names, it would greatly reduce the need
for suspending these names and would be most welcome, on that account, to
the supporters of priority.

Before 1908 the name Dorilas was used scarcely, if at all. Between 1908
and 1935 it was used occasionally. Kertesz, in 1910, used the family name
DORYLAiDAE [sic] and catalogiied the species of the world, and in 1912 and 1915,
he described a number of species in Dorylas. Becker treated several species
imder the same name in 1915. In 1935 Sack, in Lindner, Die Fliegen der
Palaearktischen Region, used the name dorylaidae and placed 74 species in
the genus Dorylas. Hendel, 1928, Die Tierwelt Deutschlands, and Seguy,
1937, Faune de France, used the family name dorilaidae.

The two leading workers in the family at the present time, Martin Aczel
and D. Elmo Hardy, use the family name dorilaidae and the generic name
Dorilas, Hardy having changed from Pipunculus to Dorilas in 1940. Their
works include Aczel's " Grundlagen einer Monographic der Dorilaiden "
(163 pp.) 1948, and Hardy's " A Revision of the Nearctic Dorilaidae " (230 pp.)
1943 and " The African Dorilaidae " (80 pp.) 1949, all major contributions on
the family, It can be safely stated that the name Dorilas is firmly established

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature I43

ilntV^rr^T ^^ *Vt^ ''''^''- • ^^^^^^i^^tions in this genus made at the
United States National Museum since 1940 and by Aczel and Hardy the two
eading spec.ahsts bear the name Dorilas. It might be noted that in the past
ten years, since the Division of Insect Identification here adopted the use of
the Meigen 18(X) names, the dipterists here made 110,341 determinations It
can be expected that a considerable proportion of these determinations, going
to all parts of the world, involved Meigen 1800 names.

It does not seem necessary or advisable to suppress Dorilas in favour of
Pipuriculus hec^u,e : (l)In doing so those who felt morally obliged to follow
the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, the 0;,mzo«.. concerning
the Meigen 1800 names, and the principle of priority would be penalized for
acting legitimately^ (2) The name has been used in standard reference work«
on the fanuhes of Diptera, a catalogue to the world species, major revisions for
the Palaearctic, Nearctic, and Ethiopian regions, a key to the species of Formosa
and a basic world revision of the genera. (3) The name is not of enouah im-
portance to warrant suspension since it is of very little interest, except to the
systematic entomologists who can readily adapt themselves to a name change
established as necessary 42 years ago.

This is, I hope, the information that you wish. I have not attempted a
statistical, quantitative analysis of the literature, since this would involve
much more time than I can afford in view of the inadequacy of present cata-
logues. I feel that the requirements for application under suspension of rules
as suggested by Sabrosky and Sailer (Science 107 : 543-544, 1948) are essential
If we are to avoid undue use of the plenary power of the Commission and I
do not thmk that it can possibly be demonstrated that strict application of the
rules would result in far-reaching and substantial confusion in the taxonomic
use of names and/or in a lamentable change that would greatly confuse the
literature of a related field. The name Dorilas is legitimate, it has been ac-
cepted by the most active workers in the family, and it is not of enough
iniportance outside of taxonomic use to cause more than minor disturbance
when replacing Pipunculus.

144 PntUeti)) of Zoolngic<(i Nomenclntiae

PROPOSAL THAT THE NAME " DORILAS " MEIGEN, 1800, SHOULD

BE RETAINED AND THE NAME " PIPUNCULUS " LATREILLE,

[1802-1803] (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) SHOULD BE

TREATED AS A SYNONYM

By D. ELMO HARDY

{University of Himmi, Agricultural Experiment Station, Honolulu, Territory of

Hawaii)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)221)

(Extract from a letter dated 19tli October, 1950)

I was greatly pleased to receive your letter of 1st October, 1950.

I feel that it is most unfortunate that an application has been submitted
to the Comission to suppress Dorilas in favor of Pipunculus. Dr. Aczel and I
have been working under the illusion that this matter had definitely been
settled and that we had reached stability at least in the use of Dorilas over
Pipunculus. As far as I know Mr. Collin of Newmarket is the only dissenter
in regard to this question. I certainly agree with Dr. Alan Stone (letter to
you dated 13th October, 1950) that " it does not seem necessary or advisable to
suppress Dorilas in favor of Pipunculus.'' I know that Dr. Aczel also takes
this stand. I heartily recommend that the Commission take the opposite
action and place the name Dorilas Meigen (based upon Pipunculus compestris
Latreille) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, suppressing Pip-
unculus Latreille (based upon the same type species) as a synonym of Dorilas.

I believe Dr. Stone's letter has adequately covered the main objections to
the change back to Pipunculus. At this time it certainly would result in much
more confusion, since the bulk of the literature pertaining to this group has
used the name Dorilas. In order to make Dr. Stone's letter more complete,
Dr. Aczel's papers which use the family name dorylaidae and the generic
name Dorylas arc as follows (it should be noted that Dr. Aczel has recently
dropped the Becker enmiendation of the generic name, and has corrected it to
Dorilas). [The titles given by Professor Hardy at this point in his letter are here
omitted because later a fuller list vns received from Dr. Aczel.]

It should be noted also that Lindner's Die Fliegen der PalaearJctischen
Region, Lief 93(32) : 1-5 7,published in 1935 used the names dorylaidae and
Dorylas. Kertesz also used these names in his " Contribution of the Know-
ledge of the Dorylaidae," Ann. Hist. nat. Mus. nat. Hung., 13 : 386-392, 1915.

My own publications in which I have used the names dorilaidae and
Dorilas are as follows : —

1940. Dorylaklac. Notes and DeRcriptions, J. Kansas enl. Soc. 13 : 101-114.
1943, A Revision of ths Nearctic Dorilaidae, Univ. Kansas sci. Bull. 29 : 1-231.
1946, Nomenclature Notes on the Family Dorilaidae, J. Kansas ent. Soc. 19 : 135-137
^947, Notes and Descriptions of Dorilaidae. J, Kansas ent, Soc. 20 : 146-153,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenciature I45

194S, Notes and Descriptions of Dorilaidae, Part 11, J. Kama, ent. Soc. 21 : 89-91

1948. New and Little Known Neotropical Dorilaidae, J. Kansas ent. Soc. 21 : 1-'4.133

1949, Neotropical Dorilaidae Studies. Part I, Psyche 55 : 1-15.

^'^%T\''''"^ l^ittle Known Dipters in the California Academy of Science Collection
J he. Wasmann Collector 7: 129-137. "'^jculo <^uecnon,

1949, The African Dorilaidae, Mem. Inst. Ray. Sci. rmt. Belgique (2na ser.) 36 • 1-80
1949,^ New Dorilaidae from the Belgian Congo, Bull. Inst. Boy. Sci. nal. Belgique 26 (39) :

1950, Exploration du Pare Nat. Albert, Miss. G. P De Witte MQ^q ^Q1^^ n i j
Dipters, Inst. Pares nat. Congo Beige 62 : 1-53. (1933-1935), Donlaidae,

fut Jre'-"'''^''^ ^'^ '"^ *^' ^*'''^' ""^ *^^ P"""*^' ^"^ ^'*' publication in the near

of the"£rei;^^|rS ^^'' -" '' '"'^""^^•^P* ^^^-' '- I-^^^-«- '" P-t 3
public:tSrratol'™X.-£r °' ^°^"^'"^^ ''•°'" ^«^"*"^^'" ' — -P* P^ges for

In the past ten years I have used the name Dorihs in all my identifications

1 t'^f tt" '" "" """'' "i y """^■^ ■ '"^^ ""-"i-d collections Z
most of the majoi- museums of the world and the name Dorilas is now well

S:utr;a'rC'nr'°"' *' ""''^'' '**'-• ^^^p^' ^^^^'op-

146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL THAT THE NAME " DORILAS "

MEIGEN, 1800, SHOULD BE RETAINED AND THAT THE NAME

"PIPUNCULUS" LATREILLE, [1802-1803] (CLASS INSECTA,

ORDER DIPTERA) SHOULD BE TREATED AS A SYNONYM

«

By MARTIN L. ACZ^L

{Institute of Entomology, National University of Tucwntuin, Tucum4n, Argentina)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)221)

(Extract from a letter dated 6th November, 1950)

Thank you for your letter dated 25th October, 1950. I am pleased to have
the opportunity to comment on the geiferic names Dorilas and Pipimculus,
as I feel it most unfortunate that an application has been submitted to the
Commission to suppress Dorilas in favor of Pipunculus, and not to suppress
Pijmnculus in favor of Dorilas, which appears to be reasonable.

I know and support the proposals to be submitted by Dr. Stone and
Professor Hardy. As Professor Hardy has pointed out, we have been working
under the illusion that this matter had been definitely settled and that we can
use Dorilas over Pipunculus, following the International Rules of Zoological
Nomenclature, the Opinions concerning the Meigen (1800) names and the
principle of priority.

I feel it superfluous to repeat the arguments of Dr. Stone and Professor
Hardy with which I whoUy agree ; I want but to point out that the change
back to Pipunculus would certainly cause much more confusion than the
placing of the name Dorilas on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology,
since in the past ten years the using of this name, in preference of Pipunculus,
was predominate. During this period among the authors, who were con-
tinuing the use of the name Pipunculus, only Mr. Collin of Newmarket calls for
mention, having been in the years 1929-39 one of the leading workers in the
family, with C. H. Curran, Th. Becker and P. Sack. As I know, he has written
in the last ten years only some twelve pages on dorilaidae, while during this
period Professor Hardy and I have been publishing revisions, catalogues and
major contributions on this family. In order to make Professor Hardy's
letter more complete, my papers in which I have used the names dorilaidae
and Dorilas are as follows : —

1938, Die Verbreitung der Dorylaiden im hist. Ungarn., Fragmenta fautiistica Hnngarica,
Budapest 1 : 35-36.

1939, Das System der Familie Dorylaidae, Zool. Am. 125 : 15-23.

1939, Die Untergattung Dorylomorpha m. von Tomosvaryella m., Zool. Anz. 125 : 49-69

1939. Beckerias pannonicus. eine neue Gattung und Art der Dorylaiden, Zool. An^. 126
191-195.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclatvre ' 147

1940, Vorarbeiten zii einer Monographic der Dorylaiden, Zool. An~. 132 : 149-169.

1943. iSanimelreferat der bionomisch-okologischcn Lit«ratiir iiber Dorylaiden, femer
iiber die Morphologie der jiingeren Entwickliing88t«dien (Ri, Larva, Puparium),
Deutich. enl. Z. 1943 : 1-27.

1944, Die Gattung TomosvarveJIa Acz., Ann. hist. val. Mils nat. Hungar. (Pars zool.)
37 : 75-1.30.

1948, Grundlagen einer Monographic der Dorylaiden, Ac^ zool. Lilloana, Tucuman,
6 : 5-168. /

It should be noted that in 1948 I dropped the Kertesz 1910 (nee Becker)
emendation of the generic name to Dorylas, which I had previously used,
following the majority of the Central European dipterists : Becker, S6guy,
Sack, Enderlein, etc.

In the past ten years I have used consequently the name Dorilas in all my
identifications on these flies.

It should be also noted that, in addition to the monographic work of P.
Sack (1935), C. Kertesz also used these names in the following papers : —

1910, Catalogus Dipterorum, Budapest 7 : Syrphidae, Dorylaidae, etc.

1912. " H. Sauter's Formosa Ausbeute : Dorylaidae," Ann. Hist. nat. Mus. nat. Hungar.
(Pars zool.) 10 : 285-299 (emendation).

1915. " Contributions to the knowledge of the Dorylaidae," loc. cit. 13 : 386-392.

Th. Becker in 1915 dropped also Pijmnculus in favor of Dorilas.

In this way the name of Dorilas is now well established in the museums and
in the literature throughout all the zoo-geographical regions.

-ti

148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE
THE NAME " PIPUNCULUS " LATREILLE [1802-1803], AND TO
SUPPRESS THE NAME "DORILAS" MEIGEN, 1800 (CLASS
INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA)

By JOHN SMAET, M.A., D.Sc.

{University of Cambridge, Department of Zoology, Cambridge)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)221)

The object of the present application is to seek the use, by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, of its plenary powers for the purpose
of validating the name Pipunculus Latreille [1802-1803], by suppressing the
name Dorilas Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera).

The following are the relevant particulars relating to the names involved
in this case : —

(1) Dorilas Meigen, 1800, Nouv. Class. Mouches : 31

No named species was cited by Meigen as belonging to this genus
The first author to cite a species by name as belonging to this genus
was CoquiUet (1910, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 37 (No. 1719) : 535),
who so cited Pipunculus campestris Latreille, [1802-1803] (in
Sonnini's Bufifon, Hist. nat. gen. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 463), which
also he designated as the type species of this genus.

(2) Pipunculus Latreille [1802-1803], in Sonnini's Buffon, Hist. nat.
gen. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 463.

Latreille placed in this genus only Pipunculus campestris Latreille,
[1802-1803], which is therefore the type species by monotypy,

(3) Microcera Meigen, 1803, Mag. f. Insektenh. (Hliger) 2 : 273.

Meigen did not designate a type species but later (1824 : 19) he
stated that the generic name Microcera was a synonym of Pipun-
culus. The first author definitely to select a type species for this
genus was Coquillet (1910, loc. cit. 37 (No. 1719) : 569), who so
selected Pipunculus campestris Latreille, [1802-1803].

The generic name Dorilas was completely ignored by Dipterists until in
1910 Hendel synonymised it with Microcera and Pipunculus.

Pipunculus campestris Latreille, the type species of each of the three fore-
going nominal genera, is a well-recognized species.

The genus Pipunculus Latreille is the type genus of a very distinctive,
but from the economic standpoint unimportant, family of Diptera, the,
PIPUNCULIDAE — the Big-Headed Flies. This genus and family are universally
k»own by these names, except by those specialists who, following Coquillet,

Bulhtin of Zoological Nomenclature 149

have used tlie generic name Dorilas (or its emended form Dorylas) and the
family name dorilaidae (or dorylaidae).

It is clearly very desirable that an end should be put as soon as possible
to the present divergence of practice in this matter by an authoritative ruling
as to which of these names should be used. Having regard to the prepon-
derant use in literature of the name Pipunculus during the last century and
a half, I am of the opinion that the best course would be to establish that
name in preference to the name Dorilas. I accordingly suggest that the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should : —

(1) use its plenary powers (o) to suppress the name Dorilas Meigen, 1800,

for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the
Law of Homonymy, and (b) to validate the name Pipunculus
Latreille, [1802-1803] ;

(2) place the generic name Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803] (type

species, by monotypy : Pipunculus campestris Latreille, [1802-
1803]) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ;

(3) place the undermentioned generic names on the Official Index of

Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : —

(a) Dorilas Meigen, 1800 (as proposed, under (1) (a) above,
to be suppressed under the plenary powers) ;

(6) Microcera Meigen, 1803 (an objective synonym of Dorilas
Meigen, 1800, and Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1903]) ;

(4) place the trivial name campestris Latreille, [1802-1803] (as published

in the binominal combination Pipunculus campestris) on the Official
List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology.

150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE
THE GENERIC NAME "CHIRONOMUS" MEIGEN, 1803 (CLASS
INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA)

By JOHN SMART, M.A., D.Sc.
{University of Cambridge, Deparlmenl of Zoology, Cambridge)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)469)

Tlie object of the present application is to secure the use by the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers for
the purpose of providing a valid foundation for the use of the generic name
Chironomus Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), a name of exceptional
importance in view of its deeply entrenched use in medical and other literature.

The following are the relevant particulars relating to the names involved
in this case : —

(1) Tendipes Meigen, 1800, Nouv. Class. Mouches : 17

No named species was cited by Meigen as belonging to this genus.
The first author to cite named species as belongmg to this genus
was Hendel in 1908 {Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 58 : 49). One of
the three species so cited was Tipula plumosa Linnaeus, 1758
(Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 587). Two years later this species was
selected as the type species by Coquillet (1910, Proc. U.S. nat.
Mus. 37 (No. 1719) : 612).

(2) Chironmms Meigen, 1803, Mwj. f. Inse/denk. (lUiger) 2 : 260.
Three named species were included by Meig<!n in this genus. The

first of these species, Tipida plitmosa Linnaeus, was selected as
the type species by Latreille in 1810 {Consid. gen. Crtist. Aracli.
Ins. : 442).

Latreille ([1802-1803], in Sonnini's Buffon, IJisl. nat. gen. parlic. Crust. Ins.
3 : 425) mentioned the name Temlipes in discussing the subdivision of the genus
Tipula Linnaeus, 1758, thus : " Exemples. Tipula plumosa. Lin. — Tipula
cidiciformis De Geer. — Les genres helea, tendipes de Meigen." Apart from
this one reference by Latreille, the generic name Teniipes was completely
ignored by Dipterists, until in 1908 Hendel synonymised it with Chironomus
Meigen, 1803, mentioning at the same time the names of the three originally
included species of the latter genus.

It must be admitted that Hendel was correct in associating Tendipes with
Chironomus and Helea with Ceratopogon rather than vice versa. There is no
doubt but that of the two species mentioned, plumosa fits better into the
diagnosis of Tendipes than of Helea.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 151

Tipula plumosa Linnaeus, the type species of each of the nominal genera
in question, is a well-recognized species.

The genus Chironomus Meigen is the type genus of the family chironomidae
— the non-biting Gnats — in the Diptera. This family is an exceptionally
well-known one. The liability of species of this family, both as adults and
in their aquatic larval stages, to be captured with, and /or confused with,
mosquitoes has led to the generic name Chironomus and the family name
CHIRONOMIDAE becoming firmly embedded in the literature of medical ento-
mology. Chironomus is a type-animal in laboratory teaching, both in ento-
mology and in general zoology. The larvae are moreover an important con-
stituent of fish food and they also play an important role in the fauna of
sewage-disposal plants and filter-beds. The names Chironomus and chiro-
nomidae are thus found in much economic literature.

In the case of an important genus and family such as the present, it is
clearly very desirable that an end should be put as soon as possible to the
present divergence of practice in this matter by an authoritative ruling as to
which of the two names in question should be used for this genus. In view
of the preponderant use of the name Chironumus in the Hterature of the last
century and a half, and the importance of this name in medical and other
fields of applied biology, I am of the opinion that the best course and the one
calculated to restore uniformity of nomenclatorial usage with the minimum
of inconvenience — for some inconvenience will be inevitable whatever decision
is taken — would be to establish the name Chironomus in preference to the
name Tendipes. I accordingly suggest that the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature should : —

(1) use its plenary powers (a) to suppress the name Tendipes Meigen,

1800, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those
of the Law of Homonymy, and (6) to validate the name Chironomus
Meigen, 1803 ;

(2) place the generic name Chironomus Meigen, 1803 (type species, by

selection by Latreille (1810) : Tipula plumosa Linnaeus, 1758)
(gender af generic name : masculine) on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology ;

(3) place the generic name Tendipes Meigen, 1800 (as proposed, under

(1) (a) above, to be suppressed under the plenary powers) (gender
of generic name : masculine) on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ;

(4) place the trivial name plumosa Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the

binominal combination Tipula plumosa) on the Official List of
Specific Trivial Names in Zoology.

152 Bulldin of Zoological Notnendatu/re

OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSAL THAT THE PLENARY POWERS
SHOULD BE USED TO SUPPRESS THE NAME "TENDIPES"
MEIGEN, 1800, FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALIDATING THE NAME
"CHIRONOMUS" MEIGEN, 1803 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER

DIPTERA)

By ALAN STONE

(United ShUes Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and
Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C.)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)469)

(Letter dated 27th March, 1951)

In response to your letter of 7th March, I am very pleased to have the
opportunity to protest the proposed suppression of the generic name Tendipes
Meigen, 1800 (type species : Tipula plumosa Linnaeus). The name Tendipes
is very firmly established in the literature by the works of Kieflfer. 1911-1916,
Gripekoven, 1914, Krusemau, 1933. 1939 f de Meijere. 1935, 1939, Hennig,
1941, 1950, Beyer, 1941, Soot-Ryen, 1942-1943 ; Rapp. 1943, Townes, 1944-
1945, Wirth, 1946-1950, Procter, Stuardo, Johnson, 1946, Morrissey, 1946,
1950, Hauber, 1946, 1949, Chernovsky, 1948, Marcuzzi, Sonderup, 1949,
Goetghebuer {in Lindner, 1936-1944). This includes Gripekoven's 100 page
work on " Minierende Tendipediden," Goetghebuer's large work on the family
in Lindner's " Fliegen der palaearktischen Region," and Townes' revision of
the Nearctic species of the Tendipedini. At least 120 species have been
originally described in the genus Tendipes and probably many more. There
is no real confusion involved since the names are equivalent and in order to
examine the Uterature one must know this anyway.

The family is of considerable interest in ecology and wild life management
but I personally do not think that this is sufiiciently important to warrant
suspension of the rules in this case. Here again, a ruUng that would permit
retention of the family name based on a synonym would obviate most of the
liifficulty. If the name Tendipes had been suppressed in 1913, along with all
the other Meigen 1800 names, I wovdd be very pleased. Since this was not
done, a considerable literature has been built up on the nomenclatorially valid
name, and it seems much too late to invalidate a name that the Commission
declared to be valid.

BuUelin of Zoological Nomenddturr 153

PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE " OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC

NAMES IN ZOOLOGY" OF THE GENERIC NAME " PHILIA "

MEIGEN, 1800 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA)

By D. ELMO HARDY

{University of Hawaii, Agricultural Experiment Station, Honolulu, Territory of

Hawaii)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)498)

This is a simple case of synonymy of a Meigen (1803) generic name with
one of his (1800) generic names. Philia Meigen, 1800 {Nouvelle Classification
des Mouches a deux Ailes : 20) is recognizable from the original description and
Dilophus Meigen, 1803 {Mag. f. Insektenk. lUiger) 2 : 264) is quite obviously
a synonym. In accordance with Opinion 152 as supplemented by the con-
clusions of the fourteenth meeting of the International Commission on Zoo-
logical Nomenclature in Paris (1950, Bull. zool. Nomen. 4 : 552-558), application is
hereby made for the Commission to place the name Philia Meigen, 1800 (type
species, by subsequent selection : Tipula febrilis Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat.
(ed. 10) 1 : 588) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and that the
name Dilophus Meigen, 1803 (type species : Tipula febrilis Linnaeus, 1758,
by selection by Latreille, 1810 {Consid. gen. Orust. Arach. Ins. : 442) be placed
on the Official Imlex of Rejected ami Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

The writer has used the name Philia, in place of Dilophus, in his papers on
the BiBiONiDAE since 1937 and that name is very firmly established in the
current literature of the bibionidae of the world. According to the successive
volumes of the Zoological Record, supplemented by the writer's own records,
just a single reference to Dilophus has appeared in the literature since 1938.
This was a note on the biology of Dilophus similis Rondani by C. Bruch (1940,
" Observaciones biologicas sobre Dilophus similis Rondani," Notas Mus.
La Plata 5 (Zool.) : 307-315). Edwards used Dilophus widely previous to
1938, as did Duda, Okada and others, but the name Philia has replaced this
in the more current Hterature. To revert back to Dilophus would indeed cause
much more confusion than uniformity.

The group is of little or no importance from an economic standpoint and
the workers in applied entomology would not be affected by the official adoption
of the name Philia.

The writer has been making routine identifications of the bibionidae for
the past fifteen years and the name Philia is now in general use in the major
museums and collections of the world. The writer has used this name in the
following papers : —

19.37, " New Bibionidae from Nearctic America," I'roc. Utah Acad. Sci. 14 : 199-213.

1942, " Studies in New World Philia," Part I, J. Kansas ent. Soc. 15 : 127-134.

194.5, " Revision of Nearctic Bibionidae including Neotropical Plecia and Pentketria,"

Univ. Kansas sci. Bull. 30 : 367-547.
}948, " Homonvmv Notes in the Bibionidae," ./. Kathias nit. Snc. 21 : 3fi.

154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

1948, " British Museum Ruwenzori Expedition, Bibionidae," 1 (6) : 109-127.
1950, " Exploration du Pare National Albert, Mission G. F. de Witt«, Bibionidae," Inst.
Pares nat. Congo Beige 65 : 1-23.

The following manuscripts are now (19th October, 1950) in the hands of the
printer and will be published in the near future : —

" The Bibionidae of Madagascar," Part II, sent to the Institut Scientifique de Madagascar,"
to be published in the Memoires of the Institut.
" The Argentine Bibionidae," being published in Acta zoologica lilloana.
" A Monographic Study of the African Bibionidae (Diptera), Part II, Genus Philia Meigen,"
being published in the Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society.

The writer also has manuscripts on hand dealing with new species of Philia
from the Pacific, Oriental and Neotropical Regions.

Conclusions :

The continued acceptance of Philia Meigen, 1800, in preference to Dilophus
Meigen 1803, should not cause any degree of disturbance and would certainly
create more uniformity and stability than confusion. The writer accordingly
requests the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to place : —

(1) the generic name Philia Meigen, 1800, Nouv. Class. Mouch ; 20
(type species by subsequent selection, by Coquillet, 1910 {Proc.

U.S. nat. Mus., 37 : 488) (gender of generic name : feminine) : Tipula
febrilis Linnaeus, 1758) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ;

(2) the trivial name febrilis Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed 10) 1 : 588
(as published in the binominal combination Tipula febrilis) on the
Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ;

(3) the generic name Dilophus Meigen, 1803 (an objective junior synonym
of Philia Meigen, 1800) (gender of generic name : masculine) on the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

BiiUeliii of Zoological Nomenclature 155

PROPOSED ADDITION OF THE NAME " PHILIA " MEIGEN, 1800
(CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) TO THE " OFFICIAL LIST
OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY " : SUPPORT FOR APPLICA-
TION SUBMITTED BY PROFESSOR D. ELMO HARDY

By MARTIN L. ACZEL

{Institute of Entmnology, National University of Tucumdn, Tucumdn,
Argentina)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)498)

(Extract from a letter dated Gth November, 1950)

Wanting to assist in stabilising the nomenclature of Dipterology, I support
the proposals to be submitted by Professor Hardy concerning the Meigen
(1800) name Philia in the family bibionidae.

PROPOSED ADDITION OF THE NAME " PHILIA " MEIGEN 1800

(CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) TO THE " OFFICIAL LIST

OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY": COMMENT ON THE

APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY PROFESSOR D. ELMO HARDY

By ALAN STONE

{United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and
Plant Quarantine. Washington, D.C.)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)498)

(Extract from a letter dated 30th January, 1951)

Concerning the name PhiUa (Z.N.(S.)498), this case is so parallel to those
of Donlas and Tylos, that I see no need to discuss the matter at length.* It
IS the nomenclatorially valid name that has been used in extensive publica-
tions by Hardy. Meigen's original description of Philia very clearly refers
to the same genus as did his Dilophus. No family name is based on the generic
name and the name is used very little in the literature of economic entomology
In most of these Meigen 1800 names there is no real confusion since it is merely
a change from one name to another, without any change in the concept of the
genus. ■ '■

* See pasies 142-14.3, 160

15G Bulletin of Zoological Nomrnrlafnre

PROPOSED ADDITION OF THE GENERIC NAME " TYLOS "
MEIGEN, 1800 (CLASS INSECT A, ORDER DIPTERA) TO THE
" OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY " AND OF
" MICROPEZA " MEIGEN, 1803, TO THE " OFFICIAL INDEX OF
REJECTED AND INVALID GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY "

By MARTIN L. ACZEL

(Institute of Entomology, National University of Tucumdn,
Tucumdn, Argentina)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)501)

(Extract from a letter dated 6th November, 1950, with enclosure)

Wanting to assist in stabilizing the nomenclature of Dipterology, I submit
tlie following request for a Meigen (1800) name in the family tylidae to be
placed on the Official List.

This is a simple case of synonymy of a Meigen (1800) name with the genus
Tylos Meigen, 1800 {Nouvelle Classification des M ouches a deux Ailes : 31)
which is recognizable from the original description and Micropeza Meigen,
1803 (Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 2 : 276) which is quite obviously a synonym.
In accordance with the Opinion 152 as supplemented by the conclusions of
the Fourteenth Meeting of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature in Paris (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 552-558), application is hereby
made for the Commission to place the name Tylos Meigen, 1800 (type species
by subsequent selection by Coquillet, 1910 {Proc. U. S. tiat. Mus. 37(No. 1719) :
618) ; Miisca corrigiolata Linnaeus) on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology and that the name Micropeza Meigen, 1803 (type species by original
designation : Musca corrigiolata Linnaeus) be sunk as a synonym of Tylos.

Before 1908 the name Tylos was used scarcely, if at all. Between 1908
and 1932 it was used occasionally. Hendel treated several species under the
names Tylos, using the family name tylidae in 1931 {Bull. Soc. ent. Egypte,
2 : 61) and in 1932 [Konowia 11 : 120-121). In 1930 L. Czerny {in Lindner,
Die Fleigen pal. Region 42a. TyUdae), treated this family using the name
TYLIDAE and placed ten species in the genus Tylos.

The last leading worker on this family, Willi Hennig, in his world revision
of TYLIDAE, 1934-1936 (1934 : Stett. ent. Ztg. 95 : 65-108, 294-330; 1935, ibid.
96:27-67; Konoma 14:68-92, 192-216, 289-310; 1936; Konowia 15:
129-144, 201-239) as well as his other papers published between 1934 and
1941 used the family name tylidae and the generic name Tylos, feeling
morally obliged to follow the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature,
the Opiniotis concerning the Meigen 1800 names, and the principle of priority.

It should be noted also that Professor M. James in 1946 (" The dipt, family
Tylidae in Colorado," Ent. News 57 : 128-131) used also the legitimate name§

Bulletin of Zoological Notnenclature

157

TYLIDAE and Tylos. My own publications in which I have used these names

SiIG QiS lOllOWS !

1950, "Notes on Tylidae II Argentine species of the subfamily Tylinac in the Knt
lorn n? ; "^ ^i"" .^'^"^' ^^^ Foundation." Zor.. cit. 8 : 219-280
] JoO, Catalogo de ]a famUia do las Tylidae, loc. cit. 8 : 309-389.

the^L^?utTre? ^'"^"" " '" '^" ^'"^' °^ '^' P'^*^^ ^^^^ ^"^^ pubhcation in

Morfologia externa y division sistematica de las Tanvnezidiforinps Pnn ci^ • j ,

In the past ten years W. Hennig, Professor James and I, have used the
same names on our identifications on these flies, examining Collections from
the major museums throughout the United States and Europe, from all th^
zoogeographical regions. ^ ' ^^®

The family and the genus is of no importance from an economic standpoint
having saprophagous larvae, and the workers in applied entomology would
not be affected by the official adoption of the name ^^ and tylidae

According to successive volumes of the Zoological Record, just a sinde

936"™: w:rT ?' r^^°T-f ^^^ -PP --d in the litLture'S

(1945, 1";^^ 57 nlmV^^ MICKOPKZI.AE by Mr. J. E. Collin

Conclusions :

ih.'^f^ «<^^ti^^«d acceptance of the generic name Tylos xMeigen, 1800 and

MTpiT ^ """T ^u"°^'' "^ P^^^^^^^^^ *« ^^^^ Meigen, 1803 and
MiCROPEZiDAE, should not cause any degree of disturbance and woild certain^v
create more uniformity and stability than confusion. The writer a^corSv
requests the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature To^^ef^

(1) the generic name Tylos Meigen, 1800, Nouv. Class. Mouches ■ 31
(type species by subsequent selection by CoquiUet (1910)- Musca

TEdZ^^^""^ ''''^ " '^' ""^"'"^ ^'' '^ ^'"^^ ^'^^

(2) the generic name Jl/icro;,e2a Meigen, 1803 (an objective synonym
of r^/^os Meigen, 1800) on the Official Index of Rejected and^nvZ
Generic Names m Zoology; ^rovaim

^^^ J^.V*11^^''^°'\rrr^^ Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12)
1(2). 955 (as pubhshed m the binominal combination Mt/ J
corrigiolata) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names inZoolog^

158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE
THE NAME " MICROPEZA " MEIGEN, 1803, AND TO SUPPRESS
THE NAME " TYLOS " MEIGEN, 1800 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER

DIPTERA)

By JOHN SMART, M.A., D.Sc.
{University of Cambridge, Department of Zoology, Cambridge)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)501)

The object of the present application is to seek the use, by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, of its plenary powers for the purpose
of validating the generic name Micropeza Meigen, 1803, by suppressing the
name Tylos Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera).

The following are the relevant particulars relating to the foregoing names : —

(1) Tylos Meigen, 1800, Nouv. Class. Mouches : 31.

No named species were cited by Meigen as belonging to this genus.
Hcndel was the first author to cite a species by name as belonging
to this genus (Hendel 1908, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 58 (2/3) : 60).
The sole species so cited by Hendel was Musca corrigiolata Fabricius,
i.e., Musca corrigiolata Linnaeus, 1767 {Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) :
995). That species is therefore the type species of Tylos Meigen,
by monotypy. (The same species was later selected as the
type species of this genus by Coquillet (1910) who regarded Micropeza
as only a change of name.)

(2) Micropeza Meigen, 1803, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 2 : 276.

Meigen cited only Musca corrigiolata Linnaeus, 1767, which is there-
fore the type species by monotypy.

The name Tylos was completely ignored by Dipterists until Hendel (1908)
suggested that it might be synonymous with Micropeza. (He indicated his
doubt by inserting a " ? " before Micropeza, which was placed in the text in
the position of a synonym). Subsequent authors who favoured the use of
the Meigen (1800) names accepted the synonymy without question.

That Musca corrigiolata Fabricius is the same species as Musca corrigiolata,
Linnaeus is agreed among specialists, and the species concerned is well-
recognized.

The genus Micropeza Meigen, 1803, is the type genus of a distinctive family
of the Order Diptera — the micropezidae — the Stilt-Legged Flies. This
genus and family have always been known by these names, except by those
speciaUsts who, following Hendel, have used the generic name Tylos Meigen,
1800, and the family name tylibae.

It is clearly very desirable that an end should be put as soon as possible
to the current divergence of practice in this matter by an authoritative ruling
as to which of these names should be used. Having regard to the prejionderant

BvUetin of Zoological Nomenclature 159

use in literature of the name Micwpeza during the last century and a half, I
am of the opinion that the best course would be to establish that name in
preference to the name Tylos. I accordingly suggest that the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should : —

(1) use its plenary powers (a) to suppress the name Tylos Meigen, 1800,

for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the
Law of Homonymy, and (6) to validate the name Micropeza
Meigen, 1803;

(2) place the generic name Micropeza Meigen, 1803 (type species by

monotypy : Musca corrigiolata Linnaeus, 1767) (gender of generic
name : feminine) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ;

(3) place the generic name Tylos Meigen, 1800 (gender of generic name :

mascuUne) as proposed under (1) (a) above, to be suppressed
under the plenary powers, on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ;

(4) place the trivial name corrigiolata Linnaeus, 1767 (as pubHshed in

the binominal combination Musca corrigiolata) on the Official
List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology.

160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED ADDITION OF THE NAME " TYLOS " MEIGEN, 1800

(CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) TO THE " OFFICIAL LIST

OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY": COMMENT ON THE

APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY PROFESSOR MARTIN L. ACZEL

By ALAN STONE

{United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and
Plant Quiirantine, Washington, B.C.)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)501)

(Extract from a letter dated 30tli January, 1951)

The case for Tylos versus Micropeza is essentially the same as for Dorilas
versus Pipunculus, although the use of Tylos has possibly been even more
extensive than that of Dorilas. Aczel, Hennig, Czerny and Hendel, have all
used the generic name Tylos, and the family name tylidae in important
re visionary works. Cresson is the most important worker in the family who
has stuck to Micropeza and micropezidae. James, Seguy, and de Meijere
have also used tylidae, as did Kloet & Hincks in their " Check List of British
Insecta." Most of the important papers of the last fifteen years have used
the name Tylos.

It seems unnecessary to repeat the general arguments that I gave in my
letter concerning Dorilas* that are equally appUcable here.

See pages 142-143

Contents :

{continued from front wrapper)

REPORT on the procedure proposed by the International Com- Page
mission on Zoological Nomenclature to put an end to the
confusion in the nomenclature of the Order Diptera (Class
Insecta) resulting from the controversy regarding the generic
names pubhshed by Meigen in 1800 in his Nouvelle Classi-
fication des Mouches a deux Ailes : First instalment of
applications. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Application for the use of the plenary powers to validate the
generic name Chlorops Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order
Diptera). By C. W. Sabrosky {U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine,
Washington, D.C.) 134

On Dr. C. W. Sabrosky's proposal relating to the generic names
Titania Meigen, 1800, and Chlorops Meigen, 1803 (Class
Insecta, Order Diptera). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G.,
C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . 138

On the proposed suppression under the plenary powers of the
name Titania Meigen, 1800, in favour of the name Chlorops
Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By H. Oldroyd
{Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural
History), London) . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

On the proposed suppression of Titania Meigen, 1800, and
vahdation of Chlorops Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order
Diptera) under the plenary powers. By John Smart, M.A.,
D.Sc. {University of Cambridge, Department of Zoology,
Cambridge) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name
Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803] (Class Insecta, Order
Diptera). By William F. Rapp, Jr. {Department of Biology,
Doane College, Crete, Nebraska, U.S.A.) . . . . . . 140

On the proposal that the name Dorilas Meigen, 1800, be sup-
pressed under the plenary powers in favour of Pipunculus
Latreille, [1802-1803] (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By
H. Oldroyd {Department of Entomology, British Museum
{Natural History), London) . . . . . . . . . . 141

Objection to the proposal that the name Dorilas Meigen, 1800,
should be suppressed and Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803]
(Class Insecta, Order Diptera) validated in its place. By
Alan Stone {U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of
Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C.) . . 142

Proposal that the name Dorilas Meigen, 1800, should be retained
and the name Pipunculus Latreille [1802-1803] (Class
Insecta, Order Diptera) should be treated as a synonym.
By D. Elmo Hardy {University of Hawaii, Agricultural
Experiment Station, Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii) . . . . 144

Support for the proposal that the name Dorilas Meigen, 1800,
should be retained and that the name Pipunculus Latreille
[1802-1803] (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) should be treated
as a synonym. By Martin L. Aczel {Institute of Entomology,
National University of Tucumdn, Tucumdn, Argentina) . . 146

Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the name Pipunculus
Latreille [1802-1803], and to suppress the name Dorilas
Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By John
Smart, M.A., D.Sc. {University of Cambridge, Department
of Zoology, Cambridge) . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Contents :
(continued from overleaf)

Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name Page
Chironomus Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera).
By John Smart, M.A., D.Sc. {University of Cambridge^
Department of Zoology, Cambridge) . . . . . . . . 150

Objection to the proposal that the plenary powers should be used
to suppress the name Tendipes Meigen, 1800, for the purpose
of validating the name Chironomus Meigen, 1803 (Class
Insecta, Order Diptera). By Alan Stone (U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine,
Washington, D.C.) 152

Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
of the generic name Philia Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta,
Order Diptera). By D. Elmo Hardy (University of Hawaii,
Agricultural Experiment Station, Territory of Hawaii) . . 153

Proposed addition of the name Philia Meigen, 1800 (Class
Insecta, Order Diptera) to the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology : Support for application submitted by Professor
D. Elmo Hardy. By Martin L. Aczel (Institute of En-
tomology, National University of Tuciimdn, Tucumdn,
Argentina) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Proposed addition of the name Philia Meigen, 1800 (Class
Insecta, Order Diptera) to the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology : Comment on the apphcation submitted by
Professor D. Elmo Hardy. By Alan Stone (U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomologv and Plant Quarantine,
Washington, D.C.) . . . . ' 155

Proposed addition of the generic name Tylos Meigen, 1800 (Class
Insecta, Order Diptera) to the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology and of Micropeza Meigen, 1803, to the Official
Index cf Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.
By Martin L. Aczel (Institute of Entomology, National
Univenity of Tucumdn, Tucumdn, Argentina) . . . . 156

Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the name Micropeza
Meigen, 1803, and to suppress the name Tylos Meigen,
1800 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By John Smart,
M.A., D.Sc. (University of Cambridge, Department of Zoology,
Cambridge) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

Proposed addition of the name Tylos Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta,
Order Diptera) to the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology : Comment on the application submitted by
Professor Martin L. Aczel. By Alan Stone (U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine,
Washington, D.C.) 160

INQUIRIES

All inquiries regarding publications should be addressed to the Publications
Officer of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, and all inquiries
regarding the scientific work of the Commission to the Secretary to the Commission
at the following addresses : —

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature : 41, Queen's Gate,
London, S.W.7, England.

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : Secretariat
of the Commission, 28, Park Village East, Regent's Park, London,
N.W.I, England.

Prtoted in Great Britain by Metchiu and Son, Ltd., Westminster, London

VOLUME 2. Parts 6/8 4th May, 1951

pp. 161—240

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
^.^v^ ^ ' <^^OnoMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of , T

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by

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

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

Contents :
Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Page

Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published
in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature . . . . , . 161

Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain

161

{continued on back zorapper)

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

1951

Price One pound, five shillings

(All rights reserved)

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. Yokes (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. StoU (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 (Denmark) (27th July 1948)
Professor Teiso Esaki (Japan) (17th April 1950)
Professor Pierre Bonnet (France) (9rh 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)

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 and 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 Comtrtission : 28, Park Village East, Regent's Park, London>
N.W.I

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

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 2, Parts 6/8 (pp. 161-240) 1th May 1951

NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERNATIONAL
CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY

1. The following notices are given ill pursuance of decisions taken, on the
recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Noniencl. 4 : 51-56, 57-59), by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 5-13,
131).

(a) Date of commencement by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications pub"

lished in the "Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature"

Notice is hereby given that normally the International Conmiission will
start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of publica-
tion in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who may
desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present Triple
Part (vol 2, Triple Part 6/8) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so, in
^^Titing, to the Secretary to the Commission as quickly as possible and in any
case in sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the
Secretariat of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period
referred to above.

(b) Notice of the possible use by the International Conamission
on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary pov/ers in certain

cases

NoTicK is hereby given that the possible use by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers is involved in applications
published in the j)resent Triple Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
in relation to the following names : —

(1) Sphaeroceraa Bayle, 1878 (Class Cephalo|)0(hi, Order Aiumonoidea),
propo.sed validation of. l)y suppression of S])liucroccra< Hope. 1840
(Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) (Z.N.(S.)4()5)

(2) Procerites Siemiradzki, 1898 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea)
proposed designation of type species of (Z.N.(S.)403)

(3) Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884, proposed designation of type species
of ; Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813, proposed determina-
tion of species to which name applicable (Cla.ss Cephalopoda, Order
Ammonoidea) (Z.N.(S.)401)

(4) Pictonia Bayle, 1878, and Rasenia Salfeld, 1913, proposed tlesiguation
of type species of ; trivial name cymodoce d'Orbigny. 1850 (as
published in the binominal combination Ammonites cymodoce),
(Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), ]>roposed suppression of
(Z.N.(S.)121)

162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomendature

(5) AiUacostephanus Tornquist, 1896 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Am-
monoidea), proposed designation of type species of (Z.N.(S.)384)

(6) Kosmoceras Waagen, 1869, Harpoceras Waagen, 1869, and Peri-
spMnctes Waagen, 1869 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea),
proposed designation of type species of (Z.N.(S.)445)

(7) Planites de Haan, 1825, proposed suppression of ; Nautilus poly-
gyratus Reinecke, 1818 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea),
determination of species to which name appUcable (Z.N.(S.)402)

(8) Planulites Lamarck, 1801, Orhulites Lamarck, 1801, Pelagus Montfort,
1808, Ellipsolithes Montfort, 1808, Globites de Haan, 1825 (Class
Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed suppression of (Z.N.(S.)
423)

(9) Ammonites Brugmere, 1789 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea),
proposed suppression of (Z.N.(S.)425)

(10) angulatus Schlotheim, 1820 (as published in the binominal com-
bination Ammonites angulatus) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Am-
monoidea), proposed validation of, and determination of species to
which name applicable (Z.N.(S.)422)

(11) Toxosphinctes Buckman, 1923 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Am-
monoidea), proposed suppression of (in favour of Ansphinctes Buck-
man, 1924) (Z.N.(S.)389)

(12) Arnioceras Hyatt, 1867 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea),
proposed designation of type species of (Z.N.(S.)509)

(13) Liparoceras Hyatt, 1867 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea),
proposed designation of type species of (Z.N.(S.)507)

(14) Nonmtnnites Munier-Chalmas, 1892 (Class Cephalopoda, Order
Ammonoidea), proposed designation of type species of (Z.N.(S.)508)

(15) virgula Deshayes, 1831 (as pubhshed in the binominal combination
Gryphaea virgula) (Class Pelecypoda), proposed validation of
(Z.N.(S.)407)

(16) asper Lamarck, 1819 (as published in the binominal combination
Pecten asper) (Class Pelecypoda), proposed validation of (Z.N.(S.)408)

(17) Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801 (Class Pelecypoda), proposed suppression
of, and validation of Gryphaea Lamarck, 1819 (Z.N.(S.)365)

2. In accordance with the procedure agreed upon at the Session held by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 56), corresponding Notices have been sent
to the journals " Nature " and " Science."

FRANCIS HEMMING

Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Secretariat of the
International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature,

28 Park Village East, Regent's Park,
London, N.W.I, England.
2ith April 1951.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 163

INTRODUCTORY NOTE ON APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED

TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL

NOMENCLATURE IN REGARD TO THE NAMES OF

CERTAIN JURASSIC AMMONITES

By W. J. AKKELL, M.A, D.Sc, F.R.S.
{Sedgmck Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge)

(Note dated 30th March 1951)

The following applications to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature arise out of preparations for the section on Jurassic ammonites
for the international Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Some of the
nonienclatorial problems dealt with are of long standing and have often been
discussed in print, but no one hitherto has thought it worth while to bring
them before the Commission. Only by so doing can such time-wasting
obstructions be cleared away.

]\Ir. Francis Hemming has most kindly spent much time and trouble in
putting the papers into the necessary shape for tlio Commission and in antici-
pating and avoiding a numljer of likely pitfalls.

It is hoped that under the revised procedure of the International Com-
mission decisions on these applications will be given by the end of the present
year.

164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomendature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE
THE GENERIC NAME SPHAEROCERAS BAYLE,1878 (CLASS
CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA) (JURASSIC)

By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S.
{Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)405)

1. The generic name Sphaeroceras Bayle, 1878 {Explic. Carte geol. France
4 (Atlas) : pis. 52, 53) has as its type species Ammonites brongniarti Sowerby (J),
1817 {Min. Conch. 2 : 190), that species having been so selected by Douville
in 1879 {Bidl. Soc. geol. France (3) 7 C.R. : 91).

2. The name Sphaeroceras is widely disseminated in the hterature of the
Jurassic, as w-ill be seen from the hst of references given by Roman (1938,
Ammonites jurass. cret. : 197).

3. Further, the genus Sphceroceras Bayle is the type species of the family
SPHAEROCERATiD^ Buckman (1920, Type Ammonites 3 : 22).

4. I found however on consulting Neave's Nomenclator zoologicus (4 : 239)
that the name Sphaeroceras Bayle, 1878, is an invaUd junior homonym of the
name Sphaeroceras Hope, 1840 {Coleopterist's Manual 3 : 143), the name of a
genus in the Order Coleoptera (Class Insecta).

5. If the generic name Sphaeroceras Hope was a name currently used by
coleopterists for a genus of beetles, I shoiild not have considered that it would
have been right to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
to use their plenary powers to suppress that name, in order to validate the
generic name Sphaeroceras Bayle in ammonites. When however I consulted
Mr. C. E. Tottenham of the Zoological Museimi here, I learnt that the generic
name Sphaeroceras Hope, 1840, was, as from the moment of its
original publication, a junior synonym of the generic name Globicornis Latreille,
1829, each of these genera having the same taxonomic species as its type species.
The Report kindly furnished by Mr. Tottenham is annexed to the present
application as an Appendix. In the cixcmnstances disclosed in this Report it
was evident that not the shghtest inconvenience of any kind would be experienced
by coleopterists if the International Commission were to suppress the name
Sphaeroceras Hope, 1840, while that action would be of great value to students
of ammonites by vaUdating the name Sphaeroceras Bayle, 1878, which (as I
have explained) is the name for a well-known genus of the Jurassic and forms
the basis of a family name.

6. I accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature (1) to use their plenary powers to suppress the generic name (Sphaeroceras

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 165

Hope, 1840, and to validate the name Sphaeroceras Bayle, 1878, (2) to place the
name Sphaeroceras Bayle, 1878 (gender of generic name : neuter) (type species,
by selection by Douville, 1879: Ammonites hrongniarti Sowerby, 1817)
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, (3) to place the trivial name
brongniarti Sowerby, 1817 (as published in the binominal combination Ammo-
nites hrongniarti) on the Official Last of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology,
and (4) to place the name Sphaeroceras Hope, 1840, suppressed under (1) above,
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

APPENDIX

On the question whether the suppression of the name " Sphaeroceras "
Hope, 1840 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), under the plenary
powers would cause any inconvenience to coleopterists

(Memorandum, dated 5th November 1949)

By C. E. TOTTENHAM
(Zoological Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge)

From the point of view of the coleopterist there can be no objection to a
request being made to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
for the suppression, under the plenary powers, of the generic name Sphaeroceras
Hope, 1840.

The position is this : — Hope, 1840 (Coleopterist' s Manual 3 : 143) first
employed the name Sphaeroceras for a genus of beetles belonging to the family
DERMESTiDAE. In doing so, he gave no generic characters but merely cited
the name in a list of genera and typical species. He gave the name as a synonym
of Globicornis Latreille, thus : —

Genus Typical species

D. rufitarsis Pz.

7. Globicornis Latr. ]

Sphaeroceras Hope i

Globicornis Latreille, 1829 (Begne anim. (ed. 2) 4 : 511) is a valid name and
is currently in use. The genus so named is monobasic, the only species cited
by name by Latreille being Dermestes rufitarsis Panzer, 1796, which is therefore
the type species of the genus Globicornis Latreille, 1829 (in Cuvier, R^e anim.
(ed. 2)4: 511).

Since Globicornis Latreille, 1829, and Sphaeroceras Hope, 1840, have the
same type species, namely Dermestes rufitarsis Panzer, 1796 (Faun. Ins,

166 Bullet i» of Zoological Nowenclakne

fjerm. 3 (Heft 35) : No. 6) which is a synonpn of Dennestes nigripes Fabricius,
1792 {Ent. Si/it. 1(1) : 233), Hope's generic name Sphaeroceras was strangled at
birth and can never bo required.

I have been able to find no mention oi Sphaeroceras Hoi^o, 1840, in the litera-
ture and it is not even given as a synonym of Ghbicornis Latreillc by Junk
(1911, Coleopt. Catalogm 25, Pars 33).

Since it is an unused and useless name in the Order Coleoptera, there is
very good reason why this name, as published by Bayle, should ])e retained in
its well-known sense as the name of a genus of ammonites.

If the Commission decide to use their plenary powers to suppress the name
Sphaeroceras Hope, 1840, it would be convenient if at the same time they would
add the name Glohicornis Latreille, 1829 (gender of generic name : feminine)
(type species, by monotypy : Dermestes riifitarsis Panzer, 1796 ( = Dermestes
nigripes Fabricius, 1792)) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology,
and the trivial name nigripes Fabricius, 1792 (as published in the binominal
combination Dermestes nigripes) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names
in Zoology.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 167

PROPOSED DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY
POWERS, OF THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS
" PROCERITES " SIEMIRADZKI, 1898 (CLASS CEPHALO-
PODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA) (JURASSIC)

By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S.
{Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)403)

1. The generic name Procerites was published by Siemiradzki (1898,
Palaeanlograph. 54 : 78, 303). Numerous species were included in the genus, but
no type species was designated or indicated.

2. One of the species originally included was cited as Ammonites procerus
Seebach, 1865. This species as interpreted by Siemiradzki (i.e. Siemiradzki,
1898, nee Seebach, 1864) was selected as the type species of Procerites by Buck-
man in 1914 (2 : ix) and 1920 (3 : 30).

3. De Grossouvre (1892 ; 1907 ; 1919 : 385, 387) showed that Procerites
procerus Seebach, as interpreted by Siemiradzki, was based on Ammonites
procerus Seebach, as interpreted by Schloenbach (1865 : pi. xxx, fig. 1), which
(1907 : 8) he renamed Procerites schloenbachi de Grossouvre, pointing out that
it was generically different from A. procerus Seebach.

4. According to the decision taken by the Thirteenth Internationa] Congress
of Zoology in 1948, it is necessary to assume that the original author of a genus
correctly identified the nominal species referred by him thereto but where
there are grounds for considering that the original author of a geiuis mis-
identified the species selected as the type species of the genus by a later author
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, if satisfied that the
species in question was so misidentified, is, under its plenary powers, to designate
as the type species of the genus concerned, either (a) the species intended by
the original author when citing the name of the erroneously determined species
or (6), if the identity of that species is doubtful, a species in hannony with
current nomenclatorial practice (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 158-159).
Further, an author selecting a type species of a previously estabhshed genus is to
be assumed to have correctly identified the species so selected (1950, ilnd. 4 :
157-158). It follows therefore (1) that, as matters now stand, Siemiradzki is
to be assumed to have correctly identified Ammonites procerus Seebach, 1865,
when he cited that species as one of the species then included by him in the
genus Procerites, and (2) that Buckman (1914) is to be assumed to have correctly
identified that species when he selected it as the type species of the above genus.
In the present case it is perfectly clear that such assumptions are not justified,
for («) it is certain that Siemeradzki did misidentify the species to which L§

168 Bullet w of Zoologicfd NomenclaUir/'

applied the name Ammonites procerus Scebach, and (h) Buckman, in selecting
the type spocies lor Procerites, expressly stated that the species so selected was
not the true Amntonites procerus of Seehach but the species misidentified there-
with by Sienieradzki. It is for this reason that the Conunission is now asked
to rectify the position under its plenary powers.

5. At my request Professor Hermann Schmidt has searched in Gottingen
Museum for the type specimen of A. procerus Seebach and has found it and
sent it to me on loan. It is a nucleus, difficult to interpret with certainty. In
my opinion de Grossouvre (1919) was correct in referring it to the genus
Sieiniradzha Hyatt, 1900. Therefore if A. procerus Seebach were to be recog-
nised as type species of Procerites, the usage of half a century would be over-
turned and that generic name woidd have to replace Siemiradzkia Hyatt, 1900,
a well-knowai and widely-distril)uted genus, which is now regarded as belonging
to a different sub-family (pseudoperisphinctin.i;:, whereas Procerites as
hitherto understood belongs to zigzagiceratin.?!;).

6. When the present application had been in the hands of the International
Commission for over a year, the subgenus Euprocerit.es Wetzel (1950 : 76) was
proposed with type species by original designation Procerites schloenhacM de
Grossouvre, '' because a subgenus Procerites (seusu siricto) as fixed by Buckman
is not admissible according to the Rides of Nomenclature '". Incidentally
Wetzel gives no indication of how Procerites {sensu stricto) should be under-
stood, for he mentions no type species, and he assigns A. procerus Seebach to
the subgenus PlianerospJiinctes Buckman, 1921. This genus is 1>ased on a
nucleus which is too small to be interpreted with certainty, but which is not
congeneric with either A. procerus Seebach or Procerites schloenbachi de Gros-
souvre, and comes from older beds ; Phanerosphinctes is probably a synonym
of Vermispkirtctes Buckman, 1920.

7. Wetzel's new subgenus Euprocerites cannot, however, stand under the
Regies. He assigns to Euprocerites Wetzel, 1950. the species ParMnsomtes

fuUon,icus Buckman, 1922, which is type species by original designation of
Parkinsonites Buckman, 1922. Parkinsonites fidlonicus is certainly congeneric
with Procerites scholoenbachi de Grossouvre and is a closely allied species. If
the name Procerites were to be rejected for the subgenus containing the species
P. fidlonicus Buckman, Parkinsonites would become the valid name and
Euprocerites on Wetzel's own showing would fall as a synonym.

8. In order to provide a legal basis for the universal usage of the last half
century and to avoid the revolutionary changes and consequent confusion in
the nomenclature of the Bathonian perisphinctid^ which the strict application
of the Regies would involve, the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature is asked to use its plenary powers to secure that the type species
of the genus Procerites Siemiradzki, 1898, shall be the species hitherto accepted
as such. The specific action requested is that the Commission should : —

(1) use its plenary powers (a) to set aside all selections of the type species
of the genus Procerites Siemiradzki, 1898, hitherto made, and (6) to

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 169

designate Procerites schloenbachi de Grossouvrc, 1907, as the type
species of this genus ;

(2) place the undermentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology : —

Procerileti Sicuiiradzki, 1898 (gender of generic name : masculine)
(type s})ocics, designated under the plenary powers ; Procerites
schloenbachi de Grossouvre, 1907, VP Congres Assoc. Franc-
Comtoise, Vesoul : 8) ;

Siemiradzkia Hyatt, 1900 {in Eastman — Zittel, Text-Book Paloeont.
1 : 582) (gender of generic name : feminine) (type species by
original designation : Ammonites aurigerus Oppel, 1856, Wiiritemb.
nalunr. Ju/ireshefle 13 : 167) ;

(3) place the name Euprocerites Wetzel, 1950 (an objective synonym of
Procerites Siemiradzki, 1898, as proposed to be defined under (1)(6)
above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology ;

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

schloenbachi de Grossouvre, 1907 (as published in the binominal
combination Procerites schloenbachi) ;

aurigera Oppel, 1856 (as published in the binominal combination
Ammonites aurigera).

References :

Buckman, S. S., 1909-30. " Yorkshire Type Ammonites ".

Grossouvre, A. de., 1892. " Observations sur V Ammonites procerus auct."
Bull. Soc. Geol. France (3) 20 : xli.

Grossouvre, A. de., 1907. " Sur la variabilite de I'espece cliez les ammonites."
VP Congres de l' Assoc. Franc- Comtoise, Vesoul, 1 Aug. 1906.

Grossouvre, A. de., 1919. " Bajocien-Bathonien dans la Nievre." Bull.
Soc. Geol. France (4) 18 : 337.

Schloenbach, U., 1865. " Beitrage zur Palaontologie der Jura-und Krcide-
Formation ..." Palaeontographica 13 : 1.

Seebach, K. von., 1864. " Der Hannoversche Jura ", Hannover.

Siemiradzki, J. von., 1898. " Monographische Beschreibung der Ammoniten-
gattung Perisphiuctcs ", Part 1, Palaeontographica 54 : 69.

Wetzel, W., 1950. " Fauna und Stratigraphie der Wuerttembergica-Schichten
insbesondere Norddeutschlands ", Palaeontographica 99 A : 63.

170 BvMetin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY
POWERS, OF THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS
" MACROCEPHALITES " ZITTEL, 1884, AND OF THE TYPE
SPECIMEN OF "AMMONITES MACROCEPHALUS "
SCHLOTHEIM, 1813 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER
AMMONOIDEA)

By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S.
{Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)401)

A. The type species of Macroccp/ialite-s Zittel, 1884

1. The genus Macrocephalites (Sutner MS.) Zittel (1884, Handb. Pal. 1
(Abt. 2) (3) : 470, fig. 655) was based on Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim,
A. iumidus (Reinecke), A. herveyi Sowerby, A. keppleri Oppel, A. arenosus
Waagen, A. elephantinus AVaagen {i.e. six syntype species).

2. Only one of these species was figured by Zittel {he. oil. : Fig. 655),
namely Maeroeephalites macrocephahis (Schloth.). He gave a good figure,
easily recognisable. This fact and the virtual tautonomy would suggest that
he regarded A. macrocephahts as the type species.

3. But Blake (1905 : 38-45), the first to monograph the genus, pointed out
that Zittel's figure is widely different from Am. macrocephalus Schlotheim
(1813), of which the sole type is the figure in Baier (1757, ])\. xii, fig. 8) which
Blake (1905 : 43) reproduced in his monograph.

4. Blake did not select a t}^e species for this genus, but he assigned the
M. nuicioeephalus of Zittels fig. 655 to a new species, M. typieus Blake, which
he placed first of the fi\'e sj^ecios oi Mueroeep/ialites that he described, J/, macro-
cephalus Schloth. lieing })laced second. Blake called his new species " Macro-
cephalites typieus noni. nov.'", implpng that the type specimen should be the
A. macrocephalus of either Zittel, d'Orbigny or Nikitin which he placed in the
synonymy ; but the first line of his text begins " Type (pi. iii, fig. 1) ", a
Scarborough specimen in the Sedgwick Museum. This specimen is therefore
presumably the holotype. It does not belong to the same species as A. macro-
cephalus Zittel and belongs to a different subgenus {Dolikephalites Buckman).

5. S. S. Buckman (1922, Type Ammonites 4 : pis. cccxxxiv, A, B)
obtained from the Palaeontogical 3Iuseum of Munich, and refigured photo-
graphically, the origmal specimen on which Zittel's figure of 1884 was based
(a specimen cited by Oppel, from the basal Callovian of Ehningen). He named
it " Macrocephalites verus nov., Holotype ", and printed on the plate " Macro-
cephalites macrocephalus Zittel, 1884, Genotype, Handb. Pal. 1 : 470, fig. 655."

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 171

6. The Commission are now asked to declare under the plenary powers
that the type species of Macrocephalites is M. verus Buckman by deliberate
subsequent selection, in spite of misuse of the word genotype for a specimen.

B. The type specimen of Ammonites macroceplwilus Schlotheim

7. Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim (1813 : 70) was neither figured
nor described. It was based solely on a dra^^'ing in Baier (1757, pi. xii, fig. 8),
which has been reproduced by Blake (1905 : 43, fig. 3).

8. Baier's figure falls very far short of what is required by modern standards,
but according to Blake (1905 : 39) " it is seen at once that the species rej^resented
is that now called A. tumidus after Reinecke (1818)." This is supported by
Schlotheim"s liimself in a later work (1820 : 70) putting Nautilus tumidus
Keinecke in synonymy with A. macrocep/ialus. Both came from the Callovian
of Franconia.

9. Unfortunately there are compUcations. Not only has Baier's figure been
almost universally ignored, both before and after Blake's monograph, and
A. macrocephalus interpreted in many different ways, but " A. macrocephalus "
has become an important zonal index fossil. The Macrocephalus Zone is
world-wide and entrenched in the stratigraphical and geological literature of a
century.

10. Thanks largely to the mde influence of Zittel's text-book, his inter-
pretation of A. macrocephalus (i.e. =3/. verus Buckman) has been by far the
most commonly accepted and is in the minds of stratigraphers when they speak
of the Macrocephalus Zone. Spath (1928 : 169) attempted to stabilise this
position by pinning the name macrocephalus to M. verus Buckman, although
he regarded it as generically distinct from M. tumidus (Reinecke). Spath
wrote " it does not seem advisable now to go back with Blake (1905 : 43)
to Baier's unrecognisable illustration, the original of which is lost." In 1933 I
followed Spath and in my series of photographs of the chief Jurassic zonal
indices I figured an English specimen of M. verus Buckman in illustration
of Macrocephalites macrocephalus (Schloth.) (Arkell, 1933 : G08, pi. xxxv,
fig. 1).

11. Oppel (185G-8 : 547), founder of the Macrocephalus Zone, based his
interpretation on figures by Zieten (1830) and d'Orbigny (1846), the former
M. verus Buckman, the latter M. tyjncus Blake, and he described A. tumidus
(Reinecke) as a separate species. One of Oppel's own specimens (cited 1856-8 :
547) was that which Zittel figured and Buckman refigured as the holotype of
M. vertis.

12. Progress in knowledge of stratigraphy has proved that 31. ttimidus
(Reinecke) does not occur in what has always been called the Macrocephalus
Zone in this comitry, but in the next higher zone, the Koeuigi Zone. Hence, if
M. macrocephalus Schlotheim be interpreted by Baier's figure and M. tumidus
(Reinecke), M. macrocephalus will become a species which does not occur in the
Macrocephalus Zone. This will inevitably cause much confusion in geology.

172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

13. The Commission is now asked to use its plenary powers to designate
the specimen which is to be accepted as the type specimen of Macrocephalites
inacrocephalus (Schlotheim). I recommend that, in order to avoid the con-
fusion referred to in the preceding paragraph, the specimen to be so designated
should be the specimen which is the holotype of Macrocephalites verus Buckman,
1922 (=the specimen figured by Zittel in 1884 as Macrocephalites macrocephalus
(Schlotheim)). By this procedure, M. macrocephalus would remain index
fossil of the Macrocephalus Zone.

References :

Axkell, W. J., 1933. " The Jurassic System in Great Britain " (Oxford).

Baier, F. J., 1757. " Joannis Jacobi Baieri Monunienta Kcrum Petrificatarum
Praecipia Orictographiac Noricae ." (Niiremburg).

Blake, J. F., 1905-7. " A monograph of the fauna of the Cornbrash."
Palaeontographical Soc.

Buckman, S. S., 1909-30. " Type Ammonites." (London).

Oppel, A., 1856-58. " Die Juraformation." (Stuttgart).

Reinecke, I. C. M., 1818. " Maris protogaei Nautilos et Argonautas." (Coburg)

Schlotheim, E. F. von., 1813. " Beitrage zur Naturgeschichte der Versteine-
rungen in geognostischer Hinsicht ", in C. G. Leonhard Taschenbuch fiir
die ge^amte Mineralogie 7 : 3. (Frankfrn-t).

Schlotheim, E. F. von., 1820. " Die Petrefactenkunde auf ihrem jetzigen
Standpunkte."

Spath, L. F., 1928. " Revision of the Jurassic cephalopod fauna of Kachh
(Cutch), part 3 " Pal. indica (N.S.) 9, mem. 2.

Zittel, K. A., 1884. " Handbuch der Palaeontologie " 1, pt. 2.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 173

DR. W. J. ARKELL'S APPLICATION TO THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN-
CLATURE FOR RULINGS (a) ON THE QUESTION OF
THE TYPE SPECIES OF " MACROCEPHALITES " ZITTEL,
1884, AND (b) ON THE QUESTION OF THE TYPE
SPECIMEN OF "AMMONITES MACROCEPHALUS "
SCHOLTHEIM, 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.)401)

1 . Dr. W. J. Arkell has submitted to the International Commission on Zoo-
logical Nomenclature an application in which he asks for a ruling both as to the
species to be accepted as the type species of the genus Macrocephalit^s Zittel,
1884 {Handb. Pal. 1 {Aht. 2) (3) : 470 and as to the specimen to be accepted as
the type specimen of the nominal species Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim,
1813 {Tasch. Min. : 70). The two subjects are nomeTiclatorially quite distinct
from one another but Dr. Arkell has united his proposals in regard thereto in a
single application because his proposals in regard to the second subject have a
direct bearing on the action which he asks the Commission to take as regards
the first subject.

2. Identity of the taxonomic species represented by the nominal species
Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813 : Dr. Arkell points out that the
nominal species Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813, is based exclu-
sively upon a drawing reproduced as fig. 8 on plate 12 of Baler's /. J. Baieri
Monumenta Reriim Petrificatarum published in 1757. This, Dr. Arkell explains,
is a poor figure by modern standards but has been identified by Blake (1905,
Monogr. Fauna Cornbrash : 39) as the species " now called A. tmnidus after
Reinecke (1818)." After drawing attention to the fact that the trivial name
macrocephalus of the species here under consideration has given its name to
the Macrocephalus Zone, Dr. Arkell points out the species identified by Blake
(i.e. Nautilus tumidus Reinecke) as that represented by fig. 8 on Baler's plate 12
(i.e. the holotype of Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim) does not occur in the
Macrocephalus Zone in this country, being confined to the next higher zone,
the Koenigi Zone. Dr. Arkell goes on to observe that Baler's figure — and
therefore also Blake's interpretation of it — have been widely ignored by
stratigraphers and that the Macrocephalus Zone, which is " world-wide and
entrenched in the stratigraphical and geological literature of a century ", and
the species which " is by far the most commonly accepted and is in the minds of
stratigraphers when they speak of the Macrocephalus Zone " is the species to
which Buckman in 1922 {Type Ammonites 4: pi. 334 figs. A, B) gave the name
Macrocephalites verus. This nominal species, Dr. Arkell adds, has at its holo-
type the specimen cited by Oppel from the basal Callo\aan of Ehningen which
Zittel erroneously figured in 1884 {loc. cil. 1 (Abt. 2) (3) : fig. 655) under the
name Macrocephalites macrocephalus (Schlotheim).

174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

3. Dr. Arkell suggests that, in order to ensure that the species bearing the
trivial nanio macwcepholus (i.e. the species represented by the nominal species
Ammonities macrocephalns Schlotheini) shall be the species commonly accepted
as the index fossil of the Macrocephalus Zone, the Commission should direct
that the specimen to be accepted as the type specimen of this species shall be
the specimen which is also the holotype of Macrocephalites \^erus Buckman,
1922 (i.e. the specimen erroneously figured by Zittel in 1884 as Macrocephalites
macrocephahis (Schlotheim). In the form in which it is actually submitted,
Dr. Arkell's proposal would involve the designation by the Commission (under
its plenary powers) of a particular specimen to be the neotype of Ammonites
macrocephalus Schlotheini, 1813. At the present time, it would be difficult for
the Commission to take such a course, for, as the result of a decision taken in
Paris in 1948 by the Commission, with the approval of the Thirteenth Inter-
national Congress of Zoology, the whole question whether neotj^es should be
recognised in the Regies as a category of type specimen is at present sitb judice,
until a final decision is taken on this question by the Fourteenth International
Congress of Zoology at its meeting to be held at Copenhagen in 1953 (1950,
Btill. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 191-193). Fortunately, it is within the power of the
Conunis.sion to secure the ends which Dr. Arkell has in view, without recourse
to the creation of a neotype. A case of exactly this kind is provided by the
trivial name iris Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination
Papilio iris) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) dealt with by the Commission
in 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 540-542). In that case (as in the present
case) a given trivial name (the trivial name iris Linnaeus, 1758) had been
universally used in one sense but, as had been ascertained, the type specimen
belonged to an entirely distinct, though closely allied species. The problem
so presented was solved by the decision of the Commission to use their plenary
powers " to direct that the trivial name iris Linnaeus, 1758 . . . should be
applied to the species figured as Apatura iris by South (R.), 1906, TheButter-
flies of the British Isles as figure 1 on plate 29 ... " An exactly similar result
could be secured in the present case if the Commission were to use the plenary
powers to direct that the trivial name macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813 (as
published in the binominal combination Ammonites macrocephalus) should be
applied to the species figured by Buckman (S.S.), 1922, Type Ammonites as
figs. A and B on plate 334 of volume 4 of that work.

4. The type species of the nominal genus Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884.
The nominal genus Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884, was established without a
designated or indicated type species and with six nominal species as syntypes,
one of these being Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813. Dr. Arkell
points out that the figure (fig. 655) given by Zittel for the above species did not,
in fact, represent a specimen of Ammonites macrocephahis Schlotheim but was
(as pointed out by Blake (1905 : 38-45)) a distinct species ; the species in
question was the species to which in 1922 Buckman applied the name Macro-
cephalites verus. This species was selected (though, as Dr. Arkell points out,
in an irregular manner) as the type species of Macrocephalites Zittel by Buckman
in 1922 (on the legend to his plate 334). This action, which was in thorough
accord with what were no doubt Zittel's intentions when he chose the virtually
tautonymous name Macrocephalites for the genus to which he referred the
nominal species Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim, has been generally

Bidletin of Zoological Nomenclature 175

followed by later workers. From this standpoint therefore the nominal genus
Macroceplialites Zittel, 1884, is a gemis based ujion a misidentificd tyi:)e species,
the species which Zittel had in mind when placing in this genus the nominal
species Ammonites macwcephalus Bchlothcim (as based on Baier's pi. 12, fig. 8)
being not that species l)ut the species later named Macwcephalites verus Buck-
man, 1922.

5. The duties of the Commission, when dealing with genera based upon
misidentified type species, were defined by the Thirteenth International Con-
gress of Zoology and incorporated in the Regies in 1948 (1950, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 4: 158-159). What the Congress then decided was (1) that the
original author of a genus is to be assumed correctly to have identified the
species referred to that genus, (2) that, where there is evidence that the author
of a genus misidentified one of the species included by him in his new genus and
that species was either designated by him, or selected by a later author, as the
type species of the genus concerned, the Commission, if satisfied that such a mis-
identification has occurred, is to use its plenary powers " to designate as the
type species of the genus concerned, either (a) the species intended by the
original author when citing the name of the erroneously determined species or
(b) if the identity of that species is doubtful, a species in harmony with current
nomenclatorial usage, save that, where the Commission is of the opinion that
greater confusion than uniformity would result from so doing, it is to direct that
the designation or indication or, as the case may be, the selection as the type
species of the genus concerned of the nominal species cited by the original
author of the genus is to be accepted."

6. Having now established precisely the duties imposed on the Com-
mission by the Congress in relation to this class of case, we find no difficulty,
on the basis of the data furnished by Dr. Arkell, in determining the action
which is called for. Those data show that the currently accepted concept of
the genus Macrocephalites Zittel is based on the assumption that the type
species of this genus is the species erroneously figured by Zittel (fig. 655) as
Macrocephalites macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813. In other words the species
commonly accepted as the type species of this genus is the nominal species
Macrocephalites verus Buckman, 1922, the holotype of which is actually the
same specimen as that figured by Zittel as Macrocephalites macrocephalus
Schlotheim. Accordingly, if no other factors were involved, the required
solution would be the use by the Commission of its plenary powers to designate
Macrocephalites verus Buckman, 1922. as the type species of the genus Macro-
cephalites Zittel.

7. It is at this point, however, that the other portion of the application
submitted by Dr. Arkell becomes immediately relevant, for, although he
wants the type species of the genus Macrocephalites Zittel to be the species to
which Buckman in 1922 gave the name Macrocephalites verus, he asks also that
the Commission should use its plenary powers to direct that the holotype of
Macrocephalites verus Buckman, 1922, be accepted as the holotype o^ Ammonites
macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813. The adoption by the Commission of this
latter proposal would both clearly define the identity of the taxonomic species
represented by the nominal species Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim and

170 Bnlletiii of Zoological Nomenclature

also make the trivial name verus Buckman, 1922 (as published in the binominal
combination Macrocephalites ivrus) an objective synonym of the trivial name
mamKcpluOus Hchlothoim, 1H13 (as published in the binominal combination
Aitimonik'K luacroccphalns), since in that event each of these nominal species
would 1)0 basctl upon the same type specimen. Once the identity of Am-
monites inocroccphalua Schlotheim had been determined in this way, there
would be no longer any need to designate, as the type species of Macrocephalites
Zittel, 1884, some species different from Ammonites miicrocephalus Schlotheim,
for the taxonomic species which under the plenary powers would then be the
species represented by Schlotheim's macrocephalus would be also the species
which it is desired should be the type species of Macrocephalites Zittel. In
those circumstances there would then be no need to use the plenary powers
in relation to the tyjDe species of the genus Macrocephalites. For quite another
reason however the use of those powers is desirable in this particular case,
namely, in order to remove any doubts as to whether Ammonites macrocephalus
Schlotheim is in fact the type species, under the Regies, of Macrocephalites
Zittel, having regard to the (as Dr. Arkell points out) admittedly defective
nature of the type selection made by Buckman in 1922.

8. Form of action recommtn-ded to give effect to the purposes set forth in the
application submitted by Dr. Arlcell : Having now reviewed the problem sub-
mitted by Dr. Arkell in the light of the relevant decisions taken by the Congress
in regard to the procedure to be followed in dealing with nominal genera based
on misidentified type species and also the precedent in regard to the deter-
mination of the identity of the taxonomic species represented by a given
ncnunal species afforded by decisions taken by the Commission in comparable
cases, we may summarise as follows the action by the Commission which (as
Dr. Arkell agrees in Hit. 26th August 1950) would be necessary to give effect
to the purposes which his application is designed to serve, namely that the
Commission should : —

([) use its plenary powers : —

(a) to direct that the trivial name macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813
(as published in the binominal combination Ammonites macro-
cephalus) should be applied to the species figured by Buckman
(S.S.) in 1922, Type Ammonites, Vol. 4, as figures A and B on
plate 334 (the holotype of Macrocephalites verus Buckman,
1922) ;

(b) to set aside all type selections for the genus Macrocephalites
Zittel, 1884, made prior to the decision now proposed to be
taken and, having done so, to designate as the type species of
that genus the nominal species Amtnonites macrocephalus
Schlotheim, determined as in (a) above ;

(2) place the generic name Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884 (gender of generic
name : mascuhne), with the type species designated in (l)(b) above
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ;

Bulletin of Zoological Nonicndalurc 177

(3) place the trivial name viacrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813 (as pul)lishc(l
in the l:>inomi)ial conibinatit>n Amwonilcs macrocephalm), (Icterniinod
as sj)cciHe(l in. (l)(a) al)ovo, on tlic Official Lid of Specific Trivial
Names in Zoology ;

(4) place the trivial name vems Buckman, 1922 (as pnblished in the
binominal combination MacrocephaUtes verns) (an invalid objective
synonym of the trivial name waetocephalns Schlotheim, 1813, as
defined in (l)(a) above) on the Official Index of Bejected and Invalid
Specific Trivial Names in Zoology.

178 BuUetm of Zoolwjiml NoiiH'ncktture

PROPOSED DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY
POWERS, OF THE TYPE SPECIES OF " PICTONIA "
BAYLE, 1878, AND " RASENIA " SALFELD, 1913 (CLASS
CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA) (JURASSIC)

By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S.
{Sedgicick Museum, Cambridge University)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)421)

1 . The generic name Pictama Bayle, 1878 (: pi. Ixvi) was publislit-d in explana-
tion of a plate only, with the legend " Pictonia cyinodoce d'Orlngny." The
figure so referred to showed accurately a species differing from Atnmmiites
ci/mod^e d'Orbigny, 1850 (: pi. 202). The text of Bayle's work was never
published. The species so figured by Baylc was named Pidania baylei by
iSalfeld in 1913 (: 423).

2. Salfeld (1917 : 73) selected Pictonia baylei Salfekl 1913, as the t}-i)e
species of the genus Pictonia Bayle, and this selection has been generally
followed by subsequent workers. Under the decision taken by the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology in 1948, when incorporating in the Regies
the substance of Opimon 168, the type species of Pictonia is the nominal
species Ammonites cymodoce d'Orbigny, 1850, whatever that species may be,
unless the Commission uses its plenary powers to designate some other species
as the type species (1950, Bull zool. Nomencl. 4 : 158-159). The nominal
species Ammonites cymodoce d'Orbigny was based by its author on two sj-ntypes,
of which one, \siie larger, he figured as figs. 1 and 2 on his plate 202, while
the other (i.e. the smaller syntype) he figured as figs. 3 and 4 on the same
plate. Tornquist (1896 : 8) recognised that these two syntypes were not
conspecific. He thereupon selected the smaller one (i.e. d'Orbigny's figs. 3 and 4)
as the lectotype of Ammonites cymodoce d'Orbigny, at the same time making
d'Orbigny's larger syntype (figured by d'Orbigny as figs. 1 and 2 on plate 202)
the holotv'pe of a new nominal species to which he gave the name Pictonia
orbignyi. Thus, under the Regies, the type species of the genus Pictonia Bayle
is the species figured by d'Orbigny in his figs. 3 and 4 on plate 202.

3. Lemoine (1904 : no. 55) re-figured what he claimed to be d'Orbigny's
syntypes of Ammonites cymodoce. The larger specimen is clearly the one
represented in d'Orbigny's larger figures, figs. 1 and 2 (the tvpe specimen of
Pictonia orbignyi Tornquist), but the smaller specimen figured by Lemoine
differs in many respects from d"Orbigny"s smaller figures, figs. 3 and 4 (lectotype
of cymodoce) and it seems very doubtful whether the specimen has been cor-
rectly identified (see Arkell. 1935 : 250). The species A. cymodoce d'Orbigny
therefore rests on insecure foundations and is unsuitable as the t}^3e species of
a genus.

lUtlldiii (if Z*Kjl<>(/ical Noincnchthire 179

4. Ill 191:5 Salfeld (1913: 249) fouiuU'cl tlio gcmis Hascnia, witli type
sj)OC'ios l)y original designation A. cyniodoce d'Urbigny, as represented by the
larger figures only (figs. 1 and 2). But under the decision taken by the
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology in 1948, referred to in paragraph
2, the t}^e species of Rasenia is the nominal species A. cymodoce d'Orbigny,
which by Tornquists selection of 1896 (see paragraph 2 above) was fixed on
d'Orliigny's figs. 3 and 4. Moreover, the specimen represented in dOrbigny's
figs. 1 and 2 was already the holotype of Pidoiiia orbigivji Tornquist, 1896
(see para. 2 above).

5. Froin Salfelds writings it .seems certain that his designation of dOrbigny's
figs. 1 and 2 as representing the type species of Easenia was a slip, for his use
of the genus Rasema shows clearly that what he had in mind was dOrbigny's
figs. 3-1 (i.e., the lectotype s})ecimen of J. cytnothrc). not figs. 1 and 2. which
he would have called Pictoitia orbignyi Torn((uist : and he says of Raaeiiia
" Another characteristic species is Awmomtes nralensin d'Orbigny " (1845),
which clo.sely resembles d'Orbignys (1850) figs. 3 and 4 but not figs. 1 and 2.

6. So apparent is Salfeld's intention in all his writings that the latent
monographer (Schneid, 1940 : 79) has asserted that Salfeld did select dOrbigny's
figs. 3-4 as representing the type species of Rosoiia. Unfortunately it requires
more than this as,sertion to correct Salfeld's error.

7. As the Rules stand, therefore, A. cymodoce d'Orbigny (1850, figs. 3-4)
is type species of both Pictonio Bayle. 1878; and Rasema Salfeld, 1913. Since
the type specimen is doubtful, this species is unsuitable to be t^'pe .species of any
genus (see ])aragraph 3 above), and the Commission is now asked to designate
new type s])ecies for l^oth genera.

8. The obvious t}qje species for Pictonm is the one already widely acceptetl
as such, namely, Pictonia baylei Salfeld. A suitable type species for Ras?ma
is less obvious. A. umlensis d'Orbigny (1845 : 429, pi. xxxii) would be suitable,
but that the smaller, yomig, individual in dOrbigny's figs. 8 and 9 has been
selected as lectotype of this species by R. Douville (1911, n. 210) and it is so
small that it leaves the nature of the species in doubt. In view of this the best
choice is another species assigned by Salfeld him.self to Rasenia. thougli not
publi.shed until much later : namely. Rasenia involuta (Salfeld MS.) in Spath
(1935 : 48, pi. 10. figs. 5a, 5b). This is close to the larger figured example of
A. uralensis d'Orb. (1845. figs. 6-7) and has the advantage of having come
from the brickpits in the Lower Kimeridge Clay of Market Raseii, Lincoln-
shire, after which the genus was named Rasenia.

9. 1 therefore recommend that, in order to avoid the confusion which
otherwise is ine\itablc. the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature shoukl use their plenary jiowers to set aside all existing type designations
or ty))e selections for the ii»der-mentioned genera and to designate as their
respective type species the .species specified below : —

Piclonia Bayle, 1878 : type species to be Pictonia baylei Salfeld, 1913
(based on Bayle. 1878 : ])1. Ixvi). from the lower Kimeridgian of Noimandy)
(gender of generic name : feminine).

180 Bulletin of Zoohyical NoDicHcladdr

Rasenia Salfcid, 1913 : type species to bo Easenia invohda (Salfeld MS.)
Spatli (1935 : 48, pi. 10, figs. 5a, 5b), from the Lower Kiiiieridgc Clay of
lilarket Kasen, Lincolnshire) (gender of generic name : feminine).

10. Consequential upon the adoption of the foregoing recommendation,
the Commission are asked to place on the Official List of Generic Names in,
Zoology the generic names Pictonia Bayle, 1878, and Rasenia Salfeld, 1913,
and on the Official List of Specific Triiml Names in Zoology the trivial names
bayki Salfeld, 1913 (as published in the binommal combination Pictonia
haylei) and involuta (Salfeld MS.) Spath, 1935 (as published in the binominal
combination Rasenia involuta).

References :

Arkell, AA'. J., 1935. " On tlie Lower Kimeridgian ammonite genera Pictonia,
Rasenia, Aulacosteplianus, and Atarioceras. Geol. Mag., 72 : 240.

Bayle, E., 1878. Bxplic. Carte Geol. France, 4 : Atlas.

Douville, K., 1911. Palaeontologia Universalis.

Lemoine, E., 1904. ibid.

Orbigny, A. d', 1845. Geologic de la Russie d'Europe.

Orbigny, A. d', 1850. Paleontologie Fran§aise, Terrains Jurassiques. Cephalo-
podes.

Salfeld, H., 1913. " Certain Upper Jurassic Strata of England." Quart.
J. geol. Soc, Lond. 69 : 423.

Salfeld, H., 1917. " Monographic der Gattung Ringsteadia." Palaeonto-
graphica Ixii, 62 : 69.

Schneid, T., 1940. " Uber Raseniiden. Ringsteadiiden und Pictoniiden des
iiordlichen Frankenjura." Palaeontographica 91 : 79.

Spath, L. F., 1935. " The L^pper Jurassic invertebrate faunas of Cape Leslie,
Milne Land. 1 Oxfordian and Lower Kinmieridgian." Meddelelser om
Gr(i)nland, 99, n. 2.

Tornquist, A., 1896. "Die degenerierten Perisphinctiden des Kimmeridge von
Le Havre." Mem. Soc. jxd. Suisse, Zi : 1.

/{iillcliii of Zoolofflcdl Noniciichitiire 181

ON THE PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE DETERMINA-
TION OF THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE NOMINAL GENERA
"PICTONIA" BAYLE, 1878, AND " RASENIA " SALFELD,
1913 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA)
SUBMITTED TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION
ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE BY DR. W. J. ARKELL

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
{Secretarj/ to the Inter-national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)421)

1 . The case of the generic names Pictonia Bayle, 1878, and Rasenia Salfeld,
1913, submitted to the Commission by Dr. W. J. Arkell, is one of peculiar
complexity, owinfj to the facts that, as specialists are agreed, (1) the nominal
genus Pidoiiia Bayle was based upon a misidentified type species, (2) the type
species of Rasenia Salfeld was cited by the author of that name in a misleading
manner, and (3) the nominal species which (as shown below) is, under the
Regies the type species of both genera is a species which, when its name was
first published, was a composite species, the division of which, under Article 31,
has proved a matter of difficulty. Passing from the nomenclatorial aspects of
this case to the taxonomic aspects, as laid before the Commission, we shall find
that the strict application of the Regies to these generic names would have the
effect (i) of transferring to the genus Pictonia the species at present referred to
the genus Rasenia, (ii) of making Rasenia an objective synomym of Pictonia,
and (iii) of making it necessary to find some new generic name for the species
at present placed in the genus Rasenia. It is Dr. Arkell's object to prevent
the serious confusion to which the foregoing changes would give rise, by enlisting
the help of the Conunission through the use of its plenary powers. In order to
grasp the nomenclatorial implications of this difficult ca.se, I have found it
necessary for my own purposes to prepare the present analysis of the data
submitted as a preliminary to considering exactly what action by the Com-
mission would be necessary to secure the ends sought by Dr. Arkell.

The type species, under the " Regies ", of the nominal genera " Pictonia "
Bayle, 1878, and " Rasenia " Salfeld, 1913

2. Type species of Pictonia Baifle, 1878 : The generic name Pictonia was
fii'st published in 1878 by Bayle in volume 4 of the Atlas to his Geologic de
France ; it there appeared in the explanation to plate lx\'i in the form of the
following legend : " Pictonia cymodoce d'Orbigny." No explanatory text was
ever published by Bayle. From the standpoint of nomenclature the nominal
genus Pictonia Bayle, 1878, has, as its type species by monotypy, the species
Ammonites cymodoce d'Orbigny, 1850. whatever that species may be. (It may
here be noted that, until the meeting of the Thirteenth International Congress
of Zoology in Paris in 1948 it had never been made clear authoritatively
whether a generic name published in this way on the legend of a plate could

182 B>i1lrli» of Zoolofpral Nowenclafurr

])ro))t*rly l)o rogardt'd as ]iaviii<: l>oen i>ul)Iisho(l ■\vitl\ iin iiulicatiou for tlic
purposes of Article 25 or whether a name so published ought, under the Regies,
to be regarded as a not^en nndmn. At the foregoing Congress consideration of
this question was given in connection with an application submitted, as a test
case, by Dr. Harald A. Rehder (United States National Museum, Washington,
D.C.) regarding the status of the generic nanie Erycino Lamarck, 1801 ; it
was then decided that words should be inserted in the Regies " to make it
clear that a generic name published prior to 1st January 1931 . on a legend to
u plate or plates but without explanatory matter is to he treated as having
been published with an " indication " for the purposes of Article 25 " (see
1050, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 255). Accordingly, any doubts which formerly
may have existed regarding the availablity of the generic name Pictonia as
fiom the time when it was first published by Bayle in 1878 have now been set
at rest.)

3. Type species of Rasenia Salfeld, 1913 : The generic name Rasenia was
first publishecl by Salfeld in 1913 {Quart. J. geol. Soc. 69 : 423). He designated,
as the type species of this genus, Ammonites cymodoce d'Orbigny, 1850. That
species, Avhatever it may be, is therefore the type species of this genus. In
making this type designation. Salfeld noted that he regarded figs. 1 and 2 on
plate 202 of d'Orbigny's work as representing the true Ammonites cymodoce
d'Orbigny ; he presumably added this note, becaiise he was aware that (as
pointed out by Tornquist (1896)) (paragraph 6 below) d'Orbigny's nominal
species Ammonites cymodoce, when first established, was a composite nominal
species and. he wished therefore to indicate that, in referring to that species, he
(Salfeld) had in mind the species represented by d'Orbigny's figs. 1 and 2 and not
that represented by that author's figs. 3 and 4. In this connection we have to pa\-
s])ecialheed to the action taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of
Zoology in Paris in 1948, when it incorporated into the Regies in a clarified and
expanded form the rulings on the subject of the type species of genera established
with misidentitied type species previously given by the Commission in their
Opinions 65 and 168. It will be noted that in their amended form the Regies
provide that an author who publishes a name for a genus is to be assumed " to
have identified correctly the nominal species referred by him to the genus so
named and therefore that, where . . . the original author himself designates
or indicates . . . one of the originally included nominal species to be the type
species of the genus, the designation ... so made, is not to l)e rejected on the
ground that the original author of the generic name misidentified some other
nominal species with that nominal species " (1950, Bidl. zool. NomenrJ. 4 : 158).
It is perfectly clear therefore that, under the Regies, the type species of Rasenia
Salfeld; 1913, is Ammonites cymodoce d'Orbigny, 1850, by original designation.
The present case is however complicated by the fact that Salfeld, when citing
the naiiue Ammonites cymodoce d'Orbigny, added that he identified that species
with figs. 1 and 2 given by d'Orbigny on his plate 202, whereas it is clear, as
Dr. Arkell points out, from other observations made by Salfeld that he intended
to refer not to the foregoing figures but to d'Orbigny's figs. 3 and 4 (which had
been made the lectotype of Ammonites cymodoce d'Orbigny by Tornquist in
1896 (see table in paragraph 6, p. 184)). This note by Salfeld has led to the
conclusion by some workers that the species represented by d'Orbigny's figs.

BnUedn of Zonhrjiral Nomenclnfnre 183

1 ;iii(l 2 must (contniry t^^) SaKV'Ids intention) l»e accepted as the type species
of Easenia, hut, as will he soon IVoin tlio docision hy the Congress quoted above,
this is not so, for the type species of a genus must i)e the species represented by
the nominal species designated as the type species, in the present case. Ammonites
cymodoce d'Orbigny, 1850. the lectotype of which (as already stated) is the
species represented not by d'Orbigny's figs. 1 and 2 but that represented by his
figs. 3 and 4. Thus, in fact, Salfeld's action constitutes, under the Regies,
a valid designation, as the type species of Rasenia, of the species which he
intended to designate (i.e. the species represented by d'Orbigny's figs. 3 and 4),
notwithstanding the fact that the note which he added, by some slip of the
pen. implied that he intended to designate, as the type species of this genus,
the species represented by d'Orbigny's figs. 1 and 2.

4. Nomenclatorial relationship of the nominal genera Pictonia Bayle, 1878,
and Rasenia Salfeld, 1913, tvith one another : In the preceding paragraphs, we
have seen that the type species of Pictonia Bayle, 1878, is, under the Regies,
the nominal species Ammonites cymodoce d'Orbigny, 1850 (paragraph 2) and
that the same nominal species is the type species of Rasenia Salfeld, 1913.
Thus, under the Regies, the generic name Rasenia Salfeld, 1913, is a synonym
of Pictonia Bayle, 1878 (the nominal genera, so named, having the same
nominal species as their respective t}^e species). Under a strict application
of the Regies, the generic name Rasenia Salfeld. 1913. is an invalid name and
disappears from the literature, unless the Commission confers availability upon
it by varying its type species under the plenary powers.

The identity of the nominal species " Ammonites cymodoce " d'Orbigny,
1850

5. Having ascertained that, under the Regies, the nominal species Am-
monites cymodoce d'Orbigny, 1850, is the type species both of Pictonia Bayle,
1878, and of Rasenia Salfeld, 1913, we have now to consider the question,
])artly nomenclatorial and partly taxonomic, of the identity of the species to
which under the Regies the specific name Ammonites cymodoce d'Orbigny, 1850,
properly applies. The nomenclatorial procedure for determining the type
specimen of a nominal species or the figure or description which exclusively
represents the type specimen of a nominal species, both where such a species
is regarded by specialists as having originally been a composite species and
where it is not so regarded, is laid down in ^Vrticle 31 of the Regies, as amplified
and clarified by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology in 1948
(see, 1950, Ball. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 73-76). Taxonomic considerations are
involved in such a case only where speciali-sts in the group concerned are of the
opinion, as in the present case, that the nominal species under consideration was
originally a composite species. In discussing in the following paragraphs this
aspect of the present case, I naturally rely entirely upon the views expressed by
Dr. Arkell and by the authorities whom he cites, ha^dng myself no personal
knowledge in this matter.

6. The nominal species Ammonites cymodoce d'Orbigny, 1850, was based

184

Bulletin of Zoolof/ical Nowcticlotuir

by its author upon four figuros (figs. 1-4) givou by liim on plate 202 of Ids work.
Figures 1 and 2 represent one specimen, figures 3 and 4 anotlier. These two
specimens are therefore the sole syn types of this nominal species, the first
syntype being represented by figs. 1 and 2, the second, by figs. 3 and 4. These
two syntj'pes have since the time of Tornquist (1896 : 8) been regarded as being
specifically distinct from one another. In the ensuing discussion, I refer to the
species represented by the syntyjje represented by figs. 1 and 2 as Species " A,"
and to the species represented by the syntype represented by figs. 3 and 4 as
Species " B." In the following table I have assembled certain particulars in
regard to species " A " and species " B " given by Dr. Arkell, which throw
important light both on the nature of the problem and on the character of the
action required to avoid the confusion apprehended by Dr. Arkell.

Particulars relating to the two taxonotnic species considered by special-
ists to have been included by d'Orbigny in his composite nominal
species " Ammonites cymodoce " d'Orbigny, 1850

Figure given by d'Orbigny.

Relationship of d'Orbigny's
figures to the specimens
claimed by Lemoine to have
been identif5ed as the syntypes
on wliieh those figures were
based

Species to which the name Am-
moniUs cymodoce d'Orbigny
applies through the selection
of a leetotype from the original
syntypea

Name given to the syntype not
selected as the leetotype of
Ammonites cymodoce d'Orbigny

Relative size
syntypea

of d'Orbigny's

Distinguishing characters of
d'Orbigny's sj-ntypes

Genera to which species corres-
ponding with d'Orbigny's syn-
types commonly referred

Species " .4 "

Figs. 1 and 2 on pi. 202.

" The larger specimen is
clearly the one repre-
sented in d'Orbigny's
larger figures, figs. 1
and 2 " (Arkell).

Tornquist (1896) estab-
lished a new nominal
species, Pictonia orbigni,
expressly based on
d'Orbigny's figs. 1 and 2.

Larger than that repre-
sented by d'Orbigny's
figs. 3 and 4.

" A smooth ammonite
with flaretl ribs on the
inner whorls " (Arkell).

Pictonia Bayle, 1878.

Species " 5 "

Figs. 3 and 4 on y,]. 202.

" The smaller specimen figured
by Lemoiue differs in many
respects from d'Orbigny's small-
er figures, figs. 3 and 4, and it
seems very doubtful whether
the specimen has been correctly
identified." (Arkell).

Tornquist (189C) selected figures
3 and 4 on pi. 202 to represent
the leetotype of Ammonites
cymodoce d'Orbigny, which thus
became the name of Species
" B. "

Smaller than the syntype repre-
sented bv d'Orbigny's figs.
1 and 2.

" A strongly ribbed ammonite
showing ribs swung well forward
but none of them flared"(Arkell).

Rasenia Salfeld, 1913.

7. The data assembled in the foregoing table show :—

(a) that Ammonites cymodoce d'Orbigny, 1850, the type species, under the
Regies (paragraph 2) of Pictonia Bayle, 1878, is in fact a species
belonging to the group referred to the genus Rasenia Salfeld, 1913 ;

/hiHctiii of Zoologiail Noineiiclutute 185

(b) that the acceptauce of the above species as the ty])e species of Pidonia
Bayle, J878, by involving the transfer to that genus of the species
at present referred to JRascnia Salfeld, 1913, autl the transfer to some,
other genus of the species currently referred to Pidonia Bayle, would
create confusion in the nomenclature of the genera and species
concerned.

Species intended by Bayle to be referred to the genus " Pictonia "
Bayle, 1878, as contrasted with the species referable thereto under
the " Regies " in consequence of " Ammonites cymodoce "
d'Orbigny, 1850, being the type species of that genus.

8. We have seen (paragraph 2) that the type species of Pidonia Bayle, 1878,
under the Regies is Ammoniles cymodoce d'Orbigny, 1850, and (paragraph 7)
that this species is not a species of the genus Pictonia Bayle, as currently under-
stood. This is because a further error of determination was conunitted by
Bayle himself who, when citing the above species in explanation of his plate
Ixvi, applied to it the figure of a specimen of a different species. This error was
detected by Salfeld in 1913 who gave to the species figured by Bayle the name
Pidonia baylei. In 1917 Salfeld followed this up by selecting Pidonia
haylei Salfeld. 1913, as the type species of the genus Pidonia Bayle.
In this action Salfeld has been generally followed by later writers and it is this
practice that has given rise to the current conception of the genus Pictonia.
Salfeld's action in 1917 was invalid, because, as already explained (paragra])h 2),
the type species of Pictonia Bayle had been Ammonites cymodoce d'Orbigny,
by monotypy, from the moment that the name Pictonia was first ]>ublished in
1878.

Action suggested to prevent the confusion which would follow the strict
application of the " Regies " in the present case.

9. The Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, when revising
the Regies in Paris in 1948, provided (as indicated in paragra]ih 3 above) a
remedy in cases where the acceptance, as the ty))e species, of the nominal
species designated, indicated or selected as such under Article 30 of the Regies
would clearly lead to confusion, owing to the nominal genus in question having
been based upon a misidentified type species. The remedy so j^rovided
(see 1950, Bidl. tool. Nomencl. 4 : 158-159) was that the Conmiission, if satis-
fied that such a misidentificatioii had occurred, is " under its plenary powers,
to designate as the type species of the genus concerned, either (a) the species
intended by the original author whoi citing the name of the erroneously
determined species, or (b) if the identity of that species is doubtful, a species
in harmony with current nonienclatorial usage." It is this provision which
Dr. Arkell seeks to invoke in the present case.

10. The purpose of the action recommended being to secure that the
nominal genera Pictonia Bayle, 1878, and Rasenia Salfeld, 1913, shall have,
as their respective species, species which are in harmony with the current
usage of the generic names, the first action required is that the Commission
should use its plenary powers to set aside all type designations, indications or

186 Bulletin of Zooloyicui Noiiienclature

selections made for either of the foregoing nominal genera })rior to the date
of the action proposed. AMien we turn to the question of the species which
should be designated under the plenary powers to be the type species of these
genera, it is immediately evident that in the case of the genus Pidonia Bayle,
1878, the species which should be designated as the type species is Pidonia
baylei, 1878, that being (a) the species figured by Bayle (under the erroneous
name Pidonia. cymodoce d'Orbigny) at the time w^hen he first published the
generic name Pidonia, and (b) the species which is commonly (though incor-
rectly) regarded as the type species of that genus and which in consequence
has given rise to the commonly accepted concept of the scientific content of
this genus. When we turn to the question of the type species of the genus
Rasenia Salfeld, 1913, the position is found to be somewhat different. In
this case, the type species {Ammonites cymodoce d'Orbigny, 1850) is, as special-
ists agree, a species belonging to the genus Rasenia as currently understood.
Dr. Arkell has expressed the opinion, however, that the grave discrepancies
between d'Orbigny "s figs. 3 and 4 (representing the Icctotypc of Ammonites
cymodoce d'Orbigny) and the specimen claimed by Lemoine (1904) to be the
actual specimeii from which those figures were prejDared throw the specific
identity, he thinks, even the generic afiinities, of that nominal species into
doubt and make it unsuitable to be the type species of this important genus.
I agree with the view expressed by Dr. Arkell in this matter and concur in
his suggestion that some species of undoubted identity, and one clearly belong-
ing to the genus Rasenia Salfeld, as currently understood, should be designated
as the type species of that genus. The species suggested for this purpose
by Dr. Arkell is Rasenia invohiia (Salfeld M.S.) Spath. 1935 (Meddelelser
Gronhnd 99 (No. 2) : 48 pi. 10, figs. 5a. 5b). I should add that, if the nominal
species Ammonites cymodoce d'Orbigny is to be displaced for the foregoing
reasons, from its position as the type species of Rasenia Salfeld, the logical
course would be to recognise that the specific name Ammonites cymodoce
d'Orbigny, 1850, is an unwanted nomen ditbium and therefore to suppress
that name, thereby eliminating any further waste of time in discussion as
to the possible identity of the taxonomic species which it was intended to
represent. If these general conclusions were to be accepted by the Commission,
a number of routine decisions, in regard to the addition of the various names
concerned to the appropriate Official List or Official Index, would follow in
the wake of the main decision. Tlie detailed decisions which (as Dr. Arkell
agrees in litt., 10. ix. 1950) would be called for on the basis discussed above, are
as follows : —

(1) that the plenary powers of the Commission shoidd be used :

(a) to set aside all type designations, indications or selections
made for the undermentioned genera prior to the date of the
proposed decision : —

(i) Pidonia Bayle, 1878 ;
(ii) Rasenia Salfeld, 1913 ;

(b) to designate Pidonia baylei Salfeld, 1913 (based upon Bayle's
(1878 plate lx\n) to be the type species of Pidonia Bayle, 1878 ;

U 1(1 let ill of Zooluffkvl Nuinenclalurc 187

(c) to designate Baseniu inmluta (Salfeld M.S.) Spath, 1935 (as
represented by figs. 5a and 51) on Spath's plate 10) to l.o tl)e
type species of Rasenia Salfeld, 1913 ;

(d) to suppress the trivial name oymodocc (rOrhiu;ny, 1850 (as
published in the binominal combination Ammonites cijntodo(-e) ;

(2) tliat the generic names Piclonia Bayle, 1878, and Rasenia Salfeld,
1813 (gender of both generic names, feminine), with the type speices
respectively designated therefor in (1) above, should be placed on
the Offici<il List of Generic Names in Zoology ;

(3) that tlie undermentioned trivial names should be placed on the
Official. List of Specific Triinal Names in Zoology :—

(a) the name haylei Salfeld, 1913 (as })ublished in the binominal
comljination Piclonia baylei), as defined in (1) (b) above ;

(b) the name involuta (Salfeld M.S.) Spath, 1935 (as ])ublished
in the binominal combination Rasenia involutit), as defined
in (1) (c) above ;

(4) that the trivial name cymodoce d'Orbigny, 1850 (as published in
the Ijinominal combination Ammonites cymodoce) should be placed
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names
in Zoology.

188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomencluture

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE

THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS " AULACOSTEPHA-

NUS " TORNQUIST, 1896 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER

AMMONOIDEA) (JURASSIC)

By W. J. ARKELL, xM.A., D.Sc, F.R.S.
(Sedgivick Miiseum, Cambridge University, Cambridge)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)384)

The case of the generic name Aulacostephanus was fully reviewed by me in
1935 {Geol. Mag. 72 : 252-253, 256). when I recommended that the Commission
should stabilize usage by ruling that the type be Am. mutabilis d'Orbigny
nee Sowerby, which the authors presumably had in mind and intended ( = Am.
pseudo'inutabilis de Loriol). No pubhshed dissent from this recommendation
has come to vi\ notice, nor has any been received privately ; hence I now
ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its
plenary powers to stabilise current usage by giving effect to my recommen-
dation of 1935.

The relevant facts are as follows : —

(1) The name AuUtcosti'phanus first appears on page 5 of Tornquist's
memoir (1896), where he remarked that Olcostephanus berryeri, eumelus and
pseudoeumelus are of interest on account of their relationship to " Aula-
costephanus {Am. mutabilis).'' On page 7 he explained that Pompeckj in
a letter had informed him of von Sutner's and Pompeckj 's intention to pro-
pose the name Aulacostephanus for " Reineckeia " mutabilis Sowerby and its
allies. No other species is mentioned by name in either place. Hence on
the strict interpretation of the Regies, the nominal species Ammonites muta-
bilis J. de. C. Sowerby, 1823 (Min. Conch. 4 : 145 pi. ccccv) is the type species
of this genus.

(2) Ammonites mutabilis J. de C. Sowerby, from the Glacial Drift, was
obscurely figured by Sowerby and inadequately described. The holotype
has since been refigured by me (1933 : pi. xxxix, figs. 5, 5a) and it does not
belong to the group which, like Reineckeia, has a ventral smooth band. Had
Sutner and Pompeckj consulted Sowcrliy's holotype, they would never have
referred to this species as " Reineckeia mutabilis." It is, in fact, a species of
the genus which Salfeld (1914) called Rasenia ; Salfeld (1914, : 129) in his
important stratigraphical work assigned it to Rasenia, and it has ever since
been known as a zonal index fossil under the name Rasenia mutabilis.

(3) Sutner and Pompeckj and Tornquist, therefore, were interpreting
Am. mutabilis by some other figure, and it is highly probable that this figure
was that of d'Orbigny (1850 : 553, pi. ccxiv), which shows admirably one
of the smooth -ventered forms with ribs interrupted over the siphuncle. The
species so figured was later renamed Ammonites pseudonmtabilis by de Loriol
(1874 : 28, pi. v, figs. 1—3). The specimen figured by d'Orbigny was selected
as the lectotype of this species by Durand (1932 : 306).

Bullrdii of Zoolof/iral Nnwmclahirc 180

(4) Salfold (lOH. lor. cil.) wlicn cHtnUlishing his zonal claHsificatiou of
the Upper Jurassic placed Am. pseAi/iomutabiUs de Loriol, together with the
allied Am. yo d'Orbigny and Am. evdoxus d'Orbigny, in the genus Aulacoste-
phanus, without comment. These species and others have been called Axda-
costephanus by authors ever since, and Salfeld's separate zones of Rasenia
rmUabilis and Axdacostephanus pseud omufahilis are in current use by all
stratigraphers.

(5) To reverse current usage by transferring the name Aulacostephmms to
what lias always been known as Rasenia,. and to rename Aidacostephanus aiict.
would cause serious confusion, in stratigraphy as well as in palaeontology.

(6) Two attempts have been made to fix the name Anlacostephanus on
the Reineckeia-Wke genus for which it was certainly intended. Spath (1925 :
152) wrote, without stating that he was selecting a type species, " Aulacoste-
phamis (type : A. eudoxus d'Orbigny)." Schindewolf (1925 : 339) selected
A. phorcus Fontannes, but added in a footnote that he had been forestalled
by Spath who had selected A. eudoxus.

(7) Since neither A. eudoxus nor A. phorcus was mentioned by the original
author (Tornquist) in connexion with the generic name Aulacostephanus,
neither is eligible for selection as the type species of the genus so named.

(8) In order to stabilise the nomenclature of this group and to prevent
the serious confusion, both in stratigraphy and palaeontology, which would
result from the strict application of the Regies in this case, the International
Commission is asked : —

(1) to use its plenary powers : —

(a) to set aside the indication by monotypy of Ammonites mutahilis
Sowerby (C. de J.), 1823, as the type species of Aulacostephanus
Tornquist, 1896 ;

(b) to designate Ammonites pseudomutabilis de Loriol, 1874, to be
the type species of the foregoing genus ;

(2) to place the generic name Aulacostephanus Tornquist, 1896 (gender
of generic name : masculine) (type species, by designation under
the plenary powers under (1) (b) above : Ammonites pseudomutabilis
de Loriol, 1874) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ;

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

(a) mutahilis Sowerby (C. de J,), 1823 (as published in the binominal
combination Ammonites mutahilis) ;

(b) pseudomutabilis de Loriol, 1874 (as published in the binominal
combination Ammonites pseudmnutabilis).

190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

References :

Arkell, W. J., 1933. The Jurassic System in Great Britain. (Oxford.)

Arkell, W. J., 1935. " On the Lower Kimeridgian ammonite genera Pictonia,
Rasenia, Aulacmtephanus and Ataxioceras ", Geol. Mag. 72 : 246.

Durand, A., 1932. " L'etage Kimdridgien dans les departements de la Meuse
et de la Hante-Marne ", Bull. Soc. geol. France (5) 2 : 293.

Loriol, P. de, 1874. " Monographie paleontologique et geologique des etages
sup^rieurs de la formation jurassique des environs de Bonlogne-sur-Mer ",
Mem. Soc. Phys. d'Hist. nat. Geneve, 23 : 28.

Orbigny, A.d', 1842-50. Pal^ontologie fran^aise, Terrains jurassiques, I.
06phalopodes. (Paris.)

Salfeld, H., 1914. " Die Gliederung des Oberen Jura in Nordwesteuropa ",
Neues Jahrh. fiir Min., etc., Beil.-Bd. 37 : 125.

Schindewolf, 0. H., 1925. " Entwurf einer Systematik der Perisphincten ",
ilnd. 52 : 309.

Sowerby, J. and J. de C, 1812-29. The Mineral Conchology of Great Britain,
7 vols. (London.)

Spath, L. F., 1925. " Ammonites and Aptychi " in Wyllie and Smellie,
" Collection of fossils and rocks from Somaliland ", Mon. Hunterian Mus.
Glasgow, "t : 111. pt. 7.

Tornquist, A., 1896. " Die degenerierten Perisphinctiden des Kimmeridge
von le Havre ", Mem. Soc. pal. Suisse, 23 : 1.

Bulletin of ZoDlot/iral Nnmcvclahire 191

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIG-
NATE THE TYPE SPECIES OF WAAGEN'S (1869)AMMONITE
GENERA •• KOSMOCERAS," " HARPOCERAS " AND
" PERISPHINCTES " (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER
AMMONOIDEA) (JURASSIC)

By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S.
(Sedgtvick Museum, Cmnhridtfe University, Cambridge)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)445)

1. In a long footnote Waagen (1869 : 247-8) founded six new genera of
Jurassic ammonites, the names given to which have since become " household
words," but the three here dealt with are without satisfactory type species.

2. Kosmoeeras Waagen, 1869 ( : 248). This name rests on the following
original diagnosis alone : " The third group comprises the Ornati, which can
appropriately be named Kosmoeeras and distinguished by its short body-
chamber, which occupies hardly more than half a whorl." No species was
cited by Waagen. Haug (1887) made a family kosmoceratidae, and Buckman
(1926) a superfamily kosmocerataceae. Buckman (1921 : 54) considered all
the Ornati named before 1869 as included species and therefore available for
selection as the type species. He accordingly selected Am. ornatus rotundus
Quenstedt, 1846, as the type species. This species is subjectively identified
with Am. spinosus J. de C. Sowerby, 1826 {Min. Conch. 6: 78) (refigured
Arkell. 1939 : 184, 187, pi. xi, fig. 1), from the Oxford Clay, Lamberti Zone,
Weymouth.

3. Perisphindes Waagen, 1869 ( : 248). This rests on a somewhat longer
diagnosis to which Waagen added : " To this subgenus (of Stephanoceras)
belong all the true Planulati of the Middle and Upper Jurassic, and besides
them Per. anceps, astierianus, etc." It so happens, therefore, that the only
two nominal species cited by Waagen are species which he mentioned for the
reason that they do not fall within the well-known group for which primarily
he introduced the name Perisphinctes. He was stretching the concept to
include them. Steinmann (1890) made a family perisphinctidae, and Wede-
kind (1917) a superfamily perisphinctaceae, while as yet no type species had
been selected. Buckman (1920 : 26-27) considered all Planulates of the Middle
and Upper Jurassic named before 1869 should be regarded as originally in-
cluded species and therefore available for selection as the type species. He
accordingly so selected Am. biplex J. Sowerby, 1821. The holotype of this
species (refigured Arkell, 1947 : 362) is a distorted fragment of inner whorls,
not identifiable specifically, from the Drift, ex Ampthill Clay, Upper Oxfordian.
It might belong to one of at least three species, of which the best-known and
earliest named and most probable is P. variocostatus Buckland, 1836, and this
has been taken as the standard for defining the genus and subgenus Perisphinctes
(see Arkell, 1947 : 363, pi. Ixxxvi, figs. 1-4).

]9"2 Bullelin of Zoological Nowotdaturr

4. Harpoceras Waagen, 1869 ( : 245, 250). This gemis ia in the same
position as Perisphinctes. Waagen (1869 : 245) proposed it for the Falciferi
of the Lias but named no species of the true Falciferi, only ( : 250) ten species
for which he was stretching the definition to bring them in. None of these ten
species has had a well-knowTi generic name for less than 50 years. To consider
them the sole species eligible for selection as the type species would be disastrous.
Neinna\T (1875) made a subfamily haepoceratinae, Zittel (1884) a family
HARPOC'ERATiDAE, and Wedckind (1917) a superfamily harpoceracea. The
first selection of a t^^pe species seems to have been by Fischer (1882 : 392) who
selected A. serpentimts Schlotheim, 1813, an unfigured and problematic species.
Buckman (1919 : pis. cxxxviii, A, B, and 1926 : pi. cxxx\'iii, C) considered
that the species should be interpreted by Reinecke's figure of 1818, which he
reproduced ; at the same time he named the genus Hildoceratoides ; this
species does not belong to the subfamily harpoceratinae Neumayr (1875)
l)ut to the family and subfamily hildoceratidae Hyatt, 1867, so that if it
were accepted as the tj'pe species, harpoceratinae would disappear as syn-
onym of HiLDOCKRATiNAE. Buclcman (1928 : pi. dcclxiv). apparently unaware
of Fischer's type selection, selected Am. falcifer J. Sowerby, 1820 (J\lin. Conch.
3 : 99), as the type species of Waagen's Harpoceras and refigured Sowerby's
holotype, from the Upper Lias of Barrington, Somerset, a readily identifiable
specimen of a species on which von Buch's " family Falciferi " was founded
and of which it was always regarded as the type species by virtual tautonomy.
The genus Harpoceras having been foiinded expressly for the Falciferi ought to
have A. falcifer as its type species, notwithstanding Fischer's designation.
Buckman did in fact regard this species in this light as from 1887, although he
did not so select it in the strict meaning of the term.

5. In order to avoid the serious disturbance in the literature of Jurassic
ammonites and the confusion both in nomenclature and systematics which
would follow the strict apphcation of the Regies in the case of the generic
names discussed above, I ask the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature : —

(1) to use its plenary powers (a) to set aside all selections of type species
for the under-mentioned genera made prior to the proposed decision
and (b) to designate as their respective type species the species
severally specified below : —

Name of Species proposed to be designated as

the type Species of the genus specified in Col. 1 .

(3)

Ammonites apinosus Sowerby (J. de C), 1826.

Ammxmitea varioeoatatiis Buckland, 1836.

Ammonites falcifer Sowerby (J.), 1820.

*See also p. 19S,

Name of Oenus.

(i)

Gender of

generic name

(2)

Kosmoceras Waagen, 1869 ...

X

Perisphinctes Waagen, 1869...

M

Harpoceras Waagen, 1869 ...

N

I

N

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature I93

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the three
generic names specified in Col. (1) above with the type species specified
m LoJ. (3) HI (1) above, proposed to be so designated under the plenary

powers :-

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

(a) fahifer Sowerby, 1820 (as published in the binominal com-
bination Ammonites falcifer) ;

(b) spinosus Sowerby, 1826 (as published in the binominal com-
bination Ammmiites spinosus) ;

(c) variocostaius Buckland, 1836 (as published in the binominal
combination Ammonites variocostaius).

References :

Arkell, W. J., 1939. Quart. J. geoL Soc. Land. 95 : 184, 187.

Fischer, P., 1882. Manuel ile Conchyliologie : 392.

194: BuUeiin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUP-
PRESS THE NAME " PLANITES " DE HAAN, 1825, AND TO
DETERMINE THE USE OF THE NAME " NAUTILUS POLY-
GYRATUS" REINECKE, 1818 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA,
ORDER AMMONOIDEA) (JURASSIC)

By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S.

{Sedgtoick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)402)

1 . The present application is concerned with the problem raised by the generic
name Planites de Haan, 1825 ( : 34). This case has been discussed in my
Monograph on the Ammonites of the English CoralHan Beds (1936-37 : xxxv-
xxxvii, Ixiv-lxv), where the recommendation was made that the name Planites
de Haan should be suppressed in order to avoid the chaotic confusion which
would otherwise be ine\dtable. The facts of this case are set out below : —

(1) The generic name Planites de Haan, 1825 was applied in the first
instance to all manner of ammonites from Lower Lias to Portland
Stone, belonging to what are now regarded as many different families.

(2) In form and vagueness of appHcation this genus ranks with Ammonites,
Ostracites, Pectiniles, etc., and for nearly a century this name was
ignored by all authors.

(3) Buckman (S.) in 1913 (2 : iv) revived the name Planites de Haan
by selecting as the type species of the genus so named the nominal
species Nautilus polygyratus Reinecke, 1818 ( : 73, pi. v, figs. 45-46).
This species was believed by Buckman to be the only nominal species
originally included by de Haan in Planites that had not already been
assigned to some other genus. It was however a far-fetched selection,
for among all the varied species assigned to Planites by de Haan,
Nautilus polygyratus Reinecke was mentioned by him only in connec-
tion with Plamtes plicatilis (Sowerby), in the synonymy of which
Reinecke's polygyratus was cited (de Haan, 1825 : 87).

(4) The t)rpe specimen of the nominal species Nautilus polygyratus
Reinecke is lost and the identity of the taxonomic species represented
by this nominal species is a matter of uncertainty. There are two
interpretations of this nominal species, the first by de Loriol (1877 : 61,
pi. vii, figs. 1, la), which was accepted by Schindewolf (1926 : 512)
and Spath (1931 : 444), the second by Wegele (1929 : 47, pi. i,
fig. 6). The latter interpretation appears the more probable ; Wegele's
figure of a supposed chorotype is reproduced in my monograph
(1936 : pi. C, fig. 5).

2. Except from the standpoint of authors Tvho accept an unwarrantable

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 195

pulverisation of genera, Nautilus j)olygyratus Reiuecke, in Wegele's inter-
pretation certainly, and probably also in that of de Loriol, Schindewolf and
Spath, belongs to a group at most subgenerically distinct from Perisphinctes
Waagen, 1869. Thus, under a strict application of the Regies, the name Planites
de Haan, having been published in 1825, would take precedence over the name
Perisphinctes Waagen, 1869 ; the latter would thus either fall as a synonym of
Planites or at best become the name of a subgenus of Planites.

3. The name Perisphinctes Waagen applies to one of the most important
of all aimnonite genera, of long geological range and of world-wide distribution.
This generic name has probably been more \videly used in geological literature
during the past eighty years than has that of any other cephalopod genus. To
discard it on the strength of Bucknian's revival of the long forgotten name
Planites would be monstrous and would certainly lead to widespread con-
fusion. Accordingly I consider that the name Planites de Haan, 1825,
should be suppressed under the Commission's plenary powers. I am of the
opinion also that it is desirable that the generic name Perisphinctes M'^aagen,
1869, should be protected as soon as possible by being placed on the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology. There is however a further problem in connec-
tion with this generic name which needs to be cleared up before it can be placed
on the Official List. I am submitting to the Commission herewith a separate
application on this subject.*

4. I consider further that the present opportunity should be taken to
determine authoritatively the taxonomic species which is to be accepted as that
represented by the nominal species Nautilus polygyratus Reinecke, for the name
polygyratus is widely used and extremely well known and it is highly desirable
that the present state of confusion and doubt regarding the manner in which
this name should be used should be brought to an end with as little further delay
as possible. I accordingly recommend that the Commission should make use of
the extension of the plenary powers granted to it by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology in Paris in 1948 for the purpose of determining how the
Regies should be applied in cases where it was doubtfid to what species a given
name should be held to apply (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 324), and should,
under the foregoing powers, designate the supposed chorotyiDC figured by
Wegele to be the figure by which the nominal species Nautilus polygyratus
Reinecke is to be interpreted. So interpreted, N. polygyratus would be referable
to the genus Bipliccs Siemiradzki, 1891 ( : 63), if it were not for the fact that
that name does not comply with the requirements of Article 8 and is, in conse-
quence, invalid ; in these circumstances N. polygyratus, defined as suggested
above, would be referable to Orthosphinctes Schindewolf, 1925 ( : 324), the type
species of which by original designation is Ammonites tiziani Oppel, 1863
( : 246) (which is also the type species of Biplices Siemiradzki, by selection by
Buckman in 1921 (3 : 31)). In my view, Orthosphinctes Schindewolf is a
subgenus of Perisphinctes Waagen. In view of the connection of the gejieric
name Orthosphinctes with the problem discussed in the ])resent application, I
suggest that it shoidtl be placed on the Official List.

♦See pp. 191—193.

196 Bulletin of Zoological NomencUdure

5. For the reasons set forth in the present application, I request the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : —

(1) to use its plenary powers : —

(a) to suppress the generic name Planites de Haau, 1825, for the
purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of
Homonymy ;

(b) to direct that the trivial name polygyratus Reinecke, 1818 (as
published in the binominal combination Nautilus polygyratus) is
to be held to apply to the species represented by the specimen
from Pappenheim in Franconia figured in 1929 by Wegele (L.)
as figure 6 on plate 1 in volume 72 of Palaeontographica in a paper
entitled " Stratigraphische und faunistische Untersuchungen im
Oberoxford und Unterkimmeridge Mittelfrankens " ;

(2) to place the midermentioned generic names on the Official hidex of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : —

(a) Planites de Haan, 1825 (as proposed to be suppressed under the
plenary powers under (l)(a) above) ;

(b) Biplices Siemiradzki, 1891 (invaUd because not formed in accord-
ance with the provisions of Article 8) ;

(3) to place the name Orthosphinctes Schindewolf, 1925 (gender of generic
name : masculine) (type species, by original designation : Am-
monites tiziani Oppel, 1863) on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology ;

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

(a) polygyratus Reinecke, 1818 (as publishetl in the binominal
combination Nautilus polygyratus) (as proposed to be determined
under the plenary powers under (l)(b) above) ;

(b) tiziani Oppel, 1863 (as published in the binominal combination
Ammonites tiziani) (type species of Orthosphinctes Schindewolf,
1925).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 197

References :

Arkcll, W. J., 1935-1948. " A Monograph on tho Ammonites of the English
Corallian Beds " (Palaeontographical Soc).

Buckman, S. S., 1909-1930. " Yorkshire Type Ammonites."

Haan, G. De, 1825. " Specimen Philosophicum inaugurale, exhibens Mono-
graphiam Ammoniteorum et Goniatiteorum. . . ."

Loriol, P. De, 1876-1878. " Monographie paleontologique des Couches de la
Zone a Ammonites tenuilobatus de Baden (Argovie)," Mem. Soc. pal. Suisse
3-5.

Oppel, A., 1863. " Tiber jurassische Cephalopoden," Pal. Mittheil. Mus.
Bayer. -Staates, 3 : 246.

Reinecke, D. J. C. M., 1818. " Maris protogaei Nautilos et Argonautas. . . ."

Schindewolf, 0. H., 1925. " Entwurf einer Systematik der Perisphincten,''
Neus Jahrh. fur Min., 52 (Beil.) : 324.

, 1926. " Zxn Systematik der Perisphincten," Neus Jahrh. fiir Min., 55

{Beil.) : 495-517.

Siemiradzki, J. von, 1891. " Fauna Kopalna warstw Oxfordzkichi i Kimeryd-
zkich " : 63 (Krakowie).

Spath, L. F., 1931. " Revision of the Jurassic Ammonite Fauna of Kachh
(Cutch)," Part 4. Pal. indica (n.s.), 9, mem. 2.

Waagen, W., 1869. " Die Formenreihe des Ammonites subradiatus." Benecke's
Geogn. Pal. Beitrdge 2 (2) : 181-256.

Wegele, L., 1929. " Stratigraphische und faunistische Untersuchungen im
Oberoxford and Unterkimmeridge Mittelfrankens." Palaeontographica, 71 :
119 ; 72 : 1.

198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomendatwc

APPLICATION FOR THE SUPPRESSION UNDER THE

PLENARY POWERS OF FIVE EARLY GENERIC NAMES

NOW FALLEN INTO DISUETUDE PUBLISHED FOR

AMMONITES (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER

AMMONOIDEA)

By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S.
{Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)423)

1 . The following generic names have ceased to be used for genera of Am-
monites for at least a century, but recent attempts to revive some of them by
the selection of type species has shown that they constitute a menace to
ammonite nomenclature and classification : —

Planulites Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. sans Vertebr. : 101.

Orbulites Lamarck, 1801, ibid. : 100.

Pelagus Montfort, 1808, Conch, syst. 1 : 62.

EllipsoUthes Montfort, 1808, ibid. 1 : 86.

Globites de Haan, 1825, Specimen philosophicum exhibens Monographiam

Ainnioniteorum cl Goniatiteonitn : 37. (The same work was published

later in 1825 under the title : MonograpJiiae Ammoniteormn et Goniati-

teoruiii Specimen.)

2. Planulites Lamarck, 1801. In 1923 Buckman (pi. cccxciii) revived this
name and reproduced Bourget's figure cited by Lamarck. It is unrecognizable,
but might be a Hildoceras. If so, it invalidates the long-established genus
Hildoceras Hyatt, 1867, and the family hildocebatidae Hyatt, 1867, in
universal use.

3. Orbulites, Pelagus, Globites. It is uncertain whether some of these names
correctly apply to ammonites or foraminifera, but Breistroffer (1947 : 81-82)
has recently stated that at least the first two, and the third pro piarte, invalidate
Phylloceras Suess, 1865, one of the most important ammonite genera and the
type genus of the family phylloceratidae Zittel, 1884.

4. EllipsoUthes Montfort, 1808. According to Fischer (1882 : 395) this is a
synonym of Perisphinctes Waagen, 1869, another of the most important
ammonite genera, and the type genus of the family perisphinctidae Steinmann,
1890.

6. I accordingly request the International Commission to use its plenary
powers to suppress the five generic names specified in the first paragraph of the
present application on the ground that their re -introduction at the present time
would lead to serious confusion and would serve no useful pm-pose whatever.
1 further ask that, when these names are suppressed, they be placed on the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic ^ames in Zoologif.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 199

7. Further, since the object of the present application is to protect, from
attack by tlic long forgotten names now j)roposed to be suppressed, the
important generic names Hihioceras Hyatt, 1867, PhyUoceras Suess, 1865,
and Perisphinctes Waagcn, 1869, I recommend that the two first of these names
should at once be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and
that the trivial names of their respective type species should at the same time
be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. I do not
make an immediate similar recommendation in the case of the name Peris-
phinctes Waagen, for in this case there is a further difficulty in regard to its
type species, on which I have submitted a separate proposal to the International
Commission (file Z.N.(S.)445). My immediate proposals for additions to the
Official Lists are therefore as follows :—

(1) Names proposed to be added to the " Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology ".

Hildoceras Hyatt, 1867, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. 1(5): 99 (type
species, by subsequent selection, by Buckman (S.), 1889 [Monogr.
Inferior Oolite Ammonites (Pal. Soc.) : 111) : Ammonites bifrons
Bruguiere, 1789, Ency. meth. (Vers) (1) : 40) (gender of generic
name : neuter).

PhyUoceras Suess, 1865, SitzBer. Akad. Wiss. Wien 52(1) : 76 (type
species, by original designation : Ammonites heterophyllus Sowerby
(J.), 1820, Min. Conch. 3 : 119) (gender of generic name : neuter).

(2) Names proposed to be added to the " Official List of Specific Trivial
Names in Zoology ".

heterophyllus Sowerby (J.), 1820 (as pubhshed in the binominal
combination Ammonites heterophyllus):

bifrons Bruguiere, 1789 (as published in the binominal combination
Ammonites bifrons).

References :

Breistroffer, M., 1947. Trav. Lab. Geol. Grenoble, 26 : 1.

Buckman, S. S., 1923. Type Ammonites, 4.

Fischer, P., 1882. Manuel de Conchy liologie.

Hyatt, A., 1867. The fossil cephalopods of the Museum of Comparative
Zoology, Bull. Mxis. comp. Zool., Harvard, 3, No. 5.

Hyatt, A., 1900. Eastman's Zittel, Text-book of Palaeontology, 1st ed.
♦5ee pp. 191—193, ~ "^ -—

200 Bidletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSAL TO SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAME
" AMMONITES " BRUGUI^RE, 1789, UNDER THE PLENARY
POWERS AND TO PLACE THE GENERIC NAME " ARIETI-
TES" WAAGEN, 1869 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER
AMMONOIDEA) ON THE " OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC
NAMES IN ZOOLOGY "

By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S.
(Sedgivick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)425)

1. The question of the type species of the genus Ammonites Bruguiere,
1789, has been discussed at length by Buckman (1923, 1924) and Spath (1924,
1946) and others. From these discussions the following essential points have
emerged (paras. 2, 3, 4).

2. The t}^e species oi Ammonites Bruguiere, 1789, is A. hisidcatus Bruguiere,
1789, so selected by Meek, 1876.

3. A. hisulcatus Bruguiere was based on a number of cited figures in 17th
and 18th century authors.

4. The lectotype of A. bisidcatus Bruguiere is the perspective figure in
Lister, 1678 (vi, fig. 3), so selected l)y Buckman, 1923.

5. Buckman identified Lister's figure as a Paltopleuroceras (recte Pleuroceras)
from the Upper Domerian and thought it came from Northamptonshire
(Buckman, 1923 : 56-57, pi. cccxcii, Lister's figure reproduced).

6. Lister's text contains nothing to connect particular figures with particular
localities, but of the localities mentioned by Lister the two rightly chosen by
Buckman as most likely, the banks of Bugthorpe Beck and the hill above
Byland Abbey, are both in Yorkshire as stated by Lister. The most likely
locality is the banks of Bugthorpe Beck, which Fox-Strangways (1892 : 68)
mentions as exposing sections principally in the zones of A. bucMandi and
A. angulatiis.

7. The detail of the carina, which is clear in Lister's engraving, is lost in
Buckman's half-tone reproduction. What Buckman apparently took for a
serrated carina is seen in Lister's engraving to be the rib-endings on the far
side, shown (quite correctly) in perspective ; the carina is clearly shown in
Lister's engraving as smooth.

8. These morphological data, combined with the probable locality, make
it highly probable that the type specimen of Lister's pi. vi. fig. 3. is an Arietid
(sensii lata) from the Sinemurian of Yorkshire, and it is possible that topotj^es
may one day be found sufficiently like Lister's figure to enable the genus to be
ititerpreted,

Bullriin of Zoological Nomenclature 201

9. Meanwhile a search of the Leckenby collection of Yorkshire ammonites
and oth'M- rich liias material in tjie Sedgwick Museum has failed to reveal to
nie anything identifiable beyond doubt as the genus figured by Lister. Spath
(194G) has declared Lister's figure to be generically indeterminable, and Mr.
D. T. Donovan, who has been sjiecialising on Lias an)monites, agrees (in lilt.).

10. The present position in accordance with the Rules, therefore, is that
the genus Ammonites Bruguiere, 1789, the family ammonitidae Owen, 1836,
and the superfamily ammonitacea Buckman, 1905, and ultimately the order
Ammonoidea de Haan, 1825, rest upon a species of which the type specimen
(" ultimate standard of reference ") is unidentifiable generically, although
probably one of the Sinemurian family arietitidae Hyatt, 1874.

11. If the position were left thus, a large part of the classification of
Ammonoidea would be liable to be overturned at any time by authors who
might claim to be able to identify the genus Ammonites from Lister's figure,
and their nomenclature would be different from those who were unable to
recognise the figure, and from those again who might interpret it differently.

12. Accordingly it is desirable that the International Commission should
take action under tlieir plenary powers at the earliest opportunity to stabilise
the matter.

13. Two proposals have already been pubhshed : (A) Spath (1924 and
] 94G) has argued that a much later figure by some more modern author should
be designated as the neotype of A. hisidcatns Bruguiere, and the figure which
he has proposed should be so selected is that by d'Orbigny (1843), which he
considers represents what Meek (1876) had in mind when he designated A.
hisulcatns lectotype of Ammonites. (B). Roman (1938) and Arkell (1940) have
expressed the opinion that the genus Ammonites ought never to have been
revived and should be aboHshed like many other ancient names long fallen
into disuetude (e.g., Ostracites, Pectinites, etc.).

14. The disadvantages of the course in Para. 13(A) are (1) that as pointed
out by Buckman (1924) such action is arbitrary in the extreme : if the genus
Ammonites Bruguiere, 1789, is to be revived, it should stand or fall by its legiti-
mate type species, not have made for it a type species which was not known to
exist until more than 50 years later; (2) that d'Orbigny 's drawings are notoriously
inaccurate and often synthetographs, and pi. 43 is apparently not based on a
type specimen ; (3) that the group to which d'Orbigny's pi. 43 belongs has for
80 years had a familiar and widely-used generic name, Arietites Waagen, 1869
(type species by monotypy Ammonites biicliandi J. Sowerby, 1816, Sinemurian
zonal index fossil), which is in turn type genus of the widely-used family
ARIETITIDAE Hyatt, 1874. Apart from the little-known paper by Meek, 1876
(unknown even to Buckman), the genus Arietites and the family arietitidae
(or arietidae) had been used for half a century in all world literature on Liassic
ammonites and in text-books. One of the classics of ammonites is Hyatt's
book " Genesis of the arietidae " (1889), and the leading palaeontological
text-book to this day, Eastman's translation of Zittel (1913 : 655) has a
figure " Arietites hisulcatns Bruguiere " to illustrate the faniily arietinae.

202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

and the figure is d'Orbigny's pi. 43 ; and the same figure and the same name
are repeated in the latest (German) edition of the same hook (1024 : 571).

15. The facts adduced in paragraph 14 above, emphasise that Ammonites
as used by Buckman and Spath since 1923 was a revival not a survival, and
paragraphs 5 to 13 indicate that it was a revival on the flimsiest foinidations.
Roman (1938) in his comprehensive work on the Jurassic and Cretaceous
ammonites rightly refused to displace Arietites and arietitidae by Ammonites

and AMMONITIDAE.

16. If the generic name Ammonites were to be revived, it would become
automatically the type genus of the family ammonitidae, which for reasons of
priority is attributed (as by Meek) to Owen, with the date 1836. This is mis-
leading, for AMMONITID^ Owen 1836 was a vastly wider and altogether different
concept. Most famihes as now used have been emended (which usually means
restricted) to some extent, but none to such a degree as this, ammonitidae
Owen, 1836, was in fact almost the same as the order ammonoidea, and as de
Haan's " family ammonitea ", 1825. Consequently, the revival of Ammonites
as a generic name would involve either its attribution to the family " ammoni-
tidae Owen " which is really something totally different, or the establishment
of a new family ammonitidae dating from some later author such as Meek or
Spath, arbitrarily chosen (Meek, however, still included cretaceous genera in
ammonitidae) ; but this would be a homonym of ammonitidae Owen and
invalid.

17. Dr. Spath in his paper of 1946 stated that he proposed to submit an
application concerning the type of Ammonites to the International Commission,
but I learn from the Secretary that no such application has yet been received
by the Commission (January, 1950). Since a decision on this important matter
is urgently needed, I hereby make the following applications (paragraphs 18, 19).

18. That the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should
use their plenary powers to suppress the generic name Ammonites Bruguiere,
1789, for the purposes of Article 25 but not for those of Article 34 (thereby
continuing to render invalid as a homonym any later use of the word Ammonites
as a generic name) and should place this name on the Official Index of Bejecied
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

19. That the Commission should place on the Official List of Generic Ncnves
in Zoology the generic name Arietites Waagen, 1869 (gender of generic name :
masculine) (type species, by monotypy : Ammonites hucklandi Sowerby (J.),
1816) and on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology the trivial name
hucklandi Sowerby (J.), 1816 (as published in the binominal combination
Ammonites hucklandi).

20. In making this application I assume that when (if ever) the Commission
draws up Rules governing the names of taxnnomic categories higher than
families, it will, if necessary, make provision for retention of the order name
ammonoidea, so that it shall not require to be replaced because of the abolition
of the generic name Ammonites and family name ammonitipae,

Biillcli)! of Zoologiml Nomenclature 203

References :

Arkell, W. J.. 1!)40. " Monograph on the Ammonites of the English Corallian
Hods ■' : Ixv. (Palaeontographical Soc.)

Bruguiere, M., 1789. Emychpedie tnelhodique, Hist. nat. des Vers, 1 : 39, pi. 1.

liucknian, S. 8., 1923. " Type Ammonites " 4 : 56-57, pl.cccxcii.

Buckman, S. S., 1924. iUd 5 : 12.

Fox-Strangways, C, 1892. " Jurassic Rocks of Britain, vol. i, Yorkshire "
Mem. geol. Survey.

Haan, G. de, 1825. Monographia Ammoniteorum et Goniatiteorum. . . : 7G.

Hyatt, A., 1874. " Remarks on two new genera of ammonites, Agassiceras
and Oxynoticeras." Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist., 17 : 225.

Hyatt, A., 1889. " Genesis of the Arietidae." Smithsonian Miscellaneous
Collections, 673.

Lister, M.. 1678. Cochlitarimi Angliae, 1 : 208.

Meek, F. B., 1876. " Report on the Invertebrate Cretaceous and Tertiary
fossils of the Upper Missouri countrv." U.S. geol. Survey of the Territxrries
9: 446.

Orbigny, A. d', 1843. Paleontologie Fran^aise, Terrains jurassiques : pi. 43.

Owen, R., 1836. Cephalopoda. In R. B. Todd, Cyclopcsdia of Anatomy and
Physiology 1 : 517.

Roman, F., 1938. Les Ammonites jurassiques et cretacees : 88.

Sowerby, J., 1816. Mineral Conchology 2 : 69, pi. 130.

Spath, L. F., 1924. " The Ammonites of the Blue Lias." Proc. geol. Assoc.
35: 202.

Spath, L. F., 1946. " The Type of the Genus Ammonites." Ann. Mag. nat.
Hist. (11) 12 : 490.

Waagen, W., 1869. " Die Formenreihe des Ammonites subradiatus." Geognost.
Pal, Beitrdgel : 247.

Zittel, K. A. von, 1913. Text-Book of Palaeontology, transl. edited by C. R.
Eastman: 6.55, fig. 1264.

Zittel, K. A. von, 1924, Grundziige der Palaontologie, ed. F. Broil}: 571,
fig- 1211,

204 BvJleHn of Zoological Nomenclature

ON THE GENERIC NAMES " SCHLOTHEIMIA " BAYLE,
1878, AND " SCAMNOCERAS " LANGE, 1924 ; PROPOSED
USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE
NAME " AMMONITES ANGULATUS " SCHLOTHEIM, 1820
(CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA)
(JURASSIC)

By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S.
{Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)422)

1. The generic name Schlotheimia was introduced by Bayle in 1878 in the
explanation of his pi. 65, fig. 1, in the combination Schlotheimia angulata
Schlotheim. No text was published. In the follo'vving year a list of the type
species of Bayle's genera was pubHshed by H. Douville (1879 : 91) and in this
A. angulatus Schlotheim was categorically stated to be the type species of
Schlotheimia Bayle.

2. The figure given by Bayle in illustration of this species is commonly
believed to differ from Ammonites angulatus Schlotheim at least subgenerically.
It was therefore renamed S. princeps by Buckman (1923 : pi. cccxcv. where
Bayle's figure is reproduced and labelled " genotype ").

3./In accordance with the general practice of the 1920's, Bayle's genus
was considered to have been based on the material handled by him, and S.
princeps has been cited as type species of Schlotheimia by Buckman (1923,
loc. cit.), by Spath (1924 : 197 ; 1925 : 201) and by Lange (1925 : 469). Lange
(1924 : 198) proposed the generic name Scamnoceras for Ammonites angulatus
Schlotheim.

4. The position stated in para. 3 could only be legalised by suspension
of the Rules. As the Rules stand, A. angidatus Schlotheim, 1820, is the type
species of Schlotheimia by monotypy, and the generic name Scamnoceras Lange,
1924, is an objective synonym of Schlotheimia Bayle, 1878.

5. The combination Schlotheimia angidata had been familiar and had
become current in the literature for 45 years before the refinements introduced
in the 1920s (see para. 3), and many authors have continued to use it since.
So familiar is this combination, and so important the species A. angidattis
Schlotheim, that a permanent settlement of the question is urgently needed.
(See paras. 6 and 7.)

6. The zone of Ammonites angulatus was set up by Oppel (1856 : 14) and
has been constantly used in stratigraphical geology ever since. It represents
an important series of strata which are developed throughout Europe and also
elsewhere. Fronx the geologist's point of view a change of the name of this
fione cannot be contemplated,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 205

7. The family angulatidae was founded by Hyatt (1874 : 15) for A.
angulaliis and its allies, and is still in general use under the corrected name
SCHLOTHEiMiDAE Spath (1925 : 201). SCHLOTHEIMIDAE having comparatively
recently replaced ancjulatidae in the literature, it is obviously desirable that
the tYT^e species of Schlolheimia should be A. angulatus, which was in fact
Hyatt's original type although he made a technical error in basing a family
upon a species.

8. There are, however, the following difficulties in recognising the species
A. (ingidMui! Schlotheun and upholding it as the type species of the genus
Schlotheimia and thence of the family schlotheimidae, and as index of the
Angulatus Zone. (See paras. 9, 10.)

9. Ammonites attgulatus Schlutheiiu (lb20 : 70) was at publication a
homonym of ^. migulatus J. Sowerby (1815 : 2 : 9, pi. cvii, fig. 1), an ammonite
described by Sowerby as " a rare and curious specimen ", from the Upper
Lias and belonging to an entirely different genus {Dactylioceras Hyatt, 1867 :
p. 95. Type species : A. anmdalus Sowerby, selected by Buckman, 1911).
There never has been and never can be any risk of confusion, for the two genera
belong to different families and the homonymy has not hitherto been noticed.
The name Dactylioceras angulatum (Sowerby) is unknown in the hterature.
Quenstedt (1846 : 173) considered it a synonym of D. commune (J. Sowerby,
1815) and was probably right.

10. A. angulatus Schlotheim (1820 : 70) was never figured by its author.
Its validity rests on (a) a brief description and locaUties, and (b) citations of
four figures : Scheuchzer, 1718, fig. 50, and Bourget, 1742, figs. 272, 273, 275.
Mr. D. T. Donovan points out that all Bourget's three figures are copies of
figures in Scheuchzer, and that in particular Bourget's fig. 272 is a copy of
Scheuchzer's fig. 50 ; and that therefore only three figures have to be considered.
He also points out that Bourget's figs. 272 and 273 are described in their
explanations as having keels, a point evidently not noticed by Schlotheim
whose description of A. angulatus specifies that there is no keel or furrow on
the venter. These two figiures therefore should be ruled out, leaving Bourget's
fig. 275 (copied from Scheuchzer's fig. 24) as the only ehgible syntype among
the cited figiires. But, like the figure of the type species of the genus Ammonites
Bruguiere, this figure is unrecognisable ; it could be a Cretaceous Hoplitid.

11. .4. angulatus Schlotheim therefore must rest solely on Schlotheim's
description, supported by his localities. These are " From the neighbourhood
of Coburg, from Heinberg and the Bamberg region ", and the description
which reads " Distinguished from other ammonites by its ribbing, which is
strongly developed and joined to make an acute angle on the sharp venter,
without any ventral line."

12. Schlotheim mentioned that his material consisted of 15 specimens.
None of these has since been figured, and the present whereabouts of the
collection is unknown. The first author to use Schlotheim's name, however,

206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomendaiure

Quenstedt (1845 : 74, pi. iv, fig. 2), consulted the type material, for lie wrote
" That this alone is Schlotheim's angulatus is proved by the specimens in
Schlotheim's collection in Berlin, and the short but exact description in the
Petrifactenkunde, p. 71 ". It is therefore proposed that Quenstedt's pi. iv,
fig. 2c, 2d should be taken as the basis for the recognition of Ammonites
angulalus Schlotheim. The locality is Jicmpflingen, (Swal)ia.

13. The considerations mentioned in paras. G and 7 make this a clear case
where it is desriable that the Commission should use its plenary powers to set
aside an earlier homonym of no use in nomenclature in order to save a later
homonjrm of o\"er a century's standing in the literature and a key name in
stratigraphical geology as well as in annnonite systematics. (Cf. Sphaerocems
Bayle dealt with in Comnussion file Z.N. (S.) 405).*

14. I accordingl}- reconmiend that the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature should : —

(1) use its plenary powers : —

(a) to suppress for all purposes the trivial name angulalus Sowerby
(J.), 1815 (as pubUshed in the binominal combination Ammoniles
angulalus) ;

(b) to validate the trivial name angulalus Schlotheim, 1820 (as
published in the binominal combination Ammonites angulalus) ;

(c) to direct that the trivial name angulalus Schlotheim, 1820 (as
published in the foregoing binominal combination) is to be
applied to the species figured by Quenstedt under the above
name in 1845 {Die Cephalopoden) as figs. 2c and 2d on plate iv
of the above work ;

(2) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic
name ScMotheimia Bayle. 1878 (gender of generic name : feminine)
(type species, by monotypy : Ammoniles angukitus Schlotheim, 1820,
validated as in (l)(b), and defined as in (l)(c) above) ;

(3) place the generic name Scamnoceras Lange, 1924, on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ;

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

(a) angulalus Schlotheim, 1820 (as published in the binominal
combination Ammonites angulalus), as vaUdated and defined in
(1) above ;

(b) princeps Buckman, 1923 (as published in the binominal combina-
tion Schlotheimia princeps) ;

(5) place the trivial name angulalus Sowerby (J.), 1815 (as published in
the binominal combination Ammonities angulalus) on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology.

*See pp. 164 — 166.

Bulletin of Zoological Notnendature 207

References :

Bayle, E., 1878. Explication de la Carte geologique de France, vol. -1. Atlas
only.

[Bourget, L.J, 1742. Traitd den Pelrijicatimn. Paris.

Buckmaii, S. 8., 1923. Type Ammonites, 4 : pi. cccxcv.

Douville, H., 1879. [Presentatiou of Bayle's "Atlas".] Bull. .b'oc. oeol
tranci', (3)7 : 91 (C. 11. seance du 13 Janvier).

Hyatt A., 1867. "The fossil cephalopods of tiie Museum of Comparative
Zoology , Bull. Mus. comp. Zool., Harvard, 3 : 71.

Hyatt, A., 1874. " Genetic relations of the Angulatidae ", Proc. Boston Soc
iiat. Hist., 17 : 15.

Lange. W., 1924. " (jber die P.silouotenstufe . . .", Jahrb. meuss. qeol.
Landesanst, 44 : 176,

Lange, A\., 1925. " Zur Palaogeographie und Ammonitenfauna des Lias
a . . . , Z. Deutsch. geol. Gesellsch, 77 : 439.

Oppel, A., 1856-58. Die Juraformation. Stuttgart.

Quenstedt, F. A., 1845-9. Die CepMopoden. Atlas, 1849.

Scheuchzer, J. J., 1718. Natw-Historie des Schweizerlandes, Part 3. Zurich.

Schlotheim, E. F. von, 1820. Die Petrefactenkwule auf ihrem jetzigen Stand-
punkte. Gotha.

Sowerby. J., 1815. Mineral Conchology, 2 : 9.

Spath, L. F., 1924. " The Ammonites of the Blue Lias ", Proc. geol. Assoc.,
35 '. 186.

Spath L.F 1925. "Notes on Yorkshire Ammonites", The Naturalist,
■ 925 '• 201.

208 Bulletin of Zoological Noinenclature

ON THE RELATIVE STATUS OF THE NAMES " ARIETICE-

RAS " SEGUENZA, 1885, AND " SEGUENZICERAS " LEVI,

1896 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA)

(JURASSIC)

By W. J. AUKELL, M.A., D.Sc, F.K.S.
{Sedgwick Museum, Cambridye University, Cambridge)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)486)

1. The name Arieticeras was published by Quen.stedt (1883 : 44) as follows :

" Typus dieser mcrk\viirdigen Gruppe ist ein so bestinimter, dass man
ihn nur durch einen bcsondcren Nanien Arieles abgrenzen kann . . . [describes
the ' Family '] . ■ • Waagen erhob sie zu eiiiem Untergeschlecht Arietites.
Wenn man jedoch ausser dem A\'oit Arieten noch das Bediirfniss einer besondern
Benenmmg fiihlt, so soUte man sie einfach Arieticeras nennen, dann wiisste
jeder Kenner von vornherein, was man meint."

Hence, if Arieticeras is a valid generic name, it is a substitute name for,
and therefore objective synonym of, Arietites Waagen, 1869.

Quenstedt himself othenvise than in the foregoing passage used the name
Arieticeras only once (1883 : 113). When describing his Ammonites nudaries
he remarked : " Trotz dieser Unvollkommenheit schcint es doch erne gute
Spezies zu sein, deren Name Arieticeras nudus sich wegen der so augenfalligen
Nacktheit gleichsam von selbst ergabe. Nach alter Angewohnheit setze ich
jedoch denselben lieber in Ammonites nudaries um, worin kurtz die wesent-
lichsten Kennzeichen angedeutet sind."

2. In 1885, Seguenza ( : 255) published a genus Arieticeras with four
genosyntypes, of which Ammonites algovianus Oppcl (1862 : 137) was placed
first. A. algovianus Oppel was selected as the type species by Levi (1896 :
272).

3. In 1896, Levi ( : 272) published the generic name Seguenziceras, with
type species by original designation Ammonites atgoriamis Oppel (1862 : 137),
as substitute for Arieticeras Seguenza. on the grounds that the latter was
preoccupied by Arieticeras Quenstedt, 1883.

4. Seguenziceras Levi has been accepted by Buckman (1913 : 74 b and pi.
ixxiv) and Spath (1924 : 192), who founded on it the family seguenzicera-

TIDAE.

5. Arieticeras Seguenza, on the other hand, has continued to find acceptance
by, for instance, Hyatt (1900: 576), Haas (1913, 1947), Pia (1913 : 488; 1918:
319), and Roman (1938 : 112). Dr. Haas (1947 : 79) considers that he had
" proved Levi's argument, that Arieticeras was preoccupied as a generic name
by Quenstedt, to be entirely unfounded."

BuUetin of ZoolofjicaJ Nomenclature 209

6. Various obviously invalid arguiuent« have hvcn advanced against the
acceptance of Arieticeras Quenstcdt, 1883, as a validly published name, such
as (1) that it has fallen into desuetude which, even if true — in fact the name
has never been used since it was first pubhshed— would be irrelevant ; (2)
that it was published in the same year (1885) as Arieticeras Seguenza, which is
incorrect, as the relevant Heft of Quenstedt's book was published in 1883 ;
(3) that it is a synonym of Arietites Waagen, 1869, which is irrelevant. There is,
however, one argument that has l>een advanced against the acceptance of
Arieticeras Quenstedt, the validity of which under the Regies is arguable and
on which a ruling from the International Commission is now sought. Under
this argument Quenstedt ought not to be treated as having validly published
the generic name Arieticeras, for he clearly had no intention of doing so. All
his life Quenstedt stood out against the splitting up of the old comprehensive
genus Ammonites ; all that he did on this occasion was to make a casual and
carping remark that " if, however, one felt the need for a special name " for
the Arietids, it would be better to call them Arieticeras rather than Arietites
(as Waagen had done). Further it was only casually that on a later page he
wrote that the species which he was there discussing could be called " Arieticeras
nudus " instead of " Ammonites nudaries," the latter being the name which
he preferred.

7. It is of no consequence whether Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885, is retained
for the genus concerned or whether the name Seguenziceras Levi, 1896, is used
in its place. It is of importance, however, that workers should know which
is the correct name and this cannot be finally determined until an authoritative
ruling is given by the International Commission on the question whether the
name Arieticeras Quenstedt, 1883, was duly published in accordance with the
provisions of Article 25 and therefore whether it renders the later name
Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885, an invalid junior homonym.

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked : —

(1) to give a ruling on the question whether the term Arieticeras, published
by Quenstedt in 1883, is to be treated as constituting a generic name
satisfying the requirements of Article 25 ;

(2) depending on the ruling given under (1) above, to take the following
action : —

(a) if Arieticeras is ruled to have been published by Quenstedt in 1883
as a generic name satisfying the requirements of Article 25, to place :

(i) Seguenziceras Levi, 1896 (type species, by original designa-
tion : Ammonites algovianus Oppel, 1862) (gender of generic
name : neuter), on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology ;

210 Bulletin of Zoologi^cai Nomencla()ire

(ii) Arieliccras Soguenza. 1885 (tj-po species, by selection by
Levi. 1896 : Ammonites alfjoviamis Oppel, 1862) (an invalid
junior homonym of Arieticeras Quenstedt, 1883) on the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology ;

(b) if it is ruled that the term Arieticeras, as published by Quenstedt
in 1883, is not to be treated as a generic name possessing priority
as from that date, to place : —

(i) Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885 (type species, as specified in
(a) (ii) above) (gender of generic name : neuter) on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :

(ii) the cheironym Arieticeras Quenstedt, 1883, on the Official

Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ;
(iii) Seguenziceras Levi, 1896 (an objective synonym of Arieticeras
Seguenza, 1885. of which the same species is the type species)
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Getieric Names)
in Zoology :

(3) irrespective of the ruling to be given under (1) above, to place the
trivial name algoviamis Oppel. 1862 (as pubhshed in the binominal
combination Ammonites algovianus) on the Official List of Specific
Trivial Names in Zoology.

References :

Buckman, S. S., 1913. Type Ammonites 2 : pi. 74.

Haas, 0., 1913. Die Fauna des mittleren Lias von Ballino in Siidtirol, Beitr.
Pal. GeoL Osterreich-Ungarn^ 26 : 58.

Haas, 0., 19'17. Three nomenclatural problems in Liassic Ammonoidea,
Journ. Paleontology 21 : 79.

Hyatt, A., 1900. Cephalopoda, in Eastman's Zittel, 1st. ed.

Levi, Gr., 1896. Sui Fossih degli strati a Terebratula aspasia di Monte Calvi
l>resso Campiglia, Boll. Soc. geol. Ital. 15 : 272.

Oppel, A., 1862. Ueber Jurassische Cephalopoden, Pal. Mittheihmgen 3 : 137.

Pia, J. von.. 1913. Review of Haas, 1913 : Neues Jahrb., 19\3. 2 : 485.

Pia. J. von.. 1918. Review of Saxl : ibid. 1918 : 318.

Roman, F., 1938. Les ammonites jurassiques et cretacees.

Seguenza, G., 1885. Intorno al sistema giurassico nel territorio di Taormina,
II Naturalista Siciliano 4 : 255.

Spath, L. F. , 1924. The ammonites of the Blue Lias, Proc. Geol. Assoc, 35 : 192.

Quenstedt. F. A., 1883, Die Ammoniten des schwabischen Jura 1 : 44 and 113.

Bnlletw of Zoological Nomendaiure. 211

ON THE RELEVANCE TO THE AVAILABILITY OF A NAME
UNDER THE " REGLES " OF THE QUESTION WHETHER
THE AUTHOR, WHEN PUBLISHING THAT NAME, INTEND-
ED IT TO BE AVAILABLE FOR USE AS A SCIENTIFIC NAME

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

{Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclaturt)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)486)

1 . The application submitted to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by Dr. \V. J. Arkell in regard to the relative status of the generic
names Aiieticeras Seguenza, 1885, and Seguenziceras Levi, 1896 (Class Cepha-
lopoda, Order Ammonoidea) deals in itself with a matter of interest only to
students of ammonites. But, as Dr. Arkell points out, the foregoing question
cannot be answered by the Commission unless at the same time it gives a
ruling on the only question of doubt raised in this case, namely whether a
name duly published with an indication is or is not to be rejected on the ground
that the author when publishing the name in question did not intend his action
to be taken as constituting the publication of a new scientific name.

2. At their meeting held in Paris in 1948 the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature agreed that in future decisions on individual names
should, as heretofore, be rendered in Opinions but that decisions of a general
character affecting the interpretation of the Regies should not be published in
that series but should be rendered in the series '' Declarations " (see 1950,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 136-137) ; this proposed change in procedure was
reported to, and approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology (1950, loc. cit. 5 : 68) and, with the remaining
recommendations of the Section on Nomenclature was approved by the Congress
in Plenary Session (1950, loc. cit. 5 : 131). In order therefore to deal with the
case submitted by Dr. Axkell, it will be necessary for the Commission, first, to
render a Declaration on the question of principle implicit in Dr. Arkell's applica-
tion, and, second, in the light of the Declaration so rendered, to reach a decision
on the relative status of the two generic names which forms the subject on
which Dr. Arkell is directly concerned to obtain a ruling.

3. The twofold issue to be considered : In considering the question to be
dealt with in the required Declaration, two issues of a totally distinct kind are
involved : (1) Do the Regies, as amended by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, provide that a name, which is (a) duly published and (b) is
on that occasion accompanied by a description, definition or indication, is to
be rejected if it can be shown that the author who published that name did so
for some purpose other than for it to be used as a scientific name 1 (2) WTiatever
may be the answer to the question posed, in (1) above, is the position under the
R^les disclosed by the answer given to that question a desirable one ? There
is thus a question of fact to be answered and a question of policy to be determined.

212 Bullctw of Zoolnrjical Nome)iclafifre

4. The question nf fact ■' Article 25 provides that the nomenclatorially
available name for an animal is the first name to have been published for that
animal provided that certain conditions are satisfied. Where those conditions
are satisfied, a name is an available name and possesses rights under the Law of
Priority ; where those conditions are not satisfied, the name in question is an
invalid name and possesses no rights under the Law of Priority. The conditions
which determine the availability of every scientific name in zoological nomen-
clature are specified in Provisos (a) and (b) to Article 25, while in Proviso (c)
certain more stringent provisions are added that are applicable only to names
published after 31st December 1930. Proviso (a) prescribes that a name must
be duly published ('' divulgue dans une publication ") ; it provides also that a
name must, when first published, be accompanied by an indication, definition
or description. Proviso (b) provides that the work in which the name appears
must have been one in which the author concerned consistently applied " les
principes de la nomenclature binominale " (formerly " nomenclature binaire ")
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 63-66, 175). Proviso (c) provides that a name
published after 31st December 1930. must, in addition to satisfying the require-
ments of Provisos (a) and (b), be accompanied by certain specified kinds of
information and, if a generic name, must be accompanied with a designation
(or indication) of the type species of the genus so named ; this Proviso was
somewhat Uberalised by the Paris Congress for the purpose of eliminating
undesirably ritualistic provisions but its general content remained imchanged.
In none of these Provisos is there any provision invalidating an otherwise
available name on the ground that the author by whom it was published did
not intend it to be used as a scientific name, notwithstanding the fact that he
had published it. On the question of fact there can therefore be no room for
argument.

5. The question of policy : Having seen that the Regies in their present form
contain no proAnsion invalidating an othei-wise available name where it can
be shown that the author who pubished that name nevertheless did not intend
that it should be used as a scientific name, we have now to consider whether it is
desirable that in this respect the Regies should be amended by the next Inter-
national Congress of Zoology in such a way as to invalidate a name published
in the foregoing circumstances. I am bound to say that, in my view, such a
provision would be unsound in principle and would in practice lead to unneces-
sary time-consuming bibliographical investigations and to confusion and
instability in zoological nomenclature. I consider that such a provision would
be wrong in principle, for it would introduce into the Regies an element which
should be wholly excluded from any code of law, namely a criterion of a sub-
jective character which by its nature would be incapable of providing an
unchallengeable interpretation in relation to any given name. At Paris in 1948
the Conmaission and the Congress were at pains — and rightly — to ehminate
from the Regies provisions involving subjective judgments on the part of the
reader, seeking everywhere to secure that the provisions in the Regies should be
such as called only for the ascertaining of objective nomenclatorial facts.
To reverse this principle in the present case would, therefore, in my view, be a
highly retrograde and undesirable step. Such a course, it seems to me, would
not only be wrong in principle, but would constitute a serious impediment to

Bulletin of Zoological Nomejidalure 213

hP^ltT '''' u i ^^\«:^«t«^^t^^ zoologist, for in the case of every name that
he used, he would first have, as at present, to satisfy himself that^t clplied
with the requu-emcnts of the Provisos to Artirle 9/ ^SL 1 ^°°^P"^^

satisfy himself that the author by Xi t^f^a^:' hTd 'bt^^ubtL^^ha^^^

" rf. ,. """ ""u t''^'' ^^"^^^^^ ''' '^^ - ^ scientific^ t^^^^^^^^
. ucli nprox.s.ou would add an intolerable burden to the zoologist when see W
to make sure whether a generic name that he proposed to ilevvas not te
occupied elsewhere m the Animal Kingdom, for he would need to do much n^ore

ler^LTSe ^th '' T^^^^ '^^^^™■'^ '^ Zoological It ^itH
otherwise AAhether the word in question had previously been published is «
generic name in conditions which satisfy the pro^dsions of A^e^aS t wou^^

Twi^h H \TTr "^^'^^^ '^ '^' ^'^^^ "^ q^^^ti- had previ;usly been o
pubhshed It had been seriously published or had been published for .Zo
purpose-Dr. Arkell refers to Quenstedt's carping attiLl'to xds^^^^^^
other thari a desire to publish a new scientific name In an except onafrp^
such as that submitted by Dr. .4rkell, where both the gen ricTam^^^^^^^^^

aufeStthe worr" """^^ (^™rlea), no great m^nvenire wouW be
caused to the worker concerned, but that case is exceptional for in most cases
It would be necessary for the conscientious zoologist to examme a Irk belonr

the author of that work had acted seriously or not in publishingX „ar^e fn
question. Finally, a provision of the kind\inder discuUn coifld no"" to
lead to confusion, for any provision depending for its interpretation upon n
subjective judgment^to be formed by the reader must by rnatme ad to
different results in the hands of different readers. I concbde therefore that
from every point of view the introduction into the Regies of a provisbriifvalidaf
ing a name which, though otherwise available, could be heirriLe itj,;
pubhshed by Its author for some purpose other 'than use as a c en ^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
would be open to the strongest objection. ^'^"wnc name,

6. I recognise that here and there in the old Uterature there m«v K. f^ i
examples, of which the name AruHceras as V^h^lT^t^.^ZtlllS^

published in this way, Its publication would do ;ny harm o ^omen atme ^ J

214 BuUetin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED VALIDATION OF THE NAME " ARIS-
PHINCTES" BUCKMAN, 1924, BY THE SUPPRESSION,
UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE NAME " TOXO-
SPHINCTES" BUCKMAN, 1923 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA
ORDER AMMONOIDEA) (JURASSIC)

J3y W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S.,
{Sedgtvick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)389)

1 . The present application is concerned with the relative precedence to be
accorded to the generic names Arisphinctes Buckman, 1924, and Toxosphinctes
Buckruan, 1923 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). This case
was fully discussed by me in 1939 in " A Monograph on the Ammonites of
the English Corallian Beds " (Palaeont. Society) (Part 5 : Iv-lvii). The relevant
facts are as follows.

2. S. Buckman published the name Arisphinctes (1924, Type Ammonites
5 : 33, pis. dxi, dxii) for a genus of large Perisphinctids of Upper Oxfordian
date, characterised by ribbing that gradually modifies on the outer whorl
and fades on the venter and by sutures with a long suspensive lobe. Buckman
designated Arisphinctes ariprepes Buckman, 1924 {loc. cit. : pi. dxi) as the
type species of this genus. He also figured the holotype of this species which
was a complete and well preserved specimen.

3. Arisphinctes Buckman, 1924, is now regarded (Arkell, 1939 : Ivi-lvii)
as a subgenus of the genus Perisphinctes Waagen, 1869. Further, the nominal
species Arisphinctes ariprepes Buckman, 1924, is now identified with the
nominal species Perisphinctes cotovui Simionescu, 1907 ( : 151, pi. vii, fig. 1).
Accordingly the trivial name ariprepes Buckman is now treated as a subjective
junior synonym of the trivial name cotovui Simionescu.

4. In 1923 (the year before that in which the name Arisphinctes was pub-
lished), Buckman had i^ublished another generic name Toxosphinctes (Type
Ammonites 5 : pi. cdxlvii) ; the genus so named was based upon a single
specimen, the re-discovered holotype of Ammonites pickeringius Young and
Bird, 1822 ( : 251, pi. xii, fig. 9), which is therefore the type species of Toxo-
sphinctes. The holotype of this species, which was refigured by Buckman,
shows characters cjuite different from those of Arisphinctefs ; it has fine sharp
ribbing all over, not modified, not faded on the venter, and suture Avith short
suspensive lobe. Buckman evidently did not suspect any close aflinity with
Arisphinctes. Tlie species which are the respective type species of these two
genera came from different parts of England but from the same zone.

5. When the Corallian ammonites came to be monographed and all available
material was compared, it was disco\'ered that the holotype of the type species
of Toxosphinctes was an incomplete specimen, probably representing only

Bulletin of Zoological Noittenclature 215

the inner and middle whorls of a large species which later acquires the characters
of Arisphincles. Fcn.sp/nncles pickeringius (Young and Bird, 1822) as in-
terpreted in the monograph cited above, is closely allied to Perisphincles
{Arisphinclen) cotovui Simionescu, 1907, the type species of Arispkinctes.

6. tSince tlie specimen upon which Buckman founded the genus Toxo-
sphinctes is incomplete and there are several subgenera with similar inner
and middle whorls which cannot be distinguished from one another, except
by the outer whorls, it can never be proved that this specimen belongs to a
species having the same characteristics as Arisphincles. It will always remain
an uncertain factor, liable to re-interpretation by subsequent authors.

7. On the other liand, although the iiame ArisphiHctes was published a
few months later than Toxosphinctes, the genus Arisphhicles was founded
upon a complete specimen and in consequence the characters of the type
species of this genus can never be in doubt. In my monograph, therefore,
I discarded ( : Ivi et seq.) the name Toxosphinctes and used the name Aris-
phinctes. In the twelve years which have since elapsed, no published dissent
from this procedure has come to my notice, nor has any dissent been received
by me in correspondence.

8. Accordingly, in order to secure that the currently used generic name
Arisphinctes shall be secure from possible supersession merely .on grounds of
priority by the nomen dubium Toxosphinctes (which ivever to my knowledge
has been used in print since it was first published in 1923) and to prevent the
confusion and incovenience which an unnecessary change of this kind would
involve, I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to
use its plenary powers to stabilise the generic nomenclature of this group
and, having done so, to place the name Arisphincles on the Official List. The
specific proposals which I therefore submit are tliat the Commission should : —

(1) use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Toxosphinctes
Buckman, 1923, for the purposes of the Law^ of Priority, but not
for those of the Law of Homonymy ;

(2) place the generic name Arisphinctes Buckman, 1924 (tyj^e species,
by original designation : Arisphinctes ariprepes Buckman, 1924)
(gender of generic name : masculine) on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology ;

\ (3) place the trivial naine cotovui Simionescu, 1907 (as published in the

binominal combination Perisphincles cotovui) on the Official List of
Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ;

(4) place the generic name Toxosphinctes Buckman, 1923 (as proposed,
under (1) above, to be suppressed under the plenary powers) on the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

216 BuUetin of Zoological Nomenclature

References :

Arkell, W. J., 1935-1948. A Monograph on the Amvtonite-i of the English
Corallian Beds (Palaeontograph. Soc).

Buckman, S., 1919-1930. Tyj)e Ammonites, vols. 3-7 (Thame).

Simiouescu, I., 1907. Studii geologice si pal. din Dobrogea, 1, Fauua cefalo-
podelor jurasioe dela Harsova (Dobrogea). Public. Fond. Adamachi Acad.
Rornana 4 (21) : 151, pi. vii, fig. 1 (lectotype selected by Arkell, 1939,
loc. cit. : 126).

Young, G. and Bird, J , 1822. A Geological Survey of the Yorkshire Coast,
Ist Edition. (Whitby).

Jhillfliii of Zoological Nometiclnture 217

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DE-
SIGNATE THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS " ARNIO-
CERAS" HYATT, 1867 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER
AMMONOIDEA)

By W. J. ARKELL. M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S.
(Sedffirick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)509)

1. Tlic present application for the use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers to designate, as the type species
of the genus Arxioceras Hyatt, 18()7 {Bull. Mus. camp. Zool. 1 : 73) (Class
Cephalopoda, Order Aninionoidea), a species, other than tliat which would be
the type species under the Regies, is submitted under the procedure prescribed
by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see
1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 158-159) as that to be followed in the case of
genera based upon misidentified type species.

2. The facts in this case are as follows : The generic name Arnioceras was
first published by Hyatt in 1867, and has been in constant use ever since.
No type species was designated or indicated at the time of publication ; seven
nominal species were cited as belonging to the genus so named. These species
were : (1) Arnioceras cuneifornie Hyatt (a specie.s then named — on page 73 —
for the first time) ; (2) Arnioceras incipiens Hyatt (also then a new nominal
species but which later Hyatt (1889 : 170) identified with the earlier nominal
species Ammonites falcaries Quenstedt, 1858 : 70) ; (3) Arnioceras semicostatum.
(Young & Bird, 1828 : 257, 259) ; (4) Arnioceras kridiforme Hyatt (a new-
nominal species* based upon the species identified by d'Orbigny in 1844 as
Ammonites kridion Hehl in Zieten [1830]) ; (5) Arnioceras tardecrescens (Hauer,
1856 : 20) ; (6) Arnioceras ceratitoides (Quenstedt, 1847 : 239) ; (7) Arnioceras
falcaries (Quenstedt, 1858 : 70). In accordance with his normal practice,
Hyatt attributed all but one of these names to himself, because he placed the
species concerned in a genus different from that in which they had originally
l)een described. The one exception made by Hyatt was in regard to the sixth
of the nominal species referred by him to this genus ; this species he cited as
" A. ceratitoides L. Agassiz." The probable explanation is provided by Hyatt's
statement (1867 : 71) that Agassiz had selected five genera which Hyatt
" referred to his authority," and that Agassiz was responsible for suggesting
the work to Hyatt and for proposing to classify the ammonites dealt with into
families and genera, Presiunably ceratitoides was a specific trivial name also
suggested by Agassiz. It had not however been published by Agassiz at the
time that Hyatt's paper appeared.

3. The first author to select a type .species for the genus Arnioceras was
Buckman (S.), who in 1911 (1 : vi) wrote : " The type [species] is definitely
indicated by the generic name and by the species credited to Agassiz Arnioceras
(•i^i'cto'?. a ram) indicates a type with trivial name ceras or similar." Buckman

218 BuUetin of Zoohfjical Nomcnclahire

(hew jittfiitioii also to tlio fact tliat in 188!l (: 1(59) Hyatt identified Aniwomte^
crras Giobel iSr Haiicr, with Ai)ii)io)illes crras Agassi/-. " On this evidence,"
Hucknian thoujiht it desirabk^ to select Am. (vm.s- as figured by Hyatt in 1889
(Geu. Ariel. : pi. ii, fig. 20) as the type species of Arnioceras Hyatt. ; Buckman
Avrote : " Result : Genus Arnioceras Agassiz-Hyatt, 1867. Type A. cerati-
toides Agassiz, of which A. ceras Agassiz (Hyatt, Gen. Arietidae, ii, 20) is
genolectotype." It should be noted that in 1867 (: 74) Hyatt had placed
A. ceras Giebel, 1852 (: 757) in the synonymy of '' Arnioceras ceratitoi<fes
Aga.ssiz."

4. The first name placed by Hyatt (1867 : 74) in the synonymy of '" A.
ceraliloides Agassiz " was Ammonites ceratitoides Quenstedt, 1847 (: 239, pi.
xix, fig. 13 — not fig. 3, as erroneously stated by Hyatt). Quenstedt's publica-
tion of this name in 1847 was the first occasion on which it was used for this
ammonite species. Thus, under the decision of the Paris (1948) Congress
defining the species which are to be regarded as having been originally included
in any given genus (1950, Bull. zool. NomencL 4 : 179-180. Buckman's action
in 1911 constitutes a valid selection of Ammonites ceratitoides Quenstedt,
1847, as the type species of Arnioceras Hyatt, 1867.

5. Ammonites ceratitoides Quenstedt, the type specimen of which is lost
(Jaworski. 1931 : 117), is a Triassic ammonite, entirely different morphologically
and in age froni the Liassic group for which the generic name Arnioceras
Hyatt has always been used. To transfer the name Arnioceras to Quenstedt's
species would produce chaotic confusion.

6. Ammonites ceras Aga.ssiz, as identified by Hyatt in 1889 (: 169, pi. ii, fig.
20), which is the species which Buckman intended to make the " genolectotype "
of Arnioceras Hyatt, was merely Hyatt's attempted interpretation of Am-
monites ceras Giebel, 1852 (: 757), a species, the identity of which is uncertain.
It is possible that, if his type specimens Avere to be found and re-.studied,
the species identified by Hyatt w4th Ammonites ceras Giebel might be found
to be different and might need to be given a new- name. In any case, under the
decision of the Paris Congress to which reference has already been made, it
would not have been possible to accept, as the tyjje species of Arnioceras,
Hyatt's interpretation of A. ceras Giebel, for. even if it had l)een permissible
under the Regies to treat " A. ceras " as the type species of this genus, the
species concerned would have to be the true Ammonites ceras of Giebel. which
(as already explained) is an unknown quantity.

7. The genus Arnioceras Hyatt is thus a genus based upon a misidentified
type species and in consecjuence the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature is bound b}'^ the instructions given to it by the Congress to iise
its plenary powers to designate as the ty]>e species of this genus either (a) the
species intended In' the original author when citing the name of the erroneously
determined species, or (b). if the identity of that species is doubtful, a species
in harmony with current nomenclatorial usage, except where (as is not the
case in the present instance) such action would itself lead to confusion. We
liave seen that the identity of the species which Buckman intended to refer to,

Btilletin of Zoological Nomendatiire 219

wlifii solt'rtinjj; the ( y|M' spccios of Aririnreras Hyatt is doubtful ; acconUngly,
undor tho forepoiug tlocisiou. it is necossary under the plenary powers to
select, as the type species of tiiis genus, a species in harmony with current
practice. It is not necessary for this purpose that the species to be so selected
should be one of the species originally included in the genus, though it is clearly
preferable that, if practicable, such a species should be selected.

8. I have accordingly examined from the foregoing point of view each of
the seven nominal species originally included by Hyatt in the genus Arnioceras.
This examination indicates that Arnioceras cuneiforme Hyatt, 1867, is nearest
to the figure that has hitherto been regarded as representing the type species of
this genus, and is the freest from objections of various kinds. I accordinglv
recommend that it should now be designated as the tvpe species of Arniococeras
Hyatt.

9. The proposal whicli I now submit is therefore that the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should : —

(1) under the procedure prescribed by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology for determining the type species of a genus
based ujjon a misidentified type species, use its plenary powers (a)
to set aside all selections of type species for the genus Arnioceras
Hyatt. 1867, made prior to the proposed decision, and (b), having
done so, to designate Arnioceras cuneifonne Hyatt, 1867, to be the
type species of the foregoing genus ;

(2) place the generic name Arnioceras Hyatt, 1867 (type species, as
proposed in (1) above to be designated under the plenary powers :
Arnioceras cuneiforme Hyatt, 1867) (gender of generic name : neuter)
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :

(?)) place the trivial name cuneiforme Hyatt, 1867 (as published in the
binominal combination Arnioceras cuneiforme) on the Official List
of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology.

References :

Buckman, S. S., 1911. " Yorkshire Type Ammonites," 1.

Giebel, C. G., 1852. "' Fauna der Vorwelt." (Leipzig).

Hyatt, A., 1867. " Fossil Cephalopods in th« Museum of Comparative Zoo-
logy." Bull. Mils. comp. Zool. 1 (No. 5) : 71-74.

1889. " Genesis of the Arietidae." Smithson. Puhl. 673 (Washington).

Jaworski, E., 1931. " Ueber Arnioceras geometricum Oppel, 1856 und ver-

wandte Spezies ; nebst einen Auhang liber Ammonites natrix v. Schlotheim.

1820.'" Neues Jahrb. Min. Geol. Pal. 65B (Beil.-Bd.) : 84.

Oppel A. 1856-1858. " Die Juraformation " (Stuttgart) (repaged reprint
from Wiirttemb. naturw. Jahreshefte).

d'Orbigny A. 1842-1851. " Pal6ontologie franyaise, Terr, jurass., Mollusques "
(Paris).

Spath, L. F.. 1924. " The ammonites of the Blue Lias." Proe. geol. Assoc,
35 : 186.

220 Bulletin of Zanlogical Nonwiiclatnrc

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DE-
SIGNATE THE TYPE SPECIES OF " LIPAROCERAS "
HYATT, 1867, A GENUS BASED UPON A MISIDENTIFIED
TYPE SPECIES (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AM-
MONOIDEA) (JURASSIC)

By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S.
{Sedgmch Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)507)

1 . The present application for the use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers to designate, as the type species
of Lijxtroceras Hyatt, 1867 (Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. 1 (No. 5) : 83), a species,
other than that which would be type species under the Regies, is submitted
under the procedure prescribed by the Thirteentli International Congress of
Zoology, Paris. July. 1948 (see 1950. Bull. zool. Notnencl. 4 : 158-159) as
that to be followed in the case of genera based upon misidentified type species.
The facts of the case are as set forth below.

2. Hyatt (1867 : 83. 84) established the genus Liparoceras, in which he
placed three nominal s])ecies, but for which he did not designate or indicate
a type species.

3. One of the originally included .species was cited as '" Liparoceras Jienlegi
Hyatt," in the synonymy of which Hyatt cited the following synonyms : —

Ammonites henleyi Sowerby.
Nautilus striatus Reinecke.
Ammonites striatus Zieten.
Ammonites henleyi Bronn.

4. Buckman (1911 : iii ) selected as the type species of Liparoceras Hyatt
what he referred to as " Ammonites henleyi Hyatt, pars — A. striatus Bronn,
1838, pi. xxiii. fig. 7."' Buckman explained that what Bronn, copying Zieten
(1830) : pi. V. fig. 6), called ''' A. striatus " was the .same species as that cited
by Hyatt as " Ammonites henleyi Bronn."' In his later editions, Bronn (1851,
ed. 3 : 373) referred figure 7 on his plate xxiii to Amtnonites henleyi Sowerby.

5. Spath (1938 : 43) accepted Buckman's type selection for Liparoceras.
He pointed out however, that the species so selected was still without a valid
name. There is no such specific name as Ammonites striatus Bronn, 1838,
or Ammonites striatus Zieten. 1830. both those authors having misidentified
Nautilus striatus Reinecke, 1818 (which, in any case, is an invalid junior
homonym of Nautilus striatus Sowerby (J.), 1817). Similarly, there is no
such specific name as Ammonites henUyi Hyatt, 1867, Hyatt's use of the trivial
name henleyi being based upon a misidentification of Ammonites henleyi
Sowerby (J.), 1817. Spath accordingly published the name Liparoceras
hronni, basing this nominal species upon a holotype which he selected from
the British Museum collection. As Spath did not base Liparoceras hronni
upon Bronn's figure of his " Ammonites striatus " — a course which would have

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 221

made Lijxiroceras bronni Spath ol)joctively identical witli tlie species figured
l)y Bronii.— the trivial name ^/o/;;;/ Spath is only subjectively applicable to
Hyatt's sjjeeies. There is however no doubt as to the identity of the species
to which Spath's trivial name bronni is applicable ; that name is therefore the
oldest available name for the species which Hyatt included in the genus
lAparorcras under the misidentified name henkiji and which Buckman later
sclectetl as the type species of Liparoceras.

6. This is a clear case of a nominal genus based u])on a misidentified type
species, where the misidentification has been recognised Ijy specialists and
u'here the acceptance as the type sjiecies (of Liparoceras) of the species to
which the name {Nautilus siriatus Reinecke) cited by the author of the genus
(Hyatt) correctly applies would lead to an undesirable change in current
noinenclatorial practice. Accordingly. I ask the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature : —

(1) under the procedure prescribed by the Thirteenth International

Congress of Zoology for determining the type species of a genus
based upon a misidentified type species, to use its plenary powers
(a) to set aside all selections of type species for the genus Lijxtro-
ceras Hyatt, 1867, made prior to the proposed decision, and (b),
having done so, to designate Liparoceras bronni Spath, 1838, to be
the tyjje species of the foregoing genus ;

(2) to place the generic name Liparoceras Hyatt. 1867 (type species, as

proposed in (1) above to be designated under the plenarv powers :
Liparoceras bronni Spath. 19.38) on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology (gender of generic name : neuter) ;

(3) to place the trivial name bronni Spath, 1938 (as jniblished in the

I)inominal combination Liparoceras bronni) on the Official List
of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology.

References :

Bronn, H. G., 1834-38. LetJiea Geognostica. Stuttgart,
, 1851, ibicl (ed. 3).

Buckman, S. S., 1911. Yorkshire Type Ammonites, 1.

Hyatt, A. . 1867. " Fossil Cephalopods in the Museum of Comparative Zoology."
Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. 1 (No. 5) : 83. ^

Reinecke, J. C. M., 1818. Maris protogaei Nautilos et Argonautas . . .
descripsit . . . J. C. M. Reinecke.

Sowerby, J., 1817. Mineral Conchology, 2:161 (Ammonites henleyi), 183
(Nautilus striatus).

222 Bulletin of Zoological S oincuclalurc

8|)atli, L. F., 1938. " Catalogue of the Ammonites of the Liassicfmnibj Liparo-
ceratidae. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Londou.

Zicten, C H. von. 1830, Die Vcmteincivvgev Wiiittimbcrga : pi. a*, fig. 6.

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DE-
SIGNATE THE TYPE SPECIES OF " NORMANNITES "
MUNIER-CHALMAS, 1892, A GENUS BASED UPON A
MISIDENTIFIED TYPE SPECIES (CLASS CEPHALOPODA,
ORDER AMMONOIDEA) (JURASSIC)

By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S.

{Sedgwick Museum. Cambridge Universitij, Cambridge)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)508)

1. The present application for the use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers to designate, as the tj-pe species
of Normannites Munier-Chalmas, 1892 (Bull. Soc. geol. France (3) 20 C. R. :
clxxii) (Class Cephalopoda. Order Ammonoidea). a species, other than that
which would be the type species under the Regies, is submitted under the
procedure prescribed bv the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology,
Paris, July 1948 [see 1950, Bxdl. zool Nomencl. 4 : 158-159) as that to be followed
in the case of genera based upon misidentified type species.

2. The facts of this case are simple. Munier-Chalmas, when first publish-
ing the generic name Normannites, stated that the type species of this genus
was Ammonites braikenridgei d'Orbigny. The species so referred to is that
figured by d'Orbigny in 1846 ( : 400, pi. 135, figs. 3, 4).

3. The difficulty in this case arises from the fact that d'Orbigny never
published the name Ammonites braikenridgei as a new name, his use of that
binominal combination being due to his ha\ing misidentified the species which
he figured on his })lato 135 (figs. 3. 4) with the ])roviously described species
Ammonites braikenridgei Sowerby, 1817 (Min. Conch. 2 : 187). The genus
Normannites Munier-Chalmas is thus a genus based iipon a misidentified
type species, that type species having been designated by the original author
at the time of the first publication of the generic name.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature '22'.)

4. Subsequent autliors have followed Muuier-Chalinas in treating the
species figured by d'Orbigny {i.e., the species misidentified by d'Orbigny as
Ammonites braikenridgei Sowerby) as the type species of Nonnannites and
not the true Amntonites braikenridgei. The species figured by d'Orbigny
remained without a name until Buckman, in 1927. gave it the name Norman-
nites orbignyi.

5. It is important from the point of view of securing stability in nomen-
clature that current nomenclatorial practice in this matter should be given a
firm legal foundation. I accordingly submit the present application under
the procedure prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology for adop-
tion in cases such as the present. The application now submitted is that the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should :

(1) under the procetlure prescribed by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology for determining the type species of a genus
based ujjon a misidentified type species, use its plenary powers
(«) to set aside all selections of type species for the genus Norman-
nites Munier-Chalmas, 1892, made prior to the proposed decision,
and (b), having done so. to designate Normannites orbignyi Buckman,
1927, to be the type species of the foregoing genus ;

(2) place the generic name Normannites Munier-Chalmas, 1892, (type
.species, as proposed in (1) above to be designated imder the plenary
powers : Normannites orbignyi Buckman, 1927) (gender of generic
name : masculine) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ;

(3) place the trivial name orbignyi Buckman, 1927 (as published in the
binominal combination Normannites orbignyi) on the Official List of
Specific Trivial Names in Zoology.

References :

Buckman, S. S., 1927. Type Ammonites 7 : pi. dccxxxiv.

Orbigny, A. C.d',' 1846. PaLfran<;., Terr, jurass. : 400, pi. 135, figs. 3, 4.

Munier-Chalmas, E. C. P. A., 1892. " Sui- la possibilite d'admettre un
dimorphi.sme sexuel cliez les Ammonitides." Bull. Soc. geol. France (3)
20 C. K. : clxxii.

Sowerby, J., 1817. Mineral Conchology 2 : 187.

224 BuUetin of Zoologiml Aouieiiclalure

PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE "OFFICIAL LIST OF
GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY" OF THE NAMES OF
TWENTY-ONE GENERA OF JURASSIC AMMONITES
(CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA) AND
MATTERS INCIDENTAL THERETO

By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S.
(Sedgwick Mitseum, Cambridge University, Cambridge)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)477)

1 . I subuiit herewith to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature a list of the names of twenty-one genera of Jurassic ammonites which
I recommend shoxild be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
Each of these names is an available name in the sense that it is not a homonym
of any generic name previously published as the valid name of a genus in the
Animal Kmgdom. The species cited in the list now submitted as the type
species of each of the genera m question is believed to have been correctly
so determined in accordance with the jirovisions of Article 30 of the Regies,
being the type species cither by original designation (Rule (a)), or by monotypy
(Rule (c) ), or by subsequent selection (Rule (y) ).

2. The twenty-one names now submitted have been selected because in
the past there have been differences of opinion among specialists in regard
either to the species which should be accepted as the type species of the genera
concerned or to other questions relating to these names. In view of these
inconsistencies in the literature, it is very desirable that the use of these names
in the sense required by the Regies should be stabihsed as soon as possible by
these names being placed upon the Official List with theii- correct type species.
The nature of the inconsistencies referred to above and the grounds on which
it is considered that the solutions now recommended for recognition in the
Official List are in strict accordance with the provisions of the Regies, is explained
(so far as is necessary) in the series of notes given in the Appendix to the present
application.

3. In seven cases, points calling for some special action arise. These
cases are set out below : —

(1) Cadoceras Fischer, 1882 : As explained in the Appendix, no valid
type selection has ever been made for this genus. I accordingly
now select, as its type species. Ammonites sublaevis Sowerby (J.),
1814 {=Cadoceras sublaeve (Sowerby, 1814) ).

(2) Garantiana Mascke, 1907 : Prior to the valid publication of this
name by Mascke in 1907, it had been published as a nomen mulum
by Hyatt in 1900 [in Eastman's Zittel, Texth. Paleont. 1 : 583). This
invalid earlier use of the name Garantiana appears in Neave's Namen-
clator Zoologicus (2 : 440), where its invalid status is correctly noted ;
unfortunately, howe^•er, j\Iascke's valid use of this name is not noted
m that work. It is desirable, therefore, that, in order to obviate

BuUelin of Zonlogiad Nowenchture 225

llio risk of future misunderstandings, the nomenclatorially non-
existent name (/(tnnitiavd Hyatt, 1900, sliould now he finally dis-
posed of by heinj,' |)laeed on the Official I lulex of licjcclrd and Invalid
(Icnrnc Names in Zoolof/i/. At the same time the uncalled-for
emendation (laranlia Hollier, 1900 (Arc/i. ,Sci. phys. md. Geneve
(4) 28 : ')13, 015) should also he placed on the Official Index. The
type species of the genus Garantiana Mascke has been used as a
zonal index fossil and is therefore of special importance in stratigraphy.

(3) Lamberticeras Buckman (S.), 1920 : The name Laniberticeras was
first published as a nomen nicdum by Kilian in 1910 [Lethaea geognos-
tica.Z (No. 1) (Lief. 2) : 194). Possessing no status in zoological
nomenclature, the name Lamberticeras Kilian, 1910, does not in-
validate the later name Lamberticeras Buckman, 1920. On erroneous
information that the opposite was the case Buckman (1920, Type
Ammonites 3 : 17) renamed his genus Bourkelamberticeras . Both
the nomen nudum Lamberticeras Kilian, 1910, and the junior oljjective
synonym Bourkelamberticeras Buckman (S.), 1920, should now be
relegated to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Nam,es in
Zoology.

(4) Oecotraustes Waagen, 1869 : When Waagen first published this name,
he used two different spellings, namely Oecotraustes and Oelcotraustes.
Most subsequent authors have adopted the first of these spellings,
which is clearly the more correct. In order to promote uniformity
in nomenclatorial practice, it is desirable that the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should rule in favour of
this spelling, at the same time placing the spelling Oekotraustes on
the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

(5) Pleuroceras Hyatt (A.), 1867 : In the mistaken belief that this
name was unavailable by reason of generic homonymy, Buckman (S.),
in 1898 {Quart. J. geol. Soc. 54 : 453) replaced it by the name Palto-
pleuroceras, which is therefore an invalid objective synonym. This
error was pointed out by Jaworski, 1931 {Neues Jahrb. fur. Min.
Beil.-Ba)id 65 : 86). The name Paltopleuroceras has been widely
used but not to an extent which would, in my view, justify asking
the International Commission to validate it under its plenary powers.
When the name Pleuroceras Buckman is placed on the Official List,
the name Paltopleuroceras should therefore be placed on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. The type
species of the nominal genus Pleuroceras Buckman has been used
as a zonal index fos.sil and is therefore of special importance in
stratigraphy.

(6) Quenstedtoceras Hyatt, 1877 : When this name was first published,
it appeared in the .spelling " Quenstedioceras.'' The name of the
geologist after whom this genus was named was however, Quenstedt.
It is evident, therefore, that the original spelling (quoted above) was
due to a printers' error or to a slip of the pen on the part of Hyatt
)u 1877, The original error was first detected by Pompeckj in 1899

226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(Cape Flora : 96) ; in the following j'ear it was silently corrected
to " Qucnstedtoceras '' liy Hyatt himself (1900, in Eastman's Zittel,
Textb. Palcont, 1 : 580). Since then the corrected speUing has been
generally used in the Enghsh-speaking countries (See Arkcll, 1939
{Quart. J. Geol. Soc. 95 : 151). In Continental literature, a third
spelling, '■ Quenstedliceras " is generally used, this having been first
introduced by Teisseyre in 1889 [Neues Jakrh. fur Min. Beil.-Band
6 : 148). This was however an unwarranted emendation of Hyatt's
name, the termination " -oceras ", which is open to no obJ6ction,
having always been used for this name. The error represented by
the original spelling clearly falls within the classes of error specified
in Article 19 of the Regies, and it is accordingly recommended that the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, vv^hen placing
this generic name on the Official List, should expressly emend the
spelling to Quenstedtoceras. It would be desirable that at the same
time the erroneous spelling Quenstedioceras and also the erroneous
spelling Quenstedticeras should be placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

(7) StepMnoceras Waagen, 1869 : Buckman (S.) in 1898 {Quart. J. geol.
Soc. 54 : 454) changed this name to Stepheoceras. On the mistaken
assumption that it was invalidated by Stephanoceros Ehrenberg,
1832 {Abh. preuss. Akad. Wiss. 1831 : 125) (Rotifera) and, as the
more recent of the two names, was accordingly invalid. Both the
name Stephanoceras Waagen and its invalid substitute Stepheoceras
Buckman are often misused in Continental literature. See Spath, 1944
(Geol. Mag. 81 : 230). The name Stepheoceras Buckman, 1898,
being an invalid junior objective synonym oi Stephanoceras Waagen,
1869, should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Generic Names ifi Zoology at the same time that Waagen's Stephano-
ceras is placed on the Official List. The type species of the genus
Stephanoceras Waagen has been used as a zonal index fossil and is
therefore of special importance in stratigraphy.

4. The following is the list of generic names which it is recommended
should now be place'd on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : —

Names recommended for addition to the " Official List of Generic

Names in Zoology "

Agassiceras Hyatt, 1875, Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist. 17 : 225 (type species,
"by selection by Buckman (S.) 1894 {Geol. Mag. (4) 1 : 361) : Ammonites
scipionianus d'Orbigny, 1844, Pal. frangaise, Terr, juiass. : 207, pi. 51,
figs. 7, 8) (gender of generic name : neuter).

Angulaticeras Quenstedt, 1883, Ammoniten schwcib. Jura : 26 (type species,
by selection by Lange, 1924 {Jahrb. preu,ss. geol. Landesanst. 44 : 176) :
Ammonites lacunatus Buckman (J.). 1844 {Geol, CheUenham: 105) (gender
of generic name ; neuter).

i

Bulletin of Zoological Notnenclature 227

Asteroceras Hyatt, 1866, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. 3 : 79, 80 (type species,
by solcction by Bucknian (S.), 1911 (Type Atmnonites 1 : v) : Ammonites
slellnn's 8o\vori>y (J.), 1815, Min. Conch. 1 : 211, pi. 93) (gender of generic
name : jioutiM-).

Bigotites Nicolcsco, 1918, ('. R. Soninmire Hoc. geol. France (4) 18 : 36 (type
species, l)y selection by Nicolesco. 1931 (Mem. Soc. geol. France 17: 23) :
Bigotella petri Nicolesco, 1917, Bull. Soc. geol. France (4) 16 : 167, pi. 4,
figs. 4, 5) (gender of generic name : masculine).

Cadoceras Fischer, 1882, Manuel Conchyl. : 394 (type species by selection
by Arkell in the present application : Ammonites sublaevis Sowerby (J.),
1814, Min. Conch. 1 : 117, pi. 54) (gender of generic name : neiiter).

Cadomites Munier-Chalmas, 1892, Bull. Soc. geol. Francs (3) 20 C. R.: clxx
(type species, by original designation : Amtnonites deslonqchmnpd (Defrance
MS) d'Orbigny, 1846, Pal. fran<;aise, Terr, jurass. : 405^ pi. 138. figs. 1, 2)
(gender of generic name : masculine).

Coroniceras Hyatt, 1867, B%iU. Mus. comp. Zool.Z : 77 (type species, by selec-
tion liy Bonarelli, 1900 {Pal. ital. 5 : 58) : Ammonites kridion Hehl in Zieten
[1830], Verstein, Wnrttemh. (1) : 4, pi. 3, fig. 2) (gender of generic name
neuter).

Echioceras Bayle, 1878, Explic. Carte geol. France A : explic. pi. 77, figs. 2, 3
(type species, by monotypy : Ammonites raricoslatus Zieten, [1831], Verstein.
Wnrttemh. (3) : 18, pi. 13, fig. 4) (gender of generic name : neuter).

Garantiana Mascke, 1907, Die Stephanoceras-Verwandt. Coronatensch. Nord-
deutschl. 24, 34 : type species, by original designation : Ammonites garan-
tianus d'Orbigny, 1846, Pal. frangaise, Terr, jurass. : 377, pi. 123 (gender
of generic name : feminine).

Lamberticeras Buckman (S.), 1920, Type Ammonites 3 : 14, pi. 154 (type
species, by original designation : Ammonites lamherti Sowerby (J.), 1819,
Min. Conch. 3 : 73, pi. 242, figs. 1-3) (gender of generic name : neuter).

Ludwigella Buckman (S.), 1901, Proc. CotteswoU Nat. Field Club 13 : 266
(type species, by monotypy : Ammonites concavus Sowerby (J.), 1815,
31in. Conch. 1 : 214, pi. 94 (holotype refigured by Buckman (S.), 1887,
Mon. Inf.-Ool. Ammonites : pi. 2, figs. 6, 7) ) (gender of generic name :
feminine).

Oecotraustes Waagen, 1869, in Benecke's Geognost.-Pal. Beitrdge 2 : 251
(type species, by selection by Munier-Chalmas, 1892 {Bull. Soc. geol. France
(3) 20 C. K. : clxxi) : Oecotraustes genicidaris Waagen, 1869, in Benecke's
Geognost.-Pal . Beitrdge 2 : 227, pi. 20 figs. 4a-c) (gender of generic name :
masculine).

Oppelia Waagen, 1869, in Benecke's Geognost.-Pal. Beitrdge 2 : 200 (type
species, by selection by Douville (H.), 1884 {Bull. Soc. geol. France (3)
13 : 32) : Ammonites subradiaius Sowerby (J. de C), 1823, Min, Conch,
$ : 23, pi. 421, fig. 2) (gender of generic name : feminine), '

228 Hulletiv of Zoological Nomenclature

Phlyseogrammoceras Buckman (S.), 1901, Proc. Cottestoold Nat. Field Clnh
13 : 266 (tyjio sppciea, by inon()ty])y : Amnionifcs dixpansiis Ijvcott, 1860,
Proc. Cotteswohi Nat. Field (Huh 2 : 146 (holotype rofigurpd by Buckman (S.),
J^)22, Ti/pr Ammonites 4 : pi. 340) ) (gciulor of {^'oncric name : niMitor). .

Pleuroceras Hyatt. 1867, Bidl. Mus. cotnp. Zool. 3 : 89 (type species, by
selection by Fischer, 1882 {Manuel Conchyl. : 388) : Ammonites spinatus
Bruguiere, 1789, Ency. meth. (Vers) : 40) (gender of generic name : neuter).

Pseudogrammoceras Buckman (S.), 1901, Proc. Cotteswold Nat. Field Club
1 3 : 266 (type species, by monotypy : Ammonites struckmanni Denckmann,
1887, Fauna Doernten, Abh. geol. Specialkarte Preussen 8 : 72, pi. iii. fig.l)
(gender of generic name : neuter).

Pseudoperisphinctes Schindewolf, 1923, Centralbl Min. 23 : 346 (type
species, by monotypy : Perisphinctes rotundatus Roemer (J.), 1911, Fauiui
Aspidoides-SchicJiten Lechstedt, Inaug.-Dissert. Gottingen : 44, pi. 8, fig. 2,
as defined by the selection of a lectotj'pe by Arkell, 1950 {J. Palaeont.
24 : 363) ) (gender of generic name : masculine).

Psiloceras, Hyatt, 1867, Bidl. Mus. comp. Zool. 3 : 72 (type species, by
selection by Spath, 1924 {Proc. qeol. Assoc. 35 : 191) : Ammonites planorbis
Sowerby (J. de C), 1824, Min. Conch. 5 : 69. pi. 448. fig. 1) (gender of
generic name : neuter).

Quenstedtoceras (emend, of Quenstedioceras) Hyatt, 1877, Proc. Boston not.
Hist. Soc. 18 : 391 (type species, by monotypy : Ammonites leachi Sowerby
(J), 1819, Min. Conch 3 : 73, pi. 242, fig. 4) (gender of generic name : neuter).

Sigaloceras Hyatt, 1900, in Eastman's Zittel, Textb. Pal. 1 : 587 (type species,
by original designation : Ammonites calloviensis Sowerby (J.), 1815, Min.
Conch. 2 : 3, pi. 104) (gender of generic name : neuter).

Stephanoceras Waagen, 1869, in Benecke's Geognost.-Pal. Beitrage 2 : 248
type species, by selection by Buckman (S.), 1898 {Qtiart. J. geol. Soc. 54 :
454) : Ammonites humphriesianus Sowerby (J. de C), 1825, Min. Conch.
5 : 161. pi. 500. fig. 1) (gender of generic name : neuter).

5. The trivial names of the type species of the genera specified in the
preceding paragraph are all valid names, and each is the oldest available name
for the species concerned. It is recommended that these trivial names, as
listed below, should now be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names
in Zoology : —

Names recommended for addition to the " Official List of Specific
Trivial Names in Zoology "

calloviensis Sowerby (J), 1815, Min. Conch. 2 : 3, pi. 104 (as published in
the binominal combination Ammonites calJoriensis).

poncavus Sowerby (J.), 1915, Min. Conch. 1 : 214, pi. 94 (as published in
the binominal combination Ammonites concavus).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomendature 229

deslongschampsi (Defiance MS). d'Orbigny, 1846, Pal. frangaise, Terr,
jurass. : 405, pi. 138, figs. 1, 2 (as published in the binominal combination
A mmonites deslongsc/mmpsi ) .

dispansus Lyeett, 1860, Proc. (Jollcswold Nat. Field Cluhl: 146 (as published
in the binominal combination Ammoniles dispansus).

garantianus d'Orbigny, 1846, Pal. Jram^aise, Terr, jurass. : '.Ml, pi. 12:5 (as
|)ublished in the binominal combination Ammonites yurantianus).

genicularis VVaagen, 1869, in Benecke's Geognost.-Pal. Beitrdge 2 : 227,
pi. 20, figs. 4a-c (as 'published in the binominal combination Oecotraustes
genicularis).

humphriesianus Howerby (J. deC), 1825, Min. Conch. 5 : 161, pi. 500, fig. 1
(as published in the binominal combination Amvtonilcs humphriesianus).

kridion Hehl in Zieten, [1830J, Verstein. Wurrtemb. [l) : 4, pi. 3, fig. 2 (as
published in the binominal combination Ammonites kridion).

lacunatus Buckman (J.), 1844, Geol. Cheltenham : 105 (as published in the
binominal combination Ammonites lacunatus).

lamberti Sowerby (J.), 1819, Min. Conch. 3 : 73, pi. 242, figs. 1-3 (as published
in the binominal combination Ammonites lamberti).

leachi Sowerby (J.), 1819, 31in. Conch. 3 : 73, pi. 242, fig. 4 (as published
in the binominal combination Ammonites leachi).

petri Nicolesco, 1917, Bull. Soc. geol. France (4) 16 : 167, pi. 4, figs. 4, 5 (as
published in the binominal combination Bigotella petri)

planorbis Sowerby (J. de C), 1824, Min. Conch. 5 : 69, pi. 448, fig. 1 (as
published in the binominal combination Ammonites planorbis).

raricostatus Zieten [1831], Verstein. Wurttemb. (3) : 18, pi. 13, fig. 4 (as
published in the binominal combination Ammonites raricostatus).

rotundatus Roemer (J.), 1911, Fauna Aspidoides-Schichten Lechstedt, Inaug.
Dissert. Gottingen : 44, pi. 8, fig. 2 (as pubUshed in the binominal com-
bination Perisphinctes rotundatus).

scipionianus d'Orbigny, 1844, Pal. frangaise, Terr, jurass. : 207, pi. 51, figs.
7, 8 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites scipionianus).

spinatus Bruguiere, 1789, Ency. meth. (Vers) : 40 (as published in the binominal
combination Ammonites spinatus).

stellaris Sowerby (J.), 1815, Min. Conch. 1 : 211, pi. 93 (as published in
the binominal combination Ammonites stellaris).

struckmanni Denckmann, 1887, Fauna Doernten, Abh. geol. Specialkarls
Preussen 8 : 72, pi. 3, fig. 1 (as published in the binominal combination
Ammonites struckmanni).

sublaevis Sowerby (J.), 1814, Min. Conch. 1 : 117, pi. 54 (as published in
the binominal combination Ammonites sublaevis).

230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

subradiatus Sowerby (J. de C), 1823 Min. Conch. 5: 23, pi. 421, fig. 2
(as published ia the binominal combination Ammonites subradiatus.)

6. The recommendations which I therefore now submit to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature are that it should : — '

(1) declare that imder Article 19 : —

(a) the correct spclluig of the generic uaiuc published by Waagen
in 1869 lioth as Oecotraustcs and as Ockotraustes is Oecotraustes ;

(b) the correct spelling of the generic name published by Hyatt
in 1877 as Quensledioceras is Qu^nsteiltoceras ;

(2) place on the Official List of Generic iVames in Zoology the tw^enty-one
generic names specified in paragraph 4 of the present apphcation ;

(3) place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology the
twenty-one trivial names specified in paragraph 5 of the present
application ;

(4) place the under-mentioned names or alleged names on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : —

(a) Bourl-elarnberticeras Buckman (S.), 1920 (an objective junior
synonym of Lamberticeras Buckman (S.), 1920) ;

(6) Garantia RoUier, 1909 (an unjustified emendation of Garantiana
Mascke, 1907);

(c) Garantiana Hyatt, 1900 (a nomen nudum) ;

{d) Lamberticeras Kihan, 1910 (a nomen nudum) ;

(e) Oekotraustes Waagen, 1869 (an erroneous spelling of Oeco-
traustes Waagen, 1869) ;

(/) Paltopleuroceras Buckman (S.), 1898 (an ol)jectivc junior

synonym of Pleuroceras Hyatt, 1867) ;
(g) Quenstedticeras Teisseyre, 1889 (an incorrect emendation of

the defective form, Quenstedioceras, in which the name

Quenstedioceras was originally published) ;

{h) Quenstedioceras Hyatt, 1877 (an erroneous spelling of Quen-
stedtoceras Hyatt, 1877) ;

(i) Stepheoceras Buckman (S.), 1898 (an objective jmiior synonym
of Stephanoceras Waagen, 1869).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 231

APPENDIX

Explanatory notes regarding certain of the generic names proposed
to be added to the " Official List of Generic Names in Zoology "

The sign * prefixed before tlie name of a genus indicates that the type
sj)ecies of that genus has been used as a zonal index fossil and is therefore of
special importance in stratigrai)hy.

* Agansiceras Hyatt, 1875 : Although in 1894 he had selected Ammonites
scipiouia)iu.s d'Orbigny, 1844, as the type species of this genus, Buckman (S.)
later (1909, Type Ammonites 1 : ii) sought to change the type species of this
genus to Ammonites striaries Quenstedt, 1858. See also Buckman, 1924,
op. cit. 5 : 33. Roman (1938, Ammonites jurass. et. cret. : 102) wrongly gave
Ammonites laevigatus )Sowerby (J. de C), 1827, as the type species.

Angulaticeras Quenstedt, 1883 : The only originally included species in
this genus were Ammonites lacunatus Buckman (J.), 1844, and Ammanites
boucaultianus d'Orbigny, 1844. Buckman (S.) in 1906 {Proc. Cotteswold Nat.
Field Chib 15 : 233) selected as t}^ical of this genus " the group of Am.
lacumitus Quenstedt." This cannot be accepted as the selection of a type
species under Rule (g) in Article 30 " rigidly construed." Accordingly, the
fixst valid type-selection for this genus is that cited in the present application,
namely, that by Lange (1924).

* Aster oceras Hyatt, 1866 : As stated in the apphcation, the first type-
selection for this genus was that of Ammonites stellaris Sowerby (J.), 1815, by
Buckman (1911). Roman, 1938 {Ammonites jurass. cret. : 91) was therefore
in error when he stated that Ammonites obtusus Sowerby (J.), 1817, was the
type species.

Bigotites Nicolesco, 1918 : Roman (overlooking the action by Nicolesco in
1931) erroneously stated (1938, Ammonites jurass. cret. : 240) that Bigotella
haugi Nicolesco, 1917, was the type species of this genus.

Cadoceras Fischer, 1882 : Fischer cited as sole species of this genus, the
pre-1758 name Nautilites modiolaris Luidius, 1699 {Litho-phyl. Brit. : 18,
pi. vi, fig. 292), which has conunonly been treated by authors as applying to
the same species as Ammonites sublaevis Sowerby (J.), 1814. The first author
to cite nominal species under the generic name Cadoceras Fischer appears to
have been Nikitin (1884, Cephalopodenfauna der Jurabildiingen des Gouv.
Kostroma : 21), who after stating incorrectly that the generic name Cadoceras
was chosen by Fischer for Am. sublaevis and similar forms of Stephanoceras
described three species as belonging to tliis genus and mentioned several others.
Under the decision taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology,
when incorporating in the Regies a clarified and amended version of the ruling
previously given by the Commission in Opinion 46 (see 1950, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 4 : 159-160, 340), the nominal species cited by Nikitin are alone
eligible for selection as the type species of Cadoceras. Fortunately, as shown
above, Ammonites sublaevis Sowerby, which is commonly regarded as repre-
sentative of Cadoceras (through its identification with the modiolaris of Luidius)
was one of the species cited by Nikitin and is therefore eligible for selection

232 BuUelin of Zoological Nomenclature

as the type species of this genus. Neither Nikitin nor Pompeckj (1899) nor
any subsequent author has, so far as I can ascertain, ev^er selected a type
species for Cadoceras Fischer. Accordingly, in order to regularise existing
practice, I have now (: 224) selected Am»ioniles aublaeiyis Sowerby, 1814 {=Cado-
ceras sttblaeve (Sowerby (J.), 1814)) to be the type species of Cadoceras Fischer,
1882.

C'adomites Munier-Chalmas, 1892 : This generic nanie has been wrongly used
in many French works for the genus, the correct name cjf which is Stephanoceras
AVaagen, 1869 (q.v.). The lectotype of Ammonites dealongchampsi d'Orbigny,
1846 (the type species of this genus) Avas refigured in 1909 {Palaeont. univ.
1909 : pi. 132).

Coroniceras Hyatt, 1867 : As stated in the present appUcation, Bonarelli
in 1900 selected Ammonites kridion Held. 1830, as the type species of this
genus. The later action by Buckman (S.) (1911, Type Ammonites 1 : vi) in
so selectmg Ammonites corouaries Quenstedt, 1858, was therefore invalid.
It has however, led to some misuse of the generic name Coroniceras.

* Echioceras Bayle, 1878 : The type species of this genus is (as stated in
the present application) Ammonites raricostatus Zieten, [1831], by monotypy.
Buckman (S.) (1914, Type AmTnonites 2 : ix) was therefore in error when he
stated that the t}^e species was Echioceras raricostatoides Vadasz, 1908, this
being the name of the sj^ecies erroneously figured by Bayle as Echioceras rare-
costatum [sic] (Zieten). This action by Buckman has led to some confusion in
later works.

* Ludwigella Buckman (S.), 1901 : Although the t}^e species of this genus
is Ammonites concavus Sowerby (J.), 1815. by monotypy, Buckman twice
later attempted invahdly to change the type species (1904, Mon. Inf. Ool.
Amm., Suppl. : Ixxxiv ; 1923, Type Ammonites 4 : 56).

Oppelia Waagen, 1869 : The type species of this genus is (as stated in the
present application) Amtnonites subradiatus Sowerby (J. de C), 1823, by
selection by Douville (H.) in 1884. The later action by Buckman (S.) (1920,
Type Ammonites 3 : 25) in selecting one of Waagen's figured specimens as
" genolectype " was therefore invalid.

* Phlyseogrammoceras Buckman (S.), 1901 : Although (as stated ui the
present appUcation the type species of this genus is Ammonites disjxinsus
Lycett, 1860, Buckman (S.) erroneously attempted (1904, Mon. Inf. Ool. Amm.,
Suppl. : cliv) to change the type species to Ammonites metallarius Dumortier,
1874.

* Pseudogrammoceras Buckman (S.), 1901 : This is another monotypical
genus (type species : Ammonites struckmanni Denckmann, 1887), the type
species of which Buckman later (1904, Mon. Inf. Oul. Amm., Suppl. : cxliii)
attempted incorrec^tly to alter.

* Psevdoperisphinctes Schindewolf, 1923 : This case is similar to that of
Pseudogrammoceras, Schindewolf in 1925 (Neues Jahrb. fur Min. 1925:319)
attempting to alter the type species.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 233

* Pdli^ems Hyatt, 18G7 : Bucknian (S.) (1924, Type Ammonites 5:34)
criticised Spath s action in the same year in selecting Ammmntes planorbis
•Sowerl.y (J. de C), 1824, and erroneously rejected that action, arguing that
Ammomtes psilonotm Quenstedt, 1845, was the type species by virtual tau-
tonyniy.

* Sigaloceras Hyatt, 1900 : This is a case where the original author of the
generic name designated a type species, citing, for this purpose, a specific
name {Ammonites calloviensis) previously published by Sowerby (J ) in 1815
but attributing it to another author (d'Orbigny). The specimens treated by
d Orbigny as belonging to Sowerby's species have not yet been examined
and It IS therefore not known whether they were correctly determined In
any case, authors have treated Sowerby's species as being the type species
ot this genus (thereby conforming to the requirements of Opinions 65 and 168
tlie decisions in which were confirmed by the Thirteenth International Con-
gress of Zoology in Paris in 1948— see Bull zool. Zool. 4 : 158-159) Accord-
ingly, there are in this case no grounds for asking the International Commission
to change the type species.

234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomendalure

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF MAKING THE TRIVIAL NAME " VIRGULA "
DESHAYES, 1831 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMINAL
COMBINATION " GRYPHAEA VIRGULA ") (CLASS PELE-
CYPODA) (JURASSIC) THE OLDEST AVAILABLE NAME
FOR THE SPECIES IN QUESTION

By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S.
{Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)407)

1 . The small sickle-shaped oyster characteristic of the lower part of the
Kiineridge Clay all over England and Europe has been known for about 130
years, in the literature of all languages, as Exogyra virgula (Deshayes { = Crry-
phoea mrgula Deshayes, 1831 (: 90, pi. v, figs. 12, 13)). (The name Ostrea virgula,
as published by Defrance, 1820, was intended to denote the same species,
but the name, as then published, was a nomen nudum.)

2. The " Marnes a Ostrea virgula " have figured in French literature at
least since 1833 (Thirria : 145), and the Virgulaschichten in German literature
at least since 1864 (von Seebach : 56) ; and Thurmann's Virgulian Stage
(1852) has been adopted by many geologists. Exogyra virgula is the only
name used for this species in all geological text-books of all languages.

3. In 1930, Dr. L. R. Cox discovered (Cox, 1930 : 298) that the species
named Exogyra virgula by Deshayes in 1831 had been named and briefly
diagnosed, but not figured, by William Smith fourteen years earlier (1817 : 45)
under the name Chama striata. The description was " Oblong, elongated,
curved, longitudinally striated ; striae irregular ", and two Kimeridgc Clay
localities were given. Two syntypes survive in the William Smith collection
and Cox selected one of those as the lectotype and published a figure of it.
There is also another long rejected trivial name which imfortunately has
priority over the name virgula Deshayes, 1831 ; this is the name angusta
Lamarck, 1819 (: 200) (as published in the binominal combination Gryphaea
angusta).

4. On the advice of the late Dr. F. L. Kitchin, then Chief Palaeontologist
of the Geological Survey, I continued to use the name Exogyra virgula in my
Jurassic System (1933), and on the advice of his successor, ftlr. C. P. Chatwin,
I did the same in the official memoir on the type-area of the Kimeridge Clay
(Arkell, 1947).

5. In view of the geological importance of this fossil and the length of
time during which it has been known by the name Exogyra virgula and the
needless confusion and inconvenience which would arise if that name were
to be discarded in favour of the totally neglected name bestowed upon it by

Bulletin of Zoological Nome)iclature - 235

William Smith, or by the equally neglected name an^usta Lamarck, 1819,
i recommend the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclatmre (1)
to suppress the trivial names striata Smith, 1817 (as published in the binominal
combinatio)! Chanm striata), and angusta Lamarck, 1819 (as published in the
binominal combination Gryphaea angusia), (2) to place the foregoing trivial
names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in
Zoology, and (3) to place the trivial name virgula Deshayes, 1831 (as pubUshed
in the binominal combination Gryphaea virgula) on the Official List of Specific
Trivial Names in Zoology.

References :

Arkell, W. J., 1933. " The Jurassic System in Great Britain."

Arkell, W. J., 1947. " Geology of the country around Weymouth, Swanage,
Corfe and Lulworth ", Mem., geol. Survey.

Cox, L. R., 1930. " On British Fossils named by William Smith ", Aim.
Mag. nat. Hist. (10)6 : 287.

Defrance, M. J. L., 1821. Did. Sci. nat., 22 : 26.

Deshayes, G. P., 1831. Coquilles caract des Terrains.

Lamarck, J. B. P. A. de M. de, 1819. Hist. nat. Anim. s. Vertebr., 6(1) : 200.

Seebach, K. von, 1864. Der Hannoversche Jura.

Smith, W., 1817. St ratigraphical System of Organised Fossils.

Thirria, 1833. Statisque de la Haide Same.

236 Bulletin of Zoolcgiml Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF MAKING THE TRIVIAL NAME " ASPER "
LAMARCK, 1819 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMINAL
COMBINATION " PECTEN ASPER") (CLASS PELEC-
YPODA) THE OLDEST AVAILABLE NAME FOR THE
SPECIES IN QUESTION

By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S.
{Sedgtpick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)408)

1. Pecten asper Lamarck (1819 : 167, 180) is a common and characteristic
fossil of the Upper Greensand all over England and Europe. For 130 years
it has been known by no other name.

2. This name was used as a zonal index by Barrois (1876 : 14), since when
the Zone of Pecten asper has appeared in numerous text-books and in the
official memoirs of the Geological Survey, especially the great stratigraphical
memoir on the Cretaceous rocks (Jukes-Browne, 1900 : 62, etc.) and in Woods'
monograph on the British Cretaceous Lamellibranchia (: 186, pis. xxxv — vi).

3. In 1940, Dr. L. R. Cox discovered (Cox, 1940 : 125) that the species
named Pecten asper by Lamarck in 1819 had been described and figured six
years earlier in an obscure publication by Pulteney (1813 : 107, 108, figs. 4, 5)
as Pecten scaber and Pecten triplicatus. He adopted the former name on account
of page priority, and it appears to be the valid name.

4. Although the fossil Pecten asper has been superseded by an ammonite
as a better zonal index, it is still an important stratigraphical fossil, and it
occupies a place in the history of stratigraphy which makes a change of name
at this late date extremely undesirable as being calculated to cause confusion
in nomenclature without serving any useful purpose.

5. I accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature (1) to use their plenary powers to suppress the trivial names scaber
Pulteney, 1813 (as published in the binominal combination Pecten scaber)
and triplicatus Pulteney, 1813 (as pubUshed in the binominal combination
Pecten triplicatus), (2) to place the foregoing trivial names on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivia} Natnes in Zoology, and (3) to place the
trivial name asper Lamarck, 1819 (as published in the binominal combination
Pecten asper) on the Official List of Specific Trixnal Names in Zoology.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 237

References :

Cox, L. R-. 1940. "Cretaceous moUusca described by R. Pultenev in the

'l^^fZ^.*- '•• '**■ "^"'"^°'" I'"* °f Britain," vol. 1, Afem.
Lamarck, J. P. B., 1819, " Hist. mt. Am„. sa«s Verlibr.", 6(1) ■ 167 180

"^ tn^ifnd "i^;i^:oi,::p",;r^-f -^ '^^ «— '-^'^^-^^ of

238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

ON DR.W. J. ARKELL'S PROPOSAL FOR THE VALIDATION,
UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE TRIVIAL NAMES
" ASPER " LAMARCK, 1819 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE BI-
NOMINAL COMBINATION " PECTEN ASPER") AND
"VIRGULA" DESHAYES, 1831 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE
BINOMINAL COMBINATION " GRYPHAEA VIRGULA ")
(CLASS PELECYPODA)

By L. K. COX, Sc.D., F.R.S.

(Department of Geology, British Museum {Natural History), London)

(Extract from a letter dated 11th September, 1950)

(Commission's references Z.N.(S.)407 (" virgula ") and Z.N.(S.)480

("asper"))

Thank you for your letter of 23rd August referring to the application for
the protection of the names Gryphaea virgula and Pecten asper. Certainly the
two names to which the present appUcations relate are so well known that they
should be among the first to be protected.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 239

ON AN APPLICATION, THE GRANT OF WHICH WOULD
REQUIRE THAT THE NAME " GRYPHAEA " LAMARCK.
1801, SHOULD BE SUPPRESSED, UNDER THE PLENARY
POWERS, THUS VALIDATING THE NAME " GRYPHAEA "
LAMARCK, 1819 (CLASS PELECYPODA)

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
{Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)36S)

1 . Attention is drawn to a request submitted by M. Gilbert Ranson to the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in
Paris in 1948, in which he asked the Commission to give a ruling (1) that the
generic name Gryphaea Lamarck ranks for purposes of zoological nomen-
clature from 1819 not from 1801 (the year in which it was first published) and
(2) that the type species of this genus is Gry]}haea angulata Lamarck, 1819
{Hist. nat. Anim. sans Vertebr. 6(1) : 198). The text of M. Ranson's application
has been pubhshed by the Commission (1950, Bull. zool. Npmencl. 3 : 168-170),
as also has been the Official Record of Proceedings at the Meeting of the Inter-
national Commission at which M. Ranson's appUcation was presented (1950,
Bidl. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 306) and that of the Meeting of the Section on Nomen-
clature of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology held concurrently
with the meeting of the Commission (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 96-98).

2. The late Mr. R. Winckworth pointed out at that meeting that the generic
name Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801 {Syst. Anim. sans Vertebr. : 398) was published
with a diagnosis and therefore that, this name, so pubhshed, satisfies the
reqiiirements of Article 25 of the Regies. On the above occasion Lamarck
cited, imder this generic name, the names of nine nominal species ; several of
those names were at that time nomina nuda, but others were vaUdated by the
citation of bibliographical references. Under the Regies, therefore, these
latter species alone are eligible for selection as the type species of this genus.
One of these nominal species, Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801 {loc. cit. : 398),
was selected as the type species of this genus by Anton in 1839 {Verz. Conchyl.
: 21). This being the first occasion on which any of originally included species
was so selected, the fossil species Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801, is under
the Regies the type species of the genus Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801.

3. M. Ranson has made it clear in his application that he considers it

important that the name Gryphaea Lamarck should be accepted as the generic
name for the recent species Grypliaea angulata Lamarck, 1819 ; this species
was so selected by Children (1823). This type selection, though prior to that
by Anton, is invahd, since at the time when in 1801 the generic name Gryphaea
was first vaUdly published by Lamarck, the name Gryphaea angulata, then
cited by Lamarck, was a mere nomen nudum and accordingly does not rank as
an originally included species and is inehgible for selection by a later author
to be the type species of the genus in question. In presenting this problem to

240 Bulletin of Zoological NoniendcUure

the International Clouimissiou, M. Ranson argued in favour of the acceptance
of the Histoire Naturelle of 1819 in place of the Systeme of 1801 as the work, as
from which the type species of the genus Gryphaea Lamarck should be chosen.
In advancing this view, M. Ranson did not ask that the International Conmiis-
sion should use its plenary powers to secure the end that he had in view but
sought to show that it would be permissible, under the norn\al operation of the
Regies, to disregard the ISysterne of 1801 . As the lat€ Mr. Winckworth has shown .
this would, however, not be possible. Nevertheless, if the majority of interested
specialists were to favour the end sought by M. Ranson, namely the acceptance
of Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819, as the type species of the nominal genus
Gryphaea Lamarck, a solution in that sense could readily be provided by the
International Commission by the use of its plenary powers.

4. The issue which, in eflfect, the International Commission is asked to
decide is : —

(1) whether the normal provisions of the Regies are to be allowed to
operate in the present case, with the result that the generic name
Gryphaea would rank from Lamarck, 1801, and would have, as its
type species, the fossil species, Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801
(by selection by Anton, 1839) ; or

(2) whether the plenary powers should be used to suppress the name
Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, and all uses of that generic name from
1801 to the date in 1819, when it was republished by Lamarck in the
Hist. nat. Anim. saus Vertebr, the name Gryphaea Lamarck, 1819
(so validated) having, as its type species, the recent species Gryphaea
angulata Lamarck, 1819 (by selection by Children, 1823).

5. As the application submitted in this matter by M. Ranson is of direct
concern to palaeontologists as well as to zoologists, the International Com-
mission, before reaching a decision, will be anxious to be fuUy informed of the
wishes of interested specialists in both fossil and recent species of the group
concerned.

6. The object of the present not^ is to draw attention to the problem which
lias been submitted to the International Commission and to invite interested
speciaUsts to be good enough to furnish the Connnission as soon as possible
with their views on that problem and on the best means of solving it. Com-
munications on this subject should be addressed to the Secretary to the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Secretariat of the Com-
mission, 28 Park Village East, Regent's Park, London, N.W.I, England.

(^continued from front wrapper)

Introduaory note on applications submitted to the International Commission Page
on Zoological Nomenclature in regard to the names of certain Jurassic
ajimionites. By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S. {Sedgwick Museum,
Cambridge University, Cambridge) . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name Sphaeroceras
Bayle, 1878 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By
W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S. {Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge
University, Cambridge), with an Appendix on the question whether the
suppression of the name Sphaeroceras Hope, 1840 (Class Insecta, Order
Coleoptera), under the plenary powers would cause any inconvenience to
coleopterists. By C. E. Tottenham {Zoological Museum, Cambridge
University, Cambridge) ,. . . . , . . , . . . . . 164-

Proposed designation, under the plenary powers of the type species of the
genus Procerites Siemiradzki, 1898 (Class Cephalopoda, Order
Ammonoidea) (lurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S. (Sedgwick
Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) ... 167

Proposed designation, under the plenary powers, of the type species of the
genus Macroceplialites Zittel, 18b4, and of the type specimen oi Ammonites
macrocephahis Schlotheim, 1813 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea).
By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S. {Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge
University, Cambridge) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170-

Dr. W. J. Arkell's apphcation to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature for rulings (a) on the question of the type species of
Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884, and {b) on the question of the type specimen
of Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813 (Class Cephalopoda,
Ammonoidea). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . 173-

Proposed designation, under the plenary powers, of the type species of Pictonia
Bayle, 1878, and Rasenia Salfeld, 1913 (Class Cephalopoda, Order
Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S. {Sedgwick
Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) . . . . . . . . 178-

On the proposals relating to the determination of the type species of the
nominal genera Pictonia Bayle, 1878, and Rasenia Salfeld, 1913 (Class
Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) submitted to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature by Dr. W. J. Arkell. By Francis
Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 181

Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate the type species of the genus
Aulacostephanus Tomquist, 1896 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea)
(Jurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S. {Sedgwick Museum,
Cambridge University, Cambridge) . . . . . . . . . . . . IBS

Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate the type species of Waagen's
(1869) ammonite genera Kosmoceras, Harpoceras and Perisphinctes (Class
Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A.,
D.Sc, F.R.S. {Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) . . 191

Proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress the name Planites de Haan,
1825, and to determine the use of the name Nautilus polygyratus Reinecke,
1818 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W. J.
Arkell, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S. {Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University,
Cambridge) 194

Application for the suppression under the plenary powers of five early generic
names now fallen into disuetude published for ammonites (Class Cephal-
opoda, Order Ammonoidea). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S.
{Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) . . . . . . 198

Proposal to suppress the generic name Ammonites Bruguiere, 1789, under the
plenary powers and to place the generic name Arietites Waagen, 1869
(Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology. By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S. {Sedgwick
Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) . . . . . . . . . . 20O

{continued from overleaf)

On the generic names Schlotheimia Bayle, 1878, and Scamnoceras Lange, 1924 : Page
proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the name Ammonites
angulatus Schlotheim, 1820 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea)
(Jurassic). By W. J. ArkeU, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S. {Sedgzoick Museum,
Cambridge University, Cambridge) . . . . . . . . , , .. 204

On the relative status of the names Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885, and Seguemi-
ceras Levi, 1896 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). By W. J.
ArkeU, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University,
Cambridge) 208

On the relevance to the availability of a name imder the Rigles of the question
whether the author, when pubhshing that name, intended it to be avail-
able for use as a scientific name. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . 211

Proposed vaUdation of the name Arisphinctes Buckman, 1924, by the sup-
pression under the plenary powers of the name Toxosphinctes Buckman,
1923 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W. J.
Arkell, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S. {Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University,
Cambridge) 214

Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate the type species of the genus
Arnioceras Hyatt, 1867 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). By
W. J. ArkeU, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S. {Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge
University, Cambridge) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate the type species of Liparoceras
Hyatt, 1867, a genus based upon a misidentified type species (Class
Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A.,
D.Sc, F.R.S. {Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) . . 220

Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate the type species of Norman-
nites Mimier-Chalmas, 1892, a genus based upon a misidentified type
species (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W. J.
Arkell, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S. {Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University,
Cambridge) 222

Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the names
of twenty-one genera of Juirassic ammonites (Class Cephalopoda, Order
Ammonoidea) and matters incidental thereto. By W. J. Arkell, M.A.,
D.Sc, F.R.S. {Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge . . 224

Proposed use of the plenary powers for the purpose of making the trivial
name virgula Deshayes, 1831 (as published in the binominal combination
Gryphaea virgula) (Class Pelecypoda) (Jurassic) the oldest available name
for the species in question. By W. J. ArkeU, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S. {Sedg-
wick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) . . . . . . . . 234

Proposed use of the plenary powers for the purpose of making the trivial name
asper Lamarck, 1819 (as published in the binominal combination Pecten
asper) (Class Pelecypoda) the oldest available name for the species in
question. By W. J. ArkeU, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S. {Sedgwick Museum,
Cambridge University, Cambridge) . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

On Dr. W. J. Arkell's proposal for the vaUdation, imder the plenary powers,
of the trivial names asper Lamarck, 1819 (as pubUshed in the binominal
combination Pecten asper) and virgula Deshayes, 1831 (as pubhshed in
the binominal combination Gryphaea virgula) (Class Pelecypoda). By
L. R. Cox, ScD., F.R.S. {Department of Geology, British Museum
{Natural History), London) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

On an application, the grant of which would require that the name Gryphaea
Lamarck, 1801 should be suppressed under the plenary powers, thus
vaUdating the name Gryphaea Lamarck, 1819 (Class Pelecypoda). By
Francis Hemming, C.M.G.. C.B.E., Secretary to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . .. .. . . .. 239

Printed in Great Britain by Metchim and Son, Ltd., Westminster, London

VOLUME 2. Parts 9/10 ^^„^,_ „5^

pp. 241—304

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
• UL^a NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by

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

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

Contents :
Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Page

Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications pubUshed
m the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 241

Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain

cases

{continued on back wrapper)

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

1951

Price One Pound

(All rights reserved)

242

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. Yokes (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 (Denmark) (27th July 1948)

Professor Teiso Esaki (Japan) (17th April 1950)

Professor Peirre 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)

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 and 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

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 2, Parts 9/10 (pp. 241-304) 15th August, 1951

NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY

The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the
recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56, 57-59), by the Thirt>eenth Inter-
national Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomend.
5:5-13, 131).

(a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on

Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published

in the " Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature "

Notice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will
start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of
pubUcation in the Bulletin of the appUcations in. question. Any specialist who
may desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present
Double Part (vol. 2, Parts 9/10) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so
in writing to the Secretary to the Commission, as quickly as possible and in
any case, in sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach
the Secretariat of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period
referred to above.

242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued).

(b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain

cases

Notice is hereby given that the possible use of the plenary powers is involved
in applications published in the present Double Part of the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature (Vol. 2, Parts 9/10) in relation to the following names : —

(1) Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895, Endamoeba Leidy, 1879,
and Poneramoeba Liihe, 1909 (Class Rhizopoda) (action designed to
vahdate existing practice) (Z.N.(S.) 185).

(2) dentatus Diesing, 1839 (as published in the binominal combination
Stephanurus dentatus) (question whether this name should be preserved

• for the kidney worm of swine) (Z.N.(S.) 188).

(3) Eysarcoris Hahn, 1834 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) (proposed
validation of existing nomenclatorial practice) (Z.N.(S.) 212).

(4) acuminata loff & Tiflov, 1946 (as published in the combination
Rhadinopsylla (Rectofrontia) acuminata) as apphed to species No. 68
(proposed eUmination of homonymy caused by a printer's error)
(Z.N.(S.) 386).

FRANCIS HEMMING,

Secretary to the International Cmnmission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretariat of the

International Commission on

Zoological Nomenclature,

28, Park Village East, Regent's Park,

London, N.W.I, England.

28th July, 1951.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 243

"ENTAMOEBA COLI " VERSUS " ENDAMOEBA COLI "

By HAROLD KIRBY
[Department of Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)185)

(Application submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature on 17th January, 1945 : first published in June, 1945, in The
Journal of Parasitology 31 (3) : 177-184).

In drawing up the argument for Opinion 99 of the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature, Stiles showed a wish to reject the name Entamoeba
in the interest of clear distinction. He wrote : "It seems obvious that unless
the name Entamoeba is definitely suppressed both the nomenclatorial and the
taxonomic status of the species which come into consideration wall become
even more confused." The result of his reasoning was rejection of the name,
but the benefits that he hoped for have not been realised. There have been
some who in following the Opinion have been influenced to take a position
regarding the taxonomic status of the amoebae that is not in accord wath clear
distinction, because unless they took that position the necessary large nomen-
clatorial departure from the usage that is very widespread in the Uterature of ■
medical zoology would indeed result in confusion. Retention of the two names
Endamoeba and Entamoeba would permit a clear-cut taxonomic differentiation
to be made at the same time that a minimum of departure from customary
usage is necessitated. Therefore it seems to me that Opinion 99 has actually
increased the difficulty that Stiles wished to avoid. I agree with Dobell (1938)
that the Opinion in its present form should not be regarded as decisive.

The equivocal interpretation that some authors have made of Opinion 99
is illustrated by Craig's criticism (1944) of Kudo's retention of the name
Entamoeba : "It would have been much better had he followed the ruling
of the International Committee of Zoological Nomenclature and used the spelling
recommended by it as preferable, i.e., ' Endamoeba.' " Kudo took the position
that the species coli should not be put into the same genus as the species bkUtae,
and his failure to follow Opinion 99 made it possible for him to choose Entamoeba
as the generic name for coli. It is not a question of alternative spelling of the
name of the genus : the Opinion does not constitute an approval of the spelling
Endamoeba as against Entamoeba. There is no choice of orthography : En-
damoeba is correct and has priority as the name of the genus typified by E.
blattae ; all amoebae in that genus are called Endamoeba, and those not in that
genus cannot be called Endamoeba.

The Opinion was published in 1928, and so far as I know, between that time
and this only two names have been used in connection with the species coli,
histolytica and gingivalis : Endamoeba by those who put the three amoebae
into the same genus as blattae, and Entamoeba by those who do not. The authors
in the former group do not accept the generic distinction ; whether or not

Bull. zool. Nomend. Vol. 2, Pts. 9/10. August, 1951

244 BulMin of Zoological Nomenclature

they follow Opinion 99 does not properly enter into their adoption of Enda-
moeha. The authors in the latter group do recognise the generic distinction,
and do not follow the Opinion. If there should be a third group of authors,
who recognise generic distinction among these endozoic amoebae, and accept
Opinion 99, it would be necessary for them to write Poneramoeba histolytica,
P&neramoeba coli, and Poneramoeba gingivalis.

The following chronological summary of the history of this matter sets
forth the important facts that need to be considered : —

1879. Leidy (1879a, p. 300) introduced the generic name Endamoeba, with
the one species Endamoeba blattae, named Amoeba blattae by Biitschli in 1878.
The same proposal was printed on 2nd December in Leidy, 1879b, p. 205.

1895. Casagrandi and Barbagallo introduced the generic name Entamoeba,
giving as the included species Amoeba coli (Losch) and Amoeba blattarum
(Biitschli). They were ignorant of Leidy's name.

1897. Casagrandi and Barbagallo (p. 163) again printed the name En-
tamoeba, giving as the included species ErUamodxi hominis and Entamoeba
blattarum.

1903. Schaudinn, using the generic name Entamoeba C. & B., divided
Amoeba coli of Losch into two species. Entamoeba coli Losch and Entamoeba
histolytica n. sp. He did not mention the species blattae, and probably was
ignorant of Leidy's name.

1910. Chatton assigned various endozoic amoeba to the genus " Entamoeba
Leidy (1879)." Among the included species were : Entamoeba coli (Losch)
1875, emend. Schaudinn (1903) ; E. blattae (Biitschh) 1878 ; E. ranarum
(Grassi) 1881 ; E. histolytica Schaudinn 1903. Chatton stated that the paternity
of Entamoeba had been wrongly attributed by authors to Casagrandi and
Barbagallo. He made no reference to the fact that Leidy's name was actually
Endamoeba.

1912. Seance du 14 fevTier, memoire paru le 5 mars (ace. to Chatton, 1912).
Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire wrote (p. 142) : " La denomination non latine
d'Entamibes, appUquee aux amibes normalement parasites du tube digestif
est d'un usage commode qui la fera conserver. Mais traduite en nom generique
latin, .elle ne pent plus s'apphquer actuellement aux amibes du tube disgestif
des Vertebres. Ce n'est pas, en effet, a ces dernieres qu'elle a ete appliquee
en premier lieu. C'est Leidy qui a cree le genre Entamoeba pour I'amibe de la
Blatte, et ce n'est qu'en 1897 que Casagrandi et Barbagallo I'ont appUquee aux
amibes intestinales des Vertebres." The authors considered that the amoebae
of vertebrates must be put in a separate genus, for which they proposed the
name Loschia, to contain coli Losch and other species.

1912. Seance du 26 mars. Chatton reported again the generic differentiation

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 245

of endozoic amoebae made in the above paper. He definitely designated Loschia
coli Losch, cysts 8 nuclei or more, as type of the genus Loschia. Remarking
that protistologists had wrongly attributed the paternity of the genus En-
tamoeba to Casagrandi and Barbagallo 1897, he wrote (p. Ill) : " Ces derniers
avaient bien applique le nom d'Entatnoeba a une Entamibe humaine, mais
Leidy I'avait donne des 1879 a VAtnoeba blaitae de Biitschli." In a footnote
to this statement he noted that Leidy's spelling was " Endamoeba," but
dismissed that name as an orthographic variant.

1913. Brumpt wrote of the amoebae of man under the name " Entamoeba
Leidy, 1879," making the same mistake for Endamoeba that Chatton as well
as Alexeieff (1912) had previously made. In a footnote (p, 21) he wrote : " Ce
meme genre a ete cree de nouveau en 1897 par Casagrandi et Barbagallo pour
leur E. hominis, synonyme de E. coli.'' That sentence has been accepted by
Stiles and Boeck (1923, p. 122), Stiles and Hassall (1925, p. 8), and Stiles
(1928 in Opinion 99) as a designation of the type E. coli (as E. hominis) for
Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo. (In the third edition, 1922, Brumpt
made the same error of " Entamoeba Leidy " ; but in the next one, 1927, he
used Entamoeba C. & B. and noted that Endamoeba Leidy should be reserved,
in agreement with Wenyon, 1926, for the amoeba of the roach.)

1919. Dobell used Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, for E. blattae only, and En-
tamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895, for E. coli, E. histolytica, and E.
gingivalis.

1923. Stiles and Boeck, in a study of the nomenclatorial status of the
protozoa of man (p. 125), considered the genus Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, with
two sub-genera : Endamoeba Leidy, 1879 (type by monotypy E. blattae) and
Poneramoeba Liihe, 1909 (type by monotypy and original designation E.
histolytica). They stated (p. 124) that " Entamoeba 1895 is not available
because of Endamoeba 1879 " ; evidently that is because they thought of
Enta^noeba as a homonym, or orthographic variant, because here they dealt
with a separate taxonomic category (the sub-genus) from Endamoeba. The
type of Entamoeba 1895 is given (p. 122, 124) as E. hominis i^A.—coli and coli
(s. hominis) ; type by subsequent designation is by Brumpt, 1913.

1925. Stiles and Hassall, in the " Key-Catalogue of the Protozoa Reported
for Man," list (p. 8) Entamoeba C. & B., 1895, type by subsequent designation
hominis =coli, as a subjective synonym of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879. It appears
from the definition of subjective synonym by Stiles and Boeck, 1923, that it
is a category pro\'iding for cases where the identity in question is not absolute,
but depends on " the experience and judgment of the reviser " (p. 138.) Since
in the key-catalogue the tjrpes of Entaynoeba and Endamoeba are given as
different, although those two types are treated as members of the same genus,
it is Ukely that the reference is to the difference of opinion about generic assign-
ment. Otherwise Entamoeba would simply have been designated as a homonym ;
that category is dealt with in the same paper. Reference to Entamoeba as a
synonym is, therefore, evidently on the basis that its type, Ent. coli, belongs
in the same genus as End. blattae, according to Stiles and Hassall.

246 BvU^in of Zoological Nomenclature

1928. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature pubbslied
Opinion 99 in response to an inquiry as to whether the names Endamoeba and
Entamoeba should be considered homonyms. The summary of the Opinion
reads : " Entamoeba 1895, with blattae as type by subsequent (1912) designation,
is absolute synonym of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879a, p. 300, type blattae, and
invalidates Entamoeba 1895, type by subsequent (1913) designation hominis =
coUy The report also contained the decision that Entamoeba is a homonym
of (" philologically the same as ") Endamoeba. It is presumably on that basis
that the Secretary recommended that " the name Entamoeba 1895, either with
type hominis=coli as definitely designated by Brumpt, 1913, p. 21, or with
blattae as accepted by Chatton and Lalung (1912, 111) and as implied by Chatton
(1910, 282), be definitely invahdated by Endamoeba Leidy, 1879a, p. 300, type
blattae, irrespective of the point whether the type of Entamoeba be considered
blattae or c^li." (The reference to Chatton and Lalung, 1912, p. Ill, is evidently
a mistake for Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire, 1912, p. 142, or for Chatton,
1912, p. 111.)

It is evident from this summary that Stiles (1928) was justified in his
statement that " the case has already produced considerable confusion in
literature." It is also evident, however, that this confusion need not have
existed if authors had simply been attentive to the correct forms. Then
Endamoeba Leidy would have been used for any generic concept including
the species blattae ; and Entamoeba C. & B. would either have been rejected,
or used solely for any generic concept omitting blattae and including coli. The
errors made by earlier authors should not influence us in an effort to reach a
solution of the problem.

The answer to the taxonomic problem is subject to differences of opinion.
Many authors follow the usage of Stiles and Boeck, 1923, in \sTiting Endamoeba,
coli ; that usage has been almost universal in American compilations in medical
zoology siace it was adopted in 1926 by Craig (who in 1911 used Entamoeba
Casagrandi and Barbagallo without reference to the genus Endamoeba Leidy).
American writers who recognise generic distinction between blattae and coli
include Kudo (1939, 1944), Wenrich {Entamoeba used for histolytica and coli
in 1940, 1944, and other papers of similar date), Cleveland (Cleveland and
Sanders, 1930, and other papers), Pearse (1942), and Meglitsch (1940, in
connection with a profound study of blattae). And there are many in various
parts of the world who follow the same course ; (for example, Wenyon, 1926 ;
Dobel], 1919, 1938 ; Brumpt, 1936 ; Reichenow, 1928), so that it is not a
question of individual or even minority disagreement in the question of
taxonomic differentiation.

It is not my purpose in this paper to attempt to defend one position in
taxonomy or attack the other. Because of the very large difference between
the species blattae and coli in the nuclear structure of the trophic forms, I
think that the burden of proof should rest on those who assert that the two
amoebae belong in the same genus — especially when the same authors recognise
as valid certain other genera of endozoic amoebae. A comprehensive analysis
ofthetaxonomy of all amoebae, free living and endozoic, is much to be desired.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 247

Morris (1936) examined the problem so far as certain endozoic amoebae are
concerned ; but the result of his study is not conclusive, for it omitted from
consideration certain other endozoic amoebae that would also have to have
the status of sub-genera of Endamoeha, according to his treatment. The
purpose of the present paper is nomenclatorial : it is an attempt to show that
the word Entamoeba should remain available for a genus of which Ent. coli
is the type.

Opinion 99 declares that those of us who think that the species coli and
similar forms do not belong in the same genus as blattae cannot use the name
Entamoeba for that different genus. There are two grounds upon which that
declaration is based. One of them is that Entamoeba is a homonym of En-
damoeba — that the two words are not sufficiently different from one another
in orthography to be usable as separate words. The other is that Entamoeba
has the same type species as Endamoeba, and therefore falls as a synonym.
The latter decision is the only one given in the summary of Opinion 99 ; it
is not necessary that it should be rendered after the generic name has been
dismissed as a homonym, so evidently it is intended to provide a reserve in
case of doubt.

That doubt certainly exists (Dobell, 1938). Obviously we are not here
concerned with whether the words have the same meaning or not, but with
whether one word is the same word as the other. There is a difference between
inadvertent interchange of two names that have a status in zoological nomen-
clature, and the use synonymously of such words as endoplasm and entoplasm
or endoderm and entoderm. There is nothing in the articles of the International
Rules of Zoological Nomenclature that justifies the conclusion that Entamoeba
must be rejected as a homonym. Certainly Chatton's statement, although
cited as authoritative by Stiles, does not constitute justification ; it is merely
an assertion in a one-line footnote, unsupported by reference to the Rules
or anything else. It is only in the argument for Opinion 99 that evidence
is given, but that evidence can as well be read in support of the retention of
the two names as different. . Jordan's report in the Opinion states that they
come in the category of names of which the spelling in Latin varied to a slight
extent and which the Rules of Nomenclature do not accept as different. His
reference is to Article 35, in which precise differences are given by which specific
names of the same origin and meaning are insufficiently distinguished. There
seems to be no indication that Article 35 is intended to establish a general
category allowing interpretation of other differences than those specified ;
and in that Article there is nothing whatever about the sort of difference that
exists between the words Endamoeba and Entamoeba. Furthermore, there is
evidence in Opinion 99 itself that the two words are not necessarily of the same
origin, and that would exclude them from consideration under the rules given
in Article 35.

Article 35 deals only with specific names, and it might seem possible that a
different interpretation for generic names would -be allowed. Now, however,
a precise statement concerning differences in generic names has been given
{Opinion 147, 1943). A generic name of the same origin and meaning as a

248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

previously published generic name is to be rejected as a homonym of the said
name if it is distinguished therefrom only by certain specified differences
which are the same as the ones given for specific names in Article 35. Opinion 99
was not mentioned by the Commission in the rendering of Opinion 147, although
it dealt with the subject that was being considered.

It is not possible to find any definite reason in the Code, or any valid evidence
in Opinion 99, for rejection of Entamoeba as a homonym ; but the recommen-
dation in Article 36 can, as Taliaferro remarked, be evoked in support of
retention of both names. These facts have already been discussed by Dobell
(1938).

In Opinion 99 the consideration that is apparently regarded as the more
important one, since it alone is given in the summary, is that of synonymy —
that Entamoeba C. & B. is an absolute synonym (or objective synonym. Stiles
and Boeck, 1923, p. 135) of Endamoeba Leidy, because the names follow their
types, and the same species, E. blattae, is the type of each. When Stiles
presented the case so as to arrive at this conclusion, he changed his approach
to the matter. In 1923 he evidently regarded Entamoeba as a homonym, in
1925 he designated it as a subjective synonym on the basis of the taxonomic
assignment of its species, but in both papers he accepted E. hominis=coli as
type of Entamoeba C. & B. by subsequent designation by Brumpt, 1913. In
Opinion 99, after stating that Brumpt's action was the first type designation
in words. Stiles found it possible to interpret Chatton, 1912, as having desig-
nated blattae as type of Entamoeba C. & B. Sfciles did not make clear the reason
for this interpretation, except in that he cited Opinion 6 in support of it.

Entamoeba C. & B., 1895, is analogous to the hypothetical Genus A Linnaeus,
1758, in Opinion 6, in that when proposed it contained two species, which we
now know as coli and blattae. Casagrandi and Barbagallo did not indicate
which was the type. Opinio7i 6 declares that when an author has removed
one of the two species to another monotypic genus, leaving only one species
in the first genus, he is to be construed as having fixed the type of the first
genus. Jordan's report in Opinion 99 follows the parallel exactly, crediting
Chatton with having removed coli from Entamoeba C. & B. to the genus Loschia,
thereby leaving blattae as the type of Entamoeba. If that is so, there is probably
no doubt about the vaUdity of the conclusion ; but I think it is not true that
that Chatton really dealt with Erdamoeba C. & B. in making the supposed
division.

In every place in the three papers that Chatton wrote Entamoeba Leidy
he was simply making a mistake for Endamoeba Leidy. Other authors before
him who included blattae, with or without other amoebae, in Entamoeba C. & B.
were also making a simple error ; they should have used Endamoeba Leidy.
The acts of Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire were on Endamoeba Leidy, given
by mistake as Entamoeba Leidy, but not corresponding to Entamoeba C. & B.
Chatton (1910) grouped various amoebae in this " Entamoeba Leidy." Chatton
and Lalung-Bonnaire (1912) did not agree with that grouping, and removed
coli and other species from it, leaving only blattae. That made no change in

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 249

the situation, except to restore it as it was originally. The revision was of
the group concept authors had held of " Entamoeba Leidy " —Eruiamoeba Leidy,
not of that genus itself, which was already attached to its type species.

The synonym argument in Opinion 99 depends upon crediting Chatton and
Lalung-Bonnaire or Chatton with having comprehended Entamoeba C. & B. in
what they did with "Entamoeba Jjeidy '' =Endamneba Leidy. Stiles' para-
graph " d " in the argument, puts it : " Chatton's paper (1912, Bull. Zool.
France, p. 113) is to be interpreted as designating blattae as type of
"Entamoeba" 1897(=1895) [emendation of Erulamoeba, but obviously con-
strued as identical with Entamoeba]." (Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire had
priority in this matter, and the page reference is wrong.) But Chatton's
" emendation of" (rather, error for) Endatnoeba was " Entamoeba Leidy," not
" Entamoeba 1897 ( = 1895) " ; Entamoeba C. & B., 1895, was not an emendation,
but a separately proposed word. Stiles' word " obviously " could have reference
only to Chatton's opinion (1912) that the two words are orthographic variants,
and therefore identical. Thus we return to the question of whether or not it is
to be admitted that Entamoeba is a homonym of Endatnoeba ; and in conse-
quence it appears to me that the whole arginnent of Opinion 99 stands or falls
with the decision about the homonym question, in spite of the fact that the
summary neglects that decision.

The summary of Opinion 99 presents the nomenclatorial treatment accorded
Entamoeba C. & B. by Brumpt in 1913 as opposed to and invaUdated by the
prior treatment of that genus in the 1912 paper. On the contrary, however,
it seems that Chatton and Brumpt had then exactly the same understanding
of Casagrandi and Barbagallo's genus. In the historical account given above
in 1897 Casagrandi and Barbagallo applied the name Entamoeba to intestinal
amoebae of vertebrates, and the statement by Chatton (1912, p. Ill) that those
authors applied the name to a human amoeba. Those are the only references
in the 1912 papers to the correct and original use of Entamoeba. Brumpt, who
in 1913 wrote " Entamoeba Leidy," had adopted the nomenclature of amoebae
used by Chatton in 1910. In the footnote that was accepted by Stiles as
constituting the type designation he simply gave a different wording of what
the 1912 authors had pointed out regarding the amoeba for which the genus
Entamoeba C. & B. had been proposed ; but in that wording, and in printing
the name " E. hominis synonyme de E. coli " he was more specific. Brumpt
has more recently used both Emlumoeba and Entamoeba ; and it is likely that
the 1912 authors would have used Casagrandi and Barbagallo's name for the
species coli and other amoebae of vertebrates instead of Loschia except for the
fact that they considered Endumoeba and Entamoeba to be orthographic
variants. Despite the fact that Chatton and Brumpt evidently had the same
understanding of Entamoeba C. & B., Stiles found it possible to give the interpre-
tation that Chatton had designated blattae as its type before Brumpt designated
coli as its type. Yet the only difference in the treatment the two authors
gave the genus is that the former did not print the species name, whereas the
latter did so. Brumpt, therefore, was not considered to have comprehended
Entamoeba C. & B. in " Entamoeba Leidy," as regards type designation, whereas
Chatton was considered to have done so. The interpretation given in this
part of the argument in Opinion 99 is obviously greatly strained.

250 BuUetin of Zoological Nomenclature

CONCLUSION

Opinion 99 of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
does not constitute proof that Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895,
cannot be used as a generic name. Its argument rests on two points : that
Entamoeba is a homonym of Endamoeba ; and that blattae is the type species
of both, so that Entamoeba falls also as a synonym of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879.
The latter point, which is the only one brought out in the summary of Opinion
99, is not acceptable : it rests on the interpretation that Entamoeba is a
homonym of the earlier name. The Opinion asserts, but does not demonstrate,
that it is a homonym ; and there is nothing elsewhere in the Rules or Opinions
that warrants the assertion. It is appropriate to place the species coli and
blattae, in separate genera ; and it is considered that Entamoeba Casagrandi and
Barbagallo, 1895, is available as a generic name for coli and congeneric species
at the same time that Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, is used for blattae and congeneric
species.

References

Alexeieff, A, 1912. Sur les caracteres cytologiques et la systematique des
Amibes du group Umax {Naegleria no v. gen. et Hartmannia nov. gen.) et
des Amibes parasites des vertebres {Proctamoeba nov. gen.). Bull Soc.
zool. France 37 : 55-74.

Brumpt, E., 1913. Precis de parasitologic, 2. ed. Paris, Masson et Cie.

Brumpt, E., 1922. Idem, 3. ed.

Brumpt, E., 1927. Idem, 4. ed.

Brumpt, E., 1936. Idem, 5. ed.

Casagrandi, 0. and Barbagallo, P., 1895. Ricerche biologiche e cliniche suU,
Amoeba coli (Losch). Seconda ed ultima nota preliminare. Bol. Accad.
Gioenia Sci. nat. Catania (n.s.) 41 : 7-19.

Casagrandi, 0. and Barbagallo, P., 1897. Entamoeba hominis s. Amoeba coli
(Losch). Studio biologico c clinico. Annali d'Igiene sperimoiiale 7 : 103-
166.

r

Bulktin of Zoological Nomenclature 251

Chatton E., 1910 Essai sur la structure du noyau et la mitose chez les
Amoebiens. Faits et theories. Arch. Zool. expel, el gen. (5) 5 267 337.

Chatton, E. 1912. Sur quelques genres d'Amibes libres et parasites Syno-
nymies, homonymie, impropriete. Bull. Soc. zool. France 37:109 115.

Chatton, E. and Lalung-Bonnaire, 1912. Amibe limax (Vahlkampfia n gen )

deTultir M S "% 'r "^^r^'^^^ P^^ 1'inteUat.on'des aSe
ae culture. JJtill. h>oc. Path. exot. 5 : 135-143.

Cleveland L. E. and Sandera. E. P., 1930. Encystotion, multiple fission
h a nlT^'T* • ^'^'^y^';'"™- "''"'cj-'ic developmeit and variarn

Craig, C. F., 1911. The parasitic amoebae of man. Philadelphia, Lippineott.
'''Tppif ^*'' '^ ""'""'' °' "" '"'"'*''= '"°""°'' "f '■""'■ Philadelphia,

"p^Th^f^hisiTof^^zr-^-^^^^^^^

development. Parasito/o^y 30 : 195-238. "^« lo metac} stic

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1910. Opinion 6
In case of a genus A Linnaeus, 1758, with two species Ab and TsZith-
soman PubhcaUon 1938:7-9. Reprinted .vith editorial notes 1943
Opmu^ns and DedaraUons rendered by the Int. Com. zool. Nonlclf:

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1928. Opinion 99
EndanioebaLeidy, 1879, vs. ErUa^noeba Casagrandi and BarbaTuo 1895
Snnthson. Misc. Collect. 73 (5) : 4-8. ^aroagaiio, 189o.

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1943. Opinion 147
On the principles to be observed in interpreting A;ticle 34 of hf nttr-
national Code m relation to the rejection, as homonyms, of generic and
subgeneric names of the same origin and meaning as names TTrevLuslv

Kudo, R. R., 1939. Protozoology. Springfield, Thomas.

Kudo, R. R., 1944. Manual of human protozoa. Springfield, Thomas.

Leid>', J. 1879a Fresh-water rhizopods of North .America Ren U <?
Geol. Surv. of Territories 12 : i-xi, 1-324. "^^^^^a. itep. u. b.

^il'':20i-20r* ^"^ ^'"^ *^^""'- ^'^- ^^^«^^- ^^- ^'- Philadelphia

252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Meglitsch, P. A., 1940. Cytological observations on Endamoeba blatfae,
lUinoi^ bid. Monogr. 17 (4) : 1-146.

Morris, S., 1936. Studies of Endamoeba blatlae (Butschli). J. Morphol.
59 : 225-263.

Pearse, A. S., 1942. Introduction to parasitology. Springfield, Thomas.

Reichenow, E., 1928. Doflein's Lehrbuch der Protozoenloinde, ed. 5, II.
Teil. Jena, Fischer.

Schaudinn, F., 1903. Untersuchungen iiber die Fortpflanzung ciniger Ehizo-

poden. Arb. K. Gsndhsamte. 19 : 547-576.
Stiles, C. W. and Boeck, W. C, 1923. The nomenclatorial status of certain

protozoa parasitic in man. Bull. Hyg. Lab. U.S. Pub. Health Serv..

133 : 92-183.

Stiles, C. W. and Hassall, A., 1925. Key-catalogue of the protozoa reported
for man. Bull. Hyg. Lab. V. S. Pub. Health Serv. 140 : i-iv, 1-63.

Wenrich, D. H., 1940. Nuclear structure and nuclear division in the trophic
stages of Etuiamoeba muris (Protozoa Sarcodina). J. Morphol., 66 :
215-239.

Wenrich, D. H., 1944. Studies on Dientamoeba fragilis (Protozoa). IV.
Further observations, wath an outhne of present-day knowledge of this
species. J. Parasitol. 30 : 322-338.

Wenyon, C. M., 1926. Protozoology. New York, AVm. AVood & Co.

i

Bullelin of Zoological NoinenchUure 253

ON THE PROBLEMS EMBRACED IN "OPINION" 99
(RELATING TO THE NAMES " ENDAMOEBA " LEIDY, 1879,
AND "ENTAMOEBA" CASAGRANDI & BARBAGALLO,
1895) RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION
ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

By ELLSWORTH C. DOUGHERTY, Ph.D., M.D.

Department of Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A. )

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)185)

I. Introduction.

Recently Professor Harold Kirby (1945) has written an able critique of
the decisions embodied in Opinion 99 rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclatm-e (1928). He has concluded that, contrary
to certain of these decisions (l) Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895,
cannot be regarded as a homonym of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879 ; and (2) the
species with the trivial name blattae of Butschli (1878) should not, despite the
conclusions embodied in Opinion 99, be regarded as the type species of both
genera, but only of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879.

2. I endorse Kirby's thesis wholeheartedly, but I should like to restate
the problem in order to emphasi2e what I consider to be certain fallacies in
Opinion 99, which are not altogether covered by Kirby, and to make certain
further proposals. Opinion 99 is a remarkable collection of contradictions
and apparent misinterpretations of the Regies and certain preceding Opinimis,
as I am prepared to show here.

3. Originally a draft of the present paper was submitted to Mx. Francis
Hemming, Secretary of the International Commission, in 1946. Subsequently
the author visited Mr. Hemming in August, 1948, and it was agreed between
them that, in view of the extensive changes that the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, acting on the advice of the International Commission,
brought about in the Regies Interrudionales de la Nomenclature Zoologique
at the Paris Meetings of July, 1948, the paper should be examined in the light
of any pertinent new decisions, revised, and submitted again. I have delayed
doing this in anticipation of the publication of the " Ofi&cial Records of Pro-
ceedings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at
their Session, held in Paris in July, 1948." Now that this has been done in
Volume 4 of The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, I have been able to
redraft the present paper and am resubmitting it herewith.

4. One of the decisions taken by the International Commission at Paris
was that Opinion 99 was to be considered s^ib judice and that specialists were
to be invited " to communicate to the Commission their views on the action
to be taken by way of confirming, modifying or reversing the decisions recorded
in [the Opinion] " (see 1950, Bull, zool, Nomencl. 4 : 337-338). This was done

254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

on the basis of the recognition by the Secretary to the International Com-
mission that Opinion 99 was " very poor " and should be reconsidered (see
1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 128). It is, therefore, particularly appropriate
that the present paper be tendered for publication.

5. Moreover, it will be evident from the ensuing sections of this paper
that it is of vital importance to the stability of the names of certain genera
and species of amoebae parasitic in Man and other animals, that the Inter-
national Commission not only revise Opinion 99, but consider such additional
problems not originally raised therein as must be solved in order to give
permanancy to the names of these parasites. This will require the exercise
of the plenary powers to secure certain names and the placing of these and
other names in the " Official List of Generic Names in Zoology," and the
" Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology," as provided for at Paris
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 267-271, 333-335).

6. To aid both in the revision of Opinion 99 and in the realization of
stability for the names applied to important enteric amoebae, the present
paper is organized into several sections : (I) the present introduction ; (II) the
historical background of Opinion 99 ; (III) and (IV) analyses of the summary
and body, respectively, of Opinion 99 ; (V) the status of the trivial names
coli of Grassi (1879) and histolytica of Schaudinn (1903) as applied to certain
amoebae of Man ; and (VI) the status of the generic names Endamoeba Leidy,
1879, Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, and certain others applied
to enteric amoebae. Finally, in section (VII) are summarized the conclusions
drawn from the studies of the preceding sections.

II. Historical Background of " Opinion " 99.

7. Opinion 99 is entitled " Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, vs. Entamoeba Casa-
grandi and Barbagallo, 1895." Its summary reads as follows : " Entamoeba
1895, with blattae as type by subsequent (1912) designation, is absolute synonym
of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879a, p. 300^, type blattae, and invalidates Entamoeba
1895, type by subsequent (1913) designation hominis=coli."

8. To recapitulate briefly, the following are the principal historical facts*
of the case treated by Opinion 99, many of which were not, however, con-
sidered in the Opinion :

(i) Losch (1875) described in detail the clinical picture and lesions
resulting from an amoebic infection in the large bowel of a young
Russian and also provided a description (pp, 203-207) and figures
(PI. X, figs. 1-3), of the causative organism from which it is quite
evident that he was dealing with the species now generally called
Entamoeba, or Endamoeba, histolytica. To this form he gave the

*For a more detailed history the excellent monograph by Dobell (1919) should be con-
sulted — also the less lucid, although more exhaustive, survey of Stiles and Boeck (1923).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 255

name Amoeba coli ( : 208).

(ii) Butschli (1878 : 273-277) described a new species, Amoeba bUttae,
Irom the gut of the oriental roach, Blatta orientalis Linnaeus
1758 — an insect still known by that name. '

(iii) Grassi (1879) described amoebae from human faeces and identified
them (p. 445) as representing the same species as observed by
Losch (1875). However, in the opinion of Dobell (1919) Grassi
dealt primarily with the species now generally known as Entamoeba
or Endamoeba, coli, although some individuals, at least, of E
histolytica were apparently also seen.

(iv) Leidy (1879 : 300) formed the new genus Endamoeba for the single
species, hence type species (by monotypy : Article 30(c) of the
current Regies^) Amoeba blattae Butschli, 1878.

(v) Casagrandi and Barbagallo (1895 : 18) in a study of an intestinal
amoeba of Man, which they called " Amoeba coli Losch," erected
a new genus Entamoeba in apparent ignorance of the existence of
the name oi Erda7noeba** Leidy, 1879. In it they placed ''Amoeba
coh (Losch)" and "Amoeba blattarum (Butschli) " ["Amoeba
blatkie Biitschh, 1878]. No type species was designated. It is
evident from their paper that these authors were dealing not
with Losch's Amoeba coli, but with Grassi's— the species today
known generally as E. coli. They did not themselves form the
combination Entamoeba coli, although it is credited to them by
L)obelI (1919) ; actually this was later done by Schaudinn (1903).
In a subsequent paper they (Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1897 : 103)
renamed this species Entamoeba hominis.

(vi) Schaudinn (1903) was responsible for fixing the usage of the trivial
names now almost universally employed for the two species of
amoebae in humans, originally designated Amoeba coli by Losch
(1875) and Amoeba coli by Grassi (1879)— what may aptly be
termed the dysenteric and large nondysenteric amoebae of Man
respectively. As Dobell (1919) has pointed out, by far the happiest
solution would have been for Schaudinn to accept Losch's name
tor the dysenteric species, as would have been correct, and, in view

tion If tt ™«r,qo7Tf /'^T ^'^o°*'"*' ^'^i^-i"" °^ *^« ^^^''' appeared in 1929 in the publica-
O^o? A n^i offii. hT**'""''' ^''"^''' of Zoolog3^ at Budapest (Int. Comm. Zool. Nomencl-
Yt'tt V , 7- ?n ^'*'*'°° l'„''°'^ '" preparation based on extensive changes adopted bv the
^nte^n n^rf r" ^""^''' of Zoology at its Paris Meeting in 1948, acting on the Ee o^f the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. .go »uvii.e oi me

A *I^"*^uf ^ *""' '^"®^" *'**'• *"=^'' riteniamo necessario tomare suUa classifica delln
ibt'vT^oZZ Tr'i.Tr f r«' "h? P-Poniamo di chiamare ^^^LL^Te t coSothiamo
SHDito 1 Amoeba coh (Losch), e I'Amoeba blattarum (Butschli). "'-mw

256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

of the fact that Grassi's name was a homonym of Losch's, to take
the next available name, Entamoeba hominis Casagrandi and
Barbagallo, 1897, for the nondysenteric species. His observa-
tions on morphology as well as nomenclature were on several
counts erroneous and have been severely and justifiably criticized
by Dobell. His nomenclatorial conclusions were that the non-
dysenteric species should be called " Entamoeba coli Losch emend.
Schaudinn " (:564) and that the dysenteric species should be given
a new name, for which he proposed " Entamoeba histolytica "
(:564, 570). In so doing, he accepted the genus Entamoeba Casagrandi
and Barbagallo, 1895, for both species. Schaudinn's prestige was
such that his determinations became entrenched in the literature,
and to-day the trivial names, at least, dominate all fields concerned
with amoebae in Man.

(vii) Liihe (1909 : 421) erected the new genus Poneramoeba for the
single species, Entamoeba histolytica Schaudinn, 1903, from Man ;
this he specifically designated as the type species of his new genus.
It was the next new genus after Entamoeba Casagrandi and Bar-
bagallo, 1895, erected or used for amoebae in the vertebrate digestive
tract.

(viii) Chatton (1910 : 282-284) placed in a genus " Entamoeba Leidy
(1879) " seven supposed species. " Entamoeba coli (Losch) 1875 "
[=A7noeba coli Grassi, 1879], " E. blattae (Biitschli) 1878";
" E. ranarum (Grassi) 1881 " " E. muris (Grassi) 1881 " ;
E. buccalis Prowazek, 1904 ; E. histolytica Schaudin, 1903 ; and
" E. tetragena Viereck 1906=^. africana Hartmann 1908"
\_=E. histolytica]. The only mention of Casagrandi and Bar-
bagallo's work appearing in Chatton's paper was in a footnote
to the effect that " Entamoeba " had been incorrectly assigned by
Doflein (1909) to the authorship of the Italian workers.* Chatton
did not cite any species as the type species of his " Entamoeba."
nor did he mention the spelUng " Endamoeba " used by Leidy.

(ix) Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire (1912 : 142) removed the amoebae
of the digestive tract of vertebrates from the genus " Entamoeba
Leidy " into a new genus Loschia, stating that only the species,
originally called Amoeba blattae by Biitschli (1878) should remain
in Leidy's genus. To Loschia they transferred the folloT\nng four
species from Entamoeba : '' E. coli Losch " [=Grassi], " E. tetragena
Viereck " [= histolytica Schaudinn], " E. ranarum Grassi," and
" E. muris Grassi," and for the forms with a tetragena-[=histo-
lytica-] like nuclear picture they raised a new subgenus VierecHa)
" E. coli Losch " was designated as the type species of the nomino-

* C'est a tort que Doflein (1910 ["=1909]) attribue la patemite du genie Entamoeba a
Casagrandi et Barbagallo (1897 [»ic] ).

BuUelin of Zoological Nomenclature 257

typical subgenus, hence of the genus, Loschia* They incorrectly
claimed that Casagrandi and Barbagallo (1897) had applied Leidy's
genus to the amoebae of the vertebrate digestive tract.f

(x) Chatton (1912 : 111) republished the conclusions already expressed
m his paper with Lalung-Bonnaire, but mentioned only ''Loschia
coh and " Viereckia tetragena " in the genus Loschia. For the
first time he mentioned— in a footnote— the speUing Endamoeba**
but dismissed it as an orthographic variant.

(xi) Brumpt (1913 : 25) referred the amoebae of Man to the genus
''Entamoeba Leidy, 1879." He also stated— in a footnote— that
the same genus had been created in " 1897 " by Casagrandi and
Barbagallo forff " E. coli."

(xii) Crawley (1913 : 185) listed " Entamoeba histolytica Schaudinn,
1903 " as the type species of the genus Entamoeba.

(xiii) Dobell (1919 : 17-19) in a scholarly review of the nomenclature
of the amoebae m Man accepted as valid for amoebae of the verte-
brate digestive tract the genus Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barba-
gallo, 1895 {non Endamoeba Leidy, 1879), formally (: 18) selected as
Its type species " E. coli," and included as congeneric with E. coli
the species E. histolytica, among others. He confined the genus
Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, to Amoeba blattae Biitschli, 1878. In
later parts of his paper he reviewed in detail the nomenclatorial
history of the species to-day generally known by the trivial names
coli and histolytica.

(xiv) StUes and Boeck (1923 : 121-150) exhaustively discussed the
nomenclature of the dysenteric and nondysenteric 'amoebae of Man
and dismissed ( : 124) Entamoeba Casagrandi and BarbagaUo, 1895
as a homonymt of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879. Nevertheless they
regarded Brumpt (1913) as having fixed the type species of the
former as Entamoeba hominis [= Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879], and
they also recognized a separate nominal genus Entatnoeba Chatton,

* On pourra meme distinguer subgeneriquement les Entamibes a 4 novaux (tvpe telra-
g^na), des Entamibes a 8 noyaux (type coli), sous le nom de Viereckia n. slblen. ^

Que Ca8ata^d?lf%'.^"^^^ f "? ^''"f.""^*« Pour I'amibe de la Blatte, efce n'est qu'en 1897
que (.asagrandi et BarbagaUo 1 ont appliquee aux amibes intestinales des Vertebres. •

vr^ztT::n::t''tr^^:r^^^^^^ - ^-^ - ~ ^^^^ --.uer un

; [Entamoeba 1895 is not available because of Endamoeba 1879.]

258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

1912 (overlooking Chatton's 1910 paper and not recognizing the
priority of Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire's paper) as an emen-
dation of Ertdamoeba Leidy, 1879, consequently with the same
type species, Amoeba blattae Biitschli, 1878. They provisionally
regarded Amoeba blattae Biitschli, 1878 (type species of Endmnoeba
Leidy, 1879 — by monotypy), and Entamoeba hominis Casagrandi
and Barbagallo, 1897 [—Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879] as congeneric.
The foregoing conclusions were essentially followed by Stiles
and Hassall (1925), except that they listed Entamoeba Casagrandi
and Barbagallo, 1895, as a synonym rather than a homonym of
Endatnoeba Leidy, 1879.

(xv) The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in
Opinion 95 (1926) placed Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, with type species
Amoeba blattae Biitschli, 1879 (by monotypy) on the " Official List
of Generic Names in Zoology." Later the International Com-
mission (1928) reviewed some of the facts given here under para-
graphs (i) to (xiv), and published Opinion 99. After much in-
decisive discussion it was finally concluded in the summary of
the latter Opinion, that Chatton (1912) had selected a type species
for " Entamoeba 1895," when he transferred Entamoeba coli and
other species in vertebrates to the genus Loschia and thus left
only Entamoeba blattae in the genus Entamoeba. This conclusion
was presumably based on Opinion 6, which was invoked in the
body of the Opinion. Obviously, it was not questioned whether
Chatton actually was dealing with Entamoeba Casagrandi and
Barbagallo, 1895, when he supposedly fixed its type species.

9. I proposed herein to analyze in detail in Sections III and IV, on the
summary and body of Opinion 99 respectively, the question of the selection
of a type species for the genus Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895,
and to show that from the historical facts it must be concluded that no one
actually selected its type before Dobell (1919).

III. Analysis of the Summary of " Opinion " 99.

10. First of all it can be shown that the summary of the Opinion itself
cannot be supported by the Regies and previous Opinions. The crux of this
summary is based upon one point in the general conclusions of the body of the
Opinion, and in the report by Commissioner K. Jordan, which appears at the
end of the discussion on the Opinion and was unanimously adopted by the
Commissioners present at the Tenth International Congress of Zoology in
Budapest, 1927. In this summary, as one can read in the quotation thereof
already given, appears the foUomng phrase : " Entamoeba 1895, with blattae
as type by subsequent designation (1912)." This is presumably based on the
following statement in Jordan's report ( : 8, under " A. Nomenclatorial Con-

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 259

siderations ") : "In 1912 Chatton separated from Entamoeba the species
coli as genotype of his new genus Loschia, leaving blattae as only species in
Entamoeba. As nobody had dealt, nonienclatorially, with Entamoeba prior
to 1912, Chatton's action made blattae the type of Entamoeba^ Actually
Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire (1912) were the first to do this ; Chatton (1912)
merely reaffirmed their earlier action.

11. Now the foregoing quotation is an important statement as it suggests
that a species may become the " type by elimination." Yet in the present
Regies (Article 30(k)) the designation of " type by elimination " is only one
of a number of non-mandatory Recommandations. It is true that under one
limited condition the Opinions have established that elimination may fix a
type species. Thus in Opinion 6* (Int. Comm. Zool. Nomencl., 1910, 1944b),
the summary reads (in its most recent form — 1944b) : " When, in the case
of a generic name published not later than 31st December, 1930, a later author

divided the genus ' A ', species ' A b ' and ' A c ',

leaving genus ' A ', only species ' A 6— — - ', and genus ' G ',

monotypic with species ' C c ', the second author is to be construed

as having fixed the type of the genus ' A '." But, as pointed out by

Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Commission, in his editorial notes
on the new edition of Opinion 6 (1944b : 134-135), the above summary is

explicit in limiting its jurisdiction to the case where the original genus " A "

has two species and two species only, and the second genus " C " is

monotypic. I

12. Let us suppose then, for the sake of argument, that Chatton and
Lalung-Bonnaire (1912) comprehended Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo,
1895, when they transferred species from " Entamoeba " to Loschia. In this
light one finds that Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, qualifies as

genus " A " in the sense of Opinion 6 — -with two species " Amoeba coli "

and " Amoeba blattarum." However, Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire's genus

* Now cancelled, except for historical purposes, and its decision incorporated into the
Regies (see 1950, Bull. zool. NtymencL, 4 : 157, 166-166).

t Prior to the Congress of 1948, not all workers agreed with Mr. Hemming that Opinion 6
need be so narrowly interpreted. Thus Sabrosky (1947) analyzed the body of the Opinion
and pointed out that in paragraph 2 the statement was made that " cases which were as clear as
the one given in the diagram [i.e., the scheme presented in the summary] should be construed
under Article 30(g), namely, that the type of the original genus was fixed when, through a
division of its species, it was definitely made into a monotypic genus." It was Sabrosky's

contention on the basis of this statement that a genus " A " need not have two species

in order to come under the jurisdiction of Opinion 6, so long as all but one species have been

removed by some subsequent worker, thus leaving " A " monotypic. Sabrosky's

interpretation is a reasonable one. However, the summary of Opinion 6, as it stands, conveys
no such flexibility of interpretation and must, it seems to me, be the principal arbiter of the point.
Moreover, the International Commission at Paris recommended in its report, which was accepted
by the Thirteenth International Congress, inter alia, the insertion in Article 30, Rule (g), of words
to convey the substance of the summary of Opinion 6, i.e., only the limited interpretation
thereof (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 157) ; moreover, Opinion 6 has now been cancelled
for interpretative purposes (see Footnote 10).

26U Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

" C " in the sense of Opinion 6 would be Loschia, which emphatically was

not monotypic. The vital point here is that it was formed for four species in two
subgenera : Loschia and Viereckia.

13. It may be claimed that, in effect, Opinion 99 established a new precedent
and extended the application of selection of " type by elimination " beyond
Opinion 6. But it does not appear that such was the intention of Commissioner
Jordan or of Secretary Stiles. Actually they were merely invoking Opinion 6
as the following quotations from the body of the discussion on the Opinion
indicates : (p. 6, ^ 3) " . . . . accordingly, for Chatton Endanweba 1879 and
Entamoeba 1897 were simple orthographic variants and it is not at all impossible
(renaming and cf. Opinion 6) " [italics mine — E. C. D.] " to construe his
papers (1910, 282, and 1912, 110) as a designation oiblattae as type oi Entamoeba
Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1897 " ; (P. 7, ^ 2 (d)) " since (under Opinion 6)
Chatton's paper (1912, Bull. Soc. zool. France : 113) is to be interpreted as
designating blattae as type of "Entamoeba" 1897 (=1895), [emendation of
Endamoeba, but obviously construed as identical with Entamoeba] . . ."
But Opinion 6, as it is now understood, does not apply here. It is clear that
the Commission based the most vital part in the summary of Opinion 99 on
an invocation of a previous ruling, which at the time was, at best, of quest-
tionable application and must now be regarded as erroneously applied (see
footnote 11).

IV. Analysis of the Body of " Opinion " 99.

14. Since it has been demonstrated that the summary of Opinion 99 and
in effect its conclusions are based on false premises, it would be well to examine
the other points discussed in the body of Opinion 99 and to analyze the historical
facts to determine why, as I consider, (1) no other and justifiable grounds
exist for an equivalent decision — namely, that of the type Entamoeba Casagrandi
and Barbagallo, 1895, was fixed as Amoeba blattae Biitschli, 1878 ; and (2)
why a type selection was not made until Dobell's work (1919).

15. Dobell (1938) has published a critique of Opinion 99 in which he has
pointed out certain fundamental inconsistencies in the presentation and body
of the Opinion, but has not considered all of the basic nomenclatorial issues
involved. Kirby (1945)^ has aired most of the fallacies of the Opinion. My
analysis is partly an extension of his, with additional observations on appli-
cations of certain provisions of the Regies and Opinions. Dobell's works (1919,
1938) have been indispensable for their complete accounts of the history and
zoology of the enteric amoebae of Man.

16. There are three principal statements or assumptions in the body of
Opinion 99 that deserve attention. These may be summarized as follows : —

(i) The point, not brought out in the " Summary," but nevertheless
' See pp. 130 — 139 of the present volume, where Professor Kirby's paper is reprinted.

I

Bulletin of Zoological Notnencluture 261

expressed by Secretary Stiles in several places in his discussion —
that Entamoeba is a virtual homonym of Endamoeha. This was sum-
marised by Commissioner K. Jordan under " Philological Considera-
tions " ( : 8) as follows : "In zoology the prefixes Ento — and Endo —
are frequently interchanged. In zoological terminology they are
located as being identical. They come under the category of names
of which the spelling in Latin varied to a slight extent and which
the Rules of Nomenclature do not accept as different, such as
auctumnalis and autumnalis . . . Entamoeba is philologically the same
as Endamoeba." Despite this conclusion, the body of the discussion
(: 5, ^ 4) contains evidence that the prefixes endo — and ento — can
be regarded as of different Greek origin (from £v5ov and evTos
respectively).

(ii) The point that Chatton's emendation Entamoeba (1910) of Leidy's
Endamoeba (1875) automatically takes the same type. Amoeba blattae
( : 6, If 2). " Endamoeba Leidy, 1879a, p. 300, has for its monotype
Amoeba blattae. The generic name was emended by Chatton, 1910,
Ann. Zool. exp. gen., 282, and 1912, Bull. Soc. Zool. France, p. 110,
to read Entamoeba, and by Chatton and Lalung, 1912, BSPe, p. 142,
in the same sense. Accordingly, there is a generic name Endamoeba
and one Entamoeba with the same species {E. blattae) as type."

(iii) The point that Brumpt (1913) among others may be regarded as
having selected the type species of Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barba-
gallo, 1895 ( : 6, ^ 2). "... The first type designation in words was by
Brumpt (1913, p. 21) as Entamoeba hominis which is Amoeba coli re-
named."

17. Of these three points the first has been demonstrated to be incorrect
by Dobell (1938) and Kirby (1945) ; the second is demonstrably true ; and
the third is equivocal. All three are taken up in order in the following three
sub-sections ((a) to (c)).

(a) Orthographic independence of Endamoeba and Entamoeba.

18. As Dobell (1938) pointed out, the Regies themselves provide a basis
for accepting both Endamoeba and Entamoeba. Article 34 states that " a
generic name is to be rejected as a homonym when it has previously been
used for some other genus of animals." In connection with rejection of such
names as homonyms. Article 36 contains the following recommendation :
" It is well to avoid the introduction of new generic names which differ from
generic names already in use only in termination or in a slight variation in
spelling. But when once introduced, such names are not to be rejected on
this account. Examples : Picas, Pica. ..."

19. But, if one may question the legal force of a "Recommendation/'

262 BuHetin of Zoological Nomenclature

then Opinion 147* (Int. Comm. Zool. Nomencl, 1943), as Kirby (1945) has
pointed out, specifically delimits the categories of spellings that render generic
names homonyms, to those differing by : (1) the use of " ae," " oe,'' and " e " ;
the use of " ei," " i," and " y " ; or the use of " c " and " k " ; (2) the aspiration
or non-aspiration of a consonant ; (3) the presence or absence of a " c " before
a " t " ; and (4) the use of a single or double consonant. The difference between
the prefixes Endo — and Ento— thus lies outside of the limits imposed by
Opinion 147.

(b) Selection of type species for Entamoeba Chatton, 1910.

20. Kirby has pointed out that Chatton (1910) referred to the genus
Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, as " Entamoeba Leidy." As used by Chatton, it
included, as already noted, the type species of Leidy's genus, Amoeba blattae
Biitschli, 1878, and a number of other species, among them " Amoeba coli Losch"
[=Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879]. I believe that Chatton unintentionally changed
the spelling of Leidy's genus, thus in effect creating a new name for it, which
should be termed Entamoeba Chatton, 1910. (No previous author spelled Leidy's
genus in this way, Schaudinn (1903) and others that used the spelling Entamoeba
having credited it to Casagrandi and Barbagallo.) Stiles and Boeck (1923 :
123) must have come essentially to the same conclusion when they recognised
both Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, and Entamoeba Chatton,
1912 [=1910]. Their action supports my contention that Chatton thus
was actually not dealing with the genus Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo,
1895, his only reference to the latter being in error — namely, that " Entamoeba "
should be credited to Leidy, not to the Italian workers. Entamoeba Chatton,
1910, is a homonym of Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895 ; but
there is no basis for assuming them to be objective synonyms, as the writers
of Opinicm. 99 appear to have believed, inasmuch as the type species of the
latter genus had not then been determined.

21. We thus actually have three nominal genera : Entamoeba Leidy, 1879
(monotypic). Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895 (2 species), and
Entamoeba Chatton, 1910 (7 species, includmg those in the second genus).
As Kirby has maintained, the consequence of any action by Chatton (1910,
1912) and Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire (1912) should affect only the genus
with which Chatton originally dealt — which I call Entamoeba Chatton. 1910
{^Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, emended). This principle was expressly recognized
by the Paris Congress of 1948 and is now to be incorporated in the Regies
(see 1950, Bidl. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 347-348).

22. I wish now to take up the second point raised by the body of Opinion
99, namely, whether Chatton (1910) can be construed as having fixed the
type of Entamoeba Chatton, 1910. In this connection Article 30 (f ) is involved.

* Cancelled, except for historical purposes, and part of its decision to be incorporated into
the Rigles (see 1950, BuU. zod. Nomend., 4 : 161-162, 165-166).

I

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 263

23. Article 30 Rule (f) states that " in case a generic name without
originally designated type is proposed as a substitute for another generic
name, with or without type, the type of either, when established, becomes
ipso facto type of the other." Inasmuch as Entamoeba Chatton, 1910, is in
effect a substitute for Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, it follows that blattae, type
of the earlier genus by monotypy, automatically becomes type of the latter
genus. Therefore, it is difficult to understand why the Commission, in the
summary of Opinion 99, did not rely on this rule to establish the type species
of Entamoeba of Chatton (1910) instead of invoking Opinion 6, which was not
clearly applicable. Actually, Rule (f) in Article 30 has certain difficulties of
application to which I hope to draw the attention of the Commission in a
separate communication. Possibly it is on the basis of these difficulties that
the Commissioners failed to invoke it in the summary of Opinion 99. In any
event, the application of this rule seems straightforward in the case under
consideration.

(c) Selection of a type species for Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo,
1895.

24. We can now examine the third point raised by the body of Opinion 99,
namely, that Brumpt (1913) may be regarded as having made a statement
that, were it not for Chatton's earlier action (1912), would have had the effect
of selecting a type species for Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895.
In this connection it also is desirable to determine when such a selection was
validly made and also to explore further the consequences of Chatton's treat-
ment of his genus Entamoeba ( —Endamoeba Leidy, 1879). Aside from Opinion 6,
which has already been shown to be inapplicable, one article in the Regies
and two Ojnnions are intimately involved in these problems — namely, Article
30 and Opinions 45 and 164.

25. Brumpt (1913), as already stated, made the following statement (in
translation ; for original see footnote 8) : " This same genus " [as Entamoeba
Chatton, 1910 =Endatnoeba Leidy, 1879] " was created de novo in 1897 by
Casagrandi and Barbagallo for their E. liominis, synonym of E. coli." It was
on this basis that Stiles and Boeck (1923), Stiles and Hassall (1925), and the
Commission (in Opinion 99) concluded that what Brumpt's statement amounted
to was a potential selection of a type species for Entamoeba Casagrandi and
Barbagallo, 1895.

26. I feel that this position is inconsistent with the Regies and with the
previously rendered Opinion 45 (Int. Comjn. Zool. Nomencl., 1912).

27. Article 30, which deals with the designation, indication, and selection
of type species of genera, contains a paragraph following paragraph (g) which
reads as follows : " The meaning of the expression ' select the type ' is to be
rigidly construed. Mention of a species as an illustration or example of a genus
does not constitute a selection of type." Several Opinions have been rendered
specifically dealing with the concept of type selection " rigidly construed."
Most of these do not apply to the present case except that all up to Opinion 99

264 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

demonstrate a strict approach to the question of type selection. Opinion 45,
however, is of considerable significance to the question under consideration.

28. The summary of Opinion 45 reads as follows : "So far as one can
judge from the premises submitted, the type of Syngnathus Linnaeus, 1758,
has never been definitely designated, and there is no objection to designating,
as such, the species acus Linnaeus to accord with general custom and con-
venience." Without going into the entire history of this case it can be briefly
stated that the genus Syngnathus Linnaeus, 1758, with seven original species
was restricted by Rafinesque (1810b) to two species — a Linnaean species,
Syngnathus aequoreus, hence the only one of the original species, and a new
species, Syngnathus punctatus Rafinesque, 1810. He did not select a type
species, nor had any previous author. No type selection was made during the
rest of the 19th century. However, Jordan and Evermann (1896 : 774)
gave in the synonymy of " Syngnathus, Linnaeus " the following citation :
" Syngnathus, Rafinesque, Caratteri, 18, 1810 (restricted to aequoreus)."
Actually, as is pointed out in Opinion 45, Rafinesque (1810a), in the reference
cited by Jordan and Evermann, did not mention the genus Syngnathus ; this
was done in the later work (1810b). It was the conclusion of the Commission
that Jordan and Evermann did not thereby select a type species for the genus
Syngnathus Linnaeus, 1758.

29. Now it seems to me that the cases of Syngnathus of Jordan and Ever-
mann (1896) and Entamoeba of Brumpt (1913) are parallel. In both cases
statements, not strictly accurate, were made by later authors about the genera
of earlier workers. In neither case was there an unequivocal selection of a
type species. Yet the Commission saw fit in the first case to determine that
Jordan and Evermann's statement, " restricted to aequoreus," was not,
" ' rigidly construed,' " a type selection, whereas Brumpt's statement, " created
de novo . . . for . . . E. hominis " was such a selection. As indicated,
Brumpt's statement erred, for actually Casagrandi and Barbagallo raised
Eniamoeba for two species : " Amoeba coli " and " Amoeba blattarum."

30. Opinions 45 and 99 are, I feel, in essential disharmony on the point
discussed. Whereas Opinion 99 is the later and might be held as superseding
Opinion 45, the point in which the latter is inconsistent with the former is the
fundamental issue of its case and that of Opinion 99 is a secondary issue.
I do not believe that the International Commission meant, in effect, to reverse
Opinion 45 in Opinion 99. Furthermore I feel that the decision that Brumpt
(1913) selected a type species for the genus Entamoeba Casagrandi and Bar-
bagallo, 1895, is inconsistent with the spirit of the phrase " rigidly construed "
in Article 30.

31. Having considered Brumpt (1913), we can now return to Chatton
(1910). A point, the significance of which has not so far been examined, is
that the genus Entamoeba Chatton, 1910, actually included the two species
placed by Casagrandi and Barbagallo in their genus. Some may argue that
in so doing Chatton actually comprehended the Italian workers' genus despite
his designation " Entamoeba Leidy." This is not necessarily so, however.

Bulletin of Zoological Naniendalure 265

A genus is rigidly defined by its type species ; unless or until a type species
is designated or selected, a given genus is of necessity a plastic entity to a
greater or lesser degree. Chatton in efi'ect united both Leidy's and Casagrandi
and Barbagallo's genus in his Entamoeba.

32. What happened, in effect, was that Chatton incorrectly — from the
standpoint of priority — included Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895,
in synonymy with his Entamoeba (1910) ; no objection from the standpoint
of priority would, however, extend to synonymizing the Italian workers' genus
with Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, the action that he, in fact, meant to take. Despite
the fact that Chatton (1910) must be considered as having automatically
designated the type species of Entamoeba Chatton, 1910 {^Endamoeba Leidy,
1879, emended) as Amoeba blattae Biitschli, 1878, this should have no effect
on the type of Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, a genus which
was named independently and not as an emendation of Leidy's name " En-
damoeba " and which Chatton cannot reasonably be regarded as comprehending
in his use of the generic name " Entamoeba^ Opinion 164* (Int. Comm.
Zool. Nomencl., 1945a) makes this point clear.

33. The summary of Opinion 164 states in part as follows : " When two
or more genera are united on taxonomic grounds, such action in no way affects
the types of the genera concerned." Thus, even though the type species of
Entamoeba Chatton, 1910, may be regarded as having been designated, that
designation cannot, according to Opinion 164, affect the type species of En-
tamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, which Chatton in effect united
with his genus.

34. Although Crawley (1913 : 185) listed Entamoeba histolytica Schaudinn,
1903, as type species of Entamoeba, this cannot be taken as a valid selection
of a type species inasmuch as E. histolytica was not an originally included
species. It is true that the nominal species Amoeba coli Losch, 1875 [=E.
histolytica], was placed in Entamoeba as originally proposed by Casagrandi
and Barbagallo (1895), but the organism so identified by them was in actuality
the modern E. coli.

35. The first unequivocal selection of a type species for Entamoeba Casa-
grandi and Barbagallo, 1895, was made by Dobell (1919 : 17-18) as follows :
" I shall therefore continue to refer three of the common amoebae of man^
namely, E. coli, E. histolytica, E. gingivalis — to the genus Entamoeba Casagrandi
and Barbagallo, 1895 ; whilst provisionally I reserve the separate genus
Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, for the amoeba of the cockroach. On this system,
the type species oi Entamoeba is E. coli, and the type oi Endamoeba is E. blattae."
Dobell specifically stated that the E. coli so cited was based on Grassi's, not

* Cancelled, except for historical purposes, and its decision incorporated into the JRigles
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 157, 165-166).

266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

oil Losch's organism. For reasons given in Section VI even his selection
encounters technical difficulties.

V. The Status of the Trivial Names " coli " of Grassi (1879) and " histo-
lytica " of Schaudinn (1903).

36. It is desirable at this point to bring up two questions which are only
partly related to Opinion 99, but are nevertheless of great significance to the
nomenclature of amoebae in man. These questions are respectively the validity
of the trivial name coli for the large nondysenteric amoebae of man and the
validity of the trivial name histolytica for the amoebae of human amoebic
dysentery.

37. It is very important to ensure the status of the trivial name coli,
inasmuch as it is imiversally applied today to the large nondysenteric amoeba
of man, known as Entamoeba, or Endamoeba, coli — the species, moreover,
which Dobell has designated as type of Etitamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo,
1895. If this cannot be done under the existing rules, the International Com-
mission must be called upon to exercise their plenary powers.

38. As already pointed out in paragraph 8 (i), the trivial name coli appeared
first in the description by Losch (1875) of organisms from a patient suifering
with dysentery ; these unquestionably represented the species now designated
Entamoeba, or Etidamoeba, histolytica. For detailed historical discussions of
the nomenclature of E. coli and E. histolytica I refer to Dobell (1919) and Stiles
and Boeck (1923). It should be remarked, however, that Stiles and Boeck
(1923) regarded Amoeba coli Losch, 1875, as representing a mixture of species
and contended that Stiles (1892) was the first worker to restrict the name to
a single component species — the large nondysenteric amoeba. On this basis,
they found it possible to accept the trivial name coli as vahd under the rules
for that form. However, Dobell (1919) has presented compelhng evidence
that Losch (1875) dealt essentially with E. histolytica. It seems entirely logical
on the basis of Losch's usage to regard coli as the correct trivial name for the
dysenteric amoeba of man. However, Dobell ingeniously found it possible
to reject Losch's selection on the basis of its bekig a vernacular name without
nomenclatorial status. Losch wrote as follows : " Da die von mir beschriebenen
Araobe, so viel mir bewusst, uberhaupt mit keiner der bisher bekannten Formen
voUkommen iibereinstimmt, so scheint es mir gerechtfertigt, dieselbe bis auf
AVeiteres mit einem besonderen Namen zu bezeichnen und nach ihrem Fundorte
etwa Amoeba coli zu nennen." Dobell pointed out that Losch's " Amoeba
coli " was written in ordinary type, not italicised or spaced ; he further stated
that " there is nothing to indicate that Losch did not employ it as a mere
descriptive term." In view of the wording of Losch's sentence this last state-
ment by Dobell is considerably strained. However, the latter offered a rational
solution to a vexing nomenclatorial problem, one which no reasonable
systematist, lacking a legal means of rectifying the situation, would hesitate
to follow if he wished to honour the Regies without contravening general usage.
The alternative without suspension of existing rules is to substitute coli for
histolytica, a procedure which would today disrupt the firmly established

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 267

practices of two generations of protozoologists and medical scientists. Since
this cannot be done in harmony with the rules and since coli is so firmly linked
with the large nondysenteric amoeba, there appears to be involved a clear
case where strict application of the Regies would result in confusion rather
than uniformity. It is therefore important that coli be secured for the large
nondysenteric amoeba of man by the International Commission acting on the
plenary powers.

39. It would seem quite illogical, however, in securing coli to this end for
it to be attributed to the authorship of Losch. Since Grassi (1879) was the
first to apply this trivial name to the large nondysenteric amoeba, it is reasonable
to follow Dobell and attribute it to his authorship. On this basis it is necessary
to suj^press coli of Losch (1875) and validate the otherwise homonymous coli
of Grassi (1879).

40. It is very important to ensure the status of the trivial name histolytica
inasmuch as it is universally applied today to the dysenteric amoeba of man.

41. Though Dobell (1919), as mentioned, reviewed in detail the nomen-
clatorial history of the dysenteric amoeba of man, I find it impossible to follow
him in all of his conclusions. He discussed four names (aside from Amoeba
coli) as possibly referring to this species, which antedate E. histolytica Schaudinn,
1903 — Amoeba urogenitalis of Baelz (1883, p. 237), Amoeba vaginalis of
Blanchard (1885, p. 15), Amoeba intestinalis of Blanchard (1885, p. 15) and
" amoeba dysenteriae " of Councilman and Lafleur (1891, p. 405). Dobell
advanced reasons for rejecting each of these — Baelz's and Blanchard's names as
unidentifiable and Councilman and Lafleur's as an obviously vernacular name.
I have already pointed out that Dobell cannot be followed in his rejection of
Amoeba coli Losch, 1875, as a systematic name ; I believe that the same thing
can be said for Councilman and Lafleur's " amoeba dysenteriae." They stated :
" We have called the organism, which was first described by Losch under the
name amoeba coli, the ' amoeba dysenteriae.' " Inadvertently or through
ignorance they merely neglected to capitalize " amoeba." In regard to the
other names cited by Dobell, I have no essential disagreement with his dis-
position of them. However, even if his rejection of Councilman and Lafleur's
name were followed, the matter could not rest there, as can be seen by the
following statement by him ( : 28) : " Whilst it is true that the terms
A. coli and A. dysenteriae were sometimes used correctly as zoological names,
yet they were never used with clear specific conceptions before the time of
Schaudinn." The first person to use Amoeba dysenteriae as an unquestionably
systematic designation was Stiles (1892 : 524-525) in a review of Councilman
and Lafleur's paper (1891). It is true that Stiles credited this name to the
latter authors, but this fact makes it no less available. That this is so is
demonstrated in Opinion 4* (Int. Comm. Zool. Nomencl., 1907, 1944a), the
summary of which reads as follows : " Manuscript names acquire standing
in nomenclature when printed in connection with the provisions of Article 25,

* To be cancelled, except for historical purposes, and its decision incorporated into the
Regies see BvU. zool. Nomend., 4 : 145-146, 165-166, 1950).

268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

and the question as to their validity is not influenced by the fact whether
such names are accepted or rejected by the author responsible for their pub-
lication." The discussion by Hemming in the second edition of this Opinion
(1944a) makes the availability of such a name as Amoeba dysenteriae of Stiles
(1892) doubly clear.

42. It might seem, therefore, that, if coli of Losch is suppressed as the
trivial name for the dysenteric amoeba. Amoeba dysenteriae Councilman and
Lafleur, 1891 (or Stiles, 1892), would be the next available name. However,
Dobell (1919) either did not know about, or ignored, the name Amoeba dysen-
terica used by Pfeiffer (1888 : 662) as a new name for Amoeba coli of Losch.*
Stiles and Boeck (1923), in accepting Losch's name as being restricted by
Stiles (1892) to the nondysenteric amoeba, found it possible also to reject
Amoeba dysenterica Pfeiffer, 1888, and Amoeba dysenteriae Councilman and
Lafleur, 1891, on the basis that these were renamings of Amoeba coli Losch,
1879, and for that reason had to follow the last name. It is sufficient to point
out, since Amoeba coli Losch, 1875, actually applied to the dysenteric species,
and on that account alone the other names cited did likewise. Stiles and Boeck's
contention is inappropriate. Thus, with the suppression of coli of Losch
(1875), Amoeba dysenterica Pfeiffer, 1888, is the next unquestionably and
validly applied name for the dysenteric amoeba. However, it is impractical
to consider substituting dysenterica of Pfeiffer (1888) for histolytica of Schaudinn
(1903). This is clearly a case where strict application of the Regies would
result in confusion rather than uniformity. The best interests of science will
be served by retention of the specific name Entamoeba histolytica Schaudinn,
1903 (the next available name for the dysenteric amoeba after Amoeba dysen-
terica Pfeiffer, 1888, and Amoeba dysenteriae Councilman and Lafleur, 1891), the
trivial name histolytica now being universally employed in the zoological and
medical fields. In so doing the International Commission -must suppress all
previous potential or actual synonyms of the trivial name histolytica.

43. It is highly important that the International Commission give attention
to the names of these important amoebae in man. A formal recommendation
in that connection is made in the final section of this paper.

* Pfeififer wrote : " Im Jahr 1875 folgt alsdann die erste ausfiihrliche und genaue Be-
schreibung von Losch in St. Petersburg . . . Dessen Amoeba coli s. dysenterica Losch hat so viel
Aehnichkeit mit den aus dem Blascheninhalt von Vaccine, Herpes, Varicella, etc., abgebildeten
grossen Zellgebilden dass morphologisch und nach den Bewegungserscheinungen keine Trennung
moglich ist." [" In 1875 then follows the first detailed and precise description — by Losch in St.
Petersburg . . . Amoeba coli or dysenterica Losch has so much similarity to the large cell
structures that have been pictured with the vesicular inclusions of vaccinia, herpes, varicella, etc.,
that no distinction is possible, either morphologically or on the basis of the appearance of their
movements."] In subsequent discussion Pfeiffer referred to Losch's form as Amoeba coli rather
than Amoeba dysenterica. Losch did not employ the word " dysenterica " as a trivial name;
that name must therefore be credited to Pfeiffer.

i

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature oao

Entamoeba " Casagrandi and Barbaaalln 1ftQ<; j • ^'

applied to Enteric Amoebae ''^'''^^""'^' ^^^^' «"^ <=«»-*«>" others

44. The genus Endamoeha Leidv 1879 with i>« Ur^^ • a
Butschli, 1879, has already been Allo^T^m^^^^^

We havl already seen (pt^^^^^^^ f If fFf- ^^^^^^^ ^^ ^-^«--6a.

included in their genus the 3l '1^ f *^t^*^^^^^ ^^^^ers originally

''^moefea oZi'' bykeLnHalrfr r ^^^«^^'^]- ^ut the organism called
Entamoeba Aom^•m•/w^ckarIy ^ot th.T ?^-^ Barbagallo, 1897) renamed
name applied, but 21 t^lZ^^^^^^^^ 7,7^^' ^^ which Losch's

iTstX^g^tlS^^^

he corrected^he initiale r^^^^^^^^ ^P^«-«- ^^ - ^rue thai

workers had misSentifieT Howevef ^.^ ^^ ^ ^^i^,'^' 'P'"^"' '^^' *^^ I*^^^^^
the Commission T^^L^Zo^t: 11^ 1^^'^ t f^^^^ «^
1945b), the title of which reads" On S! i ^ i ^,'''^- ^°°^- Nomencl.

Articli'30 of the it Wl Codet S^^^ ^hr '"^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
upon erroneously determined spects ''^t*^/,^*^^ ^^^^« «f genera based
that, where such a case has been dWered ?t '''.^77^^ it is requested

Casagrandi and BarbSn l«qT n "* "''"" '" ^^' of Entammba

1879] was ako d;signated Lfc type spedts f=^""'" ^* «^^^^'-

(asllSS^clSra^nilfrB:^^^^^^^^

m,s,de„tified type species, is teehnifarof SouS'katus ' Actual r '

important th^m^r bf ,^^,; raid'""'""^ ™™'^^'- ^"* " ^

me";i lfeXf:r?L:;eUw;rth?" ■" t^^?--' -^-on in the
large nondysenteric ^r..ll:rri.t t:i:^^^Jr^Ll::^^t.

270 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

United States and Entamoeba in Britain, whether there ought to be independent
genera Endamoeba and Entamoeba, which have been accepted as such by Dobell
(1938), Kirby (1945), and others. Admittedly the close similarity of the
names is regrettable. However, from the practical standpoint, no real
diflSculty should be encountered, for Endamoeba blattae and its congeners, being
parasitic in insects, are of no particular consequence to medical scientists.
Those zoologists that deal with insect parasites can be expected to be familiar
with their nomenclature and are not likely to confuse the two genera ; whereas
the spelling EndamodM as applied to amoebae in vertebrates may be some time
a-dying in the general medical literature, this fact need not disturb scholars
concerned with the real genus Endamoeba. There does not seem, therefore,
to be any real objection to the coexistence of two independent genera with
the names Endatnoeba and Entamoeba.

48. The way thus seems well indicated. The International Commission
should validate Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, a genus based
on an originally misidentified species as tjrpe species, for which the species
Amoeba colt Grassi, 1879 (non Losch, 1875) should be designated, Dobell's
selection being thereby validated.

49. Dobell (1938) expressed the conviction that the dysenteric and non-
dysenteric amoebae of man should be placed in separate genera. Although
he has not himself done this formally, it would also be well for the International
Commission to recognise the generic name that would be used for the dysenteric
amoeba in case the proposed separation becomes generally recognised. As
mentioned in paragraph 8 (vii), Poneramoeba was erected by Liihe (1909)
with Entamoeba histolytica Schaudinn, 1903, as only species and therefore as
type species. As first genus after Entamoeba available for the dysenteric
amoeba, it would come into use. The International Commission might also
permanently sink Loschia Chatton and Lalimg-Bonnaire, 1912, by validating
Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879, as its type species, thereby rendering it an objective
synonym of Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895.

50. Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, and Poneramoeba Liihe,
1909, with their respective type species, should therefore join Endamoeba Leidy,
1859, on the " Official List of Generic Names in Zoology."

VII. Conclusions and Recommendations.

51. The conclusions and recommendations of the present study are in
three categories : those that relate to Opinion 99 itself ; those that relate to
the trivial names coli and histolytica ; and those that relate to the generic
names Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, and Poneramoeba Liihe,
1909. The first are covered under paragraph 52 ; the second under paragraphs
53-55 ; and the third under paragraph 56,

Bullelin of Zoological Nomencalture 271

Com* i,^i» l^ZodXTS; A, ' '"''f^.f ""^»t. aat the International

e.e.no„.„,p„..;intEt;rrtHrri:r^^^^^
*" SuS^'lrpTndtrotth"'^"''?"'' •*"'"'«^"°- '«««. ™

1879 thenam. X, 7 'he nominal genus Emiamoeba Leidy
neither L..!f?r*" "' 'J?.'"' "^^ Casagrandi and Barbagallo being

*henamea^«ie6.an^li^i^:^U:^:„^ton1arth!^'

■ acSSe°S *'^- '^''^ K?"'' ';P-leeti»Ti'rh:iXed
aTd uLg-Sn&i9ir V" °"8'-"y -™d out by ChattJn

1912) had been dealmg with Bmamoeba Casagrandi and larbaeaT

se.eet.on undt' lt;S T^^Siot'of^:*! -«-'<= ™«^ >
d.d not comply with the .element oftuttj I'l^el""""

^irth':?s:fiS-?^^^^^^

n.rr^.f?^ include being " ^moe6a co » (Losch) " which is thp

A,meZZrQr3^mf^ as the large nondysenteric amoeba of man,
B^bagalt fc'Jn^- bS'„*n^?=dfS:?'ry^r--f t

g^ : to itTthTfnS' "rir"- ^'^^ "^« *^ -^««o-

aii^ Bucn case where the Commjssjon is satisfied that

272 Bulletin of Zoological Nomendature

confusion would result from the strict application of the Regies, should
hereby use their plenary powers to designate Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879,
to be the type species of the genus Entamoeba Casagrandi and Bar-
bagallo, 1895, thus vahdating Dobell's selection.

53. It is necessary, if serious confusion is to be avoided, that the trivial
names of the large nondysenteric and the dysenteric amoebae of man should
be placed on an unassailable foundation. The problems arising in connection
with the specific names Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879, and Entamoeba histolytica
Schaudinn, 1903, are accordingly summarized in the following paragraphs.

54. Two points arise in connection with the name Amoeba coli Grassi,
1879 : (1) whether this is an available name ; and (2) whether it imdoubtedly
represents the large nondysenteric amoeba of man. As regards (1), the name
Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879, is not an available name because of the prior Amoeba
coli Losch, 1875, which applies to the dysenteric amoeba. However, in view
of the universal use of coli for the nondysenteric amoeba and the grave confusion
which would result if this name had now to be discarded on technical nomen-
clatorial grounds, I recommend that this particular difficulty should be over-
come by the Commission using its plenary powers to suppress the trivial name
coli Losch, 1875 (as pubUshed in the binominal combination Amoeba coli)
and validate the trivial name coli Grassi, 1879 (as published in the binominal
combination Amoeba coli). As regards (2), there is no reasonable doubt as
to the principal species to which Grassi applied the name coli, but I recommend
that, in order to settle this matter beyond dispute, the Commission should
apply in this case the procedure which they adopted in Paris for the purpose
of determining the identity of the species to which the trivial name iris Lin-
naeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio iris) should
apply (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 359-361) — that is, that the Commission
should use its plenary powers to direct that the name coli Grassi, 1879 (as
published in the binominal combination Amoeba coli) should be the trivial
name of the large nondysenteric amoeba of man as definitively described and
figured by Dobell (1919, pp. 78-92 ; pi. i, figs. 12-15 ; pi. ii, fig. 17 ; pi. iv,
fig. 55-69).

55. The name Entamoeba histolytica Schaudinn, 1903, is universally applied
to the dysenteric amoeba of man and the greatest confusion would result if
it were necessary to change this practice for some technical nomenclatorial
reason. On the other hand, there is no doubt that there are at least three older
names for this species, namely. Amoeba coli Losch, 1875, Amoeba dysenicrica
Pfeiffer, 1888, and Amoeba dysenteriae Councilman and Lafleur, 1891 (or Stiles,
1892). In addition, there are three other names which may have been applied
to this species, namely : (1) Amoeba urogenitalis Baelz, 1883, (2) Amoeba
vaginalis Blanchard, 1885, and (3) Amoeba intestitmlis Blanchard, 1885.
Accordingly, in order to provide an unquestionably valid title for the trivial
name histolytica Schaudinn, 1903 (as pubhshed in the binominal combination
Entamoeba histolytica), I recommend that the Commission, in addition to
suppressing the trivial name coli Losch, 1875 (as published in the binominal
combination Amoeba coli), as recommended in paragraph 54 above, should

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 273

use their plenary powers to suppress the under-mentioned trivial names and,
having done so, should place those names (with coli Losch, 1875) on the " Ofl&cial
Index of Rejected and InvaUd Specific Trivial Names in Zoology " : (a)
urogenitalis Baelz, 1883 (as pubhshed in the binominal combination Amoeba
urogenitalis) ; (b) vaginalis Blanchard, 1885 (as published in the binominal
combination Amoeba vaginalis) ; (c) intestinalis Blanchard, 1885 (as published
in the binominal combination Amoeba intestinalis) ; (d) dysenterica Pfeiffer,
1888 (as pubUshed in the binominal combination Amoeba dysenterica ; and
(e) dysenteriae Councilman and Lafleur, 1891 (or Stiles, 1892) (as pubUshed
in the binominal combination Amoeba dysenteriae). Finally, as in the case of
the trivial name coli Grassi, 1879, I recommend that the Commission should
use its plenary powers definitely to attach the trivial name histolytica Schaudinn,
1903 (as published in the binominal combination Entamoeba histolytica) to
the dysenteric amoeba of man as now recognized by specialists. I recommend
that this object should be secured by the Commission directing that the trivial
name histolytica Schaudinn, 1903, is to be the trivial name for the species as
definitively described and figured by Dobell (1919, pp. 31-70 ; pi. i, figs. 1-6 ;
pi. ii, fig. 16 ; pi. iii ; pi. iv, figs. 70-76).

56. While it is of the first importance that the trivial names of these amoebae
should be firmly established, it is also necessary that the generic name En-
tamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, be stabilized by being placed on
the " Oflicial List of Generic Names in Zoology " (type species Amoeba coli
Grassi, 1879 [syn. Entamoeba coli (Grassi, 1879) Schaudinn, 1903], to be
validated by the International Commission through the invocation of their
plenary powers). In view of the fact that such an authority as Dobell felt
that generic separation of the dysenteric and large nondysenteric amoeba of
man will have to be carried out, it would also be well for the International
Commission to place Poneramoeba Liihe, 1909 (type species Entamoeba his-
tolytica Schaudinn, 1903, by original designation), first genus available for the
dysenteric amoeba of man, on the " Ofiicial List." These two generic names
would thereby join Endamoeba Leidy, 1879 (type species Amoeba blattae
BiitschU, 1378 [syn. Endamoeba blattae (Blitschli, 1878) Leidy, 1879], by
monotypy), already placed on the " Ofl&cial List " under a decision taken in
Opinion 95. The foregoing actions are hereby recommended.

References

Baelz, E., 1883. Uber einige neue Parasiten des Menschen. Berl. Klin.
Wochenschr. 20 (16) : 234-2.38.

Blanchard, R. A. E., 1885. Traite de zoologie medicale, vol. 1 : Protozoarres,
histoire de I'oeuf, coelenteres, echinodermes, vers (aiieuriens, plathelminthes,
nemathelminthes). Fasc. 1, pp. 1-192.

Brumpt, E. J. A., 1913. Precis de parasitologic. 2nd Ed., 1011 pp.

Biitschli, 0., 1878. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Flagellaten und einiger ver-
wandten Organismen. Zeit. missensch. Zool. 30 (2) : 205-281.

274 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Casagrandi, 0. G. V. and Barbagallo-Rapisardi, P., 1895. Ricerche biologiche
e cliniche 8ull'.4?>^oe6a coli (Losch). Seconda ed ultima nota preliminare.
Boll. Accad. Gioenia Sd. nat. Catania, (n.s.) (41) : 7-19.

and , 1897. Entamoeba hominis s. Amoeba coli (Losch). Studio

biologico e clinico. Ann. Igiene Sper. 7 (1) : 103-166.

Chatton, E. P. L., 1910. Essai sur le structure du noyau et de la mitose chez

les amoebiens. Faits et theories. Arch. Zool. exper. gen. 45 [58., 5] (6) :

267-337.
, 1912. Sur quelques genres d'amibes libres et parasites. Synonymies,

homonymie, impropriete. Bull. Soc. zool. France, 37 (3) : 109-115 ;

erratum (4) : 168.

and Lalung-Bonnaire, P., 1912. Amibe limax {Vahlkampfia n. gen.)

dans I'intestin humain. Son importance pour I'interpretation des amibes
de culture. Bull. Soc. Path. exot. 5 (2) : 135-143.

Crawley, H., 1913. List of parasitic amoebae, arranged alphabetically. Trans.
15 Internat. Cong. Hyg. (& Demography 2 : 179-185.

Councilman, W. T. and Lafleur, H. A., 1891. Amoebic dysentery. Johns
Hopkins Hosp. Rep. 2 (7/9) : 395-548.

DobeU, C. C, 1919. The amoebae living in man. A zoological monograph
[vii] -f- 155 pp.

, 1938. Researches on the intestinal Protozoa of monkeys and man.

IX. The life-history of Entatnoeba coli, vsdth special reference to metacystic
development. Parasitology 30 (2) : 195-238.

Doflein, F. J. T., 1909. Lehrbuch der Protozoenkunde. Eine Darstellimgder
Naturgeschichte der Protozoen mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung der
parasitischen und pathologenen Formen. 2nd Ed. x + 914 pp.

Grassi, G. B., 1879. Dei protozoi parassiti e specialmente di quelli che son
neU'uomo. Gazz. Med. ital. Lomb. 39 [8s., 1] (45) : 445-448.

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1907. {Opinion 4.)
Status of certain names pubUshed as manuscript names. P. 523 in : Stiles,
C. W., Report on the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.
Science (2) 26, No. 668. [Reprinted 1910. P. 6 in : Opin. Rend. Int.

Gomm. Zool. Nomend., Opin. 1-25. Smithson. Publ. 1938 : 6 ; see also : ,

1944a].

, 1910. Opinion 6. In the case of a genus A Linnaeus, 1758, with two

species, Ab and Ac. Pp. 7-9 in : Opin. Rend. Int. Comm. Zool. Nomend.,
Opin. 1-25. Smithson. Publ. 1938 : 7-9. [See also : , 1944b.]

, 1912. Opinion 45. The type of Syngnathus Linnaeus, 1758. Pp. 101-

103 in : Ibid. Opin. 38-51. Smithsm. Publ. 2060 : 101-103.

, 1926. Opinion 95. Two generic names of Protozoa placed in the Official

List of Generic Names. Ibid., Opin. 91-97, Smithson, misc. Coll. 73
(4) : 14-15,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 275

, 1928. Opinion 99. Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, vs. Entamoeba Casagrani

and Barbagallo, 1895. Ibid., Opin. 98-104. Smithson. misc. Coll. 73
(5) : 4-8.

, 1929. International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. [Publication

of X International Congress of Zoology X® Congres International de
Zoologie], Budapest, pt. 2, pp. 1583-1597.

, 1943a. 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 sub-generic names of the same origin and meaning
as names previously published. Opin. Decl. Rendered Int. Comm. Zool.
Notnencl. 2 (14) : 123-132.'

, 1944a. Opinion 4. The status of names pubhshed as manuscript names.

ibid. 1 (13) : 103-114. [2nd Ed. of 1907.]

, 1944b. Opinion 6. On the type of a genus " A ," containing two

species, " A b " and " A c ," where the generic name in

question was published on, or before, 31st December, 1930. ibid.
1 (15) : 127-138. [2nd Ed. of 1910.]

, 1945a. Opinion 164. On the principles to be observed in interpreting

Article 30 of the International Code in relation to the types of genera
where two or more genera are united on taxonomic grounds, ibid. 2 (34) :
347-358.

, 1945b. Opinion 168. On the principles to be observed in interpreting

Article 30 of the International Code in relation to the names of genera
based upon erroneously determined species {Opinion supplementary to
Opinion 65). Ibid. 2 (38) : 411-430.

Jordan, D. S. and Evermann, B. W., 1896. The fishes of North and Middle
America : a descriptive catalogue of the species of fish-hke vertebrates
found in the waters of North America, north of the Isthmus of Panama.
Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 47, pt. 1, Ix -f- 1240 pp.

Kirby, H., 1945. Entamoeba coli versus Endamoeba coli. J. Parasit.
31 (3) : 177-184.

Leidy, J., 1879. On Amoeba blattae. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 31, [3s. 9]
(2) : 240-205.

Losch, F., 1875. Massenhafte Entwickelung von Amoben im Dickdarm.
Virchows Arch. Path. Anat. [etc.] 65 [6s., 5] (2) : 196-211.

Liihe, M., 1909. Generationswechsel bei Protozoen. Schriften Phys.-okon.
GeseUsch. Konigsberg. (1908) 49 : 418-424.

Pfeiffer, L., 1888. Weitere Untersuchungen iiber Parasiten im Blut und in
der Lymphe bei den Pockenprocessen. Correspondenz- Blatter Allg. Artzl
Verein von ThUringen (Weimar) 17 (11) : 644-667,

276 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Rafinesque, C. S., 1810a. Caratteri di alcuni nuovi generi e nuove specie di
animali e piante delle Sicilia con varie osservazioni sopra i medesimi.
105 pp.

, 1810b. Indice d'ittiologia siciliana ; ossia, catalogo metodico dei nomi

latini, italiam, e siciliani dei pesci, cite si renvengono in Sicilia ... 70 pp.

Sabrosk}', C. W., 1947. The significance of the " editorial notes " in the
reprints of the earUer opinions on zoological nomenclature. Ann. ent.
Soc. Amer. 40 (1) : 152-153.

Schaudinn, F., 1903. Untersuchungen iiber die Fortpflanzung einiger Rhizo-
poden. (Vorlaufige Mittheilung). Arbeiten aus dem kais. Gesundheitsamte
19 (3): 547-576.

Stiles, C. W., 1892. [Review] : Councihnan, W. T. and Lafleur, H. A.,
Amoebic Dysentery. (The Johns Hopkins Hospital Reports. 1891. II.
p. 395-584). CentraM.f. Bakt. 12 (15) : 524-525.

and Boeck, W. C, 1923. The nomenclatorial status of certain protozoa

parasitic in man. In : Boeck, W. C. and Stiles, C.W. Studies on various
intestinal parasites (especially amoebae) of man. Bull. U.S. Hyg. Lab.
133 : 92-184.

and Hassall, A., 1925. Key-catalogue of the Protozoa reported for man.

Ibid. 140 : 67 pp.

i

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 277

REPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION OF THE NOMEN-
CLATORIAL PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
GENERIC NAMES "ENDAMOEBA" LEIDY, 1879, AND
"ENTAMOEBA" CASAGRANDI & BARBAGALLO, 1895
(CLASS RHIZOPODA)

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
{Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Commission's reference Z. N. (S.) 185)

1 . The need for a thorough review of the ruling in regard to the status of the
generic name Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895 (Class Rhizopoda)
in relation to the name Etidanmeha Leidy, 1879, dealt with in the Opinion
previously rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature as Opinion 99, was first formally brought to the attention of the Com-
mission in January, 1945, when Professor Harold Kirby (University of Cali-
fornia, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) submitted a paper entitled " Entamoeba
coli versus Endamoeba coli," in which he drew attention to what appeared to
be a serious error in that Opinion.

2. Owing to wartime difficulties, it was not possible at that time at once
to pubUsh Professor Kirby's paper in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
and it was accordingly arranged that, in order to draw the attention of interested
protozoologists to the nomenclatorial issues involved, Professor Kirby's paper
should (as already contemplated) be published as soon as possible in the Journal
of Parasitology and that it should be repubUshed in the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature as soon as it was possible to submit this case to the International
Commission for consideration. Not long afterwards, Professor Kirby's paper
duly appeared (June, 1945, J. Parasit. 31 : 177-184). At my suggestion.
Professor Kirby added a footnote, in which he explained that the problem
dealt with in that paper had been submitted to the International Commission
for decision and invited any specialist who might wish to comment on the
conclusions reached in that paper to send those comments direct to myself,
as Secretary to the Commission.

3. In July, 1946, Dr. EUsworth C. Dougherty (University of California,
Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) submitted to the Commission a paper in which
he accepted the conclusions reached by Professor Kirby and brought forward
additional matters which appeared to call for consideration.

4. Notice given in 1947 of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present
case : Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in this case was given
in November 1947 to the journals Science and Nature and was published
shortly thereafter. This notice, like the footnote attached to Professor Kirby's
paper of 1945, failed to eUcit any objections. Thus, by the time that the
International Commission met in Paris in July, 1948, there were strong groimds
for believing that a revision of Opinion 99 on the lines suggested would be in

278 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

accordance with the general wishes of protozoologists.

5. Preliminary action taken by (lie International Commission in Paris in
1948 : The attention of the International Commission was drawn to this
question during its Session held in Paris in 1948 in Commission Paper I.C.
(48) 17 (1950, Bull zool. Nomoid. 3 : 128), which was considered by the Com-
mission at its Twelfth Meeting during that Session (Paris Sessions, 12th Meeting,
Conclusion 22 (4)) (1950, Bull zool. Nomencl. 4 : 338). The Commission then
recommended — and the Congress agreed — that the decision in Opinion 99
(uuUke the decisions in other Opinions) should not be recorded in the Schedule
to the Regies then established for the recording of such decisions, until after
the subject matter of that Ojpinion had been thoroughly reviewed and that,
pending the outcome of that review, the questions dealt with in Opinion 99
were to be regarded as being sub judice.

6. Review of the decision given in " Opinion " 99 : Since the Paris Congress
Dr. Dougherty has thoroughly reviewed both the Hterature of the amoebae
of man dealt with in the present Report and the conclusions in regard to the
names published for those species (both at the genus level and at the species
level) given in Opinion 99. This investigation has confirmed the conclusions
which he and Professor Earby had previously reached and has brought to light
certain other supplementary matters which will also need to be dealt with
before the nomenclature of these species can be placed on a sound legal footing.
Dr. Dougherty has accordingly re\ased his earlier paper to take accoimt of
these additional considerations. At the same time he has drafted the concluding
recommendations, so as to secure that they deal with all the matters (relating
to the placing on Official Lists and Official Indexes of names dealt with in
Opinions) which the Paris Congress decided should in future be dealt with in
cases of this kind.

7. Close parallel between the history of th^ names published for the amoebae
of man and that of the names piiblished for the malaria parasites of man : The
data submitted by Professor Kirby and Dr. Dougherty amply justify the
decision taken by the Commission in Paris to review the ruling given in Opinion
99, for they disclose a tissue of errors and misconceptions in that Opinion.
The history of the names published for the amoebae of man, as set forth in the
documents now submitted, shows a remarkable similarity with the history
of the names published for the malaria parasites of man ; in each case, the
universal practice of protozoologists for the last half century has been totally
at variance with the provisions of the Regies ; in each case, it was Schaudinn
who was principally responsible for the nomenclatorial errors which have
become so deeply embedded in protozoological and medical literature ; in
each case, the Commission attempted (in the case of the names of the amoebae
of man, in Opinion 99 ; in the case of the malaria parasites of man, in Opinion
104) to reach a settlement without recourse to the plenary powers, the only
difference in this regard between these two cases being that in the latter case
the Commission sought to give valid force to the current practice of proto-
zoologists, while in the former it did not.

Bulletin of Zoological Notnenchture 279

8. Adion recommended : During its Paris Session the International Com-
mission corrected the errors previously made in regard to the names of the
malaria parasites of man (see 1950, Bull zool. Nomencl. 4 : 594-624) and it is
clearly desirable that a corresponding correction of the errors made in regard
to the names of the amoebae of man should now be made as quickly as possible,
in the hght of the data submitted by Professor Kirby and Dr. Dougherty,
the object of the action so taken being to give valid force to the current nomen-
clatorial practice of protozoologists and to avoid the appalling confusion
which would result from any attempt strictly to apply the Regies to those
names. In order to correct the errors in Opinion 99 and to deal fully with the
associated nomenclatorial problems (as was done when a corresponding
correction was made of errors in regard to the names of the malaria parasites
of man), it would be necessary for the International Commission to take —
and I recommend that it should take — action on the following lines : —

(1) cancel Opinion 99 as incorrect and misleading ;

(2) use its plenary powers : —

(a) to suppress : —

(i) for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and also of the
Law of Homonymy, the trivial name coli Losch, 1875 (as
pubUshed in the binominal combination Atnoeba coli) :

(ii) for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of
the Law of Homonjnny, the under-mentioned trivial names : —

( a ) urogenitalis Baelz, 1883 (as published in the binominal
combination Amoeba urogenitalis) :

( jS ) vaginalis Blanchard, 1885 (as published in the binominal
combination Amoeba vaginalis) :

( Y ) intestinalis Blanchard, 1885 (as published in the bi-
nominal combination Amoeba intestinalis) :

( 8 ) dysenlerica PfeiiFer, 1888 (as pubUshed in the binominal

combination Amoeba dysenterica) :
( £ ) dysenteriae Councilman and Lafleur, 1891 (as pubUshed

in the binominal combination Amoeba dysenteriae) :

(b) to direct that the trivial name histolytica Schaudinn, 1903 (as
pubUshed in the binominal combination Entamoeba histolytica):
is to be applied to the large dysenteric amoeba of man described
and figured by Dobell (C.C), 1919, The Amoebae living in Man :

31-70, PI. I, figs. 1-6 ; pi. II, fig. 16 ; PI. Ill ; PI. IV, figs. 70-76 ;

(c) to direct that the specific name Amoeba coli, as pubUshed by

Grassi in 1879, is to be treated as being a specific name then
pubUshed for the first time and to validate the trivial name so
pubUshed ;

280 Bulletin of Zoological Noinenclature

(d) to direct that the trivial name coli Grassi, 1879 (as pubUshed
in the binominal combination Amoeba coli), as validated in (c)
above, is to be applied to the large nondysenteric amoeba of man
described and figured by Dobell (C.C), 1919, loc. dt. : 78-92,
PI. I, figs. 12-15 ; PI. II. fig. 17 ; PI. IV, fig. 55-69 ;

(e) to designate Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879, as validated under (c)
above and as defined in (d) above, as the type species of the
genus Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895 (a genus
based upon a misidentified type species) ;

(f) to direct that Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879, validated and defined
as in (e) above, is to be accepted as the type species by original
designation of Loschia Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire, 1912
(a genus based upon a misidentified type species) ;

(3) to declare that the name Eyiiamoeba Casagiandi & Barbagallo, 1895;
is not a homon}Tn of the name Endamoeba Leidy, 1879 ;

(4) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List
of Generic Names in Zoology : —

(a) Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895 (type species by
designation under the plenary powers, under (2) (e) above :
Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879, as validated and defined under (2) (c)
and (2) (d) above respectively) (gender of generic name : feminine) ;

(b) Poneramoeba Liihe, 1909 (type species, by original designation :
Entamoeba histolytica Schaudinn, 1903) (gender of generic name :
feminine) (for use by workers who consider Entamoeba histolytica
Schaudinn, 1903, to be generically distinct from Amoeba coli Grassi,
the type species of Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895) ;

(5) to confirm the position on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879 (type species, by monotypy :
Amoeba blattae Biitschli, 1878) (gender of generic name : feminine) ;

(6) to place the generic name Loschia Chatton & Lalimg-Bonnaire, 1912
(type species, by designation under the plenary powers under (2) (f)
above: Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879 (an objective synon}'in of Entamoeba
Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895)) on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ;

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

(a) blattae Biitschli, 1878 (as published in the binominal combination
Amoeba blattae) (type species of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879) ;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 281

(b) coli Grassi, 1879 (as published in the binominal combination
Amoeba coli) (as validated and defined under the plenary powers
under (2) (c) and (2) (d) above respectively) (type species of
Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895) ;

(c) histolytica Schaudinn, 1903 (as published in the binominal
combination Entamoeba histolytica) (as defined under the plenary
powers under (2) (b) above) (type species of Poneramoeba Luhe,
1909) ;

(8) to place the imder-mentioned trivial names on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :

(a) coli Losch, 1875 (as published in the binominal combination
Amoeba coli), as suppressed under the plenary powers under (2) (a) (i)

above) ;

(b) the under-mentioned trivial names suppressed under the plenary
powers under (2) (a) (ii) above :

(a) urogenitalis Baek, 1883 (as published in the binominal

combination Atnoeba urogenitalis) ;
(/S) vaginalis Blanchard, 1885 (as published in the binominal

combination Amoeba vaginalis) ;

(Y) intestinalis Blanchard, 1885 (as published in the binominal
combination Amoeba intestinalis);

(8) dysenterica Pfeiffer, 1888 (as published in the binominal
combination Amoeba dysenterica);

(£) dysenteriae Councilman & Lafleur, 1891 (as published in
the binominal combination Amoeba dysenteriae).

9. Before signing the present Report, I submitted it in draft for comment
to Professor Harold Kirby and Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty, the two specialists
who had communicated with the Commission on this subject. Both have
since informed me that they concur in the solution suggested.

282 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

ON THE QUESTION OF THE CORRECT NAME FOR THE
TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS " STEPHANURUS "
DIESING, 1839 (CLASS NEMATODA*, ORDER RHAB-
DITIDA), WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PLACING
OF CERTAIN NAMES ON THE " OFFICIAL LISTS "

By ELLSWORTH C. DOUGHERTY, Ph.D., M.D.
{Department of Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)188)

Introduction

1. The type species, which is also the only generally recognized species, of
Stephanurus Diesing, 1839 — a strongyline genus placed by Chitwood and
Chitwood (1937) in a subfamily stephanurinae Railliet, Henry, and Bauche,
1 9 1 9 , of the family SYNGAMiDAELeiper,191 2 — is generally known as Stephanurus
dentatus Diesing, 1839. It is the kidney worm of swine {Sus scrofa) and an
organism of cosmopolitan distribution and considerable economic importance.
Because of its prominence as a parasite of a domestic animal and the resulting
close scrutiny it must suffer, it is rather surprising that in recent years the
question of its specific name has not received more attention. It is now possible
to say that certain facts in its history make apparent that the specific trivial
name of Diesing (1839) can be used only if the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature invokes its plenary powers. A detailed history of
earlier papers was given by Tayler (1900) ; and the essential points in the
nomenclatorial history have been more recently reviewed in a paper originating
from the Imperial Bureau of Agricultural Parasitology, England, and apparently
written by B. G. Peters (i.e., B.G.P., 1931), but therein the nomenclatorial
issues were not directly faced.

2. An earlier draft of the present paper was first submitted to the Inter-
national Commission in 1945. In its original form it dealt with problems,
certain of which have subsequently been clarified by action of the International
Commission and of the International Congress of Zoology at the historic Paris
meetings in July, 1948. The following month (in August, 1948) the author
visited Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission ;
and it was at that time agreed between them that, if pertinent matters were
still to be raised, the paper should be rewritten in light of decisions taken at the
Paris Meetings and resubmitted. I have delayed doing this until the " Ofiicial
Record of Proceedings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature at their Session held in Paris in July, 1948 " could be published. Now
that such has been done in Volume 4 of The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature,
I have reviewed the earlier draft and rewritten it. It is hereby resubmitted.

3. In the original draft a major problem, now essentially solved, dealt
with questions of secondary homonymy (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 :

* The classification preferred by the author is to consider Nematoda a Phyhim divided
into Classes Phasmidea (including the Order Bhabditida) and Aphasmidea.

Bull, zool Nomencl. Vol. 2, Pts. 9/10. August, 1951

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 283

118-125, for conclusions of the International Commission, as approved by the
Congress, on the subject of homonyms in zoological nomenclature). It is my
feeling, however, that despite this considerable clarification it is desirable that
the Commission consider a case of secondary homonymy and render an Opinion
applying the new regulations ; in this way, as is pointed out later herein, one
minor problem may be definitely solved. To ensure this end, I am reviewing
in section II the main historical points and presenting in section III an analysis
of the nomenclatorial problem.

4. A major consideration in regard to the name to be used for the kidney
worm of swine still remains — namely, the question of a decision on the part
of the Commission as to whether it might be better in the interests of stability
to secure the use of the trivial name dentatus of Diesing, 1839, by exercise of
plenary powers. Suggestions on this point are put forth in section IV.

5. Finally it is recommended in section V that certain generic names
considered herein (particularly Stephanurus Diesing, 1839) be placed on the
" Oflficial List of Generic Names in Zoology " and certain trivial names on the
" Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology."

II. Review of the Nomenclatorial History

6. The kidney worm of swine was first described by Diesing (1839) as
Steplianurus dentatus, only species of a new genus Stephanurus. The modernness
of Diesing's conception is apparent from the fact that today it is still generally
known by that name. Indeed, if Diesing's nomenclatorial treatment had been
host another strongyline species (Order Rhabditida) with the same trivial
name dentatus. Confusion arises, however, because there exists from the same
host another strongyline species (Order Rhabditida) with the same trivial
name, namely, one of the nodular worms of swine, now known as Oesophago-
stomum dentatum (Rudolphi, 1803) Molin, 1861 (originally Strongylus dentatus
Rudolphi, 1803). Because of the fact that all strongylines with relatively well-
developed bursae in the male were grouped by many nineteenth century
helminthologists into one or two genera, i.e., Strongylus Miiller, 1780, and
Sclerostoma Rudolphi, 1809, it would not be surprising if at one time or another
both Stephanurus dentatus and Oesophagostomum dentatum were to be included
under a single genus. This has actually occurred as is shown in the following
historical summary.

7. The important facts in the nomenclatorial history of the kidney worm
are as follows : —

(i) Diesing (1839 : 232-233), as already noted, described the kidney
worm of swine as Stephanurus dentatus, only species of a new genus
Stephanurus.

(ii) Leidy (1856 : 54) referred to nematodes, apparently one of the
nodular worms of swine, briefly : Sclerostoma dentatum, Rud.
Several specimens, male and female, were obtained from the liver
of the hog, Sus scrofa."

284 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(iii) White (1859 : 428), described specimens of the kidney worm as
Stephanurus dentatus, but apparently confused these with the
worms reported by Leidy, as imphed by the title of his paper :
" Exhibition of specimens and figures of Stephanurus dentatus,
Diesing, Sclerostoma dentatum 1 Rudolphi " ; he thus implied that
the kidney worm might be the same as Strongylus dentatus Rudolphi,
1803 (now known as OesopJiagostomum dentatum).

(iv) Verrill (1870a : 248-249 ; 1870b : 137-138 ; 1870c) described
the kidney worm under the name Sclerostoma pinguicola ; he was
ignorant of Diesing's description.

(v) Dean (1874 : 62-63) described very well the gross pathology
produced by Strongylus [= Stephanurus'] dentatus without indicating
whether it was Rudolphi's or Diesing's name he had in mind.

(vi) Cobbold (1879 : 412) recommended the new name Stephanurus
nattereri as a possible substitute for Stephanurus dentatus in order
to avoid confusion with Sclerostoma [—Oesophagostomum] dentatum.

(vii) De Magalhaes (1894) published a study of the morphology of the
kidney worm. He concluded that it Ijelonged in the genus Strongylus
and accepted for it the name " Strongylus (Sclerostomum) pinguicola
(Verrill)."

(viii) Railliet (1896 : 160) synonymized Stephanurus with Sclerostoma
and accepted Sclerostoma pinguicola of Verrill (1870).

(ix) Tayler (1900 : 626) also regarded Stephanurus Diesing, 1839, as a
synonym of Sclerostoma Rudolphi, 1809. She accordingly accepted
Sclerostoma pinguicola Verrill, 1870, as the correct name of the
kidney worm and placed Stephanurus dentatus, Stephanurus nattereri,
and Strongylus dentatus of Dean (1874) as synonyms thereof;
she regarded Sclerostoma dentatum of Leidy (1856) as what is now
Oesophagostomum dentatum.

(x) Neither de Magalhaes, Railliet, nor Tayler specifically formed a
combination between Diesing's trivial name dentatus and the
generic names to which they in effect transferred it ; however, all
three rejected it as a homonym.

(xi) Drabble (1922, 1923) described the kidney worm under the new
name Sclerostomum renium, claiming that it was distinct from
" Sclerostoma pinguicola (syn. Stephanurus dentatus)." However,
Cameron and Clunies Ross (1924) have shown conclusively that
Drabble's species is the same as Diesing's.

(xii) De Almeida (1928) described as Stephanurus morai specimens that
Peters (1931) has shown also to belong to Diesing's species.

(xiii) Peters (1931) and others, both previously and subsequently,
reverted to the trivial name dentatus with their recognition of
genus Stephanurus as independent.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 285

III. Discussion of the Nomenclatorial Problems

8. It is apparent from the foregoing historical summary that : —

(i) There are two species of nematodes parasitic in swine bearing the
same trivial name, dentatus, but originally described in separate
genera ;

(ii) Apparent confusion existed between these two species or at least
between their names in the works of certain early writers (White,
Dean), but these writers did not specifically regard or reject the
later trivial name, dentatus of Diesing, 1839, as a homonym of
earlier trivial name, dentatus of Rudolphi, 1803.

(iii) Later workers (de Magalhaes, RailUet, Tayler) recognized both
species and regarded them as congeneric, uniting them either in
the genus Strongylus Miiller, 1780, or in the genus Sderostoma
Rudolphi, 1809 ; they rejected the later name, dentatus of Diesing,
1839, as a homonym of the earlier, dentatus of Rudolphi, 1803,
Avithout, however, specifically forming a combination between the
later trivial name and the new generic names to which it was
transferred.

9. The International Congress at the Paris Meeting ofl&cially recognized
for the first time two categories of homonymy — primary and secondary.
Inasmuch as the two nematodes parastic in swine were originally described
in separate genera, their trivial names cannot, in accordance with the definition
of primary homonymy provided by the International Congress, be regarded
as primary homonyms.

1 0. Under the definition of secondary homonymy drawn up by the Inter-
national Conmiission at its Paris Meetings and subsequently approved by
the Congress, a secondary homonym is to be regarded as having been rejected
and hence permanently suppressed only if specifically recognised and rejected
as such. This was not the case with either White (1859) or Dean (1874).
White in effect implied, probably inadvertently, that the kidney worm of
swine and that species of nodular worm occurring in the same host and originally
given the trivial name dentatus by Rudolphi (1803) were conspecific. This
sjmonymy was subsequently (and is at present) recognized to be imtrue.
Dean, in designating the kidney worm Srongylus dentatus, created a condition
of secondary homonymy, but did not recognise and reject the trivial name
dentatus of Diesing, 1839.

11. The position is quite otherwise in the case of de Magalhaes (1894),
Railliet (1896) and Tayler (1900), for each of these authors is to be regarded
as having definitely recognized, in their estimation, dentatus of Diesing, 1839,
to be a secondary homonym of dentatus of Rudolphi, 1803, and as having
accordingly rejected the former. It was decided by the Congress at Paris,
on the recommendation of the Commission, that, wherever a trivial name is
clearly rejected as a secondary homonym prior to midnight G.M.T., December
Slst, 1950/January 1st, 1951, such rejection is to be accepted as valid, and the

286 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

trivial name in question is to be permanently suppressed. It is seemingly
clear, therefore, that under this rule (to be formally constituted in an Article
in the forthcoming edition of the Regies Internationales de la Nomenclature
Zoologique), the specific trivial name dentatus of Diesing, 1839, is no longer
available for the kidney worm of swine unless it is preserved by the Inter-
national Commission under its plenary powers.

12. However, it has been my experience that some zoologists have held
that homonymy does not exist unless a combination of generic and trivial
name has been made so that identical specific names exist for two species,
of which the trivial name of one (the later) then becomes a homonym. This
would seem to be, as the Secretary of the International Commission might
express it, a somewhat " ritualistic " requirement and not a necessary or even
reasonable interpretation of the present rulings. However, in order to obviate
any doubt, it is to be hoped that the International Commission will issue a
ruling on this point in the form of a Declaration.

IV. The Correct Name for the Kidney Worm of Swine

13. As de Magalhaes (1894), Railliet (1896), and Tayler (1900) are pre-
sumably to be regarded as having rendered Diesing's dentatus unavailable,
the next trivial name to be considered for the tidney worm of swine is the
subjective synonym pinguicola of Verrill, 1870. There is no prior usage of
this trivial name in the Nematoda, and therefore the kidney worm would
become Stephanurus pinguicola (Verrill, 1870) comb. nov. The names
Stephanurus nattereri Cobbold, 1879, Sclerostoma renium Drabble, 1923, and
Stephanurus morai de Almeida, 1928, would fall as subjective synonyms thereof.

14. The synonymy oi S. pinguicola would be as follows :

Stephanurus pinguicola (Verrill, 1870) comb. nov.
Synonyms :

Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839 ; Sclerostoma pinguicola Verrill,
1870 ; Strongylus dentatus, of Dean, 1874 [non Strongylus dentatus
Rudolphi, 1803] ; Stephanurus nattereri Cobbold, 1879 ; " Sclerostomum
pinguicola Verrill, 1870," of de Magalhaes, 1894 ; Strongylus (Sclero-
stomum) pinguicola (Verrill, 1870) de Magalhaes, 1894 ; Sclerostomum
renium Drabble, 1922 ; Stephanurus morai de Almeida, 1928.

15. The question now arises as to whether the foregoing change is in the
best interests of nomenclatorial stability and uniformity. Stephanurus dentatus
Diesing, 1839, is a widely used name for an important parasite. Might it
not be the wiser procedure to seek to establish this name through an appeal
to the International Conmaission's plenary powers ?

16. A solution to the foregoing problems would appear to me to be best
realized by canvassing a representative group of parasitologists concerned
with problems of nomenclature. As one such person, I should myself favour

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 287

permitting the regular application of the Regies to this case for the reasons

that :

(i) The occurrence of two relatively closely related parasitic species
having the same trivial name (Stephanurus dentatus and Oesopha-
gostomum dentatum) in the same host should, if possible, be avoided.

(ii) I am not convinced that the dislocation of a change in the trivial
name {dentatus) of the kidney worm of swine would be serious in
view of the stability of its generic name {Stepfianurus).

(iii) The suspension of the Regies in this case would, I believe, tend to
weaken their stability in the long run, for the issue, without the
invocation of plenary powers, is apparently clear-cut from the
nomenclatorial viewpoint and would thereby serve as a good example
of the application of the new rulings on secondary homonymy.

V. Recommendation for the placing of certain names on the " Official

Lists "

17. At the present time the genus Stephanurus Diesing, 1939, has but one
recognized species, originally designated Stephanurus dentatus by Diesing
(1839). The genus has been generally recognized as independent for almost
50 years. It therefore seems desirable that its name be placed on the " Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology " with type species Stephanurus dentatus
Diesing, 1839 (subjective synonym, Sclerostoma pinguicola, Verrill, 1870 =
Stephanurus pinguicola (Verrill, 1870) comb. nov.). Depending upon the ultimate
decision of the International Commission, either the trivial name dentatus of
Diesing will (under plenary powers) be validated for the kidney worm of swine,
or it must be rejected. In either event, the valid trivial name of the species
should be included in the " Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology."
I therefore recommend that on the basis of the action of the International
Commission either the trivial name dentatus Diesing, 1839 (as published in the
binominal combination Stephanurus dentatus) or the trivial name pinguicola
Verrill, 1870 (as published in the binominal combination Sclerostoma pinguicola)
be so placed. If dentatus of Diesing, 1839, is not preserved under plenary
powers, it must be placed on the " Official Index of Rejected and InvaUd
Specific Trivial Names in Zoology."

18. Finally, in order that the decision to be taken in the present case may
be as complete as possible, I recommend that, when stabilizing the name of
the kidney worm of swine, the International Commission should also stabiUze
the name of the common nodular worm of swine discussed in the present
paper. The earliest name for this form, as now accepted generally, is Strongylus
dentatus Rudolphi, 1803. Careful check in Stiles and Hassall's Index-Catalogue
of Medical and Veterinary Zoology. Subjects : Roundworms . , , (1920, U.S.
Hyg. Lab. Bull. 114) reveals no problem of homonymy as regards this name.
However, there are now known four species of nodular worms in domestic
swine, and in all probability it cannot be stated with absolute certainty to
which of these Rudolphi's name applied. It seems, nevertheless, almost

288 Bulletin of Zoological Notnendature

almost certain that the commonest of these, to which the trivial name dentatum
(in the binominal combination Oesophagostomum derdatum) is now vmiversally
applied, was one of the species, probably the only one, studied by him. Accord-
ingly, I propose that the International Commission place on the " Official List
of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology," along with the name recognized by
them as vaUd for the kidney worm of swine, whichever that may be, the trivial
name dentatus Rudolphi, 1803 (as published in the binominal combination
Strongylus dentatus), an indication being made by the International Com-
mission at the same time that this trivial name is to be identified by reference
to the definitive description and figures published for this species by Goodey
(1924, pp. 1-14, figs. 1-15).

19. As akeady explained, this species is currently referred by speciaUsts
to the genus Oesophagostomum Molin, 1861, of which it is regarded as type by
reason of its selection by Stiles and Hassall (1905, : 124).*

I therefore also ask that the generic name, Oesophagostomum Molin, 1861
(type species, by subsequent selection (Stiles and Hassall, 1905) : Strongylus
dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, defined as already indicated) be placed on the
" Official List of Generic Names in Zoology."

VI. Summary

20. A survey of the nomenclatorial history and status of the species
generally known as Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839. the kidney worm of
swine, has been presented. Evidence has been given that, under the recent
rulings given by the Congress on the ad\'ice of the International Commission
at the Paris Meetings, dentatus of Diesing, 1839, must be considered as an
invahd secondary homonym of the trivial name dentatus of Rudolphi, 1803,
by reason of the rejection of the former by RaiUiet and others when the two
species so named were placed by them in a single genus {Strongylus Miiller,
1780, or Sclerostoma Rudolphi. 1809).

21 . The fact that in no case did the authors specifically rejecting the trivial
name dentatus of Diesing, 1839, make actual combinations of this trivial name

* Prior to the clarification of Article 30 by the XIII International Congress of Zoology
at Paris in July. 1948, it would have been a matter of doubt whether the action by Stiles and
Hassall constituted a valid selection of the above species as type oi Oeaophagoatomum (a) because
Molin (1861) included Strongylus dentatus Rudolphi. 180.3, in this genus only by (i) referring
(p. 44.S) to it once in the discussion of the genus as Oesophagostomum dentatum, but (ii) later
in the discussion of individual species merely citing (p. 445) the name Strongylus dentatus as a
sjTionym of a newly named nominal species (Oesophagostomum subulatum Molin. 1861) and
because (b) Stiles and Hassall. when making their selection for the genus Oesophagostomum,
cited the type as follows : " 0. subulatum=0. dentatum (Rudolphi)." Inasmuch as O. subulatum
was recorded by Stiles and Hassall as the more recent of the two names, one is, I feel, entitled
to interpret their action as selecting O. dentatum (=Strongylus dentatus) as type, of which 0,
subulatum was a synonym. Under the decision of the XIII International Congress of Zoology
already referred to. it may be seen that Strongylus dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, is to be regarded
as an originally included species of the genus Oesophagostomum Molin, 1861, and that the method
used by Stiles and Hassall in selecting the type species of this genus constitutes a vaUd selection
of Rudolphi's species (see 1950, Bull. zool. 'Xomencl., 4: 179-180— points (3) (a) and (3) (b)).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 289

with the generic names mentioned in paragraph 20 and thus did not actually
create the homonymous combinations raises a point not explicitly covered in
the emended rulings formulated by the International Commission at the
Paris Meetings to cover secondary homonymy. Some zoologists have held
that an actual citation of a homonymous specific name is necessary before the
trivial name involved can be rejected as a homonjTn. The International
Commission is hereby requested to render a Declaration on this point.

22. It is hoped that before the International Commission reach a decision,
it will have before it the news of representative parasitologists on the question
whether the trivial name dentatus of Diesing, 1839, should be preserved by
invocation of the Commission's plenary powers. Arguments are presented in
opposition to suspension of the rules in this case.

23. It is recommended to the International Commission that the name
Stephanurus Diesing, 1839 (type species, by monotypy : Stephanurus dentatu&
Diesing, 1839 [subjective synonym, Sclerostotna pinguicola Verrill, 1870
{=Stepha)iurus pinguicola (Verrill, 1870) comb, nov.)] be placed on the " Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology." At the same time, the valid trivial name
of the kidney worm of swine should be placed on the " Official List of Specific
Trivial Names in Zoology." This will be either dentatus Diesing, 1839 (as
published in the binominal combination Stephanurus dentatus), if preserved
by the International Commission through their plenary powers, or, if not,
pinguicola Verrill, 1870 (as published in the binominal combination Sclerostoma
pinguicola). I hereby recommend the latter procedure.

24. The trivial name dentatus of Rudolphi, 1803, is the generally accepted
name for the most common of the four nodular worms of swine. This nominal
species is also type of the genus Oesophagostomum Molin, 1861. In order to
complete the present case, it is recommended to the International Com-
mission that the name Oesophagostomum Molin, 1861 (type species, by sub-
sequent selection (Stiles and Hassall, 1905) : Strongylus dentatus Rudolphi,
1803) also be placed on the " Official List of Generic Names in Zoology " and
that at the same time the trivial name dentatus Rudolphi, 1803 (as published
in the binominal combination Strongylus dentatus) be placed on the " Official
List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology " and identified with the definitive
description and figures of Goodey (1924, pp. 1-14, figs. 1-15).

References

de Almeida, E., 1928. Stephanurus morai n. sp., nova especie do genero
Stephanurus. Bol. Assist. Med Indig. (Dirrec. Serv. Sdude e Higiene,
Angola) 2(11) : 241-242, 4 figs.

Cameron, T. W. M., and Clunies Ross, I., 1924. On the identity of the kidney
worm of pigs in New South Wales. J. Helminth. 2(3) : 149-150.

Chitwood, B. G., and Chitwood, M. G.. 1937. An Introduction to nematology.
Sect. I, (pt. 1) : 1-53, 53 figs.

290 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Cobbold, T. S., 1879. Parasites ; a treatise on the entozoa of man and animals,
including some account of the ectozoa. xi4-508 pp., 85 figs.

Dean, D. V., 1874. Meats and parasites (in his : Report of the city chemist).
Ann. Rep. Board Health, St. Louis, 7 : 58-69.

Diesing, K. M., 1839. Neue Gattungen von Biennenwiirmern nebst einem
Nachtrage zur Monographic der Amphistomen. Ami. Wien. Mus. Natur-
gesch. (K. K. Hof-naturahen-cabinet) 2(2) : 219-242, pi. 14-20.

1861. Revision der Nematoden. Sitzungsber. K. Akad. Wiss.

Wien, Math.-Naturhist. Classe (1860), 42(28) : 598-736, 1 pi., figs. 1-11.

Drabble, J., 1922. The kidney worm of hogs in New South Wales, Sdero-
stomum renium n. sp. J. comp. Path, and Therap. 35(4) : 302-305, 1 fig.

1923. ibid. 36(4) : 217-230, 9 figs.

Goodey, T., 1924. The anatomy of Oesophagostomum dentatum (Rud.), a
nematode parasite of the pig, with observations on the structure and biology
of the free-living larvae. J. Helminthol. 2(1) : 1-14.

Leidy, J., 1856. A synopsis of Entozoa and some of their ectocongeners
observed by the author. Proc. Acad. nat. Sd. Philad. 8(1) : 42-58.

de Magalhaes, P. S., 1894. Uber einen Strongylus in der Niere des Schweincs
{Sclerostomum pinguicola Verr., Stephanurus dentatus Dies.). ZntrJbl.
Bakt. 16(7) : 292-297, 1 fig.

Molin, R. 1861. II sottordine degU acrofalli ordinato scientificamente secondo
i risultamenti delle indagini anatomiche ed embriogeniche. Mem. R. 1st.
VenetoSci., Lett, ed Arti (1860) 9 : 427-633.

Railliet, A., 1896. Quelques rectification a la nomenclature des parasites.
Rec. Med. Vet. 73 [8 s. 3] (5) : 157-161.

P[eters], B. G., 1931. Imperial Bureau of Agricultural Parasitology. Notes
and memoranda. No. 3. The kidney-worm of swine : Stephanurus
dentatus. J. Helminth. 9(3) : 179-190.

Rudolphi, K. A., 1803. Neue Beobachtungen iiber die Eingeweidewiirmer.
Arch. Zool. und. Zoot. 3(2) : 1-32.

1809. Entozoorum sive Vermium intestinalium Historia naturalis.

2(Pt. 1), 457 pp., pis. 7-12.

Stiles, C. W., and Hassall, A. 1905. The determination of generic t}^es
and a list of roundworm genera with their original and t}'pe species. Bull.
U. S. Bur. Animal hid. 79 : 1-150.

Tayler, L., 1900. Our present knowledge of the kidney worm {Sclerostoma
pinguicola) of swine. Ann. Rep. U.S. Btir. Animal hid. (1899) 16 : 612-
637, figs. 30-45.

Verrill, A. E., 1870a. The internal parasites of the domestic animals ; their
effects and remedies. Ann. Rep. Conn. Board Agric. (1869-70) 4 : 162-
251, figs. 49-84.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 291

. 1870b. The parasites of domestic animals. 342 pp., 84 figs.

. 1870c. Description of Hcleroslmna pinguicola, a new species

of Entozoa from the hog. Amer. J. Sci. Arts, 100 [s. 2, 50] (no. 149) :
223-224, 1 fig.

White, J. C, 1859. Specimens and figures of Stephanurus dentatus, Diesing,
Sclerostoma dentatum ? Rudolphi. Proc. Boston Sac. nat. Hist. 6 : 428.

ON THE QUESTION OF THE DESIRABILITY OF RETAINING THE
TRIVIAL NAME "DENTATUS" DIESING, 1839 (AS PUBLISHED
IN THE BINOMINAL COMBINATION "STEPHANURUS DENT-
ATUS") AS THE TRIVIAL NAME OF THE KIDNEY WORM OF
SWINE (CLASS NEMATODA, ORDER RHABDITIDA) : AN APPEAL
TO PARASITOLOGISTS FOR VIEWS ON THE QUESTION RAISED
BY DR. ELLSWORTH C. DOUGHERTY

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
{Secretary to the hiternational Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)188)

1 . In his application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature on the subject of the trivial name properly applicable to the kidney
worm of swine (the type species of the g^dmis StepJianurus Diesing), Dr.Ellsworth
C. Dougherty discusses two separate questions : first, the question whether
the trivial name dentatus Diesing, 1839 (as published in the binominal combina-
tion Stephanurus denkitus), the first trivial name published for that species,
should be regarded as an invalid name on the ground that it is a junior secondary
homonym of the trivial name dentatus Rudolphi, 1803 (as published in the
binomuial combination Strongijlus dentatus), the two species having at different
times been placed by different authors in the same genus ; second, the question
whether, if dentatus Diesing, 1839, is, under the Regies, a name which must be
rejected as a secondary homonym of dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, it is desirable that
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should use its
plenary powers for the purpose of validating the name dentatus Diesing, 1839,
as the name of the kidney worm of swine,

292 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

2. On the first of these questions, Dr. Dougherty points out that Magalhaes
(1894), Railliet (1896) and Taylor (1900) each " definitely recognized, in their
estimation, dentatus of Diesing, 1839, to be a secondary homoynym of dentatus
of Rudolphi, 1803 " and " accordingly rejected the former ". Dr. Dougherty
then refers to the decisions on the question of the rules governing specific
homonymy taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology in
Paris in 1948 and reaches the conclusion that, under the rules so revised, the
trivial name dentatus Diesing, 1839, must be regarded as having been rendered
permanently invalid by reason of the action taken by the authors cited above ;
at the same time however. Dr. Dougherty recalls that in the past it has been
argued that, in order to establish that a state of secondary homonymy exists,
it is necessary not only for an author definitely to reject as a secondary homonym,
the later published of any pair of homonyms but also to cite both species under
the same combination of generic name and specific trivial name. In this
connection, it is useful to recall that considerable discussion took place at the
Sixth (Public) Meeting of the International Commission at its Paris Session
regarding the criteria to be adopted in determining whether a given pair of
names were to be regarded as secondary homonyms of one another ; the object
of this dicussion was to devise criteria which would be clear and unambiguous,
depending upon objective data and would at the same time be suitable for
application not only to cases arising after the introduction of the new system
but also to cases which had arisen prior to that date and to which the new
system would need to be applied retrospectively. This discussion is recorded
in considerable detail in the Official Record of Proceedings under heading (F)
on pp. 112-115 of volume 4 of the Bxdletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The
formal record of the recommendation on this subject submitted by the Com-
mission to, and later approved by, the Congress will be found embodied in
points (8) and (9) of the Conclusion reached (see page 121 of the volume referred
to above). At no time during these discussions was it suggested that the new
provision to be adopted should require that, before two names could be regarded
as being secondary homonyms of one another, each must be cited simultaneously
by the same author under the same specific name (combination of generic
name and specific trivial name), although (as stated by Dr. Dougherty) this
argument had sometimes been advanced in the past by authors seeking to
interpret the ambiguous provisions of the then-existing Article 35 (usually in
relation to particular cases where the authors concerned were anxious to find
reasons justifying the retention of a name which had been rejected by a former
author as a secondary homonym but which was no longer considered non-
generic with the other species bearing the same trivial name). Not only was no
such argument advanced but, on the contrary, the view was strongly expressed
that great care must be taken in the revision of Article 35 to avoid the inclusion
of formal provisions of a " ritualistic " character of the kind which (as had
previously been rightly pointed out by Dr. J. Brookes Knight (Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.) had marred the amendment to Article 25 made
by the Tenth International Congress of Zoology at Budapest in 1926). For
this reason therefore it was expressly agreed that no definition of the procedure
to be adopted by an author in rejecting one name as a secondary homonym of
another should be inserted in the new rule and that, as regards rejections
effected prior to 1st January 1951, the test to be applied should be simply

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 293

whether or not the later author rejected the one name as a secondary homonym
of the other. The " rejections " discussed by Dr. Dougherty in relation to the
name dentalus Diesing, 1839, were all effected long before the Paris Congress
and fall therefore to be judged by the above simple test. The evidence brought
forward by Dr. Dougherty in regard to the action taken by de Magalhaes,
Railliet raid Taylor in the last decade of the XlXth century clearly shows that
those authors duly " rejected " the name dentatus Diesing, 1839, within the
meaning of that term as used in Point (8) of the decision of the Paris Congress
on this subject.

3. Appeal to parasitologists : The position which has now to be considered
is therefore (as Dr. Dougherty points out) (1) whether or not confusion would
result from the dropping (as an invalid homonym) of the name dentatus Diesing,
1839, as the trivial name of the Kidney Worm of Swine, that name being
replaced by the name pinguicola Verrill, 1870, and (2) if the answer to the
foregoing question is in the afiirmative, whether the International Commission
should prevent that confusion from arising by using its plenary powers to
validate the name dentatus Diesing, 1839 for the Kidney Worm, that course
being possible because the nodular worm to which the same trivial name had
been given by Rudolphi in 1803 (in the combination Strongylus dentatus) is
not considered congeneric with the Kidney Worm and in consequence, accord-
ing to current taxonomic ideas, there would be no question of homonymy if
the name dentatus Diesing were to be used for the Kidney Worm in the genus
Stephanurus Diesing.

4. The foregoing is a matter on which the International Commission must
naturally rely upon the views of parasitologists concerned with this group, who
alone can advise on the relative merits of the question at issue (namely whether
it is desirable that the name dentatus Diesing, 1839, or the name pinguicola
Verrill, 1870, should be the valid name for the Kidney Worm of Swine).

5. Accordingly, it is particularly hoped that any parasitologist interested
in this subject will be good enough to forward as soon as possible, to the Secre-
tary to the Commission (address : 28 Park Village East, Regent's Park, London,
N.W.I, England) a statement setting out his views for the consideration of
the International Commission.

294 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VARY
THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS " EYSARCORIS "
HAHN, 1834 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA),
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE EXISTING NOMENCLATORIAL
PRACTICE

By W. E. CHINA, Sc.D.
{Deputy Keeper, Department of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History),

London)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)212)

The object of the present appUcation is to seek the help of the Interuational
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in preventing the confusion which
would inevitably arise if the Regies were strictly applied in the case of the
generic name Eysarcoris Hahn, 1834 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera).

The relevant facts are as follows : The generic name Eysarcoris Hahn,
1834 {Wanzehart. Ins. 2: 66) was established without a designated or indicated
type species ; one of the species included in it by Hahn was Cimex jmndatus
Linnaeus, 1758 {Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 444). This species was selected as the
type species by Desmarest in 1845 {in Orbigny, Diet. univ. Hist. nat. (Disciples,
ed.) 5 : 526). This selection, being the first to have been made, is valid under
the Regies. It has not, however, been accepted by hemipterists who have
followed Distant, who in 1902 {Faun. Brit Ind Rhyn. 1 : 165) selected Cimex
perlatus Fabricius, 1794 {Ent. syst. 4 : 125) (i.e., Citnex aeneus Scopoli, 1763
Ent. cam.: 122) as the type species of this genus.

The acceptance of Desmarest's selection of Cimex punctatus Linnaeus as
the type species of the genus Eysarcoris Hahn would cause much more confusion
than uniformity in the generic names in the family pentatomidae, for it would
involve not only the loss of the well-known generic name Rhacognaihus Fieber,
[1860] {Europ. Hem. : 81, 347) (which would be replaced by the name
Eysarcoris Hahn), but also the transfer of the long-established generic name
Eysarcoris Hahn from the sub-family pentatominae to the sub-family
ASOPINAE, and the replacement in the pentatominae of name Eysarcoris Hahn
by the little-used generic name Stollia EUenrieder, 1862 {Nat. Tijdschr. ned. hid.
24 : 149). This latter genus has, as its type species by monotypy, an Oriental
species Stollia fuliginosa EUenrieder, 1862, which is only doubtfully congeneric
with the European species now (incorrectly) referred to the genus Eysarcoris
Hahn.

In order to avoid the confusion and uncertainties described above, I ask
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : —

(1) to use its plenary powers : —

(a) to set aside all selections of type species for the genus Eysarcoris
Hahn, 1834, made prior to the proposed decision ;

(b) to designate Cimex aeneus Scopoli, 1763, to be the type species
of the foregoing genus ;

BuU. zool. Nomend. Vol. 2, Pts. 9/10. August, 1951

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 295

(2) to place the generic name Eysarcoris Hahn, 1834 (type species, by
designation under the plenary powers, as proposed in (1) (b) above :
Ciniex aeneus Scopoli, 1763) on the Official List of Geiieric Natnes
in Zoology (gender of generic name : masculine) ;

(3) to place the trivial name aeneus Scopoli, 1763 (as published in the
binominal combination Ciniex aeneus) on the Official List of Specific
Trivial Names in Zoology.

296 Bvlletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALID-
ATE THE SPECIFIC TRIVIAL NAME " ACUMINATA " lOFF
& TIFLOV, 1946 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION
" RHADINOPSYLLA (RECTOFRONTIA) ACUMINATA") AS
APPLIED TO THE SPECIES NUMBERED " 68 " BY THOSE
AUTHORS (CLASS INSECT A, ORDER SIPHON AFTER A)

By G. H. E. HOPKINS, O.B.E., M.A.,
{British Museum {Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts.)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)386)

loff {in loff, Tiflov, et al, 1946, Med. Parasitol. Moscoiv, 15 (No. 4) : 91)
published a subgenus Ralipsylla of Rhadinopsylla. On the following page he
and other authors pubhshed numerous new species or subspecies which are
numbered, numbers 60, 61 and 63 being referred to the subgenus Ralipsylla
and 64 to 68 inclusive to the subgenus Rectofrontia. But both No. 62 and No. 66
are called " Rhadinopsylla {Rectofrontia) acuminata loff et Tiflov," and this is
the first time this name had been published. Obviously one of these duplicate
names must be a lapsus calami, and it is clear from the context which is the
error, because No. 62 is sandwiched in among forms of Ralipsylla whereas
No. 66 is correctly placed among forms of Rectofrontia, ; it is, therefore No. 66
to which the name acuminata was intended to apply. Moreover, in the separates
of the paper (but not in the original publication) the name of No. 62 is altered
in manuscript, presumably by Professor loflF, to Rhadinopsylla {Ralipsylla)
li transbaikalica loif et Tiflov. This manuscript alteration does not, of course,
constitute publication, but in No. 6 of the same periodical and volume, also
published in 1946, there is ( : 94) a list of corrections of misprints in the original
paper, among which is the statement that the name of species No. 62 on p. 92
of the original paper should be Rhadinopsylla {Ralipsylla) li transbaikalica
loif et Tiflov, not Rhadinopsylla {Rectofrontia) acumimita loff et Tiflov as
printed.

In these circumstances the strict application of the Regies to the present
case would serve no useful purpose whatever : (1) it would involve the pedantic
acceptance of something which was undoubtedly an error (namely, the
application of the name Rhadinopsylla {Rectofrontia) acuminata loff and
Tiflov, 1946, to the species to which those authors applied the nrnnber " 62 ")
and the equally pedantic rejection, as a homonym, of the same name as
deliberately applied by those authors to the entirely different species referred
to by them as species number " 68 " ; (2) such action would lead to confusion
in the nomenclature of these fleas, since the Russian workers would certainly
not follow the striet. application of the Regies in this matter. The present is
therefore, in my opinion, pre-eminently a case where it would be appropriate
for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary
powers to give vahd force to the evident intention of loff and Tiflov, when
they wrote their paper in 1946, and to the consequent current practice of
specialists in this group, for such action would promote uniformity and prevent

Bull. zool. Nmnend. Vol. 2, Pts. 9/10. August, 1951

Btdletin of Zoological Nomenclature 297

the confusion which would otherwise occur in the nomenclature of this group.
The proposal which I therefore now place before the Commission is that it
should : —

(1) use its plenary powers : —

(a) to suppress for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and
of the Law of Homonjony the trivial name acuminata loff
and Tiflov, 1946, Med. Parasitol. Moscow 15 (No. 4) : 91 as
inadvertently pubhshed in the combination Rhadinopsylla
(Rectofrontia) acuminata, and appUed to the species there cited
by those authors under the number " 62 " ;

(b) to validate the foregoing trivial name (a) as published by the
foregoing authors on the same page of the same work and in the
same combination and (b) as deliberately applied by those
authors to the species cited by them under the number " 68 " ;

(2) place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology (i) the
trivial name acuminata loff and Tiflov, 1946 (as published in the
combination Rhadinopsylla {Rectofrontia) acuminata), as validated
under (1) (b) above ; (ii) the subspecific trivial name transbaikalica
loff and Tiflov, 1946, as published in the trinominal combination
Rhadinopsylla {Ralipsylla) li transbaikalica (1946, Med. Parisitol.
Moscow, 15 (No. 6) : 94) as a substitute name for Rhadinopsylla
(Rectofrontia) acuminata applied in error to species No. 62 in loc. cit.
(No. 4) : 91, suppressed under 1 (a) above.

(3) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial
Names in Zoology the trivial name acuminata lofif and Tiflov, 1946
(as inadvertently published in the combination Rhadinopsylla
(Rectofrontia) acuminata) as suppressed under (1) (a) above.

298 BuUetin of Zoological Nomendature

APPLICATION FOR THE ADDITION OF THE NAME

"SPIRULA" LAMARCK, 1799 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA)

TO THE "OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN

ZOOLOGY" AND MATTERS INCIDENTAL THERETO

. By the late R. WINCKWORTH {London)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.) 416)

Application is hereby made for the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature to place the name Spirula Lamarck, 1799 {Mem.. Soc. Hist,
not. Paris 1799 : 80) (gender of name : feminine) on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology. The only species then placed in this genus by Lamarck
was Nautilus spirula Linnaeus, 1758 {Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 710), which is
therefore the type species by monotypy.

Apart from the use of the speUing Spirulea by Peron and Lesueur in 1807
{Voy. Aust., Atlas 1 : pi. xxx) and by Oken in 1815 {Lehrhuch Naturgesch. 3(1) :
333) and the emendation of that spelling to Spirulaea by Agassiz (L.) in 1845
{Nomend. zool. (Moll.)), and the use for this genus of the name Lituus Cuvier,
1817 {Regn. anim. 2 : 369), by Gray in 1849 in a catalogue, the entire literature
since the time of Lamarck refers to this genus under the name Spirula. The
variants Spirulea and Spirulaea should be placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names at the same time that the name Spirula
Lamarck is placed on the Official List.

The trivial name spirula Linnaeus, 1758 (as pubUshed in the binominal
combination Nautihis spirula) is the oldest available name for the type species ■
of Spirula Lamarck and should be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial m
Natnes at the same time that the name Spirula Lamarck is placed on the
Official List of Generic Names. In 1801 (Syst. Anim. sans Vertebr. : 102)
Lamarck renamed this species Spirula fragilis ; the invalid trivial name
fragilis Lamarck, 1801, should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology.

i

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 299

APPLICATION FOR A RULING THAT THE " PRODROMO "
OF S. A. RENIER AND THE " PROSPETTO DELLA CLASSE
DEI VERMI " (DATED 1804) PREPARED FOR INCLUSION
IN THE " PRODROMO " WERE NOT PUBLISHED WITHIN
THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 25 OF THE " REGLES "

By L. R. COX, Sc.D., F.R.S.
(Departtnent of Geology, British Museum {Natural History), London)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.) 432)

1. The object of the present appUcation is to sec\ire from the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature a ruling that the " Prodromo " of
S. A. Renier and the " Prospetto della Classe dei Vermi " (dated 1804) prepared
by that author for inclusion in the " Prodromo " were never published within
the meaning of Article 25 (as clarified by the International Congress of Zoology
in 1948— see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 215-221).

2. The immediate cause of this application is the proposition by Wenz (W.)
(1940, Handb. Paldozool., Gastropoda : 824) of the new generic name Nerinoides
to replace the name Nerinella Sharpe, 1850 {Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond. 6 : 103),
on the ground that that name is an invalid junior homonym of Nerinella Nardo,
1847 {Prospetto Faun, marin. volg. Veneto Estuario 13), a name assumed by
Wenz to possess rights under the Law of Priority.

3. Nardo (1847) gave no diagnosis for his Nerinella, to which he referred
a single species only, namely Amphinome cher)nesina Renier, which he described
as " un piccolo anneUde." If in fact Renier had ever published the foregoing
specific name with an indication, definition or description, the generic name
Nerinella Nardo, 1847, would have been an available name, for the genus so
named would have been monotypical and the name would therefore have
satisfied the requirements of Proviso {a) to Article 25 — up to 1948, as defined
by Opinion 1 and since that date, imder the clarification of the foregoing
Proviso adopted by the International Congress of Zoology (see 1950, Bull,
zool. Nomencl. 4 : 78-80).

4. The name " Amphinome chermesina Renier " rests, however, solely
upon its having been included in the work cited by Nardo as the " Prodromo
1804 " of Renier, no reference of a more detailed kind being given by Nardo.
Renier's Prodromo appears to have been a work contemplated but never
published. All that can be traced of it consists of printed copies, in single
foUo sheets, of two of its proposed Sections. These Sections are entitled
respectively " Tavola Alfabetica delle Conchiglie Adriatiche " and " Prospetto
della Classe dei Vermi." Both are dated " 1804." The copies traced are
preserved in the Library of the University of Padua and appear to be the
only original ones in existence. It is uncertain whether they are page-proofs
or copies printed for circulation among students. Reduced photographic
reproductions of these sheets, kindly furnished by the University Authorities
for use by C. D. Sherborn, when preparing his hidex Animalixim, are in the
British Museum (Natural History). The term " Amfinome chermesina "
appears as a vernacular name (being rendered into Latin as Amphinome
coccinm) on page xviii of the second of the Sections described above.

BtM. zod. Nmnend. Vol. 2, Pts. 9/10. August, 1951

300 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

5. It is submitted that the existence of these unique fragments of a work
contemplated but never published cannot be held to establish that even these
fragments were ever " pubUshed " within the meaning of that expression as
used in Article 25, as clarified by the Paris Congress. The difficulties which
have arisen in the present case through the lack of an authoritative ruling on
this subject — and the risk that similar diificulties may arise in connection with
other names — can only be removed when an Opinion on this subject is rendered
by the International Commission.

6. If, as I conclude from the evidence summarised above, there existed in
1847 no specific name Amphinome chermesina that had been validly published
with an indication, definition or description, the name Nerinella Nardo, 1847,
is invaUd, since that name depends for availability entirely upon the indication
(if any) provided by the citation of the foregoing specific name. It must be
concluded therefore that, contrary to the view advanced by Wenz (1940),
the name Nerinella Sharpe, 1850, is an available name, so far as the Law of
Homonymy is concerned. It is also an available name from the point of view
of the Law of Priority, it being the oldest available generic name for Nerinea
dupininana d'Orbigny, 1843 {Paleontolog. franc, Cret. 2 (Gastropod.) : 81),
the type species of Nerinella Sharpe, by selection by Cossman, 1896 {Ess.
Paleontolog. comp. 2 : 36). The trivial name dupiniana d'Orbigny, 1843, is
the oldest available name for the type species of this genus.

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked : —

(1) to declare, for the purpose of the removal of doubts, that neither the
" Prodromo " of Renier (S.A.) nor the " Prospetto della Classe dei
Vermi " intended for inclusion therein was published within the
meaning of Article 25 of the Regies and therefore that no name
acquired any status^ in zoological nomenclature by reason of having
appeared in either of the foregoing works ;

(2) to place the generic name Nerinella Sharpe, 1850 (gender of name :
feminine) (type species, by selection by Cossman, 1896 : Nerinea
dupiniana d'Orbigny, 1843) on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology ;

(3) to place the generic name Nerinella Nardo, 1847 (an invalid name
because not published within the meaning of the Regies) on the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ;

(4) to place the trivial name dupiniana d'Orbigny, 1843 (as published in
the binominal combination Nerinea dupiniana) on the Official List
of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ;

(5) to place the following reputed or invalid trivial names on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ;

(a) the trivial name chermesina Renier (erroneously alleged to
have appeared in 1804 in the binominal combination Amphinome
chermesina in a work by Renier (S.A.), which itself was not duly
published as required by the Regies) (a cheironym) ;

(6) the trivial name coccinea Renier (included in the combination
Amphinome coccinea in a work dated 1804 which was not duly
published as required by the Regies).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 301

PROPOSED ADDITION OF " CERCOPIS " FABRICIUS, 1775,
AND " SANGUINOLENTA " SCOPOLI, 1763 (AS PUBLISHED
IN THE BINOMINAL COMBINATION "CICADA SAN-
GUINOLENTA"). TO THE OFFICIAL LISTS OF GENERIC
NAMES AND SPECIFIC TRIVIAL NAMES IN ZOOLOGY
RESPECTIVELY

By WILHELM WAGNER {Hamburg- Fuhlsbiittel)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)441)

The genus Cercopis (belonging to the Homoptera Auchenorrhyncha) was
estabhshed by Fabricius, 1775 {Syst. Ent. : 688). The name was published
in accordance with the Regies. It was accompanied by a diagnosis, but
Fabricius did not designate a type species. However, since the name was
published before 1st January, 1931, it is not invaUdated by this omission.
The name Cercopis Fabricius, 1775, is not a homonym of any previously
published generic name.

Fabricius included nine species in this genus, which alone, according to
Rule (g) in Article 30, are eligible for selection as the type species of the genus.
Four different species have been cited as type species of this genus in the
literature, and even in the most recent literature there appears to be confusion
as to the validity of these tj^e selections. A list of references is given in the
Appendix to this paper of selections or reputed selections of a type species
for the genus Cercopis Fabricius, which has been kindly furnished by Professor
Z. P. Metcalf iw litt.).

The first type selection which was strictly in accordance with the Regies
was that by Latreille in 1810 {Consid. gen. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 434). Opinions 11
and 136 declared that type selections made in this work in the case of all
genera, for which one species only was cited, were to be accepted as valid.
The only species cited in the case of the genus Cercopis was " sanguinolenta
Fab," i.e., Cercopis sanguinolenta Fabricius, 1775 {Syst. Ent. : 688) ; this, as
the reference given by Fabricius shows, was not a new name published by
Fabricius but was the same as Cicada sanguinolenta ScopoU, 1763 {Faun,
earn. : 112).

Since the validity of this type selection is beyond question, it is not necessary
here to examine further the more recent references. It should be noted that
in the two earlier references cited in the Appendix (namely, Latreille, 1802,
and Froriep, 1806) the species C. spumaria Fabricius was cited but only as
an example of the genus, not specifically as its type species. Consequently,
this species cannot be regarded as the type species by subsequent selection
in accordance with Rule (g) in Article 30. The type species must therefore
be accepted as being Cicada sanguinolenta Scopoli, 1763.

Since, however, a number of different type species have been accepted
for the genus Cercopis in the literature, various nomenclatorial difficulties
have arisen.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 2, Pts. 9/10. August, 1951

302 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Cercopis spumuria Linnaeus and Cercopis sanguinohnia Scopoli are now
regarded as belonging to different genera. Hence the nomenclature of
both the genera concerned is insecure. In the case of the first (based on
C. spumaria) it fluctuates between Cercopis Fabricius and ApJirophora Germar,
1821, and in the case of the second (based on C. sanguinolenta) it fluctuates
between Cercopis Fabricius and Triecphora Amyot et Serville, 1843. Both
genera include relatively large and prominent species, which for the most
part are very widespread in the palaearctic region, and the names of which
in consequence, occur frequently in textbooks and in popular Uterature.
The first genus is represented by more than 40 species in the palaearctic region,
and the second by more than 10. StabiUsation is therefore highly necessary,
in view of the frequent use of these names.

The name Cercopis has formed the base of the family name cercopidae
and the sub-family name cercopinae. But Cercopis spumaria and Cercopis
satiguinolenta belong to two difi'erent sub-families. Thus, so long as there
is no certainty as to which is the type species of Cercopis, the application of
the name of the sub-family must also remain imcertain. The two above-
mentioned sub-families have been treated in the most recent literature as
separate families. As a result, the uncertainty extends also to the use of the
family name cercopidae. This is another reason why the stabilisation of
the use of the name Cercopis is urgently necessary.

In view of the importance of the generic name Cercopis Fabricius, 1775,
which forms the basis for the family name cercopidje, I regard it as of great
importance that the application of this name should be stabilised in accor-
dance with the requirements of the Regies Internationales de la Nomendature
Zoologique. I, therefore, request the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature : —

(1) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic

name Cercopis Fabricius, 1775 {Syst. Ent. : 688) type species, by
subsequent selection by Latreille, 1810 {Consid. gen. Crust. Arach.
Ins. : 434) .• Cicada sanguinolenta Scopoh, 1763 {Ent. cam. : 112)
(gender of generic name : feminine).

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology the

trivial name sanguinolenta Scopoh, 1763 (as pubUshed in the
binominal combination Cicada sanguinolenta).

Bulletin of Zoological Nmnendature
Appendix

303

Particulars of type selections and alleged type sehctims rmde for the
genus Cercopis Fabricius, 1775

(Based upon material furnished by Professor Z. P. Metcalf.)

Date of piihlication con-
taining a selection or
alleged selection of a type
species for Cercopis
Fabricius, 1775.
(1)

1802

1806

1810

1833
1840

1844

1862
1869
1900

1900
1906
1906
1910

Author who selected or who is alleged

to have selected a type species for

Cercopis Fabricius, 1775.

(2)

LATREILLE Histoire naturelle gen-
erale et particuli^re des Crustacea et
des Insectes 3 : 260.

FRORIEP, L. F. C. Dumeril's. Doctors
und Professors an der Medicinischen
Schule zu Paris, Analytische Zoologie.
Weimar, Landes Industrie-Comptoir :

LA TREILLE Considerations g^nerales
sur I'ardre naturel des animaux
Paris, Schoell : 434.

CURTIS British Entomology 10 : 461.

WESTWOOD Synopsis of the genera
of British insects 2 : 116.

BLANC HARD Dictionnaire unirersel
d histoire naturelle . . . 3 : 296.

CURTIS British Entomology : 461.

STAL Hemiptera Fabriciana : 11.

KIRKALDY " On the nomenclature
of the Rhynchota, Heteroptera and
Auchenorrhynchous Homoptera."
Entomologist 33 : 27.

KIRKALDY " On the nomenclature
of the genera of the Rhynchota."
Entomologist 33 : 263.

KIRKALDY " Leafhoppers and their
natural enemies." Bull. Hawaiian
Sugar PI. Assoc. Div. Ent. 1 : 379, 380.

KIRKALDY " Leafhoppers and their
natural enemies." BuU. Hawaiian
Sugar PI. Assoc. Div. ErU. 1 : 379.

SCHMIDT "Neue Gattungen und
Arten der Subfamilie Cercopinae
Arch. Nat. 76 : 103.

Species selected or alleged to

have been selected by the

author, and in the work,

specified in Col. (2).

(3) .
C. spumaria Fabricius.

C. spumaria Fabricius.

C. sanguinolerUa Fabricius.

C. sanguinolenta Linnaeus.
C. vulnerata Rossi.

C. sanguinolenta Fabricius.

C. sanguinolenta Linnaeus.
C. camifex Fabricius.
C. spumaria Linnaeus.

C. spumaria Linnaeus.

C. spumaria Linnaeus.
C. camifex Fabriciua.
C. camifex Fabricius.

304

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Date of publication con-
taining a selection or
alleged selection of a type
Species for Cercopis
Fabricius, 1776.
(1)

1912

1912

1921

1921
1929

1933

1934

1935

Author who selected or who is alleged

to have selected a type species for

Cercopis Fabricius, 1776.

(2)

LALLEMAND " Cercopidae." Gen.
Ins. 143 : 58.

VAN DUZEE " Hemipterological
gleanings." Bull. Buffalo Soc. Nat.
Sci. 10 : 507.

JACOBI " Kritische Bemerkungen
uber die Cercopidae." Arch. Nat. 87 :
5, 7.

JACOBI Ibid.: ^1.

HAUPT " NeueinteUung der Homop-
tera Cicadina . . ." Zool. Jahrb. Syst.
Oek. 58 : 222.

NAST " Beitrage zur Morphologie und
geographischen Verbreitung der mit-
teleuropaischen und mediterranen
Arten aus der sub-famUie Cerco-
pLnae." Ann. Mv^. Zool. Polonici 10 :
7—13.

METCALF and HORTON " The Cer-
copoidea of China." Lingnam Sci. J.
13:417.

HAUPT Die Tierwelt Mitteleuropas
4 : 154.

Species selected or alleged to
have been selected by the
author, and in the work,
specified in Col. (2).

(3)
C. spumaria Fabricius.

C. carnifex Fabricius.

C. spumaria Linnaeus.

C. carnifex Fabricius.

C. sanguinolenta Linnaeus.

C. sanguinolenta Scopoli.

C. spumaria Linnaeus.

C. sanguinolenta Scopoli.

(continued from front wrapper)

Entamoeba colt versus Endamoeba coli. By Harold Kirby Page
{Department of Zoology, University of California, Berkeley,
California, U.S.A.) 243

On the problems embraced in Opinion 99 (relating to the names
Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, and Entamoeba Casagrandi &
Barbagallo, 1895) rendered by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature. By Ellsworth C. Dougherty,
Ph.D., M.D. {Department of Zoology, University of Calif ornia,
Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) .. .. .. .. .. 253

REPORT on the investigation of the nomenclatorial problems
associated with the generic names Endamoeba Leidy, 1879,
and Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895 (Class
Rhizopoda). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

On the question of the correct name for the type species of the
genus Stephanurus Diesing, 1839 (Class Nematoda, Order
Rhabditida), with recommendations for the placing of
certain names on the " Official Lists." By Ellsworth C.
Dougherty, Ph.D., M.D. {Department of Zoology, University
of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) .. .. .. 282

On the question of the desirability of retaining the trivial name
dentatus Diesing, 1839 (as pubUshed in the binominal
combination Stephanurus dentatus) as the trivial name of the
Kidney Worm of swine (Class Nematoda, Order Rhab-
ditida) : an Appeal to parasitologists for views on the
question raised by Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty. By Francis
Hemming, C.M.G., C.^S.., Secretary to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . 291

Proposed use of the plenary powers to vary the type species of
the genus Eysarcoris Hahn, 1834 (Class Insecta, Order
Hemiptera), in order to validate existing nomenclatorial
praaice. By W. E. China, Sc.D. {Deputy Keeper, Depart-
ment of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History)^
LondotC) 294

Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the specific trivial
name acuminata lofF & Tiflov, 1946 (as published in the
combination Rhadinopsylla {Rectofrontia) acuminata) as
applied to the species numbered " 68 " by those authors
(Class Insecta, Order Siphonaptera). By G. H. E. Hopkins,
O.B.E., M.A. {British Museum {Natural History), Zoological
Museum, Tring, Herts) . . . . .. . . . . . . 296

Contents :

(continued from overleaf)

Application for the addition of the name Spirula Lamarck, 1799 Page
(Class Cephalopoda) to the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology and matters incidental thereto. By the late R.
Winckworth (London) 298

Application for a ruling that the Prodromo of S. A. Renier and
the Prospetto della Classe dei Vermi (dated 1804) prepared
for inclusion in the Prodromo were not published within
the meaning of Article 25 of the Regies. By L. R. Cox,
Sc.D., F.R.S. (Department of Geology, British Museum
(Natural History), London) 299

Proposed addition of Cercopis Fabricius, 1775, and sanguinolenta
Scopoli, 1763 (as published in the binominal combination
Cicada sanguinolenta) to the Official Lists of Generic Names
and Specific Trivial Names in Zoology respectively. By
Wilhelm Wagner (Hamburg-Fuhlsbuttel) 301

Notice to Subscribers

The concluding Part (Part 12) of Volume 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(containing the Title Page, indexes, etc., for that volume) is being published
simultaneously with the present Part of Vol. 2.

Form of Applications to the International Commission on Zoological

Nomenclature

Zoologists submitting applications to the International Corrmiission on Zoological
Nomenclature are requested to submit those applications, in dupUcate and typed,
double-spaced, on one side of the page only, and with wide margins. Owing to the
lack of staff available for copying applications not submitted in the foregoing form,
preference for publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature will necessarily
be given to appUcations submitted in the form requested.

Full particulars of the bibUographical and other data required to be included in
applications submitted to the International Commission will be found in the " In-
structions to Authors " given on page 88 of Volume 1 of the present journal.

Publications of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

The pubUcations issued by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature are on sale
at the Offices of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 41, Queen's
Gate, London, S.W.7. All communications on this subject should be addressed to
the Publications Officer.

Printed io Qreat BritAln by Mktchim and Son, Ltd.. Westminster, LondoD

V

VOLUME 2. Part 11 28th Sept ember y 1951

pp. 305—352

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL

ft-^

.*2% NOMENCLATURE

^f^ ^^- The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by

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

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

Contents :

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Page

Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published
in the present Part . . . . . . . . . . . . 305

Notice of possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain
cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305

{continued on back wrapper)

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

1951

Price Fifteen shillings

{All rights reserved)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

A. The OflBcers 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. 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. Yokes (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) J

Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) {Secretary) (27th July 1948) 1

Dr. Joseph Pearson (AustraHa) (27th July 1948)

Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) (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)

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 and 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

I

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 2, Part 11 (pp. 305-352) 28th September, 1951

NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERNATIONAL
CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY

1 . The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the
recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Noniencl. 4 : 51-56, 57-59), by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 5-13,
131).

(a) Date of commencement by the international Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications pub-

lished in the " Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature "

Notice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will
start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
dature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of publica-
tion in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who may
desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present Part
(vol. 2, Part 11) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so, in writing, to
the Secretary to the Commission as quickly as possible and in any case in
sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secretariat
of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above.

(b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain

cases

Notice is hereby given that the possible use by the International Coramission
on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers is involved in appUcations
published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nmnenclaiure in
relation to the following names : —

(1) Nysius Dallas, 1852, and Artheneis Spinola, 1837 (Class Insecta, Order
Hemiptera), proposed designation of type species for (Z.N.(S.)181).

(2) Xiphosura Briinnich, 1771, proposed suppression of, and validation
of Limulus MuUer, 1785 (Class Merostomata) (Z.N.(S.)506).

2. In accordance with the procedure agreed upon at the Session held by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Noniencl. 4 : 56), corresponding Notices have been sent
to the journals " Nature " and " Science."

FRANCIS HEMMING
Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Secretariat of the
International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature,
28, Park Village East, Regent's Park,
London, N.W.I, England.
28th September, 1951.

306 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

REQUEST FOR A RULING THAT THE DISTRIBUTION OF
A MICROFILM DOES NOT CONSTITUTE " PUBLICATION "
FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE 25 OF THE "REGLES "

Application submitted jointly by the JOINT COMMITTEE ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE FOR PALEONTOLOGY IN AMERICA and by the
NOMENCLATURE COMMITTEE OF THE SOCIETY OF SYSTEMATIC

ZOOLOGY

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)528)

(Letter, with enclosures, dated 6th February 1951, signed jointly by
Dr. G. Winston Sinclair (for the Joint Committee on Zoological
Nomenclature for Paleontology in America) and Dr. Richard E.
Blackwelder (for the Nomenclature Committee, Society of Systematic
Zoology).)

We enclose a petition which we would ask you to lay before the Commission
for their opinion, and which we would ask you also to publish in the Bulletin
of Zoological Nomenclature.

We also enclose a list of zoologists who, having seen the petition and studied
it, have indicated in writing that they wish to be recorded as supporting it.
Dwight Davis (Chicago Natural History Museum) wishes to be recorded as
opposing the petition.

Enclosure

Within recent years there has arisen, at least in America, a commerce in
copies of books or manuscripts photographically reproduced on 35mm, film,
known as "microfilm." This practice was at first a convenience to scholars,
who could thus obtain copies of rare or unobtainable works for study and refer-
ence, and the microfilm was usually suppHed by large libraries.

From this beginning the practice has expanded, until now not only books
but unpublished typescripts are being offered for sale, and microfilm is being
advertised as a cheap and convenient method of " publishing " scholarly works
which (because of their bulk or their lack of general appeal) would not be readily
accepted by a regular publishing house. The distribution and ofi'ering for sale
of such microfilm is held by some, including high academic o£&cers, to constitute
publication.

We ask the Commission to rule that, regardless of its status for other purposes
material which is available to the public only in the form of microfilm is not
to be considered " published " within the meaning of the Regies.

Should the Commission prefer to have before them a definite example, may
we suggest that the following case be considered :

In 1948 a paper entitled " Pre-Tra verse Devonian Pelecjrpods of Michigan,"
by Aurele LaRocque, was offered for sale as " University Microfilms Publication
1059," consisting of a microfilm copy of a typescript and accompanying plates
of photographs. This offering was advertised to an extensive mailing-list of
libraries and others, and the paper has been available to the public in this form
since 1948.

Bull. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 2, Pt. 11. September, 1951

Bulktin of Zoological Nomenclature 307

In 1950 the same paper was issued in printed form as : Contributions from
the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan, Volume 7, No. 10, (pp.
271-366, 19 plates).

In this paper (in both forms) are described three new genera and fourteen
new species of pelecypods.

We ask the Commission to rule that the names of these new taxonomic
units are to be ignored until their appearance in printed form in 1950.

Annex to Enclosure

Annex to Enclosure.

List of zoologists supporting the petition :

Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America.
Members individually polled and unanimous in support, viz. :

Raymond C. Moore, University of Kansas, Lawrence

A. S. Romer, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Mass.

David H. Dunkle, U.S. National Museum, Washington

5. W. Muller, Stanford University, California

J. Marvin Weller, Walker Museum, University of Chicago

John B. Reeside, Jr., U.S. Geological Survey, Washington

D. L. Frizzell, RoUa, Missouri

A. Myra Keen, Stanford University, California

Katherine V. W. Palmer, Ithaca, New York

J. Brookes Knight, U.S. National Museum, Washington

John W. Wells, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

6. Winston Sinclair, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Individual zoologists in Chicago, in favour of the petition :
Karl P. Schmidt
Fritz Haas
Bryan Patterson
Rainer Zangerl
Rupert Wenzel
William Beecher
Henry S. Dybas
Robert H. Denison
Robert F. Inger
Emmett R. Blake
Austin L. Rand
Melvin A. Taylor, Jr.
Colin Campbell Sanborn
Eugene S. Richardson, Jr.

308 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Nomenclature Committee, Society of Systematic Zoology Members, individ-
ually polled ; all replies were approval :

Ernst Mayr, American Museum Natural History

Robert R. Miller, Univ. of Michigan

Robert L. Usinger, Univ. of California

John W. Wells, Cornell Univ.

Ellsworth C. Dougherty, Univ. of California

J. Brookes Knight, U.S. National Museum

E. Raymond Hall, Univ. of Kansas

Richard E. Blackwelder, U.S. National Museum.

SUPPORT FOR THE REQUEST SUBMITTED TO THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOM-
ENCLATURE FOR A RULING THAT THE DISTRIBUTION OF
A SCIENTIFIC PAPER ON MICROFILM DOES NOT CON-
STITUTE PUBLICATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE
25 OF THE " REGLES "

Conamunication received from the COMMITTEE ON NOMENCLATURE OF
THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, NEW YORK

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)528)

(Letter dated 7th May, 1951)

The Committee on Nomenclature of the Scientific Staff of the American
Museum of Natural History has noted the petition addressed to the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature concerning the pubUcation
of zoological names on microfilm. This Committee has unanimously approved
of the measures proposed in the said petition (as published in Science, vol.
113, p. 466, 1951) and would join in the recommendation that the names in
" Pre-Traverse Devonian Pelecypods of Michigan " by Aurele LaRoque, be
ignored until their appearance in printed form in 1950, and that all material
that is available to the public only in the form of microfilm be considered as not
published within the meaning of the Regies. We would further suggest that
it be specifically noted that subsequent authentic publication does not validate
the earlier appearance on microfilm.

Committee on, Nomenclature :
Mont A. Cazier
Edwin H. Colbert-
Norman D. Newall
George H. H. Tate
John T. Zimmer {Chairman)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 309

ON THE REQUEST SUBMITTED TO THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FOR A
RULING THAT THE DISTRIBUTION OF A SCIENTIFIC
PAPER ON MICROFILM DOES NOT CONSTITUTE
" PUBLICATION " FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE 25
OF THE "REGLES"

By CHARLES H. BLAKE
{Departmod of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.,

U.S.A.)

Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)528)

(Letter dated 30tli April, 1951)

In Science for 20 April, 1951, I find a petition submitted by Messrs.
Sinclair and Blackwelder. I find myself in opposition to the petition, at least
in 80 far as it seems clear what gromids are used as a basis for it.

(1) Letter press printing, or its sensible equivalents such as photo-oflGset,
are not an integral or necessary part of publication.

(2) All that seems necessary in publication is that copies shall be available
to the interested public and that the copies shall all be clearly identical. Both
of these qualifications appear to be inherent in the microfilm publication
complained of.

(3) It is evidently intended that these microfilms will constitute publications
and are not restricted as manifolded manuscript. The petition itself notes
that they are advertised to an extensive list of persons and libraries.

(4) There appears to be no reason why the author of one of these microfilm
pubUcations should not distribute separates of it in the fashion of printed
matter.

(5) I can say from personal experience that no special reading machine is
actually needed to handle microfilm ; any zoological laboratory can read it with
an ordinary dissecting microscope.

(6) Although not offered as an objection to microfilm in the present petition,
I have been told that some object that the quahty of the reproduction is not
sufficiently high. Personal experience with microfilm indicates that, when
properly made and properly enlarged in a magnifier, the figures are at least the
equal of many that find their way into the printed literature.

310 Bidletin of Zoological Nomendature

ON THE REQUEST TO THE INTERNATIONAL COM-
MISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FOR A
RULING THAT THE DISTRIBUTION OF A SCIENTIFIC
PAPER ON MICROFILM DOES NOT CONSTITUTE " PUBLI-
CATION" FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE 25 OF THE
" REGLES"

By E. H. BEHRE

(Louisafia State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, University
Station, Baton Roxige, Louisiana, U.S.A.)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)528)

(Letter dated 4th May, 1951)

The occasion of the petition to your body from the Joint Committee on
Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America, and the Nomenclature
Committee of the Society of Systematic Zoology determines me to add my words
to those of other zoologists. I wish most emphatically to support the petition
of these Committees, the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for
Paleontology in America and the Nomenclatiire Committee of the Society of
Systematic Zoology. I do not have, at hand, an immediate example of such
clarity as is offered in the committees' petition ; but I, myself, am confident
that in the course of a short time such examples will appear in many specific
fields. It is indeed a critical issue and one which should be clarified as promptly
as possible before the resulting confusions accumulate in literature.

1

Bulletin of Zoological No)nenclature 311

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL THAT THE DISTRI-
BUTION OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS ON MICROFILMS
SHOULD BE RULED AS NOT CONSTITUTING PUB-
LICATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE 25 OF THE
" REGLES "

By the " ZOOLOGICAL RECORD " COMMITTEE OF THE ZOOLOGICAL
SOCIETY OF LONDON

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)528)

(Letter dated 18th July, 1951, from Dr. Sheffield A. Neave, Chairman, " Zoo-
logical Record " Committee of the Zoological Society of London)

At its meeting held on Tuesday, 17th July, the " Zoological Record "
Committee, the body entrusted by the Zoological Society of London with
responsibility for supervising and determining on its behalf all matters relating
to the publication of the Zoological Record, had under consideration the practice
adopted on one or two recent occasions of giving publicity to new scientific
names in microfilms containing the text of, or summaries of, as yet unpublished
papers and, in particular, the question whether the giving of publicity to a
new name by the distribution of microfilms in which it appears was to be
regarded as constituting the publication of that name for the purposes of
Article 25 of the Regies Internationales and therefore as entitling the name
in question to be recorded in the Zoological Record as having been published
as from the date on which the microfilm containing that name was placed
on sale or otherwise distributed.

The " Zoological Record " Committee asked me, as its Chairman, to convey
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature their emphatic
view that the distribution of microfilms containing new names is open to the
strongest possible objection and represents a procedure which, if countenanced,
could not fail to give rise to the most serious confusion in zoological nomen-
clature. In the opinion of the Committee, it is highly important that this
objectionable practice should be nipped in the bud before it has had time
to give rise to serious difficulties.

For the foregoing reasons the Committee adopted the following Resolution :
The " Zoological Record " Committee emphatically associates itself
with the proposal which it understands has already been submitted
jointly by the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology
in America and the Nomenclature Committee of the Society of Systematic
Zoology that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
should at the earliest possible date give a ruling that the distribution in
microfilm of a paper containing a new scientific name does not constitute
the publication, for the purposes of the Regies Internationales, of the new
names included in such microfilms and therefore that no scientific name
given publicity by this means thereby acquires any rights under the Law
of Priority. The " Zoological Record " Committee further recommends that
the International Commission should at the same time adopt a " Declara-
tion " strongly condemning the use of microfilms for giving publicity for

312 Bulletin of Zoological NomendcUure

unpublished scientific names and proposing that the International Congress

of Zoology should be asked at Copenhagen in 1953 to insert a " Recomman-

dation " in the Regies in the foregoing sense.

The meeting of the Zoological Record Committee at which the foregoing
Resolutions were adopted was attended by : Dr. Sheffield A. Neave, C.M.G.,
O.B.E., D.Sc. {Chairman) ; Dr. WilHam J. Hall, M.C., D.Sc. ; Mr. Francis
Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. ; Sir Norman Kinnear, C.B. ; Mr. Terence Morrison-
Scott, D.S.C.. M.A., M.Sc. ; Dr. Malcolm Smith, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P. ; Dr.
C. J. Stubblefield. D.Sc, F.R.S. ; Dr. L. Harrison Matthews, Sc.D. {Scientific
Director and Deputy Secretanj. Zoological Society of London).

ON DR. L. R. COX'S PROPOSAL THAT S. A. RENIER'S
" PRODROMO " AND THE " PROSPETTO DELLA CLASSE
DEI VERMI" SHOULD BE DECLARED NOT TO HAVE
BEEN PUBLISHED WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 25
OF THE "REGLES"

By the late R. WINCKWORTH {London)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)432)

(Extract from a letter dated 10th November, 1949)

1 want to thank you for your letter of 2nd November about Cox's application^
that the International Commission should give a ruling that S. A. Renier's
Prodromo and the Prospetto della Classe dei Vernii was not published within
the meaning of Article 25 of the Regies, and to say that I entirely concur with
the proposals submitted.

i

'■ See pp. 299-300 of the present volume.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 313

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIG-
NATE TYPE SPECIES FOR THE GENERA " NYSIUS "
DALLAS, 1852, AND " ARTHENEIS " SPINOLA, 1837 (CLASS
INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA)

By R. L. USINGER {United States Public Health Service) and
R. I. SAILER {United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.,

U.S.A.)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)181)

China (1943, The Generic Names of British Insects, pt. 8 : 236), has shown
that, under the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature the name
Nysius Dallas, 1852 {List Specimens Hem. Ins. Coll. Brit. Mus. 2 : 551), is not
apphcable to the genus universally known under that name. Through an
oversight China cited Macroparius Stal, 1872 {Ofvers. VetenskAkad. Forhandl.,
Stockholm 29 : 43), as the correct name instead of Artheneis Spinola, 1837
{Ess. Ins. Hemipt. : 250), which he listed as a synonym. In subsequent
correspondence he agreed that the latter name must be employed for this genus
of LYGAEiDAE. Unfortunately, this change would produce much confusion in
literature of economic entomology since the name Nysius has become virtually
synonymous with " false chinch bug " and " Rutherglen bug," two important
pests of agricultural crops in Europe, North America, and AustraUa. It seems
advisable, therefore, to request the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature to take appropriate action under suspension of the Rules in
order to maintain Nysius for the genus of bugs to which it has long been applied.

The change to either Macroparius or Artheneis is not made necessary
through any misconception of the groups involved but simply through two
unfortunate type selections. Distant (1903), ignoring the carefully defined
subgenera of Stal (1874, {Enum. Hemipt. 4 : 119-122,) and Horvath (1890,
Rev. Ent. 9 : 185-191) considered the genus Nysius as a unit and selected
Nysius zealandicus Dallas, 1852, as its type species. N. zealandicus has pre-
viously been set apart by Stal (in 1868 {K. svensk. Vetensk Akad. Handl.,
Stockholm (n.f.) 7 (No. 11) : 76) in a monotypic subgenus, Rhypodes, and
Nysius was used for the cosmopolitan group including Lygaeus thymi Wolff,
1804 {Icon. Cimicum (4) : 149) and its allies. This did not exclude zealandicus
from consideration as the type species of Nysius, since Dallas included it as
one of the original species. Distant continued to use the name Nysius for the
false chinch bug and its allies until his death. However, Evans (1929) raised
most of the subgenera, including Rhypodes, to full genera. This should have
precipitated the matter, because the name Nysius should have been used in
place of Rhypodes, and the next oldest synonym should have been selected
for Nysius auct. nee Dallas. However, Distant's type selection was overlooked,
and it remained for Dr. China to point out the nomenclatural inconsistency in
1943.

Meanwhile, Kirkaldy (1909) noted that, as Spinola himself had suggested,
Artheneis Spinola, 1837 (a common European genus and the type of the sub-
family artheneinae), actually comprised two genera. Instead of following
general usage and selecting Artheneis foveolata Spinola, 1837 {Ess. Ins. Hemipt.
:253) as the type species oi Artheneis, Kirkaldy cited " {type eymoides),= Nysius

Bull, zool Nomencl., Vol. 2, Pt. 11. September, 1951

314 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Dallas, 1852 " [sic], thus confusing the Nysius picture and necessitating a new
name, Tyrrheneis, which he proposed (1909, Canad. Ent. 41 : 31) for Artheneis
auct., nee Kirkaldy. It is not clear whether Kirkaldy intended to replace
Nysius with Artheneis or not. He described many new species of Nysius in
1910 but the paper was published posthumously. We have seen no evidence
in his published works or in his private collection to indicate that he contem-
plated a change in the name Nysius.

Oshanin (1912) ignored the earUer type fixations and selected type species
designed to legalize current usage. Oshanin's type selections were accepted by
Van Dujzee in his " Check List " (1916) and " Catalogue " (1917) and have been
generally, though incorrectly, accepted by hemipterists up to the present time.

Thus we are faced with a situation in which two authors selected type
species which completely upset existing usage. The changes were entirely
unnecessary and it seems clear that the authors had no intention of changing
anything, because they failed to make the changes in their own subsequent
work. Under the Rules their intentions are, of course, of no consequence, but
considered in connection with the economic importance of the group and the
universal acceptance of the names in current usage, it seems justifiable to
consider action imder suspension of the Rules which would permit retention
of the name Nysius for the concept with which it has been universally associated.

We, therefore, respectfully recommend that the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature exercise the plenary power conferred on it by the
International Congress of Zoology and that the following actions be taken :

(1) Reject Distant's (1903) selection of Nysius zealandicus Dallas, 1852,
in favour of Oshanin's (1912) selection of Lygaeus thymi Wolff, 1804,
as the type species of Nysius Dallas, 1852.

(2) Reject Kirkaldy's (1909) selection oi Artheneis cymoides Spinola, 1837,
in favour of Oshanin's (1912) selection of Artheneis foveolata Spinola,
1837, as the type species of Artheneis Spinola, 1837.

(3) Place the generic names Nysius Dallas, 1852, and Artheneis Spinola,
1837, with the respective type species specified above on the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology, together with the generic name
Rhypodes Stal, 1868 (type species by monotypy : Nysius zealandicus
Dallas, 1852).

Conclusions

Suppression of the Distant and Kirkaldy type selections will result in the
following :

Nysius Dallas, 1852, type species Lygaeus thymi Wolff, 1804 =

Macroparius Stal, 1872, type species Heterogaster graminicola

Kolenati, 1846.
Rhypodes Stal, 1868, type species, Nysius zealandicus Dallas, 1852=

Lygaeus clavicornis Fabricius, 1794, {Ent. syst. 4 : 169)— {Myersia

Evans, 1929 Bull. ent. Res. 19 : 353), type species Lygaeus

clavicornis Fabricius, 1794.
Artheneis Spinola, 1837, type species, ArtJieneis foveolata Spinola, 1837

— Tyrrheneis Kirkaldy, 1900, type species Artheneis foveolata

Spinola, 1837.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomendaiure 315

ON THE APPUCATION FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY
POWERS TO DESIGNATE TYPE SPECIES FOR THE
GENERA " NYSIUS " DALLAS, 1852, AND " ARTHENEIS "
SPINOLA, 1837 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA)
SUBMITTED BY PROFESSOR ROBERT L. USINGER AND
DR. R. I. SAILER

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

{Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)181)

1 . The application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature for the use of the plenary powers for the purpose of varying the type species
of the genera Nysius Dallas, 1852, and Artheneis Spinola, 1837, prepared jointly
by Professor Robert L. Usinger (Umversity of California, Berkeley, California,
at that time of the United States Public Health Service) and Dr. R. I. Sailor
(United States National Museima, Washington, D.C.) was received on 15th
February, 1945, under cover of a letter from Dr. Sailor, dated 12th January,
1945. This application had already (December 1944) been pubhshed by these
authors {Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 46 : 260-262). Unfortunately, wartime and post-
war difficulties, including an unavoidable change in the Commission's printers,
made it impossible to publish this application before the meeting of the Inter-
national Congress of Zoology in Paris in 1948, while since then it was necessary
until recently to husband the financial resources of the Commission to secure
the publication of the volumes of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
containing the Paris records.

2. Three decisions taken by the Paris Congress shghtly affect the present
apphcation, namely the estabhshment of the Official Ldst of Specific Trivial
Names in Zoology and the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names
in Zoology. Under the first of those decisions there are to be inscribed on the
Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, among other trivial names,
the trivial names of the type species of each genus, the name of which is placed
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, except where such a trivial
name is not the oldest available trivial name for the species in question. In
such a case the oldest such tri\aal name is to be placed on the Official List
in heu of the trivial name of the nominal species which is the type species of
the genus concerned (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 269-271, 283-284). Under
the second of these decisions, there are to be added to the Official Index names
suppressed by the Commission or declared by the Commission to be invalid.
Under the third of these decisions, it is necessary now to record the gender
of every generic name placed on the Official List.

3. Applying these decisions to the present case, we find that, if the Com-
mission approve the proposals set forth in Professor Usinger's and Dr. Sailor's
apphcation, the trivial names thymi Wolff, 1804 (as published in the binominal
combination Lygaeus thymi) (which in that event will have become the type
species of Nysius Dallas, 1852) and foveolata Spinola, 1837 (as pubhshed in

316 BuUetin of Zoological Nomendature

the binominal combination Artheneis foveolata) (which in that event will have
become the type species of Artheneis Spinola, 1837) will require to be placed
on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. The trivial name
{zealandicus Dallas, 1852, as published in the binominal combination Nysius
zealandicus) of the type species of Rhypodes Stal, 1868, will not be added to
the Official List, since it is not regarded by specialists as the oldest available
trivial name for the species in question ; the later name clavicornis Fabricius,
1794 (as pubUshed in the binominal combination Lygaeus clavicornis), that
being, as Professor Usinger and Dr. Sailor explain, the trivial name now
regarded by specialists as the oldest such name either subjectively or objectively
available for the species in question, will, however, need to be placed on the
Official List. Under the decision (under the plenary powers) recommended
by Professor Usinger and Dr. Sailor, the generic name Tyrrheneis Kirkaldy,
1909, will become an objective junior synonym of Artheneis Spinola, 1837
(the two genera having the same species as their respective type species) and
will need therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology. In their application Professor Usinger and Dr.
Sailor point out that the generic name Myersia Evans, 1929 {Bull. ent. Res.
19 : 353) is a subjective jimior synonym of Rhypodes Stal, 1868. In addition,
it may be noted that the name Myersia Evans, 1929, is a junior homonym of
Myersia Viereck, 1912 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 43 (No. 1942) : 575) ; as such, it
should therefore also be placed on the Official Index.

4. As regards the form of action under the plenary powers which would
be necessary to secure the objects sought by Professor Usinger and Dr. Sailor,
it may be recalled that at its Session held in Lisbon in 1935 the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature took a decision on procedure in cases
of this kind, when considering a long Ust of appUcations relating to the type
species of genera in the Order Hymenoptera submitted by Professor J. Chester
Bradley (1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 27-30). In view of the risk that, con-
cealed in the literature there might be some undetected type selection
which, if not suppressed, might nullify the result sought to be obtained by
the use of the plenary powers, if those powers were to be used solely to suppress
some type designation or type selection that it was known would create con-
fusion unless suppressed, the Commission formed the conclusion that it would
be preferable to set aside all type selections made prior to the decision in
question and itself to designate whatever species it was desired should be the
type species of the genera in question. The advantages of this procedure
are so clear that it has since become the standard practice in all cases of this
kind.

5. In the light of the foregoing considerations, it may be convenient to
summarise as follows the action which the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature would need to take, in the event of its deciding to
meet the substance of the application submitted to it in this matter, namely : —

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all type selections for the under-
mentioned genera made prior to the decision now proposed to be

\

I

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 317

taken and to designate the species specified below to be the type
species of the genera concerned : —

Name of genus Nominal species proposed to be

designated as the type species
of the genus specified in Col. (1)

(1) (2)

(o) Nysius Dallas, 1852 Lygaeus thymi Wolff, 1804

(6) Artheneis Spinola, 1837 Artheneis foveolata Spinola,

1837

(2) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology : —

(a) Nysius Dallas, 1852 (gender of generic name : masculine)
(type species, by designation, as proposed in (1) (a) above,
under the plenary powers : Lygaeus thymi Wolff, 1804) ;

(6) Artheneis Spinola, 1837 (gender of generic name : fe m inine)
(type species, by designation, as proposed in (1) (6) above,
under the plenary powers : Artheneis foveolata Spinola, 1837) ;

(c) Rhypodes Stal, 1868 (gender of generic name : masculine)
(type species, by monotypy : Nysius zealandicus Dallas, 1852) ;

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

(a) thymi Wolff, 1804 (as published in the binominal combination
Lygaeus thymi) (trivial name of species proposed, under (1) (o)
above to be designated imder the plenary powers as type
species of Nysius DaUas, 1852) ;

(6) foveolata Spinola, 1837 (as published in the binominal com-
bination Artheneis foveolata) (trivial name of species proposed,
under (1) (6) above, to be designated under the plenary powers
as type species of Artheneis Spinola, 1837) ;

(c) clavicornis Fabricius, 1794 (as published in the binominal
combination Lygaeus clavicornis) ;

(4) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : —

(o) Tyrrheneis Kirkaldy, 1909 (an objective synon}Tn of Artheneis
Spinola, 1837, under the decision proposed in (1) {b) above) ;

(6) Myersia Evans, 1929 (a junior homonym of Rhypodes Stal,
1868).

318 Bulletin of Zoological Notnendaiure

ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS
TO DESIGNATE TYPE SPECIES FOR " NYSIUS " DALLAS,
1852, AND " ARTHENEIS " SPINOLA, 1837 (CLASS INSECTA,
ORDER HEMIPTERA) : SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSALS
SUBMITTED BY PROFESSOR ROBERT L. USINGER AND
DR. R. I. SAILER

By W. E. CHINA, Sc.D.

{Deputy Keeper, Departtnent of Entomology, British Museum {Natural History),

London)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)181)

(Enclosure to a letter dated SOth May, 1951)

lu my paper on the generic names of the British Heteroptera (1943, The
gen. Names brit. Ins. (8) : 237) I pointed out (Note 1 to genus 2) that Distant
(1903, Faun. brit. India, Rhyn. 2 : 17) was the first author validly to fix the
type species of the genus Nysius Dallas, 1852 {List Spec, hemipt. Ins. Coll.
Brit. Mus. 2 : 551). In consequence the generic name Rhypodes Stal, 1868
(with type species Nysius zealandicus Dallas) became a synonjiii of Nysius
Dallas, 1852, while Nysius auctt. nee Dallas had to take the next available
name. By an extraordinary lapsus, 1 selected the relatively modern name
Macroparius Stal, 1872 (type species : Heterogaster [sic] graminicola Kolenati),
leaving the much older name Artheneis Spinola, 1837 (type species : Artheneis
cymoules Spinola) as a synonym. By this mistaken sinking of Artheneis under
Macroparius, I overlooked the serious consequences of transferring the type
genus of the Lygaeid subfamily artheneinae to another subfamily (lygaeinae)
and even kept the subfamily name artheneinae on page 238. The fact that
the old genus Artheneis (type species : A. foveolata Spinola) does not occur in
Britain made this error possible, as in my paper I tended to skim over non-
British genera. When my attention was dra^vn to this slip by Dr. R. L. Usinger,
I at once agreed mth him that the case would have to be submitted to the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in order to preserve
the name of the type genus of the artheneinae and the well-known generic
concept Nysius. This case was set out by Usinger and Sailer in 1944 {Proc.
ent. Soc. Wash. 46 (9) : 260-262) and I herewith express my complete con-
currence with their opinions.

Btdletin of Zoological NomenckUure 319

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO
VALIDATE THE ENTRY ON THE " OFFICIAL LIST OF
GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY" OF THE NAME
" LIMULUS " MiJLLER, 1785 (CLASS MEROSTOMATA*) :
PROPOSED CORRECTION OF AN ERROR IN " OPINION "

104

By LEIF ST0RMER
(Paleontologisk Institvt, Oslo, Norway)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)506)

1 . The object of the present apphcationis to obtain from the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature the use of its plenary powers for the
purpose of suppressing the generic name Xiphosura Briinnich, 1771, in order
thereby to render the name Limulus Miiller, 1785 (Class Merostomata*) the
oldest available name for, and therefore the vaUd name of, the genus now
habitually known by that name. From the point of view of the present
appUcant, who is engaged in preparing the chapter on Merostomata for the
forthcoming international Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, the present
case is one of exceptional urgency, for it is essential that a decision should
be provided on the issue now submitted in time for it to be included in the
relevant portion of the Treatise. It is particularly hoped, therefore, that it
will be possible for the International Commission to reach a very early decision
on the present application.

2. The facts of this case are as follows : In 1928, in Opinion 104 {Smithson.
miscel. Coll. 73 (No. 5) : 25) the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name
Limulus Miiller (O.F.), 1785 (type species, by monotypy : Monoculus poly-
phemus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 634). This extremely well-known
name, which was then in universal use — as it still is today — was regarded not
only as a nomenclatorially vaUd name, but also as the oldest available name
for the genus in question. In 1940, however, the late R. Winckworth submitted
a request to the International Commission {Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 113-117)
for a ruling on the question whether in his Zoologiae Fundamenta (then believed
to have been published in 1772, but now known to have been first published
in 1771) Briinnich had applied the principles of binominal nomenclature.
Winckworth pointed out that, if the Commission were to give an afiirmative
answer to the foregoing question, there were a number of generic names which
would in future rank for priority as from the Zool. Fund, and that one of these
names, Xiphosura Briimiich (: 208), was older than, and would replace, the
well-kno^\'n name Limulus Miiller, 1785. At Paris in 1948 the International
Commission ruled in favour of the availability of the names in Briinnich's
Zoologiae Fundamenta, holding the ^^ew that in this work Briinnich had duly
complied with the requirements of Proviso (b) to Article 25 of the Regies (see
1950, Btill. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 307-310).

• Or Class Arachnida.

Bull. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 2, Pt. 11. September, 1951

320 Bulletin of Zoological Nornendature

3. Having reached this general decision, the International Commission
turned to consider the new names in the Fundamenta of Briinnich, of which
it now became necessary to take account. AMien the Commission reached
the name Xiphosura Briinnich. the Acting President (Mr. Francis Hemming)
drew attention to the fact that the acceptance of this generic name would
be objectionable from two points of view (1950, loc. cit. 4 : 311-312). First,
that name, if accepted, would displace the time-honoured name Limulus
MuUer, which, moreover, had already been on the Official List for twenty years ;
second, the use of this word as a generic name would be confusing, in view
of the fact that it was in general use as the name of the Order to which this
genus belonged. The Commission did not feel able on that occasion to reach
a decision on this question, but agreed that as soon as possible after the close
of the Paris Congress consideration should be given to the question whether
or not the plenary powers should be used for the purpose of validating the
generic name Limulus Miiller and thereby of regularising the position of that
name on the Official List (1950, loc. cit. 4 : 312). At the same time the Com-
mission asked the Secretary to confer with specialists and, having done so,
to submit a Report, to the Commission for consideration.

4. It win be seen, therefore, that the subject of the present application is
one to which the Commission has already given preliminary consideration and
on which it has asked for the views of speciahsts. Thus, the present application,
although prompted mainly by a different object, namely a desire to obtain a
decision needed for the preparation of the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology,
will serve also to provide a basis for the consideration of the question to which
the Commission gave special consideration in Paris, namely whether the position
on the Official List of the name Limulus Miiller should be regularised or, alter-
natively, whether that name should be removed from the Official List, the
name Xiphosura Briinnich being added thereto in its place.

5. As has already been explained, the generic name Limulus Miiller is in
general use for the genus to which it was first apphed by Miiller, one hundred
and sixty-six years ago. It is true that in 1902 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7) 9 : 260)
Pocock sought to replace the name Limulus Miiller by the older name Xiphosura
Gronovius, 1764 {Zoophylac. gron. 2 : 220) but this proposal of his won no
support from other workers. Moreover, the Zoophylacium gronovianum, as
from which Pocock dated the name Xiphosura was ^vritten by an author
(Gronovius) who, though a so-called " binary " author, did not apply the
principles of binominal nomenclature. At the time that Pocock wrote his
paper there was room for argument whether a generic name published by such
an author possessed any status in zoological nomenclature and this doubt
persisted until 19-48 when the International Congress of Zoology made it quite
clear that such names possess no status in zoological nomenclature, by deleting
the ambiguous expression " nomenclature binaire " from the Regies, inserting
in its place the perfectly definite expression " nomenclature binominale "
(1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 63-66). It is now perfectly clear that the alleged
generic name Xiphosura Gronovius. 1764. possesses no standing in zoological
nomenclature. This objection does not however apply to the name Xiphosura
Briinnich, 1771, which is undoubtedly an available name. In view of the

Bulletin of Zoological Notmnclature 321

current general acceptance of the generic name Limulus Miiller and the long
period in which it has been in use, the desirability of promoting stability in
nomenclature points strongly in favour of the preservation of the name Limulus
Miiller, as against the name Xiphosura Briinnich. These considerations are
enormously strengthened by the fact that for over twenty years the name
Limulus Miiller has occupied an unchallenged position on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology. The arguments would need to be very strong to
justify the dethronement of the name Limulus Miiller for the benefit of the
unknown name Xiphosura Briinnich. In actual fact there are no arguments
that can be advanced in favour of the overthrow of existing practice in this
matter, apart from that based on the consideration that Briinnich's name
Xiphosura was published fourteen years before Miiller's name Limulus. The
Law of Priority possesses many important merits, but it is important always to
remember that that Law was fashioned to promote stability and uniformity in
nomenclature and consequently that the purpose of that Law is defeated
if, by an imduly rigid appUcation of its provisions, it is allowed to become
an instrument for overturning well-established nomenclatorial practice. There
are therefore very strong grounds in favour of the use by the International
Commission of its plenary powers to preserve the name Limulus Miiller.

6. This matter is not, however, the sole concern of the student of the
taxonomy of the living and fossil forms concerned. For the name Limulus
Miiller is deeply embedded in the literature of the morphology and ontogeny
of this interesting group, and to the workers in the field of applied biology
changes of well-known names for narrow technical reasons of a purely nomen-
clatorial character are pecuUarly irritating and incomprehensible. Moreover, the
International Congress of Zoology has given express directions that the interests
of this class of worker are to be given special consideration by the International
Commission in considering cases involving the possible displacement of well-
known names {see, 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 234-235). For this reason
also it is highly desirable that the International Commission should use its
plenary powers to prevent the supercession of the name Limulus Miiller.

7. Finally, it must be observed that (as was pointed out in the discussion
of this case in Paris) we are confronted here also with a reason of quite a
different kind which would make it most undesirable that the name Xiphosura
Briinnich should replace the name Limulus Miiller. This is because the word
(Xiphosura) of which Briinnich's name consists or derivatives of that word
are commonly used to denote the higher categories to which the genus now
known as Limulus belongs. Thus, according to the taxonomic view taken
of the categories which should be recognised, the word " Xiphosura " is in
use as the name of the Sub-Class or Order concerned, while the word " Xiphos-
urida " is used as the name of the Order. The Commission has ruled (in Opinion
102) that a generic name is not invahdated by the prior use, as an ordinal
name, of the word of which that generic name is composed and this provision
has since been incorporated in the Regies ; in deciding so to codify this pro-
vision, the International Congress of Zoology decided also to insert a Recom-
mandaiion deprecating the selection, as generic names, of words previously
used as the names of units of Sub-Ordinal or higher category (1950, Bull. zool.

322 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Nomencl. 4 : 164-165). In tte present case, the use of the word " Xiphosura "
as a generic name could not fail to give rise to confusion in the nomenclature
of this group, and it is therfore extremely desirable from this point of view
alone that the Commission should use its plenary powers to suppress the generic
name Xiphosura Briinnich, 1771.

8. For the reasons set forth above, I ask the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature :—

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Xiphosura
Briinnich, 1771, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for
those of the Law of Homonymy ;

(2) in view of (1) above, to confirm the generic name Limulus Miiller, 1785,
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ;

(3) to place the under-mentioned generic names or reputed generic names
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :-

(a) Xiphosura Gronovius, 1764 (an invahd name because pubhshed
by an author who did not apply the principles <rf binominal
nomenclature) ;

(b) Xiphosura Briinnich, 1771 (a name proposed, imder (1) above,
to be suppressed under the plenary powers) ;

(4) to place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zology the
trivial name polyphemus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal
combination Monoculus polyphemus) (trivial name of the type species
of Umulus Miiller, 1785).

ON THE QUESTION WHETHER IT IS DESIRABLE THAT
THE GENERIC NAME " LIMULUS " MULLER, 1785, SHOULD
BE VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS AND
CONFIRMED IN ITS POSITION ON THE " OFFICIAL LIST
OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY "

By H. MUNRO FOX, F.R.S.

{Lmxdon University, Bedford College, London)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)506)

(Extract from a letter dated 12th March, 1951)

I am strongly of the opinion that the generic name Limulus Miiller should be
validated and confirmed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The
contrary course would be most undesirable both because of text-book usage
and because of the undesirability of removing a name from the Official List.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 323

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL THAT THE NAME
"LIMULUS" MULLER, 1785 (CLASS MEROSTOMATA)
SHOULD BE VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS
AND CONFIRMED ON THE " OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC
NAMES IN ZOOLOGY "

By CARL 0. DUNBAR

( Yale University, Peabody Museum of Natural History, New Haven,
Conn., U.S.A.)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)506)

(Extract from a letter dated 23rd May, 1951)

I think that both the Official List of Generic Names and the provision for the
use of the plenary powers are desirable as a proper means of escape from unneces-
sary confusion, sometimes produced by rigid application of the rule of priority,
against which a good many systematists are inchned to rebel. It would seem
to me therefore that the name Limulus Miiller, having been established by
being placed on the Official List, cannot be displaced by Xiphosura Briiimich
unless the Commission saw fit to take the positive action of removing it from
the List.

As for the merits of the case, I believe no useful purpose would be gained by
replacing the name Limulus which is so well established in the literature of the
world. On the other hand, definite confusion would result from use of the name
Xiphosura for a genus within the Order Xiphosura.

324 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

ON THE QUESTION OF THE TYPE SPECIES OF " GRY-
PHAEA" LAMARCK, 1801 (CLASS PELECYPODA) : COM-
MENT ON PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY M. GILBERT
RANSON.TOGETHER WITH A SUPPLEMENTARY REQUEST
FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS
THE TRIVIAL NAME " GRYPHUS " LINNAEUS, 1758
(AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMINAL COMBINATION
" ANOMIA GRYPHUS ")

By L. R. COX, Sc.D., F.R.S.
{Department of Geology, British Museum {Natural History), London)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)365)

1. The present paper is submitted to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature in response to the recently published request by the
Secretary to the Commission (Hemming, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 239-240)
for the views of interested specialists on the proposal relating to the determin-
ation of the type species of the genus Gryphaea Lamarck submitted to the
Commission by M. Gilbert Ranson (1950, Bull. zool. Nmnencl. 3 : 168-170).

2. In that application (as in other previously published papers) M. Ranson
concluded that the type species of the genus Gryphaea Lamarck is the living
Portuguese Oyster, Giyphaea a^igulata Lamark, 1819 {Hist. nat. Anim. sans
Vertebr. 6 (1) : 198). Axgimients leading to a different conclusion, namely that
the type species of this genus is Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801 {Syst. Anim.
sans Verier. : 398), have, however, been advanced by various workers. These
arguments are examined in the following paragraphs.

3. In 1898 {Tertiary Fauna Florida : 672) Dall (W. H.) showed : (a) that the
name Gryphaea was first published by Lamarck in his Systeme des Animaux
sans Vertebres ; (6) that, although the name Gryplmea angulata was the first
name there Usted under Gryphaea, it was a nomen nudum and therefore that the
species in question was not available for selection as type species ; (c) that
several of the names there cited under Gryphaea, were founded with indications
adequate to establish the identity of the species concerned, which therefore
were available for subsequent selection as type species. The most important
of those species is Gryphaea arcuata. Ball's opinion that it was virtually
selected as type species by Bosc in 1802 cannot, however, be accepted. Hertlein
(1933, Trans. San Diego Soc. tmt. Hist. 7 : 278) referred to an alleged type
selection of G. arcuata by Chenu in 1858. The earUest valid selection now
known is however by Anton in 1839, who also selected G. arcuata. This fact
seems first to have been recorded in print by H. B. Stenzel (1947, J. Paleont.
21 : 174). It is most improbable that an earUer selection of one of the species
available form the Systeme will now be found.

4. Monsieur Ranson attempts to counter these arguments by maintaining
that the SystSme is a work which should be disregarded in discussions on
nomenclature. His reasons (if I understand him correctly) are : (o) that the

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 2, Pt. 11. September, 1951

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 325

International Commission rendered an Opinion {Opinion 78) the meaning of
which was that citations of single species in this work under previously estab-
hshed genera cannot be accepted as t^T^e selections ; (b) that it was a provisional

fio.n^''^'^'''^'''*' T""^'' ''' '^*''^'' ^y *''« ^^^^ t^a^ Lamarck many years later
(1819, mst nat Amni. sans Vertebr. 6 (1) : 198-200) changed the names of some
species included in it and certain references given under other species He
therefore considers that the first publication of Gryphaea which can be accepted
was by Lamarck (1819, op. cit.) and that a selection of G. anguUtu was validly
established as from that work as the type species by Children (1823).

5. Even though it means repeating much that has been said by previous
writers, I will deal in turn with these other and points made by Monsieur
Kanson. •'

(a) Status of Lamarck's " Systeme "

6. This work unquestionably fulfils the necessary conditions to constitute a
valid publication under the International Rules. The fact that it does not
contain type selections is quite irrelevant to this question. Equally
tallacious is the argument that the Systeme should be rejected because it was a
premature work. Most systematists change their minds on some questions of
synonymy and classification during the course of eighteen years, but their
earlier works do not thereby lose their status as publications. If nevertheless
it were to be held that the S^jsteme should be suppressed by the Internationa!
Commission in order that G. anguhta should become available for selection as
type species of Gryphaea, it must be remembered that lengthy researches would
have to be made on possible repercussions on the nomenclature of other genera
?o.o .t '"^ *^^^ '™'''- ^"' '^^^^^ ^* ^^ forgotten that between 1801 and
]i .olT^'^ "^^"^^ (^''-yy^am was pubhshed by at least four other workers
(Bosc, 1802 ; Roissy, 1805 ; J. Sowerby, 1815 ; Cuvier, 1817), from any of

. f i^r^'J : '"■'^'"'^ (''^ ^^^ synonym G. incurva J. Sowerby) would be
available for selection as type species of the genus to the exclusion of the then
still underscribed G. angulata.

^^"Syste'me "?"*"*" "*°** "Gryphaea" validly established in the

7. The answer to this question is that the name Gryphaea unquestionably
was so established. A generic diagnosis was given and certain clearly recog-
nizable nominal species were included in the genus.

^*'" S^ °^"^* '^^"f ^"*=^"^««* "»^er " Gryphaea " by Lamarck in the
Systeme are clearly recognizable and hence available for
subsequent selection as type species ?

8. The specific names included under Gryphaea in this work are hsted below
Three are nonnna nuda ; the identity of the remainder rests on figures in older
works, bmce no diagnoses are given, no specimens preserved in the Lamarckian

326 Bulktin of Zoological Nomendalure

Collection or in any collections known to have been studied by Lamarck can
be accepted as the type specimens of these species.

(i) Crryphaea angulata. No references to figures are given. The name is
a nonien nudum.

{ii) Crryphaea suborhiculata. The references are to " Knorr. Petrif. vol. 2",
part. 1, pi. 62. Encyclop. pi. 189, f. 3, 4 ". Lamarck's references to
Knorr are not bibliographically correct, as he renumbered Knorr's
plates owing to the peculiarity of Knorr's original system of
numbering. The plate referred to is that numbered " D.III c ", and
can be identified by counting the })lates from the beginning.
G. suborbiculala, identified l)oth by the figure in this plate ond those
of the Encyclopedie mkhodique cited by Lamarck, is a well-known
Upper Cretaceous species. Lamarck later re-named it Gryphaea
columba and it is now referred to the genus Exogyra Say, 1820.

{Hi) Gryphaea cymhula. The reference given is "Knorr. Petrif. vol. 2*,
part. 1, pi. 20, f. 7." The plate nimiber shoiUd read " B. I. d ", in
which fig. 7 shows the profile view of a large Jurassic Gryphaea.. This
appears to be a well-lmown Middle Liassic species, although RoUier
(1915, Fossiles nouveaux oil, peu connus : 571) considers that it cannot
be identified with certainty.

(iv) GrypJiaea arcuata. The references are " Encyclop. pi. 189, f. 1, 2. Knorr.
Petrif. vol. 2«, p. 1, pi. 60, f. 1, 2. Bourg. Petrif. no. 92." This species
needs careful consideration, and it seems desirable to fix its identity
by selecting as lectotype the original of the most appropriate of the
figures cited. The Encyclopedie methodique figures were later omitted
by Lamarck (1819, Hist. fiat. Anim. sans Vertebr. 6 (1) : 198) from
those cited under G. arcuata and included under G. cymbium. The
reference to Knorr has the objection that the plate cited should read
" D. Ill a " (not 60). Knorr gave no localities for the specimens
represented in figs. 1 , 2 of this plate, but there is little doubt that fig. 1 ,
at least, is of a specimen from the Lower Lias closely resembling that
described by J. Sowerby in 1815 as Gryplmea inciirva. Fig. 92 (on pi.
xv) of Bourguet's Traite de Petrifications (the third work cited by
Lamarck) is of a very similar shell M^hich undoubtedly came from the
Lower Lias, although again no locality is given. Bourguet's figured
specimen is hereby selected as the lectotype of G. arcuata,.

So great, however, are the difficulties of specific identification in
Liassic Gryphaeas, that it might be contended that a single figure,
however good, of a specimen of unknown provenance is insufficient for
subsequent recognition of a species. Some workers would, in fact,
maintain that a species of this group could be identified only if its
precise locality and geological horizon were known, or, alternatively,
a large series of specimens from the same bed available for statistical
examination. Schafle (1929, Geol. paldont. Abh. (n.s.) 17(2) : 26. pi.

\

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 327

2 figs. 7-17 ; pi. 3, figs. 1-4, 9), the latest reviser of Lia.ssic oysters as a
whole, however, regards G. arcuata as a species of moderately long
geological range and broad synonymy, and Bourguet's figured speci-
men was undoubtedly a fully representative specimen of the species
as conceived of by this author. Schafle's pi. 2, fig. 7, compares closely
wth Bourguet's figure, as does his pi. 2, fig. 16 with Knorr's pi. D. Ill a,
fig. 1. Bouguet's figure of the specimen which is now selected as
lectotype, together with Knorr's fig. 1, are, therefore, suflEcient to
establish the identity of G. arcuata as interpreted by Schafle, whose
work, although not statistical, is as thorough as that of any other
modern author.

{v) Gryphaea africana. Lamarck's reference is " Encyclop. pi. 189, f. 5,
6 ". These figures represent a well-characterized species which is
abundant in the Cenomanian of Northern Africa and the Middle East
and is now referred to Exogyra Say.

(w) Gryphaea cari)iata. The reference given by Lamarck is " Bourg.
Petrif. pi. 15, f. 89, 90." There is some doubt as to which of several
Cretaceous species of Exogyra is represented by these figures. The
name G. carinata has not been generally adopted.

(vii) Gryphaea latissima. Lamarck's reference is " Bourg. Petrif. pi. 14,
no. 84, 85." This is the well-known Lower Cretaceous Exogyra to
which the later names couloni (Defrance) and sitmata (J. Sowerby)
have more frequently been applied.

(viii) GrypJiaea depressa. A nomen nudum,
{ix) Gryphaea angustata. A nomen nudum.

9. From the above, it may be seen that, besides G. arcuata, three species of
unquestionable identity (G. suborhiculata , G. africana, G. latissima), all now
included in Exogyra, were available for selection as the type specie's of Gryphaea,
Lamarck, 1801, together ^nth two of doubtful identity (G. cymbida, G. carinata).

{d) Is Anton's selection of " G. arcuata " as type species of " Gryphaea "
Lamarck without technical objections?

10. On. pi. vi. of the preface to his Verzeichniss (1839) Anton refers to
" Gattungen (deren Tx'pusart mit Versalbuchstaben gedruckt ist) " and on p. 21
arcuata. is the only species printed in small capitals under " Untergattung
Gryphaea Lam." Throughout the work the type species of genera and subgenera
are consistently indicated in this manner, and there seems to be no technical
objection to this method of type selection. It is reasonable to maintain that
a type selection for Gryphaea Lamarck without mention of the date of pubUca-
tion of the genus must be accepted as referring to its earUest place of publication.

11 . So far as I know, none of the other species available from the Systime
has ever been cited as the type species of Gryphaea.

328 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(e) Is there evidence that it was Lamarck's intention to found the genus
" Gryphaea " primarily upon the living species " G. angulata " ?

12. Monsieur Ranson argues that such was Lamarck's intention, as G.
angulata was the first species hsted by him under Gryphaea both in 1801 and in
1819. The generic diagnosis, however, states " crochet . . . courbe en spirals
involute ", whereas the umbonal region in G. angulata is not involute, but coiled
in a posterior direction, as in Exogyra. It further states " animal inconnu ",
again suggesting that it was not the living European species that Lamarck had
primarily in mind when writing the diagnosis. The actual generic name, more-
over, was derived from the word " gryphites ", which had long been applied to
the fossil forms in non-binominal literature.

(f) Does it seem desirable, to preserve current usage, for the Inter-
national Commission to designate " G. angulata " Lamarck, 1819
as type species of " Gryphaea " under its plenary powers ?

13. The generic name Gryphaea has been employed for the group of incoiled
fossil oysters from Jurassic deposits in countless text-books and general works
for the past 125 years. Since 1885, when P. Fischer {Manuel de Conchyliologie :
927) cited G. atigulata as an example of Gryphaea and proposed the new name
Liogryphaea for G. arcuata (although he referred this s^Decies to GrypMea in the
explanation of his text-figure), the name Liogryphaea has become fairly current
in French palaeontological literature, although it has gained little groimd m
other countries. In my card- index of Jurassic lamellibranchia extracted from
the palaeontological literature of the whole world I have 1002 references under
Gryphaea and 51 under Liogryphaea, whether as distinct genera or as subgenera
of Ostrea. This shows that the name Gryphaea. is about 20 times more familiar
to palaeontologists as a whole than Liogryphaea. In fact, if G. angulata were
the valid type species of Gryphaea, there would be a strong case for the use of
the plenary powers with a view to legalizing the use of this generic name for the
fossil forms. Similar figures for the name of the Portuguese Oyster are not
available. Except in France, however, this is usually known as Ostrea angulata
Lamarck, the necessity for its generic separation from Ostrea not being generally
admitted. It was catalogued as Ostrea (Crassostrea) angulata by the late Mr.
R. Winckworth in his " List of the Marine MoUusca of the British Isles " (1932,-
J. Conchol. 19 : 240).

Conclusions

14. In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is evident (1) that, under
the Regies, Lamarck's Systeme is an available work for the purposes of Article
25 (the Law of Priority) (the observations in regard to that work contained in
the Commission's Opinion 78 relating to an entirely diftereut question, namely
whether the method of citing specific names there adopted constitutes the
selection, under Article 30, of the species so cited as the type species of the
genera in which those species are severally placed), (2) that the specific
name Gryphaea angulata, as cited in the Systeme is a nomen nudum and
in consequence that the species validly so named by Lamarck eighteen
years later (in 1819) is ineligible for selection as the type species of Gryphaea

Bulletin of Zoological NomoiclcUure 329

Lamarck, 1801, (3) that of the described species included in Gryphaea in 1801 the
first to be selected by any worker (Anton, 1839) as the type species of that genus
was the fossil species Gryphaea arcmta Lamarck, 1801, (4) that in palaeonto-
logical literature the name Gryphaea is firmly established as the name of the
genus containmg the Liassic species Gryphaea arcuata, that genus having been
SI \tf fT^ about twenty times as often as by the name Uoqryphuea
Fischer, 1885, {Man. Conch. : 927), the name which that genus would bL if
Or. atiguUta Lamarck, 1819, and not G. arcmta Lamarck, 1801, were the t^^e
species oi Gryphaea, while it is only by French workers that the name Gryvhma
has been habitually used for G. anguhta, workers in other countries generally
retammg that species in the genus Ostrea Linnaeus, 1758.

15. While I differ from Monsieur Ranson on the question of the species
which under the Regies, is the type species of the genus Gryphaea, I welcome
his action m brmgmg this matter before the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature, for it is clearly desirable that a final decision on this
matter should be obtained as soon as possible and an end thus put to the
truitless discussions which have been in progress for over sixty years Before
I tormulate the action which I recommend that the International Commission
should now take, m order finally to determine the type species of the genus
Gryphaea, I must refer briefly to another question, which, though entirely
unconnected ^ath the question of the type species of this genus, has nevertheless
a bearing on the action which it is desirable that the Commission should now
take. 1 reter to the question whether the trivial name arcuata Lamarck 1801
(as published m the binominal combination Gryphaea arcmta) is the oldest
available name for the species which is the type species of the genus GrypJmea.
Ihe name Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801, is an available name both in the
sense that it is not a junior homonym of any previously published specific name
and in the sense that it is not a junior objective synonym of an earher name
applied to the same species. There is, however, an earlier name, which has
hitherto been treated by almost all authors as a nomen dubium, which may have
been based upon specimens of the same species as that upon which the nominal
species Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801 (as defined by the lectotype selection
made in paragraph 8(iv) above) was based. This nominal species is Anomia
grypJms Linnaeus 1758 [Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 701), which was based upon a
short diagnosis (which cannot be interpreted with certainty) and upon references
to five older works, none of which, it may be noted, was among those similarly
?i . I t^f "'^'^k ^^^"^ publishing the name GrypJiaea arcuata, though some
Illustrate that species, as here interpreted. Hanley (1855, Ipsa Linn. Conch. :
124), It is true, recorded that the Linneaii Collection includes a worn Gryphaea
bearing the number 192 (under which Linnaeus listed Ammiu gryphm in 1758)
and that his appears to belong, not to G. arcuata, but to the related species
G. obhqu^zta Sowerby (.!.), 1815 {Min. Conch. 2 : 24). Nevertheless, this specimen
could not be accepted as more than a syntype of the Linnean species. Thus,
the trivial name gryphus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal com-
bmation Anomia gryphus) constitutes a potential threat to the stabiUty of the
name of one or other of the two species now known as Gryphaea arcmta Lamarck
and Gryplmea ohhquata Sowerby (J.). The possibihty that a well-estabHshed
name (such as the trivial name arcmia Lamarck, 1801, or the trivial name

330 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

obliquata Sowerby (J.), 1815) might be threatened by some older nomen dubium
(such as the trivial name gryphus Linnaeus, 1758) has been anticipated by the
International Commission and by the International Congress of Zoology, and
the latter body, on the recommendation of the Conmaission, has inserted in
Article 31 a provision that in such a case the question at issue is to be referred
to the Commission for decision (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 76). It is in
pursuance of that provision that this case is now reported to the International
Commission. It cannot possibly be estabUshed that the trivial name gryphus
Linnaeus, 1758, certainly applies to the same species as the name arcuata
Lamarck, 1801, and the continued existence of this name as an available name
serves no useful purpose whatever, constituting only a threat to the stabiUty
of the names arcuata Lamarck and obliquata Sowerby (J.). The International
Commission is accordingly asked to remove that threat by using its plenary
powers to suppress the trivial name gryphus Linnaeus.

Recommendations

16. I accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature to reject the argimients regarding the type species of the genus Gryphaea
advanced by Monsieur Eanson, and : —

(1) to rule that, under Article 25 of the Regies, the generic name Gryphaea
possesses availability for the purposes of the Law of Priority as from
the date of its pubHcation in 1801 in the Systeme of Lamarck and that
the type species of that genus is Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801, that
species ha\ang been so selected by Anton (1839) and having been the
first of the originally included species to have been so selected by any
author ;

(2) to use its plenary powers to suppress the trivial name gryphus
Linnaeus, 1758 ( as published in the binominal combination Anomia
gryphus) for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of
the Law of Homonymy ;

(3) to place the generic name Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801 (gender of generic
name : feminine) (type species, by selection by Anton (1839) :
Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801) on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology ;

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

(a) arcuata Lamarck, 1801 (as published in the binominal com-
bination Gryphaea arcuata), the species so named to be defined
by the lectotype selection made in the present appUcation
(trivial name of type species of Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801) ;

(6) obliquata Sowerby (J.), 1815 (as published in the binominal
combination Gryphaea obliquata) ;

(c) angulala Lamarck, 1819 (as published in the binominal com-
bination Gryphaea angidata) ;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 331

(5) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : —

(a) Liogryphaea Fischer, 1885 (a junior objective synonym of
Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, the two nominal genera having the
same species as type species) ;

(6) Liogryphea Douville, 1904 {Miss. sci. Pers. 3 (Etudes geol.)(4)
(Pal.) : 273) (an invalid variation of Liogryphaea Fischer, 1885) ;

(6) to place the trivial name gryphus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the
binominal combination Anomia gryphus), as proposed, under
(2) above, to be suppressed under the plenary powers, on the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in
Zoology.

OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSAL THAT "GRYPHAEA
ANGULATA" LAMARCK, 1819 (CLASS PELECYPODA)
SHOULD BE DESIGNATED AS THE TYPE SPECIES OF
THE GENUS "GRYPHAEA" LAMARCK, 1819, BY THE
SUPPRESSION OF THE NAME " GRYPHAEA " LAMARCK,

1801

By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S.
{Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)365)

(Extract from a letter dated 3rd June, 1951)

I disapprove of this application and consider that the Rules should take
their course. By so doing, they legalise the current and past practice in what
I believe to be the overwhelming majority of literature in which the name
Gryphaea has been mentioned. I can recall no exception in the whole of
palaeontological literature to the assimiption that the type species of Gryphaea
is a Liassic species. Moreover, the work on programme evolution that has
made Gryphaea a household word has so widely disseminated the name in
biological literature generally that I cannot understand even a neontologist
wanting to change the type species.

332 BuUeiin of Zoological Nomenclature

OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED ACCEPTANCE OF
"GRYPHAEA ANGULATA" LAMARCK, 1819, AS THE
TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS " GRYPHAEA " LAMARCK,
1819 (CLASS PELECYPODA): COMMENT ON PROPOSAL
SUBMITTED BY M. GILBERT RANSON

By MYRA KEEN (Ciiraior of Paleontology) and SIEMON W. MULLER
{Professor of Geology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A.)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)365)

(Letter dated 29th May, 1951)

We strongly disapprove the proposal that Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, should
be suppressed under the plenary powers of the International Commission.
We see no compelling reason why this should be done, and, in our opinion,
such action would result in much confusion.

Surveying the Uterature, we observe that even those authors of the past
who have accepted Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819, as the type species
of the genus Gryphaea have included G. arcuata Lamarck, 1801, in their concept
of the genus ; and hence, the name is much more widely estabUshed in paleon-
tological Uterature than it is in the literature on Recent forms. The term
Crassostrea Sacco, 1898 {in Bellardi & Sacco, Moll. Terr. terz. Piemonte e
Liguria : 23 : 15) is available for use in the Recent group — in fact is used by
many modern authors. Therefore, we feel that nothing is to be gained and
much is to be lost in adopting the proposal, for it means shifting the concept
of the genus. If by the proposed ruling, a name were to be protected, the
case would be different. This change would merely render obsolete a large
body of literature in order to provide a given name for a given type species.
Much simpler would be the erection of a new generic group if Monsieur Ranson
feels that Crassostrea is inappropriate for the restricted group represented by
Gryphaea angulata.

The problem has been discussed by the paleontologists Dall (1898, Trans
Wagner Free Inst. Sd. Philad. 3 (4) : 672-675), Hertlein (1933, Trans. San
Diego Soc. not. Hist. 7 (22) : 277-278) and Stenzel (1947, " Nomenclatural
Synopsis of supraspecific groups of the family Ostreidae ", J. Paleont. 21 (2) :
165-185, especially page 175), all of whom have come to the conclusion that
the type species of Gryphaea should be G. arauata Lamarck, 1801. The reasons
which they and also the late Mr. R. Winckworth have advanced seem to us
cogent.

Bulletin of Zoological N onietidalure 333

OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED ACCEPTANCE OF
"GRYPHAEA ANGULATA " LAMARCK, 1819, AS THE
TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS " GRYPHAEA " LAMARCK,
1801 (CLASS PELECYPODA) : COMMENT ON PROPOSAL
SUBMITTED BY M. GILBERT RANSON

By D. T. DONOVAN, B.Sc, Ph.D.
(University of Bristol, Department of Geology. Bristol)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)365)

(Extract from a letter dated 8th June, 1951)

Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801, the type species of Gryphaea Lamarck,
1801, and other species of the same genus, are common and famUiar fossils
in rocks of Lower Lias age, and have been known almost exclusively by this
generic name since the time of Lamarck's work. I realise that the living
species, Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819, the Portuguese Oyster, is very
well known to students of recent molluscs, but, even if it is as familiar to them
as the fossil species Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck is to palaeontologists, the use
of the plenary powers to siispend the Regies where they operate to give a
perfectly umambiguous result would seem highly imdesirable, and only to be
recommended if the combination Gryphaea arcuata had for long fallen out of
use, which is most emphatically not the case.

334 Bulletin of Zoological NottmickUure

SUPPORT FOR DR. L. R. COX'S PROPOSAL FOR THE USE

OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE NAME

"CARDINIA" (CLASS LAMELLIBRANCHIATA) AS FROM

AGASSIZ [1841]

By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc, F.R.S.
{Sedffivick Museum. Camb)ulge University, Cambridge)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)208)

(Extract from a letter dated 3rd June, 1951)

With reference to Dr. L. R. Cox's application for the use of the plenary
powers to validate the generic name Cardinia as from Agassiz [1841] (1951,
Bull. zool. Notnend. 2 : 59-64), I agree with this application and wish to support
it.

SUPPORT FOR DR. HENNING LEMCHE'S PROPOSALS
RELATING TO THE GENERIC NAME "SCAPHANDER"
MONTFORT, 1810 (CLASS GASTROPODA)

By JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr.
{San Diego, California, U.S.A.)

• (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)378)

(Extract from a letter dated 22nd June, 1951)

The name ScapMnder should, in my opinion, be placed on the Official List
as requested, for the very convincing reasons given by Dr. Henning Lemche
in his application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature*.

s See 1961, BuU. zool. Nomend. 2: 35-36.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomencluture 335

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY DR.
W. K. ARKELL IN REGARD TO THE GENERIC NAMES
" AMMONITES," " ARNIOCERAS " AND " LIPAROCERAS "
AND THE TRIVIAL NAME " ANGULATUS " SCHLOTHEIM,
1820 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMINAL COMBINATION
"AMMONITES ANGULATUS") (CLASS CEPHALOPODA,
ORDER AMMONOIDEA)

By D. T. DONOVAN, B.Sc, Ph.D.
{Bristol University, Departme^it of Geology, Bristol)

(Commission's references Z.N.(S.)425, 509, 507, 422)

(Extract from a letter dated 28th May, 1951)

I write to comment on certain of the applications submitted to the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by Dr. W. J. Arkell and
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, vol. 2, Parts 6/8.

I have been specialising in Liassic Ammonites for several years and have
just completed an account of certain of them, while I am preparing re\'ision3
of two old monographs, namely Thomas Wright's " Monograph on the Lias
Ammonites of the British Islands " and Pierre Reynes' " Monographic des
Ammonites." Consequently, I am directly concerned with the effects of some
of Dr. Arkell's proposals.

(1) Page 200. Generic name Ammonites Bruguiere (Z.N.(S.)425) : —

I agree wdth Dr. Arkell that it is undesirable for this name to remain, as
at present, based on an eighteenth-century figure of uncertain identity, owing
to the possibility of different interpretations, as pointed out in paragraph 11
of the proposal. The alternative procedure, namely the definition of the type
species by reference to a later figure is liable to displace other current names ;
as regards the particular proposal mentioned by Dr. Arkell (paragraph 13(A))
that d'Orbigny's 1843 plate 43 should be selected as " neotype " of Ammonites
bisulcatus, Bruguiere, I have personally examined d'Orbigny's collection at
Paris and have satisfied myself that his plate 43 does not represent any now
existing specimen ; it may be a figure of a lost specimen but is more likely
to be an idealised drawing. It is therefore undesirable that the interpretation
of any genus should depend on this figure. In my own work I have not used
the genus, since it cannot be defined to the agreement of all, and I feel that
Dr. Arkell's proposal for suppression would be an acceptable solution.

(2) Page 204. The trivial tmme angulatus Schlotheim. {as published in the
binwninal combination Ammonites angulatus) (Z.N.(S.)422) : —

I agree with the proposal to suppress the trivial name angulatus Sowerby,
1815 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites angulatus) in
favour of angulatus Schlotheim, 1820 (as published in the same binominal
combination), as it will bring the legal position into line with imiversal usage.
Any possible doubt as to the identity of Schlotheim's species has been removed
since Dr. Arkell's paragraphs 10-12 were written, by the publication of type

330 BuUetin of Zoological Nomenclature

matenalhy Lange (1951, Palaeowtographica 100 (Abt 1): pi. 1, fig. 2 (lec-
totype), also fig. 6 and pi. 2, fig. 13).

(3) Page 217. Type species o/Amioceras HyaU, 1867 (Z.N.(S.)509) :—

(4) Page 220. Type species of Liparoceras HyaU, 1867 (Z.N.(S.)507) :—
I agree with Dr. Arkell's proposals for the t}^e species of these genera.

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY DR.
W. J. ARKELL THAT THE GENERIC NAME " AMMONITES "
BRUGUIERE, 1789 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER
AMMONOIDEA) SHOULD BE SUPPRESSED UNDER THE
PLENARY POWERS

By C. W. WRIGHT {London)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)425)

(Extract from a letter dated 17th July, 1951)

I should like to support Dr. W. J. Arkell's application (1951, Bull, zools
Notnend. 2 : 200-203) for the suppression of the generic name Ammonite.
Bruguiere, 1789. Although it might be argued that this name is comparable
in its double connotation, as the name of a genus and, almost in the vernacular,
as the name of an Order or Sub-Order, to such names as Nautilus, the scale
of the vernacular use of Ammonites is so vast that its use as the name of a
nominal genus would be bound to be confusing and misleading, quite apart
from the arguments adduced by Dr. Arkell.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 337

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY DR.
W. J. ARKELL FOR THE SUPPRESSION UNDER THE
PLENARY POWERS OF FIVE EARLY NAMES FOR GENERA
OF AMMONITES (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AM-

MONOIDEA)

By C. W. WRIGHT (London)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)423)

(Extract from a letter dated 17tli July, 1951)

As a worker iii Cretaceous aiuinouites, I am writing to support strongly
Dr. W. J. Arkell's application (1951, Bull. zool. Nomend. 2 : 198-199) for the
suppression of the five early names of ammonite genera, Planulites and
Orbulites Lamarck, 1801, Pelagus and EUipsolithes Montfort, 1808, and Glohites
de Haan, 1825. As he says, these names constitute a menace to ammonite
nomenclature and that menace should be removed.

ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE GENERIC NAME
" ARIETICERAS " QUENSTEDT, 1883 (CLASS CEPHAL-
OPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA) IS AN AVAILABLE NAME :
COMMENT ON THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY DR. W. J.

ARKELL

By H. ENGEI.
(Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)486)

(Extract from a letter dated 7th May, 1951)

The question in regard to the availabiUty of Quenstedt's generic name
Arieticeras raised by Dr. W. J. Arkell (1951, Bull. zool. Nonwncl. 2 : 208-210)
and commented on by yourself (ibid. 2 : 211-213) as of general interest is a
psychological one. My conclusion is that Dr. Arkell is not right in concluding
that Quenstedt did not intend it as a new name. If he had thought it
unnecessary, he could have stated that perhaps a new name might be required
to distinguish the species in question but have given no name. The fact,
however, that he did give a new name impUes that he supposed that someone
might think it necessary to give the species a new generic name and, providing
for that case, he supplied a name. Though he decided for practical purposes
not to use that name, he clearly gave it, to meet a future situation in which it
might be considered necessary. Why else did he actually compose that name ?
If one could ask Quenstedt, he would, I feel sure, be dissatisfied if his name
were not to be regarded as available.

338 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE
GENERIC NAME " PLEUROCERA " RAFINESQUE, 1818
(CLASS GASTROPODA) SET FORTH IN THE REPORT
SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN-
CLATURE

By JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr.

(San Diego, California, U.S.A.)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)83)

(Extract from a letter dated 22nd Juiic, 1951)

I am in complete agreement watli the recommendations in regard to the
generic name Plewocera Rafinesque, 1818 (Class Gastropoda) which you
suggest in your Report to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature (1951. Bidl. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 6-17), and for the same reasons which
you have so ably formulated. I find, however, that I cannot agree with Dr.
Rehder's statement on p. 12 par. 3 (4). My feeling is that in formulating rules
it is quite impossible to foresee all the possible contingencies that the rules
will have to meet, and that if suspension is kept at a minimum, it will be
necessary to alter the rules from time to time, increasing their complexity
and also the difficulty of understanding them and applying them. The best
way to achieve stability is to get the important names on to the Official List,
and Pleurocera is a very important name, even if the genus it designates is a
small one. If placing it on the Official List for use in its accepted sense involves
suspension of rules, then by aU means let the rules be suspended.

SUPPORT FOR DR. W. E. CHINA'S PROPOSAL RELATING
TO THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS " CAPSUS " FAB-
RICIUS, 1803 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA)

By S. V. KELER

{Chief of the Hemiptera Department, Zoologisches Museum der Universitat,

Berlin)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)211)

(Letter dated 18th May, 1951)

Nach Kemitnisuahme und Ueberpriifung der Belange zu dem im 1951,
Bull. zool. Nomowl. 2(4)S. 103-104, veroffentUchten Antrag von W. E. China
iiber die Bestimmung von Cimex ater Limiaeus, 1758, als Typus der Gattung
Capsws Fabricius. 1803, crklare ich, dass ich den Antrag in alien Punkten
unterstiitze.

I

Btdktin of Zoological Nomenclature 339

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY
PROFESSOR HAROLD E. YOKES RELATING TO THE
ENTRY OF THE NAME " MYTILUS " LINNAEUS, 1758
(CLASS PELECYPODA) ON THE "OFFICIAL LIST OF
GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY"

By JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr.

(San Diego, California, U.S.A.)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)193)

(Extract from a letter dated 22nd June, 1951)

Since the na)nes Mytilus Linnaeus, 1758, and Anodonia Lamarck, 1801,
with their respective type species, are already on the Official List, I fail to see
that any further action should be needed to stabilize them but, if such action
is necessary, I should certainly support it. I would, however, like in this
connection to call attention to the following point not mentioned in the
application (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 31-32). Schumacher, in his Essai
nouv. Syst. Vers. test, of 1817, also figured the hinge of Area Linnaeus as a type
selection and the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in
fixing the type of Area, discarded Schumacher's selection. I have not seen
Schumacher's Essai, but Dr. H. A. Rehder, who has consulted it for me, tells
me that the types of Area and of Mytilus are selected in exactly the same way,
from which I conclude that the discarding of the type selection of Area
automatically implies the discarding of the type species of Mytilus as well,
and that therefore the earliest available type selection for Mytilus is that of
Anton, and that Mytilus edulis is the type whether the rules are suspended
or not.

The names Mytilus and Anodonta were placed on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology before the Official List of Specific Trivial Names was established.
I believe, therefore, that the names edulis Linnaeus, 1758, and cygneus Linnaeus,
1758, as originally published as Mytilus edulis and Mytilus cygneus, are not
on the latter List. I would accordingly suggest that these specific trivial names
be now added to the Offiieial List.

340 Bulletin of Zoological NomemUUure

SUPPORT FOR THE RETENTION OF THE GENERIC
NAMES "CRANGON" WEBER, 1795, AND " CRAGO "
LAMARCK, 1801 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECA-
PODA) : OBJECTION TO PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY
DR. L. B. HOLTHUIS

By WALDO L. SCHMITT
{Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) I

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)231)

(Letter dated 30th November, 1950)

I am still hoping that there may be an opportunity for the weight of opinion j

to insure the retention of the use of Crangon Weber for Alpheus and Crago I

Lamarck for the genus formerly known as Crangon. I was much impressed J
by a survey made by Dr. Chace as long ago as 20th October.* It bears out

my opinion of the feelings of the majority of the carcinologists and especially j

of American workers. Taxonomists have been accused of never being happy J

unless they could change names, but in this case a majority opinion should j

have some weight. \

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY DR.

L. B. HOLTHUIS REGARDING THE NAMES " CRANGON "

FABRICIUS, 1798, AND "ALPHEUS" FABRICIUS, 1798

(CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA)

By MARIE V. LEBOUR, D.Sc.
{The Laboratory, Citadel Hill, Plymouth, England)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)231)

(Letter dated 4th July, 1951)

I have just received a paper from Dr. L. B. Holthuis of Leiden (1951, Bull.
zool. No7nend. 2 : 69-72) on the proposed use of the plenary powers to vaUdate
the generic name Crangon Fabricius, 1798, for the Common Shrimp and the
generic name Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, for the Snapping Shrimps (Class
Crustacea, Order Decapoda), and I wish to state that I heartily agree with
his views.

* For Dr. Chace's survey here referred to, see pp. 76-78.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 341

OBJECTION TO DR. L. B. HOLTHUIS* PROPOSALS RE-
LATING TO THE NAMES " CRANGON " FABRICIUS,
1798, AND "ALPHEUS" FABRICIUS, 1798 (CLASS
CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA)

By FRANK A. MCNEILL

{Atistralian Museum, Sydney, New South Wales)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)231)

(Extract from a letter dated 2nd January, 1951)

My American colleague, Femier A. Chace, Jr., has wTitten me and given
details of Dr. L. B. Holthuis' application to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature. He also included in his letter a copy of the
case he prepared and submitted to you for the consideration of the Commission.

Dr. Chace's case is presented in a fair and logical way. It is in complete
agreement with my views on the matter and in accordance with modern accepted
usage. There are, however, one or two points that I would like to contribute
to the discussion. First, I have always been an adherent to the golden rule
of priority ; this is one of the foundation stones of our taxonomic science
today. At times a worker must find it a nuisance, but no amount of argimient
can get aroimd the right of an earlier accepted author's claim to recognition.
The law of priority has been clearly set out by the Commission and it would
surely lose in standing and confidence if it started now to make exceptions.

This " Alpheus — Crangon issue " has a classical parallel in taxonomy.
I refer to Alcock's impassioned appeal for the retention of Gelasimus (Fiddler
Crabs) as against the prior name Uca. In any consideration on the question
imder discussion this appeal of Alcock's should be carefully considered by the
Commission ; the reference is : 1900, J. asiat. Soc. Bengal (Pt. 2) 69(3) : 350.
Every carcinologist today knows that this was a lost cause, for it is a rarity
for the old name Gelasimus to appear in modern literature.

S42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclaiitre

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY DR.

L. B. HOLTHUIS REGARDING THE NAMES " CRANGON "

FABRICIUS, 1798, AND " ALPHEUS " FABRICIUS, 1798

(CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA)

By A. B. NEEDLER

(Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Atlatitic Biological Station, St. Andrews,

N.B., Canada)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)231)

(Letter dated 5th July, 1951)

I have received a copy of Dr. L. B. Holthuis' application (Z.N.(S.)231) to
validate the generic names Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, and Crangon Fabricius,
1798, and I should like to support it. In common with most Americans and
Canadians, I have been using Crangon Weber, 1795, and Crago Lamarck, 1801,
for these genera, but this practice leads to many muddles and should be
abandoned.

A PROPOS DE LA PROPOSITION DU DR. L. B. HOLTHUIS

AU SUJET DES NOMS GENERIQUES "CRANGON"

WEBER, 1795 "CRANGON" FABRICIUS, 1798 ET

"ALPHEUS" FABRICIUS, 1798

par H. NOUVEL

(Faculte des Sciences de Toulouse, France)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)231)

Au cours d'une conversation avec le Dr. L. B. Holthuis et alors que je lui
faisais part de ce qu'a mon avis, la stricte application des Regies Internationales
de Nomenclature pouvait avoir d'irritant et de nefaste dans certains cas par-
ticuliers, a I'appui de mon opinion, je citais le famaux exemple " Crangon-
Crago- Alpheus." J'ajoutais que I'initiative de Rathbun etait le plus bel exemple
de ce qu'un specialiste we devait pas faire. Je lui disais aussi que personnelle-
ment, j'avais decouvert des cas semblables au cours de mes recherches bib-
liographiques mais je me faisais un devoir de ne pas les devoiler. C'est seulement
apres cette declaration que le Dr. Holthuis m'a fait part de sa proposition
relativement a ce cas precis.

II me parait intutile de reprendre les arguments fort pertinents de MM.
Holthuis et Gurney. Je voudrais seulement insister sur I'argument de hon sens.

Bulletin of Zoological Nom£nclature 343

Pour ce qui concerne la Crevette la plus commune des cotes europeennes,
qui est aussi celle qui a ete le plus souvent nommee dans la litterature et qui
de plus, est le type du genre, aussi bien les Carcinologistes que les Zoologistes
non specialities, les Physiologistes, les Biologistes, les Economistes ont employe
les noms de Crangon crangon ou de Crangon vulgaris. C'est aussi celui qu'on
trouve dans les traites classiques et les ouvrages de faunistique et de deter-
mination. Dans ces conditions, il se passerait bien des annees avant que Ton
puisse faire admettre I'usage du nom generique " Crago,'" si Ton songe qu'un
demi-siecle d 'usage n'a pu faire abandonner " Crangon vulgaris " !

Je n'ignore pas que I'argument joue en sens inverse, en Amerique, pour
Crago semtemspinosus, mais la litterature relative a cette espece est bien moins
considerable, moins etalee dans le temps, moins " classique " que celle de
Crangon crangon.

Pour ce qui concerne le rejet d' "Alpheus," je me contenterai de dire qu'en
Europe et dans la plus grande partie du monde, et en dehors de quelques
carcinologistes professionnels, il est fort peu de Zoologistes (s'il en est !) qui
songent a un Alpheidae lorsque Ton parle de " Crangon," meme en y associant
le nom de Weber !

Je voudrais enfin joindre un argument d'ordre psychologique. En Europe,
tout au moins, les usagers qui ne sont pas des taxonomistes professionnels
sont, k juste titre, lasses par les continuelles et frequentes modifications de
nomenclature qui leur apparaissent bien souvent comme une activite scientifique
sterile, desagreable et meme nefaste. II faut bien reconnaitre que la est I'origine
du discredit qui frappe les systematiciens dans I'esprit de beaucoup de Bio-
logistes et de Physiologistes. Je pense, a I'encontre de M. Chace, que I'avis
des Biologistes qui ne sont pas des Carcinologistes taxonomistes professionnels
et actifs est loin d'etre negligeable.

Done chaque fois que I'application des Regies ne s'impose reellement pas,
je pense qu'il faut opter pour la solution qui apporte le minimum de pertur-
bations. C'est pourquoi je suis fermement partisan de la solution proposee
par le Dr. L. B. Holthuis.

344 Bulletin of Zoological NomenckUure

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY DR.
L. B. HOLTHUIS IN REGARD TO THE GENERIC NAMES
"CRANGON," "LIGIA," " SCYLLARIDES," " LYSIO-
SQUILLA" AND " ODONTODACTYLUS " (CLASS
CRUSTACEA)

By HEINRICH BALSS
{Hauptkanservator der Zoologischen Staaissammlwng , Miinchen, a D.. Germany)

(Commission's references Z.N.(S.)231, 209, 473, 474, 475)

(Letter dated 6th July, 1951)

Mr. L. B. Holthuis hat mix eine Reihe von Antragen an die internationale
Nomenklaturkommission zugesandt (Commission's references Z.N.(S.)231^
{Crangon), 209« {Ligia), 473' {Scyllarides), 474 « {Lysiosquilla), 475* (Odonto-
dactylus)).

Ich erlaube mir, Ihnen mitzuteilen, dass ich mit alien seinen Vorschlagen
einverstanden bin.

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY DR.
L. B. HOLTHUIS IN REGARD TO THE GENERIC NAMES
"CRANGON," "LIGIA," "SCYLLARIDES,' "LYSIO-
SQUILLA," AND "ODONTODACTYLUS" (CLASS
CRUSTACEA)

By E. SOLLAUD

{Universite de Lyon, Faculte des Sciences, Lymi)

(Commission's references Z.N.(S.)231, 209, 473, 474, 475)

(Letter dated 11th July 1951)

Je re9ois de mon collegue et ami Mr. Holthuis, du Museum de Leide, cinq
notes relative a des propositions faites a 1' International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature au sujet d'un certain nombre de noms de genres de
Crustaces (Commission's references Z.N.(S.)23P {Crangon), 209« {Ligia), 473'
{Scyllarides), 474^ {Lysiosquilla), 475^ {Odontodactylus).

Je vous informe que, apres avoir lu attentivement ces notes, j'approuve
entierement les propositions de Mr. Holthuis. J'estime qu'ime application
rigoureuse, en toutes circonstances, du loi de priorite conduirait a d'inextricables
confusions et, bien loin de servir notre science, lui serait tres prejudiciable.
II est impossible d'abandonner de noms tels que Ligia, Crangon, Alpheus, . . .,
qui sont passes dans le langage courant, et votre Commission fera oeuvre bien
utile en freinant I'ardeur des " puristes " de la Priorite.

' See Holthuis, 1951, Bull zod. Nomencl. 2 : 69-72.
« See Buitendijk & Holthuis, 1951, ibid. 2 : 99-101.
' See Holthuis, 1951, ibid. 2 : 81-82.
8 See Holthuis, 1951, ibid. 2 : 83-84.
» See Holthuis, 1951. ibid. 2 : 86-87.

Bulktin of Zoological Nometidature 345

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE

PRolLEM^^TmM^xLJ?^^'^''^^^^ AND ASSOCIATED
PROBLEMS SUBMITTED BY THE LATE MISS M. BUIT-
ENDIJK AND DR. L. B. HOLTHUIS

By A. VANDEL
(Lahoratoire de Zoologie, Universite de Toulome, Ffatice)

(Commission's reference 2.N.(S.)209)

(Extract from a letter dated 6th June, 1951)

Holthut-!f p'Th' ^^^Ti^^'' ^'^ ^"^- ^- ^- S'^i^^^dijk et M. L. B.
n^Ji A P^"\Heegard.-II conviendrait seulement d'aiouter que cette

rsz tr";:rr Dr'ame'r 7 rr v^-^ - ^^-i- rs

Jena: 32). "" "*'■ ^'"y** DeutscUands,

?Ha™ G°ENPm?''«fS'c''..*'"''«0 ''OX'S PROPOSAL
/,^:r "^ GENERIC NAME " MONOCULUS » ITNNAFItq
1758, SHOULD BE SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLE^^^^^^^^

POWERS ri-iiPiAKX

By JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr.

{San Diego, California, U.S.A.)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)377)

(Extract from a letter dated 22nd June, 1951)

nc,iV%'n''^T ^^ ^^^ application submitted by Professor H Munro Fox
(1951, Bull. zool. NomencI 2 • -i? ^Q^ t „ r i-i. ^yi^^«>"i xx. luunro rox

name Monoculus lZITus ull ILImL "^T"" ?"' '}' ^''''''''

346 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

REQUEST THAT THE NAME " DORYLAS," AN AMENDA-
TION BY KERTESZ (1910) OF THE NAME "DORILAS"
MEIGEN, 1800 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA), BE
PLACED ON THE " OFFICIAL INDEX OF REJECTED AND
INVALID GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY"

By D. ELMO HARDY

{University of Hawaii, Department of Zoology and Entomology, Honolulu,
Territory of Hawaii)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)221)

In my letter of 19th October 1950 (see 1951, Bull. zool. Notmncl. 2 : 144-145)
I expressed my strong dissent from the proposal submitted by Mr. William F,
Rapp {Doane College, Crete, Nebraska, U.S.A.) that the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature should use its plenary powers for the
purpose of suppressing the generic name Dorilas Meigen, 1800, and thus
conferring availability upon its junior synonym Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-
1803]. I see that Dr. John Smart {University of Cambridge, Department of
Zoology, Cambridge) has now submitted a formal application to the International
Commission, setting out the action which he recommends that the International
Commission should take to confer availability upon the name Pipunculus
Latreille (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2: 148-149). In these circumstances it
will, I think, be convenient if I formally submit a statement of the action
which I ask the International Commission to take to make it clear that it is
the name Dorilas Meigen, 1800, and not the name Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-
1803], which is the correct name for the genus comprising the species Pipunculus
campestris Latreille, [1802-1803], which is the type species of both these nominal
genera.

Before making this formal submission, there is one matter connected with
this case which has not been directly raised in any of the communications
submitted to the International Commission, but on which is very desirable
that a decision should be taken as part of any general settlement of this problem.
I refer to the question of the spelling to be adopted for this Meigen name,
namely whether the original spelling Dorilas should be used or whether the
emendation Dorylas published by Kertesz in 1910 {Cat. Dipt. 7 : 368) should
be used in its place. On this subject there are two considerations which I
desire to lay before the Commission : First, it must be noted that, although
the spelling Dorylas was frequently used in the literature, following the proposal
put forward by Kertesz in 1910, that spelling has now for some time been
completely replaced by the original speUing Dorilas, and confusion rather
than uniformity would result if it were necessary now to revert to the discarded
emendation Dorylas. Second, it may be noted that the spelling Dorylas has
been used for a genus in the Order Coleoptera {Dorylas Dejean, 1835, Cat.
Coleopt. (ed. 2) : 409). I accordingly ask that the Commission, when dealing
with this case, should make it clear that it is the original spelling Dorilas and
not the emended spelling Dorylas which should be used.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 347

The proposal which, in continuation of my letter of 19th October 1950, I
now submit is that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
should : —

(1) place the generic name Dorilas Meigen, 1800 (type species, by desig-
nation by Coquillet (1910) : Pipunculus campestris Latreille, [1802-
1803]) (gender of generic name : masculine) on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology ;

(2) place the trivial name campestris Latreille, [1802-1803] (as published
in the binominal combination Pipunculus campestris) (trivial name
of type species of Dorilas Meigen, 1800) on the Official Ldst of Specific
Trivial Names in Zoology ;

(3) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : —

(a) Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803] (an objective junior synonym
of Pipuncidus Latreille, [1802-1803], the two nominal genera
having the same species as type species) ;

(b) Dorylas Kertesz, 1910 (an invalid emendation of Dorilas Meigen,
1800).

OBJECTION TO PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY PROFESSOR

MARTIN L. ACZEL IN FAVOUR OF THE ADDITION OF THE

NAME " TYLOS " TO THE " OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC

NAMES IN ZOOLOGY"

By A. VANDEL

{Laboratoire de Zoologie, Universite de Toulouse, France)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)501)

(Extracts from letters dated 6th June and 20th July, 1951)
(a) Extract from a letter dated Qth June, 1951

L'adoption de Tylos Meigen, 1800, proposee par Aczel (: 156) (mais rejete
par Smart : 158) aurait le grave inconvenient d'etablir une homonymie avec
un genre bien connu d'Isopodes Oniscoides, Tylos Latreille, 1825 {in Audouin
et Savigny).

(b) Extract from a letter dated 20th July, 1951

En parlant de " genre bien connu," je voulais simplement exprimer que
depuis 1825 le terme de Tylos est adopte sans exception par tous les carcino-
logistes. II serait trop long d'en donner la liste complete, mais une enumeration
importante a ete donnee par : Stebbing (T.R.R.)— 1910, " Reports on the
Marine Biology of the Sudanese Red Sea " (J. linn. Soc. Lond. (Zool.) 31.
Voir pp. 226-227).

II serait bien facheux qu'un nom employe de fa9on constante depuis 125
ians fut rejete.

34S Bulletin of Zoological Namenclature

COMMENTS ON THE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED TO
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE REGARDING THE GENERIC NAMES
"TITANIA," "DORILAS," " TENDIPES," "PHILIA" AND
"TYLOS" MEIGEN, 1800 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER

DIPTERA)

By W. HENNIG

{Deutsches Entomologisches Institut, Berlin)

(Commission's references Z.N.(S.)197, 221, 469, 498, 501)

(Letter dated 22nd May, 1951)

Asked by Professor E. M. Hering for a comment on the various proposals
concerning the names of Dipterous genera {Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 2, Part 5)
I wish to bring forward the following considerations : —

It is deeply to be regretted that the names of Meigen, 1800, were unearthed
by Hendel (1908) and at that time every effort to suppress those names should
have been supported.

Since, however, the suppression of the names of Meigen, 1800, in tola was
rejected by Opinion 28, they were used in several fundamental publications
such as Lindner's " Fliegen der palaarktischen Region " and other important
re visionary works as pointed out by Aczel, Hardy, and Stone.

Every attempt to restore the names of Meigen, 1800, is, therefore, now
30 to 40 years too late and contributes to augmentation rather than diminution
of confusion.

This is especially true in the case of the names Tylos, Dorilas, and also
PMlia and Tendipes, though for these latter two perhaps not quite to the
same extent.

For this reason I fuUy agree with Aczel, Hardy, and Stone in the proposal
to use the names Tylos, Dorilas, Philia and Tandipes instead of Micropeza,
Pipunculus. Dilophus, and Chironomus respectively.

It is quite another situation with Titania versus Chlorops. Titania has
never been used in recent publications. Its introduction n the place of the
well-known and very important name Chlorops would lead, therefore, to
considerable disadvantage and confusion, especially in the literature of economic
entomology. I think that there will be general agreement in this case with
the proposal of Dr. Sabrosky.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 349

ON THE PROPOSAL THAT THE TRIVIAL NAME " AJAX "
LINNAEUS, 1758 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMINAL
COMBINATION " PAPILIO AJAX") SHOULD BE SUP-
PRESSED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE UNDER ITS PLENARY

POWERS

By CYRIL F. DOS PASSOS, LL.B.

{Research Associate, Department of Insects and Spiders, American Museum of
Natural History, New York)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)192)

(Note dated 15th May, 1951)

1 . Reference is made to two prior papers on this subject published by the
late A. Steven Corbet (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 (1) : 26-29) and by Francis
Hemming {ibid. 2 (1) : 29-30).

2. It having been ascertained by Corbet from an examination of the Linnean
collection that the trivial name ajax Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the
binominal combination Papilio ajax) was proposed for an Oriental species later
named Papilio xuthus by Linnaeus in 1767, although never used for that insect,
but by error having been applied by some authors to two Nearctic butterflies,
the question arises whether it would be better (a) to suppress the name ajax,
or (6) to apply it (incorrectly) by a suspension of the Regies to one of the Nearctic
insects for which it has sometimes been used.

3. This problem involves the names of two Nearctic and one Oriental
Papilio. I shall consider only the two former. One of these is a subspecies of
Papilio polyxenes Fabricius, 1775, sometimes known as the common American
on the Black (or Parsnip) Swallowtail, and the other is often referred to as
Papilio marcellus Cramer, [1777], or the Papaw or Zebra Swallowtail. There has
been considerable confusion as to which scientific names should be employed for
these insects. Recent American authors have shown a tendency to abandon the
name ajax for either of them, although one follows McDimnough (1938, " Check
List of the Lepidoptera of Canada and the United States of America ". Mem.
S. Calif. Acad. Sci. 1 : 5) and uses ajax for the first-mentioned butterfly. Holland
(1931, Butterfly Book (revised ed.) : 314) used asterius for the subspecies of
polyxenes inhabitii^ North America, and ajax for the more southerly Papaw or
Zebra Swallowtail in direct contradiction to the then current Barnes & Benjamin
list (1926, " Check List of the Lepidoptera of Boreal America ". Bull. S. Calif.
Acad. Sec. 25(1) : 5). Clark (1932, " Butterflies of the District of Columbia and
vicinity ", Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 157 : 191) used asterias for the Nearctic sub-
species of polyxenes but marcellus Boisduval {recte Cramer) for the Papaw or
Zebra Swallowtail and omitted ajax entirely. Macy and Shepard ([1941],
Butterflies, a Handbook of the butterflies of the United Sstates, complete for the
Region north of the Pototnac and Chio Rivers and east of the Dakotas : iii) stated
that " . . . In order to achieve imiformity, ..." they followed the nomen-
clature of the McDunnough check list. Brown (1951 , " The American Papilios ",

350 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

The Lepidopterists' News 4 : 63) also used ajax for the species polyxenes. Finally,
Klots (1951, A Field Guide to the butterfiies of North Atnerica, east of the Great
Plains : 172) employed asterius Stoll, [1784], for the Nearctic subspecies
polyxenes and omitted ajax, except that (erroneously) he placed ajax Clerck,
1764, in the synonymv.

4. Thus we find ajax in recent years used for two different species of Nearctic
butterflies which have valid names, i.e. asterius and marcellus, and on top of that
it is now descovered that ajax is not properly applicable to either of them. In
view of the improper use of ajax, the lack of uniformity among American
authors respecting the applicability of that name to one Nearctic species, and
the fact that some authors have dropped the name entirely, no harm and much
good would be done by the suppression of the name ajax and that course is
undoubtedly the most desirable one to follow. Therefore, I recommend that
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature take such action.

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE
LATE DR. A. STEVEN CORBET FOR THE SUPPRESSION
OF THE TRIVIAL NAME "AJAX" LINNAEUS, 1758 (AS
PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMINAL COMBINATION "PAPILIO
AJAX") (CLASS INSECT A, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA)

By ERICH MARTIN BERING

{Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat , Berlin)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)192)

(Letter dated 28th May, 1951)

There is no doubt that, under a strict application of the Rules, the trivial
name ajax Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the combination Papilio ajax)
should be employed for the species generally known as Papilio xuthus Linnaeus,
1767. To prevent the confusion which would follow if ajax Linnaeus, 1758,
were to replace xuthus Linnaeus, 1767, I propose that the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should use its plenary powers to
suppress the trivial name ajax Linnaeus, 1758, altogether.

I

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 351

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DETER.
MINE THE SPECIES TO WHICH THE TRIVIAL NAME
"SIRTALIS" LINNAEUS, 1758 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE
BINOMINAL COMBINATION "COLUBER SIRTALIS")
(CLASS REPTILIA) IS TO BE APPLIED : SUPPORT FOR
APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY DR. KARL P. SCHMIDT
AND MR. ROGER CONANT

By LAURENCE M. KLAUBER
{San Diego, California, U.S.A.)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)433)

(Letter dated 22nd May, 1951)

Reference is made to the above-mentioned case, discussed on pages 67-68,
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, vol. 2, Pt. 3, and the request for conaments
appearing in Science, vol. 113, p. 560. Messrs. Karl P. Schmidt and Roger
Conant, in their original statement of the case to the Commission, list my name,
among others, as being favourable to the change indicated as necessary under
the Rules, in my paper published in Copeia in 1948. As a matter of fact,
although the change was originally shown by me to be technically necessary,
I am not in favour of the change, now that the Commission's plenary powers
have been modified to include the conservation of trivial names. Therefore,
I join with the majority of American herpetologists in recommending that
the Commission direct the use of the trivial name sirtalis for the common
garter snake, and of the trivial name sauritus for the northern ribbon snake.

The particularly confusing situation caused by the transference of the
Linnean name sirtalis from one group of garter snakes (the common group)
to another (the ribbon group), as demanded by the old Rules, does not exist
in the case of the other necessary changes in Linnean names to which I called
attention in 1948. The latter changes should stand.

352 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY DR.
KARL P. SCHMIDT AND MR. ROGER CONANT THAT THE
TRIVIAL NAME " SIRTALIS " LINNAEUS, 1758 (AS PUB-
LISHED IN THE BINOMINAL COMBINATION " COLUBER
SIRTALIS") (CLASS REPTILIA) SHOULD BE PRESERVED
FOR USE IN ITS EXISTING SENSE UNDER THE PLENARY

POWERS

By MURRAY L. JOHNSON, M.D.

{Tacoma, Washington, U.S.A.)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)433)

(Letter dated 9th July, 1951)

Here is a good example where the International Commission may act to
conserve order in a difficult enough species, taxonomically speaking. I have
the highest regard for Dr. Lawrence Klauber and believe his scientific reasoning
to be without question, but I take serious issue with the propriety of changing
a well established name. I am very glad therefore to learn that in this case
Dr. Klauber has notified his support for the use of the plenary powers to preserve
the name sirtalis Linnaeus. The objections to discarding this name are very
strong : The original Linnean specimens are not extant ; the original Linnean
description is certainly not adequate by modern standards and yet under
the Code we should apply these modern standards retrospectively to identify
the species described by Linnaeus. In as much as there are himdreds of articles
and tens of thousands of catalogued specimens, entries on cards and in cata-
logues, I implore you to use your good offices permanently to stabilize this
point of nomenclature. I feel very strongly that the International Rules of
Zoological Nomenclature should be suspended in the case of Thamnophis
sirtalis (Linnaeus), to retain that name. The reasons put forward for the
change are not adequate in modern taxonomy, in my opinion.

CONTENTS

(continued from front wrapper)

New Applications

Request for a ruling that the distribution of a scientific paper in Page
microfilm does not constitute " publication " for the pur-
poses of Article 25 of the Regies. (1) application submitted
jointly by the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature
for Paleontology in America and the Nomenclature Com-
mittee of the Society of Systematic Zoology ; (2) comments
on the foregoing by (a) the Committee on Nomenclature of
the American Museum of Natural History, New York ;
(b) Dr. Charles H. Blake ; (c) Professor E. H. Behre ; (d)
" Zoological Record " Committee of the Zoological Society
of London.. 306-312

On Dr. L. R. Cox's proposal that S. A. Renier's " Prodromo "
and the " Prospetto della Classe dei Vermi " should be
declared not to have been published within the meaning of
Article 25 of the Regies, By the late R. Winckworth (London) 312

Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate type species
for the genera Nysius Dallas, 1852, and Artheneis Spinola,
1837 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). (1) application
by Professor R. L. Usinger and Dr. R. I. Sailer ; (2) com-
ments on the foregoing by Mr. Francis Hemming and
Dr. W. E. China 313-318

Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the entry on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the name Limulus
Miiller, 1785 (Class Merostomata) (proposed correction of
an error in Opinion 104). (1) application by Professor Leif
St0rmer; (2) comments on the foregoing by (a) Professor
H. Munro Fox ; (b) Dr. Carl O. Dunbar 319-323

Comments on previously published applications

Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801 : comments by Dr. L. B. Cox, Dr.
W. J. Arkell, Dr. Myra Keen and Professor Siemon W.
Muller, and Dr. D. T. Donovan 324-333

Cardinia Agassiz, [1841] : comment by Dr. W. J. Arkell . . 334

Scaphander Montfort, 1810 : comment by Mr. Joshua L.

Baily, Jr. 334

Ammonites Bruguiere, 1789 : trivial name angulatus Schlotheim,
1820 (as published in combination Ammonites angulatus) ;
Arniocera Hyatt, 1867, and Liparoceras Hyatt, 1867 : com-
ments by Dr. D. T. Donovan 335-336

Ammonites Bruguiere, 1789 : comment by Mr. C. W. Wright . . 336

Planulites and Orbulites Lamarck, 1801, Pelagus and Ellipsolithes
Montfort, 1808, Globites de Haan, 1825 : comment by Mr.
C. W. Wright .-. 337

Arieticeras Quentedt, 1883 : comment by Professor H. Engel . . 337

Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 : comment by Mr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. 338

Capsus Fabricius, 1803 : comment by S. v. Keler . . . , 338

Mytilus Linnaeus, 1758 : comment by Mr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. 339

CONTENTS

{continued from overleaf)

Comments on previously published applications — continued

Crangon Fabricius, 1798, and Alpheus Fabricius, 1798 : comments
by Dr. Waldo L. Schmitt ; Dr. Marie V. Lebour ; Dr. Frank
A. McNeill ; Dr. A. B. Needier ; Professor H. Nouvel . . 340-343

Crangon Fabricius, 1798 ; Ligia Fabricius, 1798 ; Scyllarides Gill,
1898 ; Lysiosquilla Dana, 1852 ; Odontodactylus Bigelow,
1893 : comments by Professor Heinrich Balss and Professor
E. Sollaud 344

Ligia Fabricius, 1798 : comment by Professor A. Vandel . . 345

Mo«ocm/m5 Linnaeus, 1758 : comment by Mr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. 345

Dorz7a5 Meigen, 1800 : comment by Professor D. Elmo Hardy .. 346-347

Tylos Meigen, 1800 : comment by Professor A. Vandel . . 347

Titania, Dor Has, Tendipes, Philia, and Tylos Meigen, 1800 :

comment by Dr. W. Hennig . . . . 348

ajax Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination
Papilio ajax) : comments by Mr. C. F. dos Passos and
Professor E. M. Hering 349-350

sirtalis Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination
Coluber sirtalis) : comments by Dr. Laurence Klauber and Dr.
Murray L. Johnson . . . . 351-352

Important Notice

Part 12 of the present volume containing the Title Page, Table of Contents and
Indexes is in the press and will be published shortly.

Publications of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclaturej

All inquiries regarding the publications issued by the International Trust foi
Zoological Nomenclature on behalf of the International Commission on Zoologies '
Nomenclature, should be addressed to the PubUcations Officer, Offices of the Inter-|
national Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 41, Queen's Gate, London, S.W.7jj
England.

iTiuted in Great Britain by MtTCHiM ik Son, Limited, Westminster, London

VOLUME 2. Part 12 30th December, 1952

T.P.— xxvi, 353—448

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by

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

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

fK^

C>

^ !^,<?5.t5

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Trust for

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.

1952

Price Two pounds Two Shillings

(All rights reserved)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

A. The Officers of the Commission

Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom)

President : Professor J. Chester Bradley (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)

Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) (Vice-President) (1st January 1944)

Professor J. R. Dymond (Canada) (1st January 1944)

Professor J. Chester Bradley (President) (U.S.A.) (28th March 1944)

Professor Harold E. Yokes (U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944)

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 Cabrera (Argentina) (27th July 1948)

Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) (Secretary) (27th July 1948)

Dr. Joseph Pearson (Australia) (27th July 1948)

Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) (27th July 1948)

Professor Teiso Esaki (Japan) (17th April 1950)

Professor Peirre 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)

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

C.B.E.
Honorary Registrar : Mr. A. S. Pankhurst, C.B.E.
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

Bulletin of Zoological NmnenckilAi/re 353

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGE-
MENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOO-
LOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FOR THE YEAR 1949

(Report approved and adopted by the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature in Annual General Meeting)

The year 1949 was one of great activity for the International Trust, for
(luring it great progress was made in the preparations for the simultaneous
publication of the three volumes of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
which in the jirevious year it had Ijeen decided to devote to the publication
of the records of the discussions on zoological nomenclature which had taken
])lace at the meetings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature and of tiie Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology held con-
currently at Paris in July 1948. The volumes in question were, it will be
recalled : Volume 3. to be devoted to the pubhcation of the documents relating
to questions of zoological nomenclature that were considered by the Commission
and the Congress in 1948 ; Volume 4, which was reserved for the publication
of the Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission during
its Paris Session ; Volume 5, which was similarly reserved for the publication
of the Ojfficicd Record of Proceedings of the Section on Nomenclature of the
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, and of the Reports then sub-
mitted by the Commission to the Congress, responsibility for publishing which
was accepted last year by the Trust at the request of the Secretary- General
of the Congress.

2. Principal activities during the year : The printing of Volmne 3
of the Bidletin was completed earh' during the year, but it was judged better
to defer publication of this volume until the companion volumes containing
the record of the decisions taken by the Commission and the Congi'ess on
the matters dealt with in Volume 3 were available, for it was felt that the
piibhcation of Volume 3 containing the proposals submitted to the Paris
meetinge might give rise to misunderstanding if it took place earUer than
that of the volumes containing the record of the decisions reached on those
proposals. Early in the year the first instalments of the draft of the Official
Record of Proceedings of the Commission in. Paris were received from the
Secretary to the Commission and these were at once sent to the ])rinters for
proofs. Further instalments followed rapidly, the last portion being received
towards the end of the summer. Concurrently A^ith the above, instalments
were received of the draft of the Official Record of Proceedings of the Section

BuU. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 2 (December 1952)

354 Bulletin of Zoological Notnendature

on Nomenclature of the Congress ; these were at once sent to the printer, and
proofs of these also were received by the end of the summer. After these
proofs had been checked by the Secretary to the Commission against the
original records, the Trust, in accordance with the request addressed to it by
the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, obtained from the printer
page-proofs printed on air mail paper for despatch to the persons whose
approval of the drafts prepared by the Secretary was required before the
texts could be settled as being definitive. In December 1949 these air mail
proofs were despatched to all concerned with a request that they would signify
their opinion as to the accuracy and completeness of the draft of the Official-
Records of Proceedings of the Commission and of the Section on Nomenclature
within the time limit prescribed by the Paris Congress. This period is due
to expire early in January 1950 and it may be hoped therefore that pubUcation
of all three volumes will take place early in the year 1950.

3. Publications : Although no parts of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature and no Opinions or Declarations were pubUshed during the year 1949,
sales of back parts of previously issued pubUcations (£149) remained at a
gratifying level and were almost as high as in 1948 (when they amounted to
£175).'

4. Donations : As in the years 1947 and 1948 the main source from
which the expenditure of the Trust was defrayed in the year 1949 was the
grant received from U.N.E.S.C.O. This was in two parts ; the first and much
the larger (£2,673) consisted of the vmexpended balance of the grants for the
years 1947 and 1948, for the use of which in 1949 permission had been received
from U.N.E.S.C.O. The second contribution from U.N.E.S.C.O. consisted of a
fresh grant amounting to £145. which was received dming the course of the
year 1949 through the intermediary of the International Union for Biological
Sciences, the approved medium for the distribution of grants by U.N.E.S.C.O.
for scientific projects in the biological field. During the year also a gift of
£25 was received from the Royal Entomological Society of London.

5. Thanks for financial assistance received : The Committee of
Management desire once again to place on record their high appreciation of
the imderstanding and sympathy shown by U.N.E.S.C.O. in their consideration
of the international needs of zoological nomenclature and are happy once
more to ha\"c an opportunity of expressing their grateful thanks for the
munificent subvention granted to the work of the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature. The Committee of Management desire also to
thank the Royal Entomological Society of London for its continued support.

6. Total Income in 1949 : The total income of the Trust in 1949, as
derived from the sources described above, amounted to £2,292. an increase
of £1,294 over the Income (£1,089) received in tli(^ previous year.

Bullelin of Zoological Nomeficlalure 355

7. Printing of three volumes of the " Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature" : la the opening portion of the present Report particulars
have been given of the progress made in 1949 in the preparation of \'^olumes
3, i, and 5 of tiio BulMia of Zoological Nomenclature. The expenditure so
involved amounted to £2,381 3s. Gd.

8. Administrative expenses : Administrative expenses during the year
amounted to £429 14s. Id. or £225 less than in 1948. This reduction was
largely due to the fact that the post of whole-time salaried Assistant Director
which was discontinued early in 1948 was not revived in 1949, and in conse-
quence expenditure on salaries (£204) was £110 less than in 1948. In 1949
it was not necessary for the Trust to defray any expenditure on official travelling,
whereas in 1948 it had been necessary to arrange for the estaljlishment of a
temporary Secretariat for the Commission in Paris during the Session of the
Commission held in that city concurrently with the meeting of the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology. Great care has continued to be exercised
in the control of office expenses which in the year under review amounted to
£204 or only £8 more than in 1948, notwithstanding the consideralilc increase
in business which in 1949 passed through the Offices both of the Commission
and of the Trust.

9. Balance carried down : After taking account of a small item
(£19 17s. 9d.) in respect of depreciation of Office Equipment, in addition to
the items described above, there remained an excess of income over expenditure
of £158 16s. Od., Avhich was carried down. When this was added to the sum
of £669 16s. 4d. brought forward from 31st December 1948, the total balance
at the end of 1949 is seen to have been £888 12s. 4d.

10. Balance Sheet : The Balance Sheet calls for little comment. No
change took place during the year in the Office Equipment Reserve, while
an expenditure of £127 18s. 4d. was made from the " Official List " Suspense
Account. This latter expenditure ahuost offset the balance carried down
(£158 16s. Od.) this year and in consequence the Income and Expenditure
Account Balance at the end of 1949 amounted to £1,348 lOs. 4d. or only £30
more than at the end of 1948. No change occurred during the year in the
provision made in respect of the cost of the re\asion of the Regies Internationales
de la Nomenclature Zoologique, the responsibility for publication of which the
Trust accepted last year at the request of the Thirteenth International Congress
of Zoology.

1 1 . The general outlook : As will be seen from the foregoing particulars
the financial position of the Trust has remained virtually unchanged during
the year 1949. Nevertheless, the position is potentially better than the accounts
now presented would at first sight suggest, for it may confidently be expected
that when in 1950 the three volumes of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
on the printing of which such large sums have been expended both this year
and in 1948. arc ]jul)li.shcil. the Trust will reap a substantial gain from tlie sales
so secured, ^^'hile from the strictly financial point of view, the po.sition of the

S5() Bulletin of Zoological Nomendoture

Trust ami thcrelbre of the Commission, may be c^jnsidered satisfactory, the
imderljdng dangers to which the Trust has had occasion to refer on a number
of previous occasions remain as serious as ever. For the situation must continue
to be essentially insecure for so long as the ^vhole of the scientific work of the
Commission, which already would give full employment to a highly paid
scientific officer, continues to be performed free of charge by an honorary
spare-time officer, the present Secretary to the Commission, assisted only by
an honorary spare-time Personal Assistant (the wife of the present Secretary).
Looked at from this point of view, the outlook could hardly be more uncertain,
for, as the present Accounts show, Avith its present financial resources, the
Trust would be quite unable to find the funds required to employ salaried
officials to carry on the work of the Secretariat of the Commission. At the
present time therefore the continuance of the work of the Commission is
rendered possible only by the services freely given to the Commission by its
honorary officers. The situation is thus highly precarious, since, if at any
time these honorary officers ceased to be available, the work of the Conmiission
would necessarily suffer an alirupt interruption. The Committee of Management
propose to bring this matter before the International Union for Biological
Services at the General Assembly of the Union to be held in Stockholm ne.xt
year in the hope that it may be possible, with the helj) of the Union, to devise
financial arrangements which will at least mitigate the worst of the dangers
inherent in the present situation.

12. Presentation of Accounts for the year 1949 and Balance Sheet
as at 31st December 1949 : With the foregoing explanations the Committee
of Management has pleasure in presenting to the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature for approval the Accounts for the Year 1949 and
the Balance Sheet as at 31st December 1949. The Committee of Management
desire to take this opportunity of recording their thanks to their landlords,
the Royal Entomological Society of London, to their printers, Messrs. Metchim
and Son Ltd., who have devoted great pains to secure the highest possible
standard of accuracy and clarity of lay-out of the three important volumes of
the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, the greater part of which was printed
in the year under review^ and also to Mrs. C. Rosner, their part-time Publications
Officer, who has continued to show great diligence in the discharge of her
duties and in her search for additional subscriptions for the publications issued
by the Trust. Finally, the Committee of Management has pleasure once again
in recording their thanks to the auditors of the Trust, Messrs. AV. B. Keen
and Co., Chartered Accountants, and in particular to Mr. R. W. M. Taylor,
the representative of that firm who, as in previous years, has always shown
himself anxious and willing to assist on all matters referred to him for advice.

Offices of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature,
41 Queen's Gate,
London, S.W.7.
20th March 1950,

Btdlelin of Zoological Notnencl^iktre 357

INTERNATIONAL TRUST
FOR

ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Accounts for the Year 1950

358 BuUetin of Zoologiail Noniendaiure

INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR

Incorporated under the Companies
Balance Sheet —

1948
£ £ £ s. d. £ 8. d.

Revenvk Eeskeves (per iSepnratc AceountB) :

550 " Official List " Suspense Account 422 1 S

6i8 98 Office Equipment Eeserve 07 16 8 619 18-1

670 Income and Expenditure Account — Balance ... 828 12 4

1,318 1.348 10 S

Provision for cost of Revision of International
Code :

"International Code (Publication) " Suspense
800 Account — Per Separate Account 800

Liabilities :

l,3S(i Sundry Creditors 3,334 12 10

i,059 2,673 Grant by U.N.E.S.C.O. unspent (estimated) ... — 3,334 12 10

£6 177 £5,483 3

We have obtained all the information and explanations which to the best of our
of account have been kept so far as ajipears from our examination of those books. We have
are in agreement with the books of account. In our opinion and to the best of our informatioH
the Companies Act, 1948, in the manner so required, and the Balance Sheet gives a true and fair
account gives a true and fair view of the Excess of Income over Expenditure for the year ended

Einebury Circus House,
Blomfield Street,
LONDON, E.C.2.

BuUetin of Zoological NamencUU/nre 359

ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Act, 1929. (Limited by Guarantee)
31st December 1949

1948

£ £ £

Fixed Assets :
OfiSce Equipment :

Book Value at 3l8t Dec-
ember 1947 (being for the
purpose of the Companies
Act, the vahie at let July

£ s. d. £

s.

d.

£ s. d.

112

1948)

111

17

—

Additions during year at

cost

98

3

3

112

210

9

Less Depreciation

to 31st December 1948...

11 3 6

101 11 11

for Year to date
CuEBEST Assets :

19 17 9 31

1

3

178 19 6

Amounts due for Publications

50

valued at ...
Balance at Bank and Cash in

45

6,076 6,026

Hand

5,259

4

5,304 4

(Notc.^ — Stock of Publications Not Valued)

£6,177 £5,483 3 6

FRANX'I.S HEMMING \ Members of the

A. S. PANKHURST / Committee of Management.

knowledge and belief were necessary for the purpose of our audit. In our opinion proper books
examined the above Balance Sheet and accompanying Income and Expenditure Account, which
and according to the explanations given us, the said accounts give the information required by
view of the state of the Trust's affairs at 31st December 1949, and the Income and Expenditure
at that date.

W. B. KEEN & Co.
Chartered Accountants,
nth March, 1950.

;3G0

Uuilclin of Zvoloyical NamciicUtlure

Income and Expenditure Account for

1948
£

17 6

£

120
49

INCOMK

To Suits of Publications :

Opinions & Declarations

Bulletin of Zoolojjical Nonienclatun

27
1,496

Donations

Grant from U.N.K.!S.t'.0.

do. per tho International L'liion of Biological
Sciences

£ s. d.

113 (i li
35 15 14H 2

25
2,673 9 4

145

£1,698

£2,992 11 4

To Balance brought down being Excess of Income

2S ' over Expenditure for year

1,112 Balance 31st December 1948 brought forward...

158 16
069 16 4

£1,170

£828 12 4

Official List

o5V

£550

To Expenditure during year

Balance carried to I5alance Sheet

127 18 4
422 1 8

£560

Office Equipment

£'J8

To Balance carried to Balance Sheet

£97 16 8

800

" International Code (Publication)

To Balance carried to Balance Sheet

800

£800

£800

BulUitw oj Zoological Nomeiidah

■MU

the Year ended 3l8t December 1949

1948

£

£ £

no

175

314 29

124

196

6'JJ

21

11

1.004

28

£1.698

500
670
£1,170

EXPENDITURK

By Administiatioii Exjioiwes
yalaries :

Assistant Directoi-
Publications Officer
ytenographer .Secretary

Travelling Expenses
Office Expenses
Audit Pee

Depreciation of Office Equip-

ment
Publications — Bulletin of

Zoological Nomenclature . . .
Balance carried doini

By Tiansfer to " International
Code (Publication)" Sus-
pense Account towards cost
of Revision of International
Cqde

Balance carried to Balance
Sheet

^ s- d. £ s. ^l

1«7 2 4
37 7 5 204 9 <j

£ s. (1.

By Balance at 31st December
194t>

By Balance at 3 1st December
1948

300

500

£800

By Balance at 31st December

1948

Transfer from Income and
Expenditure Account

204 4 4
21 429 14 1

19 17 9

2,384 3 G

158 16

£2,992 11 4

550

£97 16 8

800

£800

3G2 BuUetitt, of Zoological Nomenclature

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGE-
MENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOO-
LOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FOR THE YEAR 1950

(Report approved and adopted by the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature in Annual General Meeting)

As forecast in the Report for the year 1949 a rich harvest was garnered in
1950 from the expenditure incurred in printuig the three volumes (vohmies 3,
4 and 5) of the Bulletin of Zoological Nonienclature devoted to the Paris records
on which so much work had been devoted and on which such large smns had
been expended throughout the whole of 1949 and the latter part also of 1948.
As will be seen from the present Report the substantial income obtained from
the sale of these volumes almost offset the disappearance of the large grant
from U.N.E.S.C.O. received in 1949.

2. Publications : During the year the whole of Volume 3 of the Bulletin
of Zoological Nomenclature (comprising the documents considered by the Com-
mission and the Congress in Paris in 1948) and Volume 4 (comprising the Official
Record of Proceedings of the International Commission at its Paris Session) were
pubhshed ; Volume 3 was published in three Triple Parts at a total price of
four guineas ; Volume 4 was published in eight Triple Parts at a total price of
eleven pounds, twelve shillings. In addition, two Triple Parts (priced at one
pound, eight shillings each) of Volume 5 were published during the year ; the
portion published comprised the Official Record of Proceedings of the Section on
Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris,
1948, an extract from the Official Record of the Final Plenary Session of that
Congress (when the recommendations of the Commission and the Section on
Nomenclature were approved), together with two of the three Reports then
submitted to the Congress. The total income from the sale of the Bulletin
amounted to the gratifyingly large sum of £2,691 18s. 4d., of which by far the
greater part was in respect of sales of the three volumes pubhshed during the
year. No Opinions or DeclanUions Avcre published during the year but the sale
of back parts produced £40 16s., a significant testimony to the continuing interest
iu this series of publications. The total income from sales thus amounted to
£2,732 148. 4d.

3. Donations : The Committee of Management has to note, and expresses
its grateful thanks for, the following donations received during the year :
U.N.E.S.C.O. (through the International Union for Biological Sciences), £120 ;
Royal Entomological Society of London, £25.

BuMclin of Znolof/iml Nomenrhiture 363

4, Total income : The total income of the Tmat in 1950, made up of
t'he foregoing it^ms, amounted to £2,877 lis. 4d. or only £115 less than in
the year 1949, when, in addition to a grant of £145 received through I.U.B.S.,
U.N.B.8.C.O. had made a direct grant of £2,673. "Wkile it was inevitably a
source of great disappointment to the Committee of Management — as the
Committee does not doubt that it mil be also to the Trust — that U.N.E.S.C.O.
should have abandoned the policy initiated in 1947 under which it made sub-
stantial grants to the Trust for the furtherence of the work of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, the Commission of Management is
deeply conscious of the great value of the assistance rendered in this field by
U.N.E.S.C.O. in the years 1947-1949. As explained in a later paragraph (para-
graph 24) of the present Report, the Committee of Management are hopeful
that, as the result of the good offices of the International Union for Biological
Sciences, U.N.E.S.C.O. may yet render further assistance to the work of the
Commission by making a grant to cover the period in which the Trust is
endeavouring to provide itself with a permanent source of income.

5. Administrative expenses : During the year 1950 administrative
expenses amounted to £540 Os. lid., an increase of £117 over the expenditure
so incurred in 1949. Salaries were at exactly the same level (£204) as in 1949
but office expenses have inevitably risen, partly as the result of a heavy increase
in expenditure on postage consequent upon the use of airmail to a greatly
increased extent for the purpose of speeding \ip the work of the Commission,
but, mainly because of an increased consumption of paper and office requisites,
coupled with the constantly rising cost of replacing stocks. In addition, the
expenditure of a sum of £71 on travelling and subsistence was authorised by the
Committee of Management in respect of the journey which at its request its
Managing Director and Secretary made to Stockholm for the purpose of seeking
Financial assistance for the Trust from the International Union of Biological
Sciences at its General Assembly held in July 1950.

6. Depreciation of Office Equipment : The .sum of £17 17s. lid.
devoted to covering depreciation of Office Eqiiipnient.

7. Cost of Printing : Expenditure on printing during the year amounted
to £394 12s. 3d., all in respect of the BnUetin of Zoological Nomenclature. Of
this expenditure the greater part was in respect of the concluding Triple Part
of Volume 4, while the remainder was in respect of printing the fiist instalment
of Volume 2, the publication of which had, by a decision taken in 1948, been
postponed imtil after the completion (or virtual completion) of the publication
of the three Paris volumes of the Bulletw. It may here be noted as a satis-
factory sign of the essential buoyancy of the demand for the publications of
the Trust, that as against the total expenditure on printing volumes 3, 4 and 5
of the Bulletm in the years 1948-1950, the greater part was recovered in the
form of sales within the twelve months following publication,

364 Bulletin of Zoological Noiiicnclatvre.

8. Balance carried down : The excess of income over expenditure
during the year amounted, as the foregoing particulars show, to the sum of
£1,919 3s. 3d. This was can-ied down. When to this is added the sum of
£828 12s. 4d. (the balance brought forward from 31st December, 1949). the
total balance is seen to have been £2,747 15s. 7d. From this however has to
be deducted a sum of £200 which during the year was transferred to the
" International Code (PubHcation) " Suspense Account. The net sum carried
to the Balance Sheet was therefore £2,547 15a. 7d.

9. Provision for the preparation and publication of the revised
edition of the " Regies Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique" :

As explained above, a further smn of £200 was put on one side in
1950 towards meeting the cost of preparing and publishing the re\nsed edition
of the Regies Internationales de la Nmnenclatnre Zoologique adopted by the
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology at Paris in 1948. The addition
of this sum to the resources already earmarked for this piu-pose raises the total
provision so made to £1,000.

10. Balance Sheet as at 31st December 1950 : The Balance Sheet shows
that at 31st December 1950 the Income and Expenditure Account Balance
amounted to £3,067 13s. lid., an increase of £1,719 3s. 9d. over the level at
which this balance stood at the end of 1949 (£1 ,348 10s. 2d.). From the financial
point of view, the out-turn of the year 1950 is, in the opinion of the Conmiittee
of Management, extremely satisfactory, and it does not doubt that this Anew
will be shared by the other members of the Trust.

11. Negotiations for securing a permanent source of income for the
Trust : Reference has already been made to the decision by the Committee
of Management to ask its Managing Director and Secretary to proceed to Stock-
holm in the summer of 1950 to act as the principal representative of the Trust
at the General Assembly of the International Union for Biological Sciences.
The Trust was entitled to a delegation of four Representatives. The Trust
appointed a strong Delegation consisting of the Managing Director and Secretary
to the Trust (who is also Secretary to the International Commission) as Chief
Delegate, of two other members of the Commission (Mr. N. D. Riley of the
British Museum (Natm-al History). London, and Professor Erich Martin
Hering of the Zoological Museum, Berlin, and one other member of the Trust
(i\Irs. M. F. W. Hemming), all three of whom were in any case inteuding to be in
Stockholm on the date in question and whose appointment as delegates involved
no expenditure on the part of the Trust. The instructions given to the Dele-
gation was that it was to do everything in its power to impress upon the Inter-
national Union for Biological Sciences the extreme urgency and importance of
sec\iring an adequate and assured amiual income, for the Trust, in order thereby
to ensure the continuance of the international regulation of zoological nomen-
clature, that being a basic requirement for the development of zoological
science. The Delegation was instructed to press these views upon both the
Section for Zoology and the Section for Entomology and also to do everything
possible to organise a basis of mutual support for the promotion of scientific
nomenclature both with the Section on Botany of the Union and also, if possible.

Bnllcfi)! of Znnhf/iral NnmmrJnhirr 365

directly also with lut^rnational Bolanical Cougress whioli wae due also Uj meet
in Stockholm at the same lime. The Delegation was further instructed to uige
upon the Union in General Assembly n twofold proposal for the promotion and
development of the work of th<' Int<^rna(ioual Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature Comniispiou ; under the first part of these instructions the
Delegation was to urge the Union to lake the initiative in appointing a Committee
charged with the duty of devising a long-term plan for financing the work of the
Commission on the basis of agreed annual contributions to be paid by institu-
tions in different parts of the world concerned in one or another way with the
development of work in the biological field ; under the second part of its
instructions the Delegation was to seek to secure from the General Assembly
of the Union the adoption of a Resolution urging U.N.E.S.C.O. to make a
substantial grant to cover the period in which tlie long-term financial plan was
being worked out.

12. The discussions at the Stockholm General Assembly ami the acconi-
panying informal negotiations proved arduous and difficult in many ways. The
Delegation was fortunate howe\er in securing the sympathetic sup[)firt of the
entomologists and other zoologists present and they achieved a high degree of
friendly co-operation with the botanists l)oth inside the membership of the
Union and also in the International Botanical Congress. At the last Plenary
Session the Delegation, working closely with their liotanical colleagues, obtained
the unanimous adoption by the General Assembly of the Union of a Resolution
stressing the great importance to zoology and botany respectively of the orderly
development of international law in the field of scientific nomenclature. a7id
urging U.N.E.S.C.O. to jirovide the grant required while the long-term plan
advocated by the Trust was being devised. The Union approved also the pro-
posal to appomt a high-level Committee to draw up the long-term plan and it is
highly gratifying to the Committee of Management that Dr. GaA-in de Beer.
F.R.S., Director of the British Museum (Natural Hi-story) should have accepted
the chairmanship of this important body.

13. The need for securing a firm financial I>asis for the work of the Inter-
national Commission to which reference was maik- by the Committee of Manage-
ment at the close of its Report for 1940 is extremely urgent. On the other
hand, it is extremely difficult to obtain fiini promi -ies of financial support on the
basis only of a programme of work, and efforts to obtain such support are much
more likely to prove successful if the Ixxly making the appe^il can point to a start
having been made in the work ]>rojectod. notwithstanding the haiidica-ps
imposed through lack of adefjuate funds. Already by 1950 the International
Commission had recently secured important progress in the development of
zoological nomenclature through the jiart which (as evidenced by Volume 4 of
the Bulletin) it had played in securing the reform, clarification and develop-
ment of the Regies Internaiionale^ de la yomctwhture Zodogique. But m other
fields of its work — fields to which zoologists and palaeontologists confronted
in their work with practical difficulties attach very great importance i lie
International Commission had for a numl)er of years found it impossible (mainly
through its preoccupation with matters relating to the reform of the Regies)

366 Bulletm of Zoological Nowaidolure

to iiiake any progress «nd. it was in consequence faced with very heavy arrears.
The sides of the work of the Commission concerned were (1) its judicial fimc-
tions as the supreme interpreter of the Regies in relation to individual nomen-
clatorial problems and (2) the promotion of stabiUty in nomenclature by the
development of the Official JAsts. It was accordingly decided that it was
desirable that the Commission should furnish concrete e\'idence of its abiUty
to deal with these important parts of its duties before any advance could
usefully be made by the Committee presided over by Dr. de Beer. Immediately,
therefore that the Paris volumes of the Bulletin were published (with the excep-
tion of the concluding portion of Volume 5, which it was judged could without
harm be delayed for a time), steps were put in hand to start the publication of a
new volimie (Volume 2) of the Bulletin devoted entirely to applications for
decisions on particular nomenclatorial problems and to proposals for the addi-
tion of names to the Official Lists. The Committee of Management hopes
therefore that, when it comes to submit its Report for the year 1951, it will
be able to report that the foregoing obstacle to advance has been overcome
by the pubUcation of the volumes of the Bulletin referred to above, and a
further stage reached towards devising the long-term financial plan which it
has so much at heart. The Committee of Management realises that the other
members of the Trust fully share its views as to the cardinal importance of
securing a settlement of this vital problem and it believes therefore that the
Trust will be glad to receive the foregoing Report on the action initiated by
its Committee of Management at Stockholm in the summer of 1950 and of the
measures taken and projected for furthering the ends which it was the object
of that action to secure.

14. Presentation of Accounts for the Year 1950 and Balance Sheet as
at 31st December 1950 : "With the foregoing explanations the Committee of
Management has pleasure in presenting to the Trust the Accounts for the year
1950 and the Balance Sheet as at 31st December 1950. In doing so, the Com-
mittee of Management once again has the pleasant duty of recording its thanks
to its Honorary Managing Director and Secretary (Mr. Francis Hemming) and
to his Honorary Personal Assistant, his wife (Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming) for the
services which they have rendered during the year, to i\Irs. C. Rosner, the
Publications Officer, and to the Auditors of the Trust, Messrs W. B. Keen & Co..
Chartered Accountants, and their representative Mr. R. W. M. Taylor, for the
constant assistance freely given during the year under review.

Offices of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature,
41, Queen's Gate,
London, S.W.7, England.
2m October 1951.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalnre 367

INTERNATIONAL TRUST
FOR
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Accounts for the Year 1950

368 Brdletin of Zoologiml Nomeiirkihire

INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR

Incorporated under the Companies
Balance Sheet —

1949

£ £ £ s. (1. £ s. (1.

Revenue Reserves (per Separate Accounts) :

422 " Oflficial List " Suspense Account 422 1 8

98 Office Equipment Reserve 97 Ki S

J,340 829 Income and Expenditure Acponnt—Bahinco ... 2,547 15 7 :i.()t)7 i:! II

Provision for Cost of Revision of International Code :

" International Code (Publication) " Suspense
800 Account (per separate account) ... ... 1,000

Liabilities :

3M4 Sundry Creditors 241 S 5

£5,483 £4,309

We have obtained all the information and explanations vhich to tlie best of our
of account have been kept so far as appears from our examination of those booli.-;. We have
are in agreement with the books of account. In our oi)inion and to the best of our information
the Companies Act, 1948, m the manner so requii'ed, and the Balance Sheet gives a true and fair
Account gives a true and fair view of the Excess of Income over Expenditure for the year ended

Finsbury Circus House,
Blomfield Street,
LONDON, E.C.2.

Bvlk'liii of Zoological Nomendahire 369

ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Act, 1929. (Limited by Guarantee)
31st December 1950

1949

I £ £ £ s. fl. £ s. fl. £ 9. ci.

Fixed Assets :
Office Equipment :

Book Value at Slst Dec,
1947 (being for the
Companies Act 1948 the
112 value at 1st July 1948) 111 17 (i

Additions since to 31st Dec,
98 1949 at cost 98 3 :{

210 210 9

Less Depreciation :
11 To 31st December 1949 ... 31 I 3

179 31 20 For year to date 17 17 11 48 19 2 161 1 7

CuEEENT Assets :

Amounts due for Puljlications,
45 etc., valued at ... ... 311 16 4

Balanre at Bank and Cash in
5,304 5,259 Hand 3,836 4 5 4,148 9

(Note — Stock of Publications not valued)

£5,483 £4,309 2 4

FRANCIS HEMMING \ Members of the

A. S. PANKHURRT / Committee of Management

knowledge and belief were necessary for the purpose of our audit. In our opinion proiier books
examined the above Balance Sheet and accompanying Income and Expenditure Account, which
and according to the explanations given us, the said accounts give the information required by
view of the state of the Trust's affairs at 3l8t December 195'*, and tlic Income and Expenditure
on that date.

\\". B. KE!:N & Co.
Chartered Accountants.
1st October, 1950.

370

Bulletin of Zoological Nomendalure

Income and Expenditure Account for

1H9

INCOME

£ s. d. £ 3. cl.

To Sales of Publications :
113 Opinions and Declarations

149 36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

25
2,673

145

Donation ... ... ...

Grant from U.N.E.S.C.O

ditto per the International Union of Bio-
logical Sciences

40 Ifi
2,691 18 4

2,732 14 4
25

120

£2,992

£2,877 14 4

159
670

To Balance brought down

Balance at 31st December 1949 brought forward

1,919 3 3