'.;^^''^

m/-^'

if.

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL

NOMENCLATURE

PURCHASED
19 APR 1350

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

VOLUME 4

Edited by

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

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological

Nomenclature on instructions received from the Thirteenth

International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948.

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.

1950

(All rights reserved)

Vol 4.

Printed in Great Britain
by Metchim & Son, Ltd.,
at their Press at 8, Princes St.,
Westminster, London, S.W.I.

THANKS TO r.X.E.S.C.O.

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature on behalf

of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

have great pleasure

in

expressing their grateful thanks

to the

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND
CULTURAL ORGANISATION

— U.N.E.S.C.O. —

for the financial assistance

afforded

towards the cost of producing

the present volume

Vol. I A*

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 Aniaral (Brazil)
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom)

B. The Members of the Commission

{arranged in order of precedoice 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)

Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom) {Honorary Life President) (27th July 1948)

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

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

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

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

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

e Commission : 28 Park Village East, I

Offices of the Trust : 41 Queen's Gate, London, S.\V.7

Secretarial of the Commission : 28 Park Village East, Regent's Park, London
N.W.I

DATE OF ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE
"REGLES" DECIDED UPON BY THE THIRTEENTH INTER-
NATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY, PARIS, JULY 1948

Note by the President of the Section on Nomenclature of the Congress

At their Final Plenary Session held on Tuesday, 27th July 1948, the
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology approved the proposals submitted
by the Section on Nomenclature regarding the amendment of the Regies, the
date on which those amendments should come into force and the action which
zoologists should l)e recommended to take pending the entry into force of
those amendments.

2. The decisions so taken by the Congress included a decision that the
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature should be requested to publish
as soon as possible in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the Official Record
of the Proceedings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
during its Session of Meetings held in Paris in July 1948 and that the President
of the Section on Nomenclature should prefix thereto a short note explaining
the arrangements that were being made for the early publication of the Regies
as revised by the Paris Congress.

3. In accordance with the foregoing decision of the International Congress
of Zoology, notice is hereby given as follows : —

(1) The decisions taken by the Congress in relation to the amendment of
the Regies are being remitted forthwith to jurists for the preparation
of a revised draft to give effect to those decisions. That draft, after
being received from the jurists, will be communicated (a) to all Members
and Alternate Members of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature who attended the Thirteenth International Congress of
Zoology and (b) to those Members of the Commission who did not
attend that Congress, for the purpose of enabling them to satisfy
themselves that the draft prepared by the jurists gives full effect in
every respect to the decisions taken by the Congress and also that the
phraseology employed in the draft in relation to technical matters is of
a kind that will the most readily be understood by zoologists. Any
comments which Members and Alternate Commissioners may offer
on the foregoing matters within a period of three calendar months of
the despatch to them of the draft prepared by the jurists will be referred,
for determination, to the P]ditorial Committee of Three established for
this purpose by the Congress. Immediately decisions have been taken
))y the Committee of Three on any matters so raised, the revised text
of the Regies, so determined, will be conununicated to the International
Trust for Zoological Nomenclature for immediate publication.

(2) The revised text of the Regies will formally enter into force immediately
upon being published in the manner specified above, the existing text
of the Regies being simultaneously repealed.

(3) Zoologists are advised, during the period between the publication by
the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature of the Official
Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission on Zoo-
logical Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in July 1948 and the
formal entry into force of the text of the Regies, as revised by the Con-
gress, to guide themselves in their work by reference to the decisions
in regard thereto recorded in the Official Eecord of the Proceedings of
the Commission, and thus to proceed as though the revised Regies
were already published and in force. Every decision relating to the
Regies adopted by the Congress, on the recommendation of the Section
on Nomenclature, had previously been the subject of a recommendation
by the Commission, the Official Record of the Proceedings of which
thus contain a full record of every decision taken by the Congress in
this matter.

BY ORDER OF THE THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL
CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY, PARIS, JULY, 1948

FRANCIS HEMMING

President of the Section oh Nomenclature,

Thirteenth International Congress of

Zoology, Paris, July 1948.

Ilk January 1950.

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners in attendance during the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology

Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) {Secretary) (Acting President)

Senor E. Beltran (Mexico) vice Senor Angel Cabrera (Argentina)

Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands)

Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.)

Professor Lodovico di Caporiacco (Italy)

Dr. Edward Hindle (United Kingdom) vice President Karl Jordon (United
Kingdom)

Professor Artiiro Ricardo Jorge (Portugal) I'ice Senhor A. do Amaral (Brazil)

Professor Harold Kirby (U.S.A.) vice Dr. Norman R. Stoll (U.S.A.)

Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) vice Professor J. R. Dymond (Canada)

Professor Kamel Mansour (Egypt) vice Professor Bela Hanko (Hungary)

Professor Z. P. Metcalf (U.S.A.) vice Vice-President James L. Peters (U.S.A.)

Mr. N. D. Riley (United Kingdom) vice Dr. W. T. Caiman (United Kingdom)

Professor P. Rode (France)

Professor R. Sparck (Denmark) vice Dr. Th. Mortensen (Denmark)

Professor V. van Straelen (Belgium) vice Professor R. Richter (Germany)

Professor Robert L. Usinger (U.S.A.) vice Professor Harold E. Yokes (U.S.A.)

Secretariat in Paris

Secretmy to the Commission : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E.
Personal Assistant to the Secretary : Mrs. M. F. W. Hcnuning
Acting Documents Officer : Miss J. H. Shorey

Attendance at Meetings of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature by Members of the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology, other than
Members and Alternate Members of the
Commission

M. J. Aiibert (Switzerland)

M. Belloc (France)

M. H. Berthet (France)

Professor Pierre Bonnet (France)

Dr. E. A. Chapin (U.S.A.)

M. Andre Chavan (France)

Professor Ernest N. Cory (U.S.A.)

M. Georges Deflandre (France)

Mme. Marthe Deflandre-Rigaud (France)

Mr. J. Delacour (U.S.A.)

Mr. Cyril F. dos Passes (U.S.A.)

Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty (U.S.A.)

Professor E. Fischer-Piette (France)

Professor A. Ghigi (Italy)

M. H. Gisin (Switzerland)

Dr. H. A. F. Gohar (Egypt)

Dr. Isabel Gordon (United Kingdom)

Professor E. Raymond Hall (U.S.A.)

Professor W. P. Hayes (U.S.A.)

M. Denis Jacques (France)

Professor R. Jeannel (France)

Dr. P. Jespersen (Demnark)

Mr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (United Kingdom)

Dr. H. H. J. Nesbitt (Canada)

Dr. S. di Toledo Piza (Brazil)

Mr. C. D. Radford (United Kingdom)

M. G. Ranson (France)

Miss Louise Russell (U.S.A.)

M. J. Segal (U.S.S.R.)

Dr. Ethelwynn Trewavas (United Kingdom)

Signor Antonio Valle (Italy)

Mr. R. Winckworth (United Kingdom)

CLASS AND ORDINAL NAMES USED IN THE OFFICIAL

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE AT

ITS MEETINGS HELD IN PARIS IN JULY, 1948.

Note by the Secretary to the Commission.

The Reglen Inlemationaks de la Nonienclaluie Zoolofiique do not i)rovide
rules for the nomenclature of groups above the family level. In consequence,
individual workers are free not only to recognise whatever Classes and Orders
a]3pear to them to be appropriate from the taxonomic standpoint but also to
ajjplv to those categories whichever names they may choose.

2. The question whether it would be possible to stabihse the nomenclature
of groups above the family level was considered by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature at a joint meeting with the Section on Nomenclature
held in Paris on Monday 26th July 1948. At this meeting, the International
Commission adopted (Paris Session 13th Meeting, Conclusion 28) a resolution
recommending that the Secretary to the Commission should be invited to study
the foregoing question in conjunction with interested speciahsts, and to submit a
comprehensive Report thereon for consideration by the Commission at the
next (XlVth) Meeting of the Congress, with a view to the submission by the
Commission of proposals for the insertion in the Regies of comprehensive pro-
visions dealing with this subject. This recommendation was approved by the
Section on Nomenclature (Paris Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 3) and (with
the other reconunendations, submitted by the Section on Nomenclature) by
the Congress at its Plenary Session held on Tuesday, 27th July 1948.

3. While therefore an effort will be made, before the Meeting of the Com-
mission and the Congress in Copenhagen in 1953, to prepare, for the considera-
tion of zoologists, a scheme for the stabilising of the nomenclature of Classes,
Orders and other groups above the family level, the names to be used for such
groups remains at present a matter of individual choice. In these circumstances,
it would be inappropriate for the International Commission itself in any given
case to express a preference for any particular name. On the other hand, it is
necessary for ])urposes of reference that an indication should be included in the
Official Record of the Procedings of the Commission regarding the position in the
Animal Kingdom of the various taxonomic units on the nomenclature of which
decisions were taken by the Commission. Accordingly, on this occasion, as on
that which arose in connection with the preparation of the Official Record of
Proceedings of the Commission at its Session of Meetings held in Lisbon in
1935. the res]»nsibility for the choice of the names used to denote Classes and
Orders rests exclusively with myself as Secretary to the Commission. Thus, the
use, in the Official Proceedings of the Commission in Paris, of one name in
preference to another does not imply any view by the Commission as a body on the
relative merits of that name in relation to some other name also in use by workers
to denote the category in c[uestion.

4. The inclusion of references to the higher taxonomic categories to which a
given genus or species is referable is naturally not essential to specialists who

are familiar with the relationships of the groups which form their special study,
though the insertion of such references may often he a matter of convenience
for ready reference, esjjecially in the numerous cases where a worker is engaged
in the study of a part only of some large group. The main object of inserting
such references is of quite a different order, being to facilitate the work of
editors of recording journals (such as the Zoological Record) and thus to ensure
the inclusion, in such journals, of references to decisions taken by the Inter-
national Commission in regard to particular generic and specific names. In
selecting the names of higher taxonomic units to be inserted in the Official
Record of Proceedings of the Commission, I have therefore set myself on the one
hand to achieve a reasonable degree of uniformity in presentation and on the
other hand to make use of names which are well known and will be readily
understood. Accordingly, wherever there exists a substantial degree of agree-
ment among sjiecialists regarding the higher classification of the groups with
wliich they are concerned (though not necessarily in regard to the names to be
applied to the categories so recognised), I have inserted both the name of the
Class and that of the Order to which the genus or species in cjuestion is referred.
Where, however, as in many groups of Invertebrates, the present state of know-
ledge is insufHcient to enable specialists to reach any general agreement in
regard to Ordinal classification, I have cited only the name of the Class to which
the genus or species concerned is considered to belong.

FRANCIS HEMMING,

Secretari/ to the lidcrnnlional Comwission
on Zoological Nomenclahire.

Secretarial of the Commission :

28 Park Village East,
Regent's Park,

London, N.W.I, England.

2Qth January 1950.

CERTIFICATION OF THE TEXT OF THE OFFICIAL
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE AT ITS
SESSION OF MEETINGS HELD IN PARIS IN JULY, 1948.

Note by the Secretary to the Commission.

At the Fourteenth of their Meetings held in Paris in July, 1948'. which was
held jointly with the Sixth Meeting of the Section on Nomenclature, the Inter-
national Connnission on Zoological Nomenclature gave special consideration
to the arrangements which should be made for the preparation, by the Secretary,
of the Minutes of the Meeting held by the Conmaission during that Session and
for the verification, by the Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners con-
cerned, of the text so prepared.

2. The Conmiission decided (Paris Session, lith Meeting, Conclusion 65)
to deal with this matter as follows : (1) in view of the inevitably great length of
the Minutes of these Meetings, the draft prepared by the Secretary should be
printed as soon as it had been prepared : (2) as soon as proofs had been received
from the printer, a copy should be sent for comment and approval to each
Commissioner and Alternate Commissioner who attended the Paris Session,
air- mail being used for all destinations outside the United Kingdom ; (3) a
period of one calendar month was to be reserved as the period within which
comments or suggestions by the Contmissioners or Alternate Commissioners
should be returnable to the Secretariat of the Commission ; (4) at the conclusion
of the foregoing period, the Secretary was to make any changes or corrections
in the draft Minutes which might be found to be necessary in the light of the
comments received from the Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners and,
having done so, should forthwith transmit the text, so amended, to the Inter-
national Trust for Zoological Nomenclature (the corporation responsible for the
financial operations required by the Commission) for publication in the " Bulletin
of Zoological Nomenclature " at the earliest possible date.

3. Volume 3 of the " Bulletin " containing the text of the documents con-
sidered by the Commission in Paris is necessary for a proper understanding of
the Minutes of the Meetings of the Commission, those Minutes naturally contain-
ing frequent references to the documents which had then been under considera-
tion. Arrangements were therefore made for the supply l)y the printer of a
.sufficient number of proofs of volume 3 to enable a copy to be circulated to each
Commissioner and Alternate Commissioner who had attended the Paris Session.
These proofs were despatched at the end of November 1949 to all the Commis-
sioners and Alternate Commissioners concerned, with the exception of Commis-
sioner P. Rode (France) whose death had occurred not long after the close of the
Paris Session. Copies addressed to all destinations outside the United Kingdom
were despatched by airmail. The proofs of the Minutes of the Paris Meeting
were received from the printer on 5th December 1949 and on the following
day (6th December 1949) one copy was despatched to each of the Commissioners
and Alternate Commissioners concerned, with a covering note referring to the

' See pages 642-644 of the present volume.

decisions taken in Paris arul asking for a reply not later than 6th January 1950.
the last day of the prescribed period that had been agreed upon. Airmail was
used for all destinations outside the United Kingdom.

4. Before the end of the prescribed period, replies were received from the
majority of the Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners concerned. At
the end" of that period, cables were despatched to those Commissioners and
Alternate Commissioners from whom no replies had by that time been received.
Within about a fortnight of the end of the prescribed period replies had been
received from all the Commissioners and .Vlternate Commissioners concerned
with the exception of one Alternate Commissioner whom it niust be assumed
was either ill or away from home at the time.

5. The comniunications so received from Commissioners and Alternate
Conunissioners raised points which called for action of two kinds : (1) the letters
received contained a large number of notes on minor drafting matters, printer's
errors and the like ; (2) in addition, some of the letters drew attention to certain
obscurities or apparent inconsistencies in the drafting adopted for particular
items in the Minutes. On the receipt of the letters concerned, all the corrections
notified under (1) above were incorporated in the Minutes. As regards points
arising under (2) above, letters were sent by myself as Secretary to the Commis-
sion to each of the Commissioners concerned, explaining the manner in which
it was proposed to meet the points which he had raised. All the explanations
so offered were accepted as satisfactory by the Commissioners and Alternate
Commissioners concerned and the changes so agreed upon were thereupon
incorporated in the text.

6. Subject to the comments and suggestions referred to above, each of the
Commissioners from whom replies were received approved the draft Minutes as
representing a true and accurate record of the proceedings of the International
Commission during its Session of Meetings held in Paris in July 1948. Thus,
the Minutes of the Meetings held by the International Commission in
Paris in July 1948, as amended in certain respects in the manner indicated
in the previous paragraph, have now been approved by the following
fourteen (14) Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners out of the total of
sixteen (16) Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners who were present at
the Paris Session : H. Boschma (Netherlands) : J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) ;
L. di Caporiacco (Italy) : Francis Henmaing (United Kingdom) ; E. Hindle
(United Kingdom) ; A. R. Jorge (Portugal) ; Harold Kirby (U.S.A.) ; Henning
Lemche (Denmark) ; K. Mansour (Egypt) ; Z. P. Metc"alf (U.S.A.) ; N. D.
Riley (United Kingdom) ; R. Sparck (Denmark) ; V. van Straelen (Belgium) ;
Robert L. Usinger (U.S.A.). Of the two (2) other Commissioners who were
present at the Paris Session, Commissioner Paul Rode died after the Congress
and before the circulation of the draft Minutes ; while no reply has been received
from Alternate Commissioner E. Beltran (Mexico).

7. I accordingly certify that, in accordance with thf procedure agreed
upon in Paris, the text of the Official Record of the Proceedings of the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session of
Meetings held in Paris in July 1948 as now published in Volume 4 of the

'■ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature '" has been unanimously approved and
adopted by the Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners who were
present at that Session as constituting a true and accurate record of the
decisions taken tliereat.

FRANCIS HEMMING.

Secretary to the hitermitiomil Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretariat of the Commission :
28 Park Village East,
Regent's Park,

London , N . W . 1 , England .

1st February 195(».

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL

NOMENCLATURE AT THEIR SESSION HELD IN PARIS

IN JULY 1948

CONCLUSIONS of the First Meeting of the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature held at the Sorbonne
in the Amphitheatre Loius-Liard on Wednesday, 21st July,
1948 at 1430 hours.

Page

1. Absence of the President and Vice-President and assumption of

the Acting Presidency by the Secretary . . . . . . . . 1

2. Apologies for absence received from Commissioner Paul Rode

(France) . . . . . . . . . . . . • • 2

3. Commissioners present at the Paris Session . . . . . . 2

4. Resignation of Commissioner Th. Mortensen (Denmark) on account

of ill-health 2

5. Commissioners absent from Paris and unable to attend Session

thereat . . . . . . . . . • • • 3

6. Appointment of certain members of the Congress to be Alternate

Members of the Commission for the duration of the Paris
Session . . . . . . . . . . . . • ■ 3

7. Arrangements for meetings during the Paris Session . . . . 4

8. Second Meeting of the Commission during its Paris Session : date

and time appointed . . . . . . . . . . • • 5

CONCLUSIONS of the Second Meeting of the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature held at the Sorbonne
in the Amphitheatre Louis-Liard on Wednesday, 21st July,
1948 at 1440 hours

1. Official languages at the Paris Session . . . . . . . . 6

2. Procedure to be followed at the Paris Session : suspension of the

By-Laws and other matters . . . . . . . . 7

3. Deaths of Commissioners since 1935 . . . . . . . . . . 8

Vol. 4 b

Second Meeting {continued)

4. Election in 1936 of Commissioner Francis Hemming (United Page

Kingdom) to be Secretary to the Commission in succession to
Commissioner C. W. Stiles (U.S.A.) 9

5. Creation in 1939 of Offices of Vice-President and Assistant Secretary

to the Commission and election thereto of Commissioners

C. W. Stiles (U.S.A.) and James L. Peters (U.S.A.) . . . . 9

6. Constitution of the Class 1946 in place of the Class 1937 . . . . 10

7. Assumption by President Jordan of extraordinary powers on

behalf of the Conmiission during the war 1939-1945 . . . . 10

8. Constitution under the " Emergency Powers Declaration, 1939 "

of the Classes 1949 and 1952 in place of the Classes 1940 and

1943 13

9. Constitution of the Class 1955 in place of the Class 1946 . . . . 13

lU. Losses in the membership of the Commission since 1935 through

resignations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1 1 . P]lection of Commissioners since 1935 . . . . . . . . 15

12. Re-election of the President and the Secretary as from the

beginning of 1941 . . . . . . .... . . 16

13. Re-election of the Assistant Secretary as from the beginning of 1944 17

14. Election in 1945 of Assistant Secretary James L. Peters (U.S.A.)

to be Vice-President . . . . . . . . 17

15. Establishment of the Class 1958 in place of the Class 1949 . . 17
Ki. (ierman and Japanese representation on the Commission . . . . 18

17. Nomination of Members of the Class 1958 19

18. Presidency of the Commission : request by Commissioner Karl

.Jordan (United Kingdom) to be excused from nomination as
President for a further term . . . . . . . . . . 19

19. Nomination of Vice-President James L. Peters (U.S.A.) to be

President 22

20. Nomination of Commissioner Francis Hemming (United Kingdom)

to be Secretary to the Commission for a furtlier term . . 23

Second Meeting (continued)

21. Nomination of Coniniissioner Afranio do Aniazal (Brazil) to be Pa^e

Vice-President . . . . . . . . . . • • 23

22. Abolition of the Office of Assistant Secretary as hitherto consti-

tuted, and its reconstitution as a post in the Secretariat of the
Commission . . . . . . . . . . . • • • 24

23. Co-operation between the Commission and specialist groups : report

on progress achieved since 1935 . . . . . . . • 25

24. Opinions and Declarations pubhshed since the meeting of the

Congress held at Lisbon in 1935 . . . . . . . . 27

25. Programme of the Commission for its Paris Session . . . . 27

26. Report by the Secretary on the work of the Secretariat since the

meeting of the Congress held at Lisbon in 1935 . . . . 28

27. Thanks of the Commission to the Right Hon. Walter EUiot for

accepting the Chairmanship of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . 31

29. Thanks of the Commission to the Smithsonian Institution, Washing-
ton, D.C 31

29. Thanks of the Commission for donations received . . . . . . 32

30. Thanks of the Commission to UNESCO 32

31. Preliminary report on the work of the Commission during its first

and second meetings to be submitted orally to the Section on
Nomenclature as soon as possible . . . . . . . . 32

32. Preliminary reports on the work of the Commission at its third

and subsequent meetings to be submitted to the Section on
Nomenclature as soon as practicable after the close of those
meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

33. Arrangements for the preparation of the Report to be submitted

to the Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . , . 35

34. Composition of the Commission and the method of nominating its

members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

35. Place of meeting of the Commission during its Paris Session . . 36

36. Third and Fourth Meetings of tlie Commission during its Paris

Session : dates and times appointed . . . . 36

Vol.. 4 n-

CONCLUSIONS of the Third Meeting of the International Com- Page
mission on Zoological Nomenclature held at the Sorbonne in
the Amphitheatre Louis-Liard on Wednesday, 21st July, 1948
at 2030 hours.

1. Size of the Commission and nature of its composition . . . . 37

2. Mothocl to be followed in the nomination and election of members

of the Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

3. Arrangements to be made for Commissioners periodically to submit

themselves to re-election . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

4. Grant of leave of absence to, and removal of, Commissioners in

certain circumstances . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

5. Reform of the rules of procedure of the Commission . . . . 49

6. Reform of the voting procedure of the Commission . . . . 50

7. Plenary Powers Resolution : proposed amendment and incorpora-

tion in the Regies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

8. Date of entry into force of the reforms agreed upon in regard to

the procedure of the Conimission . . . . . . . . 57

9. Changes in procedure designed to accelerate the work of the Com-

mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

10. Announcement to be made to the zoological public regarding the
arrangements made by the Commission for speeding up its
work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

J 1. Revision of the By-Laws of the Conunissioi\ . . . . . . 59

12. Fourth Meeting of the Conuiiission fluring its Paris Session : date

and time noted . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

CONCLUSIONS of the Fourth Meeting of the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature held at the Sorbonne in
the Amphitheatre Louis-Liard on Thursday, 22nd July, 1948
at 0900 hours.

1. Election of Professor E. Beltran (Mexico) to be an Alternate Mem-

ber of the Commission for tlie duration of the Paris Session . . 62

2. Telegrams despatched by the Acting President on behalf of the

Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Fourth Meeting {continued)

3. Meaning of the expression " nomenclature binaire " as used in the Page

R^les 63

4. ConsoHdation and amendment of the Regies : preUminary con-

sideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

5. Status of new names pubHshed in a form or in a manner contra-

vening Articles 14-16, 18 and 20 . . . . . . . . ()7

6. Article 25, Proviso (e) (2) : the expression " definite bibliographic

reference " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

7. Article 25, Proviso (c) (1) : the expression " which differentiate .. " 70

8. Article 25, Proviso (c) (3) : the expression " definite unambiguous

designation of the type species " ; Articles 29 and 30, con-
sequential amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

9. Status of the provisions in the former Appendice, now a Schedule,

to the Regies 73

10. Grammatical inconsistencies in the Regies . . . . . . . . 73

11. Article 31 : need for the removal of confusion between taxonomy

and nomenclature and for the substitution of direct provisions

for the existing provisions by reference . . . . . . 73

12. Sulistantive French text of the Regies : arrangements to be made

for completion and promulgation . . . . . . . . . . 76

13. Article 25, Proviso (a) : meaning of the expression " indication "

in relation to generic names . . . . . . . . . . 78

14. Status of names proposed for forms of less than subspecific rank :

preliminary consideration . . . . . . . . . . 81

15. Fifth Meeting of the Commission during its Paris Session : time

appointed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

CONCLUSIONS of the Fifth Meeting of the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature held at the Sorbonne in
the Amphitheatre Louis-Liard on Thursday, 22nd July, at
1430 hours.

1. Status of names proposed for forms of less than subspecific rank :

further consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Fifth Meeting (continued) Page

2. Article 2 : insertion of reference to the category " subgenus " 96

3. Articles 35 and 36 (problem of specific homonyms) : preliminary

consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

4. Sixth Meeting of the Commission during its Paris Session : time

appointed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

CONCLUSIONS of the Sixth Meeting of the International Com- .
mission on Zoological Nomenclature held at the Sorbonne
in the Amphitheatre Louis-Liard on Thursday, 22nd July,
1948 at 1700 hours.

1. Articles 35 and 36 (problem of specific homonymy) : further

consideration . . . . . . , . . . . . . . 107

2. Need for publicity for new names and for the selections of type

species of genera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

3. Definition of the expressions " specific name " and " specific trivial

name " . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

4. Definition of the expressions " subspecific name " and " subspecific

trivial name " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

5. Specific trivial names always to be pubUshed in connection with

generic names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

6. Co-ordination of the Laws of Priority and Homonymy . . 129

7. Application to generic names of the provisions in third paragraph

of Article 35 relating to specific trivial names . . . . . . 130

8. Thanks of the Commission to Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming . . . . 131

9. Codification of the interpretations of the Regies given in Opinions

rendered by the Commission : future procedure in regard to 132

10. Interpretations of provisions in the Regies in Opinions rendered by

the Commission : proposals for incorporation of, in the Regies

to be considered item by item . . . . . . . . . . 137

11. Article 4 and OjOTwion 141 (family names) .. 138

12. Article 8 and Opinion 183 (generic names to be published in the

nominative singular) 139

Sixth Meeting (continued)

13. Article 14, first paragrnph, and Opinion 64 (single letters not eligible Page

as trivial names) . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

14. Status of specific trivial names when preceded by serial letters or

serial numerals at the time of their original publication . . 1 40

15. Article 19 and Opimon.s 20, 27. 29, :i6, 41, 60, 6 1 , and 63 (emendation

of names) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

10. Article 25 and Opinion 2 (status of a name based on a hypothetical

form) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

17. Article 25 and Opinion 49 (status of a specific name published con-

ditionally) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

18. Article 25 and Opinion 4 (status of a name which, prior to being

first validly published with an " indication," was in currency as

a manuscript name) . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

19. Article 25 and Opinions 87, 59, and 191 (various aspects of the

problem of pubhcation) . . . . . . .... . . 146

20. Articles 30 and 35 and Opinion 148 (status of a generic name

published as aii invalid emendation of an earlier name and

type species of genus so named) . . . . . . . . 147

21. Article 25, Proviso (a) and Opinion 1 (meaning of the expression

"indication") .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 148

22. Article 25, Proviso (a) and Opinion 43 (status of a new specific name

published jointly with a new generic name and vice versa) . . 149

23. Article 25, Proviso (a) and Opinion 52 (significance to be attached

to the citation of a type locality in an original description) . . 150

24. Article 25, Proviso {b) and Opinion 5 (status of a name originally

published before 1758, when republished after 1757) . . . . 150

25. Article 20 and Opinion .3 (relative status of works published in the

year 1758) 150

20. Articles 25 and 31 and Opinion 88 (status of a specific name pub-
lished for a composite nominal species) . . . . . . . . 151

27. Article 30, Rule (a) and Opinion 7 (type species of a genus the name

of which was published wdth the formula " n.g., n.sp.") . . 152

Sixth Meeting {contimted)

28. Article 30, Rule (c) and Opinion 47 (type species of a genus for which Page

only one nominal species is cited by the original author) . . 153

29. Article 30, Rule id) and Opinion 18 (type species of a genus an

included nominal species of which has a synonym possessing a
tautonymous trivial name not cited in original publication) . . 153

30. Article 30, Rule {d) and Opinion 1 6 (type species of a genus of which

an included species had a pre-1758 tautonymous univerbal
specific name cited as a synonym) . . . . . . . . 154

31. Article 30, Rule (f) and Opinion 35 (type species of a substitute

genus where one or more of the originally included species not
cited under a binominal name) . . . . . . . . . . 155

32. Article 30, Rule (^r) and Opinion 35 (type species of a genus where

one or more of the originally included species not cited under

a binominal name) . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

33. Article 30, Rule {g) and Opinion 10 (type species of genera having

identical limits) . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

34. Article 30, Rule {g) and Opinion 62 (a nominal species eligible for

selection as the type species of more than one nominal genus) 156

35. Article 30 and Opinion 164 (type species of a genus not affected by

the subjective union of that genus with another genus) . . 157

36. Article 30, Rule {g) and Opinion 6 (special method of selecting the

type species of a genus established before 1931 and with only

two included nominal species) . . . . . . . . . . 157

37. Article 30, Rule {g) and Opinion 14 (selection of a nominal species

to be the type species of a genus not invalidated where the
author making the selection himself misidentifies the species
which he so selects) . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

38. Article 30 (all Rules) and Opinions 65 and 168 (the original author

of a generic name to be assumed to have identified correctly

the nominal species referred by him to the genus so named) . . 158

39. Article 30 and Opinion 46 (selection of a type species for a genus

to which no nominal species was distinctly referred — by the
original author) 159

40. Article 30 and Opinion 172 (selection of the type species of a genus

in a literature-recording serial) 161

Sixth Meeting {continued)

41. Article 34 and Opinion 147 (application to generic names of Page

provisions in third paragraph of Article 35) 161

42. Article 34 and Opinion 25 (clarification of provisions determining

whether one generic name is identical with another) . . . . 162

43. Article 35 (definition of conditions in which one trivial name is to

be regarded as identical with another) . . . . 162

44. Article 34 and Opinions 125 and 148 (status of emendations in

relation to generic homonymy) . . . . . . . . 163

45. Article 34 and Opinion 148, paragraph (3) : interpretation in, not

to be incorporated in the Regies and to be cancelled . . . . 163

46. Articles 34 and 35 and Opinion 102 (status of a generic or trivial

name when a homonym of the name of a imit of sub-ordinal

or higher category) . . . . . . . . . . 164

47. Aiticles 25, 34 and 35 and Opinion 145 (subsequent status of a

name first published in a w(jrk rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes) 165

48. Article 25 (the expression " divulgue dans une publication ") :

postponement of consideration of interpretations of, in
Opinions 15 and 51 165

49. Repeal, either wholly or in part, for interpretative purposes, of

certain Opinions rendercl liy the f'ommission 165

50. Resolutions on questions relating to nomenclature embodied in

Declarations rendered by the Commission : proposed codifica-
tion of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

51. /)ec/ara^i&»s 1 and 12 (Code of Ethics) 167

52. Declaration 4 (avoidance of intemperate language in the discussion

of zoological nomenclature) . . . . . . . . 167

53. Declaration 2 (avoidance of issue of separates in advance of the

publication of the paper concerned) 167

54. Declaration 6 (need for clearly indicating as new every name when

first published) . . . . . . . . . . 168

55. Declaration 6 (need for avoiding the publication of a name as new on

more than one occasion) . , , . . , . , , , 169

Sixth Meeting {continued)

56. Declarations 3 and 8 (need for giving a clear indication of date of Page

publication) . . . . . . 169

57. Declaration 7 (need for citation of bibliographical references) . . 170

58. Declaration 11 (need for indicating the systematic position of new

taxonomic units) . . . . . . . . . . 170

59. Repeal, except for historical purposes, of Declarations so far

rendered by the Commission .. .. .. .. 171

60. Miscellaneous proposals for the amendment or clarification of the

Regies : first instalment to be considered item by item . . 171

61. Article 8 : need for brevity in generic names, insertion of

Recommandation regarding .. .. .. .. 171

62. Article 13 : deletion of provision permitting the use of a capital

initial letter for a trivial name in certain cases . . . . 172

63. Article 14 : need for brevity in specific and subspecific trivial

names, insertion of Recommandaiion regarding . . . . 173

64. Examples cited in the Regies from works by non-binominal authors

to be replaced by examples from works by binominal authors 173

65. Article 22 : abbreviation of authors' names, substitution of a

revised Recommandaiion regarding . . . . 174

66. Articles 25, 34 and 35 : apparent new names or new combinations

due to errors in literature-recording serials, status of, defined 175

67. Article 25, Proviso (6) : expression " principes de la nomenclature

binominale." meaning of, defined 175

68. Article 30 : generic names published after 31st December, 1930,

applicability to, clarified 175

69. Article 30 : removal of ambiguities in, by insertion of drafting

amendments . . . . . . ]77

7(». .Vll Articles : substitution in, of the expressions "' nominal genus "
and '■ nominal species " for tlie expressions " genus " and
" species " in certain cases . . . . 180

71. Article 30: elimination of the expression ^ Rule" from non-
mandatory provisions . , . . . . . , 180

Sixth Meeting {continued) Paqe

72. Article 30, Rule {g) : clarification of 181

73. Article 31 : clarification of

182

74. Article 35 : status of emendations in relation to homonymy in the

names of species and lower taxonomic categories, definition of 182

75. Terminology of type specimens, insertion in the Regies of provisions

regarding 184

76. Consideration of Points (15) to (20) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)12

postponed until the Seventh Meeting of the Commission during

its Paris Session . . . . . . . . 188

77. Seventh and Eighth Meetings of the Commission during its Paris

Session : date and time appointed . . . . . . 189

CONCLUSIONS of the Seventh Meeting of the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature held at the Sorbonne
in the Amphitheatre Louis-Liard on Thursday, 22nd Julv
1948 at 2030 hours.

1. New Article regarding terminology of type specimens : addition of

a further Recommandation . . . . . . 190

2. New provision : nominotypical subspecies, insertion of a provision

for naming of . . . . . . jnj

3. Neotypes (suggested recognition as a category of type specimens) :

Secretary invited to prepare comprehensive Report on . . 191

4. New Article : misuse of the Regies in a manner calculated to give

political, religious or personal offence, insertion of a provision

to prevent . . . . jgo

5. All Articles : adoption of drafting amendments to secure greater

clarity and to eUminate unnecessary and undefined repetitive
phrases ^qa.

6. Miscellaneous proposals for the amendment or clarification of the

Regies : second instalment to be considered item by item . . 195

7. Article 8 : a generic name treated as a noun in the nominative

singular but in fact a latinised version of a noun in another
language in a case other than the nominative or a number
other than the singular, status of, defined 195

Seventh Meeting (continued)

8. Article 14 : addition of a Recommandation urging authors to avoid Page

giving as new triAaal names words already so used in allied
groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

9. Article 15 : to be redrafted to eliminate the existing option to link

by h^-phens the component parts of a trivial name consisting

of a compound word . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

10. Article 15 : orthography of compound trivial names, wliere the first

part of tlie compound consists of a numeral, insertion of
provisions relating to . . . . . . . . . . 198

11. Article 14 : formation of trivial names based upon the names of

persons, clarification of provisions relating to . . . . . . 200

12. Seventeen propositions submitted by Professor Pierre Bonnet

(Toulouse) : position regarding, reviewed . . . . . . 209

13. Article 18 (nomenclature of hybrids) : adoption of drafting

amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212

14. Article 25 : names published either anonymously or over initials

only, status of, defined . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

15. Article 25 : the expression " divulgue dans une publication,"

definition of . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

16. Article 25 : names of new taxonomic units published in abstracts

in advance of the paper containing the description of the new

unit, status of, defined . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

17. Article 25 : generic and trivial names first published in kevs, status

of, defined '. . . . 222

18. Article 25 : date of publication of a given book or paper, criteria

to be adopted for determining . . . . . . . . . . 223

19. Article 25 : citation of date of publication of a name, insertion of a

Recommandation regarding . . . . . . 225

20. Article 25 : a name published on one date where the relevant

description or part of it is published at a later date, priority to be
accorded to. determined . . . . . . 226

21. Article 25 : a trivial name published in conjunction with a generic

name which does not comply with the requirements of
Proviso (r). status of, determined . . . , . . . . 227

Seventh Meeting (continued)

22. Schedule replacing the former Appendice to the Regies : addition Page

to, of a Section on the transliteration of words from the
Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet . . 228

23. Eighth Meeting of the Commission dm:iug its Paris Session : date

and time noted . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

CONCLUSIONS of the Eighth Meeting of the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature held at the Sorbonne
in the Amphitheatre Louis-Liard on Friday, 23rd July 1948
at 0900 hours.

[Meeting held axncurrently with the First Meeting
of the Section on Nomenclature)

1. Procedure to be adopted at the present (eighth) Meethig . . . . 230

2. Emendation to P solos of the spelling of the generic name Psodos

Treitschke. 1827 (Class Insecta. Order Lepidoptera) : com-
munication by M. H. Berthet. and decision thereon . . . . 231

3. Extension, and incorporation in the Regies, of the provisions

relating to the Commission's plenary powers : communication

by Dr. H. Lemche, and decision thereon . . . . . . 231

4. Incorporation in the Regies of a ])ro vision establishing a Law of

Prescription limitmg the Law of Priority : communication

by Dr. H. Lemche, and decision thereon . . . . . . 232

5. Nomenclature of Protozoan and other parasites of Man, need for

stabilisation of : communication by Alternate Commissioner

E. Beltran, and decision thereon. . . . . . . . . . 235

0. ■' Official List of Generic Names in Zoology " : addition to regula-
tions relating to, of a provision designed to eliminate taxonomic
considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

7. Ninth and Tenth Meetings of the Commission during its Paris

Session : date and time appointed 237

CONCLUSIONS of the Ninth Meeting of the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature held at the Sorbonne
in the Amphitheatre Louis-Liard on Friday, 23rd July, 1948
at 2030 hours.

1. Miscellaneous proposals for the amendment or clarification of the

Regies : Third instalment to be considered item by item . . 239

Ninth Meeting {continued)
2. Article 27 : insertion of words to make it clear that this Article Pa^e
applies irUer alia to names given to forms of polymorphic
species

239

3. Article 35, third paragraph (polymorphism in trivial names arising

from the use of the same word in noun and adjectival form) :
clarification of position regarding . . . . 240

4. Articles 34 and 35, third paragraph : addition of a further category 243

5. Articles 34 and 35 (words differing from one another solely by

having as the accented syllable the syllable " an " or " en ") :
insertion of a Recommandation urging avoidance of . . . . 243

6. Article 4 (situation where the application of existing provisions

leads to the establishment of identical family names in
different groups) : procedure to be followed . . . . 243

7. ^Vrticle 4 (name to be applied to a family where two or more'

existing families are united on taxonomic grounds) : postpone-
ment of decision pending general inquiry . . . . 244

y. Article 3 : definition of the expression " Latin " as there used . . 245

9. .Article 4 (method to be followed in forming a family name from a

given generic name) : removal of ambiguities in . . 246

10. Article 14 (agreement in gender with the generic name of a trivial

name when an adjective) : rules for determining gender of
generic names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

11. Article 25, Proviso (c) : point of time as from which effective more

precisely defined . . . . 250

12. Appendice to the Regies : errors in Section " G "' to be corrected . . 250

13. Article 14 : a trivial name consisting of an unchanged surname of

a modern personage treated as a Latin or Latinised word, to

be automatically corrected . . . . 251

14. Article 14 ; a trivial name consisting of a phonetic reproduction of

initials of one or more persons to be accepted as complying with 252

15. Article 8 : Recanimmidutions attached to, to be converted into

mandatory provisions . . . . 253

16. Articles 8 and 14 : Recornniemlations condeuuiing names suggesting

a bizarre or other objectionable meanhig in some language
other than Latin to be inserted in . . . . . . . . 263

uuu

Ninth Meeting {continued) p

17. Article 23 : clarification of, in certain respects 254

18. Article 25 : a description of the work of an animal but not of the

animal itself declared to constitute an " indication " . . 255

19. Article 25 : a generic name based solely upon a figure declared to

have been published with an " indication " 255

20. Trivial name aegyptiellus Strand, 1909 conditionally published for a

subspecies of Halictus morhillosus Kirchbaumer, 1873 : status

of, determined . . . . .... 25fi

2 1 . Article 25 : the citation of the host species in an original description

of parasite, significance of, defined 256

22. Article 25 : the citation of a geological horizon in original descrip-

tion of a fossil species, significance of, defined 256

23. Article 25 : the expression " le plus anciennement designe "

defined . . . . . . _ .^f-r,

24. Article 28 (relative advantages of the " first reviser " and " page

precedence " principles) : Secretary invited to prepare Report

«^ 257

25. Article 22 : Dr. Jacot's proposal for deletion of, rejected . . . . 258

26. Article 23 : proposal by the American Malacological Society for

deletion of, rejected 258

27. Article 1 and Articles 34 and 35 : co-ordination of, in relation to

the names of species transferred from the Animal Kingdom to

the Vegetable Kingdom 258

28. Article 25 : authorship of nomimi nuda and manuscript names when

first validly pubHshed with an " indication " determined . . 259

29. Article 30 (interpretation of Rule (^)) 260

30. New Article : title to be given to the Regies as amended bv the

present Congress " .^gQ

31. New Schedule or Schedules to the Regies: addition of, for

recording decisions by the Commission on the invalidity of
books or names 9gj

32. New Aiticle : words having the terminations " -idae " and " -inae "

restriction on use of, except for names of families and sub-
families C,g,

Ninth Meeting {continued) Page

33. Article 12 : redrafting of, to eliminate confusion between taxonomy

and nomenclature . . . . 262

34. Article 7 : redrafting of, to eliminate confusion between taxonomy

aud nomenclature . . . . . . . . 262

35. Articles 6 and 11 : co-ordination of texts . . . . . . . . 263

36. Articles 19 and 32 : co-ordination of texts 263

37. Article 8 : amendment of provision proposed in replacement of

Recomnmyulation (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

38. Article 36 ( Recommandation adopted at Padua relative to precedence

to be given to generic and subgeneric and to specific and sub-
specific homonyms of the same date) : deletion of, and insertion
of corresponding mandatory provisions in Articles 34 and 35 265

39. Article 36 : reallocation to Articles 34 and 36 of Recommmidatmns

other than Padua Recommandation . . . . . . . . 265

40. Opinion 124 : alleged subgeneric names published by Linnaeus and

Fabricius. completion of decision given in . . . . . . 266

41. " Official List of Generic Names in Zoology " : status of names

placed on, defined . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

42. " Official List of Specific Names in Zoology " : establishment of,

and status of names placed on, defined . . . . . . 269

43. " Official List of Generic Names in Zoology " : additional provision

relating to . . 271

44. Tenth Meeting of the Conunission during its Paris Session : date.

and time noted . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

CONCLUSIONS of the Tenth Meeting of the International Commission
on Zoological Nomienclature held at the Sorbonne in the Amiphi-
theatre Louis-Liard on Saturday, 24th July, 1948 at 0900 hours.

{Meeting held concurrently with the Second Meeting
of (he Section on N omenflaiure)

1, Nomenclature of supergeneric groups below family level: com-
munication bv Professor R. Jeannel . . . . . . . . 273

Tenth Meeting {eonfinued) Page

2. Nomenclature of families and subfamilies : Professor Robert L.
Usinger's communication to form part of material for general
inquiry 273

o. The concepts " grade " and " pseudogenus " : communication

by M. Georges Deflandre 273

4. Fragments (organites and sclerites) of fossil invertebrates, new

system of terminology for : conmaunication by M. Georges
Deflandre and Mme. Marthe Deflandre-Eigaud . . . . 274

5. Clerck, 1757, Aranei svecici (status for nomenclatorial purposes

of the names published in) : preliminary discussion on . . 274

6. Report to be submitted by the Commission to the Congress on the

work performed during the Paris Session . . . . . . 277

7. Eleventh Meeting of the Commission during its Paris Session :

date and time noted . . . . . . . . . . . . 278

CONCLUSIONS of the Eleventh Meeting of the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature held at the Sorbonne in the
Amphitheatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July, 1948 at 0930 hours.

(Meeting held concurrently iidth the Third Meeting
of the Section on Nomenclature)

1. Apology by the Acting President for late arrival .. .. .. 280

2. Programme for the meetings to l)e held during the day . . . . 281

3. Election of Professor K. Mansour (Egypt) to be an Alternate

Member of the Commission for the duration of the Paris Session 282

4. Withdrawal of Professor R. Sparck (Denmark) and nomination

of Dr. H. Lemche (Denmark) as prospective Danish Member

of the Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . 282

5. Report to be submitted by the Commission to the Congress :

detailed examination of draft proposed . . . . . . 283

(a) Danish representation on the Commission and the arrange-

ments proposed to be adopted in place of the system of
three nine-year Classes in the membership of the
Commission . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 283

(b) Proposed " Oflicial List " of trivial names of species : title

to be changed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

V'uL. 4 r

Eleventh Meeting (continued) Page

(c) Verification of text of revised Regies : an ad hoc Editorial
Conunittee substituted for the Executive Committee of
the Commission . . . . . . 284

(). Unanimous adoption by tiie Commission of its Report to tlie

Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology . . . . . . 287

7. Miscellaneous proposals for the amendment or clarification of the

Regies : fourth instalment to be considered item by item . . 288

8. Article 32 : suggested amendment to provide for the rejection of

trixnal names on grounds of inappropriateness in certain cases 288

y. Opinion I'li : extension to cover certain terms intermediate between

generic and trivial names published by Hubner (J.) . . . . 289

10. New Article, insertion in Regies of, defining the functions of the

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . 290

] 1 . Article 25 : status of a holotype or lectotype in relation to an
inadequate original description, clarification of position
regarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292

12. Article 25 : priority to be accorded to a name published in a work

issued in instalments where that name is published on one date
and the relevant description or part of it at a later date :
supplementary decision regarding . . . . . . . . 293

13. The expressions " grade " and " pseudo-genus " : proposed

recognition of. in the Regies rejected . . . . . . . . 293

11. New system of nomenclature for fragments of fossil invertebrates

found in sedimentary rocks : projjosed introduction of,
rejected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294

15. New Article, insertion in the Regies of, defining status of inter-
pretations of the Regies given in Declarations rendered by the
Commission in periods between meetings of the Congress . . 294

l(j. New Article, insertion in the Regies of, defining the method to be

followed in amending the Regies . . . . . . . . . . 295

17. Article 35 (polymorphism in trivial names arising from the use of
the same word in noun and adjectival form) : addition of a
further example in tlie Reconunandation agreed to be inserted
in the Rrgles 295

Eleventh Meeting (contimied) Page

18. New Article relating to the plenary powers of the Commission :

drafting amendment in . . . . . . . . . . 296

Jl>. Neotypes (erroneous statements regarding, deletion of, from

Opinion 128) 296

20. Article 8 : addition to be made to Section (6) of the second of the
existing Recommandations prior to its incorporation in the
Rigles as a mandatory provision . . . . . . . . 297

21. Al I Articles : addition of paragraph numbers in the case of composite

Articles . . 297

22. All Articles : addition of serial numbers where there is more than

one Recommandation in any given Article . . . . . . 298

23. All Articles : each paragraph of an Article or Recomnuindation

to consist of a single sentence . . . . . . . . . . 298

24. Article 30, Rule {e) : clarification of 298

25. Article 30 : expression to be used to denote the concept of a type

species of a genus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299

26. Necator Stiles, 1903 (Class Nematoda), an invahd name inadvertently

placed on the " Official List of Generic Names in Zoology" (in
Opinion 66) : validation of, under the plenary powers . . . . 3(X)

27. Tethys and Aplysia (Class Gastropoda) : validation, under the

plenary powers, of long-established use of, and matters
incidental thereto 301

28. Vertm Liimaeus, 1758 (Class Pelecypoda) : designation of type

species of, under the plenary powers . . . . . . . . 304

29. Bulla Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Gastropoda) : designation of tyj^e

species of, under the plenary powers . . . . . . . . 305

30. Twelfth Meeting of the Commission during its Paris Session : time

appointed 305

CONCLUSIONS of the Twelfth Meeting of the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi-
theatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July, 1948 at 1445 hours.

(Meeting held concun-ently with the Fuuiih Meeting
of the Section on Nomenclotwe)

1. Gryphaea Lamarck, i80i ((..'lass Felecypoda), problem of type Page

species of : communication by M. Gilbert Ranson . . . . 306

2. Generic names published in books dealing with classification of

taxonomic units down to the genus level but no further (case

of Briinnich, 1771, Zoologiae Fundamenta) : status of, defined 207

3. Tonna Briinnich, 1771 (Class Gastropoda) : addition of, to the

■' Official List of Generic Names in Zoology " . . . . . . 310

4. Cercopithecus validated as a generic name as from Linnaeus, 1758

(Class Mammalia, Order Primates), and type species designated,
under the plenary powers . . . . . . . . 3x0

5. Limulus Miiller, 1785 (Class Arachnida, Order Xiphosura) (placed

on the " Official List of Generic Names in Zoology " by Opinion
104), a synonym of Xiphosura Briinnich, 1771 : Secretary
asked to Report on situation so disclosed 311

G. Oithoceros Briinnich, 1771 : decision on, postponed, pending further

consultation with palaeontologists . . . . . . . . 312

7. Mamtus Briinnich, 1771. Rosmarus Briinnich, 1771, and Ammonia

Briinnich, 1771 : Secretary asked to report on . . . . 313

8. Brisson, 1762, Reg num Aniinale (status of generic names published

in) : consideration of, postponed. . . . . . . . . . 313

9. Hyaem Brisson, 1762, Lutra Brisson, 1762, and Meles Brisson, 1762 :

postponement of proposal for addition to the " Official List
of Generic Names in Zoology," pending decision on status
of Brisson's Regnum Animale under Proviso [b) to Article 25 314

10. Clerck, 1757, Arami svecici (status for nomenclatorial purposes of

names published in) : discussion on, concluded and names
vrtlulated by iidditioii of a proviso to Article 26 of the Regies 315

11. mihanm Meckel von Hemsbai-h, 1856, suppressed, and Sddstosonia

Wemland, 1858 (Class Trematoda) validated, under the
plenary powers ...... oin

Twelfth Meeting {continued) Page

12. Miscellaneou.s proposals for the amendment or clarification of the

Regies : fifth instalment to lie considered item by iteni . . 323

13. New Article on the plenary powers of the Commission : insertion

in, of provision regarding use of, in relation to particular
purposes . . . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . 323

14. New Article on the plenary powers of the Commission : insertion

in, of provisions regarding application of, to cases of doul)t
arising from impossibility of determining the species to which
a given trivial name should apply . . . . . . . . 324

15. New Article, insertion of, relating to composition of the Com-
mission

325

IG. New Article, insertion of, relating to the By-Laws of the Com-
mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327

17. Article 28 (relative merits of the " first reviser " and " page

precedence " principles) : Report by Secretary considered and
amendment of Article 28 agreed . . . . . . . . 328

18. New Article on the plenary powers : supplementary provisions

relating to procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

19. New Schedule, insertion of, in the Regies, to record decisions in

regard to individual books or names taken by the Commission
otherwise than under their plenary powers . . . . . . 332

20. New Schedule or Schedules, insertion of. in the Regies, containing

the " Official List of Generic Names in Zoology " and
" Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology "
and corresponding ■' ODScial Indexes of Rejected and
Invalid Names " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333

21. Cancellation and amendment of certain Opinions already published

prior to incorporation in Schedules to the Regies . . . . 335

22. Opinions 31, 68, 69, 78, 99, 129 : supplementary decisions in

regard to . . . . . . . . 337

23. New Article on the plenary powers, insertion in, of a drafting

amendment regarding procedure to be followed when names are
suppressed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338

24. Schedules to the Regies : procedure to be followed in the transfer

thereto of decisions recorded in Opinions rendered by the
Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339

Twelftli Meeting {continued) ^^'W

25. New Schedule containing the " Official List of Generic Names in

Zoology " ; gender of generic names in, to be specified . . 341

26. Revision of the Begles by the Paris Congress ; arrangements

to be made for early promulgation and entry into force . . 341

27. Miscellaneous proposals for the amendment or clarification of the

Regies : sixth instahnent to be considered item by item . . 342

28. .\rticle 35 : status of the later published of two identical trivial

names where two species having that name are placed in
different genera which, through the accident of undetected
homonvmy, bear the same generic name ; previous decision
relating to, reversed . . . . . . . . . ■ . . 343

29. Article 25, Proviso (o) : the expression " indication " in relation to

generic and trivial names ; amplification of previous decision
relating to . . . . . . . . . . . ■ • ■ • • 345

30. Article 30 : species eUgible for selection as the type species of a

genus where no nominal species was distinctly referred to the
genus by its original author, amplification of previous
decision relating to . . • • 346

31. Article 30 : clarification of certain ambiguities in 346

32. Article 25 : subspecific trivial names where, on being first published.

preceded bv a serial letter or bv a serial mimeral, position of,
defined ' ' 348

33. Revision of the Regies by the Paris Congress : date of entry

into force . . . . . . . . . . . . 348

34. Article 34 and Opinion 116 : generic names differing from one

another only by the terminations " -nus " and " -mus ", position

as regards homonvmy defined . . . . . . . . 349

35. Article 25 : status of a name first pubHshed in a work rejected for

nomenclatorial purposes, amplification of previous decision
regarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350

36. Article 25 : status of a generic name when first published in a

specific synonymy, clarification of position of . . . . . . 350

37. Article 30 : question of the type species of a genus, the name of

which was first published in a generic synonymy, comprehensive
Report by Secretary asked for . , . . . . , , , . 351

Twelfth Meeting (continued) Page

38. Thirteenth Meeting of the Commission during its Paris Session :

time appointed . . . . . . . . . . * . . . 352

CONCLUSIONS of the Thirteenth Meeting of the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature held at the Sorbonne in the
Amphitheatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July, 1948 at 1730 hours.

[Meeting lield concurrently with the Fifth Meeting)
of the Section on, Notn^nclature)

1. Eight individual problems of nomenclature raised in Commission

Paper I. C. (48)19 : proposals relating to, to be discussed item

by item 354

2. Opinions rendered without including an answer to all the points

raised : arrangements for completion of . . . . . . 355

3. Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera)

to be added to the " Official List of Generic Names in Zoology "
(decision completing Opinion 82) . . . . . . . . 355

4. M (thuya Fitzinger, 182G (Class Ileptilia), amendment in the

■ Official List of Generic Nnmes in Zoology " of entry relating
to (correction of error in Opinion 92) . . . . . . . . 356

5. Porina Walker. 1856 (Class Lisecta. Order Lepidoptera) : proposed

validation of, under the Conmiission's plenary powers,
rejected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356

6. Fkbotomus Rondani, 1840 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) : emenda-

tion to Phlehotomus under the plenary powers. . . . . . 358

7. Papilio plexippus Linnaeus. 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Lepi-
doptera) : determination of identity of, imder the plenary
powers

359

8. Colynibus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class .A.ves). type species of: Secretary

to furnish Report on. and decision to be taken thereon with
minimum of further delay .. .. .. .. .. 361

9. Individual nomendatorial problems involving controversial,

though not necessarily difficult, issues : need for avoidance

of unnecessary delays in reaching decisions regarding . . 363

10. Linnaean binominal system of nomenclature not available for
nomenclature of monsters : names published for such purposes
to have no status in zoological nomenclature . . . . . . 363

Thirteenth Meeting (continued) Page

11. AppHcations relating to indi\'idual problems of nomenclature :

cases published in the " Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature "

to have priority of consideration . . . . . . . . 364

12. Part 5 of Volume I of the " Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature " :

appHcations pubUshed in, to be considered in turn . . . . 364

13. Oken, 1815-1816. Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte, status of new

names published in, consideration postponed for additional
information to be obtained . . . . . . . . . . 365

14. Geoffroy (E. L.), 1762, Hist. Ins. Env. Paris : new names published

in, declared not available under the Regies . . . . . . 366

15. Corixa Geoffroy, 1762 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) : validation

of, and designation of type species of, under the plenary powers 369

16. Naucoris Geoffroy, 1762 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) : question

of validation of, under the plenary powers postponed for
additional information to be obtained . . . . . . . . 370

17. " Buprestidae," a pamphlet believed to have been written by F. W.

Hope and distributed in 1836 : declared not pubhshed within

the meaning of Article 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . 371

18. Part 8 of Volume I of the '" Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature " :

apphcations published in. to be considered in turn . . . . 372

19. Koch (C.L.), 1835-1842. DeutscJdands Crustaceen, Myriapoden und

Arachniden : definition of species eligible for selection as type
species of genera first named in . . . . . . . . . . 372

20. Diaptomus vulgaris Schmeil, 1897 (Class Crustacea, Order Cope-

poda) : validation, under the plenary powers, of the tri^'ial
name vidgaris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375

21 . The generic name Graptolithus Linnaeus. 1768, and the specific name

Graptolithus scalaris Linnaeus, 1768 (Class GraptoUthina, Order
Graptolmdea) : suppression of, under the plenary powers . . 377

22. Monograptus (emend, of Monograpsus) Geinitz, 1852 (Class Grapto-

lithina. Order Graptoloidea) : validation of, under the plenary
powers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378

23. Retiolites Barrande, 1850 (Class Graptolithina, Order Graptoloidea) :

validation of, under the plenary powers . . . . 378

24. I>iplodinium Schuberg, 1888 (Class CiUophora) : trivial name of

type species of, determined . . . . . . . . 379

Thirteenth Meeting (continued) Pnge

25. Aspidoproctus Newstead [April] 1901 (Class Insecta, Order Heniip-

tera) : addition of, to the " Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology " 381

26. Article 25 : a specific name based upon a specimen which is un-

described but which formed part of the type series of a
previously described species, declared not to satisfy Proviso (a) 382

27. Diademu Gray, 1825 (Class Echinoidea) : validation of, and

designation of type species of, under the plenary powers . . .383

28. Orders and higher taxonomic units (problem of obtaining uniformity

in nomenclatm-e of) : Secretary invited to prepare a compre-
hensive Report on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335

29. Fasciola ovata Rudolphi, 1803 (Class Trematoda, Order Digenea), a

composite nominal species : action by Braun when determining
taxonomic identity of, declared correct under Article 31 . . 386

30. Petalifera Gray, 1847. and AplysieUa Fischer. 1872 (Class Gastro-

poda) : relative status of . . . . . . . . . . 337

31. Acme Hartmann, 1821, Acmea Hartmanu, 1821, and Acmaea

Eschscholtz, 1830 (Class Gastropoda) : relationship to one
another under Article 34 determined ; specialists to be
consulted about possible use of plenary powers . . . . 389

32. Ammonites conlatus Sowerby. 1813 (Class Cephalopoda, Order

Ammonoidea) : designation of lectotype of. under the plenary
powers ■ . . 392

33. Actinote Hiibner [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) :

designation of type species of, under the plenary powers . . 393

34. Hemerohius Linnaeus, 1758, and Chrysopa Leach, 1815 (Class

Insecta, Order Neuroptera) : designation of type species of,
under the plenary powers . . . . . . . . 395

35. Articles 34 and 35 : position of a nomen duhiutn in relation to

generic and specific homonymy defined 397

36. PalaeaneUo Hall, 1869 (Class Pelecypoda) : emendation of, to

Palaeotieilo under Article 19 . . . . . . . . 399

37. Part 9 of Volume I of the Bulktin of Zoological Notnenclature :

applications published in, to be considered in turn . . . . 400

Thirteenth Meetin<; (co)iliinie(I) Page

38. Article 5 : position when the type genus of a family is united wnth

another genus having an older name and the combined genus
is treated as belonging to the same family as a third genus,
having an older name than either of the other genera, problem
of, to be dealt with in Keport to be prepared by Secretary . . 401

39. Pallas (P. S.), Zoographia rosso-asiatica : dates of publication of the

several volumes of, determined . . . . . . . . . . 402

40. Ckwellurius Olivier, 1789 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) :

suppression of, imder the plenary powers (decision supple-
mentary to Opinion 144) . . . . . . . . . . . . 403

41. Bombus Latreille, 1802 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) :

validation of, under the plenary powers, in so far as necessary 404

42. Ceraiina Latreille [1802-1803], and Diodontus Curtis, 1834 (Class

Insecta, Order Hymenoptera, application for use of plenary
powers for : consideration postponed for additional informa-
tion to be obtained . . . . . . . . . . . . 407

43. Formica Linnaeus, 1758, and Camponotus Mayr, 1861 (Class Insecta,

Order Hymenoptera) : addition of, to the " Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology " . . . . . . . . 408

44. Gorytes Latreille [Sept., 1804], - Harpactus Shuckard, 1837,

Macropis Panzer [1806-1809] (Class Insecta, Order Hymen-
optera), applications for use of plenary powers for : considera-
tion postponed for additional information to be obtained . . 410

45. MegachilehabtTeiWe, 1802 (Class Insecta. Order Hymenoptera) : type

species of, determined .. .. .. .. 411

46. Seven generic names in the Order Hymenoptera (Class Insecta),

applications for use of plenary powers for : consideration
postponed for additional information to be obtained . . . . 413

47. Two species of the Order Hymenoptera (Class Insecta), proposed

use of the plenary powers to conserve the trivial names in
common use for : consideration postponed for additional
information to be obtained .. .. .. 416

48. Erycina Lamarck, 1805 (Class Pelecypoda) : designation of type

species of, under the plenary powers . . . . 417

49. Gesner, 1758, Tractatus physicus de petrificatis : suppression of, for

nomenclatorial purpo.ses. under the plenary powers . . . . 418

Thirteenth Meeting {continued) Page

50. Liodes Heyden, 1826 (Class Axachnida, Order Acarina) : to be

rejected as a homonym of Leiodes Latreille, 1796 (Class
Insecta, Order Coleoptera) . . . . . . . . 420

51. Report to the Congress on the work performed during the Paris

Session : two supplementary points submitted to the Section

on Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . 421

52. Fourteenth Meeting of the Commission during its Paris Session :

time appointed . . . . . . . . . . . . 424

CONCLUSIONS of the Fourteenth Meeting of the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature held at the Sorbonne in the
Amphitheatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July, 1948 at 2030 hours.

{Meeting field concurrently with the Sixth Meeting
of the Section on Noinenclatitre)

1. Part 10 of Volume I of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomencluture :

appHcations published in, to be considered in turn . . 425

2. Raphistonia Rafinesque, 1815, and Belone Oken, 1815 (Class Pisces,

Order Synentognathi) suppressed, and Raphistoinu Hall, 1847
(Class Gastropoda) and Belone Cuvier, 1817 (Class Pisces,
Order Synentognathi) \'a1idated. under the plenary powers 426

3. Teleosteus Volger, 1860, and the trivial name primaevus Volger,

1860 (as published in the binominal combination Teleosteus
prinmevus) : suppression of. under the plenary powers . . 428

4. The trivial name mcfarlandi (as pubUshed in the binominal

combination Chromodoris mcfarlandi) (Class Gastropoda, Order
Opisthobranchia) : emendation of, to macfarlandi under
Article 19 . . 430

5. The species commonly treated as having been named Piroplasnia

annulatum by Dschunkowsky & Luhs in 1904 (Class Sporozoa,
Order Coccidiida). identity of : consideration postponed for
further information to be obtained regarding date of publication 431

6. Tremataspis Schmidt, 1866 (a genus based upon a misidentified type

species) (Class Cephalaspidomorphi, Order Osteostraci) : desig-
nation of type species of, under the plenary powers . . . . 433

Fourteenth Meeting {continued) ^«9«

7. Anmiia pecten Linnaeus. 1758 : identification of, under the plenary

powers, with the species of the Class Brachiopoda (Order
Protremata) commonly known as Strophomena pecten
(Linnaeus, 1758) .. " 435

8. Chinchilla Bennett, 1829 (Class Mammalia, Order Rodentia),

question of type species of : consideration postponed for
additional information to be obtained . . . . . . . . 438

9. Aturoidea, a term applied by Vredenberg (1925) to a " section '' of

the genus Nautilus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Cephalopoda, Order
Nautiloidea) : declared to be of subgeneric status as from
date of being so pubUshed . . . . . . . . . . 441

10. Bradycellus Erichson, 1837 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera),

proposed use of the plenary powers for : consideration
postponed for additional information to be obtained . . . . 443

11. Carabus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Lisecta, Order Coleoptera) :

designation of type species of, under the plenary powers . . 445

12. Harpalus La.tTei\\e[l802-180^ and Ophonus Stephens, 1827, Lebia

Latreille [1802-1803], Tachys Stephens, 1828, and Trechus
Schellenberg, 1806 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), applica-
tion for the use of the plenary powers for : consideration
postponed for additional information to be obtained . . . . 446

13. Part 11 of Volume I of the Bulletin of Zoological Nonienclature :

applications published in, to be considered in turn . . . . 448

14. Dinornis novaezealandiae Owen, 1842 (Class Aves, Order Dinorni-

formes) : determination of lectotype of. under Article 31 . . 448

15. Martin (W.), 1793, Fig. Descr. Petrif. Derbtjshire, and 1809,

Petrificata Derbiensia : declared not available for nomencla-
torial purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450

16. Twelve generic names in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Lisecta),

published in 1807 by Fabricius and Illiger in different senses :
suppression imder the plenary powers of the names so
published by Illiger . . . . 452

17. H yg r iobia LairniWi^, 1804 (Cla.ss Insecta, Order Coleoptera): emenda-

tion of, to Hygrobin under Article 19 . . . . 459

18. Schtvagerimi von MoUer, 1877 (Class Rhizopoda, Order Foramini-

fera) : determination of type species of . , . . . . 461

Fourteenth Meetiu};; (coniiitued) Pcy^

19. Alydus Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) validated,
and Cnriscus Schrank, 1796, suppressed, under the plenary
powers

464

20. ^alda Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) : designa-

tion of type species of, under the plenary powers . . . . 467

21. Names of ten genera in the Order Hemiptera (Class Insecta), based

upon misidentified type species : (1) type species of Gastrodes
Westwood, 1840, designated under the plenary powers ; (2)
type species of remaining genera similarly designated con-
ditionally 469

22. Certain applications not yet published in the Bulletin of Zoological

Nomenclature : the Commission's files relating to, to be
examined in turn . . . . . . . . . . • • • • 474

23. The trivial name idas Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal

combination Papilio idas) suppressed, and the trivial name
idas Linnaeus, 1761 (as published in the binominal combination
Papilio idas) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) validated, and
its application defined, under the plenary powers, and matters
incidental thereto . . . . . . . . . . • • • • 475

24. Six generic names in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) placed

on the " Official List of Generic Names in Zoology " and three
generic names in the same Order placed on the " Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology " . . 480

25. The " Hildesheim List [1839] " : suppression of, for nonienclatorial

l)urposes, under the plenary powers . . . . . . . . 486

26. Hiibner (J.) [1806], Tentamen : (1) the valid names of the genera

for certain of the species cited in, placed on the " Ofl&cial List
of Generic Names in Zoology " ; (2) procedure to be adopted
for determining the valid generic names for the remaining
species cited in . . . . . . . . . . . . ■ . 488

27. Papilio podalirius Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Lepi-

doptera) : identity of, determined under the plenary powers . . 497

28. Article 31, need for elaboration of. to cover certain special cases :

Secretary invited to prepare a compreliensive Report on 499

29. Meuschen's Index to Gronovius, 1763-1781, Zoophylacium Grono-

viamim : rejection of, for nonienclatorial ])ur]>osos . . . . 502

Fourteeuth Meetiug {continued)

30. Podura Linnaeus, 1758, and Totmceios Nicolet. 1842 (Class

Insecta, Order CoUembola) : designation of type species of,
under the plenary powers ; Podura Linnaeus, 1758, cor-
rection in " Official List of Generic Names in Zoology " of
entry relating to . . . . . . •'^•4

31. Amply plerm Hiibner [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) .■

determination of type species of . . . . . . . - 507

32. Phylum Echinodermata : eight applications for the use of the

plenary powers to validate accepted nomenclatorial usage
submitted by Commissioner Th. Mortensen (Denmark), pre-
liminary considerations relating to . . 509

33. Echinocrinm Agassiz, 1841 (Cla.ss Echinoidea. Order Cidaroida),

proposed suppression of, and Archaeocidans M'Coy, 1844,
proposed validation of. under the plenary powers : considera-
tion postponed for additional information to be obtained . . 514

34. Echinocyumus van Phelsum. 1774, and Fibulana Lamarck, 1816

(Class Echinoidea, Order Clypeastroida) : designation of type
species of, under the plenary powers . . . . . . . . 516

35. Phyllacanthus (Class Echinoidea, Order Cidaroida) and Strongylo-

centrotus (Class Echinoidea. Order Camarodonta) validated as
of subgeneric .status as from Brandt, 1835, under the plenary
powers

519

36. Spatanyus Gray, 1825, Ova Gray, 1825, Schimster Agassiz [1836],

Ecliinocardium Gray, 1825, Moira Agassiz, 1872, and Brissus
Gray, 1825 (Class Echinoidea. Order Spatangoida) : validation
of current nomenclatorial practice in regard to. under the
plenary powers . . . . . . . . • • • • 522

37. Arachnoides Leske. 1778, and Echinorachnius Gray, 1825 (Class

Echinoidea) validated under the plenary powers, and, with
Echinodiscus Leske, 1778 (Class Echinoidea) placed on the
■■ Official List of Genetic Names in Zoology " . . . . . . 530

38. Erheiiet.s Linnaeus. 1758 (Class Pisces. Order DiscocephaU).

designation of tyj)e species of, under the plenary powers ; the
l)osition oiEcheneis Linnaeus on the " Official List " confirmed,
and Rewora Gill, 1862 (Class Pi.sces, Order DiscocephaU) added
thereto 536

39. Papilio irin Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) :

i(l.>ntit\- nf ,l..termined under the plenary powers .. .. 540

Fourteenth Meeting (continued) Page

40. The trivial names ascanius Linnaeus, 1768 (as published, in the

binominal combination Pdpilio ascanius) and aristolochiae
Pallas (as published in the binominal combination Papilio
aristolochiae), in so far as published prior to 1780, suppressed,
and the trivial names aristolochiae Fabricius, 1775 (as
publishetl in the binominal combination Papilio aristolochiae)
and ascanius Cramer [1775] (as published in the binominal
combination Papilio ascanius) (Class Insecta, Order
Lepidoptera) validated, under the plenary powers . . . . 542

41. Zimmermann (A. E. W. von). 1777, S])ecimen Zoologiae geographicae,

declared not available for nomenclatorial purposes ; Zimmer-
mann, 1778-1783, Geographische Geschichte declared an
available work . . . . . . . . . . . . 545

42. Frisch (J. L.), 1775. Das Nalur-System der vierfussigen Thiere :

declared not available for nomenclatorial purposes . . . . 548

43. Dama Zimmermann, 1780, and the specific name Dama virginiana

Zimmermann, 1780 (Class Mammalia, Order Ungulata) :
consideration of status of, postponed for additional information
to be obtained . . . . . . . . . . , , _ _ 549

44. Meigen (J. G.), 1800, Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a deux

Ailes (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) : (1) Report by the
Secretary regarding ; (2) future procedure on, determined . . 552

45. Individual problems of zoological nomenclature on which decisions

had been taken during the present (14th) Meeting of the
Commission : Report on, to be submitted to the Section on
Nomenclature . . . . . . . . 559

46. Re-issues of Opinions 1-16 : examination (1) of conuuents on

interpretations of the Regies given in, and (2) of certain
proposals for further action submitted either in " Editorial
Notes " attached to, or in footnotes added to 560

47. Article 25 : question whether, when an author, on publishing a

manuscript name or republishing with an indication a name
previously published as a nomen nudum, omits expressly to
state that he is so doing, that omission is material to the
status of the name so published or repubhshed, clarification of
position regarding . . . . . . . . . . 562

48. Article 25 : publication of names which had previously existed as

manuscript names and republication of names previously
pubhshed only as nominxx nuda, addition of a Recommandalion
condemning . . . . . . . . _ _ _ 5^3

Fourteenth Meetiug {continued) P(vge

49. Article 21 : authorship of names and the method to be adopted in
citing authors' names, supplementary provisions adopted
regarding . . . . . . • • • • 564

no. Nozeman & Vosmaer, 1758, Gesluchten der Vogelen (a translation
into Dutch of a work by Moehring entitled Avium Genera,
pubUshed in 1752) : declared not available for nomenclatorial
purposes . . . . . . . . . . ■ . ■ • ■ ■ 566

51. Edwards' edition (1771) of Catesby (M.), Natural History of

Carolina (status of names in) : clarification of decision in
Opinion 89 relating to . . . . . . . . . . . . 568

52. Meuschen (F. C), 1778, Museum Gronovianuni, : declared not

available for nomenclatorial purposes . . . . . . . . 571

53. Sand Crab (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) : (1) the trivial name

quadratus Fabricius, 1787 (as published in the binominal
combination Cancer quadratus) the oldest available trivial name
for ; (2) Opinion 13 to be cancelled as incorrect ; (3) a revised
Opinion to be rendered when views of specialists obtained on
action desirable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573

54. Opinion 16, certain generic names discussed in, placed on the

" Official List of Generic Names in Zoology " . . . . . . 580

55. Taenia Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Cestoidea) : use of the plenary

powers (1) to designate Taenia solium Linnaeus, 1758, as the
type species of. and (2) to validate an erroneus entry relating
to, in the " Official List of Generic Names in Zoology "
(correction of an error in Opinion 84) . . . . . . . . 584

56. Schneider (J. G.), 1784, Samwl. Abhandl. Aufkldr. Zoologie Harul-

hmgsgeschichle : (1) suppression under the plenary powers of
the generic name Octopodia Schneider, 1784, and of five
trivial names published in that genus ; (2) eight reputed
generic names declared to be cheironyms ; (3) Octopus Cuvier
[1797], and Eledone Leach, 1817, placed on the " Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology " . . . . . . . . . . 586

57. Opinions already published (individual questions of zoological

nomenclature arising in) : Report to Section on Nomenclature

on conclusifHiS reached l)y the (Commission in regard to . . 590

58. Opinions 1-133 : arrangements to be made for publication of

Jac.simik edition of . . . . 591

Fourteenth Meeting {continued) Page

59. Human malaria parasites, generic and trivial names of : (1) use of

the plenary powers to validate existhig nomenclatorial
practice ; (2) cancellation of erroneous decisions regarding, in
Opinion 104 ; (3) insertion of amended particulars in the
■ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology " and matters
incidental thereto . . . . . . . . . . . . 594

60. Article 14(l)(a) : a term consisting of an adjective denoting a sub-

species or infra-subspecific form of a species, whose trivial name
is a noun in the genitive case, declared not to acf|uire status
as a subspecific or infra-subspecific trivial name, if published
in grammatical agreement, not with the generic name, but
with the trivial name of the species, either expressed or
understood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624

61. " Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology " : clarification

of scope of, in certain respects . . . . . . . . . . 625

62. Editorial Committee charged with the duty of editing the revised

text of the Regies : proposals submitted to the Section on
Nomenclature in regard to the composition of . . . . . . 628

63. Report to the Congress on work performed by the Commission

during the Paris Session : concluding instalment submitted to
Section on Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . 630

64. Decisions taken by the Commission in " Opinions " and other

pubUcations (method to be adopted for recording of) : con-
sideration of Resolution regarding, submitted on behalf of the
Committee on Nomenclature of the Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C 632

65. Minutes of the Meetings of the Commission during its Paris Session :

arrangements to be made for finalising the text of . . . . 640

66. Thanks of the Commission to those members of the Congress who

had served as Alternate Members of the Commission during

its Paris Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 644

67. Rising Vote of Thanks to Commissioner Francis Hemming for his

services as Secretary to the Commission and as Acting
President of the Commission during its Paris Session . . . . 645

68. Vote of Thanks to the Secretary-General of the Congress and to the

Authorities of the Congress generally . . . . . . . . 647

69. Close of the Proceedings of the Commission at its Paris Session . . 648

Fifteenth Meeting {continued) Po^

NOTE OF A DECISION taken at an Infornaal (Fifteenth) Meeting of the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature held at
the Hotel Lutetia, Paris, at the conclusion of the Final Banquet
of the Congress on Tuesday, 27th July, 1948 at 2215 hours.

1. Comniuni<iue on the work of the Commissiou during the Thirteenth
Internationa] Congress of Zoology to he issued to the Scientific
Press of the World : approval of terms of 649

Index ^^^

Note on dates of publication of the several portions of the
present volume.

Vol. 4 c^*

VOLUME 4. Parts 1/3 21st April, 1950

pp. T.P.— L, 1—62

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
^KStO NOMENCLATURE

A 3 ♦ 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.

CONpNTS :

Title Page ; Thanks to U.N.E.S.C.O. ; Composition of the Page

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ; Note
by the President of the Section on Nomenclature of the
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, July
1948, on the date of entry into force of the amendments to the
Regies decided upon by the Congress ; Particulars of the
Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners present at the
Paris Session and of the other members of the Congress who
attended the meetings of the International Commission ;
Note by the Secretary to the Commission on the Class and
Ordinal names used in the Official Record of the Proceedings
of the Commission at its Paris Session ; Certification of the
text of the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commis-
sion at its Paris Session ; Table of Contents TP. — L

The Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission

on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in July Half-

1948 : Conclusions of First, Second and Third Meetings and Title,
first instalment of Conclusions of Fourth Meeting 1-62

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological

Nomenclature on instructions received from the Thirteenth

International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948,

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.

1950

Pries One pound, «jy^|t shillings.

(All rights reserved)

THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION

ON

ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

AT THEIR SESSION

HELD IN
PARIS IN JULY, 1948

Vol i D

( 1 )

THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL

NOMENCLATURE AT THEIR SESSION HELD IN PARIS

21st— 27th JULY, 1948

(prepared by Secretary Francis He.mmiiig at the request of the Inle.rnaiional Cotumisswn
on Zoological Xomenclature)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Session held during the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoologij,
Paris, -list-nth Jidij. 1948

CONCLUSIONS of the First Meeting held at the Sorbonne in the Ampitheatre Louis-Liard
on Wednesday, 21st July, 1948 at 1430 hours

PRESENT :

Mr. Francis Heinniiiig (United Kingdom) {Secretary to the

Conimission) {Acting President)
Professor H. Boscluna (Netherlands)
Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.)
Professor Lodovico di Caporiacco (Italy)

Absence of the
President and Vice-
President
and assumption of
the Acting
Presidency by the
Secretary

1. THE SECRETARY (COMMISSIONER FRANCIS
HEMMING) informed the Commission that he had two
communications to make, both of which would, he felt sure,
be a source of great regret to all the Commissioners present :
first, he had been informed by President Karl Jordan that
he would unfortunately be unable to attend the present
session of the Commission, the fact that he was now totally
deaf making it impossible for him to take part in oral
discussions ; second, he had received a cable from Vice-
President James L. Peters expressing his regret that
circumstances made it impossible for him to be present.
In the absence of the two senior officers of the Commission,
it would therefore fall to hmi (Secretary Hemming) to
officiate as Acting President during the Paris Session of
the Commission.

THE COMMISSION :—

(1) took not* with great regret that neither the
President (owing to total deafness) nor the Vice-
Pre.sident of the Commission would be able to be
present at the Paris Session of the Commission ;

(2) took note that Commissioner Francis Hemming,
as Secretary to the Commission, would, in the
absence of the President and the Vice-President,
officiate as Acting President of the Commission
during the Session of meetings to be held in Paris.

VUL. -4 IJ'

International Commission on Zoological Nonienclatun

Apologies for
absence received
from Commissioner
Paul Rode (France)

2. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) reported that he had been informed by their
colleague. Commissioner Paul Rode (France), that, much
to his regret, his duties as an officer of another Section
of the Congress would make it difficult for him to attend
the meetings of the Commission during its present Session.

CoTnmissioners
present at the Paris
Session

THE COMMISSION :—
took note of the above statement.

3. THE COMMISSION :—

took note that, owing to the high cost of foreign travel,
the difficulty in many cases of obtaining foreign
exchange and similar causes, it had been possible for
only the five undermentioned members of the Com-
mission to attend the Paris Congress and therefore
to take part in the present Session of meetings of the
Commission : —

Professor H. BOSCHMA (Netherlands)
Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.)
Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy)
:\lr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secre-
tary to the Commission)
Dr. Paul RODE (France).

Resignation of
Commissioner
Th. Mortensen
(Denmark) on
account of ill-health

4. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) reported that Commissioner Th. Mortensen
(Denmark) had had every intention of attending the
present meeting and had l)een keenly looking forward
to doing so. Unfortunately, on the advice of his medical
attendants, he had had regretfully to cancel his proposed
visit to Paris. In the letter announcing this decision,
Commissioner Mortensen had asked also to be relieved
from further service as a member of the Commission, in
order that he might devote the whole of his time and
energies to the completion of his monograph of the
Echinoidea. All the members of the Commission, as also
Dr. iMortensen's many other friends and admirers among
the zoologists attending the present Congress, would deeply
regret the circumstances responsible for Dr. Mortensen's
decision. For the Commission Dr. Mortensen's absence
and his prospective retirement from the Office of Com-
missioner was a keen personal loss. He (the Acting
President) felt sure that the members of the Conmiission
would wish him on their behalf to convey to Dr. Mortensen
their deep regret at the reasons which made it impossible
for him to be present and their sympathy and good wishes.

1st Meeting, Paris. July, 1918.

(Later reference:
Paris Session,
■ilh Meeting,
Conclusion -(«))

Commissioners
absent from Paris
and unable to attend
the Session thereat

(Previous references:
Paris Session,
1st Meeting,
Conclusions. 1 and 4)

Appointment of
certain members of
the Congress to be
Alternate Members
of the Commission
for the duration of
the Paris Session

THE COMMISSION :—

took note with great regret of thxe reasons whicli
made it impossible for Commissioner Mortensen
(Denmark) to attend the present meeting and invited
the Acting President to telegraph to Dr. Mortensen
expressing their sympathy and good wishes.

5. THE COMMISSION :—

took note that, in addition to President Jordan, Vice-
President Peters and Commissioner Th. 3Iortensen,
the reasons for whose absence had already been
reported, the undermentioned ten members of the
Commission had been prevented from attending the
present meeting by such causes as the difficulty of
obtaining passages, the high cost of foreign travel,
and the difficulty in many cases of obtaining the
requisite foreign exchange : —

Senhor Afranio do Amaral (Brazil)
Senor Angel Cabrera (Argentina)
Dr. W. T. Caiman (United Kingdom)
Professor J. R. D\anond (Canada)
Professor Teiso Esaki (Japan)
Professor Bela Hanko (Hungarv)
Dr. Joseph Pearson (Australia)
Professor Paidolf Richter (Germanv)
Dr. Norman R. Stoll (U.S.A.)
Professor Harold E. Yokes (U.S.A.)

6. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) recalled that, in accordance with the pro-
cedure approved by the Ninth International Congress of
Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in 1913 and confirmed
l:»y subsequent meetings of the Congress, it was the duty of
the Commission to complete its membership during Sessions
held concurrently with meetings of the International Con-
gress of Zoology by inviting representative zoologists who
were attending the Congress to serve during that period as
Alternate Members of the Commission with full voting
rights, in place of those members of the Commission who
were unable to be present at the Congress concerned. The
Acting President then outlined the informal discussions to
this end which, following precedent, had taken place prior
to the opening of the present Congress.

THE COMMISSION :—

(1) took note of, and approved, the arrangements
provisionally made for the undermeiitioned

Inlernational Commusion on Zoological Nomenclature.

members of the Thirteenth International Congress
of Zoology to be invited to act as Alternate
Members of the Commission with full voting
rights during the Session of the Commission to be
held in Paris concurrentlv with the present
meeting of the Congress : —

Dr. Edward HINDLE (United Kingdom) vice.
President Karl Jordan (United Kingdom) ;
Professor Arthur Ricardo JORGE (Portugal) vice
Commissioner Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) ;
Professor Harold KIRBY (U.S.A.) vice Com-
missioner Norman R. StoU (U.S.A.) ;
Professor Z. P. METCALF (U.S.A.) mce Vice-
President James L. Peters (U.S.A.) ;
Mr. Norman D. RILEY (United Kingdom) vice
Commissioner W. T. Caiman (United Kingdom) ;

Professor R. SPARCK (Denmark) vice Com-
missioner Th. Mortensen (Denmark) ;
Professor V. van STRAELEN (Belgium) vice
Commissioner Rudolf Richter (Germany) ;
Professor Robert L. USINGER (U.S.A.) vice
Commissioner Harold E. Yokes (U.S.A.) ;

(2) authorised the Acting President, in consultation
with the Comite Permanent des Congres Inter-
nationaux de Zoologie, to approach four other
zoologists with a view to their serving as Alternate
Members of the Commission during the present
Session in the place of Commissioners Cabrera,
Dymond, Hanko and Pearson, the zoologists to
be so approached to be nationals of countries not
at present represented on the Commission.

Arrangements for 7, THE COMMISSION :—

meetings dun
Paris Session

meetings during the ""^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^-^^^ ^l^^j^ present Session their

meetmgs should be held in public and that any
member of the Congress should be free to take
part in their discussions and invited the Acting
President to place a notice to this effect on the
Bulletin Board of the Congress ;

(2) invited the Acting President of the Connnission
to make such arrangements for joint meetings
of the Commission and the Section on Nomen-
clature as he, in his capacity of President of the

1st Meeting, Pan's, July, 1 948.

Second meeting of
the Commission
during its
Paris Session :
date and time
appointed

Section, might consider best calculated {<i promote
the smooth, rapid and efficient conduct of the
business to be dealt with by the Commission and
the Section.

8. THE COMMISSION agreed :—

to terminate the present meeting and to meet again
forthwith in public, with the Alternate Members
of the Commission in their places.

{The Commission thereupon axljourned at 1440 hours)

( 6 )

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Session held during the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology,
Paris, 2lst-27th Juhj, 1948

CONCLUSIONS of the Second Meeting held at the Sorbonne in the Amphitheatre
Louis-Liard on Wednesday, 21st July, 1948 at 1440 hours

PRESENT

Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) {Acting President)

Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands)

Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.)

Professor L. di Caporiacco (Italy)

Dr. E. Hindle (United Kingdom)

Professor Harold Kirby (U.S.A.)

Professor Z. P. Metcalf (U.S.A.)

Mr. N. D. Riley (United Kingdom)

Professor R. Sparck (Denmark)

Professor V. van Straelen (Belgium)

Professor Robert L. Usinger (U.S.A.)

The following were also present :

M. Belloc (France)
Professor E. Beltran (Mexico)
Professor P. Bonnet (France)
M. Andre Chavan (France)
Professor Ernest N. Cory (U.S.A.)
M. G. V. Deflandre (France)
Mr. Jean Delacour (U.S.A.)
Professor A. Ghigi (Italy)
M. H. Gisin (Switzerland)
Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark)
Professor Kamel Mansour (Egypt)
Mr. R. Winckworth (United Kingdom)

Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming, Personal Assistant to the Secrelary
Miss J. H. Shorey, Acting Documents Officer

Official Languages 1. THE COMMISSION:—

at the Paris Session

(1) recalled that, although the Official Language
of the Regies Internationales de la Nonienclattirc
Zoologique was the French language, the Official
Language of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature was the English lan-
guage ;

(2) agreed that at the present Session of meetings
communications might be made to the Commission
in either English or French,

2)id Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

Procedure to be

followed at the

Paris Session :

suspension

of the By-Laws

and other matters

(Later rejere'nce :
Paris SeasioH. 1 llh
Meetinq. Condnsioii
10)

2. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) recalled that owing to the war no meeting of
the Commission had taken place for 13 years, the last
meeting being that held in Lisbon in 1935 at the time of the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. In consequence
the Commission and the Section on Nomenclature were faced
with an exceptionally heavy agenda for the present meeting.
The Commission were anxious to secure the widest measure
of co-operation with, and assistance from, zoologists attend-
ing the Paris Congress. It was for this reason that the
Commission had decided that all their meetings during the
present Congress should be held in public. This would
enable every member of the Congress who was interested in
zoological nomenclature not only to attend the meetings of
the Commission but also to take an active part in the dis-
cussion of problems brought forward for consideration.
Further, in agreement with the Commission, he (the Acting
President of the Commission) had decided, in his capacity of
President of the Section on Nomenclature, that some of the
meetings of the Commission should be held jointly with
meetings of the Section. This arrangement would secure
important advantages. First, it would give to the members
of the Section a more effective responsibility for the
decisions taken than would otherwise be possible. Second,
it would secure that the best use was made of the limited
amount of time available by eliminating the need for
detailed discussion of every problem first in the Commission
and second in the Section. In order to avoid waste of
time, it was essential also that both the Commission and
the Section should set on one side any procedural forms
which might reduce the scope of, or the rate at which,
business could be transacted. In particular, it would be
necessary for the Commission to suspend for the duration of
the present Session the provision which it had imposed on
itself when in 1910 it had included in its By-Laws an Article
under which proposals affecting the text of the Regies must
have been before the Commission for a period of at least
one year before recommendations thereon could be sub-
mitted to the Congress. Whatever might have been the
merits of this provision at the time when it was adopted
(and proposals for its modification would be submitted later
during the present Session), it was evident that, if the
Commission were to allow itself to be bound by this provision
on the present occasion, it would be impossible for it to
deal with a large part of the urgent and important questions
awaiting its attention. It was evident that zoologists in
general were looking to the Commission to make the best
possible use of the opportunity presented by the present

I nternnlional Commission on Zoological Nomenclakire.

meeting of the Congress and would consider that the Com-
mission had failed in its duty if it were to permit procedural
devices to stultify its action. The task lying before the
Commission and the Section was very heavy ; hard
work, long meetings and close attention to business would
be needed if the comprehensive programme of reforms
before the Commission was to be carried to a
successfid issue and decisions taken on the large number
of individual cases awaiting attention. In view of the
importance of the problems involved and of the clearly
expressed desire of zoologists that the Commission should
in future conduct its business in a prompt and efficient
manner, he was confident that the Commission and the
Section would rise to their responsibilities and would crown
the Paris meeting with success.

THE COMMISSION :—

(1) took note of the need for the closest attention to
business during the Paris Session, in order that
decisions might be taken on the large number of
important questions awaiting consideration ;

(2) agreed that, to facilitate the attainment of the
object specified in (1) above, the By-Laws of the
Commission should be suspended during the Paris
Session.

Deaths of 3. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS

Sn^Tsas*"*" HEMMING) reported that since their meeting held at

Lisbon in 1935 the Commission had lost through death
seven of their colleagues, namely Commissioner H. B.
Fantham ; Commissioner Witmer Stone ; Vice-President
Charles Wardell Stiles ; Commissioner Leonhard Stejneger ;
Commissioner Frederick Chapman ; Commissioner Walther
Arndt ; Commissioner Jacques Pellegrin. Every one of
the colleagues whom the Commission had lost had made a
valuable contribution to its work during his period of office
and the death of each would be deeply regretted. The
Commission would, no doubt, feel an especial sense of loss
at the death in 1941 of Vice-President Stiles who at the
time of his death had served continuously as a member of
the Commission for 45 years, during 38 of which he had held
the Office of Secretary to the Commission ; and of Com-
missioner Stejneger who had served as a member of the
Connnission for 44 years, and by his wide experience and
judicial temperament had made a most notable contribu-
tion to the work of the Commission.

2«^ Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. ^

The Acting President added that Commissioner Arndt
(Germany) lost his Ufe during the war in circumstances
which constituted an ineffaceable outrage against the whole
l)ody of men of science. Denounced to the Gestapo
apparently for no other reason than his intellectual integrity
and his attachment to the conception of co-operation
between men of science, irrespective of nationality. Com-
missioner Arndt was hurriedly arrested in January, 1944,
and shortly afterwards suffered death by the headsman's
axe. The whole Commission would deplore the loss which
they had sustained as the result of this abominable crime and
would emphatically condemn this disgraceful murder.

( The members of the Commission arid other Zoologists

present at this point rose in their places and stood for

two minutes in siknce as a mark of respect to their

deceased colleagues.)

{On resumption)

THE COMMISSION :—

(1) agreed to place on record their sincere regret at
the loss which they had sustained through the
death of Vice-President Stiles and of Com-
missioners Arndt, Chapman, Fantham, Pellegrin,
Stejneger and Stone ;

(2) emphatically condemned the disgraceful murder
of Commissioner Arndt by the Gestapo during the
war and agreed to invite the Congress to record its
detestation of this abominable crime.

Election in 1936 of
Commissioner
Francis Hemming
(United Kingdom)
to be Secretary to
the Commission in
succession to
Commissioner
C.W. Stiles (U.S.A.)

. THE COMMISSION took note :—
that the Office of Secretary to the Commission which
was rendered vacant in 1935 by the resignation of
Commissioner C. W. Stiles (U.S.A.) had been filled
in 1936 by the unanimous election thereto of Com-
missioner Francis Hemming (United Kingdom).

Creation in 1939 of
offices of Vice-
President and
Assistant Secretary
o the Commission
and election thereto
of Commissioners
C.W. Stiles (U.S.A.)
and James L. Peters
(U.S.A.)

5. THE COMMISSION took note :—

(1) that in 1939 two additional Offices had been
created in the Commission, namely the Offices of
Vice-President and Assistant Secretary ;

(2) that at the time of the creation of the foregoing
Offices Commissioner C. W. Stiles (U.S.A.) had
been unanimously elected to be Vice-President

10

International Conrmission mi Zoological Notnenchture.

Constitution of the
Class 1946 in place
of the Class 1937

Assumption by
President Jordan of
extraordinary
powers on behalf of
the Commission
during the war
1939-1945

and Commissioner James L. Peters (U.S.A.) had
been similarly elected to be Assistant Secretary
to the Commission.

6. THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to report to the Congress that, in accordance with
the procedure approved by the Tenth Inter-
national Congress of Zoology at its meeting held
at Budapest in 1927, the Commission had, on the
expiry of the term of service of the Class 1937 : —

(a) constituted the Class 1946 to replace the
Class 1937 ; and had

(b) elected to the Class 1946 the zoologists who
had been members of the Class so replaced,
namely. Professor W. Arndt, Dr. W. T.
Caiman, Professor T. Esaki, Professor B.
Hanko, Dr. T. Jaczewski and Dr. C. W.
Stiles, subject to the confirmation of these
elections at the next meeting of the
Congress ;

(2) to invite the Congress to signify their approval of
the action specified in (1) above.

7. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) recalled that administrative problems of great
difficulty for the Commission had followed the outbreak of
war in Europe in September 1939. As Secretary to the
Commission, he had himself been responsible for the safe
custody of the records of the Commission, for the conduct of
its financial affairs, and generally for ensuring continuity
in the organisation of the Commission until the next
meeting of the Congress. On the other hand, first the
threat of air attack and later actual air attacks on London
and other parts of the United Kingdom created a situation
in which at any time either the President or the Secretary
or both of these Officers might be killed or disabled and the
records of the Commission destroyed. These were clearly
risks which it was necessary should be guarded against, so
far as possible. As Secretary to the Commission, he had
therefore conferred with the President as to the course to
be taken. The situation was such that effective action
could at that time only be taken by officers or members
of the Commission then resident in the United Kingdom,
for officers and members of the Commission resident in
other countries would have been unable at that time to do
anything to protect the records of the Commission and very
little to ensure the continued existence of the Commission

2nd Meeting, Paris; July, 1948. \i

in the event of the death of both the President and
Secretary. The problems which had to be faced were
therefore : —

(1) how to ensure that those duties in relation to the
Commission and its property which at that time
could only be discharged in the United Kingdom
should be duly discharged in the event of the death
or disablement of the President or the Secretary or
of both of those officers ;

(2) how to secure the continued existence of the Com-
mission during a war of which in 1939 it was
nnpossible to forecast the duration, having regard
to the fact that one-third of the membership of the
Connnission was due for renewal every three years
and therefore that the entire membership of the
Connnission would lapse by the end of 1946 (the
date of the expiry of the term of service of the Class
(Class 1937) last due to be renewed).

In considering this problem, the President and the
Secretary had had the benefit of the precedent set in some-
what sunilar circumstances at the close of the 1914-1918
war, when extraordinary powers were assumed by the then
Secretary, Commissioner C. W. Stiles, who through the
death of the President, was also at that time Acting
President of the Commission. The action taken under the
extraordinary powers then assumed by Acting President
Stiles were reported to, and approved by, the Tenth Inter-
national Congress of Zoology at its" meeting held at
Budapest in 1927. The problems which confronted the
President and Secretary of the Commission in 1939 were
much more serious than those which had confronted Acting
President Stiles a quarter of a century earlier, for not only
were communications interrupted between the Secretariat
of the Commission and certain members of the Commission,
while great delays were imposed in communicating with the
remaining Commissioners, but on this occasion also the
Secretariat of the Commission was located in a countrv
which, through the advent of air warfore, lay within the
area of active military operations. Clearly, therefore, tliere
was a need in 1939 for more extensive and more formal
arrangements than had been called for at the end of the
war of 1914-1918.

After taking the best legal advice available, he (Com-
missioner Hemming) had, as Secretary to the Commission,
submitted a recommendation to President Jordan that he
should execute a formal Instrument assuming for the dura-
tion of the emergency created by the war such extraordinary

12 International CoiitDiission on Zoological Xoinenchttui-e.

powers as he might deem to be necessary or expedient to
ensure the continued existence of the Commission and to
secure its due functioning after the close of the emergency,
subject to the provision that as soon as might be practicable
after the close of the emergency a full Report should be
made to the Commission on every act taken in virtue of the
extraordinarv powers so assumed. This reconunendation
was approved by President Jordan by whom the proposed
Instrument was executed on 6th September, 1939. This
Instrument was styled the " Emergency Powers Declaration,
1939 "" and empowered the President to issue " Directions "
from time to time on such matters as that officer might
deem it necessary or expedient should be regulated in this
manner. The Declaration provided also (1) for the
devolution to the Secretary of the functions of the President
in the event of the death or disablement of the President,
and (2) for the devolution to the Assistant Secretary of the
fmictious of the Secretary in the event of the death or
disablement of the Secretary or. if the Assistant Secretary
was not in a position to assume those functions, upon such
other member of the Commission as might temporarily
assume those fimctions.

In making the foregoing Report on behalf of President
Jordan, the Acting President asked the Commission to
signify their approval of the action taken in 1939 to ensure
the continued existence of the Commission through the
adoption of the measures described above and to report that
action to the Section on Nomenclature with a recommenda-
tion that the action be approved and confirmed. The
Declaration executed by President Jordan in September,
1939. was available for inspection and the text of that
Declaration was given for purposes of record in an Annex
to the Report which he (Secretary Hemming) had prepared
on the work of the Secretariat of the Commission in the
period 1936-1948 (Commission Paper I.C.(48)2).

THE COMMISSION :—

(1) took note of, and approved, the action of President
Jordan in assuming the extraordinary powers
specified in the '" Emergency Powers Declaration,
1939 "" executed by him in September. 1939, for
the purpose of ensuring the continued existence of
the Commission during the emergency created by
the outbreak of war in Europe, and of securing
the due functioning of the Commission after the
close of the emergency ;

(2) agreed to report to the Section on Nomenclature
the action taken In- President Jordan, as specified

'2tid Meeting, Paris, July, 194S. ]3

ill (1) above, with a recommendation that that
action be approved and confirmed.

Conttitution under 8. THE COMMISSION :—

the " Emergency

r939*"?h'**cr*'*"'' ^^^ *^^^ ^^^^'^' *"*^^ 'ipproved, the action of President

1949 and 19*52 in*"* Jordan in issuing Directions under the Emergency

place of the Classes Powers Declaration, 1939 : —

1940 and 1943 , . •, ■ ., . , ,• , . , . ,

(a) prescribing the estabhshment of the Classes

1949 and 1952, in place of the Classes 1940
and 1943, as from the dates on which each
of the first-named Classes completed its
term of service ; and

(b) directing that the six former members of
the Class 1940 (Cabrera, Chapman, Hem-
mmg, Jordan, Pellegrin, Richter) should be
deemed to have been elected to be members
of the Class 1949 and the four former mem-
bers of the Class 1943 (do Amaral, di
Caporiacco, Dymond, Peters) should be
deemed to have been elected to be members
of the Class 1952 ;

PaHssfslToT' (^^ confirmed the elections specified in (1) (b) above

•2nd Meeting,' save as regards the election in 1940 of Professor

Conclusion 16) Rudolf Richter (Germany) to be a member of the

Class 1949, the question of the status of this
election being reserved for further consideration.

Cl^s^^g'ssTn plli: 9- THE COMMISSION :-

of the Class 1946

(1) took note : —

(a) that by a postal vote undertaken in
January, 1947, the Commission had con-
stituted the Class 1955 in place of the Class
1946, the term of service of which had then
expired ;

(b) that, concurrently with the action specified
in (a) above, the undermentioned members
of the former Class 1946 had been elected
to be members of the Class 1955 ; —
Professor H. BOSCHMA (Netherlands) ;
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United
Kingdom) ; ,

Professor Bela HANKO (Hungary) ;
Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A.) ;

(c) that, concurrently with the action specified
in (b) above, the Commission had decided
to reserve for later consideration the

11 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

question of the re-election of the remaining
members of the former Class 1946, namely : —
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan) ;
Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland)

(d) that no further action had been taken as
regards Professor Esaki, pending a decision
by the Congress in regard to the position, in
relation to the membership of the Com-
mission, of former Commissioners who were
nationals of Germany or Japan ;

(e) that, having regard to the fact that all
efforts made to establish contact with
Professor Jaczewski had proved unsuccess-
ful, his place as a member of the Commission
had been deemed to have been vacated and
a successor had been elected thereto ;

(2) agreed to report to the Congress the action
specified in (1) above and to invite the Congress
to approve and confirm the action so taken ;

(3) agreed to recommend that the regulations
governing the composition of the Commission
should be modified expressly to provide that, if

• circumstances such as those referred to in (1) (e)
above, were to arise in which the Commission
were unable to trace the whereabouts of a noember
of the Commission or in which it was impossible
for the Secretary to communicate with a member
of the Commission or for the member of the
Commission concerned to communicate with the
Secretary and in consequence that member of the
Commission was unable to discharge the duties of
his office, the Connnissioner in question should be
deemed to have vacated his office as such and that
his place should thereupon be filled in like manner
as though he had died or had resigned, provided
however that a member of the Commission shall
not be deemed to have vacated his office as such
when the inability of the member of the Com-
mission concerned to communicate with the
Secretary and of the Secretary to communicate
with the said member of the Commission arises
solely from an interruption of postal communica-
tions consequent upon the existence of a state of
war between the country of which that member of
the Commission is a national or in which he is
' normally resident and the country in which the

Secretariat of the Commission is established ;

2nd Meeting, Parla, July, 1948

15

(Later reference:
Paris Session ,
2nd MeetiiKj.
Conclusion Ui)

(4) agreed to reserve for further consideration the
question of the re-election of Professor Teiso
Esaki (Japan) to be a member of the Commission.

Losses in the
membership of the
Commission since
1935 through
resignations

Election of
Commissioners
since 1935

10. THE COMMISSION:—

(1) took note that, in addition to the resignation, on
account of advancing years, of Commissioner Geza
Horvath (Hungary) which had been reported to
the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at
its meeting held at Lisbon in 1935, when, however,
the vacancy so created had not been filled, the
undermentioned members of the Commission had
resigned from their places as such on account of
age, ill-health or other causes : —
Connnissioner Karl Apstein (Germany) ;
Commissioner Fihppo Silvestri (Italy) ;
Commissioner Candido Bolivar y Pieltain (Spain) ;

(2) placed on record their regret at the loss, through
resignation, of their colleagues named in (1) above ;

(3) agreed to report to the Congress the losses through
resignation specified in (1) above.

11. THE COMMISSION agreed:—

to report to the Congress the undermentioned elections
made to the membership of the Commission since the
meeting in 1935 of the Twelfth International Congress
of Zoology and to invite the Congress to approve and
confirm the elections so made : —

(a) Elections in 1937 : —

Senhor Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil) vice
Commissioner Anton Handlirsch (Austria)
(deceased)

(appointed to the Class 1943) ;
Professor Bela HANKO (Hungary) vice Com-
missioner Geza Horvath (Hungary), (resigned)
(appointed to the Class 1937) ;

Professor Dr. Walther ARNDT (Germany) vice

Commissioner Karl Apstein (Germany)

(resigned)

(appointed to the Class 1946) ;

(b) Elections in 1939 :—

Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy)

vice Commissioner Filippo Silvestri (Italy)

(resigned)

(appointed to the Class 1943) ;

VOL. 4 E

16 International Cominivniun on Zoological No/nc'nclature.

Piiofessor J. R. DYMOND (Canada) vice Com-
missioner H. B. Fantham (Canada) (deceased)
(appointed to the Class 1943) ;
Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland) vice Com-
missioner Candido Bolivar y Pieltain (Spain)
(resigned)
(appointed to the Class 1946) ;

(c) Elections during the war years: —

Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.) vice
Commissioner Witmer Stone (U.S.A.) (deceased)
(appointed to the Class 1952) ;
Professor Harold E. YOKES (U.S.A.) vice
Commissioner Leonhard Stejneger (U.S.A.)
(deceased)

(appointed to the Class 1952) ;
Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A.) vice Com-
missioner Charles Wardell Stiles (U.S.A.)
(deceased)

(appointed to the Class 1946) ;
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia) vice Com-
missioner Frederick Chapman (Australia)
(deceased)
(appointed to the Class 1949) ;

(d) Post-war elections: —

Professor H. BOSCHMA (Netherlands) vice
Commissioner Walther Arndt (Germany)
(deceased)

(appointed to the Class 1955) ;
Dr. Th. MORTENSEN (Denmark) vice Com-
missioner Jacques Pellegrin (France) (deceased)
(appointed to the Class 1949) ;
Dr. Paul RODE (France) vice Commissioner
Tadeusz Jaczewski (Poland) (office vacated
owing to post-war circumstances)
(appointed to Class 1955).

Re-election of the 12. THE COMMISSION :—

President and the /iv i

Secretary as from (1) took note oi, and approved, the action of the

the beginning of 1941 President in issuing in December, 1940, a Direc-

( Previous reftrence: ^^^^^ under the Emergency Powers Declaration,

Paris .Session, 1949. directing that the Commissioners holding

Vondusion'i) respectively the offices of President of the

Commission and of Secretary to the Commission
should be confirmed in, and should continue to
hold, the said offices when on the expiry of the
term of service of the Class 1940, of which the

2)1(1 Meeting, Paris, Juhj, r,»48.

17

said Commissioners were members, they were
appointed to tlio Class 1949 (constituted under a
Direction previously issued under the Emergency
Powers Declaration, 1939), unless on the close of
the Emergency the Conunission were to direct
otherwise ;

(2) confirmed the elections specified in (1) above.

Re-election of the
Assistant Secretary
as from the
beginning of 1944

(Previous reference:
Paris Session,
2nd Meeting,
Conclusion 7)

13. THE COMMISSION :—

(1) took note of, and approved, the action of the
President in issuing in September, 1943, a Direc-
tion under the Emergency Powers Declaration,
1939, directing that the Commissioner holding the
office of Assistant Secretary should be confirmed
in, and should continue to hold, the said office
when on the expiry of the term of service of the
Class 1943, of which the said Commissioner was a
member, he was appointed to the Class 1952
(constituted under a Direction previously issued
under the Emergency Powers Declaration, 1939).
unless on the close of the Emergency the Com-
mission were to direct otherwise ;

(2) confirmed the election specified in (1) above.

Election in 1945 of
Assistant Secretary
Peters <U.S.A.) to be
Vice-President

14. THE COMMISSION:—

took note that in March, 1945, Assistant Secretary
James L. Peters (U.S.A.) had been elected to be
Vice-President of the Commission in the place of
Vice-President Charles Wardcll Stiles (U.S.A.)
(deceased).

( Later reference :
Paris Session,
'.ird Meeting,
Conclusion 3)

Establishment of the 15. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
the Class 1949 HEMMING) recalled that, in accordance with the decision

,^_, , taken by the Sixth International Congress of Zoology at

its meeting held at Berne in 1904, the term of service of the
oldest-established of the three Classes of the membership
of the Conunission was automatically brought to a close on
the day following the last day of each Congress. The
Class so due for discharge on the present occasion was the
Class 1949. As each Class was constituted for a period
of nine years, the Class now to be constituted would be the
Class 1958.

THE COMMISSION :—

(1) took note that the Class 1949 would complete its
term of service at the end of the present Congress ;

VOL. 4 E- 1. o >

18 Inteniational Coin mi sa ion on Zoological NontenclcUure.

(2) agreed to recommend the Congress to constitute a
new Class, to be known as the Class 1958, to take
the place of the Class 1949, as from the day
immediately following the last day of the present
Congress.

German and 16. THE COMMISSION resumed their consideration

Japanese ^f ^j^g position, in relation to the membership of the

representation on the ^, . \ „ ^, . . „ i • , i , i ,

Commission Comuussion, 01 the survivmg German zoologist elected to

, „ . , be a Commissioner prior to the invasion of Poland by

{Previous reference: -irv-i/^ ipit i- i -i

Paris Session, Germany in 19o9 and oi the Japanese zoologist elected to

2nd Meeting. \)q a Commissioner prior to the Japanese attack on the

Co>lclusionsS(-2)«nd ^^^-^^^ g^^^^^ -^ jg^j

After a full discussion, THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) that, having regard to the political and other
conditions obtaining in Germany in the years
immediately preceding the outbreak of war in
Europe in 1939 and the corresponding conditions
obtaining in Japan in the period immediately
preceding the extension of the war to the Pacific
in 1941, there could be no assurance that in the
present changed conditions German and Japanese
zoologists elected to be members of the Commission
during those periods now commanded the confi-
dence of the general body of zoologists in their
respective countries ;

(2) that in these circumstances it was desirable to
afford to zoologists in Germany and Japan
respectively a fresh opportunity of expressing
their wishes as to the zoologists by whom they
desired respectively to be represented on the
Commission ;

(3) that, in view of (1) and (2) above : —

(a) the term of service, as a member of the
Commission, of Professor Rudolf Richter
(Germany) should not be deemed to have
been extended beyond 31st December, 1940,
the date of the expiry of the Class 1940, to
which he had been elected prior to the
outbreak of war in Europe ; and

(Ij) the term of service, as a member of the
Commission, of Professor Teiso Esaki
(Japan) should be deemed to have been
terminated on 31st December, 1946, the
date of the expiry of the Class 1946, to
which he had been elected prior to the
extension of the war to the Pacific ;

2nd Meet i in/. Paris. Jul;/. 1918. 19

(4) that the Secretary to the Commission should be
requested to take appropriate steps as soon as
possible to ascertain the views of German and
Japanese zoologists respectively on the question
specified in (2) above, with a view to obtaining
suggestions as to the names of zoologists who were
nationals of those countries, whose election to be
members of the Commission would be generally
acceptable to their fellow workers ;

(5) that it was to be understood that the decisions
recorded in (1) to (4) above were decisions taken
on grounds of principle and were not intended to
reflect, and did not reflect, either upon the
professional eminence of Professor Richter or of
Professor Esaki or upon the value of the services
rendered to the Commission by those zoologists
while serving as Commissioners.

Nomination of 17. THE COMMISSION agreed:—

a*" 1958*** *•** (1) to nominate the undermentioned members of the

(i^iousrefere»re: f^JJ^'" ^^^'' ^^^^ ^<^ ^e members of the Class

Paris Session, 1900 .

2nd Meeting, Seiior Angel CABRERA (Argentina) •

S':.?^;«^. .- Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) ;

•^rd Meeting, Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) ;

Conclusion 3) Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia) ;

p''^?' ?"' '■^•^''''^''"' (^) ^^ ^^^^ ^^t* ^it^ great regret that on grounds of

UtM'eeTmj"' ^g^. ^"<^^ iU-health, Dr. Th. Mortensen (Denmark), a

Conclusion'^) retiring member of the Class 1949, desired to be

excused from further service as a member of the
Commission and accordingly was not willing that
his name should be put forward for nomination to
the Class 1958 ;

PaHssIsIZ''' ^^^ ^"^ nominate Professor R. SPARCK (Denmark) to

nth Meeting' ' ^^ ^ member of the Class 1958 ;

Conclusion 4) (4) to recommend the Congress to approve and

confirm the foregoing nominations and to agree
to leave the sixth place in the Class 1958 to be
filled by the Commission after the close of the
Congress.

Commiss*ion ^ **** ^^' '^^^ ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS

req^eTt by**" ' HEMMING) recalled that, in view of the fact that Professor

Commissioner Karl Karl Jordan was a member of the Class 1949 which would
Kin**gd"om)"/rbe complete its term of service on the day following the close

excused from of the present Congress, it was necessary for the Commission

nomination as to make a nomination to the office of President for the

furTher"tlrm ** ensuing period. It would be the wish alike of every

member of the Commission and of the general body of
zoologists to nominate Commissioner Jordan for a further

20 I iifcntadonal CommiHmon on Zoological Nomenclature.

term of service as President, an office which he had held
with great distinction ever since his election thereto in 1929
in succession to the eminent Italian zoologist, the late
Professor F. S. Monticelli. It was, therefore, with the
greatest regret that he had to inform the Commission that
he had been notified by Commissioner Jordan that owing
to his age and. in particular, to his total deafness, he felt
bound to ask that he should be excused from being
nominated to serve as President of the Commission for a
further term.

Everyone, both inside the Commission and among
zoologists at large, would join in regretting the reasons
which had prompted Dr. Jordan's decision. Dr. Jordan
was one of the leading zoologists of the day and no man of
greater professional eminence or higher personal distinction
could be found to fill the office of President of the Com-
mission. But Dr. Jordan was far more than an extremely
eminent man of science. For 21 years as President, and
for 35 years as a member of the Commission. Dr. Jordan
had placed unreservedly at the disposal of the Commission
his vast store of knowledge, his ripe experience, his mature
judgment, his judicial temperament and liis rich human
sympathies. The office of President of the Commission was
not merely a post of great dignity ; it carried with it also
heavy responsibilities. First, it was the duty of the
President, while giving the freest scope to all legitimate
expressions of opinion, so to guide the proceedings of the
Commission as to ensure continuity in its work, tempered
by a due recognition of the need for adaptations to meet
changing circumstances. Second, it was the duty of the
President to conduct the deliberations of the Commission
in such a way as to promote the highest possible degree of
harmony among its members. Finally, the President of
the Commission had to keep a constant watch on the needs
of zoologists in matters of zoological nomenclature and on
changes of opinion among zoologists in regard to these
questions.

No one looking back over the history of zoological
nomenclature during the inter-war years could fail to lie
struck by the fact that at a time when international
organisations of all kinds were collapsing through internal
dissensions and faulty leadership, the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature had not only maintained
its existence l)ut had added greatly to its moral authority
and the value of the services which it rendered to the
zoological profession. The major part of this success must
be attributed to the wise guidance given to the Commission
Ijy its President. Only once during Dr. Jordan's long terni

2ml Meetin<i, Paris, Jul;/, 1948.

21

(Later reference:
Paris Session,
4tk Meelirig,
Conclusion 3)

of office was there any serious disagreement among
zoologists on a question of zoological nomenclature. This
was at the Congress held in 1930, and it was to the wise
counsel in regard to the handling of the problem created
by the controversy over the meaning of the expression
" nomenclature binaire " that had been given by Dr.
Jordan at the next Congress that zoologists were indebted
for a solution which overcame the immediate difficulties
and, it might be hoped, paved the way for a generally
acceptable settlement at the present Congress. These were
remarkable achievements by a remarkable man. Dr.
Jordan had been a great President and every member of
the Commission and every member of the general body of
zoologists was in his debt.

In the sad circumstances in which the Commission found
themselves, the Commission would, no doubt, feel ])ound to
respect Dr. Jordan's wishes and would agree, therefore, to
abandon their intention of nominating him to be their
President for a further term. It would be a matter of
great satisfaction to every member of the Commission that,
although Dr. Jordan had felt unable any longer to sustain
the burden imposed by the Presidency, he had signified his
willingness to serve for a further term as a private member
of the Commission. All would rejoice to see his name
inscribed in the list of members of the Class 1958 which had
now to be established. But it was, the Acting President
believed, the unanimous wish of the Commission to find some
signal mark of their esteem and affection to confer upon their
late President. No more appropriate recognition could be
found than the submission hj the Conmiission to the
Congress of a recommendation that, as an exceptional
measure, there be established an office of Honorary Life-
President of the Commission and that this office be offered
to Commissioner Jordan.

THE COiVIMISSION AGREED :—

(1) to take note with the greatest regret that Com-
missioner Karl Jordan (United Kingdom) felt
boimd on grounds of age and infirmity to ask that
he be excused from being nominated to serve as
President of the Commission for a further term ;

(2) to accede to Commissioner Jordan's request that
he be not nominated to the vacant office of
President of the Commission ;

(3) to place on record their great appreciation of the
valuable services rendered both to the Commission
and generally to the cause of zoological nomen-
clature by Commissioner Jordan during his long
term of office ;

22

Inienidliomtl CotinniMio)! on Zoological Nomenclature.

(4) to take note with great satisfaction that, not-
withstanding his resignation of the office of
President of the Commission, Commissioner Karl
Jordan had consented to his name being inchided
in the list of zoologists nominated to serve in tlie
Class ] 958 now about to be constituted ;

(5) to signalise the esteem and affection in which they
held their late President by submitting to the
Congress a recommendation that, as an excep-
tional measure, there be established an office of
" Honorary Life-President " of the Commission
and that this office be offered to Commissioner
Jordan as a mark of the affection and esteem felt
for him by the members of the Commission and by
the general body of zoologists ;

(6) to request the Acting President to address a
telegram to Commissioner Jordan, expressing
their deep regret at his decision to resign the
Presidency of the Commission and intimating
that it was their intention to nominate him to be
a member of the Commission for a further term
and to invite the Congress to appoint him to the
specially created office of Honorary Life-President.

Nomination of
Vice-President
James L. Peters
(U.S.A.) to be
President

19. THE COMMISSION agreed :—

to nominate Vice-President James L. Peters (U.S.A.)
to be President of the Commission.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEM-
MING) then informed the Commission that, before leaving
London to attend the present Session of the Commission,
he had received a letter (dated 15th July, 1948) from
President Jordan expressing his regret at being unable
personally to w^elcome his successor. In the same letter,
President Jordan summed up his convictions regarding the
great value of the high degree of international co-operation
already established in zoological nomenclature. He (the
Acting President) felt sure that the Commission would wish
him to read aloud the last message addressed to them by
their retiring President. The following was the text of
President Jordan's letter : —

My dear Hemming,

As my deafness prevents me from attending the meeting of the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to be held in
Paris during the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology,
I am debarred from having the great pleasure personally of wel-
coming my successor in the Presidency of the Commission. If
the choice of the Commission falls upon \'ice-President .James L.
Peters, the Commission will have in their new President a taxonoinist

'2nd Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

23

Nomination of
Commissioner
Francis Hemming
(United Kingdom)
to be Secretary to
the Commission for
a further term

of international fame in ornithology and a specialist possessing an
intimate knowledge of a Class of animals and its literature, of
which the nomenclature has been more intensively studied than
that of any other Class of the Animal Kingdom. Vice-President
Peters possesses also practical experience both of the difficulties
I)resented by nomenclature as such and of the problems involved
in meeting the diverse needs of the biological public. It is the
object of the Commission both to solve those difficulties and to
meet those needs, and I have no doubt that, under the guidance of
the President and the Secretary, the Commission will be successful
in both these tasks.

One or other of the Commissioners may at times be inchned
to regret the hours spent on the consideration of nomenclatorial
questions which do not directly concern his own field of study ;
but the thought should ever be present in our minds that Nomen-
clature is an International Language and the only international
undertaking on the basic principle of which all biologists agree :
the same name for the same animal in science throughout the globe.
I know that there are highly intelligent biologists who look upon
Nomenclature with disdain because the great fact has escaped them
that in the present spiritual turmoil in which humanity finds itself
one point of general agreement, like the basic principle of
Nomenclature, renders general agreement in other matters a
possibility and gives humanity some hope.

With the most cordial good wishes for a successful meeting
and all kind regards to the new President and Commissioners,

Yours ever,

{Signed\ KARL JORDAN

20. THE COMMISSION :—

(1) took note that, in view of the fact that Com-
missioner Francis Hemming, the present holder
of the office of Secretary to the Commission, was a
member of the Class 1949, the term of service of
which would expire on the day following the close
of the present Congress, the Secretaryship of the
Commission would then fall vacant and that it
was therefore necessary to submit a recommenda-
tion to the Congress in regard to the filling of
this office ;

(2) agreed to nominate Commissioner Francis
HEMMING (United Kingdom), the retiring
Secretary, to be Secretary to the Commission for
a further term.

Nomination of
Commissioner
Afranio do Amaral
(Brazil) to be Vice-
President

21. THE COMMISSION:—

(1) took note that, on the election of Vice-President
Peters to be President of the Commission, a
vacancy would arise in the office of Vice-President ;

(2) agreed that, having regard to the fact that the new
President of the Commission would be a United
States citizen and the Secretary to the Commission
a European, it was desirable that the office of
Vice-President should be filled by a Commissioner

24

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

wIk) was a national of some country situated
outside North America and Europe ;

(3) agreed to nominate Commissioner Afranio do
AMARAL (Brazil) to bo Vice-President of the
Commission,

Abolition of
the office of
Assistant Secretary
as hitherto
constituted and its
reconstitution as a
post in the
Secretariat of the
Commission

(Later reference:
Paris Session,
2nd Meeting,
Conclusion 2fi)

22. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) said that the great increase in the volume and
complexity of the work of the Secretariat of tlie Commission
which had occurred during the war years and had since been
greatly intensified made it essential that he, the part-time
and spare-time Honorary Secretary to the Commission
should have a highly cjualified personal assistant at his
immediate disposal. When in 1947 UNESCO had given a
substantial grant towards the expenses of the Commission,
he had hoped that it would be possible to meet this need by
engaging a whole-time salaried scientific assistant. Towards
the close of 1947 an experimental appointment had been
made, the officer so appointed being given the title
" Assistant Scientific Director ", as the title of " Assistant
Secretary " was not available, being reserved for an
honorary official drawn from the membership of the Com-
mission. It had been found however that the fact that in
existing circumstances the office of Secretary to the Com-
mission was an honorary post necessarily held by a member
of the Commission as a spare-time appointment made it
impossible for the Secretary to give sufficient supervision
and guidance to a whole-time salaried official who in-
evitably worked during normal office hours, i.e. at times
when the Secretary to the Commission was not available,
owing to his having to earn his living in a different occupa-
tion. In order to give the Secretary as much relief as was
possible, it was therefore necessary that in existing con-
ditions he should have a spare-time assistant who could
give him the help which he needed. There were serious
dangers in the present arrangement by which the entire
conduct of the work of the Secretariat rested upon the
shoulders of a single spare-time honorary officer, as the
Commission would see when they came to consider the
Report by the Secretary on the work of the Secretariat of
the Commission during the years 1936-1948. For the
present purpose the point to be noted was that the most
appropriate title for the proposed honorary spare-time
assistant to the Secretary to the Commission would be that
of " Assistant Secretary ". This title could not however
be used for this purpose, so long as it was reserved for the
title of an office tenable only by a member of the Com-
mission in an honorary capacity. Experience had shown

2nd Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

25

that, during inter-Congress periods, no duties could be
assigned to the office of Assistant Secretary as at present
constituted and that its existence served no useful purpose.
He (the Acting President) therefore proposed that the office
of Assistant Secretary, as at present constituted, should be
abolished, and that the title of Assistant Secretary should
thus be made available for use where it was required,
namely for the personal assistant to the Secretary. If at
any time it were desired once more to raise to four the
number of members of the Executive Committee of the
Commission, this could readily be effected by the creation
of a second post of Vice-President.

THE COMMISSION :—

( 1 ) took note of the statement by the Acting President
as recorded above ;

(2) agreed to abolish the office of Assistant Secretary,
as hitherto constituted and to make the title of
" Assistant Secretary " available for an honorary
spare-time personal assistant to the honorary
(part-time and spare-time) Secretary to the
Commission.

Co-operation
between the
Commission and
Specialist Groups :
Report on progress
achieved since 1935

(Previous reference:
Lisbon Session,
2nd 3Ieeting.
Conclusion 8)

23. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS

HEMMING) recalled that at their Lisbon Session the
Commission had recorded their earnest hope that specialists
in particular groups of the Animal Kingdom would organise
themselves for the study of nomenclature. Subsequently,
this resolution had, for greater emphasis, been embodied in
the Commission's Declaration 10. He (the Acting President)
was glad to be able to inform the Commission that con-
siderable progress had been achieved in this field in the
period which had elapsed since the Lisbon Session of the
Commission, notwithstanding the difficulties inevitably
created by the war. In the United States, no less than
five specialist groups had been formed, namely (1) the
American Committee on Entomological Nomenclature,
which had been formed jointly by the Entomological
Society of America and the American Association of
Economic Entomologists, (2) the Joint Committee on
Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America,
established jointly by the Geological Society of America
and the Paleontological Society of America, (3) the
Smithsonian Institution Committee on Zoological Nomen-
clature, composed of taxonomists of (i) the United States
National Museum, (ii) the Bureau of Entomology and Plant
Quarantine of the United States Department of Agriculture,
(iii) the Geological Survey of the United States, and (iv

26 International Commission on Zoological Nomendatnre.

the Fish and Wild Life Service, (4) the Committee on
Zoological Nomenclature of the American Museum of
Natural History, and (5) the Committee on Zoological
Nomenclature of the Chicago Natural History Museum.
All these bodies had shown a keen desire to co-operate with
the Commission and a number of interesting and valuable
suggestions which had been received from these bodies
would be placed before the Commission at later meetings of
the present (Paris) Session. Further, within the last year
there had been established in the United States a Society
of Systematic Zoologists, the inaugural meeting of which
he had had the pleasure of addressing at Chicago in the
previous December. In Europe the more severe impact
of the war had made it impossible for any progress to be
achieved in this field during the years 1939-1945 but the
specialist groups on the nomenclature of entomology and
ornithology which had been established before the outbreak
of war had succeeded in maintaining their existence and
would, it was hoped, shortly be able to extend the scope of
their activities. Finally, he had recently received a
communication from Prague foreshadowing the establish-
ment of a specialist group on zoological nomenclature in
Czechoslovakia.

In addition to formal co-operation through the medium
of organised groups, every effort had been made by himself,
as Secretary to the Commission, to secure, through personal
contacts and correspondence, the assistance and advice of
the widest possible range of specialists. In the case of the
United States and Canada these efforts had been greatly
assisted by the action of Dr. Alexander Wetmore, the
Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, in inviting him
to visit America last winter for the purpose of discussing
with specialists at Washington and other centres in
America current problems of zoological nomenclature and,
in particular, those problems which were likely to be
considered at the present Congress. As a result, he had
l)een able to hold extensive discussions, and to make large
num1)ers of contacts, with specialists at the United States
National Museum at Washington, the American Museum of
Natural History at New York and the Natural History
Museum at Chicago. While in Chicago he had attended
the annual meeting of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, at which he had met specialists
from many parts of the United States. Finally, at Ottawa
he had had the benefit of meeting many American
paleontologists at a meeting organised by the
Paleontological Society of America during the annual
meeting of the Geological Society of America.

'ltd Meeliny, Paria, July, 1918. 27

THE COMMISSION :—

(1) took note of, and approved, the action taken by
the Secretary to foster co-operation on questions
of zoological nomenclature between the Com-
mission on the one hand and specialist groups and
individual specialists on the other ;

(2) agreed that it was highly desirable that existing
contacts should be maintained and strengthened
and that additional specialist groups should be
formed, wherever practicable.

DlTZliZUxi.^., 24- THE COMMISSION took note that the under-
since the meeting of "mentioned Opinions had been published since the last
the Congress held at meeting of the Congress : —
Lisbon in 1935 / ^ >.

(a) Upimons 124-133 m regard to questions decided
by the Commission prior to its Session held at
Lisbon in 1935 ;

(b) Opinions 134-181 and Declarations 10-12 in regard
to questions decided by the Commission at" its
Session held at Lisbon in 1935 ;

(c) Opinions 182-194 in regard to questions decided
by the Commission since its Session at Lisbon in
1935;

(d) Declarations 1-9 and re-issues of Opinions 1-16, of
which the original edition was out of print and
unobtainable.

Sl'cCSr,;,' „J!i,™' ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FR.WCIS
Its Paris Session -H-tiiMMlJNU) said that the Commission had a very heavy
(Precious reference- P^^S^^^^^^^ for its present (Paris) Session. The main
Paris Sesshn,''''"' ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ programme had been set out in Commission
■2nd Meeting, Paper I.C.(48)1, which had already been circulated to the

Conclusion 2) members of the Commission. Broadly speaking, the field

to be covered included (1) the consideration of the admin-
istrative and financial problems facing the Commission,

(2) the reform of the composition of the Commission and the
method of electing its members (for the purpose of securing
that the Commission should become both genuinely
representative and genuinely international in character),

(3) the reform of the procedure of the Commission (for the
purpose of ensuring that in future the Commission should
be enabled to conduct its work more speedily and efficiently) ,

(4) the problem presented by the use in the Regies of the
expression " nomenclature binaire " (a question on which
the Commission were under instructions from the last
(Lisbon) Congress to submit a comprehensive report to the

28

Internalional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

present meeting), (5) the amendment and clarification of the
Regies, the insertion therein of provisions deahng with
questions not at present subject to regulation, and the
incorporation into the Regies of the interpretations of
various Articles of the Regies given by the Connnission in
Opinions rendered at various times during the last 40 years
and of provisions embodying resolutions of a general
character adopted by the Commission or the Congress at
various meetings held since the year 1901, when the Regies
in their present form were adopted. It was important also
that during its present Session the Commission should reach
decisions on as many as possible of the applications on
individual cases now awaiting attention. In addition, it
would be necessary during the course of the present Congress
both to seek the concurrence of the Section on Nomenclature
in the changes proposed and to prepare a comprehensive
report for submission to the Congress.

THE COMMISSION :—

took note of the foregoing summary of the business
to be laid before them during their present (Paris)
Session.

Report by the
Secretary on the
work of the
Secretariat since the
meeting of the
Congress held at
Lisbon in 1935

26. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) said that, in accordance with precedent, the
Secretary to the Commission would lay before the Com-
mission a report on the work of the Secretariat since the
last meeting of the Congress. On the present occasion the
number of subjects to be dealt with in that report was
inevitably nmch larger than on any previous occasion, both
because — owing to the war — the exceptionally long period
of 13 years had elapsed since the last meeting of the Congress
and because the period to be covered by the Report was one
of rajjid change and development. The Report had been
completed but it was inevitably a lengthy document and
the Secretary had not so far been able to prepare copies
for communication to the members of the Commission
owing to his preoccupation with the even more urgent task
of preparing papers for the consideration of the Commission
on the numerous questions relating directly to zoological
nomenclature on which it was desired that decisions should
be taken by the Conimission and by the Section on Nomen-
clature during the present Session. Copies of the Report
would, however, be made available as soon as possible to
the members of the Commission as Commission Paper
I.C.(48)2.

Continuing, the Acting President said that, in his
capacity as Secretary to the Connnission, he had given in

2iid Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

29

(Previous reference:
Lisbon Session,
5th Meeting.
Conclusion 10)

his Report a comprehensive account of the work of the
Secretariat of the Connnission from October, 1936, the
date on which he was elected to the Secretaryship up to the
eve of the present Congress, to wliich he had added such
particulars as were available in respect of the period
September, 1935, to October, 1936, during which the
Secretaryshi]) of the Commission liad been vacant. The
subjects dealt with in the Report included an account of : —

(1) the administrative and financial problems im-
mediately raised by the transfer of the Secretariat
of the Commission from Washington to London
consequent upon the election of the present
Secretary in 1936 and the arrangements made for
the audit of the accounts of the Commission by a
firm of Chartered Accountants ;

(2) the arrangements made prior to the outbreak of war
in 1939 for raising a small fund with which to make
a start with the reorganisation of the Secretariat ;

(3) the decisions taken in regard to the reorganisation
of the Secretariat of the Commission and matters
alUed thereto at the Plenary Conference between the
President of the Connnission and the Secretary to
the Commission held in London on 19th June, 1939,
in accordance with a decision taken by the Com-
mission at Lisbon in 1935 ;

(4) the commencement in August, 1939, of the direct
pubUcation by the Commission of its Opinion)) and
the price policy adopted in regard to the sale of the
Commission's pubhcations ;

(5) the interruption in the work of the Secretariat of
the Commission consequent upon the outbreak of
war in Europe in September, 1939 ; the arrangements
then made by the Secretary to maintain contact with
the memljers of the Commission to the full extent
practicable and to ensure, so far as possible, that the
work of the Connnission should not be brought to a
standstill if the Secretary and President were killed
or disabled as the result of air attack ; the arrange-
ments made to ensure the safety of the records of
the Connnission from loss by air attack or fire ;

(6) the arrangements made in 1942 for the reopening
of the Secretariat and the decision to recommence
the publication of Opinions on questions on which
decisions had been taken by the Commission before
the outbreak of war in 1939 ;

(7) the establishment in May, 1943, of the " Bulletin
of Zoological Nomenclature " as the Official Organ
of the Commission for the publication of applications

30 International Commission on Zoological Noinendatiire.

received by the Commission, in order to provide
zoologists with full information regarding matters
vmder consideration by the Commission ;

(8) the issue in July, 1943, of an Appeal for a Fund of
£1,800 to enable the Commission to clear off the
most urgent of its arrears of printing ;

(9) the decision in 1943 to publish as soon as possible an
authoritative edition of the substantive French
text of the Regies together with a literal English
translation ;

(10) the decision in 1943 to issue the " Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology " in book form with full
bibliographical data ;

(11) the decision in 1943 to embody in Declarations
certain important resolutions adopted at various
times by the Commission and the Congress which had
been largely overlooked through never having been
published elsewhere than in the Proceedings of the
Congresses concerned ; the decision to begin the
re-publication (announced in 1939) of the older
Opinions which were out of print and unobtainable ;

(12) the decision in 1943 to complete Opinions on
questions on which voting had begun prior to the
outbreak of war in 1939 but on which the required
number of votes had not been received by that time ;

(13) the decision in 1943 to devote the whole of Volume
2 of " Opinions and Declarations rendered by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature " to the Opinions and Declarations adopted
l\y the Commission at Lisbon in 1935 and to
commence the concurrent publication of Volume 3
of the same work for Opinions adopted by the
Comniission after their Lisbon meeting ;

(14) the rapid growth from 1943 onwards in the number
of applications submitted annually to the Com-
mission and in the volume of correspondence handled
annually in the Secretariat ;

(15) the changes introduced during the war in the
method of electing members of the Commission ;

(16) the decision in 1946 to establish a corporation to
hold the assets of the Commission and to enter into
contractual obligations on its behalf ; the establish-
ment for this purpose in February, 1947, of a
corporation formed under United Kingdom law with
the title " International Trust for Zooloyiical

ind Med illy, Paris, Julij, 19-48.

51

Thanks of the
Commission to the
Right Hon. Walter
Elliot for accepting
the Chairmanship of
the International
Trust for Zoological
Nomenclature

Thanks of the
Commission to the
Smithsonian
Institution,
Washington, D.C.

Nomenclature " ; the acceptance of the Chairman-
ship of the Trust by the former Britisli Cabinet
Minister, the Right Hon. Walter Elliot ;

(17) the offer to the Commission by UNESCO in Aj^ril,
1947, to make, subject to certain conditions, a grant
not exceeding $10,936 for the year 1947 and a
similar grant not exceeding $10,600 for the year
1948 ; ''

(18) the visit to the United States and Canada paid by
the Secretary to the Commission in December, 1947,
on the invitation of the Secretary of the Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C, for the purpose of
discussing problems of zoological nomenclature, in
particular those to be considered at the Paris
Meeting of the International Congress of Zoology ;

(19) the administrative problems involved in organising
an office dealing with a large volume of work and
employing a whole-time salaried staff supervised by
an honorary spare-time (and part-time) Head.

THE COMMISSION :—

(1) took note of the sunmiary given by the Actin«j-
President, as indicated above, of the Report on
the work of the Secretariat of the Commission
during the period 1935-1948, which he had
prepared, in his capacity as Secretary to the
Conunission (Commission Paper I.C.(48)2), and
approved the action so taken ;

(2) agreed to recommend that the Report referred to
in (1) above should be submitted to the Congress.

27. THE COMMISSION agreed :—

to invite the Acting President to send a telegram in
their name expressing their thanks to the Right
Honourable Walter Elliot, M.P.. F.R.S., for havin"^
consented to accept the Chairmanshi}) of the Inter"
national Trust for Zoological Nomenclature.

28. THE COMMISSION agreed :—

to invite the Acting President to convey to the
Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C, an expression of their thanks for the invitation'
extended to the Secretary to the Commission to visit
Washington and other centres in North America in
December, 1947, for the purpose of discussing problems
of zoological nomenclature with American zoologists
in preparation for the Session of the Commission to be
held in Paris during the present Congress.

VOL. 4 F

32

Iittcniatiuiial Coiininfi>>ion uii ZookHfiail Noineitrlaturc.

Thanks of the
Commission for
donations received

29. THE COMMISSION agreed :—

to place oil record their grateful thanks to all Govern-
ment Agencies. Museums and other Scientific Institu-
tions, Learned Societies and individual zoologists and
paleontologists in all parts of the world who, during
the period 1938-1948, had assisted the work of the
Conmiission by making donations to its funds.

Thanks of the
Commission to
UNESCO

30. THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to place on record their warm appreciation of the
interest in, and the imderstauding of the needs of,
their work shown by UNESCO and their most
gratefid thanks for the munificent subvention
made to their funds by UNESCO in the year 1947
and for the continuation of that support in the vear
1948 ;

(2) to invite the Acting President to convey the
foregoing resolution to UNESCO on behalf of the
Commission.

Preliminary report
on the work of the
Commission during
its first and second
meetings to be
submitted orally to
the Section on
Nomenclature as
soon as possible

( /Vtr(o«« rcfcrencu:
J\iri« Session,
\.il Meeting,
Conclusions 1-7)

( Previous reference:
I'uris Session,
'2nd Meetinij,
( 'ondnsious 1-3<I)

31. THE COMMISSION agreed:—

to invite the Acting President to take an early
opportunity : —

(a) to submit a report orally to the Section on
Nomenclature : —

(i) on the matters recorded in the Con-
clusions of the First Meeting of the
Commission during its present Session in
regard to the attendance of members of
the Commission at the present Session,
the election of Alternate Members of the
Commission for the duration of the
present Session, and the throwing open
of the meetings of the Commission to all
members of the Congress ;

(ii) on the matters discussed at the Secoml
i\Ieeting of the Commission during its
present Session in regard to the business
to be dealt with during the present
Session, the changes in the membership
of the Commission, in the Offices of the
Commission and in the holders of those
offices which had occurred since 1935,
the exceptional measures taken during
the war to .secure continuity in the work
of the Commission and to preserve the
records of the Commis.sion from destruc-

vui,. 4 f'-

•2nd Meeting, Parii>; July, 1948. 33

tion, the action proposed to be taken to
afford to German and Japanese zool-
ogists a fresh opportunity to indicate bv
Avhoni they desire to be represented on
the Conunission, the estabhshment of the
new Class 1958 in the membership of the
Commission and the nominations of
zoologists for election thereto, the resig-
nation of President Karl Jordan and the
nonunation of Vice President James L.
Peters in his place, the nomination of
Commissioner A. do Amaral to be Vice-
President, the proposed re-election of
Commissioner Francis Hemming to bo
Secretary to the Commission, the pro-
posed change in the status of the office
of Assistant Secretary, the action taken
since 1935 to promote co-operation be-
tween the Commission and specialist
groups estabhshed for the study of
particular aspects of zoological nomen-
clature, the pubhcation of Opinions and
Deckrations since 1935, the Report by
the Secretary on the work of the
Secretariat in the period 1936-1948, the
resolutions of thanks to the Right Hon.
Walter Elliot for accepting the Chair-
manship of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature, to the Smith-
sonian Institution. AVashington, D.C..
for inviting the Secretary to the Com-
mission to visit America in Decemlier in
1947 for the purpose of discussing
current problems of zoological nomen-
clature, to institutions and individuals
m all parts of the world for makin"
ilonations to the funds of the Commissioii^
and finally the resolution of appreciation'
and thanks to UNESCO for the munifi-
cent sul>vention made to the funds of the
Commission in 1947 and for its renewal
in 1948 ;

(b) to invite the Section on Nomenclature :

(1) to take note of the matters reported under
(a) above ;

(ii) to signify their approval of the action
taken by, or, as respects action taken
durmg the war 1939-1945, on behalf of

34

I nler national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Preliminary reports
on the work of the
Commission at its
third and subsequent
meetings to be
submitted to the
Section on
Nomenclature as
soon as practicable
after the close of
those meetings

{Previous refercitfK:
J'ari-s Seinion.
Is/ Meeliiiy.
Conclii-fioii 7)

(Liilvr reference:
['(■ris -SMsioii,
Will Meeliug.
Coticliisiov 0)

the Commission, in the case of those
matters which require such approval ;

(iii) to approve the recommendations sub-
mitted by the Commission as regards
certain action now proposed to be taken ;

(iv) to recommend the Congress to approve
and confirm the action taken by the
Commission as respects the matters
referred to in (ii) and (iii) above ;
(v) to submit to the Congress the Report on
the work of the Secretariat of the Com-
mission during the period 1936-1948
prepared by the Secretary to the Com-
mission (Commission Paper I.C.(48)2).

32. THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) that, in order to give the Section on Nomenclature
the fullest opportunity for considering matters on
which the Connnission wished to submit recom-
mendations, it was desirable to abandon the
practice followed by the Conmiission at former
meetings of the Congress under which the
recommendations formulated by the Commission
were submitted en bloc in the Report prepared by
the Commission for submission to, and approval
by, the Congress, at a joint meeting of the Section
and the Commission held near the close of the
Congress, and in its place to adopt a procedure
which would secure that recommendations form-
ulated by the Commission were submitted to
the Section at the earliest possible moment after
they had been agreed upon by the Commission ;

('2) in j)ursuance of the policy laid down in (1) above
to invite the Acting President, in his capacity as
Secretary to the Commission, to take the first
practicable opportunity after the close of their
third and subsequent meetings during the present
Session, where those meetings were not themselves
meetings held jointly with the Section on Nomen-
clature, to submit orally to the Section the
recommendations agreed upon by the Com-
mission on the basis of the documents submitted
to the Commission and the Section as Commission
Papers of the I.C.(48) Series or otherwise, thereby
enabling the Section to reach conclusions thereon
in advance of the submission for their considera-
tion of the draft of the Report to be submitted
by the Commission to the Congress.

2nd Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

35

Arrangements for
the preparation of
the Report to be
submitted to the
Congress

33. THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) that the Report to be submitted by the Com-
mission to the Congress should include references
to the more important of the matters taken note
of, or agreed upon, as the case might be, during the
first and second meetings of the Commission during
its present Session ;

(2) to invite the Acting President to commence the
preparation of the drafts of the paragraphs
dealing with the matters referred to in (1) above
to be included in the Report to be submitted by
the Commission to the Congress.

Composition of the
Commission and the
method of
nominating its
members

(Later reference.:
Paris Session,
3rrf Meeting,
Cnnclusions l-1 1)

34. THE COMMISSION had before them a memoran-
dum l)y the Secretary to the Commission (Commission Paper
I.C.(48)3) on the composition of the Commission and the
method of nominating its members. After giving a
historical sketch of the developments which had occurred
in these matters at various times since the establishment of
the Commission, this paper set out a number of recom-
mendations submitted by the Executive Committee of the
Commission in regard to various allied, but distinct, aspects
of the problem involved in securing for the Commission a
more genuinely representative and international character
than it at present possessed.

In the preliminary discussion which ensued, the view
was expressed that the time had come when changes should
be made on the lines suggested by the Executive Com-
mittee. Care would need to be taken, however, to ensure
that these changes did not hamper the Commission's
freedom of choice in selecting zoologists to be members of
the Commission or otherwise impair the efficiency of its
work.

At this point, the Acting President recalled that at
1645 hours the Mimicipality of Paris was giving a reception
at the Hotel de Ville to the foreign members of the
Congress. As many of the members of the Commission no
doubt wished to attend this function, he accordingly
proposed that the present meeting should be brought to a
close and that at their next meeting the Commission should
resujne consideration of the proposals now before them.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

to postpone to their next meeting the further con-
sideration of the proposals relating to the composition
of the Commission and the method of nominating its
members submitted in Commission Paper I. C. (48)3.

36

1 iitcnialioital Coiiintissio)) on Zoological Nomenclature.

Place of meetings of
the Commission
during its Paris
Session

35. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) informed the Commission that he had been
notified by the Secretary-General of the Congress that the
Amphitheatre Louis-Liard, where they were now meeting,
had been placed at the exclusive disposal of the Section on
Nomenclature for the remainder of the Congress. As
President of the Section, he (the Acting President of the
Commission) proposed to call meetings of the Section at
times which would be convenient to those zoologists who had
notified him of their desire to make communications to the
Section and which at the same time would not conflict with
the meetings of the Commission. Thus, the Amphitheatre
Louis-Liard would be available for the remainder of the
Congress as the meeting place of the Commission.

THE COMMISSION :—

took note that for the remainder of the present (Paris)
Session all their meetings would be held at the
Sorbonne in the Amphitheatre Louis-Liard.

Third and Fourth
meetings of the
Commission during
its Paris Session :
dates and times
appointed

36. THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) that the Third Meeting of their Paris Session
should be held on the evening of the same day at
2030 hours ;

(2) that the Fourth Meeting of their Paris Session
should be held at 0900 hours on the morning of
the following day, Thursday, 22nd July, 1948.

{The Commission thereupon adjourned at 1640 hours.)

( :57 )

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Sessio)) liehl during the Thirteentli InternutiomI Congress of Zoology,
Paris, 21st-27th July, 1948

CONCLUSIONS of the Third MeeHng held at the Sorbonne in the Amphitheatre
Louis-Liard on Wednesday, 21st July, 1948 at 2030 hours

PRESENT :

Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) {AcUmj President)

Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands)

Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.)

Professor L. di Caporiacco (Italy)

Mr. N. D. Riley (United Kingdom)

Professor V. van Straelen (Belgium)

Professor Robert L. Usinger (U.S.A.)

The following were also present :
Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty (U.S.A.)
Professor Kamel Mansour (Egypt)

Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming, Personal Assistant to the Se^retari/
Miss J. H. Shorey, Acting Documents Officer

The size of the 1 . THE COMMISSION resumed their consideration of

naturT^of hs *""* **" ^^^ recommendation submitted bv the Executive Committee
composition "^ Commission Paper I.C.(48)3 for the removal of the

(Prerious reference ■ ^f '^''^ "P?"^^ ^"'^^* ^° ^^e membership of the Commission.
Paris Session, ^'"^ proposal was put forward on two grounds: (1) to

■2ml Meeting make it possible for the zoologists of anv countrv in which

o,>c,ns,o„. ,U) .,,,3- considerable body of zoological work was being con-

ducted to be afforded direct representation on the^Com-
mission; (2) to secure that in other respects also the
composition of the Commission was such that it was
tlioroughly representative both of the various types of
knowledge and experience requisite for the work of the
Commission and also of the needs of the various classes of
workers (both systematic and other) who were concerned
with zoological nomenclature. In the same paper the
Executive Committee had made it clear that, if changes
were to be made in the composition of the Commission 'on
the lines which they recommended, it would, in their view
be essential also that certain changes should be made
simultaneously in the rules of procedure of the Commission.
{Later reference: Recommendations bv the Executive Committee on this

^rd%fetilT' L^"""' '"^^'^''* ^^^"^ ^^^'^ submitted to the Commission in

ro»;):S::f4.,o, commission Paper I.C.(48)4.

The following points were made in the course of the
ensuing discussion : —

38 Internatioym] Commission on Zoological Nomendature.

(a) There was clearly a desire among the zoologists
of a nimiber of countries to be given an opportunity
of being directly represented on the Commission.
Subject to appropriate safeguards and, in particular,
to the simultaneous introduction of consequential
changes in procedure, such an increase in the size of
the membership would be a source of strength to the
Commission, for it would make the Commission both
more representative and also more genuinely inter-
national in character. Further, it would provide a
means of diffusing knowledge of the Regies and
therefore of promoting their more general applica-
tion in countries which under the existing system
were not directly rejiresented on the Commission.

(b) If the zoologists of any given country were to l^e
afforded representation on the Conmiission. it was
most desirable that any zoologist elected to be their
representative on it should not only possess the
personal qualities requisite to make him an efficient
member of the Commission but should also occupy
a position in his own country which would make
him generally acceptable to his fellow- workers as
their representative.

(c) If the Comniission was to continue to act effectively
as a corporate body, it was very important that it
should retain, both on its own behalf and on that of
the Congress, a sufficient degree of control over the
selection of persons to be elected as Commissioners.
It would be most imfortmiate if a situation were to
be allowed to develop in which the Commission
consisted solely of persons selected by national
groups of zoologists and acting solely as the repre-
sentatives of those groups. It was most important
that in the future, as in the past, members of the
Commission, while taking due account of views
expressed by zoologists who were fellow-countrymen
of theirs, should nevertheless approach their duties
in a spirit of independence and impartiality.

(d) It was essential that the scheme now to be adopted
should be such as would not only provide for the
adequate representation of zoologists of particular
countries but would also enable the Commission to
call to its membership any outstanding zoologist
who, they might consider, could assist them in their
work, irrespective of whether that zoologist was a
national of a country which was represented on the
Coimuission. Similarly, the Commission should be

{Later references:
Paris Session.
3rd Meeting,
Conclusions 5-9 ;
12th Meeting.
Conclusion IS)

Srd Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 39

free to invite an outstanding specialist to be a
member of the Commission where that speciahst
was a national of a country akeady represented on
the Commission but had not been nominated by the
zoologists of his own country to be their represen-
tative. In the modern world there were also many
eminent men who were forced by circumstances to
live in exile or who through force of circumstances
had become stateless. It would be wrong if the
Commission were to be debarred from calling to
their counsels zoologists so placed,
(e) It was important also to ensure the continuance in
the future of the pohcy followed in the past of
securing an appropriate balance in the membership
ot the Commission as between :—

(i) the representation of zoologists of one part

of the world and those of another •
(11) specialists in one part of the Animal' Kingdom

and those of another ;
(iii) the interests of systematic zoology on the
one hand and those of the applied biological
sciences (such as medicine, agriculture,
veterinary science, horticulture, etc ) on the
other ;

(iv) specialists in hving forms and paleozoologists.
The COMMISSION agreed to recommend :-

(1) that, subject to the simultaneous adoption of
appropriate changes in the Commission's rules of
procedure, the Commission should cease to be a
body with a fixed membership of 18 Commissioners
and that in lieu of this system there should in
tuture^be set a minimum membership of 18 but
that there should be no maximum upper Hmit to
the membership ;

(2) that so far as is practicable, the composition of
the Commission should be such as to secure :—

(a) that zoologists in any country in which any
considerably body of zoological work was
bemg conducted should have an opportunity
of being directly represented on the
Commission ;

(b) that there should be an appropriate
equilibrium in the representation on the
Commission of zoologists of one part of the
world au<l those of other parts of the
world :

40 Iiilenuiliotiul Coitiinission on Zoological Nomenclature.

(c) that the membership of the Commission
should include specialists in the principal
divisions of the Animal Kingdom ;

(d) that the membership of the Commission
should include an appropriate representa-
tion of specialists in paleozoology ;

(e) that there should be an adequate represen-
tation in the membership of the Commission
not only of the needs and wishes of workers
in systematic zoology but also of those of
workers in the applied biological sciences
(e.g., medicine, agriculture, veterinary
science, horticulture, etc.), who, as the users
of zoological names, were directly interested
in the problems of zoological nomenclature ;

(3) that, in order to give effect to recommendation
(2) (a) above, the Commission should be authorised
to elect to its membership a specialist or speciaUsts
to represent zoologists or workers in the applied
biological sciences who were nationals of any
country which at the time in question was either
unrepresented on the Commission or for which the
existmg representation was. in the opinion of the
Commission, inadequate, provided that, in the
former case, the Commission were satisfied that
a considerable body of zoological work was being
conducted in the country concerned ;

(4) that, in order to give effect to recommendations
(2) (b) to (2) (e) above, the Commission should be
authorised on its own motion to invite individual
specialists to be members of the Comnussion,
irrespective of the nationality of the specialists
concerned.

Method to be 2. THE COMMISSION then turned to consider the
followed xn the recommendations in regard to the method to be followed
election of ''^ th<^ nomination and election of members of the Corn-
members of the mission submitted by the Executive Committee in
Commission Commission Paper I.C.(48)3.

The following points were made in the course of the
ensuing discussion : —

(a) It was necessary that the scheme to be adopted
should distinguish between the method to be
followed in nominating candidates for election to
the Commission : —

3rd Meeting, Parifi, Juhj. 1948.

41

(i) where it was desired that the zoologist in
question, when elected, should act also as the
representative of the zoologists of the country
ot which he was a national ;
(ii) where it was not desired that the zoologist
in question, when elected, should be the
representative of a national group of zoologists
but where the Commission itself desired to
call the zoologist in question to its membership
by reason of his possessing special knowledge
or experience which, in the opinion of the
Commission, would be of value to their work-
lb) There were wide differences in the way in which
zoologists were organised in different countries It
was important, therefore, that the rules to be made
for the selection of the tj-pe of body to be consulted
lor the purpose of ascertaining the views of the
zoologists of any given country on the question of
the selection of a representative to serve on the
Comnussion should be sufficiently elastic to provide
tor the differences in the conditions obtaining in one
country as compared with another. This was a
matter of great importance, for a channel of con-
sultation which would be an appropriate, and in
some cases, the only appropriate, channel for one
country would be inappropriate or totallv im-
practicable in the case of another country. ^
(c) It was desirable that, so far as might be found
practicable, consultations in regard to the nomina-
tion of zoologists to be representative members of the
Commission should be conducted through important
bodies m close touch with zoological work or with
work in apphed zoology in the country concerned
such as leadmg Museums, scientific institutions and

tn "Tl'^r^ '^^^'' *^"'^ *^«"gh bodies which,
though of high status, were in less close touch with
current work (such as National Academies of Science
(.Tovernment Departments, etc.).
(d) The fact that, under the new system, some of the
members of the Commission would represent the
zoologists of the countries of which they were

m which the members concerned regarded themselves
solely or principally as the delegates of the zoologists
ot their respective countries. It was essential to
maintain the principle that, when the Commission
was considering any application submitted to it for
decision, It should approach its duty objectively in

42

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

a strictly judicial spirit, each Commissioner examin-
ijig impartially the evidence submitted and recording
his vote in the light solely of that evidence and of the
relevant considerations involved thereby.

(e) The adoption of the representative principle must
not be carried to a point at which the Commission
would lose control over the selection of persons to be
elected as Commissioners, for it would not always
happen that the consultative method would provide
candidates possessed both of high professional
distinction and of the personal qualities requisite
to make an efficient member of the Commission.

At the close of the discussion,
agreed to recommend : —

THE COMMISSION

( Later reference :
Paris Session,
\2th Meeting.
Conclitsion .15)

(Previous refm-ence:
Paris Session,
Srd Meeting,
Conclusion 1 (3))

(1) that every application for the election of a member
of the Commission to be the representative of the
zoologists of a particular country not at that time
represented on the Commission or, where the
zoologists of a country were so represented, for the
election of an additional representative or repre-
sentatives, should be submitted to the Commission
either by some leading scientific institution or
learned society of that country or by the National
Academy of Science of that country or by a Govern-
ment Agency of that country or through that
country's diplomatic representative in the country
in which the headquarters of the Commission were
situated, and that no application submitted other-
wise than as specified above should be taken into
consideration ;

(2) that every application received by the Commission
for the election of a member of the Commission to
represent the zoologists of a given country should be
referred forthwith to the Executive Committee of
the Commission, whose duty it should be to satisfy
itself, on behalf of the Congress : —

(a) that the body signatory to the application
was adequately representative of the zoologists
of the country concerned ;

(b) that, having regard to the conditions proposed
to be attached to the election of members of
the Commission to represent zoologists of
particular countries, there were grounds which
would justify the election of such a member
or, where the zoologists of the country con-
cerned were already represented on the Com-
vnission, of an additional representative :

(Previous reference:
Paris Session,
:hd Mecliny,
Conclusion 1(2))

(Previous reference:
Paris iSession,
'Srd Meeting,
Conclusion 1(4))

3/y/ Mceling, Paris, July, 1948. 43

(c) that the candidate proposed for election was
personally possessed of the technical know-
ledge, experience, energy and other qualifica-
tions requisite for the performance of the
duties of a member of the Commission ;

(d) that the proposed election would not conflict
with the principle already agreed upon that a
due balance of geographical or otlier qualifica-
tions shall be maintained in the membership
ot tne Commission ;

^^^ o^.^'lT^'' '^: Executive Committee were satisfied
on all the matters specified in (2) above, they should
thereupon elect the proposed candidate to be a
member of the Commission ;

(4) that, where the Executive Committee were satisfied
in regard to the matters specified in (a), (b) and (c)

t d f m T ""' \" ''^''''^ '^ '^'' '"^*^'«^- specified
m (d) of 2) above, they should nevertheless be free
to elect the proposed candidate to be a member of
the Commission, provided that at the same tmie
they elected also another zoologist to be a member,
or other zoologists to be members of the Commission
m order to mamtain the required balance of geo-

Tt^Conm/Jtu-'^''''^'^'^^^^^^ "' ^^'" membership

(5) that where the Executive Committee were not

satisfied in regard to all the matters specified in

itifi ^?f ^^^ ''^"^^' '^'y should refuse to
elect the candidate proposed ;

(0) that the Executive Committee should be free at any
time to elect any zoologist to be a member of the
Commission, irrespective of his nationality, where

ktllT ''1'^'^^ '^''' ^y ^^^«"" °f the special
knowledge and experience possessed by the zoologist
in question h,, election would be of value to the
work of the Commission ;
(7) that, where, through death, resignation or removal
a vacancy arises in the membership of the Com-
nnssion, the Executive Committee^hould eitTer
ifeclf nommate a zoologist to fill the said vacancv or
houd invite the authority or authorities specified
in (1) above as the case may be, to submit the name
of a candidate to fill the said vacancy ;
(8) that, where the Executive Committee invite an
the nTm^. «7^«^o"tie3 in a given country to submit
the name of a candidate to fill a vacancy in the
Commission arising from any of the causes specified

44

liilcnuitional Co)ninission on Zoological Nomenclature.

(Previous nference:
Paris Session,
[\rd Meeting.
Conclusiou 2(2) (c))

in (7) above, the Committee, on receiving such a
nomination, shall satisfy themselves regarding the
personal qualifications of the candidate proposed in
like manner as that to 1)6 followed in cases where
they receive an application for the election of a
zoologist to be a member of the Commission to
represent the zoologists of some country not at that
time represented on the Commission ;

(9) that inmiediately upon the Executive Committee
electing a zoologist to be a member of the C<Mn-
mission, the said election shall be pronuilgated in
the " Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ".

Arrangements to be
made for
Commissioners
periodically to
submit themselves to
re'clection

{Later reference ■
Paris Session.
I'lth Meeting.
Conclusion 15)

3. THE COMMISSION considered next the conditions
under which the members of the Commission were required
periodically to offer themselves for re-election and in this
connection had before them the recommendations submitted
by the Executive Committee in Commission Paper I. C. (48)3
(paragraph 2 (8) ). Ever since the meeting of the Congress
held in Berne in 1904, each member of the Commission had
been elected for a period of nine years, one of the three
Classes into which the membership of the Commission was
divided being renewed at each meeting of the Congress.
This system had worked satisfactorily, so long as the Con-
gress had continued to meet regularly at intervals of three
years, but had been thrown out of gear by the war of 1914-18.
From that time onwards the Commission itself had had to
take over from the Congress the duty of renewing one Class
at the end of each three-year period (calculated from 1903,
the year as from which the system had been in operation),
subject, in the case of years in which the Congress met, to
the term of service of the Class having the longest service
being brought to a close, irrespective of whether it had
completed its full nme-year term. As pointed out in the
paper circulated, still further adjustments would need
to be made if the Class system were to be retained, for, now
that the Commission was no longer to have a fixed member-
ship, the total number of members at any given time would
not necessarily be divisible by three.

In the discussion which ensued it was generally agreed
that it was essential to maintain the principle that members
of the Commission should be required periodically to offer
themselves for re-election. On the other hand, it was felt
that how that the Congress no longer met at regular three-
yearly intervals, the system by which one Class was renewed
every three years hatl outlived its usefulness. It would be

Srd Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 45

better to introduce a simpler scheme by which the term of
service of one-third of the members of the Commission was
brought to a close at eacli meeting of the Congress
irrespective of the intervals between successive meetings of
the Congress.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :-
(1) that the present system under which the member-
ship of the Commission was divided into three
Classes, the term of service of the Class having the
longest service being terminated at the end of every
third year calculated from the year 1903 or at the
meeting of each successive Congress, whichever was
the earlier, should be abolished and that the
following system be instituted in its place :—

(a) For the purpose of determining the order in
which each member of the Commission is to
complete his term of service as such, there
shall be established a list in which the names
of the members of the Commission are to be
inscribed in the order in which each was
elected to be a member of the Commission.

(b) A Commissioner who has been elected for a
second or greater number of terms of service
IS to take precedence for the purpose of (a)
above as from the date on which he was last
elected a member of the Commission.

(c) Where, on their first election, two or more
zoologists are elected to be Commissioners on
the same day, their names shall be placed in
alphabetical order on the list referred to in
(a) above, but where two or more Com-
missioners are re-elected on the same day for
a further term of service, they shall retain in
relation to one another their former relative
seniority.

(d) At each meeting of the Congress the term of
service shall be terminated of one-third of
the total membership of the Commission or,
if that number is not a whole number, the
next highest whole number, the Com-
missioners whose term of service is to be so
brought to a close being those who have
served the longest since being elected a
member of the Commission or since having
last been so re-elected as the case may be.
(2) that the four members of the Class 1949, which
would complete its term of service on the day

46

Intcntatioiial Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

{Previous reference .
Paris Session.
'2nd Meeting,
Conclusion 17)

Grant of leave of
absence to, and
removal of,
Commissioners in
certain
circumstances

(Previous reference:
Paris Session,
2nd Meeting,
Conclusion 5)

following the last day of the present (Paris)
Congress, namely. Commissioners Cabrera (Argen-
tina). Hemming (United Kingdom), Jordan
(United Kingdom) and Pearson (Australia), whom
at the meeting noted in the margin it had been
agreed to nominate to the new Class 1958, and
Professor R. Sparck (Denmark) who at the same
meeting it had been agreed should be nominated
to the same Class, should under the new system
recommended under (1) above, be, in the case of
the first four of the zoologists concerned, re-elected
and; in the case of Professor Sparck, elected to be
members of the Cotnmission for a term of service
commencing on the day following the close of the
present Congress.

4. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS

HEMMING) recalled that in 1939 the Commission had
agreed to create two additional posts of officer (Vice-
President and Assistant Secretary) and that in consequence
a need for the revision of the By-Laws had arisen. The
outbreak of war in that year had made it impossible to
go far with this revision, but at the end of the war he, in
his capacity as Secretary to the Commission, had taken up
this matter again, by correspondence, with the members of
the Commission. He had found that it would be unpractic-
able to confine the proposed revision of the By-Laws to the
points that he had noted in 1939, for the existing text,
which had remained virtually unchanged since its adoption
by the Commission at their session held during the
meeting of the Eighth International Congress of Zoology at
Graz in 1910. was incomplete and thoroughly obsolete,
containing, for example, no reference to the additional
])owers conferred upon the Commission by the Ninth
International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at
^Monaco in 1913 (in relation to the suspension of the Ra/les
in certain cases) or to the additional duties imposed upon the
Commission by the same Congress (in connection with the
compilation and maintenance of the " Official List of
Generic Names in . Zoology ""). The provisions in the
By-Laws relating to the procedure of the Commission had
l)een thoroughly inadequate even at the time when those
By-Laws were adopted at Graz, and had been rendered
obsolete three years later by the decisions taken by the
Monaco (1913) Congress in regard to the procedure to be
followed by the Commission when dealing with cases
involving the use of their plenary powers. It had been
evident, therefore, that the By-Laws required a thorough
and far-reaching revision. It had appeared to him (as the

Srd Meeting, Paris. July, lytH.

47

(Previous reference:
Paris Session,
'2nd Meeting,
Conclusion 9(3))

(Later reference:
Paris Session,
'■ird Meeting,
Conclusion 6)

Secretary to the Conuiiission) tliat advantage of the
opportunity presented by the need for the revision of the
By-Laws should be taken to secure other much needed
reforms, subject, where necessary, to the subsequent
approval of the Congress. These reforms included the
adoption of provisions (I) for the removal of Commissioners
who, by being cut off from postal communication with the
headquarters of the Commission, were unable to perform
their duties as Commissioners, and (2) for the repeal of the
obsolete and undemocratic Ldberum Veto in cases relating
to proposed amendments of the Regies, which, in a moment
of lack of confidence, the Commission at Graz in 1910 had
gratuitously imposed upon themselves to the great detriment
of the efficiency of the Commission as an organisation. On
the first of these questions the Commission during its
present Session had agreed upon a recommendation to be
submitted to the Congress, while, on the second, a recom-
mendation was included in paragraph 6 (1) of the paper
(Commission Paper I. C. (48)4) now before the Commission
and would be considered later during the present meeting.
Other reforms which had been considered in 1945 were (a)
the inclusion in the Bv-Laws of a compulsory age-limit for
the retirement of Commissioners and (b) the adoption of a
provision that any Commissioner who over a specified
period consistently failed to perform his duties as such
should automatically be removed from his membership of
the Commission. The first of these provisions was within
the powers of the Commission to enforce, but the enactment
of the second required the approval of the Congress. The
point was of some practical importance, for there had been
several occasions when the effective voting strength of the
Commission had been unnecessarily impaired through the
lack of powers to remove a Commissioner who on account
of old age, ill-health or other reasons consistently failed to
discharge the duties of his office. It was proposed that the
Congress should now be asked to approve a provision under
which any Commissioner who failed on five successive
occasions to record his vote on a proposed Opinion or
Declaration would be liable to have, his name removed
by the Executive Committee from the list of memliers of
the Commission, save where, within a specified period, the
Commissioner in question furnished to the Committee an
explanation which they accepted as sufficient. A member
of the Commission might be unable to discharge his duties
for a year if he were granted a Sabbatical Year for the
purpose, for example, of taking part in some scientific
expedition. In such a case, the Commission should have
power to appoint a temporary substitute member to act
for the Commissioner granted leave in this way. A\'here,

VOL. 4 o

48 I mcniatioml Coiiiinis.sioii on Zoological Noincnclulure.

however, a Commissioner either failed to furnish any
excuse or furnished an exphmation not regarded as
satisfactory by the Executive Committee, his place should
immediately be filled. It was desirable also to take the
present opportunity to ask the Congress to approve a
provision for the automatic removal of a Commissioner
when found to be suffering from any of the disqualifications
specified, in relation to members of the International Trust
for Zoological Nomenclature, in Article 41 of the Articles
of Association of that corporation. The disqualifications,
which were of a common form nature, arose when a
member (1) was convicted in a Court of Law and sentenced
to a term of imprisonment. (2) became bankrupt, or (3)
was found lunatic or became insane. There should also be
provision for a member of the Commission to vacate his
ofiice by giving notice in writing that he had resigned his
membership of the Commission. The present By-Laws
contained no provision on this subject, and muqh time had
been wasted in the past in such cases while the Commission
debated (by correspondence) whether a resignation received
from a Commissioner should be accepted.

In the ensuing discussion there was general agreement
regarding the need for provisions of the kind outlined above.
The view was expressed also that the power to remove a
Commissioner who failed to vote on a number of successive
occasions would be valuable not only as providing a means
for keeping up the voting strength of the Commission but
also as a means for eliminating from the membership of the
Commission persons who might have been nominated to be
representative members without having any real interest in
zoological nomenclature, for such persons would almost
certainly become hable to removal from the Commission
under this proA^sion.

THE COMMISSION agreed to reconunend :—

that the regulations governing the membership of the
Commission should contain the following provisions
for the grant of leave of absence to members of the
Commission and for the removal of Commissioners
from their ofiice on incurring any of the disqualifica-
tions specified below : —

(a) Where a member of the Commission notifies
the Secretary to the Commission that he will
be unable to perform his duties as a Com-
missioner for a specified future period by reason,
for example, of taking part in a scientific
expedition, the Secretary shall immediately
report the receipt of this communication to the

?»d Mediiiff, Palis. Jul//, \MH. 49

Executive Committee who may thereupon
grant leave of absence to the Commissioner
concerned for a specified period and may api)oint
in his place a substitute to act as an Alternate
Member of the Commission, who, while so
officiating, shall possess all the rights, privileges,
duties and obligations prescribed for an
Alternate Member appointed to serve as such
during a session of the Commission held during
a meeting of the Congress.

(b) Where a member of the Conuuission, not being
a member to whom leave of absence has been
granted in accordance with the provisions of
(a) above, fails on five successive occasions to
record his vote on a proposed Dedaration or a
proposed Opinion, the name of that naember
shall be removed from the hst of members of
the Commission on the expiry of a period of
three calendar months calculated from the date
of the last such failure, unless in the meanwhile
the Commissioner concerned has furnished to
the Secretary an explanation in writing and the
Executive Committee, on considering that
explanation, directs ^at the name of the
Commissioner in question be not removed from
the list of members of the Conmiission.

(c) The office of a member of the Commission shall
be vacated : — ;

(i) if, on conviction in a Court of Law, other
than a Court established in time of war
by an Occupying Power, he is sentenced
to a term of imprisonment ;

(ii) if he becomes bankrupt ;

(iii) if he is found lunatic or becomes insane ;

(iv) if by notice in writing he resigns his
membership of the Commission.

Reform of the rules 5. THE COMMISSION had before them a memorandum
Commufio" ''>' ^'^^ Secretary to the Commission (Commission Paper

I.C.(48)4) relating to the need for introducing reforms in
/W Wofr"'"''' *^^ procedure of the Commission in order both to adjust
\\rdlhciing!' ^^^^ procedure to meet the situation created by the

Concbi-sion 1) proposed increase in the size of the Commission and also

to ensure that in the future the Commission should be in a
position to discharge its duties with promptness and
efficiency. The paper submitted to the Commission
contained proposals under both these heads which had been
formulated by the Executive Committee for the considera-
tion of the Commission.

/

VOL. 4 G^

50

Inteniational Commi-sdon o» Zook>gical Nomenclature

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

to consider separately each of the principal issues
raised in regard to the procedure of the Commission
in Commission Paper I.C.(48)4-

Reform of the voting
procedure of the
Commission

(Preiioiis reference:
Paris Session,
'ird Meeting,
Conclusion 1)

6. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
proposals for the reform of their voting procedure sub-
mitted by the Executive Committee in Commission Paper
I.e. (48)4 and summarised in paragraph 6 (1) of that paper.
In this connection the Commission recalled that they had
akeady agreed in principle that, if for no other reason,
certain changes in their voting procedure were necessary
iu view of the decision to increase the size of the
Commission.

The discussion of these proposals showed that there was
general agreement as to the need (1) for the aboUtion of
the obsolete Liberum Veto (than which no single provision
had attracted greater criticism against the Commission),
and (2) for calculating the voting in any given case by the
relation of the number of affirmative votes cast to the
total number of votes cast and not to the total number of
possible votes. It was felt, however, that it would be
desirable to require that a minimum number of votes should
be cast before any proposed Opinion or Declaration was
adopted as the Opinion of, or as a Declaration by, the
Commission.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that both at meetings of the Commission and, when
during intervals between such meetings, decisions
need to be taken by the Commission either in regard
to the interpretation or possible amendment of the
Regies or in regard to the application of the Regies in
individual cases : —

(a) A proposed Opinion not involving the use by
the Commission of their plenary powers to
suspend the Regies shall be adopted as the
Opinion of the whole Commission when all the
members of the Commission have voted thereon
or when, after a period of six months calculated
from the date of despatch by the Secretary to
the Commission of voting papers in regard to
the proposed Opinion, not less than one-fourtli
of the tota' number of members of the Com-
mission, calculated by reference to the number
of such members as at the date on which the
voting papers were so despatched, record their
votes on the said proposal or. without voting,

^rd Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 51

signify their willingness to support the view,
or the majority view, of other members of the
Commission, provided that, where the voting
is not unanimous, the number of affirmative
votes, including any conditionally affirmative
votes cast in the manner indicated above,
exceeds the number of negative votes cast.

(b) A proposed Opinion involving the use by the
Commission of their plenary powers to suspend
the Regies or a proposed Declaration containing
a recommendation to the International Con-
gress of Zoology in favour of any change in, or
addition to, the Regies shall be adopted as the
Opinion or Declaration of the whole Com-
mission in like conditions to those specified in
(a) above, save that every such proposed
Opinion or Declaration shall require to receive
at least two affirmative votes, including
affirmative votes conditionally cast in the
manner indicated in (a) above, out of every
three votes cast, in order to secure its adoption
by the Commission.

fisoluHo**"'^^'^* 7. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the

proposed" '' proposals in Commission Paper I.C.(48)4 for the amend-

amendment and ment of the Resolution adopted by the Ninth Internationa]

""Regies"*'"" '" *^* Congress of Zoology at Monaco in 1913, under which plenary
powers to suspend the Regies in certain circumstances were
conferred upon the Conmiission, and for the incorporation
in the Regies of an Article setting out the foregoing resolu-
tion as amended.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) informed the Conmiission that, in his capacity
of President of the Section on Nomenclature, lie had
received notice from Dr. Henning Lemche (Demnark) of
his intention of laying before the Section two proposals for
the amendment of the Regies, for which wide support had
been given by Scandinavian zoologists (file Z.N.(S.)359).
The first of these proposals dealt in part with the amendment
of the Plenary Powers Resolution. It would be a great
coiivenience if the Conmiission would consider the proposals
submitted by Dr. Lemche concurrently with the proposals
submitted in Commission Paper I.C,(48)4, for it would
then be possible for him to indicate to the Section the
opinion of the Commission when Dr. Lemche made liis
conununication to the Section, which it had been arranged

52

/ iittTnatioual Coinnnnsion on Zoological Nomenclature.

(Previous references:
Paris Session,
3rd Meetirtq,
Conclusions 1 and 5)

that he should do at a joint meeting of the Section and the
Commission to be held on the morning of the next day but
one (Friday, 23rd July).

The discussion which followed showed that there was
general agreement with the proposals for the amendment of
the Plenary Powers Resolution as summarised in paragraph
6(2) of Commission Paper I.C.(48)4. The following
additional points were raised : —

(a) Final character of decisions taken by the Commission
tinder their plenary powers:

In view of the decisions which had been taken to
enlarge the size of the Commission and to liberalise
its voting procedure, Article 2 of the Plenary Powers
Resolution {Declaration 5) (which dealt with the
setting-up of a Board of Three to consider applica-
tions for the suspension of the Ragles where the
Commission was not unanimously in favour of the
proposal but two-thirds of its members had voted
in favour of that course) was no longer appropriate
and should, as suggested in Commission Paper
I.C.(48)4, now be deleted. It was felt, however,
that it was desirable that there should be inserted at
some appropriate point in the revised text a sentence
embodying the proposition laid down in the last
sentence of that Article, namely that a decision
taken by the Commission under its plenary powers
was final and not subject to appeal.

(b) Period of notice to be given:

The first proviso to Article 1 of the Plenary
Powers Resolution required that not less than one
year's notice should be given in a specified number
of journals that the question of the possible sus-
pension of the Reghs was under consideration in any
given case. Dr. Lemche and the Scandinavian
zoologists associated with him recommended that
this period should be reduced to six months. Much
criticism had been directed against the Commission
in regard especially to the dilatory nature of its
procedure in dealing with appUcations for the
suspension of the Regies. It was important that
adequate notice should be given of such applications,
but it was equally important that there should be
no unnecessary delay in dealing with this type of
case. Experience showed that, where zoologists saw
objection to the use of the plenary powers in any
case of which they had expert knowledge, they
normally commimicated their objection to the

3rd Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 53

Secretary within a short space of time after the
pubhcation of the notice that the Commission were
considermg the possibihty of using their plenary
powers. There was a presumption, therefore, that
a delay of one year was unnecessarily long. It must
be remembered also that the period of one year's
delay had been imposed in 1913 when regular air-
mail services had not been introduced and in
consequence a much longer period was required than
at present to enable zoologists living at the other
end of the world first to become aware of the
pubhcation of the notice of possible suspension of
the Regies and second to communicate their views
thereon to the Secretariat of the Commission In
the circumstances, therefore, it was felt that the
proposal submitted by Dr. Lemche and his colleagues
that the period of delay should be reduced from
twelve months to six months was reasonable and
should be accepted.

(c) The serials in which the required notice should be
given:

In the Plenary Powers Resolution of 1913 it was
laid down that notice of the possible suspension of
the Regies m any given case should be given in not
^ss than two of five specified serials. That
Resolution was adopted 30 years before the establish-
ment of the Commission's Bulktm of Zoological
Normnclature. If that journal had been in existence
at that tmie, it could not be doubted that it would
have been specified as one of the places in which
notices of the possible suspension of the Reqks
should be published. Dr. Lemche and his colleagues
proposed that the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
should now be made the principal serial in which
allnoticesof possible suspensions of the Regies should
m future be pubhshed. This proposal, it was
generally agreed, was eminentlv reasonable and
should be adopted.

Experience had shown that in existing conditions
it was often difficult to secure space for notices of
possible suspensions of the Ragles and in several
cases space had only been secured throuc^h the
insertion of these notices as paid advertisements at
a considerable outlay. The serials specified in the
Resolution of 1913 were appropriate for the issue
ot notices affecting a wide range of workers, especially
workers m the applied biological sciences; they
were not necessarily the most appropriate medium

54 Intemational Commission on Zoological Nometiclature.

for the publication of notices relating to names of
interest only, or primarily, to specialists in a
particular group, for whom the publication of these
notices in some specialist serial would be much
more convenient. Publication in such serials
would, moreover, bring these cases before a much
wider circle of interested specialists. It was
generally agreed that what was required was a
system under which, in addition to being published
in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, notices of
possible suspensions of the Regies should be published
in at least one scientific serial in Europe and at
least one such serial in America, and that, so far as
might be practicable, the Secretary to the Commission
should in addition send copies of such notices to
speciaUst serials concerned with groups comprising
generic or specific names proposed to be dealt with
imder the plenary powers. The serials in question
would vary from one case to another and it would
therefore not be possible to include a reference to
such serials in the amended wording now to be
adopted. The introduction of these changes would,
it was felt, serve the further important advantage
that it would eliminate the risk which existed at
present that the whole machinery for the use by the
Commission of their plenary powers might be
rendered unworkable either through its becoming
impossible to secure the publication of the prescribed
notices in the specified serials or through those
serials themselves ceasing publication.

(d) The date as from which the prescribed period of noliee
is to run:

Attention was drawn to the fact that it was nec-
essary clearly to prescribe the date as from which the
prescribed period of notice was to run. In view of
the difficulty in obtaining space in general science
serials in existing conditions, a considerable delay
might be involved if it were to be decided that the
period should run from the date on which the notice
was published in the last of the serials to which
it was sent for pubUcatiou. Moreover, there was
always the risk that for one reason or another it
would prove impossible to secure pubhcation in one
of the selected serials. These difficulties did not
arise in the case of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature, which was directly under the control of the
Commission. For this reason and because the
Bulletin was the Official Organ of the Commission

3rd Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

55

{Previous reference:
Paris Session,
^rd Meeting,
Coticluaion 6(6))

and thus the serial to which zoologists would
naturally refer for information on all matters
relating to the work of the Commission, it was
generally agreed that the prescribed period in which
zoologists would be free to comment upon proposals
for the suspension of the Regies should run from the
date of publication of the part of the Bulletin
containing the prescribed notice.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to recommend that the following amendments be
made in the Resolution adopted by the Inter-
national Congress of Zoology at its meeting held
at Monaco in 1913, under which the Congress
conferred plenary powers upon the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to
suspend the Regies, as applied to any given case,
where, in the opinion of the Commission, the strict
application of the Regies would clearly result in
greater confusion than uniformity : —

(a) Article 1. First Proviso: (i) the period of
notice to be reduced from twelve months to
six months ; (ii) the words "■ in any two or
more . . . and the Zoologischer Anzeiger " to
be deleted and the following words inserted
in their place : " in the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature and in two other serials, of
which one is to be a serial published in
Europe and the other a serial published in
America, the serials in question to be
selected on each occasion by the Secretary to
the Commission as being, in his opinion, the
serials, in which publication of the notice
is best calculated to bring the subject matter
of the notice to the attention of interested
specialists '" ; (iii) words to be inserted to
make it clear that the period of sLx months
referred to in (i) above runs from the date on
which the notice relating to any given case
is published in the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature:

(b) Article 1, Second Proviso: the words '• pro-
vided also that the vote in the Commission
is unanimously in favour of suspension " to be
deleted and words to be inserted in their place
specifying that the vote in the Commission
is to be either unanimous or, if by a majority,
by a majority calculated in the manner

56 hUernatioiml Coi)nnissio)i on Zoological Nomenclature.

agrcofl upon by the Commission ki their
revised voting procedure ;

(c) Article 1, Third Proviso: to be deleted ;

(d) Article 2 (" That in the event that a case . . .
is concerned ") : (i) this Article to be deleted ;
but (ii) words to be inserted at some appro-
priate point in tlie revised text embodying
the proposition laid down in the last
sentence of this Article, namely that a
decision taken by the Commission under
their plenary powers is final and not subject

{For a later decision ^O appeal ;

on Article 4, See

Paris Session. (e) Articles S and 4c : to be renumbered 2 and 3

nth Meeting respectively ;

Conrhi/iion 18) ^

(2) to recommend that the provisions contained in the
Plenary Powers Resolution of 1913, amended as
shown in (1) above, be incorporated in an Article
in the Regies;

(3) to take note of, and approve, a statement by the
Secretary to the Commission that, in exercising
the discretion conferred upon him by conclusion
(1) (a) above regarding the choice of serials to
which notices of possible suspensions of the Regies
should be sent, it was his present intention : —

(a) to select the serials Nature and Science as
the serials published in Europe and
America respectively, for so long as those
serials were prepared to insert the
prescribed notices in question either free of
charge or in return for the payment of a
reasonable fee and publish the notices in
question with reasonable promptness :

(1)) to send copies of the prescribed notices or.
where those notices relate to names in widely-
separated groups, extracts from those
notices to one or more selected serials
specially concerned with the groups in
question ;

(c) to endeavour, in addition, to secure that the
prescribed notices or references thereto were
published also in leading serials published
in the French, German, Italian and Spanish
languages.

3n/ Meelinq. Paris. Jnly, 1948.

57

{Previous reference:
Paris Session,
'.ird Meeting.
(Conclusions (5 nnrl 7)

firce o/thrV?fo'rms *'. '^'^^ COMMISSION had under consideration the
agreed upon iiu-egard 'l"fis<^'0" of the dat« as from which the reforms in their
to the procedure of procedure agreed upon during the present meeting should
the Commission (.Qme into operation.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) reminded the Commission that, although some
of the reforms which had just been approved could be
brought into operation by the Commission without reference
to the Congress, others required the approval of the Congress
before they could be made operative. Unless, therefore,
special steps were taken, the reforms belonging to this
second class would not come into operation until they were
approved at the Concilium Plenum to be held on the last
day of the present Congress. This would be most un-
fortunate, for it was the wish of all zoologists that the
Commission should take the fullest possible advantage of
the opportxmity presented by the meeting of the present
Congress to reduce to the greatest possible extent the
arrears of work which had accumulated during the war
years. This would not be possible if for the remainder of
the present meeting the Commission were hampered by
obsolete procedural rules. It would therefore, he believed,
be in accordance with the general will that the reformed
procedure now agreed upon should be brought into operation
forthwith. He accordingly proposed that the Commission
should submit to the Section on Nomenclature a recom-
mendation to this effect.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that the reformed rules of procedure agreed upon
during the present meeting and recorded in Con-
clusions 6 and 7 above should enter into force forth-
with.

Changes in
procedure designed
to accelerate the
work of the
Commission

9. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
recommendation submitted by the Executive Committee in
Commission Paper I.C.(48)4, as summarised in paragraph
6 (3) of that paper, for the adoption of certain changes in
procedure for the purpose of shortening the period between
the date of receipt of applications by the Commission and
the date on which decisions thereon are taken and
announced.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

that, having regard to the importance of taking everv
practicable step to secure that in future decisions on
applications submitted to the Commission should be
taken as rapidly as was consistent with due con-
sideration of the issues involved, the procedure to be

58

International Commission on Zoological NomencJ.at'are.

(For « decixioii
to incorporale
Declaration 4
in the " Rigles. "
see Paris Session,
6th Electing.
Conclusion rt'l)

adopted in dealing with such applications should be
as follows : —

(a) Subject to the necessary funds being available,
every application submitted to the Commission
or, in the case of a long paper, an agreed
summary thereof, shall be published in the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as soon as
possible after its receipt by the Secretary,
subject to the Secretary first satisfying himself
(i) that the application is in appropriate form
with all the bibliographical and other data
necessary to enable the Commission to reach a
decision thereon and (ii) that it is drafted
in accordance with the requirements of
Declaration 4.

(b) Each issue of the Bulletin containing the texts
of applications submitted to the Commission
shall contain a notice displayed in a prominent
position drawing attention to the fact that
voting on the said applications will normally be
started at the end of six calendar months
calculated from the date of the publication of
the said issue of the Bulletin and inviting any
reader who wishes to submit comments on the
proposals in question 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
that officer before the expiry of the six-month
period referred to above.

(c) As soon as possible after the expiry of the period
referred to in (b) above, the Secretary shall
report to the members of the Commission any
comments which he may have received in regard
to any such application and shall at the same
time submit recommendations as to the terms
of the Opinion or Declaration proposed to be
rendered by the Commission in regard to the
said application, together with voting papers to
be used in connection therewith.

(d) In order to eliminate the delay in the promulga-
tion of decisions which has occurred in the past
owing to the inevitable interval between the
taking of a decision and its embodiment in an
Opinion or Declaration and the printing and
publication of that Opinion or Declaration, the
" summary " of the Opinion or Declaration
agreed upon by the Commission .shall be

3id Meeting, Paris, Julij, 1948. 59

published in the Bulletin of Zoological Notnan-
clature as soon as possible after the conclusion
of the voting thereon.

^IXTZ'"*'"''* ^^- ™E COMMISSION had before them proposals

made to tne i ■ . j i , i t-i • /-. i r

zoological public «ur)mitted by the iixecutive Committee ni Commission
regarding the Paper I.C.(48)4, as summarised in parao;raph 6 (4) of that

by"thrCommiTsion ^^''P^.'"' ^""^ ^^'^ ^^^"^ ^^ *" announcement to tlie zoological
for speeding up public regarding the arrangements now agreed upon for

•'* ^'^'^ speeding up the work of the Commission.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

to request the Secretary to take all practicable steps,
by the issue of notices to the scientific press or
otherwise, to bring to the attention of zoologists and
palaeozoologists the revised procedure specified in
Conclusion 8 above, agreed uj)on by the Commission
for the purpose of speeding up its work, and at the
same time : — •

(a) to explain that the Commission hope that, when
the existing backlog of applications has been
worked off, they will normally be able to
announce their decision on any given apphca-
tion within a period of about 15 months from
the date of its receipt ;

(b) to express the hope of the Commission that,
where an application published in the Bulletin
of Zoological Nomenclature is concerned with
the proposed use by the Commission of their
plenary powers to suspend the Regies for the
purpose of validating a name or a nomenclatorial
usage, which, under a strict application of the
Regies, would need to be sunk in synonymy or
changed, as the case may be, speciaUsts in the
group concerned will recognise that, as the case
is sub judice, no action should be taken which
might prejudice the decision to be reached by
the Commission and that they will therefore
refrain from aggravating the position by
changing the nanie or the usage concerned until
such time as a decision is given by the
Commission.

Laws"oTth/ ***' ^''" 11- THE COMMISSION agreed :-

Commission (1) that the By-Laws of the Commission should be

''p^HssIsZr thoroughly revised so as to set out clearly the

Uth Meeting' decisions taken by the Congress, as regards

ConclusioH 16) matters requiring the approval of that body^ and

60 fnteniudunal Cotuniiasion on Zoological NoineiickUure.

by the Couiniission, as regards matters with which
it was competent for the Commission to deal, in
regard to such subjects as : —

(a) the functions, powers and duties of the
Commission ;

(b) the composition of the Commission ;

(c) the procedure to be followed in the election
of members of the Commission ;

(d) the election of Alternate Members in certain
cases ;

(e) the grant of leave of absence to members of
the Commission in certain cases ;

(f ) the removal of members of the Commission
in certain circumstances ;

(g) the duties of members of the Conunission ;
(h) the officers of the Conunission and their

duties ;
(i) the composition and duties of the Executive
Conmiittee of the Commission ;

(j) the procedure to be followed, whether at
meetings of the Commission or, by corres-
pondence, during inter-Congress periods, in
voting on proposed Declarations and pro-
posed Opinions, either involving or not
involving, in the last-named case, the use
of the plenary powers of the Commission ;

f k) the publication of Declarations and Opinions
and of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature;
(1) the procedure to be followed at meetings of
V the Commission ;

(m) the publication of minutes of meetings and

Reports ;
(n) the regulation of the financial affairs of the
Commission in co-operation with the Inter-
national Trust for Zoological Nomenclature ;
(o) the amendment of the By-Laws ;
(p) the publication of the By-Laws ;
(2) to invite the Secretary to the Conunission to
prepare, as soon as might be found conveniently
practicable after the close of the Congress, the
draft of a revised text of the By-Laws on the lines
indicated in (1) above and to circulate that draft
to the meml)ers of the Commission for approval ;

3/y/ Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

61

Fourth meeting of
the Commission
during its Paris
Session : date and
time noted

(Previous reference:
Paris Session,
2nd Meeting,
Conclusion 36)

(3) that, as soon as the Commission had reached
agreement on the draft text referred to in (2)
above, the revised By-Laws should be printed and
copies placed on sale by the International Trust
for Zoological Nomenclature.

HFMMTV^^ '''^™? PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HJiMMING) suggested that now that the Connuission had
completed their examination of the proposals relating to the
procedure of the Commission submitted in Commission
i'aper 1.0.(48)4, a convenient point had been reached at
vvhich to terminate the work of the Commission for the day
As already arranged, their next meeting, the fourth of their
I'aris Session, would be held at the same pjace at 0900 hours
on the mormng of the following day.
THE COMMISSION agreed :-
to adjourn until 0900 hours on the morning of the
foUowmg day, Thursday, 22nd July, 1948.

{The Commission thereupon axljourned at 2315 hours.)

KUHunMatu

19 APR 1350

{ 6-2 )

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Session held du/itig the Thirteentli Inter national Congress of Zoology,
Paris, 21st-21tli July, 1948

CONCLUSIONS of the Fouxth Meeting held at the Sorbonne in the Amphitheatre
Louis-Liard on Thursday, 22nd July. 1948, at 0900 hours

PRESENT :
Mr. Francis Hemming (United Eangdom) [Actitig President)
Professor E. Beltran (Mexico)
Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands)
Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.)
Professor L. di Caporiacco (Italy)
Professor Harold Kirby (U.S.A.)
Professor Z. P. Metcalf (U.S.A.) "^
Mr. N. D. Riley (United Kmgdom)
Professor V. van Straelen (Belgium)
Professor Robert L. Usinger (U.S.A.)

The following were also present :

Professor Pierre Bonnet (France)

M. Andre Chavan (France)

Mr. Jean Delacour (U.S.A.)

Mr. C. F. dos Passos (U.S.A.)

Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty (U.S.A.)

Dr. H. A. F. Gohar (Egypt)

Professor E. Raymond Hall (U.S.A.)

Professor W. P.Hayes (U.S.A.)

M. Denis Jacques (France)

Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark)

Mr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (United Kuigdom)

Dr. S. di Toledo Piza (Brazil)

Mr. R. Winckworth (United Kingdom)

Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming. Personal Assistant to the Secretary
Miss J. H. Shorey, Acting Documents Officer

Election of Prof. 1 . THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS

fM^xk^oMo be an HEMMING) reported that, in accordance with the arrange-
Alternate Member lueut made at the first meeting of the Commission duriug
of the Commission j^g present Session, Professor Enrique Beltran (Mexico)
of theVarif '**" ^ad been invited to serve as an Alternate Member of the
Session Commission during the present Session of meetings vice

%7il'lZsTlr"'^' Commissioner Angel Cabrera (Argentina), who was unable
let Meeting, to be present. This invitation had been accepted by

Conclusion 6(2)) Professor Beltran.

THE COMMISSION :—

took note of the above statement and welcomed

Professor Beltran to their table.

THANKS TO U.N.E.S.C.O.

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, on behalf
of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have
great pleasure in expressing their grateful thanks to the UNITED
NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL
ORGANISATION (U.N.E.S.C.O.) for the financial assistance
afforded towards the cost of producing the present volume.

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Notice to subscribers regarding tlie arrangements made for the

completion of volume i and for the publication of

volumes 2, 3, 4 and 5

The following arrangements have been made for completing volume 1
of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and for the publication of
volumes 2, 3, 4 and 5 : —

Volume I : A concluding Part (Part 12), containing, inter alia, the Title
Page, Table of Contents, and alphabetical subject index, will be
published shortly.

Volume 2 : This volume, like Volume 1, will be devoted to the publica-
tion of applications in regard to nomenclatorial problems submitted
by specialists to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature for decision. Publication will commence at an early date.

Volume 3 : This volume will be devoted to the publication of the
memoranda, reports and other documents considered by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and by the
Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International Congress
of Zoology at their meetings held in Paris in July 1948. Parts 1-6
have already been published and it is expected that this volume will
be completed shortly on the issue of Parts 7-9.

Volume 4 : This volume will be devoted to the publication of the
Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in July 1948.

Volume 5 : At the request of the Bureau of the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, this volume will be devoted to the publication
of the Official Record of Proceedings of the Section on Nomenclature
of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948,
together with the Reports submitted to the Congress by the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the Section
on Nomenclature.

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.

VOLUME 4. Parts 4/6 25th May, 1950

pp. 63—158. -^

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL

.^SEO NOMENCLATURE

^TTIirt;

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 :

The Official Record of Proceedings of the International Page

Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its
Session held in Paris in July 1948 :

Conclusions of Fourth Meeting

{concluding portion) - - - - _ 63-82
Conclusions of Fifth Meeting - - - 83-106

Conclusions of Sixth Meeting

{first instalment) - - . _ _ 107-158

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Ck>mmis8ion on Zoological

Nomenclature on instructions received from the Thirteenth

International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948,

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.

1950

Price One pound, eight shillings.

{All rights reserved)

^>

s, July, 1948.

63

Telegrams
despatched by the
Acting President
on behalf of the
Commission

(Previous reference:
Paris Session, 1st
Meeting,
Conclusion 4)

(Previous reference:
Paris Session, 2nd
Meeting,
Conclusion 18(6))

(Previous reference:
Paris Session, 2nd
Meeting,
Condtmon 27 )

2. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) recalled that at their first meeting during their
present Session the Commission had invited him to address
a telegram to Commissioner Th. Mortensen (Denmark)
expressing their regret that ill-health prevented him from
being present at the Session now in progress, and that at
their second meeting the Conunission had invited him to
address telegrams to President Karl Jordan expressing their
regret at his decision to relinquish the Office of President
and to the Right Honourable Walter Elliot expressing
their thanks for his having accepted the Presidency of the
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. In the
discharge of these requests, he had now despatched the
following telegrams : —

(a) Telegram to Commissioner Th. Mortensen

" The International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature sincerely regret that your health
makes it impossible for you to be present with them
in Paris and send you their best wishes for speedy
recovery."

(b) Telegram to President Karl Jordan

" The International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature assembled in Paris have received
your resignation of the Presidency with deep regret
but feel bound to respect your wishes and to relieve
you of the burden of office. They propose, however,
to renominate you as a member of the Commission
and intend to invite the Congress to appoint you
also as Honorary Life-President."

(c) Telegram to the Right Honourable Walter Elliot

" At this their first meeting since the formation of
the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature,
the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature now assembled in Paris desire to express
their grateful thanks to you for accepting the
Presidency of the Trust."

THE COMMISSION:—

took note of, and thanked the Acting President for
taking, the action on their behalf reported above.

Meaning of the

expression

" nomenclature

binaire " as used

in the " Regies "

VOL, 4 E

3. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a note
by the Secretary to the Commission covering the draft of a
Report to be submitted by the Commission to the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology on the meaning of the
expression " nomenclature binaire " as used in the Regies
(Commission Paper I. C. (48)5).

64

International Cmnmission on Zoological Nomenchture.

(Previous reference:
Lisbon Session, 5th
Meeting,
Conclusion 3)

In introducing this paper, THE ACTING PRESIDENT
(MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) recalled that for many years
there had been controversy regarding the meaning to be
attached to the expression " nomenclature binaire " as used
in Proviso (b) to Article 25 of the Regies. There had been
violent dissension on this subject at the meeting of the
Congress held at Padua in 1930, when the Section on
Nomenclature had (by a majority) adopted a resolution on
the interpretation to be given to this expression. That
resolution had been invaUd because it had been put to the
vote, notwithstanding the fact that prior notice of the
intention to move this resolution had not been given by its
proposer to the Commission. That action was in contra-
vention of a decision taken by the Congress of Cambridge
(1898) and confirmed by the Congress of BerUn (1901) that,
except with the concurrence of the Conmaission, no resolu-
tion relating to the Regies was to be put to the vote in the
Section on Nomenclature, unless at least one year's notice
had been given to the Commission. The situation cjeated
by the Padua incident had been considered at Lisbon in
1935 by the Comite Permanent des Congres Internationaux de
Zoologie who had referred the whole matter back to the
President of the Section on Nomenclature who in turn had
invited the Commission to submit a Report thereon at the
next meeting of the Congress. That invitation had been
accepted by the Commission and this method of making a
fresh approach to the subject had been approved by the
Congress of Lisbon at its final plenary Session.

The draft Report now submitted to the Commission for
their consideration was the fruit of much discussion between
himself, as Secretary to the Commission, and leading
specialists in Europe and America. Those discussions led
him to believe both that this question was no longer
controversial and that the settlement suggested in the draft
Report would be generally acceptable.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to approve the text of the draft Report on the
meaning of the expression " nomenclature binaire"
as used in the Regies submitted by the Secretary
to the Commission imder cover of the memo-
randmn circulated as Commission Paper I. C. (48)5
and to adopt that text as the text of the Report
to be submitted by the Commission to the
President of the Section on Nomenclature of the
present Congress ;

(2) to authorise and request the Secretary to the
Commission to sign the Report adopted in (1)
above and to submit it forthwith on behalf of

ith Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 65

the Commission to the President of the Section on
Nomenclature ;

(3) in pursuance of the terms of the Report referred
to above : —

(a) to recommend the Congress : —

(i) to substitute the expression " nomen-
clature binominale " for the expres-
sion '■ nomenclature binaire " in
Article 25 and Article 26 of the
Regies;

ifZdin^^^'"'"" ^"^ *° attach to the Regies a Schedule, to

numbering of the ^® known as the " First Schedule," in

.Schedules to the contrast to the present Appendice,

^Par'X^iZ^th Y""^ recomniended in future to be

Meeting, imown as the Second Schedule,"

Conclusion 31) and to direct that every decision,

whether to vaUdate or to suppress a
given book or name or to alter the
usage of a name, taken, or hereafter
to be taken, by the Commission imder
their plenary powers be recorded in
the said First Schedule ;

(Previous reference: (iii) to insert in the Article recommended

3rd Meeting, ' ^^ ^^ inserted in the Regies embody-

Conchmon 7(2)) ing, subject to certain agreed amend-

ments, the provisions of the Plenary
Powers Resolution of 1913 {Declara-
tion 5) a provision exempting appUca-
tions relating to the status of generic
names published after 1757 by
authors who in the book or paper
concerned did not apply the principles
of binominal nomenclature from the
requirement that a specified period
shall elapse between the date on
which the appUcation in question is
pubhshed in the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature and the date on which
the Commission may take a final
decision thereon ;

(iv) to insert in the First Schedule to the
Regies the entry " Brisson (M.J.),
1760, Ornithologia sive Synopsis
methodica sistens Avium Dimsionem
in Ordines " as the title of a book,
generic names in which are to be
accepted as having availability under

vni. A t"

66 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Article 25, notwithstanding the fact
that they were published by an
author who in the work concerned
did not apply the principles of
binominal nomenclature ;

(b) to cancel Opinions 20 and 37, the inter-
pretations of the Regies contained in which
had now been ruled by the Commission as
incorrect ;

(c) to substitute the words " who used a non-
binominal nomenclature " for the words
" who used a binary (Art. 25) (though not
binominal) nomenclature " in the first
sentence of the " summary " to Opinion 24 ;

(d) to substitute the words " On the species
eligible for selection as the type species of
a genus estabUshed by a binominal author,
where some or all of the originally included
species were not cited by binominal names "
for the words " Types of genera of binary
but not binominal authors " as the title of
Opinion 35 ;

(4) to congratulate the Secretary to the Commission
on the masterly fashion in which he had marshalled
the data relating to the meaning of the expression
" nomenclature binaire " for the consideration of
the Commission.

Consolidation and 4. THE COMMISSION had imder consideration a
"^'"RTgUs " : memorandum by the Secretary to the Commission out-
preliminary lining proposals for the consolidation and amendment of
consideration the Regies (Commission Paper I. C. (48)6, Part 1).

THE COMMISSION :—

(1) approved generally the proposals for the con-

sohdation and amendment of the Regies submitted

by the Secretary to the Conmiission in Commission

Paper I.C.(48)6 ;

^i^f f/*';*''"^*' , (2) agreed to direct their energies towards securing : —

Pans Ses/tion. m / \ xi, • x- -^i. r>< 7 r • •

Meeting, (*) ^^^ mcorporation m the Regies 01 provisions

Conclusion 10) embodying the interpretations of existing

Articles given by the Commission in
interpretative Opinions already rendered,
subject to such modifications or exceptions
as they might consider proper ;
(b) the clarification of certain pro\nsions in the
Regies relating to important questions on
nomenclature, where the meaning of those

\(k Mcdiiuj, Paris, July, 194«.

67

(Later reference:
Paris Session,
4th Meelitig,
Conclusion 13)

{Later reference:
Paris Session,
&h Meeting,
Conclusion 1)

(Later reference:
Paris Session,
5th Meeting,
Conclusionl)

(Later reference:
Paris Session,
6th Meeting,
Conclusion 50)

111-

used in relation to
in Proviso (a) to

Status of new
names published in
a form or in a
manner
contravening
Articles 14-16, 18 and
20

provisions was in dispute, e.g. : —

(i) the meaning of the expression

dication " as

generic names

Article 25 ;
(ii) the meaning of the provisions in

Articles 35 and 36 relating to specific

homonyms ;
(iii) the status, if any, of names proposed

for forms of less than subspecific

rank ;

(c) the clarification of certain provisions in the
Regies, where the implication of those
provisions was in doubt ;

(d) the insertion in the Regies of provisions on
various matters not dealt with in any of the
existing Articles ;

(e) the substitution of " Recommandations " for
mandatory provisions in certain cases ;

(f ) the incorporation in the Regies of provisions
embodying resolutions on nomenclature and
nomenclatorial practice adopted at various
times by the Commission or by the Com-
mission and the Congress and subsequently
recorded in Deckirations rendered by the
Commission ;

(g) the remedying of grammatical and other
defects in the Regies due to careless or
inexpert drafting ;

(h) the completion of the substantive French
text of the Regies;

(i) the gecuring of accurate translations in
English and other languages of the sub-
stantive French text of the Regies.

5. In the course of the discussion recorded in Conclusion
4(2)(c) above, THE COMMISSION had under consideration
the position arising when a new name was published in a
form or in a manner which contravened one or other of
Articles 14-16, 18 and 20 (Commission Paper I. C. (48)6, para-
graph 11). The Regies did not make it clear whether a
name so published was to be corrected automatically by
later authors to make it conform with the requirements of
the Regies or whether (as appeared to be implied by Opinion
8) a name published in contravention of any of the foregoing
provisions was to be preserved for all time in the incorrect
form in which it was originally published. An allied
question on which a clarification of the Regies was required
was whether, when a name was emended under Article 19,

68 Inlernalioiml Commission on Zoological Nom,endature

that name in its emended form ranked for purposes of
priority (1) from the date on which the name of which it
was an emendation was pubhshed, or (2) only from the
date on which the emendation was pubhshed. Arising out
of this last point, there was also the question of the author
to whom an emended name should be credited. Should it
be the original author of the incorrectly formed name or
the author by whom the emendation was pubhshed ?

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to recommend that provisions should be inserted
in the Regies to make it clear :—

(a) that, where a name is published in a form or
in a manner which contravenes any of the
provisions contained in Articles 14-16, 18 or
Article 20, the error so committed is
automatically to be corrected by subsequent
authors ;

(b) that, where a name is originally published in
a form or in a manner which contravenes any
of the Articles specified in (a) above but
later that error is removed by the name
being corrected or by the form of its citation
being altered, as the case may be, the name
in its corrected form or with its corrected
mode of citation ranks for purposes of
priority from the date on which it was
originally published in an incorrect form or
in an incorrect manner and is to be attri-
buted to the author by whom it was so
published and not to the author by whom it
wtis corrected or by whom it was first cited
in a correct manner ;

(c) that, where a name is validly emended in
accordance with the provisions of Article 19,
that name ranks for purposes of priority
from the date on which it was originally
published in an incorrect form and is to be
attributed to the author by whom it was so
published ;

(2) to cancel Opinion 8, the interpretation of the
Regies contained in which was incorrect.

6. In the course of the discussion recorded in Con-
Proviso (c)(2) : elusion 4(2)(e) above, the ACTING PRESIDENT (MR.
the expression FRANCIS HEMMING) said that the general policy recom-
ii'Ki^""'* h" mended to the Commission was that ritualistic provisions,
referencV*"* which had been included at different times in Article 25

4th MeeliiKj, Paris, July, 1948. 69

(Law of Priority) and which had the unintended but
unfortunate effect of invalidating names which, though
otherwise properly pubhshed, were defective on some
highly technical ground, should be replaced by others of a
more liberal, i.e. less rigorous, character but that Recom-
mandations should be added at appropriate points in
Article 25 indicating the ideal procedure to be aimed at.
The problem now to be considered was the position created
by the insertion in Article 25 (by the Budapest Congress of
1927) of the provision that, in order to satisfy the require-
ments of that Article, a name pubhshed after 31st December,
1930, as a substitute for a previously pubhshed name must
be accompanied by a " definite bibliographic reference " to
the name to be replaced. At their meeting held at Lisbon
in 1935 the Commission had considei-ed a request for an
elucidation of the meaning of this expression, and in
answer to that question had ruled (Opinion 138) that this
expression required that a new name published as a sub-
stitute name should be accompanied by a bibliographical
reference consisting of the name to be replaced, its author,
the date of its publication, the work or serial in which it
was pubhshed, the number of the volume, if the work was
published in more than one volume, and the number of the
page on which the name appeared. In view of the use of
the expression " definite bibliographic reference " in
Article 25, no other interpretation could logically have been
given by the Commission. This decision had had, however,
an unfortunate effect, for it had invalidated names which
were otherwise perfectly satisfactory, as had been pointed
out in a communication submitted to the Commission by
Dr. J. Brookes Knight (Washington) acting on behalf of
the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for
Paleontology in America (Commission File Z.N.(S)352).
THE COMMISSION agreed :—
(1) to recommend : —

(a) the deletion of Section (2) of Proviso (c) to
Article 25 and the insertion in its place of a
new Section (2) as follows : —

" in the case of a name proposed as a
substitute for a name which is invalid by
reason of being a homonym, with a
reference to the name which is thereby
replaced "

insertion of a Recommandation to
Proviso (c )(2), urging authors, when pub-
Ushing substitute names, to give a full
bibliographical reference to the name so
replaced, that is, to cite the name itself, its

70

Interiiational Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

author, the date on which it was pubUshed,
the title of the book or serial in which it
was published, the volume number where
■ the book or serial consists of more than
one volmne, and the page number or, where
the pages are not numbered, the number or
letter or other mark distinguishing the
portion of the text in which the name
concerned was pubUshed ;

(2) to cancel Opinion 138, as from the date on which
Article 25 is amended in the sense recommended
in (1) above, when that Opinion, by reason of
referring to the existing text of Article 25, will
have ceased to be applicable.

Article 25,
Proviso (c)(1) :
the expression
" which
differentiate . . ,

7. THE COMMISSION considered next the expression
" with a summary of characters which differentiate or
distinguish the genus or species from other genera or species,"
as used in Section (1) to Proviso (c) to Article 25. Professor
H. B. Hungerford (U.S.A.) (Commission File Z.N.(S)61) had
asked whether, under these words, it was necessary that a
description of a new species, in order to make the new name
available, must contain an express reference to, and a
comparison with, some previously published species (see
Hungerford. 1945, Btdl. Zool. Nomencl. 1 : 102-103).

In the discussion which ensued, it was generally agreed
that, though well-intentioned, this provision in Article 25
was open to the objection that it invalidated otherwise
properly published names on a purely technical nomen-
clatorial groimd. It was a ritualistic pro\'ision which
should be modified in conformity with the principle adopted
in dealing with the expression " definite bibliographic
reference." What was needed was that this provision
should require a higher standard for names published after
31st December, 1930, than for names published before that
date (when all that was required was that the new narne
should be pubUshed with an " indication, definition or
description '"). The provision in question should, however,
be less rigorous than that contained in the existing Section
(1) to Proviso (c). It was pointed out that, if the require-
ment that the description shoiUd be comparative were to
be deleted, the only distinction which could be drawn in
this matter between names published on or after 1st January,
1931, and names pubUshed before 1st January, 1931, was
between names which, when first published, had been
accompanied by words giving particulars of characters and
those which depended for their availability, in the case of

Uh Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

71

{For a later decision,
on the status of
generic names
published before \st
January 1931
without a type species,
see Paris Session,
4th Meeting,
Conclusion 13)

(For a decision to
extend this provision
consequent upon the
admission of the
immes of forms of less
than subspecific
rank to rights wilder
the Law of Priority,
see Paris Session,
5th Meeting,
Conclti&ion 1)

Article 25, Proviso
(c)(3) : the
expression
" definite
unambiguous
designation of the
type species " ;

Article 29 and 30

Consequential

amendments

generic names, solely upon the designation or citation of a
type species, and, in the case of the trivial names of
species or subspecies, solely upon an accompanying fieure
or illustration. r y & &

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :-

(1) the deletion of Section (1) of Proviso (c) to Article
25 and the insertion in its place of a new Section
(1) as follows : —

" with a statement in words indicating the
characters of the genus, species or subspecies
concerned."

(2) to insert a Recommandation to Proviso (c)(1),
urging authors, when drawing up descriptions of
new genera, subgenera, species or subspecies to
give not only an absolute, but also a comparative,
description thereof, by indicating :—

(a) in the case of a generic or subgeneric name,
the characters which separate the genus or
subgenus concerned from the previously
described genus or subgenus to which it is
considered that the new genus or subgenus
is most closely allied ;

(b) in the case of a specific name, the characters
which separate the new species from the
previously described species to which it is
considered to be most closely allied, and, if
that is a Uttle-known species, the characters
which separate the new species from a
well-known or common species included in
the genus ;

(c) in the case of a subspecific name, the
characters which distinguish the new sub-
species from the subspecies to which it is
considered to be most closely allied, and, if
that is a little-known subspecies, the
characters which distinguish the new sub-
species from a well-known or common
subspecies of the species concerned.

8. THE COMMISSION turned to the consideration of
of the expression " definite unambiguous designation of the
type species " as used in Section (.3) to Proviso (c) to Article
25. This question, which was referred to in paragraphs 13
and 15 of Commission Paper I.C.(48)6, had been brought to
the attention of the Commission by Professor E. Gorton
Lmsley, on behalf of the American Committee on Entomo-
logical Nomenclature (Commission File Z.N.(S)342).

72

hxlernaliotml Commissuni on Zoological Nomemlature.

( For a decision to
amend the
phraseology used in
this part of Article 30,
see Paris Session,
1th Meeting,
Conclusion 5)

(For a decision
amplifying this
decision, see Paris
Session, Rth Meeting,
Conclusion 68)

111 the discussion of this problem, it was noted that this
was another example of a well-intentioned provision which
had the miintended effect of invalidating names on highly
technical nomenclatorial grounds. For example, under this
provision, a name published after 31st December, 1930
for a new monobasic genus was invalid, if the author of that
genus failed to give a " definite unambiguous citation " of
the type species. It was a ritualistic provision which should
be modified in accordance with the principle adopted in the
similar cases in Sections (1) and (2) of the same Proviso
(Proviso (c) ) to Article 25. There was general agreement
that the reasonable course to adopt would be to provide
that for the purposes of Section (3) of Proviso (c) a generic
name pubhshed after 31st December, 1930, must have its
type species clearly designated or, as the case may be,
indicated in accordance with one or other of the Rules laid
down in the first group of Rules (i.e. the group headed
" Cases in which the generic type is accepted solely upon the
basis of the original publication ") given in the Article
(Article 30) which lays down the way in which the type
species of genera are to be determined.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

(1) to delete Section (3) to Proviso (c) to Article 25
and insert in its place a new Section (3) in the
following sense : —

" in the case of a generic or subgeneric name, with a
type species designated or, as the case may be, indicated
in accordance with one or other of the rules prescribed for
determining the type species of a geiuis or subgenus
solely upon the basis of the original publication (i.e.
Rules (a) to (d) in Article 30) "

(2) to add to Article 25 a RecomtrumdatioH strongly
urging every author, when publishing a name for
a new genus or subgenus : —

(a) expressly to designate by name the type
species of the genus or subgenus as the case
may be ;

(b) when designating as the type species a
species the name of which has already been
pubhshed, to cite that species, first imder
the binominal combination under which
the species was originally published, giving
at the same time a bibliographical reference
to the place where that name was pubhshed,
and second under its new binominal com-
bination consisting of the new generic name
and the trivial name of the species or, in the
case of a new subgeneric name, of the generic

ith Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

73

Status of the
provisions in the
former " Appendice"
now a Schedule to
the " Regies "
{Previous refereyice:
Paris Session,
4th Meeting,
Conclusion 3(3)(a)(ii))

(For a later decision
regarding the
numbering of the
Schedules to the
" Regies " see Paris
Session, 9th Meeting,
Conclusion 31)

Grammatical
inconsistencies
in the " Regies "

Article 31 : need
for the removal
of confusion
between taxonomy
and nomenclature
and for the
substitution of
direct provisions
for the existing
provisions by
reference

name of the species, the new subgeneric

name and the trivial name of the species (an

example of each type of case being added) ;

(3) that a similar Recommandation in relation to the

selection of the type species of a genus by an

author under Rule (g) in Article 30 be added to

that Article and that the existing Recommandation

to Article 29 be deleted.

9. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
proposals m regard to the status of the provisions in what
was at present called the Appendice to the Regies but which
it had been agreed to recommend should in future be styled
the Second Schedule, submitted in paragraph 18(1) of
Commission Paper I.C.(48)6.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—
that an Article should be inserted in the Regies
referring to the Second Schedule (i.e. the present
Appendice) and making it clear that the provisions
mcluded therein were not mandatory but were in the
nature of recommendations as to good nomenclatorial
practice.

10. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
recommendations submitted in paragraph 18(2) of Com-
mission Paper I.C.(48)6, for the removal of grammatical
inconsistencies from the Regies, particularly the random
and haphazard use of the tenses of the verb " etre " (to be).
THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :-
that, in the forthcoming revision of the Regies, care
should be taken to remove the grammatical inconsis-
tencies which mar the existing text and in particular
to ensure the use of the correct tenses of the verb
" etre " (to be) to indicate the mandatory character
of the Articles included in the Regies and the non-
mandatory character of the provisions of the Second
Schedule.

11. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
difficulties arising from the confusion in the Regies between
taxonomy and nomenclature referred to in paragraph 18(3)
of Commission Paper I.C.(48)6, with special reference to
Article 31, which, as at present drafted, appeared to prescribe
a procedure for the " subdivision d'une espece " and the
" subdivision dun genre," both of which were taxonomic
matters, with which a code of nomenclature was not
directly concerned. What this Article was intended to
provide for were the nomenclatorial implications of the

74

Inleniational Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

taxonomic operations in question and not the operations
themselves. It was important that this defect should be
eliminated from this Article. It was important also that
specific instructions shoidd be included in the Regies
regarding the method to be followed in determining to which
of two or more species originally included in a composite
nominal species, the name given to that species shoidd
adhere. The aim should be to secure that Article 31 should
apply as closely as possible to the type specimen of a
nominal species the rules laid down in Article 30 for deter-
mining the type species of a genus, the name of which had
been pubhshed prior to 1st Januarj^, 1931. Naturally,
there should be included in Article 31 also provisions parallel
to any provisions supplementing or clarifying the corres-
ponding Rules in Article 30 which might be agreed upon
during the present Congress.

{Later reference:
Paris Session, 6lh
Meeting,
Conclusion 26)

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) that in its present form Article 31 was defective,
both because the phraseology involved impUed
a confusion between taxonomy and nomenclature,
and because in so important a matter as that
dealt with in this Article it was essential that the
required pro\'isions should be expressly stated
and not left to be inferred by reference to another
i^jticle (Article 30) dealing with an only partially
comparable question ;

(2) in view of (1) above, to recommend that Article 31
in its present form should be deleted from the
Regies and that in place of the present text of
that Article there should be inserted pro\dsions
laying down for the determination of the identity
of a nominal species rules parallel to those pre-
scribed for determining the identity (i.e. the type
species) of a genus in Article 29 and in Rules (a),
(b), (c) and (g) in Article 30, that is to say pro-
visions prescribing : —

(a) that, where a nominal species is found to be a com-
posite species, the name given to that nominal
species is to be applied to one or other of the com-
ponent species, and that where the original author of
a nominal species designated a given specimen to be
the type specimen of that nominal species or an
illustration, figure, or previously published des-
cription exclusively to represent the t_\^e specimen,
the name in question shall in all circumstances
adhere to the taxonomic species represented by that
specimen or, as the case may be. by the iUustration,
figure or previously published description so
designated to represent that specimen (provision
parallel to Article 29) ;

ith Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

75

( For a later decision
prescribing the term-
inology to be applied to
type specimens, see
Putts Session,
G/A Meeting,
Conclusion 75)

(li) that, where an author publishes the name of a
nominal species, based either (i) upon two or more
specimens or (ii) partly upon one or more specimens
and partly ujion one or more illustrations or figures
(whether then published for the first time or pre-
viously published) or upon one or more previously
published descriptions or upon any combination of
the above, the type sjjecimen of the nominal species
or, as the case maj- be, the illustration, figure or
previously published description which shall there-
after exclusively represent the tj'pe specimen shall
be determined in accordance with the following
Rules applied successively (provision jiarallel to
introductory portion of Article .30) : —

(i) where at the time of the publication of the
name of a nominal species the original author
thereof designates either (1) one specimen to
be the type specimen or (2) one illustration
or one figure or one previous!}^ published
description exclusively to represent the type
specimen, the specimen, illustration, figure or
previously published description so designated
shall be the type specimen of the nominal
species or, as the case may be, shall thereafter
exclusively represent the type specimen
(Rule parallel to Rule (a) in Article 30) ;
(ii) where, in default ot a type designation under
(i) above, the original author of the name of
a nominal species indicates that one but not
more than one specimen is the type specimeYi
by afiixing thereto a label bearing the legend
" type " or its equivalent, the specimen so
labelled shall be the type specimen of that
nominal species (Rule parallel to Rule (b)
in Article 30) ;
(iii) where neither Rule (i) nor Rule (ii) above is
applicable (1) any one specimen included in
the original author's type material, not being
a specimen excluded from consideration under
(d) below, or (2) any one of the illustrations,
figuies or published descriptions cited in the
original description of the nominal species
which is the first subsequently to be selected
by the same or another author to be the type
specimen or, as the case may be, exclusively to
represent the type specimen, shall be the
type specimen of that nominal species or
shall exclusivelj- represent that specimen, the
expressions " select the type specimen " and
" select to represent the type specimen " to
be rigidly construed and to exclude the
application of the trivial name of the nominal
species concerned to a single originall}' in-
cluded specimen, illustration, figure or pre-
viously published description, unaccompanied
by a clear indication that a selection is being
made (Rule parallel to Rule (g) in Article 30) ;
(c) that, where an author publishes the name of a
nominal species based exclusively (i) upon a single
specimen, or (ii) upon a single illustration or figure
(whether then published for the first time or pre-
viously published) or (iii) upon a single previously
published description, the single specimen or the-
single illustration or figure or the single previously
published description in question shall be, or, as
the case may be, shall exclusively represent, the
\ypo specimen of that nominal species (Rule p.nrallel
to Rule (c) in Article 30) ;

76 Internalional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

(fl) that no specimen, illustration, figure or previously
jniblished description is eligible to be selected to be
the type specimen, or. as the case may be, to represent
the type specimen, of a nominal species, if that
specimen, illustration, figure or tlescription was
only doubtfully referred to the nominal species by
the original author in his description of that species
or was, or represented, a specimen inquireiulum from
the standpoint of that author (provision parallel to
Rule (e) in Article 30) ;

(e) that the interpretation of Rule (g) in Article 30 in
relation to the type species of genera given in the
Commission's Opinion ti, shall apply to the tj-pe
specimen of a nominal species, only where the name
of such a species was pubhshed prior to 1st Januarj-,
1931 and where that species was based upon two,
but not more than two, specimens and one of those
specimens was later designated as the tj'pe specimen
of another nominal species by the same or another
author :

(f) that, where, prior to 1st Januarj', 1931, two or more
nominal species were founded, in whole or in part,
upon the same type material, any one specimen
which formed part of the type material of both
nominal species may be selected as the type specimen
of either or both of the nominal species concerned
(provision parallel to that applied to Article 30 by
Opinion 62) ;

(g) that, where an author, when publishing the name of a
nominal species, either (i) omits to specify the
material on which that nominal species is based
and it is later found impossible to trace that material,
or (ii) specifies his t^'pe material, but that material
either (a) is so imperfect or in such bad condition
as to render it impossible to recognise the taxonomic
species of which it consists, or (b) was lost or des-
troyed before the identity of the taxonomic species
in question was established, the following rules are
to be applied : —

(1) where, in spite of the lack of a holotype or
leetotype or, as the case may be, of a recognis-
able holotype or leetotype, speciabsts are
able to recognise the taxonomic species
represented bj" the nominal species in question
the name of that nominal species shall apply
to the taxonomic species so recognised ;

(2) where specialists are agreed that the available
evidence is insufficient to permit of the
identification of the taxonomic species repre-
sented by the nominal species in question,
the name of that nominal species is to be
treated as a nomen duhium and therefore
not available for use for taxonomic purposes ;

(3) where some but not all specialists claim to
be able to recognise the taxonomic species
represented by the nominal species in question
or where there is disagi-cement among special-
ists as to the taxonomic species so to be
recognised, the question at issue is to be
referred to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature for decision;

(h) that the provisions now to be inserted in the Regies
^ should include also the provisions embodied in the

second sentence (" Un nom . . . dans les genres
Subttanrive French separes ") of the existing text of Article 31.

"XglVs**" : 12. THE COMMISSION turned next to the proposals

arrangements to be relating to the drafting of passages for incorporation in the

made for substantive Frencli text of the Regies for which at present

completion and i ii i- , ■ ^ i • i • i ^,^ p

promulgation only li,ngn.sli texts existed, submitted in paragraph 19 oi

ith Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 77

Commission Paper I.C.(48)6, and to the preparation of
corresponding drafts to give effect to additions and other
changes agreed upon at the present (Paris) meeting, sub-
Jiiitted in Part 2 (paragraphs 22-27) of the same Paper.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—
(1) to recommend : —

(a) that the present Congress should not itself
draft passages to be inserted in the sub-
stantive French text of the Regies either for
the purpose of completing those portions
for which at present only English texts
existed or for the purpose of giving effect
to decisions to make additions to, or changes
in, the Regies taken by the present Congress,
but, in view of the highly technical nature
of the task involved in drafting such
passages, should instruct the Commission as
soon as possible after the close of the
Congress to refer all the relevant documents
to jurists, with instructions that they should
prepare the draft of a revised substantive
French text of the Regies, together with a
literal translation thereof in the English
language ;

(b) that, when the draft texts prepared by the
jurists in accordance with (a) above were
received by the Secretary to the Commission,
he should forthwith commimicate one copy
to each Member of the Commission and to
each zoologist who served as an Alternate
Member thereof during the Paris Session,
with a request that the Member or Alternate
Member of the Commission concerned should
compare the drafts with the decisions
recorded in the Official Record of the Pro-
ceedings of the Commission at its Paris
Session, as approved by the Congress, and
should notify to the Secretary, as soon as
possible and in any case within a period of
three calendar months calculated from the
date of despatch of the draft texts from the
Secretariat of the Commission, any dis-
crepancy or apparent discrepancy which he
may have noted ;

(c) that, on the expiry of the period of three
months referred to in (b) above or such
earlier date by which all members of the

78

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

(For a later decision
substituti iig an ad hoc
Committee for the
Executive Committee,
see Paris Session,
1 Ith Meetiivg,
Conclusion 5)

(Later refererux:
Paris Session,
\2,th Meeting,
Conclusion 26)

Commission may have furnished their
comments to the Secretary to the Com-
mission, that Officer, after such further
consultations with the jurists as he may
consider necessary, shall refer the comments
received under (b) above to the Executive
Committee of the Commission for final
decision ;

(d) that, as soon as decisions have been taken
by the Executive Committee on the matters
referred to them under (c) above, the
Secretary to the Commission should prepare
for pubhcation at the earliest possible
moment an edition of the Regies consisting
of the revised substantive French text on
left-hand pages and of the corresponding
literal translation into EngUsh on right-hand
pages, the two texts to be printed so as to
secure line for line correspondence ;

(e) that, as soon as might be practicable after
the publication of the foregoing edition of
the Regies, arrangements should be made by
the Commission for the pubhcation of
editions consisting in each case of the
revised substantive French text accom-
panied in the first case by an authoritative
translation into the German language, in
the second case of a translation into the
Italian language and in the third case of a
corresponding translation into the Spanish
language ;

(2) to take note with satisfaction that, thanks partly
to the financial assistance anticipated from
UNESCO and partly to a special grant made by
the Royal Society of London, it was intended to
place the revised edition of the Regies on sale at
a very low price.

Article 25,

Proviso (a) :

meaning of

expression

" indication " in

relation to generic

names

13. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
memorandum submitted by the Secretary to the Com-
mission on the subject of the meaning, in relation to
generic names, of the expression " indication " as used in
Proviso (a) to Article 25 of the Regies (Commission Paper
I.C.(48)7). Up till 1944 the general but not universal
practice of zoologists had been to assume that a generic
name was published with an " indication " (and therefore
complied with the requirements of Proviso (a) to Article 25)
if on the first publication of the generic name, previously

itk Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 79

published nominal species were cited thereunder, irres-
pective of whether any descriptive words characterising
the genus were pubhshed at the same time. In 1944 the
Secretary pubhshed a note drawing attention to the inter-
pretation of the expression " indication " given by the
Commission in their Opinion 1 (first pubhshed in 1907)
which made it clear that this interpretation of the expression
" indication " was wider than was justified by the existing
law and that it was only when a genus was monotypica] or
was established with a designated type that a generic name
given to it without any descriptive matter possessed any
availability under Article 25. In order to clarify the
position as regards existing practice, the Joint Committee
on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America
had thereupon drawn up a questionnaire which they had
distributed to a large body of representative taxonomists in
the United States and the United Kingdom. This investiga-
tion had elicited 87 significant repUes, of which 76 stated
that the more liberal interpretation of the expression
" indication " was employed in the field of the speciahst
consulted or was employed by that specialist in his owr
work or should, in his view, be employed in preference tc
the narrower interpretation given in Opinion 1. This
latter interpretation was supported by only 11 of the
speciahsts consulted. The rephes showed also that in no
single branch of the Animal Kingdom did a majority of the
specialists consulted favour the interpretation given in
Opinion 1, and that in this matter American and British
zoologists had an identical outlook (the figures being for
United States zoologists, 52 to 6 in favour of the more
liberal interpretation, and for British zoologists, 24 to 5).
In submitting to the Commission the replies received in
answer to the questionnaire, together with a summary, of
which the foregoing is an abstract, the Joint Committee
had invited the Commission to amend Opinion 1 in such a
way as to secure that a generic name published with " one
or more validly named species " but without descriptive
matter should be regarded as having been published with an
" indication" within the meaning of Proviso (a) to Aiticle 25.

In placing this problem before the Commission, THE
ACTING PRESIDENT said that zoologists generally
were under a debt of gratitude to the Joint Committee
on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America
for the careful preparatory work which they had undertaken
before submitting their recommendations to the Com-
mission. That preparatory work had greatly simphfied
the issues involved and would correspondingly ease the
task of the Conmiission in reaching a decision. Proceeding,

VOL. 4 F

80

Ititernalional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

(PircioKs reference:
Paris Session,
ilh Meeting.
Conclusion 5(2))

the Acting President recalled that the Commission itself
possessed no legislative functions ; its functions were
judicial and concerned therefore with the interpretation
of the Keglcs ; once, therefore, the Commission had given
a judicial interpretation of the meaning of a given provision
in the Regies, it was jwwerless. as a body, to vary that
interpretation, unless it coukl be estabhshed that that
interpretation itself was in conflict with the express
provisions of the Regies, as, for example, it had now been
agreed had been the case in the interpretation of Article 14
given in Opinion 8. Apart from an exceptional case of
this kind, the only way to secure that a given provision of
the Regies should bear a meaning different from the inter-
pretation given by the Commission in an Opinion was to
obtain from the Congress a decision to amend the provision
concerned. Immediately upon the adoption of such an
amendment, the earlier interpretation given by the Com-
mission would lapse, the Opinion in which that interpreta-
tion had been given ceasing to have any further relevance.
On receiving the application in the present matter from the
Joint Committee, he, as Secretary to the Commission, had
re-examined Opinion 1 and had come to the conclusion that
no technical flaw could be detected in it. In preparing the
paper now submitted, he had accordingly recommended
the Commission to invite the Congress to secure the desired
end by means of an express amendment of the provisions
of Article 25.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to recommend that Proviso (a) to .Article 25 should
be so amended as to secure that a generic or
subgeneric name published before 1st January,
1931, shall be available under that Article as from
the date of its original pubUcation not only when
(as at present) it was then accompanied by a
definition or description or when the genus was
monotypical or when a type 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 ;

(2) simultaneously with the adoption of the recom-
mendation submitted in (1) above, to cancel as
being no longer applicable the interpretation of
Proviso (a) to Article 25 given in Section (B)(3)
of Opinion 1.

4th Meelitu/, Paru. July. 1948.

81

Status of names
proposed for forms
of less than
subspecific rank :
preliminary
consideration
(Previous reference:
Lisbon Session,
2nd Meeting.
Conclusion 17)

14. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) said that the next item to be considered by
the Commission was the question of the status of names
proposed for forms of infra-sul^specific rank. Preliminary
consideration had been given to this subject by the Com-
mission at their meeting held at Lisbon in 1935, when they
had had before them a resolution on this subject adopted by
the Fifth International Congress of Entomology at its
meeting held in Paris in 1932. The Commission had
decided at Lisbon that the time then at their disposal would
not suffice to enable them to deal adequately with the
problems involved in the resolution submitted by the
Congress of Entomology. They had accordingly decided
to invite the Secretary to the Commission to confer with
specialists in representative branches of the Animal King-
dom regarding the status to be accorded to names proposed
for forms of less than subspecific rank, with a view to the
formulation of an Opinion appropriate to each of the various
circumstances in which this problem arises. In accordance
with these instructions, he had held extensive discussions
on this subject with leading specialists in various parts of
the world. Very helpful suggestions had been received
from two specialist groups, namely the American Commit-
tee on Entomological Nomenclature and the Joint Com-
mittee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology
in America, while among individual specialists he was
particularly indebted to Dr. Charles L. Remington (U.S.A.).
Valuable help had been rendered also by Professor Carlos
G. Aguayo (Cuba), Professor J. C. Faure (Union of South
Africa), Professor E. Gorton Linsley (U.S.A.), Dr. H. K.
Munro (Union of South Africa), Mr. N. D. Riley (United
Kingdom), Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky (U.S.A.), Dr. G. van
Son (Union of South Africa) and Dr. Roger Verity (Italy),
either through papers published by these authors or through
correspondence. It was in the light of these and other
consultations that, in collaboration with his wife, he had
prepared the Report called for by the Commission at its
Lisbon meeting, which he now suljmitted as Commission
Paper I.C.(48)9. For the reasons explained in that Report,
he did not consider that it would be practicable to deal with
this compUcated subject by way of an Opinion, nor would it,
in his view, be correct to attempt to do so. If the matter
was to be dealt with at all— and he considered it important
that it should be dealt with, in view of the wide diversity of
practice which existed at the present time— the proper (and
the only proper) way to proceed would, in his view, be to
invite the Congress to make express provision in the Regies.
Recommendations to this end were included in the Report
which he had submitted.

V(i[.. J r2

82

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Continuing, THE ACTING PRESIDENT said that
tliere was clearly not time for the Commission to examine
the Report at the present meeting. It would be helpful,
however, if, before the Commission adjourned, they could
indicate their general attitude on the question of the
procedure to be followed in dealing with the questions
raised in the Report.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) that in view of the importance of the question of
the status to be accorded to names proposed for
infra-subspecific forms, the long period during
which this matter had been under consideration
and the need for securing uniformity in this field
of zoological nomenclature, every effort should be
made to seciire the approval of the present Congress
for the insertion in the Regies of provisions dealing
with this subject ;

(2) that the Report submitted by the Secretary (Com-
mission Paper I.C.(48)9) should be placed on the
Agenda of their next meeting for consideration as
the first item.

Fifth Meeting of
the Commission
during its Paris
Session : time
appointed

15. THE COMMISSION agreed:—

to adjourn imtil 1430 hours on the afternoon of the
same day.

{The Commission thereupon adjourned at 1220 hours.)

(83)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION onZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Session held during the Thirteenth Intermtianal Congress of Zoology
Paris, 2lst-27th July, 1948

CONCLUSIONS of the Fifth Meeting held at the Sorbonne in the Amphitheatre
Louis-Liard on Thursday, 22nd July 1948, at 1430 hours.

PRESENT :

Mr Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) {Acting President)

Professor H. Bosclima (Netherlands)

Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.)

Professor L. di Caporiacco (Italy)

Professor Harold Kirby (U.S.A.)

Professor Z. P. Metcalf (U.S.A.)

Mr. N. D. Riley (United Kingdom)

Professor R. Sparck (Denmark)

Professor V. van Straelen (Belgium)

Professor Robert L. Usinger (U.S.A.)

The following were also present :

Dr. E. A. Chapin (U.S.A.)

Mr. C. F. dos Passos (U.S.A.)

Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty (U.S.A )

Professor E. R. Hall (U.S.A.)

Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark)

Mrs. M. F. VV. Hemming, Persoml Assistant to the Secretary
Miss J. H. Shorey, Acting Documents Officer

VtZo.lA foTf" ms , \ THE COMMISSION resumed their consideration of

of leis than ^ »f Report on the status of names proposed for forms of less

furth'ercon.ideration p'^" «."bspecific rank submitted by the Secretary to the

(Previous reference: "^ ommission (Commission Paper I.C.(48)9), to which

i^r vS'""' preliminary consideration had been given at their previous

ConclJsion'u) nieetmg. In this Report Commissioner Francis Hemming

pointed out that the lowest taxonomic category recognised

in t he Regies was the ' ' subspecies. ' ' There was considerable

diversity of view regarding the way in which this expression

should be interpreted in this context, some zoologists holding

that this expression should be understood to have in the

Regies the meaning commonly attached to it by taxonomists

while others argued that in the Regies this expression covers'

or should cover, every infra-specific categorv and not

merely populations which differ constantly from one another

within a given species. The lack of guidance in the Regies

on this question had led to much confusion and diversity of

84 InternatioTud Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

practice ; it was essential therefore that the Congress should
agree to insert words in the Regies to make it clear which of
the two opposing interpretations was correct.

For those zoologists who were primarily concerned with
the species problem and the variation of populations within
a species, there was no need for names to be given to
seasonal forms and other minority elements. Indeed, from
the standpoint of this group of zoologists, the giving of
names to minority elements was open to strong objection,
if those names possessed, or were to possess, a status co-
ordinate with that of the names of subspecies and species,
for in that event these zoologists would need to keep records
of the thousands of names involved, in case it might be
found that a name so given was the oldest available name
for some subspecies or species which had not hitherto been
named or which had no valid name and to ensure that names
given to subspecies and species were not homonyms of
names given to forms of infra-subspecific rank. On the
other hand, there was a considerable body of zoologists,
especially in certain groups (e.g. in some of the Orders of
the Class Insecta), who were particularly interested in the
study of infra-subspecific forms (seasonal, sexual, dimorphic)
and individual aberrations. For this group of workers it
was essential that protection should be given in the Regies to
names proposed for infra-subspecific forms, since otherwise
there would be nothing to ensure that the same form was
always denoted by the same name (Law of Priority) or that
the same name was always used to denote the same form
(Law of Homonymy). In such circumstances, inter-
communication and mutual understanding in this branch
of zoology would be seriously handicapped.

It was clear therefore that no solution of the present
problem would be acceptable which denied to the names of
infra-subspecific units the rights conferred by the Law of
Priority or excluded such names from the scope of the Law
of Homonymy. It was equally clear that no solution would
be 'acceptable which granted an absolute parity to names
bestowed upon infra-subspecific forms with names bestowed
upon subspecies and species. The scheme embodied in the
Report was designed to meet the practical needs both of
those zoologists whose requirements were such that they
should have at their disposal names for taxonomic units of
infra-subspecific rank and also of those zoologists for whom
there was no such need.

The first essential of any scheme designed to meet this
twofold need was that the Regies should recognise two cate-
gories of name below the category " specific name," namely
" subspecific name " and " infra-subspecific name," and

^)lh Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 85

should <<ive a clear definition of the meaning to be applied to
each of these categories. It was suggested that for this
purpose the Regies should define the expressions " sub-
species " and " infra-subspecific form !' and should provide
means for determinmg to which of the above categories
a given name should be regarded as belonging. The
criterion to be adopted in applying those definitions
must be objective, and it was suggested that it should
depend upon the terms in which a given name was origin-
ally published. It was not possible to devise a scheme
which would apply satisfactorily both to names published
l)efore the introduction of the scheme and to names
published after that date, for any such scheme would
be either too rigorous for names published in the earlier of
these periods or insufficiently rigorous for those published
in the later period. It was therefore suggested that the
Congress should adopt the procedure followed for the
amendment of Article 25 at Budapest and that two standards
should be established, the first to apply to names published
before the introduction of the scheme, the second to names
published after that date. The first of these standards
would be less rigorous than the second, and would admit
to subspecific status a larger number of names than would
the second. It was suggested also that, as in the case of
the amendment of Article 25, a period of grace should be
allowed before the more rigorous standard became operative.
The Laws of Priority and Homonymy would apply both to
names originally published as the names of subspecies and
specfes and also to names originally published as the names
of infra-subspecific forms, but these Laws would apply
separately within each category, the two categories being
separated from each other by a provision that, while within
each category every name would be co-ordinate with every
other name, a name in one category would not be co-
ordinate with a name in the other. The scheme provided
means for the elevation of a name published for an infra-
subspecific form to be the name of a subspecies or species
and for the relegation of a name published for a subspecies
or species to be the name of a form of infra-subspecific
rank ; in the first of these cases the name would take
priority only as from the date of being elevated and would
be attributed to the author by whom it was so elevated,
while in the second of these cases the name would retain its
original priority and would be attributed to its original
author. Proposals were also submitted for regulating the
way in which names of either category should be designated
on being first published as such and the way in which, after
publication, names belonging to either category should be
cited. Finally, the scheme proposed that special powers

86 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

should be conferred upon the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature to establish, at the request of
specialists, technical designations to be used to the exclusion
of all other terms to denote parallel forms occurring in allied
species or their subspecies.

A general discussion took place, in the course of which
the following points were raised : —

(a) It was an essential feature of any scheme under which

the nomenclature of subspecies and that of infra-
subspecific forms was subjected to different sets of
rules that a clear definition should be given to each
of these expressions. The Report proposed that,
for nomenclatorial purposes, the expression " sub-
species " should be defined as "a geographical,
ecological or other population within a species
which differs constantly from another such popula-
tion within the same species." Was this definition
sufficiently embracing or should it be expanded to
make it clear that the expession " or other "
covered populations consisting largely, though not
wholly, of a form arising from a mutation 1 It was
generally thought that considerable difficulties
would arise if express mention were to be made of
populations arising from mutations in the definition
of " subspecies " owing to the fact that in many
cases a subjective judgment was involved in
determining whether a given population had
arisen in this way. It was felt therefore that it
would be preferable to make no express mention
of populations arising from mutations, but by
leaving in the definition the words " or other," to
make it possible in clear cases to bring a name given
to such a population within the definition of the
name of a " subspecies." Examples of the kind of
case here contemplated were provided by insular
faunas where it was sometimes found that a mutant
form had become the sole, or virtually the sole,
representative of a given species. The definition
would be improved if it were reworded so as to
stress the fact that its central feature was that a
subspecies was a population which differed from
other populations within the species, the words
" geographical, ecological or other " being inserted
in the definition in such a way as not to obscure
this central feature.

(b) In the course of the foregoing discussion, the view
was generally expressed that, if (as was ultimately
agreed) no express reference to mutants were to be
made in the definition of " subspecies," the reference
to such forms in the definition of" infra-subspecific
form " suggested in the Report should be deleted.

87
bth Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

It would then be possible for the names given to
mutant forms to be treated on their ^e^^s. It
such a form constituted a population, the naine
aiven to it would rank as the name given to a sub-
species, but, where such R form did not constitute
a population, a name given to it would rank as a
name given to a form of infra-subspecific rank.
(c) There were many populations which fully deserved
to be regarded as constituting subspecies, in which,
however! a minority of the individuals constitutmg
the population concerned did not exhibit the charac-
ters which differentiated the remamder of the
population from other populations within the species.
It would be a mistake, therefore, to make it a
condition that, in order that a name given to a
population should qualify for treatment for nomen-
clatorial purposes as a name given to a subspecies,
the population named should differ constantly
from other populations within the species., it was
generally agreed that the word " constantly should
be deleted from the proposed definition of sub-
species." J v. IJ u
(d) It was suggested in discussion that words should be
^ inserted in the definition of " subspecies which
would exclude from the status of names of sub-
species names given to populations which were
unknown in a state of nature and had only been
brought into existence in laboratory conditions
Would it not be possible to insert some such
qualifying phrase as " natural " or " m nature .
Against this view it was argued that it would be
unscientific, because illogical, to stigmatise as
" unnatural " a population created m laboratory
conditions. The laboratory worker could to some
extent control the forces of natmre but he was not a
magician and he was powerless to produce any effect
that was contrarv to nature. It was agreed that the
suggestion referred to above should not be pursued,
(e) Some discussion took place regarding the rules to be
adopted governing the elevation of a name from the
category of " names of infra-subspecific forms to
the category of "names of subspecies. Ihe
question was asked whether it would not be possible
to permit a name so elevated to retain its origmai
priority and to be referred to its original author.
Was it essential that on being so elevated a name
should be treated as a new name in the realm into
which it had been translated? It was pointed
out that this particular provision was a vital feature

Intenmtioncd Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

{Filter rpferenrc:
Paris Sesiiioti.
II h Meeting,
Conclusion 2)

of the scheme, for it was this provision alone which
made it possible for the students of species and sub-
species to ignore the thousands of names given to
forms of infra-subspecific rank. If this provision
nvere to be abandoned, the scheme would be deprived
of a great part of its value, for every author who
described a new species or subspecies would have to
take account of every name given to a form of
infra-subspecific rank in the genus concerned, if he
were to make sure that the name selected by himself
for his new species or subspecies should not be
liable to be rejected as a junior homonym if ever
some name consisting of the same word which had
already been given to a form of infra-subspecific
rank of some species or subspecies in that genus
were to be elevated to be the name of a subspecies or
species.

(f ) The scheme, as submitted in the Report, provided for
the application within their own sphere to the names
of forms of infra-subspecific rank of the Articles in
the Regies relating to the names of species and sub-
species. This was clearly an essential feature of the
scheme but care would need to be taken by the
jurists to ensure that this provision was not acci-
dentally applied to Articles which by their nature
were inapplicable to the names of forms of infra-
subspecific rank, for example, Article 17 (which
relates to the manner in which subspecific names are
to be cited). Another example would be pro\aded
by the new Article, if approved, which it had been
suggested should be added to the Regies, prescribing
that the trivial name of the nominotypical subspecies
of a species having two or more subspecies should
consist of the same word as the trivial name of the
species itself.

(g) The recognition of a new category (" infra-subspecific
name ") in the hierarchy of names would involve a
consequential addition to Article 2.

(h) The scheme submitted in the Report contemplated
the express grant to forms of infra-subspecific rank
of rights imder the Laws of Priority and Homon}Tny
as between one another, though not as between the
name of such a form and the name of a species
or subspecies. Appropriate words would need to be
added to Article 25 to cover this point. A corres-
ponding provision would have to be inserted in
Article 35 (Law of Homonymy).

(Previous reference:
I'nris Session,
4lh Meetiny.
Conclusion 7)

5th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. gg

(i) At an earlier meeting it had been agreed to
recomniend to the Congress that a Recoymmndatian
should be added to Proviso (c)(1) to Article 25 laying
down an ideal standard of procedure to be followed
by authors when giving names to new taxonomic
units. The introduction into the RegUs of a new
category (the category " infra-subspeciiic name")
would necessitate a corresponding addition to the
Recommandalion referred to above. This should
be to the effect that a description of a new form of
mtra-suKspecific rank should include not only an
absolute, but also a comparative, description of the
torm in question, that is, it should contain also
particulars of the characters which distinguish
that form from some pre\dously described form of
infra-subspecific rank in the same species or if
there was no known form with which such' a
comparison could be made, the characters which
distingusih the new form from the general popula-
tion of the species or subspecies concerned.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :-

(1) that the Regies should be modified and extended
m accord?.nce with the principles, and in the
manner specified in (2) to (15) below, to give eftect
subject to certain minor amendments agreed upon
during the preceding discussion, to the proposals
for dealing with the problem of names proposed
for taxonomic units of less than specific rank
set forth in the Report submitted bv the Secretary
to the Commission as Commission Paper I.C.(48)9 ;

(2) that, as a first step to the regulation of names
given to taxonomic units of less than specific rank
words should be inserted in the Regies defining the
expression " subspecific name " and recognising
and defining the expression '"infra-subspecific
name ; ^

(3) that, as used in connection with the foregoing
categories of name, the expressions " subspecies "
and mfra-subspecific form" '■^-~" '

meanings specified below :—

shall have the

Expression
Sub.<!pecies "

bejinition of expression

A population (e.g.. geographical, ecolo-
gical) within a .six-cies which diffeis
in.m any other such ,>opulation
within the same species.

90 International Commission on Zoological Notnendature.

" Infrn-subsjiecific Any form of a species other than a
form " subspecies as defined above (e.g.

seasonal forms and minority ele-
ments of aU kinds within a species,
such as sexual forms, transition
forms, aberrations, etc.) ;

(4) that, having regard to the fact that it was not
possible to devise provnsions for determining
whether a trivial name published for a taxonomic
unit of less than specific rank was to be regarded as
the trivial name of a subspecies or of an infra-
subspecific form, which would be equally appro-
priate for trivial names pubUshed before the
introduction of the new scheme and for names
published after its introduction, the Regies should
pro\'ide two standards by which such names might
acquire status as subspecific trivial names, one,
more lenient, to be applied to names already
published, the other, more rigorous, to be applied
to names published in the futiore ;

(5) that, in view of the need for giving adequate
notice to zoologists of the new provisions before
they became operative, the point of time to be
specified in the Regies as that from which the
more rigorous of the standards referred to in (4)
above should be applicable should be midnight
G.M.T. (Greenwich Mean Time), 31st December,
1950/lst January, 1951 ;

(6) that, in order to ensure against the rJfek that names
intended by their authors to be the trivial names
of subspecies might fail to acquire status as such
on account of some technical nomenclatorial
reason, care should be taken to avoid prescribing
unduly detailed conditions to be complied with by
names, in order that, on being first pubUshed. they
should acquire the status of a trivial name of a
subspecies and not merely that of a trivial name
of an infra-subspecific form : that the conditions
to be prescribed should therefore represent a
minimum standard ; but that, in order to provide
a guide to the highest standard to be aimed at,
Recotnmandations prescribing that standard should
be added to thp relevant new provisions of the
Regies;

(7) that the criterion to be applied for determining
whether a given trivial name was to be regarded
as the trivial name of a subspecies or as the trivial
name of an infra-subspecific form should be the

bth Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. gj

objective standard provided by the terms in which
the name in question was originally published, and
that the Regies should accordingly provide : —
(a) that any trivial name published, prior to the
point of time specified in (5) above, as the
trivial name of a taxonomic unit of less than
specific rank should be deemed to have been
pubUshed as the name of a subspecies or, as
the case may be, of an infra-subspecific form
in accordance with the following rules :—
(i) as the trivial name of a subspecies,
when, at the time of the original
publication of the name, the author
concerned either (1) clearly indicated
that he regarded the taxonomic unit
named as of subspecific rank or (2) did
not clearly indicate the status attri-
buted by him to the unit so named,
that is to say, whether he regarded it
as being a subspecies or as being an
infra-subspecific form ;
(ii) as the trivial tiame of an infra-
subspecific form, only when, at the
time of the original publication of the
name, the author concerned expressly
indicated that he regarded the taxo-
nomic unit so named as being an
infra-subspecific form ;
(b) that any trivial name published, after the
point of time specified in (5) above, as the
trivial name of a taxonomic unit of less than
specific rank should be deemed to have been
published as the name of a subspecies or, as
the case may be, of an infra-subspecific form
in accordance with the following rules :—
(i) as the trivial name of a subspecies, only
when, at the time of the original
pubhcation of the name, the author
concerned clearly indicated that he
regarded the taxonomic unit so named
as being a subspecies ;
(ii) as the trivial name of an infra-
subspecific form, in all cases where, at
the time of the original publication of
the name, the author concerned either
expressly indicated that he regarded
• the taxonomic unit so named as being
an infra-subspecific form or, if he did

92 Intenuttional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

not so indicate the status of the
taxonomic unit concerned, where he
failed to indicate clearly that he
regarded that unit as being of sub-
specific rank ;

(8) that the Recommandatioiis referred to in (6) above
should strongly recommend : —

(a) that an author, when publishing a trivial
name for a previously unnamed subspecies,
should cite that name in a trinominal
combination (consisting of (1) the generic
name, (2) the specific trivial name, and
(3) the subspecific trivial name) and should
add, immediately after the subspecific
trivial name, the expression " ssp. n." or
some equivalent expression, thereby in-
dicating both that the name is a new name
and that it is intended to apply to a sub-
species ;

(b) that an author, when publishing a trivial
name for a previously unnamed infra-
subspecific form, should (1) cite the specific
name (consisting of a binominal combination
of the generic name and the specific trivial
name) of the species concerned or, if the
form is described as a form of a subspecies
only, the name of that subspecies (consisting
of a trinominal combination of the generic
name and the specific and subspecific trivial
names of the subspecies concerned), (2) insert
after the specific or subspecific trivial name,
as the case may be, a comma followed Ijy an
expression indicating the status attributed
to the form in question (e.g. an expression
such as " form, vern.", " ?-form," or " ab."),
and (3) add the name of the new infra-sub-
specii&c form, followed by the expression
" form, n." or some equivalent expression,
thereby indicating both that the name is a
new name and that it is intended to a})ply
to aa infra-subspecific form ;

(9) that a clear distinction should be drawn in the
Regies between the status of a name originally
published as the trivial name of a subspecies or
species and that of a name originally published as
the trivial name of an infra-subspecific form, and
therefore, that provisions should be inserted to
secure : —

6th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 93

(a) that, while the Law of Priority (Article 25)
and the Law of Homonymy (Articles 35 and
36) apply both to the trivial names of sub-
species and species on the one band and to
the trivial names of infra-subspecific forms
on the other hand, those Laws apply
separately to each of these two categories of
names, which thus constitute self-contained
and mutually independent sectors of nomen-
clature ;

(b) that (as at present) the trivial names of
subspecies should be co-ordinate with the
trivial names of species and vice versa;

(c) that the trivial name given to any infra-
subspecific form be co-ordinate with the
trivial names given to all other infra-
subspecific forms but not with the trivial
names given to subspecies and species ;

(d) that a trivial name orginally published as the
trivial name of an infra-subspecific form
may be elevated to the status of a subspecific
trivial name or of a specific trivial name
by a subsequent reviser and in that event
shall rank in its new status for purposes
of priority as from the date on which it was
so elevated and shall be attributed to the
author by whom it was so elevated ;

(e) that, for the purposes of (d) above, an
author is to be deemed to have elevated to
the status of a subspecific or specific trivial
name a name originally published as the
trivial name of an infra-subspecific form if
he is the first author expressly to state that
he is so doing or to make it clear that he
regards the animal in question as repre-
senting a subspecies or species instead of an
infra-subspecific form, the mere citation of
the name in question in trinomiual form, if
unaccompanied by further evidence, not
constituting evidence of elevation ;

(f) that, where a name, originally pubhshed as
the trivial name of an infra-subspecific
form, is elevated to the status of a trivial
name of a sul^species or species by a subse-
quent reviser, acting under (d) above, and
some other author does not recognise the
taxonomic vaUdity of the action taken by

94 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

the previous reviser and in consequence
continues to regard the animal concerned as
representative not of a subspecies or species
but of an infra-subspecific form, the trivial
name of that organism shall, for any such
author, retain its original priority and shall
be attributed to its original author ;

(g) that, where an animal which, when originally
named, was treated as representing a sub-
species or species, is treated by a subsequent
reviser as representing a taxonomic unit of
infra-subspecific rank, the trivial name
originally given to that animal shall continue
to be applied to it and shall in its new status
retain its original priority and be attributed
to its original author ;

( 10) that, in order to obtain as high a degree of clarity
as possible, a Recomniandation should be added to
the provisions to be inserted in the Regies to give
effect to (9)(d) above, urging that, when an author
is the first author to treat as representing a sub-
species or species an animal which, when originally
named, was treated as representing an infra-
subspecific form, and in so doing is the first author
to elevate the name originally published for that
animal to the status of a subspecific or specific
trivial name, that author should expressly state
that he is so doing and should, as soon as possible
thereafter, notify his action to a recording serial
such as the Zoological Record, either by sending a
marked copy of the paper concerned or otherwise ;

(11) that a provision should be inserted in the Regies
prescribing that, when an author cites the name
of an infra-subspecific form, he should (a) cite
the specific name (consisting of a binominal
combination of the generic name and the specific
trivial name) of the species concerned or, if the
form is treated as a form of a subspecies only and
not of the species as a whole, the name of that
subspecies (consisting of the trinominal combina-
tion of the generic name and the specific and sub-
specific trivial names of the subspecies concerned),
(b) insert after the specific or subspecific trivial
name, as the case may be, a comma followed by an
expression indicating the status attributed to the
form in question (e.g. an expression such as
" form, vern.", " V-form," or " ab.") and (3) add
the name of the infra-subspecific form ;

5th Meelimj, Paris, July, 1948.

95

(Previous reference:
Paris Session,
4:th Meeting,
Conclusion 7)

(12) that, in view of the decision to recognise and define
the new nomonclatorial category " infra-sub-
specific name,"' words should be inserted in
Article 2 providing :—

(a) that, where an infra-subspecific form is cited
in relation to a species, the scientific designa-
tion of that form is a qualified trinominal,
having regard to the fact that a descriptive
designation is interpolated between the
trivial name of the species and the trivial
name of the infra-subspecific form, and thus
differs from the unqualified trinominal
constituted by the scientific designation of
a subspecies ;

(b) that, where an infra-subspecific form is cited
in relation to a subspecies, the scientific
designation of that form is a qualified
quadrinominal ;

(13) that, having regard (a) to the decision taken at
the meeting of the Commission noted in the
margin to insert a Recommandation to Proviso
(c)(1) to Article 25, laying down the ideal procedure
to be followed by authors when naming new
taxonomic units, and (b) to the present decision
to recognise and define the new nomenclatorial
category " infra-subspecific name," words should
be added to the Recommandation referred to above
urging every author, when drawing up a descrip-
tion of an infra-subspecific form not only to
give an absolute description of that form, but
also to indicate the characters which distinguish
that form from some previously described infra-
subspecific form in the same species or, if there is
no known form with which such a comparison
could be made, the characters which distinguish
the new form from the general population of the
species or subspecies concerned ;

(14) that a provision or provisions should be inserted
in the Regies applying to the trivial names of
infra-subspecific forms the provisions in the Regies
relating to the trivial names of species and
subspecies, other than those provisions, which,
having regard to recommendations (1) to (13)
above, it would be inappropriate so to apply ;

(15) that, in order to prevent the confusion which
might arise (and to remove the confusion which
in certain instances had already arisen) when

VOL. 4 G

96

International Commission o)i Zoological Nomenclature.

different trivial names were applied to parallel
infra-subspecific forms occurring in two or more
allied species or their subspecies, provisions should
be inserted in the Regies :-r

(a) empowering the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature, on the applica-
tion of specialists in the groups concerned,
to use their plenary powers to establish
technical designations to be applied to such
parallel infra-subspecific forms, such desig-
nations to be exempt from invalidation
under the Law of Homonymy and : —

(i) to consist of Latin or Latinised words
or words treated as such ; and

(ii) to comply with the provisions in the
Regies relating to the formation,
derivation and orthography of specific
and subspecific trivial names ;

(b^ prescribing that, where a given term is
specified under the foregoing procedure to
be the technical designation of a parallel
infra-subspecific form occurring in two or
more allied species, the term so specified
shall have absolute priority over : —

(i) any trivial name which may already
have been given to that f(.>rm in
any of the species concerned, and over

(ii) any other use of the same word as
the name of any other infra-subspecific
form of any species in the same genus
or genera.

Article 2 :
insertion of
reference to
category "subgenus"

2. In the course of the discussion recorded in Conclusion
1 above relating to the addition required to be made to
Article 2 of the Regies consequent upon the recognition for
nomenclatorial purposes of the new nomenclatorial category
" infra-subspecific name," attention was drawn to the fact
that the drafting of Article 2 was defective and required
amendment. For although that Article purported to give
a general indication of the nature of the scientific designa-
tion applicable to each of the taxonomic categories recognised
for nomenclatorial purposes, it failed to make it clear that,
as the category " subgenus " was an optional category, a
subgeneric name, when used, was to be ignored in calculat-
ing the number of words of which a specific or subspecific
name was composed. It was necessary that this ambiguity
should now be removed.

Uh Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

97

Articles 35 and 36 :
problem of specific
homonyms :
preliminary
consideration

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that words should be inserted in Article 2 to indicate:—
that, as the subgenus is an optional category,
the name of a subgenus, when used, is not to be
taken into account when determining the
number of words comprised in the scientific
designation of species and subspecies and
therefore that the interpolation of a subgeneric
name between the generic name and the specific
trivial name of a species does not, in the case of
the name of a species, convert that name from a
binominal into a trinommal or, in the case of
the name of a subspecies, conveirt that name
from a trinommal into a quadrinominal,

3. THE COMMISSION liad under consideration a
memorandum containing proposals for the amendment of the
provisions of Articles 35 and 36 in relation to specific homo-
nyms submitted by the Secretary to the Commission as
Commission Paper I.C.

VOL. 4 o^

THE ACTING PRESIDENT said the question of the
meanmg of the provisions of the Regies in regard to specific
homonymy had first been ofiicially placed before the
Commission by the late Professor T. D. A. Cockerell in 1937.
The particular case then submitted involved the question of
whether a trivial name replaced as a secondary homonym
should be revived if the union of genera which had created
the secondary homonymy was no longer recognised (cf.
paragraphs 3 and 4 of Paper I.C.(48)8). Owing to his pre-
occupation at that time with the reorganisation of the
Secretariat of the Commission and other matters, the
Secretary to the Commission had mvited President Jordan
to undertake, on his behalf, a preliminary sounding of the
views of the Commissioners on the question raised by
Professor Cockerell. This consultation had been completed
by the summer of 1939 Inxt further progress in the matter
had been interrupted by the outbreak of war in Europe
in September of that year and it had not been until 1943
that it ]iad Ijcen possible to resume work on this problem.
Since that date, he (the Acting President), in his capacity of
Secretary to the Conunission, liad given a great deal of
further consideration to the matter and had received a large
volume of correspondence from many different sources. In
this correspondence a number of extremely helpful contribu-
tions had been received. In the first place he desired to ack-
nowledge the valuable analysis of the problem made by
Dr. Richard E. BlackAvelder (United States National
Museum, Washington, D.C.). Interesting and suggestive

98 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

points had been raised also by : Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr.
(San Diego, Cal.) ; Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty (University
of California) ; Professor Carl L. Hubbs (University of
Michigan) ; Dr. J. Brookes Knight (United States National
Museum, Washington, D.C.) ; Dr. E. W. Price (U.S. Bureau
of Animal Husbandry) ; Professor Dr. Rudolf Richter
(Senckenberg Institution, Frankfurt, Germany) ; Dr.
Hobart M. Smith (University of Rochester, N.Y.). In
addition, he had had extensive personal discussions with
leading specialists in many countries. The visit which he
had been able to pay to the United States and Canada at the
end of 1947 had been of particular value in providing
extensive opportunities for discussions both with organised
groups of specialists and with individual workers in
particular parts of the Anunal Kingdom. Finally, he
wished to express his grateful thanks to his wife who had
worked over the whole of the material and had taken an
active part in the formulation of the document now before
the Commission.

Continuing, THE ACTING PRESIDENT said that from
the communications which he had received and the con-
sultations which he had held, two things had become
evident : first, that the general opinion and practice of
zoologists in the treatment of so-called secondary homonyms
was developing and changing, second, that the original plan
that the Commission should confine itself to giving an
authoritative interpretation of the existing text of Articles
35 and 36 was no longer adec^uate to the situation and that
a more radical treatment of the whole problem was needed.
The need for a fresh approach was evident, both because a
closer examination of Articles 35 and 36 disclosed a number
of gaps and ambiguities and failed to provide answers to a
number of essential questions and also because the
preliminary consultations conducted by President Jordan
had brought to light a fundamental confusion of two
distinct questions : first, what the Regies, as they stand,
really mean, and, second, what zoologists in general would
like them to mean, which might be, and in this particular
case apparently was, entirely different. This confusion no
doubt arose from the unduly defeatist attitude then prevalent
towards the possibility of amending the Regies and the
conviction that the only way of securing the desired end
was to persuade the International Commission to render an
Opinion interpreting the existing j)rovisions of the Regies in
the desired sense, irresjjective of tlie normal meaning of the
words actually used in the Articles concerned. Such a
procedure could not be regarded as satisfactory or as likely
to promote the general respect and adherence which the
Regies should command. If zoologists in general were not

6lh Meetiriff. Paris, July, 1948. 99

siitisfied with the provisions of the Regies as thev stood, it
would be inUch better for the provisions concerned to be
amended in the direction required, than for the Commission
—or mdividual workers— to try to read into the existing
words a meaning which was obviously not there at present.
The gaps and ambiguities in Articles 35 and 36 showed
very clearly that the problem of specific homonymy was
much more complex than the authors of the Regies had
realised, and thatany satisfactory regulation of this subject
would call for provisions both more precise and more
comprehensive than those embodied in the present Articles
In the paper (1.0.(48)8) which he (the Acting President) had
submitted to the Commission, he had taken, as a basis of
discussion, the schematic presentation of the eight major
types of specific homonym which had recently been put
forward by Dr. Richard Blackwelder. In order to weigh
the relative advantages of the various possible solutions of
the problem presented by specific homonymy, it was
necessary carefully to examine the various circumstances
in which a situation of homonymy might arise. In the
first of the cases to be considered— Case " A "— a specific
trivial name (albus) was published for two different species
each of which at the time that this trivial name was applied
to It was referred to the genus " X " ; in this case it was
assumed that the two species were still regarded by all
taxonomists as congeneric. In this case, therefore, a
situation of unequivocal homonymy existed from the date
on which the specific trivial name albus was published for
the second of the two species concerned. Case " B " was
exactly similar to Case "A," except that at some date
subsequent to the publication of the specific trivial name
albus for the second species, either that species or the other
species bearing the same specific trivial name had been
removed on taxonomic grounds to another genus (genus
" Y "). In Case " C " the first of the species to be described
under the specific trivial name aMs had been removed (on
taxonomic grounds) from the genus "X." before the date of
the description in genus " X " of the second species bearing
the same trivial name (albus). In Case " D." the two species
bearing the same trivial name [albus) were originally
descril)ed in different genera, but before the description in
genus •• X " of the later of the two species to be described
the species bearing the older trivial name had been trans-
ferred to genus " X •' (from genus " Y "), thus producing
unquestionable homonymy. Case "E" was similar to
Case " D," except that the transfer to the genus " X " of
the species bearing the older trivial name took place after
the date of the description in that genus of the species bearincr
the later-published trivial name. Cases " F," " G " and

100 International Commission on Zoological Nomen€l<Uure.

" H " were similar to Cases " D " and " E," except that
the transfer to genus " X " of the species bearing the older
trivial name was temporary ; in Case," F " entirely prior to,
in Case " G " entirely subsequent to, and in Case " H "
partly before, and partly after, the description in that genus
of the second of the species to be published with the trivial
name albus.

The Acting President went on to say that discussions
of the problem of homonyms, both past and recent, had
disclosed wide divergences of views and suggested that it
was not likely to be possible to find any solution which
would give complete satisfaction to everyone. The solution
to be aimed at must satisfy, to as high a degree as possible,
a number of different, and, in part, mutually inconsistent,
requirements. It was the difference in weighting attributed
to these conflicting desiderata, rather than a difference in
views on the desiderata themselves, that was responsible for
the widely divergent proposals advocated in different
quarters. The principal desiderata which any satisfactory
solution must aim to supply to the highest degree mutually
compatible with one another were six in nmnber : (1) the
avoidance of the confusion which would arise if the same
name were used for two different species of animals ; (2) the
avoidance of the confusion which would arise if one species
of animal were known by two different names ; (3) the
avoidance of the need for unnecessary time-consuming
researches into early literature ; (4) the avoidance of any
subjective element in the interpretation of the Regies, so
that the trivial name which they prescribe may be inde-
pendent of the taxonomic views of individual workers ;
(5) the avoidance of unnecessary changes in trivial names
now in use ; (6) the avoidance of the risk of names being
unnecessarily replaced through deliberate misuse of the
provisions of the Regies.

Although there was no mention of it in the Regies, a
distinction had been drawn by many zoologists between
primary homonyms on the one hand and secondary homo-
nyms on the other. Primary homonyms were pairs of specific
names consisting of combinations of a generic name and a
specific trivial name identical at the time of their original
publication. Secondary homonyms were all other kinds,
namely pairs of identical specific trivial names which were
not originally published in combination with the same generic
name but subsequently came to be used in combination with
the same generic name through the transfer of one or both
of the species concerned to another genus or through the
union of two or more genera. Of the eight types of homo-
nym to which he had referred a few moments earlier, Cases

5th Meeliny, Paris, July, 1948. 101

A," " B," and " C " were examples of primary homonyms,
while Cases " D," " E," " F," " G," and " H " were ex-
amples of secondary homonyms.

Every zoologist would agree that, where in his judgment
homonymy currently existed (e.g. in Cases " A," " D," and
" E ") the later published of the two identical trivial names
must certainly be replaced. But there was no general
agreement as to what a zoologist should do in those cases
where there had at one time been homonymy but in his
judgment no homonymy currently exists. The main
issues on which opinions (and practice) differed were the
following :—

( 1 ) Should a primarij homonym he. replaced whenever it
was discovered, or only when the condition of
homonymy was considered still to exist (Case " A ")
but not otherwise (Cases " B " and " C ") ?

(2) Should a secondary homonym be replaced whenever it
was discovered, or only when the condition of
homonymy was considered still to exist (Cases
" D " and " E ") but not otherwise (Cases " F,"
" G," and " H ") ?

(3) If a primary homonym, had been replaced because a
condition of homonymy existed at that time, should
the original name be restored later when, through
the transfer of one or both of the species to another
genus (or other genera) or through the subdivision
of the original genus into two or more genera, the
condition of homonymy was considered no longer
to exist ?

(4) If a secondary homonym had been replaced because a
condition of homonymy was considered to exist at
that time, should the original name be restored later
when, through the further transfer of one or both
of the species to another genus (or other genera) or
through the subdivision of the genus in which the
homonymy occurred into two or more genera, the
condition of homonymy was considered no longer
to exist ?

The various permutations and combinations of possible
answers to these questions, the Acting President pointed
out, provided more than a dozen possible solutions. Of
these, five only had been put forward or had received any
appreciable support from zoologists. These were : —

Proposal (I). The permanent replacement of all
homonyms whenever they were discovered (i.e. the
rejection and permanent replacement of the later
published of the pair of trivial names consisting of the

102 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

word albvs in Cases " A," " B," " C," " D," " E," " F,"
" G," and " H," whenever homonymy was discovered).

Proposal (II). The permanent replacement of all
primary homonyms whenever discovered, combined
with the temporary replacement of secondary homonyms
only if discovered when, and for the period during which,
homonymy was considered to exist (i.e. the rejection and
permanent replacement of the later published of the two
identical tri^^al names in Cases "A,'' " B," and "C," when-
ever discovered, and the temporary replacement of the
later published of the two identical trivial names if
homonymy was discovered during the period in which it
was considered to exist, with the restoration of that
trivial name when the condition of homonymy was
thought no longer to exist as in Cases " G " and " H ").
In Cases " D " and " E," the later published identical
trivial name must necessarily be replaced after the dates
on which the two species were transferred to the same
genus, for in those cases the condition of homonymy was
assumed to persist. In Case " F " there was no need at
any stage to replace the later published of the two trivial
names.

Proposal (III). The temporary replacement of both
primary and secondary homonyms if discovered when,
and for the period during which a condition of homo-
nymy was considered to exist. This proposal was the
same as Proposal (II), except that under it the later
published of the two identical trivial names would not
have to be replaced permanently in Case " B " but only
during the period in which the condition of homonymy
was considered to exist. It would not have to be
replaced at all unless the homonymy were discovered
during those years. In Case " C " the later pubhshed
of the two identical trivial names would not have to be
replaced at all under this Proposal.

Proposal (IV). The permanent replacement of both
primary and secondary homonyms, but only if discovered
diuring the period in which a condition of homonymy was
considered to exist. This Proposal differed from Pro-
posal (I) only by reason of the fact that the replacement
of both primary and secondary homonyms would take
place only if these were discovered during the period in
which the condition of homonymy was considered still
to exist.

Proposal (V). The permanent replacement of
primary homonyms whenever discovered, combined
with the permanent replacement of secondary homo-
nyms only if these were discovered during the period in

5/A Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 103

which the condition of homonymy was considered still
to exist. This Proposal differed from Proposal (II) only
by reason of the fact that the replacement of secondary
homonyms, whenever it took place, was to be
permanent.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT then said that he had
listed fully the merits and demerits of each of these proposals in
paragraphs 18 to 27 of the paper which he had submitted
(Commission Paper I. C. (48)8) and, after setting the one
against the other, had come to the conclusion that the last
of these proposals was the one to be preferred, offering, as it
did, in his view% the least disadvantages or disadvantages
which were most amenable to remedy by other means. He
asked the Commission, before proceeding further, to
consider very carefully the various arguments in favour of,
or against, each of the five proposals which he had outlined
and to decide which of them provided the best basis for an
agreed solution.

IN THE DISCUSSION which ensued, general agree-
ment was expressed with the view that the problem of
specific homonymy could not be dealt with satisfactorily by
means of. an Opinion rendered by the Commission inter-
preting the existing provisions of Articles 35 and 36. What
was needed was the substitution for those Articles of new
Articles w-hich w^ould set out clearly and comprehensively
whatever provisions might be agreed upon for regulating
tliis question.

The Commission turned then to consider the relative
merits and demerits of each of the five main proposals which
had been outlined by the Acting President, particiilar
attention being paid to the summary of the considerations
on either side given in paragraphs 18 to 27 of Commission
Paper I. C. (48)8. In the course of this discussion, the
following views were expressed : —

(a) Proposal (I) went much further than was either
neces.sary or desirable, for it contemplated the
rejection and replacement not only of trivial names
which had been homonvms at the time when they
were originally published or which were now regarded
as homonyms, but also of every trivial name which,
through carelessness, ignorance or any other cause,
had ever been a homonym of some other tri\'ial
name (Cases " F," " G," and " H "). This proposal,
if adopted, would cause unending trouble and
confusion to the .systematic worker who would need
to be constantly on the watch to make sure that no
author had amalgamated some genus with another
and thus destroyed the validity of what had

104 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

previously been a perfectly valid name. Such
workers would require to make a close study of the
works not only of the best authors (as at present)
but also of the worst authors, for it would be mostly
in the works of such authors that the lumping of
taxonomically valid genera into large omnibus
genera would be hkely to be found. Systematic
workers would also have to extend their reading to
edixcational and semi-popular works where the
nomenclature used was often extremely faulty.

(b) Whatever scheme was adopted, it should be such as
to satisfy the second of the desiderata enunciated by
the Acting President, namely that it should ensure
that any given species should always have the same
word as its valid trivial name, irrespective of the
subjective view of taxonomists as to the genus to
which that species should be referred. This
consideration ruled out both Proposal (II) and
Proposal (III).

(c) The choice before the Commission lay, therefore
between Proposal (IV) and Proposal (V). Both these
proposals secured that every species should always
have the same trivial name, whatever might be the
subjective views of individual workers regarding the
taxonomic relationship of one species with another.
The two proposals differed from one another only
by the treatment proposed to be accorded to
primary homonyms which, under Proposal (IV),
would be liable to rejection and replacement on the
same terms as secondary homonyms, whereas, under
Proposal (V), they would be permanently rejected
whenever discovered. The distinction between
primary and secondary homonyms which lay at the
basis of Proposal (V) was concerned with the
nomenclatorial problem of homonjins in the field
of nominal species, whereas Proposal (IV) was
directed solely to the taxonomic problem of homo-
n\ans in the field of taxonomic species. The
advocates of Proposal (IV) argued that it was
sufficient to secure that every currently recognised
taxonomic species had a distinct name, and
considered that it was of no importance whether
two nominal species were originally described under
the same name in the sense of the same binominal
combination, since a reference to the original author
and date of publication would avoid any confusion
arising therefrom. These workers argued therefore
that there was no need to replace a primary homo-

bth Meeting, Paris. July. 1948. 105

nyiii when the species concerned was no longer
referred to the same genus as that containing the
other species having an identical but earlier published
trivial name. The Acting President said that he
had given the most careful consideration to this
proposal, which offered the advantage in some
groups of reducing the number of cases in which
changes of trivial names would be necessary. But,
on the other hand, he was impressed by the fact that
the name of the author and the date of publication
did not form part of a zoological name and that it
was extremely desirable that"^ each nominal species
should possess as its nomenclatorially vaUd specific
name a binominal combination of a generic name and
a specific trivial name that was unique, in the sense
of not being shared with any other species. More-
over, he was impressed further by the fact that to
abandon the distinction between primary and
secondary homonyms would be to depart from the
commonly accepted practice of zoologists. On
balance, therefore, although in some cases Proposal
(V) would involve changes in trivial names which
would not be called for under Proposal (IV). he felt
that it was to be preferred in the interests both of
avoiding nomenclatorial (as contrasted ^-ith taxono-
mic) confusion and of securing continuity of practice.
Both Proposals (IV) and (V) suffered from the dis
advantage that they were open to abuse in the form
of the deliberate creation of secondary homonyms
by irresponsible or mahcious revisers, but, if any
such abuse were to be attempted, it could promptly
be countered by the Commission employing their
plenary powers to suppress for nomenclatorial
piirposes any book or paper in which the Regies were
mi.sused in tliis wav.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

to adopt Proposal (V) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)8,
namely the permanent replacement of primary homo-
nyms whenever discovered, combined with the
permanent replacement of secondary homonvms only
if these were discovered during the period in which the
condition of homonymy was considered still to exist,
as the basis of the new provisions relating to specific
homon\nny to be recommended for insertion in the
Regies in place of the existing Articles 35 and 36.

106

rnlernaiional Commission on Zoological NomencUtlure.

Sixth Meeting of
the Commission
during its Paris
Session : time
appointed

4. On the proposal of the Acting President, THE
COMMISSION agreed :—

to postpone their consideration of the detailed pro-
visions required to give effect to the decision just taken
in regard to the reform of the Regies in
regard to specific homonymy until their next
meeting, to be held the same afternoon at 1700 hours.

{TJie Commission therettpon adjourned at 1620 hours.)

( 107 )

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Session held dumig the Thirteenth Intermtioml Congress of Zooloau
Paris, 2Ut-27th July, 1948
CONCLUSIONS of the Sixth Meeting held at the Sorbonne in the Amphitheatre
Louis-Liard on Thursday, 22nd July, 1948, at 1700 hours

PRESENT :
Mr Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) {Acting President)
±'roIessor H. Boschnia (Netherlands)
Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.)
Professor L. di Caporiacco (Italy)
Professor Harold Kirby (U.S.A.)
Mr. N. D. Riley (United Kingdom)
Professor R. Sparck (Denmark)
Professor V. van Straelen (Belgium)
Professor Robert L. Usinger (U.S.A.)

The following were also present :

Dr. E. A. Chapin (U.S.A.)

Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty (U.S.A.)

Dr. Hemiing Lemche (Denmark)

Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming, Persomil Assistant to the Secrelaru
Miss J. H. bhorey, Acting Documents Officer

^.V^Klfspedfic , 1- THE ACTING PRESIDENT recalled that at the
homonymy) : dose ot their last meeting the Commission had concluded

consideration *^' -^l ^^'^ ^^ l^^^ consideration of the problem of

(Predou^ reference: specihc iiomoiiymy by agreeing to recommend the adoption
Par,, Session, of Proposal (V) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)8, namely the

cwSS) permanent replacement of primary homonyms whenever

discovered, combined with the permanent replacement of
secondary homonyms only if these were discovered durin^ a
period in which the condition of homonymy was considered
still to exjst, as the basis of the new provisions relating to
specific homonymy to be inserted in the Regies in place of the
existing Articles 35 and 36. It now remained for the
Commission to consider the various detailed suggestions
for giving effect to the foregoing decision set out in para-
graphs 30 to 40 of Commission Paper I.C.(48)8 and for
embodying in the Regies provisions relating to certain
matters which were either omitted from, or were am-
l)iguously or otherwise unsatisfactorily dealt with in the
existing text of Articles 35 and 36. '

108 Irdernational Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The following is a summary of the principal points which
emerged in the ensuing discussion.

(A) Need for the definition of the expressions " homonym"
"primary hamonym," and " secondwy homonym "; It was
■generally agreed that, in view of the decision to introduce
into the Regies a distinction between the treatment of
a " primary homonym " and a " secondary homonym," it
was essential that, as suggested by the Acting President in
Commission Paper I.C.(48)8 (paragraph 31), clear definitions
of these expressions should be inserted in the Regies. It
was felt also that it would be useful to incorporate into the
Regies a definition of the expression " homonym " in place
of the definition of homouymy given in a footnote in the
present text.

(B) Scope of the definitions to be given to the expressions
■' primary homonym " and " secondary homonym " : The
Acting President had suggested in Commission Paper
I.e. (48)8 (paragraph 31) that, as proposed in paragraph 15
of that paper, the expression '" primary homonyms " should
be defined as " pairs of specific names consisting of identical
combinations of generic and specific tri\dal names at the
time of their original publication " and that the expression
" secondary homonyms " should be defined as " pairs of
identical specific trivial names which were not originally
published in combination with the same generic name but
which later came to be so combined through the transfer of
one or both of the species concerned to another genus or
through the union of two or more genera." These definitions
had been restated in the singular in paragraph 41(7) of the
same paper. The wording employed in these suggested
definitions had been deUberately selected to cover two
different classes of case, namely : (1) the case where two
nominal species having the same specific trivial name were
either originally published in, or were subsequently trans-
ferred to, the same genus ; and (2) the case where two
nominal species having the same specific trivial name were
originally published in different genera but through the
accident of an undetected condition of generic homonymy
those two genera had the same name, and the case where two
nominal species having the same specific trivial name were
originally published in different genera, each having a
different name, but later one or both of these nominal
species were transferred to another genus (or other genera)
which through the accident of an undetected condition of
generic homonymy had the same generic name. Clearly,
the first of these classes of case must be covered by the
definitions to be adopted for primary and secondary homo-
nyms respectively, l)ut it was not so clear that the second

&h Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

109

( For a later (lecisioii
modifying this
decision, see Paris
Session, Vlth
Meeting,
Conclusion 28)

need be included in these definitions. The second class of
case was not gf great practical importance, in view of the
fact that the number of occasions on which the particular
situation there envisaged had actually arisen was relatively
small. A provision of some sort should be included in the
Regies to cover such cases, for otherwise authors encounter-
ing such cases would not know how to proceed. On balance,
It was felt that this class of case should be coveretl by the
definitions to be adopted for primary and secondary homo-
nyms respectively. It was agreed therefore that the
definitions to be adopted for these expressions should be
framed on the hues suggested in paragraph 15 of Commission
Paper I.C.(48)8.

(C) Essential differences between 'primary and secondary
homonyms: In their earUer discussion regarding the type of
scheme to be adopted for regulating specific homonymy, the
Commission had accepted the view that every species should
possess as its nomenclatorially vahd specific name a
binominal combination of generic and specific trivial names
which was unique, not bemg shared with any other species.
Thus, in cases where the two species concerned were no
longer regarded as congeneric, it was a piu-ely nomen-
clatorial consideration which pointed to the need to reject
the later pubUshed of any pair of primary homonyms.
The rejection of secondary homonyms rested on an entirely
different foimdation, for it was the taxonomic need for
ensuring that every species in a given genus should have a
different specific trivial name which made it essential to
reject the later published of any pair of secondary homo-
nyms. But this was not the only difference between primary
and secondary homonyms : the existence of a condition of
primary homonymy between two specific names was an
objectively ascertainable nomenclatorial fact, whereas a
condition of secondary homonymy arose only through the
apphcation by zoologists of their subjective taxonomic
ideas. In the case of primary homonyms, therefore, there
was no need to provide a special procedure in the Regies
for the rejection of the later pubhshed of any pair of
primary homonyms, for such a name was invahd from the
moment of its pubhcation ; all that it was necessary to do
was to provide rules for the replacement of invalid primary
homonyms, when detected. The situation was quite
different as regards secondary homonyms, for there was no
directly objective test which could be applied to determine
whether any pair of specific trivial names should be treated
as secondary homonyms of one another. The provisions
to be inserted in the Regies must prescribe a procedure
which would result in a uniform nomenclature being applied
by all concerned, not only by the author who rejects a

110 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

specific trivial name as a secondary homonym, but also by
all subsequent authors who may have occasion to refer to
the species concerned. This procedure must ensure that a
given species would be referred to by the same specific
trivial name, irrespective of the subjective taxonomic views
of the authors concerned. The rules of procedure for
rejecting a specific trivial name as a secondary homonym
must be sufficiently precise to secure imiformity, but care
would have to be taken to avoid the insertion in the Regies
of mandatory provisions which, by aiming at too high a
standard, would have the undesired effect of invalidating on
technical nomenclatorial grounds specific trivial names given
in replacement of invalid secondary homonyms in a manner
which would be readily understood and generally acceptable.
This was the error into which the Commission and the
Congress had fallen when at Budapest in 1927 they had
increased the precision of certain of the provisions in Article
25, an error which at the meeting noted in the margin held
during their present Session the Commission had foimd it
necessary to redress by suggesting the insertion of a more
generalised phraseology in place of portions of the text
adopted at Budapest and to insert the more rigid provisions
(Previous refaence ■ "^ ^ non-mandatory form in a Recommmidation added to the
Faris Session, part of Article 25 concerned. In the light of this discussion

ith Meeting,^ _ ^ ^^ [^ ^^.^g agreed to consider the problems involved in regulating
primary homonymy, before passing to the more complex
problems raised by secondary homonymy.

(D) Rejection of invalid primary homonyms: There was
no need to include in the Regies any special procedure for
the rejection of the later published of any pair of specific
names which were primary homonyms of one another, for
the existence of a condition of primary homonymy was a
readily ascertainable objective fact and did not depend in
any way upon the action of subsequent authors. All that
was required, therefore, was a provision (such as that in the
existing text of the Regies) that every such name must be
rejected and that such rejection should be permanent, thus
making it impossible for the rejected specific trivial name
ever again to be applied to the species in question. Under
this provision it would be the duty of every zoologist who
encountered a situation of primary homonymy to reject
the later pubUshed of the pair of specific names concerned.
In order, however, to minimise the risk of the continued use
of invalid priiiiary homonyms, it was desirable that there
should be added to the appropriate Article of the Regies a
ReconimamlalioH strongly urging that every author who
discovered that a given specific name was a primary homo-
nym of a previously published specific name and was there-
fore invalid should publish a note drawing attention to this

Conclusions 0, 7 & )>)

^th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. HI

discovery and should also notify it, by sending a marked
copy of the paper containing the note in question or
otherwise, to a literature-recording serial such as the
Zoological Record, so that the discovery in question might
be recorded in the next issue of that serial.

(E) Replacement of invalid primary homonyms: It was
an essential feature of any scheme for dealing with homo-
nyms that, where a condition of homonymy was discovered,
the later published of the two homonyms concerned must be
rejected and be replaced by another Mame. In Commission
Paper I.C.(48)8 (paragraphs 32 and 34) the Acting President
had expressed the view that every homonym, whether
primary or secondary, should, on being discovered, at once
be replaced by a new name. Ordy in this way would it be
possible to provide the nominal species concerned with a
trivial name that unquestionably belonged to it. The only
circumstance in which, in the scheme suggested by the
Acting President, it would not be necessary to provide a new
specific trivial name for the species the name of which had
been rejected as an invalid homonym would be where there
existed one or more other nominal species based upon the
same type specimen as the nominal species the name of
which had been rejected.

In the discussion which took place on this question, it
was agreed that, unless a new specific trivial name was
given to a species the name of which had been rejected as an
invalid homonym, the nominal species concerned would
remain without an objectively available trivial name of its
own. For the only other course would be subjectively to
identify some other nominal species with the nominal species
the name of which had been rejected as a homonym and to
apply to that species the specific trivial name originally
pubUshed for the other nominal species. Such a procedure
inevitably carried with it an element of risk, for it would
automatically break down if the subjective identification
of the two nominal species w^ere later to be found to be
erroneous. On the other hand, it was felt that the inclusion
in the Regies of a provision (such as had been suggested)
making it obligatory for any worker who discovered a
condition of homonymy to give a new specific trivial name to
the nominal species the name of which had been rejected as
an invalid homonym would lead to the pubhcation of large
numbers of trivial names which would never be used for
taxonomic purposes, owing to the existence of trivial names
published for other nominal species which had been
subjectively identified with the nominal species the name of
which had been rejected as an invahd homonym. Such a
procedure would add unnecessarily to the already large

VOL. 4 H

112 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

number of trivial names in synonymy. It was accordingly
agreed that where the name of a species was found to be
invaUd by reason of being a homonym of a previously
pubhshed name and where therefore it was necessary to
provide that species with another name, this must be done
by giving to that species a new name where there was no
other nominal species which was either objectively identical
with that nominal species, by reason of being based upon the
same type specimen or was subjectively identified with the
nominal species in question ; that, where there existed one
or more nominal species based upon the same type specimen,
the oldest of the trivial names of those nominal species, if
otherwise available, should be treated as being the ob-
jectively available name for the species, the name of which
had been rejected ; but that, where there was no nominal
species based upon the same type specimen but there were
one or more nominal species which were subjectively iden-
tified with the species the name of which had to be rejected
as a homonym, it should be open to the author who dis-
covered the condition of homonymy either to give a new
name to the species the name of which was an invalid
homonym or to apply to that species the trivial name of the
nominal species which was subjectively identified with that
species or, if there were more than one nominal species so
identified with the species the name of which was rejected,
the oldest available trivial name of any of those species.
Where the author concerned elected to give a new trivial
name to the species concerned, that new name would take
precedence (as at present) for purposes of priority only as
from the date on which it was published. It should be
understood that, where the author who discovered the
condition of homon5rmy elected not to give a new name to
the species bearing the later published of the two homony-
mous names (preferring to apply to that species the trivial
name of some other nominal species which he subjectively
identified with the nommal species, the name of which had
been rejected as a homonym), it would be open nevertheless
to any later author, who so desired, to give a new name to
that nominal species. Finally, it must be imderstood that
where, instead of giving a new name to a nominal species,
the name of which is invalid as a homonym, an author
applies to such a nominal species the name of another
nominal species which he subjectively identifies with the
former species, the name so applied is the correct name for
the nominal species in question only for so long as the two
nominal species concerned are subjectively identified with
one another.

(F) Rejection of invalid secondary homonyms: Unlike
primary homonyms, secondary homonyms were necessarily

6</i Meeting, Paris, Jvly, 1948. 113

subjective in origin, depending, as they did, on the subjective
taxonomic views of individual revisers. In discussing this
subject in Commission Paper I.C.(48)8 (paragraph 34), the
Acting President had expressed the following view : " Our
aim must be to avoid the confusion to which secondary
homonyms may give rise, but at the same time somehow to
translate their subjective origin into objective provisions
which are simple to apply and are capable of being carried
out in a uniform fashion by any worker, irrespective of his
individual taxonomic standpoint. The provision must per-
mit no individual discretion and must call for no laborious
researches on the part of zoologists in general and must be
such as to create the maximum of uniformity and stability
in nomenclature. For this reason the onus of estabhshing
the existence of secondary homonymy should be laid
squarely on those from whose taxonomic judgment such
homonymy arises." In other words, the question of
whether a given trivial name is to be regarded as having
been validly rejected as a secondary homonym must depend
exclusively upon the action of the reviser responsible for
its rejection, and it was this action which should determine
whether or not all zoologists were to renounce permanently
the use of the trivial name in question for the species
concerned.

Unlike primary homonyms, secondary homonyms had
in the past been treated in a far from uniform way, owing
mainly to the uncertainty on the part of zoologists as to the
extent to which Articles 35 and 36 were intended to apply
to this class of homonym. Some zoologists had been in
the habit of rejecting names as secondary homonyms, only
when they themselves regarded the species concerned as
belonging to the same genus as another species which had an
identical, but earlier pubHshed, trivial name ; other
zoologists had rejected as a secondary homonym the trivia
name of any species which any author had ever treated as
being in the same genus as another species having an
identical but earlier published trivial name, even where
they themselves (the later zoologists) regarded the species
as being referable to different genera. In extreme cases a
trivial name had been rejected as a secondary homonym of
another trivial name, where the two species had at no one
time been placed in the same genus, one of the species
concerned having been removed therefrom before the other
was assigned to the genus. Again, some zoologists had gone
so far as to reject one trivial name as a secondary homonym
of another trivial name, merely because some author,
without citing by name either species, had stated that he
united into a single genus two genera in each of which there
was in fact a species bearing the same trivial name as that of

VOL. 4 H*

114 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

a species in the other genus. Again, there had been no
uniformity in the treatment accorded to trivial names
rejected as secondary homonyms, when on some later
revision the two species concerned were placed in different
genera ; some authors had continued to regard the rejected
name as invahd, whereas others had revived that name, as
soon as the condition of secondary homonymy had in their
' view ceased to exist.

The new provisions in the Regies must lay down clearly
that a specific trivial name must be rejected as a secondary
homonym by any reviser, when, in his opinion, two species
^ each having the same specific trivial name were referable

to the same genus. It was an essential feature of the
scheme that a specific trivial name, once rejected as a
secondary homonym, should never be eligible again for use
for the species concerned. Tt was inevitable that, whatever
scheme were adopted, some changes in names would be
imavoidable, in view of the lack of consistency in past
practice. The aim must therefore be to keep these changes
within the narrowest practicable limits. It was thought
that this object could best be achieved by following the
procediire adopted in other cases, that is to say by prescrib-
ing two standards, one, the more rigorous, to apply to the
rejection of secondary homonynis after a future date to be
specified in the Regies, the other, less rigorous, to apply to
the rejection of names prior to that date. It was thought
that the point of time dividing the two periods should be the
same as that selected for other similar cases, namely
midnight, G.M.T. (Greenwich Mean Time), 31st December,
1950/lst January, 1951.

It was agreed that, where, after the specified point of
time, an author rejected the trivial name of a species as a
secondary hojnonjTn of the trivial name of another species,
it was essential that, in order that that rejection should
be effective (i.e. that it should be binding upon all other
zoologists), the author concerned should be required to make
it clear, first, that he himself regarded as congeneric the
two species bearing identical specific trivial names, and,
second, that he rejected the later published of these names
as a secondary homonym of the other. As regards names
rejected as secondary homonyms, prior to the specified point
of time, it was felt that, in view of the diversity of practice
in the past, the best course would be to provide in the
Regies that a rejection of a specific trivial name as a
secondary homonym of an earlier published specific trivial
name should be treated as a valid rejection, even where
the author who had made the rejection did not himself
consider the two species concerned to be congeneric with

Glh Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

115

one another. The advantage of this arrangement would
be that it would provide a valid basis for the large number
of rejections which had been made in the past by authors
who accepted a wider interpretation of the rules than those
now proposed to be prescribed and would in consequence
secure validity for the large number of new names proposed
by those authors as substitute names and now in common
use.

(For a later decision
modifying this decision
see Paris Session,
V2th Meeting,
Conclusion 28)

(G) Need for maximum publicity for the rejection of

names as secondary homonyms: After the new provisions

came into operation (i.e. after *31st December, 1.950) the

rejection of a specific trivial name as a secondary homonym

of another specific trivial name would have important

nomenclatorial consequences, for, once a specific trivial

name had been duly rejected as a secondary homonym in

accordance with the provisions now to be inserted in the

Regies, that rejection would be permanent and the rejected

name could never again in any circumstances become the

vaUd name for the species concerned. It was therefore of

the highest importance to secure the maximum publicity

for every rejection of a specific trivial name as a secondary

homonym of another specific trivial name effected in the

future, for it was only in this way that the specialists in the

group concerned could be made aware of the fact that the

name so rejected could never again validly be used for the

species in question. It was felt therefore that it was most

important that a Recommandation should be added to the

appropriate Article dealing with specific homonymy

strongly urging that every author who rejected a specific

trivial name on account of secondary homonymy should

notify that rejection as soon as possible after it had been

published to a literature-recording serial such as the

Zoological Record, by sending a marked copy of the paper

contaming the rejection or otherwise, so that the rejection

m question might be recorded in the next issue uf that serial.

(H) Secondary specific homonymy arising through an
undetected condition of generic homonymy: In view of the fact
that it had ab-eady been decided to include in the definition
of a secondary homonym the case where such homonyniy
arose not only through two species bearing the same specific
trivial name being placed in the same genus but also through
two species bearing identical specific trivial names, though
never so united, being placed in genera which through an
undetected condition of generic homonymy bore the same
generic name, it would be necessary so to draft the provisions
relating to the rejection of specific trivial names as secondary
homonyms as to cover both classes of case.

116 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

(I) Replacement of a specific trivial name rejected as an
invalid secondary homonym: It was agreed that the rules
which had already been agreed upon for the replacement of a
specific name rejected as an invalid primary homonym of
another specific name should be appUed to the replacement
of a specific trivial name rejected as an invaUd secondary
homonym of another specific trivial name. It was noted,
however, that the rejection of a name as a primary homo-
nym was automatic, whereas the rejection of a name as a
secondary homonym was not. It would therefore be neces-
sary, in the case of secondary homonjTiis, to- include in the
Regies a provision making it clear that, where, after 31st
December, 1950, a new name (as contrasted with the name
of some other nominal species subjectively identified with
the species concerned) is given to a species on the ground that
the specific trivial name of that species is an invalid secon-
dary homonym but the author giving that name fails to
make it clear both that he is of the opinion that the condition
of homonymy still exists (that is to say that he regards the
species in question as one of a pair of congeneric species,
each bearing the same specific trivial name, and that it is
for this reason that he rejects the later published of the
two specific tri\aal names and gives a new specific trivial
name to the species in question) the existing specific trivial
name of that species is to be regarded as not having been
validly rejected. In such a case the new specific trivial name
given to that species is to have no status in zoological
nomenclature.

(J) Need for safeguards against deliberate abuse of the
provisions relating to the replacement of secondary homonyms:
It was recognised that the new scheme would be hable to
misuse by any malicious or irresponsible person for the
deliberate purpose of creating secondary homonyms or of
pro\dding opportunities for publishing new names. It was
not thought that this was a serious risk, but it was felt that
it was one which should be guarded against, so far as possible.
It was accordingly agreed that a provision should be
inserted in the Regies requiring the Commission to use their
plenary powers to suppress for nomenclatorial purposes
any book or paper in which, in their opinion, the provisions
of the Regies in regard to the rejection and replacement of
secondary homonyms had been deliberately misused for
either or both of the purposes referred to above.

(K) Status of subgeneric names in relation to specific
homonymy: Consideration was then given to the problem of
the status, if any, to be accorded to subgeneric names in
relation to specific homonymy, a question which had been
raised by the Acting President in paragraphs 37 and 41(10)
of Com mission Paper I. C. (48)8. It was generally felt that,

(For a later decision

&h Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 117

as the use of subgeneric names was optional and those
names did not constitute an essential feature of the name of
a species, no account should be taken of subgeneric names
111 determining whether a given specific name was a primary
. homonym of another specific name or whether a given
specific trivial name was a secondary homon}Tii of another
specific trivial name. It was agreed that a provision to this
effect should be inserted in the Regies and that for this pur-
pose Article 6 (which lays it down that generic and sub-
generic names are co-ordinate with one another, that is to
say of equal value) should be amended to such extent as
might be necessary,

(L) Treatment of subspecific names in relation to specific
and subspecific liomonymy: The scheme so far discussed
was concerned only with the situation which arose when one
specific name was a primary homonym of another specific
name or when one specific trivial name was a secondary
homonym of another specific trivial name. As pointed out
by the Acting President in Commission Paper I C (48)8
(paragraphs 38-39 and 41(11) ), it was necessary to insert
vwdifrjing this""' P^^^^ions to deal also with homonymy, when this arose in
decision, see Paris connection With subspecific trivial names. It was agreed
Siiiflsf '''"'''' *^* *l^e rules applying to cases where a pair of species having
' Identical specific trivial names were either originally des-

cribed, or were subsequently placed, in the same genus or
through the accident of an undetected condition of generic
homonymy, in different genera bearing the same name should
apply also to cases where of two species so described or so
placed (a) the specific trivial name of one species is iden-
tical with the subspecific trivial name of a subspecies of the
same or another species, or (b) the subspecific trivial name of
a subspecies of one species is identical with the subspecific
trivial name of a subspecies of the same or another species.
Words should, however, be inserted to prevent the sub-
specific trivial name of the nominotypical subspecies of a
species from being rejected as a homonym of the specific
trivial name of that species.

(M) The expression " of the same origin and meaning " as
used m paragraph (3) of the existing text of Article 35 : The
Commission then turned to consider the expression " of the
same origin and meaning " as used in the tliird paragraph of
the existing text of Article 35 of the Beglcs. As pointed out
by the Actmg President in Commission Paper I.C.(48)8
(paragraph 40), the limitation imposed in this paragraph of
Article 35 by the words quoted above made it impossible
m many cases to apply the provisions of that paragraph
owmg to the mipossibility of determining whether any
given pair of names diff"ering from one another to the slight

118

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

{For a later decision
qualifying thisdecision,
see Paris Session,
6th Mealing,
Conclusion 43)

( For a later decision
modifying this deciaion,
see Paris Session,
12th Meeting,
Conclusion 28)

extent specified in that paragraph were or were not of the
same origin and meaning. Even where it was possible to
find an answer to this question, it was often necessary to
devote a large amoimt of time to the study of the origin and
meanmg of the Latin or Latinised Greek words concerned,
which could be much more profitably spent on zoological
work. It was agreed to recommend that the expression
" of the same origin and meaning " should be deleted from
the Article which would replace the third paragraph of the
existing Article 35 and that in its revised form the provision
now embodied in that paragraph should merely lay it down
that any pair of trivial names (whether specific or sub-
specific) which differed from one another only by the
differences in spelling specified in that paragraph were to
be treated as homonyms of one another.

At the conclusion of the foregoing discussion, THE
COMMISSION agreed to recommend : —

(1) that the present Articles 35 and 36 should be deleted
from the Regies and that there should be inserted
in their place Articles giving effect to the provisions
specified in (2) to (21) below ;

(2) that, as a first step towards the regulation of
homonyms, words should be inserted in the Regies
defining the expression " homonym " and expressly
recognising the existence for nomenclatorial pur-
poses of two types , of specific homonjTii, to be
known as " primary homonyms " and " secondary
homonyms " respectively, these expressions to be
defined as follows : —

Expression Definition of expression

" Homonym " Where the same name is appHed
to two different units belonging
to the same taxonomic category,
for example, to two different
genera or two different species,
each of the names so used is a
" homon}Tii " of the other.

" Primary AMiere two species at the time of

homonym " the original publication of their

names are placed in the same
genus or are placed in different
genera which, through the acci-
dent of an undetected condition
of generic homonymy, bear the
same name, and each species is
given the same specific trivial

6th

^^^tiru,, Paris, July, ms.

U9

name, each of the specific names
(bmominal combinations of a
genenc name and a specific
trivial name) so published is a
primary homonym" of the
other specific name

time of the original publication
of their names are placed in
different genera and are given
the same specific trivial name
are later placed in the same
genus or are placed in different
genera which, through the acci-
dent of an undetected condition
(For a later decision, °^ generic homonymv, bear thp

modifying this same name each n^ iL -T

decision, see Paris name. «n f , '^^ ^P^^'^^^

Session, 12th Meetinrj " , °™''^'^ '^ ^ " ^econd-

Conclmion28) ary homonym" of the other

s]..ecific name.

'' ^i^^^^::^::^ ''- '-'- p^^^^d of a

of one another -r^tftr:::^^^^^^^^
mvahd as from the date of ^f tl ^^-'^"'^ ^'^"^
to be permanently rejeet^^^^^ " ^"^^^'^^'"^ ^^^ ^«
(4) that, in order to minimise the risk- nf f]

use of invalid nrimflr^r l ^ ^^^ contmued

^^0.. should eSed to r'""^'' ' ^''^'''"^"^^-
tte i?^/,, strongly 4^^^^^^ ^-^e of

discovers that a iv.^ ^ ^ ^^^ ^"^^^^ ^to
primary homonm IfanT.'r^' "'T ^« ^^ ^^-^^

and should notifv ,> t^ ^^.f ^lon to this discovery
such as the TooLlll ^^^^^f "^-^fording serS

'^' Serir^J^rf : "S i-^'-'r'-' ^-"^-^- of a

species is found ?o be anTnvaIid"nWn, "'V "' ' "°'"'n»J

consequence, that naureTheelnX^-'f "?■''"*"''' •"

rejected name ") is permanS icfem-d to as the

applied to that nomi:I^sS^shaTb;*;^"^'"•' *«''''
accordanee with the rules speSdbeS.^ determined in

''' -SS^nS^^lTtte^SST^f^—

a name different from H,-.rt„ ""P^^^^ trivial name
name (such a Domini "'l, eeTe^ll '^ I" "^'^r'
referred to as an " obiectiviirrubstSbtrmt:!

120 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

species '"), the objectively available specific name of
the nominal species bearing the rejected name shall
he the specific name borne by the objectively sub-
stitiitable nominal species, and that name shall take
precedence under the Law of Priority as from the
date on which it was first published ;

(b) where there exist two or more objectively substitut-
able nominal species, the objectively available
specific name of the nominal species bearing the
rejected name shall be the first published of the
s])ecific names of any of the objectively substitutable
nominal species concerned and shall take precedence
in like manner as specified in (a) above ;

(c) where there exists no objectively substitutable
nominal species, as aforesaid : —

(1) the author discovering the condition of
primary homonv'my may either give to the
nominal species bearing the rejected name a
new specific name consisting of a binominal
combination of a generic name and of a
specific trivial name different from that
comprised in the rejected name, the specific
name so given becoming the objectively
available specific name of that nominal
species and taking precedence under the Law
of Priority as from the date on which it was
so published, or
(i) if from the subjective taxonomic standpoint
of the aiithor discovering the condition of
primary homonymy, there is no need to give
a new specific name to the nominal species
bearing the rejected name, that author may
elect to leave that noniinal species without an
objectively available specific name of its
own, it being understood in such a case that
it shall be open at any later date for the same
or any other author to give to that nominal
species a new specific name comprising a
specific trivial name different from that
comprised in the rejected name, the specific
name so given thereupon becoming the
objectively available specific name of that
nominal species and taking precedence under
the Law of Priority in like manner as specified
in (1) above ;
(G) that the sjjecific trivial name to be applied to the taxonomic
species represented by a nominal species bearing a rejected
name (as defined in (5) above) shall be determined in ac-
cordance with the Law of Priority, that is to say : —

(a) where there exist one or more nominal species which
are either (i) objectively substitutable nominal species
(as defined in (5) (a) above) or (ii) nominal species
bearing available names comprising specific trivial
names different from that comprised in the rejected
name referred to above, which is, or which are,
subjectively identified with the nominal species
bearing the rejected name (such a nominal species
being hereinafter referred to as a " subjectively
substitutable nominal species "), the specific trivial
name properly applicable to the taxonomic species
represented by the nominal species bearing the
rejected name shall be the first published of the
' specific trivial names of any of those nominal species,

jirovided that, if that name is the name of a nominal
species which is subjectively but not objectively
a substitutable nominal species, that name shall
cease to be the specific trivial name projierly applic-

^^^' Meeting, Paris, July, ms

^ 121

originally given eeaseT to L \^.'^^*''«t "an.e Mas
with the nominal sSes betr "^^^"''"^^ identified
(•>) where there exist/noi h f '^"^ '^J^''*"' "^nH- ;

jectively ^nh^^S^^^^^^i-^^'^^'^b nor a sub-
^l-ocies bearing the reiecteW ^ P^'"'"' ^''^ """"nal

different from that coCTsed in IT'^' •*"^''" "*'"«
the specific trivial „amro!^v'V '""J""**"^ "="»«'
the name properlv a nphS t fi' "^ *'^^'-^"P""
species represenW bv the not- . *^^ taxonomie
the rejected name fo^- ^ W "'' *'P**'^'''« ^^^'-'ng
siibstitutable nominal t ^ ."^ "° si'bjectivelv
published namrirliSK-'f"!-''" -^S

(7) that, wh;rrst?,-r ^---^ Scie?"-'^^^ '- •^'-

a pair of seco Xj C^^^^^ ^^ ^^^er pubHshed of
cerned is to be refected bv^' ^'.'""^"^ "^'^^^ ^«^-
opinion that the Condition ofT '"'''°' "^° ^'^ °^ ^^^^
that is to say, if hrrta^rf^T'''^^ ''^^ '^'^^'

, published of a pair of t/? '1^'""* '^^ ^^« ^^t^r
rejection is to betccented' ''^•^^"°^««' '^'^^
-tether the author L^ f/ T^^^^; respective of
considers that the Tondi ,on oTl. ^' ^^««^f
exists, that is to say ZlT I ^"^'^^^J^y still
species as congenerTc^wiTi? n ^\^«g^^ds the two
(9) that, where, subseren't T '"''" '

- (8) abovJ. an TuC r -00^' f"'* 'I'^^ ^^^^^^^
on the ground that ftTs pit 'f .h^^f ' '"^^^ "™
a pair of secondary hoC™ ^llf ' ^"^-^^^^^^^ ^^
be accepted as vahd o2 ifTh ^^I'^J^^^^^^^ is to
makes it clear (a) thkt he .1*^! ^''*^^' ^^ ^"^^tion
two species bilg Ltt c^^V'"^^"^"^ *^«
(b) that he rejects tl £ p.1^^^^^^^^ -^

or (9) aWisZtToTeuTf '""^^^^^^^
(For a decision , ^P^^^es ; ^^ ^^ "««d agam for the same

"^^oirtg the decision ^11) that such adaptation^! «K^ Jj u

^re recorrferf. .ee />ar/. above as ni«^ K ^"""^"^ ^^ "^ade in (7) to HO^

Session, Uth Meetina , ^^ "^ necessary to ma JfP f J,^ ^ '>»">( 10)

C^e../.... 28) ''"'' apply not only to the case wL^a 't !f ^''^T "«

homonyms occur in a sinrrlp J! ^u ^^'^^°°dary

a pair of secondary homoT£'^'"\^' ^^^^ ^^^re

122 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

an undetected condition of generic homonymy bears
the same generic name as that of the genus to which
the other species is referred ;
(12) that, in view of the importance of securing
that, whenever the specific trivial name of a species
was duly reject^ed, in accordance with (7) above, as
part of an invalid secondary homonym of the specific
name of another species, the fact that that name had
been so rejected should be brought prominently to
the notice of interested specialists, in order to
minunise the risk of the continued use of that name
in contravention of the provisions of (10) above, a
Recommandation should be added to the appropriate
Article of the Regies strongly recommending that
every author who rejects a specific trivial name as
part of an invalid secondary homonym should notify
that rejection as soon as possible after its publication,
to a literature-recording serial such as the Zoologiad
Record, by sending a marked copy of the paper
containing that rejection or otherwise, so that the
rejection in question may be recorded in the next
issue of that serial ;
(13) that, when the specific name (binominal com-
bination of a generic name and a specific trivial
name) of a nominal species is found to be an
invalid secondary homonym and in consequence
the specific trivial name comprised in that specific
name (hereinafter referred to as the " rejected
trivial name ") is permanently rejected in ac-
cordance with the provisions of (7) above, the
specific trivial name to be applied to that nominal
species shall be determined in accordance with
the rules specified below : —

(a) Where there exists an objectively substitut-
able nominal species (as defined in (5) above,
the objectively available specific trivial name
of the nominal species bearing the rejected
trivial name shall be the specific trivial name
borne by the objectively substitutable nominal
species, and that name shall take precedence
imder the Law of Priority as from the date on
which it was first published ;

(b) Where there exist two or more objectively
substitutable nominal species, the objectively
available specific trivial name of the nominal
species bearing the rejected trivial name shall
be the first published of the specific trivial
names of any of the objectively substitutable

m Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

123

(1) the author discovering the condition of
secon.lary honionymy may either give to the
nonnnal species hearing the rejecid rivS
name a new specific nan.e consisting of

a spec fie trivial name different from the
rejected trivial name, the specific trivkl
name so given beco.ning the obiectivelv
available specific trival name of that no ^na^
species and taking precedence imder the Law

.^i^^lSy^o^'"*'^^''^*^--^^^'^'^'^-

(2) if from the subjective taxonomic standpoint

eeon.l/'' K°'" ^^'««o^^"ng the condition of
secondary homonymy, there is no need to
give a new specific name to the nominal
species bearing the rejected trivial name
that author may elect to leave that nomina
species without an objectively ava^kWe
speci^c name of its own, it being^.nder^od
n such a case that it shall be open at any
ater date for the same or any other author
to give to that nominal species a new specmc
name comprisiiig a specific trivial ^name

specific trivial name so given thereupon be-

rar^fthaf^''""^'T^^^^^''^*^«P-'fi^*""Sl
nanie of that nominal species and taking pre-
cedence m hke manner as specified in (1) above;
(14) that the specific trivial name to be applied to the t.

.•ejected trivial name shall be the first published of tJe

Z^T^l "frr' -y.«f *J-- nominal s,?cet
proviaecl that, if that name is the name of a nom;.,oi

^P^- -h;«h is subjectively but noT oiect^X a
substitutable nominal speciesf that name shdl cea ^ to

taxot Jc' ' *.''^'i^? "f »- P™P-rly applicable to that
taxonomic species, ,f later, and for so long as the
nominal species to which that name was1,r5nalYv
given ceases to be subjectively identified with the nominal
species bearmg the rejected trivial name. '''^ "<""'"*'
(b) where there exists neither an objectively nor a sub
jectively substitutable nominal species, ^he nomina
speeies bearing the rejected trivial name is to be given
a new specific name comprising a specific trivial name
different from the rejected trivial name, the spec fie
trivial name so given becoming thereupon the name
PSPperly applicable to the taxonomic species represS
by the nominal species bearing the reje-cted trivial name
for so long as no subjectively substituable noS

Identified as also representing that taxonomic species

( 15) that when, after the point of time specified in (8) above i new

specific name is given to a nominal species on the ground timt

124 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

the specific name of that nominal species is an invalid
secondary homonym but the author who gives the
new name fails to make it clear both that he is of the
opinion that the condition of homonymy still exists,
that is to say that he regards the species in question
as one of a pair of congeneric species, each bearing the
same specific name, and that it is for this reason that
he rejects tlie later published of the two specific
trivial names and gives a new specific trivial name
to the species in question, the existing specific trivial
name of that species is to be regarded as not having
been validly rejected and in consequence the new
sjjecific trivial name given to that species is to have
no status in zoological nomenclature ;

(16) that, in order to minimise the risk of the foregoing
provisions relating to specific homonymy being
abused by irresponsible or mahcious persons for the
deliberate purpose of creating secondary homonyms
or of providing opportunities for publishing new
names, a provision should be inserted in the Regies
requiring the International Commission on Zoo-
logical Nomenclature to use their plenary powers
to suppress for nomenclatorial purposes any book or
paper, in which, in their opinion, the provisions of
the Regies in regard to the rejection and replacement
of secondary homonyms had been deUberately
misused for either or both of the purposes referred
to above ;

(17) that provisions should be inserted in the Regies to
make it clear that subgeneric names are to be dis-
regarded for the purpose of determining whether a
given specific name is a primary homonym of another
specific name or whether a given specific trivial
name is a secondary homonym of another specific
trivial name, and that Article 6 should be amended
to such extent as may be necessary for this purpose ;

(18) that the provisions in the Regies relating to cases
where a pair of species having identical specific
trivial names were either originally described, or
were subsequently placed, in the same genus or,
through the accident of an undetected condition of
generic homonymy, in different genera bearing the
same generic name, should apply also to cases where
of two nominal Ipecies so described or so placed

{For a later decision (a) the specific trivial name of one species is identical

modifying this decision ^,-|.j^ ^^^ subspecific trivial name of a subspecies

see Pans Session, 12th „ . . ^ . /u\ ^.i u c i • • i

Meeting. Conclusion28) of tlie other species or (b) the subspecinc trivial

{For a later decision
qualifying this
decision, see Paris
8eiision, 61 h ^feeling,
Conclusion 43)

Need for
publicity for new
names and for
selections of type
species of genera

6th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. i25

name of a subspecies of one species is identical with
the subspecific trivial name of a subspecies of the
same or of another species, save that nothing in the
foregomg provisions should be held to invalidate the
subspecific trivial name of the nominotypical
subspecies of a species having two or more subspecies
on the ground thatt hat name is the same as the
specific trivial name of the species itself ;

(19) that there should be omitted from the provision
which IS to replace the third paragraph of Article 35
(which prescribes that certain trivial names which
differ from one another only in the ways there
specified are to be treated as homonyms of one
another), the condition that such names must be of
the same origin and meaning and that the openincr
words of the new provision should be drafted so as
to provide merely that within a given genus anv pair
i^-^l'^^i ""^"^^^ (whether specific or subspecific)
which differ from one another only by the differences
in spelling specified in that paragraph are to be
treated as homonyms of one another.

2. During the discussion recorded in Conclusion 1
above, THE COMMISSION had under consideration
recommendations submitted by the Acting President in
Conimission Paper I.C.(48)8 (paragraphs 33, 34 41(13) )
m favour of the insertion in the Regies of a Recomrnandation
to be attached to the appropriate Article strongly recom-
mendmg that every author who publishes a new specific
name in replacement of an invalid primary homonym or a
new specific trivial name in replacement of an invahd
secondary homonym should notify the pubhcation of that
name to the Zoological Record or other hterature-recording
serial, so that the new name so published might be recorded
m the next issue of that serial. At the same time the Acting
President had suggested that this Reconmmidution should
be so drafted as to apply not only to names published in
replacement of invalid homonyms but also to all names
published tor new species.

In the ensuing discussion general agreement was
expressed with the proposal submitted but it was felt that
the procedure suggested should apply not only to new
specific and subspecific names but also to new names of all
taxonomic categories recognised by the Regies, that is to
say, at one end of the scale to the names of new Families
fcsub-famihes, genera and sub-genera, and at the other end
ot the scale to the names of infra-subspecific forms The
view was expressed also that it was highly desirable that a
corresponding Reconnnamhtion should be added to Article

126

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Publicity for new
family and sub-family
names

Publicity for new
generic, subgeneric
specific, subspecific,
and infra-subspecific

Publicity for the
selection of tbe
type species of
genera established
prior to 1st January
1931

30, strongly recoiuniending that every author who selects a
nominal species to be the type species of a nominal genus
should notify that selection to a literature-recording serial
with a view to its being recorded in the next issue of that
serial.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

(1) that a Recommandation should be added to Article
4 strongly urging that every author who
establishes a new Family or a new Sub-family
should notify the establishment of that Family
or Sub-family as soon as possible after the publica-
tion of the paper in which it is established, to a
literature-recording serial such as the Zoological
Record, by sending a marked copy of the paper
concerned or otherwise, in order that the name of
the new Family or Sub-family, as the case may be,
may be recorded in the next issue of that serial ;

(2) that a Recommandation should be added to Article
25 strongly recommending that every author
who pubUshes a new generic or a new subgeneric
name, either as the name, of a new genus or sub-
genus or in replacement of a generic or subgeneric
name which is invahd as a homonjTii or who
publishes a new- name for a species, subspecies or
infra-subspecrfic form or who elevates to specific
or subspecific rank a name originally published for
an infra-subspecific form or who publishes a name
to replace a specific, subspecific, or infra-subspecific
name which is invalid as a homonym should notify
the publication or, as the case may be, the
elevation, of that name as soon as possible after
its publication to a literature-recording serial sucl>
as the Zoological Record, by sending a marked
copy of the paper concerned or otherwise, so that
that new name or, as the case may be, that
elevation of the status of a name may be recorded
in the next issue of that serial ;

(3) that a Recommandation shoiild be added to
Article 30 strongly reconmaending that every
author who selects a nominal species to be the
type species of a nominal genus estabhshed prior
to 1st January, 1931 should notify that type
selection as soon as possible after its pubhcation
to a literature-recording serial such as the Zoo-
logical Record, either by sending a marked copy
of the paper concerned or otherwise, so that that
type selection may be recorded in the next issue of
that serial.

Definition of the
expressions
" specific name "
and " specific
trivial name "

VOL 1 r

6th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 127

3. In the course of the discussion recorded in Conchision
1 above, It became evident that (as pointed out by the
T ?;^f vo^"''"''^^''* '"^ paragraph 30 of Commission Paper
1.0.(48)8) any consideration of the problem of specific
homonymy mvolved both the concept of the binominal
combmation which constitutes the scientific designation of a
species and also the concept of that portion of that designa-
tion which distmguishes a given species from all other species
in the same genus. In the existing text of the Regies both
these concepts were referred to under the expression
nom specifique (specific name). In order to put an end to
the confusion so caused, it was essential that in the revised
text of the Regies these concepts should be distinguished
from one another by means of clearly defined expressions.
ihe distinction between these concepts and the need for a
definition of each had been recognised by Linnaeus himself
WHO had applied the expression mmen specificum to desig-
nate the binommal combination which constitutes the
scientific designation of a species and the expression
nomentnviale for the portion of the scientific designation of
a species which distinguishes the species concerned from
every other species in the same genus
THE COMMISSION agreed :— "

(1) that, in order to put an end to the present state
ot confusion, it was essential that the RMes
should distinguish clearly between the binominal
combmation which constitutes the scientific
designation of a species and the second term of
such a combmation, which distinguishes a given
species from every other species referred to that
genus ;
(2) to recommend : —

(a) that, in order to give eff-ect to the consid-
erations specified in (1) above, words
should be inserted in the Regies expressly
recognismg the two concepts referred to
above, the first of these to be designated
by the expression " specific name ", the
second by the expression " specific trivial
name " ;
(b) that the foregoing expressions should be
defined m the Regies as follows :—

Expression Definition of expression

i^pecific name" The binominal combina-
tion of a generic name
and a specific trivial name
which constitutes the
scientific designation of a
species.

128

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclaiure.

Definition of the
expressions
" subspecific
name " and
" subspecific
trivial name "

( Previous reference
Paris Session,
5th Meeting,
Conclusion 1 (2)
and (3))

"Specific trivial The second term of the
name" binominal combination

which constitutes the
scientific designation of
a species, being the por-
tion of that designation
which distinguishes the
species concerned from
every other species re-
ferred to the genus con-
cerned.
(c) that, wherever the expression " specific
name " is used in the Regies in the sense not
of a " specific name ", as defined in (b)
above but in the sense of a " specific trivial
name ", as there defined, the latter expres-
sion should be substituted for the former.

4. In the course of the discussion recorded in Conclusion
3 above, it was pointed out that there was an ambiguity in
the use in the Regies of the expression " subspecific name "
exactly parallel to the ambiguity already noted in the case
of the expression " specific name ". As it had now been
decided to eliminate the ambiguity in the case of the latter
expression, it followed that it would be necessary to take
corresponding action in regard to the expression " sub-
specific name ".

THE COMMISSION agreed to reconmiend :—

(1) that words should be inserted in the Regies
distinguishing clearly between the trinominal
combination which constitutes the scientific
designation of a subspecies and the third term of
such a combination, which distinguishes a given
subspecies of a particular species from every
other subspecies of that species, the first of these
concepts to be designated by the expression " sub-
specific name ", the second by the expression
" subspecific trivial name " ;

(2) that the foregoing expressions should be defined
in the Regies as follows : —

Expression Definition of expression

"Subspecific name" The trinominal combination
of a generic name, a specific
trivial name and a sub-
specific trivial name which
constitutes the scientific
designation of a subspecies.
The third term of the
trinominal combination
which constitutes the

"Subspecific trivial

Qth Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

129

Specific trivial
names always to be
published in
connection with
generic names

Co-ordination of
the Laws of Priority
and Homonymy

VOL. 4 I«

scientific designation of a
subspecies, being the por-
tion of that designation
which distinguishes the sub-
species concerned from
every other subspecies of
the species m question.

(3) that, wherever the expression " subspecific name"
is used in the Regies in the sense not of a " sub-
specific name ", as defined in (2) above, but in the
sense of a " subspecific trivial name ", as there
defijied, the latter expression should be substituted
for the former.

5. In the course of the discussion on the replacement of
secondary homonyms recorded in Conclusion 1 above, the
view was expressed that care should be taken to make it
absolutely clear in the Regies that, when a new specific
trivial name was published in substitution for a specific
trivial name that had been rejected on account of secondary
homonymy, the new name so published must, in order to be
an available name, be published, if not in actual combina-
tion with a generic name, at least in connection with such a
name. There were cases in the literature where this had
not been done and where in consequence it was necessary to
infer from the context the name of the genus to which the
author of the new specific name intended to refer the species
in question. It was pointed out that it was not only in
comaection with new specific trivial names pubhshed in
substitution for invahd secondary homonyms that there
existed this risk, for there were cases in the literature in
which an author, either not knowing, or being doubtful
regarding, the genus to which he should refer a new species
which he was describing, had pubhshed a specific trivial
name for that species without indicating any generic name
for it.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recoimuend :—
that words should be inserted in the Regies making it
clear that no specific trivial name pubhshed either for
a previously undescribed species or in substitution for
a specific trivial name rejected as an invalid homonym
possesses any status in zoological nomenclature, imless
the author concerned specifies a generic name in
connection therewith.

6. During the discussion recorded in Conclusion 1
above regarding the status of a new name published in
substitution for an invalid homonym (whether primary or

130

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

secondary), attention was drawn to the fact that the present
text of the Regies was defective in that the Articles dealing
respectively with the Law of Priority (Article 25) and the
Law of Homonymy (Articles 34-36) appeared to have
been drawn up entirely independently of one another with
the result that each lacked a quaUfying reference to the
other. It was pointed out on the one hand that in addition
to the existing provisions in Article 25 that Article should
contain a provision that the oldest published name for a
genus, subgenus, species, subspecies or infra-subspecific
form would not be the valid name of the genus, subgenus,
species, subspecies or infra-subspecific form concerned if it
was a name which was invalid under the Law of Homonymy
(at present dealt with in Articles 34-36). Similarly, in the
Articles which would replace Articles 34-36 in the revised
text of the Regies, it would be necessary to make it clear
that a name which does not satisfy the Law of Priority does
not invahdate, under the Law of Homonymy, a later-
published name consisting of the same word.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

tha't words should be inserted in the Regies to co-
ordinate the Law of Priority (Article 25) and the Law
of Homonymy (Articles 34-36) with one another,
this object to be attained by inserting in : —

(a) the Article dealing with the Law of Priority
a provision that, even if a name satisfies all the
requirements specified in Article 25, that name
is not a valid name if it falls to be rejected under
the Law of Homonymy ;

(b) the Articles dealing with the Law of Homonymy
a provision that a name which does not satisfy
the Law of Priority does not invaUdate, imder
the Law of Homonymy, a later-published name
consisting of the same word.

Application to
generic names of
the provisions in
the third paragraph
of Article 35
relating to specific
trivial names
{Previous reference:
Lisbon Session,
4th Meeting,
Conclusion 14)

7. In the course of the discussion recorded in Conclusion
1 above regarding the provision relating to the rejection on
account of homonymy of a specific trivial name which
differed from another specific trivial name only in any of the
small points of spelling listed in the third paragraph of the
existing text of Article 35, THE ACTING PRESIDENT
(MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) reminded the Commission
that by a decision taken at their Session held at Lisbon in
1935 the Commission had given an interpretation of Article

6th Meeting, Paris, July, 1918.

131

(Previous reference:
Paris Session,
4th Meeting,
Conclusion 4(2) (a))

34 applying, mutatis mutandis, to generic names the pro-
visions in regard to specific trivial names referred to above.
That decision had later been formally embodied in the
Commission's Opinion 147. In view of the decision just
taken by the Commission to reconunend the deletion from
the third paragraph of Article 35 of the words " of the same
origin and meaning ", it followed automatically that a
corresponding amendment should now be made in Opinion
147. The Commission had however already agreed at their
present Session to incorporate in the Regies provisions
embodying the interpretations of existing Articles given by
the Commission in interpretative Opinions and they would
shortly be considering the paper (Commission Paper
T.C.(48)11) which had been submitted by himself on this
subject. The Acting President suggested that the most
convenient course might be tor the Commission to confine
itself to taking note that Opinion 147 now required amend-
ment but to defer taking a decision in regard to that amend-
ment until they came to consider the question of incor-
porating mto the Regies the interpretation given in that
Ojnnion.

(Lnler reference:
Paris Session,
6th Meetintj.
Conclusion 41)

THE COMMISSION agreed :-

( 1 ) that, if the Congress approved the recommendation
which it had been agreed to submit for the
amendment of the third paragraph of Article 35
relating to homonomy in specific trivial names by
the deletion of the qualifying words " of the same
origin and meaning ", it would be necessary to
ensure that simultaneously with the adoption
of that amendment, a corresponding amendment
should be made in Opinion 147, in which the
foregoing paragraph of Article 35 had been
applied to generic homonymy (Article 34) ;

(2) to defer further consideration of this question
until they came to consider the proposals for
incorporating into the Regies the interpretations
thereof given in interpretative Opinions rendered
by the Commission submitted in Commission
Paper I.C.(48)11.

Thanks of the
Commission to
Mrs. M. F. W.
Hemming

8. THE COMMISSION agreed:—

to place on record their grateful thanks to Mrs.
M. F. W. Hemming for the active part which, in.
conjunction with her husband, Secretary Francis
Hemming, she had played in preparing the proposals

132

IiUenuttioiud Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

submitted to the Commission in regard to the problem
of specific homonymy (Commission Paper I. C. (48)8)
and the nomenclature of infra-specific forms (Com-
mission Paper I. C. (48)9).

MRS. HEMMING thanked the Commission for the
resolution which they had just adopted.

Codification of the
interpretations of
the "Regies" given
in " Opinions "
rendered by the
Commission {
future procedure
in regard to

(Previous reference:
Lisbon Session,
Mh Meeting,
Conclusion 15)

9. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
memorandum by the Secretary to the Conmiission on the
need for the codification of the interpretations of the
Regies given in Opinions rendered by the Commission in
their judicial capacity (Paper I.C. (48)10).

In introducing this subject, THE ACTING PRESI-
DENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) recalled that many
important interpretations of the Regies had been given by
the Commission in Opinions rendered at various times since
1907, the year in which the International Congress of
Zoology had conferred upon the Commission the right and
the duty to render Opinions on questions of zoological
nomenclature submitted to them. Many of these inter-
pretations had been given incidentally in Opinions dealing
with the status of particular names and it was therefore
not surprising that some of them had been widely over-
looked. At their meeting held in Lisbon in 1935 the Com-
mission had reviewed their practice in this matter and had
agreed that, when in future they reached a decision of
interest to the general body of zoologists, that decision
should be presented in such a way as to ensure that it was
most readily available to all concerned. The revised
procedure then agreed upon had been consistently followed
in all subsequent Opinions. It represented a substantial
improvement on previous practice, but nevertheless it
touched only the fringe of the problem. Much more
drastic action would be needed in order to put an end to the
chaotic situation which confronted zoologists who desired
to ascertain whether any particular provision of the Regies
had been the subject of an interpretative Opinion rendered
by the Commission. When during the war the Commission
had taken stock of the problems which they would need to
tackle immediately the war was over, they had included in
their programme the publication of an authoritative edition
of the substantive French text of the Regies, and the re-
issue of their earlier Opinions which had long been out of
print and were virtually unobtainable. The Conmiission
had then proposed to attach to the proposed edition of the
Regies an analysis of those of their Opinions which contained
interpretations of provisions in the Regies. The preparation

i)lh Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 133

of this analysis, which had occupied over two years, had
proved laborious and difficult owing largely to the need to
distinguish carefully between the actual decisions taken by
the Commission on the one hand, and on the other the
numerous obiter dicta embodied in the texts of many
Opinions which had the appearance of being views expressed
by the Commission but were in fact no more than the per-
sonal views of the draftsmen of the Opinions concerned.
Simultaneously with the preparation of the foregoing analy-
sis of the Opinions rendered by the Commission, a start was
made with the re-publication of the older Opinions. This
was long overdue, for owing to these Opinions having been
for so long out of print, they were known to the majority of
zoologists only through their " summaries " which often
failed to give a clear picture of the decision taken in those
cases where the ostensible object of the Opinion was to give
a ruHng on the status of some particular name, while by far
the most important part of the Opinion was the decision
taken on the interpretation of some -provision of the
Regies. Attached to each of the Opinions so re-issued
were editorial notes prepared by himself (the Acting Presi-
dent) in his capacity as Secretary to the Commission.
Both the projected analysis of the interpretative Opinions
and the publication of an annotated edition of the older
Opinions represented steps in the right direction, but each
fell short of the ideal solution, for neither the analysis nor
the annotations to the older Opinions could in the circum-
stances do more than represent the views of the author by
whom they were compiled. Obviously, it would be much
more satisfactory if means could be found to secure in
these matters an authoritative pronouncement made, on the
advice of the Commission, by the Congress itself.

The Acting President went on to say that within the
last 18 months the whole question had been carefully
reviewed and the conclusion had been reached that the right
and proper course would be to take advantage of the
meeting in Paris of the International Congress of Zoology
to seek the concurrence of the Congress in a comprehensive
codification of the interpretative Opiniotis rendered by the
Commission during the last 40 years. Periodical codi-
fications of this kind were a normal feature in the develop-
ment of law in countries in which the law consisted partly of
statute law and partly of case law built up from inter-
pretative decisions taken by the Courts. Only by this
means was it possible to prevent the law from becoming
miduly difficult to interpret and in the course of time so
complicated and obscure as almost to defy interpretation.
Fortunately the Regies had not yet reached that stage but

134

Inlermitional Commission on ZoologicaJ Nomenclature.

(Previous reference:
Paris Session,
4fh Meeting,
Conchisions 3 & 5) .

(Previous reference:
Paris Session,
4th Meeting,
Conclusion 6)

signs were not wanting that the Regies and the Opinions
taken together were becoming so conipUcated as to make
their interpretation by working zoologists unnecessarily
time-consuming and burdensome. From the consultations
which had taken place on this matter it was evident that a
codification of the kind proposed would be widely welcomed
by zoologists. Once the proposed codification had been
carried through, zoologists would be able not only to see
what was the present state of the law but also to determine
much more easily than was at present possible the directions
in which further developments or amendments were re-
quired.

Vitally important as it was that order should be intro-
duced into the Regies by the codification of the inter-
pretative Opinions rendered by the Commission, it was
equally essential that the Commission should never again
permit a recurrence of the present state of confusion. It
was accordingly suggested that, when in future the Com-
' mission were called upon to give an interpretation of a
given provision of the Regies, they should not only do so in
the most categorical and unambiguous terms but should also
so draft the interpretation so given that it could readily be
written into the Regies at the next meeting of the Inter-
national Congress. The consistent appUcation of this
principle would secure that the current authorised edition
of the Regies would contain provisions on all matters on
which interpretative judicial decisions had been taken by
the Commission up to and including the last meeting of
the Congress. In order to ascertain the state of the law,
a zoologist would therefore only have to consult the Regies
and such few interpretative decisions as the Commission
might have rendered since the last Congress. The Acting
President added that, in order to facilitate reference to
interpretative decisions of this kind, it was proposed that
in future Declarations should be reserved for recording this
type of decision, decisions relating to the status of individual
books and of individual names, together with decisions
relating to the " Official List of Generic Names in Zoology "
being recorded, as at present, in Opinions.

The Commission had already noted that in three cases
at least interpretations given in Opinions were manifestly
incorrect and the Commission had agreed to cancel the
Opinions in question {Opinions 20, 37 and 8). In another
case the Commission had agreed to recommend that a
particular provision of the Regies (Article 25, Proviso (c) (2))
should be amended and in consequence an Opinion {Opinion
138) giving an interpretation of the passage now to be
deleted from that Article had become inappropriate and

6th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

135

(For later d^isions
on this subject,
see. Paris Session,
9th Meeting,
Conclusion 31 ; I2lh
Meeting, Conclusion
19)

misleading. In this case also the Commission had agreed to
cancel the Opinion in question. Opinicms containing
interpretations of the Regies would be in a diflferent position
after those interpretations had been written into the
Regies as the result of the proposed codification. Such
Opinions would no longer be an authorised source to which
zoologists could look for interpretations of the Regies, since
for this purpose those Opinions would have been super-
seded by the new provisions inserted in the Regies. It was
desirable, however, that such Opinions should remain on
record for historical purposes, but it was essential that it
should be made clear that every such Opinion was repealed
for interpretative purposes. Where an Opinion contained
both an interpretation of the Regies and also a decision
regarding the status of a particular book or a particular
name, that Opinion, though repealed in so far as it con-
tained an interpretation of the Regies, would remain in
full force, so far as the decision in regard to a particular
book or a particular name was concerned.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) as regards " Opinions " already rendered by the
Commission (i.e. Opinions 1 — 194) : —

(a) to cancel any Opinion : —

(i) which might be found to contain an
erroneous interpretation of a pro-
vision in the Regies, the said cancel-
lation to become operative forthwith ;

(ii) which contained an interpretation of
a provision of the Regies which,
though correct imder the existing
text of the Regies, would cease to be
correct as soon as the present (Paris)
Congress had approved the recom-
mendation to be submitted to them
for the amendment or deletion of the
provision interpreted in the Opinion
in question, the said cancellation to
become operative as from the date
on which the amendments to the
Regies made by the present Congress
came into force ;

(b) to repeal for interpretative purposes any
Opinion or part of an Opinion containing
an interpretation of a provision of the
Regies, where the present Congress decided
to incorporate that interpretation, in whole

136 Internalional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

or in part, in the text of the Regies, the
said repeal to become operative as from the
date on which the amendments to the
Regies made by the present Congress come
into force ;

(c) to request any zoologist who might consider
that any Opinion, other than an Opinion
that had been cancelled or an Opinion
repealed for interpretative purposes under
(a) or (b) above, contained an interpretation
of the Regies on a matter not expressly
dealt with therein which through inadver-
tence had either not been incorporated in

^ the Regies as part of the present codification

or had not been expressly repealed for
interpretative purposes, to notify the Com-
mission as soon as possible, so that they
might consider what recommendation in
regard thereto to submit to the next meeting
of the Congress ;

(d) to place on record their intention : —

(i) to make proposals to the next
(XlVth) meeting of the Congress for
the incorporation in the Regies of any
interpretation thereof given in any
Opinion rendered prior to July 1948
which they might find was inadver-
tently not incorporated in the Regies
by the present Congress and which
they might deem expedient should be
so incorporated ;

(ii) to repeal for interpretative purposes
every Opinion rendered prior to the
above date which might not already
have been either cancelled or repealed
for interpretative purposes under
(a) or (b) above, the said repeal to
become operative as from the date
on which the amendments to the
Regies made by the next Congress
came into force ;
(2) as regards " Declarations " and " Opinions "
rendered after the close of the present Congress : —

(a) to reserve the series entitled Declarations
for the recording of interpretations of
pro^'isions of the Regies and the consequent
submission of proposals for the amendment

(5t/i Meeliiuj, Paris, July, 1948. 137

of the Regies and the series entitled Opinions
for decisions relating to the status of
individual books and of individual names,
together with decisions relating to the
"Ofl&cial List of Generic Names in Zoology" ;

(b) to lay it down that the decision given in any
Declaration or Opinion is to be looked for
only in the " summary " of that Declaration
or Opinion, that every such " summary "
is to be rigidly construed, and that no
deductions, other than those expressly
specified therein, are to be drawn there-
from ;

(c) to place on record that no new interpretation
of any provision of the Regies is to be
drawn from any Opinion, every such inter-
pretation to be recorded in a Declaration,
as provided in (a) above ;

(d) to report to each meeting of the Congress
any interpretations of provisions of the
Regies which they may have given in a
Declaration or Declarations rendered since
the last previous meeting of the Congress,
with a recommendation that every such
interpretation be incorporated forthwith in
the Regies ;

(e) to repeal for interpretative purposes any
Declaration, the contents of which shall have
been incorporated into the Regies by direc-
tion of a meeting of the Congress, acting on
a recommendation submitted to it in accord-
ance with (d) above, the said repeal to become
operative as from the date on which the
amendments to the Regies made by that
Congress shall come into force ;

(3) to incorporate into the By-Laws of the Commission
the provisions specified in (2) above.

Interpretations of .jq rj^jj-g COMMISSION had before them a memoran-

"Re5Vs'5"gWe?rn dum by the Secretary to the Commission containing detailed

"Opinions": proposals for the codification of the mterpretations ot

"^'T^tlliL in various provisions in the RegUs given by the Commission

;S: " MeT" ;"o be in OpinLs rendered at various dates from the year 1907

considered item onwards (Commission Paper I.C.(48)11).
by item

(P.e..u..e/.e,.e.- THE COMMISSION :-

Paris Session, Q) recalled that, since Commission Ir'aper l.L.(4:»)ii

"^4 (2) (a)) had been prepared, they had agreed in principle

138 Inlcrnational Commission on Zoological NmnencUUure.

at tlie meeting noted in the margin to recommend
the incorporation in the Regies of provisions
embodying the interpretations of existing Articles
given by the Commission in Opinions already
rendered, subject to such modifications or excep-
tions as they might consider proper ;

(2) agreed to examine Commission Paper I.C. (48)11,
paragraph by paragraph, with a view to reaching
conclusions regarding the recommendations to be
submitted in this regard.

Article 4 and 11. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the

(Family'names) interpretation of Article 4 of the Regies given in Opinion

141 and the proposals in regard thereto submitted in

paragraphs 1-3 of the list contained in Commission Paper

I.C.(48)11.

In the discussion on this question it was generally
agreed that the existing provisions (Articles 4 and 5) in
regard to Family and Sub-FamUy names constituted a
totally inadequate treatment of this complicated problem.
It was not possible on the present occasion to study this
matter in the requisite detail but it was very desirable that
the issues involved should be thoroughly investigated as
soon as possible.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

(1) that the Secretary to the Commission should be
invited to make a thorough study, in consultation
with interested specialists, of the problem of the
nomenclature of Super-Families, Families, Sub-
Families and Tribes and to submit a Report there-
on, with recommendations, for consideration by
the Commission at their meeting to be held during
the next (XlVth) meeting of the Congress, with a
view to the submission by the Commission of
proposals for the insertion in the Regies of com-
prehensive provisions dealing with this subject ;

(2) that, without prejudice to (1) above : —

(a) words should be inserted to make it clear : —

(i) that the genus bearing the oldest
available generic name in a family
need not be taken as the type genus
of a famUy ;

(ii) that an author establishing a new

family is free to select as the type

genus of that family whatever genus

• he considers the most appropriate ;

Glh Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 139

(iii) that the name of a family is to be
based upon the name of its type
genus, and that the selection of a
given generic name to be the basis
of a family name constitutes ipso
facto a definite designation of the
genus bearing that name to be the
type genus of that family. Example:
The genus Musca Linnaeus, 1758,
was definitely designated as the type
genus of the family MUSCID.\E by
reason of the fact that the stem of
the word " Musca " was used as the
basis of that family name.

(iv) that the provisions of (i) to (iii)
above are to apply to the names of
sub-famihes in like manner as to the
names of families ;

(b) a Recommandation in the following sense
should be added to the provision specified
in (a) (ii) above : " The genus selected to be
the type genus of a family should, so far as
possible, be a well-known and common
genus and one which, from the taxonomic
standpoint, occupies a central position in
the family so established."

(c) a Recommandation in the following sense
should be added to the provision specified
in (a) (iii) above : " ^Vhe^e a well-established
family name has not been formed in accord-
ance with (iii) above but where it would be
undesirable to change existing practice,
authors should, before making any such
change, refer the question to the
International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature for such action as it may
think proper."

Article 8 and 12. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the

" Opinion " 183 interpretation of Article 8 of the Regies given in Opinion

be "ublis'he^ln*'* 1^3 and the proposals in regard thereto submitted in para-

the^noi^native graph 4 of the list contained in Commission Paper I.C.(48)11.

THE COMMISSION agreed to reconamend :—
that words should be inserted in the Regies to make
it clear that the provision in Article 8 that a generic

sin

igular)

140

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

{Later reference :
Paris Session,
7th Meeting,
Conclusion 7)

Article 14, first
paragraph, and
" Opinion " 64
(single letters not
eligible as trivial
names)

Status of specific
trivial names
when preceded by
serial letters or
serial numerals at
the time of their
original publication

(Later reference:
Paris Session,
\2th Meeting,
Conclusion 32)

name is to consist of a noun in the nominative singular
requires that no name is to be accepted as a generic
name until it has been published as a noun in the above
case and number and that a noun first publislied in
some other case or number is available as a generic
name only as from the date on which it is for the first
time published in the nominative singular and is to be
attributed to the author by whom it is first so
published.

13. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 14 of the
Regies given in Opinion 64 and the proposals in regard
thereto submitted in paragraph 5 of the list contained in
Commission Paper I.C.(48)11.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that words should be inserted in the Ragles to make it
clear that a single letter, such as " a ", " b ", " c ",
etc. is not to be accepted as the trivial name of a
species or subspecies.

14i In the course of the discussion (recorded in Con-
clusion 13 above), regarding the codification of the inter-
pretation of Article 14 of the Regies given in Opinion
64, attention was drawn to the fact that, where an author,
in giving a list of the species which he referred to a given
genus, had placed a serial letter or a serial numeral immedia-
tely in front of the trivial name of the species concerned,
some later authors had sought to argue that, in the case of
any new name published in this manner, the serial letter
or the serial numeral, as the case might be, should be
regarded as forming part of the trivial name.

In order to eliminate discussion on this contention,
which was clearly misconceived, it would, it was felt, be
helpful if words were inserted in the Regies making it clear
that- serial letters and serial numerals, when used in the
manner indicated above, do not form part of the trivial
name of the species concerned.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that words should be inserted at some appropriate
point in the Regies making it clear that, where a
new specific trivial name is published in a list of
species referred to a given genus and is there preceded
by a serial letter or serial numeral, that serial letter
or serial numeral is not to be taken as constituting part
of the specific trivial name in question.

6th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 141

Article 19 and 15. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the

29°36'"4l"60 ei'and ^^^^^^^Pretations of Article 19 of the Regies given in Opinions
63'(emendation of ^^' ^7, 29, 36, 41, 60, 61, and 63, and the proposals in regard
names) thereto submitted in paragraphs 7-9 of the hst contained in

Commission Paper I.C.(48)11.

In the discussion on this question, the following points

were made : —

(a) In various respects the interpretation of Article 19
had been rendered more, rather than less, difficult
by the Opinions given by the Commission at various
times, for some of those Opinions were irreconcilable
both with the terms of Article 19 itself and with the
interpretation of that Article given in other Opinions.

(b) It was evident that, before a satisfactory solution
could be reached in regard to the complex of pro-
blems raised by this Article, a much closer study
than any hitherto attempted would need to be made.
Further, this study would need to be directed to
the substantive French text of this Article, rather
than to the imperfect English translation of that
text commonly in use, to which most of the discus-
sions hitherto had been directed.

(c) Various proposals had been received for making
changes in Article 19, but it was very difficult to
judge the merits of these proposals until the present
meaning of that Article had been clarified by the
incorporation into it of such of the interpretations
given by the Commission in Opinions on particular
cases as were consistent with the meaning of the
words actually used in the Article itself. The con-
solidation of the present law in this matter was thus
an indispensable preliminary to the consideration of
its development or reform.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

(1) that the Secretary to the Commission should be
invited to make a thorough study, in consultation
^ with interested speciaUsts, of the problems

involved in the emendation of scientific names
which, when originally published, contained errors
of transcription or of orthography or printers'
errors and to submit a Report thereon, with
recommendations, for consideration by the Com-
mission at their meeting to be held diiring the next
(XlVth) meeting of the Congress, with a view to
the submission by the Commission of proposals for
the insertion in the Regies of comprehensive
provisions dealing with this subject ;

142 International Commission on Zoological Notnendature.

(2) that, without prejudice to (1) above : —

(a) words should be inserted in Article 19
to make it clear that, in determining
whether, as regards any given name, an
error of transcription or of orthography or a
printers' error is "evident" in the original
spelling of a scientific name, particular
attention should be paid to evidence
contained in the book or paper in which the
name was first pubhshed ;

(b) it shoiild be made clear in Article 19 in
some manner which will not detract from
the generality of the expression " evident "
as used in that Article that the following
examples illustrate cases where the original
spelling of a name shoidd be emended : — .

(i) Where it is e^^dent that a generic
name or a specific trivial name is based
upon a personal name and where
the spelling of the scientific name so
pubUshed is not identical, except for
the termination used, \nth the
correct spelhng of the name of the
person to whom the genus or species
is dedicated, the spelling of the
scientific name in question is to be
emended so as to correspond with the
correct spelling of the name of that
person. Example : The names
Ruppelia Swainson, 1839, and
Rupellia Swainson, 1839, are to be
emended to EiippeUia, in view of the
fact that this genus was dedicated to
a zoologist named Riippell.

(ii) When an author founds a new name
upon one or more Greek words but
inadvertently commits an error in
transliterating into the Latin
alphabet one or more of the Greek
letters of which the word was (or
the words were) composed, the error
of transcription is to be corrected.
Example : The inadvertent mis-
transliteration of the Greek letter
Zeta committed in the speUing
" Pentoxocera ", a name formed

^t'^Meeli,^, Paris, July, ms.

143

you 4 K

from the Greek words .e..e (five)
t: (branch), and «>. (horn)
s to be corrected and the'speLg jf

' PenScU^'.^ ^^ ^--^^^ -

(iii) AVhen an author founds a new name

upon o,e or more Greek words cS
in the origmal puWication of the

name and when one 8f those word is
ttere mcorrectly spelt and in con

sequence the scientific name founded
tliereon is also incorrectly spelt the
spelling of that name is^ o be
emended. Example : The authors of

Jiatt,.,J,,,tt\^-;-^
Greek word similarly spelt (ie a

word having the Greek letter Theta
as Its second letter). In fact, howevt
the Greek word concerned had as it.
second letter the Greek lett Be f
The spelhng of this generic name \s
itl^T^ be emended to "lb!

(iv) When an author fomids a trivial

Ww^ni'^^^^^^^^^^ district
from which the type specimen was
obtamed but, as the result of his
theTpfi^.^ "' ^/copying the name of
the loca ity or district from the label

on the type specimen, publishes as
the tr I ^^^^^ ^

Latinised word which fails to indicate
the locahty or district intended,
the spelhng of the name so published
IS to be emended. Example : Wlien
Gunther gave to a new fish the name
Leuciscm hahiensis, he selected that
trivial iianie because he had misread
as Lake Hakou " the locafity of the
type specimen of this species. In
lact however, the name of the type
locahty was "Lake Hakone " In
these circumstances, the trivial name

144

Intcrnalional Co))i mission, on Zoological Nomenclature.

Article 25 and
" Opinion " 2
(status of a name
based on a
hypothetical form)

Article 25 and
" Opinion " 49
(status of a specific
name published
conditionally)

(v) When an author, in naming a new
species, selects for its trivial name a
word which, though adjectival in
form, is not a recognised Latin
adjective and where that author uses
for the nominative singular of that
word the termination " -ius " (mas-
culine) or " -ia " (feminine), these
terminations are to be corrected to
" -eus " and " -ea " respectively.
Example : The word " iridia " (pub-
lished by Gibbons in 1855 as a new
trivial name in the combination
Salmo iridia), though adjectival in
form, is not a recognised Latin
adjective. This trivial name is,
therefore, to be emended to irideus
(masculine), iridea (feminine), or
irideum (neuter).

16. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
interpretation of Article 25 of the Regies given in Opinion
2 (which relates to the status of a name based upon a
hypothetical form) and the proposals in regard thereto
submitted in paragraph 10 of the list contained in Commis-
sion Paper I.C.(48)11.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that words should be inserted in the Regies to make
it clear that a name based upon a hypothetical form
has no status in zoological nomenclature. Example :
The generic name Pithecanthropus Haeckel, 1866,
being the name of a genus based upon a hypothetical
species, has no status in zoological nomenclature and
does not preoccupy the generic name Pithecanthropus
Dubois, [1894], the name of a genus based upon a
known species.

17. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
interpretation of Article 25 of the Regies given in Opinion
49 (which relates to the status of a specific name pubHshed
conditionally) and the proposals in regard thereto submitted
in paragraph 11 of the list contained in Commission Paper
I.C.(48)11.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

(a) that words should be inserted in the Regies to
make it clear that, where an author doubtfully
identifies known material with a described species
but publishes for that material a new specific

Uh Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

145

Article 25 and
" Opinion " 4
(status of a
manuscript name
on being first
validly published
with an
" indication ")

(Later reference:
Paris Session,
^th Meeting,
Conclusion 15)

(Later reference:
Paris Session,
iUh Meeting,
Conclusion 28)

VOL. 4 K^

name for use therefor if later it is found that that
material is referable to an unnamed species, the
specific name, given conditionally in this manner,
is available for that species as from the date of its
original publication and is to be attributed to" its
original author. Example: The specific name
Siphonophora asclepiadifolii, given conditionally
by Thomas in 1879 to known material which he
doubtfully identified with a previously named
species {Aphis asclepiadis Fitch) is available as
from 1879 for the material so named by Thomas,
(b) that a Recommandation should be inserted at an
appropriate point in the Regies strongly deprecat-
ing the pubhcation of names conditionally.

18. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
interpretation of .Article 25 of the Regies given in Opinion
4 (which relates to the status of a name which, prior to
being published, was a manuscript name) and the proposals
in regard thereto submitted in paragraph 12 of the fist
contained in Commission Paper I.C.(48)11.

^^ It was pointed out in discussion that the expression
' prmted m connection with the provisions of Article 25 "
used in Opinion 4 was not happily chosen : (1) because it
prejudged the question whether, in order to be accepted a
book contaming new names must be actually printed as
contrasted with being reproduced by some other process
(a subject on which proposals would be submitted to the
Commission at a later meeting during its present Session),
and (2) because it was difficult to regard a manuscript name
rejected by the author by whom it was first pubHshed as the
name by which the genus or species concerned had been first
designated (". . . . sous lequel ils ont ete le plus ancienne-
ment designes ") as prescribed in the opening words of the
Article. ^Vhat was intended was, no doubt, that a manu-
script name, to become available, must first be pubhshed
(" divulgue dans une pubhcation ") in conditions which
satisfied the requirements of the provisos to Article 25.
It would be well to make this clear, now that the decision in
this Opinion was to be incorporated in the Regies.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :-

that words should be inserted in the Regies to make it
clear that a manuscript name acquires status in
zoological nomenclature only when it is validly
published and, on being so published, is pubhshed in
conditions which satisfy the requirements of the

146 I idernational Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

provisos to Article 25, and that the status of a manu-
script name, so pubHshed, is not affected by the
question whether the author by whom it is pubUshed
accepts it as an available name or sinks it as a
synonym.

Article 25 and 19. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the

and^lSO^fv' r interpretations of aspects of the problem raised by the

aspects expression " divulgue dans une publication " as used in

*** ***l/?'^**¥*'" Article 25 given by the Commission in Opinion 87 (which

pu ica ion; relates to the status of a name when it appears for the first

time in a proof sheet) in Opinion 59 (which relates to the

status of a name which first appears in an advance separate)

and in Opinion 191 (which relates, to the status of a name

when it appears for the first time in documents, etc.,

distributed by an author to colleagues or students),

together with the proposals thereon submitted in paragraphs

15, 17 and 14 of the list contained in Commission Paper

I.C.(48)11.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—
amplifying the present that woids should be inserted in the Regies to make

decision, see Paris it clear : —

Session, 1th Meeting, ,-,.,,.

Conclusion 15) (a) that the distribution of proof sheets does not

constitute publication and that a new name
given currency in this way has no status in zoo-
logical nomenclature until such later time as it is
duly published in accordance with the pro-
visions of Article 25 ;

(b) that, where a new name appears in a paper
published in a book or serial and separates of
that paper are distributed in advance of the
publication of the paper concerned, the new
name ranks for the purposes of the Law of
Priority not from the date of the distribution of
the separates but from the later date on which
the paper was actually published either in that
book or serial or elsewhere.

(c) that a new name introduced in a note (whether
printed or otherwise reproduced) in explanation
of a photograph or other illustration of an
animal is not " divulgue dans une publication "
where the author concerned does no more than
distribute copies of such a note and photograph
or other illustration to colleagues or students
or when he merely attaches copies of such a
note and illustration to separates of a paper
dealing with the same subject but either not

6th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

147

containing the new name in question or con-
tanmig it without satisfying the requirements of
Article 25. Example : The specific name
lihynchoneUa alta has no status under the Law
of Priority as from the date (about 1878) on
which It appeared in a note with accompanyin.^
photograpludistributed by Samuel Calvin' but
ranks for purposes of priority as from 1890 when
It was published with an indication by H S
Williams.

Articles 30 and 35
and " Opinion "
148 (status and
type species of a
generic name
published as an
invalid emendation
of an earlier name)

{Previous reference:
Paris Session,
Qth Meeting,
Conclusion 1(21)

20. THE COMMISSION had mider consideration the
interpretations of Articles 30 and 35 of the Regies given in
paragraph (1) of Opinion 148 (which relates to the status
ot a generic name published as an invahd emendation of
or as a substitute for, an earlier generic name of the same'
origin and meanmg) and the proposals in regard thereto
submitted m paragraphs 16 and 26 of the list contained in
Commission Paper I.C.(48)11.

It was pointed out that the decision given in the Omnion
referred to above carried with it the coroUary that if a
generic name which had been invalidly emended was'later
rejected as an invaUd homonym, the invahd emendation of
that name becomes an available name for the genus con-
cerned, as from the date on which it was originally pubUshed
In the example given in Opinion 148, Achatinus de Montfort'
1810 was rejected as a synonym oi Achatina Lamarck 1799*
ot which it was an invahd emendation. Like any other
synonym, Achatinus de Montfort would become an available
name for the genus concerned, if it were to be found that the
earlier name (Achatim Lamarck, 1799), of which it had been
sunk as a synonym, was an invalid homonym The
decision m this part of Opinion 148 was subject to the
limitation imposed by Opinion 147 (proposals for the in-
corporation m the Rigles of which were submitted in

T n?f«tF.. u ""{^^^ ^^'^ contained in Commission Paper
l.L.(48)ll) that the original name and the invaUdly emended
version should not be so similar to one another in speUing
as to fall withm the categories of names which, under that
Opimmi, were to be treated as homonyms of one another
It was pointed out also that, in view of the decision taken
earlier during the present meeting to recommend that the
phrase of the same origin and meaning " should be
deleted from the third paragraph of Article 35 (which relates
to speGif c homonymy, that phrase (which had been intro-
duced mto Opimon 148 by analogy from Article 35) should'
be omitted in the proposed incorporation in the Regies of
the decision given in paragraph (1) of Opinion 148

148

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that words should be inserted in the Regies to make it
clear : —

(a) that a generic name published as an invalid
emendation of an earlier name (an emendation
made otherwise than in accordance with Article
19) is to be rejected as a synonym of the earlier
name, where that name is an available name,
the type species of the later published nominal
genus being automatically the same species as
the t}^e species of the earlier published nominal
genus ;

(b) that, where the name of a genus is rejected as an
invalid homonym and the next oldest name is
a name published as an invalid emendation of
that name and that invalid emendation is
sufficiently different in spelling from the original
name not to be a homonyna thereof under the
provisions contained in the third paragraph of
Article 35 as applied to Article 34 by Opinion
147, the generic name originally pubUshed as an
invalid emendation becomes an available name
for the genus in question and has priority as
from the date on which it was first published
as an invalid emendation and is to be attributed
to the author by whom it was so published.

Article 25,
Proviso (a), and
" Opinion " 1
( meaning of the
expression
" indication ")

21. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
interpretation of Proviso (a) to Article 25 of the Regies given
in Opinion 1 (which relates to the meaning of the expression
" indication " as used in the Proviso in question), together
with the proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraph
18 of the hst contained in Commission Paper I.C. (48)11.

In the discussion on this proposal, it was pointed out
that, since the foregoing paper had been prepared, the
Commission had decided to recommend the Hberahsation of
the third of the provisions relating to generic names specified
in Opinion 1. It remained now to consider the codification
(and to such extent as might be necessary, the clarification)
of (1) the remaining portion of Opinion 1 as regards generic
names, and (2) the whole of the portion of that Opinion
which was concerned with specific trivial names, and the
concluding sentence of that Opinion, which referred both to
generic names and to specific trivial names. In the
decision to be taken on these matters it would be necessary
to make it clear that the whole of the interpretation of the
expression " indication " here under consideration related

6th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

149

(Later reference:
Paris Session,
12th Meeting,
Conclusion 29)

(Previous reference:
Paris Session,
ah Meeting,
Conclusion 13)

only to names published prior to 1st January, 1931, the
date on which the more rigorous provisions of Proviso (c)
to Article 25 came into operation.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that words should be inserted in the Regies to make
it clear, as regards generic names and specific trivial
names published prior to 1st January, 1931 : —

(a) that a specific trivial name is to be accepted
as having been published with an " indication "
if it is pubhshed (i) with a bibliographical
reference to a previously published definition
or description, or (ii) in conjunction with a
figure (illustration), or (iii) as a substitute
for a previously published name which is
invalid as a homonym ;

(b) that a generic name is to be accepted as having
been pubhshed with an " indication " if it is
pubhshed (i) with a bibhographical reference
to a previously published definition or descrip-
tion, or (ii) in the manner agreed upon at the
meeting noted in the margin, or (iii) as a substi-
tute for a previously pubhshed name which
is invalid as a homonpn ;

(c) that neither a reference to a museum label nor
to a museum specimen nor to a vernacular name
is to be accepted as an " indication " either
for a generic name or for a specific trivial name.

Article 25,
Proviso (a), and
" Opinion " 43
(status of a new
specific name
published jointly
with a new generic
name and vice
versa)

11. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
interpretation of Proviso (a) to Article 25 of the Regies given
in Ojnnion 43 (which relates to the status of a new specific
name pubhshed jointly with a new generic name), together
with the proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraph
19 of the list contained in Commission Paper I.C.(48)11.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that words should be inserted in the Regies to make it
clear that, where, prior to 1st January, 1931, a new
nominal species was described in a new nominal
genus and the genus and species concerned were
described jointly, no separate description being
given for either, the joint description so given is to
be accepted as an " indication " both for the new
generic name and for the new specific name.

150

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Article 25,
Proviso (a), and
" Opinion " 52
(significance of the
citation of a type
locality in an
original description)

23. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
uiterpretation of Proviso (a) to Article 25 of the Regies
given in Opinion 52 (which relates to the significance to be
attached to the citation of a type locality in the original
description of a new species) and the proposals in regard
thereto submitted in paragraph 20 of the list contained in
Commission Paper I. C. (48)11.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that words should be inserted in the Regies to make
it clear that the citation of a type locality unaccom-
panied by any other particulars, does not constitute
an " indication " for the purposes of Proviso (a)
to Article 25.

Article 25, 24. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the

Proviso (b), and interpretation of Proviso (b) to Article 25 of the Regies

"Opinion" 5^^^ g^^^^ ^^ Opinion 5 (which relates to the circumstances in
originally published which a name originally published before the starting point
before 1758 when of zoological nomenclature in 1758 (Article 26) is to be
accepted as an available name on being republished after
the close of 1757), together with the proposals in regard
thereto submitted in paragraph 21 in the list contained in
Commission Paper I.C. (48)11.

re-published after

1757)

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that words should be inserted in the Regies to make
it clear that a name which, by reason of having been
pubHshed before the starting point of zoological
nomenclature (i.e. prior to 1st January, 1758),
possesses no status under the Regies does not acquire
such status if, when republished after 1757, it is
simply reprinted with its original diagnosis, it being
necessary, if such a name is to acquire rights under
the Regies, that, on being repubUshed, it should be
reinforced by being adopted or accepted by the author
by whom it is republished.

Article 26 and
" Opinion " 3
(relative
status of works
published in the
year 1758)

25. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
interpretation of Article 26 of the Regies given in Opinion 3
(which relates to the status to be accorded to works published
in the year 1758), together with the proposals in regard
thereto submitted in paragraph 24 of the list contained in
Commission Paper I.C. (48)11.

m Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. jgj

THE COMMISSION agreed to reconunend •-

stohPf. . T^ T'^ P"^^^'^^^ '^ *he year 1758
to the Ur?i '' VV"^c '^'^'^ P"''^^^^^ subsequent

and therefore subsequent to the starting point of
zoological nomenclature. ^ ^

Articles 25 and
31 and

" Opinion " 88
(status of a specific
name published
for a composite
nominal species)

relates tnfJ? f,^^\^f'' given in Opinion 88 (which
relates to the status of the name of a nominal species the

the name of fa I ' ''"' '^''''' ^"^ '"> ^^^ ^^^tus of

,, 3^*!'*.'''*™™™ ™ this matter, it was nointed n„t

StSr. f ™ '"f ' "«'"'''''8 '^« AxSleCSict
01 wJuci It gave an mterpretation. This was a f„,.=ti„„

which must, however, be determined befo^: trru,in\ g^ n
TlH,^\ ^T" """^'^ '"' incorporated in the JX
Although at first sight, this Opinion appeared to bflm,

jned„,th the question of the Availability of certeiulrs"

fw ?r /"'"" ™" S'"' *^ '»y down the proposition

of part ofTff ' ' r '™' f^r ^ ^^-O » ">« de^^riP S
01 parts of different animals beouginff to more thin nnl

ZnZITr "™^'''^ ""- » *» same r,^ that he

af=erxr^:r-^^^^^
£g==dt--r-^^^^^^^
ttttus of^a^r™ ::z t' '^ '"i "^t" ™'

species of the geL^ oS was Xn tsTp^bU?/

speeT« In ,ir '""<'''. "P™ "">« than one taxonomic
species In such a case it would clearly be necessarv tn
apply the procedure laid down in Article TrX^K
^tablishing the identity of the noif^^ties eontrne^
before It would be possible to determine ?he1deXtTof a
genus having such a nominal species as its type spectr The
&!7fe contained provisions for determininTtht Meutitv of

h laentity of a composite nominal species

152

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

(Previous reference:
Paris Session,
4<A Meeting,
Conclusion 11)

Article 30, Rule (a),
and " Opinion " 7
(type species of a
genus the name of
which was
published with the
formula " n.g.,
n.sp. ")

based on two or more taxonomic species (Article 31). It
was perhaps a weakness in the Regies that there was not also
a provision, which would appropriately form part of Article
25, expressly laying it down that the name of a nominal
species is not invalidated by reason of that species being,
when first published, a composite species consisting of two
or more taxonomic species. The incorporation of the ruling
given in Opinion 88 provided a convenient opportunity for
the insertion of such a provision. There was clearly no
need to incorporate in the Regies any provision relating to
the status of a generic name in a case where the type species
was, when first pubhshed, an indeterminate composite
nominal species, for once it was made clear that the name
of such a nominal species was an available name and it was
clearly laid down how the identity of such a composite
species was to be determined, there could be no doubt as to
the status of the name of a genus having such a species as
its type species.

At the conclusion of the discussion, THE COMMISSION
agreed to recommend : —

(1) that a provision should be inserted at some appro-
priate point in the Regies making it clear that a
specific name is not invalidated by reason of the
fact that, in the original description of the nominal
species to which that name was appHed, there were
included descriptions either of two or more species
or of parts of different animals belonging to two or
more species ;

(2) that words should be inserted in the revised text
which it had been agreed shoidd be inserted in the
Regies in place of the existing Article 31 to make it
clear that the provisions of that Article appUed not
only to the case where the original description of a
nominal species contained descriptions of two or
more species but also to the case where the original
description of such a species contained descriptions
of parts of different animals belonging to two or
more species.

27. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
interpretation of Rule (a) in Article 30 of the Regies given
in Opinion 7 (which relates to the question of the type species
of a genus estabhshed prior to 1st January, 1931, with the
formula " n.g., n.sp."), together with the proposals in
regard thereto submitted in paragraph 27 of the list con-
tained in Commission Paper I. C. (48)11.

The attention of the Commission was drawn to the fact
that, although the obvious intention of the Commission
in Opinion 7 was to lay down that, in the case of a genus with
no designated type species, where the expression " n.g.,

Article 30, Rule (c),
and " Opinion " 47
(type species of a
genus for which
only one nonoiinal
species is cited by
the original author)

Article 30, Rule (d),
and " Opinion " 18
(type species of a
nominal genus,
an included
nominal species
of which has

Gth Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 153

n.sp." was used iu relation to one but not more than one of
the nicluded species, that species was to be taken as the
type species, the wording actually used in that Opinion
app bed also to the case where the foregoing expression was
used in relation also to two or more species. In such a case
the Opinion became meaningless, for it was impossible for a
genus to have more than one species as its type species
It was unportant that, when this Opinion was codified it
should be made clear that the decision given in it applied
only to the case where the expression " n.g., n sp " was
used m relation to one but not more than one species.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :-
that words should be inserted in the Regies to make it
clear that, where, prior to 1st January, 1931, the
name of a nominal genus was published without a
designated or indicated type species, but the formula
n.g., n.sp." or an exactly equivalent formula was
employed m relation to that nominal genus and to one
but not more than one new nominal species described
thereunder, the employment of such a formula is to
be taken as constituting the designation of the
nommal species in question as the type species of the
nominal genus concerned.

. 28. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
mterpretation of Eule (c) in .Irticle 30 of the Regies given
in Optmon 47 (which relates to the type species of a genus
which was not intended by its original author to be mono-
typical but for which only one species was definitely cited
by name at the time of the original pubUcation of the
generic name), together with the proposals in regard thereto
submitted m paragraph 28 in the list contained in Com-
mission Paper I.C.(48)11.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :-

that words should be inserted in the Regies to make it
clear that where a genus is established without a
designated or indicated type species and only one
nommal species is cited as being referable to that
genus, the nominal species so cited is the type species
of the genus by monotypy, irrespective of whether or
not the author concerned regarded the genus as mono-
typical.

29. THE COMMISSION had mider consideration the
mterpretation of Rule (d) in Article 30 of the Regies given
m Opinion 18 (which relates to the questions whether it is
necessary that, m order that the type species of a genus

154

Internatianal Cotnmission on Zoological Nomenclature.

a synonym
possessing a
tautonymous trivial
name not cited in
the original
publication)

Article 30. Rule (d),
and " Opinion " 16
(type species of a
nominal genus of
which an included
nominal species had
a pre-1758 tautony-
mous univerbal
specific name cited
as a synonym)

(Previous reference:
Paris Session, 6lh
Meeting, Conclxtsion
27)

shall be determined by absolute tautonymy, the tautony-
mous specific or subspecific trivial name must actually be
cited in the original publication of the generic name),
together with the proposals in regard thereto submitted in
paragraph 29 of the list contained in Commission Paper
LC.(48)11.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that words should be inserted in the Regies to make it
clear that, where, prior to 1st January, 1931, a genus
was established with no designated or indicated type
species and one of the included nominal species had at
that time either as its valid name or as a synonym a
specific trivial name consisting of the same word
as the generic name or had a subspecies the sub-
specific trivial name of which consists of such a
word, it is immaterial for the purposes of Rule (d)
in Article 30 whether the tautonymous specific or
subspecific tri\'ial name was or was not cited in
the original publication of the generic name.

30. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
interpretation of Rule (d) in Article 30 of the Regies given
in Opinion 16 (which relates to the type species of a genus
established without a designated or indicated type species
but containing a species for which a pre-1758 univerbal
specific name consisting of the same word as the generic
name is cited as a synonym), together with the proposals
in regard thereto submitted in paragraph 30 of the list
contained in Commission Paper I.C. (48)11.

The attention of the Commission was drawn to the fact
that the wording employed in Opinion 16 suffered from a
defect similar to that which had already been noted in
Opinion 7. In the present case the Commission had clearly
intended to lay down a rule that, where a genus established
without an expressly designated type species had among its
originally included species one for which a particular type
of synonym was cited at the time of the original publication
of the generic name, that species was to be treated as being
the type species by absolute tautonomy. As drafted,
however, Opinion 16 applied also to the case where there
were two or more originally included species for each of
which a synonvm of the special kind envisaged was cited.
In such a case the ruling in Opinion 16 became meaningless,
for no genus could have more than one species as its type
species. In this case also it was important that, on codifica-
tion, it should be made clear that the decision apphed only
to the case where one but not more than one of the originally
included species was distinguished by having among its

Uh Meeliiig, Paris, July, 1948.

Article 30, Rule (f),
and " Opinion " 35
(type species of a
substitute genus
where one or more
of the originally
included species
were not cited
under a binominal
Dame)

Article 30, Rule (g),
and " Opinion " 35 '
(type species of a
nominal species
where one or more
ot the originally
included species

155
titter " '^"™^ °'*^ «P-i-' «"d dealt with in
THE COMMISSION agreed to recoounend :-

itteaTtVwS pri„~ f ">' '^^'^ '0 -ke

was establish wSateiltT^^ T' " «»"'
species and wliere in f 1, " * " "»<''c«ted type

not more thluTn of ,hr°°r//'«' '»' o-^^' ^«t

there .as c.tS aTan^'^ ,rpri ^ Jvt 1^^

mous univerbal specific name m^s cft.V ^^''''^■

-l^et^especiesofthegenul^^lS^^^^^^^^^

^P':!;o^' 35 (which relates to tTe specL IS uf ^^^^ ^Y'"" ^
as the type species of a genus eSltl ""^ f '"'^^^
genus, where either -enus when n! n ""' ^ substitute
tained species wh.chfr r e ^n^^b.^^ --

that occasion cited under binominal n ^'^ ^™ ^^^^ «^

tte proposals in regard thereto subi^^^^^^^^^ '^^"'^^^ ^^^^h
of the fist contained m Co^SrnXtfcST^' ''

Tat?T?T ^°--^ ^^ -Ll:^, ^^^^-

that words should be inserted in tbp 7?^ 7 .
c ear that, where, prior to 1st jlt^y fstl a"''' -^^
name was pubHshed as a sub«fif, T Z"^' ' ^ generic

name and where no t^::!^^^^^^^^^^^
indicated, or selected for efther of th "^^'f^^^^^^

so named, any of the snecieri , ""T^^ ^^^-^^^
pubhcation as referable tS^thl t { "' '^' ^"§^^^1
name, as well as anv of t^ ^ """' ^'^"^^ ^^^ older
description of t^ifu trr^^^'^ -^^^ -^al
where some or all of these?.?!^ ^"^stitute name,
subsequent selecrio^by th^atf T' ".f ^'^^ ^-
as the type species of the leVus TavTn. ^f^'^u'^'^^^
name (and therefore as thfZ ^ *^^ substitute

genus) and tha for th ^nurf '^ v"' '^'^' ^^^^^^J
that the species o sS'shTun T '^^^ "-^-^^7
under a binominal ufnT^l ^^''^ "^^^'^ cited

in the original genus or m tb '"'"'"^ '''''^ ^^^h-
substitution therefor ^'''"' established in

jnte^p^^et'^^^^ the

Ojnnion 35 (which la.? do.^ft ^1'^, ^^^-^-enin

3nn.lartothat which It lays dow^^^nt^i^S^^^^^

156

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

were not cited
under a binominal
name)

Article 30, Rule (g),
and " Opinion " 10
(type species of
genera having
identical limits)

Article 30, Rule (g),
and " Opinion " 62
(a nominal species
eligible for selection
as the type species
of more than one
nomiinal genus)

eligibility of a species not originally cited under a binominal
name for selection by a subsequent author as the type
species of a genus), together with the proposals in regard
thereto submitted in paragraph 32 of the Ust contained in
Commission Paper 1.0.(48)11.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that words should be inserted in the Regies to make it
clear that, where, prior to 1st January, 1931, a genus
was established without a designated or indicated type
species, any of the species originally included in the
genus is eligible for subsequent selection by the same
or another author as the type species of the genus,
irrespective of whether or not that species was cited
under a binominal name at the time of the original
pubUcation of the generic name.

33. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
interpretation of Rule (g) in Article 30 of the Regies given in
Opinion 10 (which relates to the type species of genera
estabhshed with identical limits), together with the
proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraph 33 of
the list contained in Commission Paper I. C. (48)11.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—
that words should be inserted in the Regies to make it
clear that, where, prior to 1st January, 1931, two or
more genera with identical limits (i.e. with the same
included nominal species) were formed independently
by different authors and neither genus or none of the
genera had a designated or indicated type species, any
of the included nominal species may he subsequently
selected by the same or another author to be the type
species of either or all of the genera concerned.

34. THE COMMISSION had imder consideration the
interpretation of Rule (g) in Article 30 of the Regies given in
Opinion 62 (which lays down the proposition that a nominal
species which is the t}^e species of one genus is not thereby
excluded from selection to be the type species of another
genus), together with the proposals in regard thereto
submitted in paragraph 34 of the list contained in Com-
mission Paper I.C.(48)11.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that words should be inserted in the Regies to make it
clear that in the case of a genus estabhshed prior to
]st January, 1931, without a designated or indicated
type species, any author may later select to be the
type species of that genus any of the originally included

Article 30 and
" Opinion " 164
(type species of a
genus not affected
by the subjective
union of that
genus with another
genus)

Article 30, Rule (g),
and " Opinion " 6
(special method of
selecting the type
species of a genus
established before
1931 with only two
included species)

Article 30, Rule (g),
and " Opinion " 14
(selection of a
nominal species to
be the type species
of a genus not
invalidated where

eih Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 157

nominal species, irrespective of whether the nominal
species so selected may already be the type species of
another nommal genus. ^r r

. 35. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
interpretation of Article 30 of the Regies given inOplL,!
164 (.^ich ays It down that the typTspedes of a X's
not subject to change upon the union of the genus concerned
with another genus), together with the proposals in regard
thereto submitted in paragraph 35 of the list confined n
Commission Paper I.C.(48)11. ^t^^mea in

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend
that words should be inserted in the RegUs to make it
clear that, when two or more genera are subjectively
united on taxonomic grounds, such union in no way
affects the type species of the genera concerned, the
combmed genus so formed taking as its name the
oldest available name of any of the nominal genera
concerned and the genus bearing that name retaining
as Its type species the nominal species previously
designated, indicated or selected as such. ^

. 36. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
interpretation of Rule (g) m .Article 30 of the i^ey.fgTven in
Ojnmon 6 (wbch lays it down that the type fpecllof a

fneoTe. 'V"''' "^''^"^ ^ ^^^^^-^-^ or'ldicatTd t ' e
species and containing two, but not more than tT

origmally mcluded nominal species is autor^atica'ly
determmed when one of the nominal species becomes tie
tjve species of a monotj-pical genus), together with the
proposals m regard thereto submitted in paragraph 36 of
the hst contained in Commission Paper I C' (48)11
THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend •- '
that words should be inserted in the Ragles to make it
clear that where, prior to 1st January, 1931, a genus
established without a designated or indicated typ?
species contams two, but not more than two, originally
included nominal species and later the same or another
author designates or indicates one of those nominal
species as the t)T)e species of a new monot)T>ical genus
that action automatically constitutes the selection of
the remaming species as the type species of the
origmal genus. ^r t-

. 37. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
interpretation of Rule (g) in .Article 30 given in oXVil
(which lays It down that, where an author, in selecW a
nominal species to be the tj^e species of a genus estabSed
^Mthout a designated or indicated t^T^e species, hiS

158

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

the author making niisideiitifies the species which he so selects, that error does
the selection him- ^ invalidate the selection of the type species so made) and

self misidentifies , •' ^ \ . i nn o

the species which he the proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraph 37 oi
so selects) the list contained in Commission Paper 1.0.(48)11.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that words should be inserted in the Regies to make it
clear that, where, prior to 1st January, 1931, a genus
was established without a designated or indicated type
species and at any time after the date of publication
of the generic name in question an author selects one
of the origmally included nommal species to be the
type species but, in doing so, himself misidentifies the
species which he so selects, that selection is not
invaUdated by reason of the error so committed.

Article 30 (all
Rules) and
" Opinions " 65 and
168 (the original
author of a generic
name to be assumed
to have identified
correctly the
nominal species
referred by him to
the genus so named)

PURCHASED

Z6 Uf%{

38. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
interpretation of Article 30 given in Opinions 65 and 168
(which lay down the proposition that an author who
pubhshes a generic name is in the first instance to be
assumed to have identified correctly the species referred
by him to the genus so named) and the proposals in regard
thereto submitted in paragraph 38 of the list contained in
CommLssion Paper I.C.(48)11.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

(1) that words should be inserted in the Regies to
make it clear that an author who pubhshes a
name for a genus is, in the absence of evidence to
the contrary, to be assumed to have identified
correctly the nominal species referred by him to
the genus so named and therefore that, where
either the original author himself designates or
indicates, or the same or some other author later
selects, one of the originally included nominal
species to be the type species of the genus, the
designation, indication or, as the case may be, the
selection so made, is not to be rejected on the
ground that the original author of the generic
name misidentified some other nominal species
with that nominal species, but

(2) that, where there were grounds for considering
that such a species had been misidentified by the
original author of the genus, the case was to be
submitted to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature which, if satisfied that
the species in question had been so misidentified,
was, under its plenary powers, to designate as
the type species of the genus concerned, either (a)

THANKS TO U.N.E.S.C.O.

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, on behalf
of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have
great pleasure in expressing their grateful thanks to the UNITED
NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL
ORGANISATION (U.N.E.S.C.O.) for the financial assistance
afforded towards the cost of producing the present volume.

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Notice to subscribers regarding the arrangements made for the

completion of volume i and for the publication of

volumes 2, 3, 4 and 5

The following arrangements have been made for completing volume 1
of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and for the publication of
volumes 2, 3, 4 and 5 : —

Volume I : A concluding Part (Part 12), containing, inter alia, the Title
Page, Table of Contents, and alphabetical subject index, will be
published shortly.

Volume 2 : This volume, like Volume 1, will be devoted to the publica-
tion of appUcations in regard to nomenclatorial problems submitted
by specialists to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature for decision. PubUcation will commence at an early date.

Volume 3 : This volume, which is now complete in 9 Parts, is devoted
to the publication of the memoranda, reports and other docu-
ments considered by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature and by the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology at their meetings held in Paris
in July 1948.

Volume 4 : This volume will be devoted to the publication of the
Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in July 1948.
Parts 1-9 have already been published and the remaining Parts
are in the press.

Volume 5 : At the request of the Bureau of the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, this volume will be devoted to the publication
of the Official Record of Proceedings of the Section on Nomenclature
of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948,
together with the Reports submitted to the Congress by the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the Section
on Nomenclature.

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 Brilaio by Metcuim and Son, Ltc, Westminster, London

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
. tqSfOMENCLATURE

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 :
The Official Record of Proceedings of the International Page
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its
Session held in Paris in July 1948 :

Conclusions of Sixth Meeting

(concluding portion) 159-189

Conclusions of Seventh Meeting - - . 190-229

Conclusions of Eighth Meeting - - . 230-238
Conclusions of Ninth Meeting

(first instalment) - - - - _ 239-254

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological

Nomenclature on instrucUons received from the Thirteenth

International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948,

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.

1950

Price One pound, eight shiUings.

(.All rights reserved)

KzfiM

6th Meett^tl^^^i, ^^ *1948. 159

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 said
Commission was of the opinion that greater confu-
sion than unifonnity would result from so doing,
it was to direct that the designation or indication,'
or, as the case might be, the selection as the type
species of the genus concerned of the nominal
species cited by the original author of the genus
was to be accepted.

"Option '"46 . ^^- ™^ COMMISSION had under consideration the

(selection of a type interpretation of Article 30 of the Regies given in Opinion
species for a genus 46 (which lays down what species are ehgible for selection
spedes was d.v'" ^' *^^ ^>^P^ ^P^^ies of a genus, the generic name of which is
tinctly referred by pubhshed with a definition or description but with no
the original author) nominal species distinctly referred to it), together with the
proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraph 39 of
the list submitted in Commission Paper I.C.(48)11.

It was pointed out in discussion that of all the Opinions
rendered by the Commission Opinion 46, more than any
other, had given rise to confusion and difficulty. There
were two reasons for this, first the mutually contradictory
decisions recorded in the " smnmary ", second, the discre-
pancy between the " summary " and certain observations
recorded in the section of the Opinion headed " Discussion."
The first of these difficulties arose from the fact that the
"summary " stated that no species was eligible for selec-
tion as the t>T)e species of a genus established without
clearly specified included species unless it could be " recog-
nised from the original generic publication " and that
where it was not clear how many or what species were
involved, the genus was to be deemed to include " all the
species of the world which would come under the generic
description as originally published ", while in the remaining
portion of the same sentence it was stated that " the
first species published in connection with the genus (as
Aclastm rufipes Ashmead, 1902) becomes ipso facto the
type ". No word was said as to what the position would
be if the first species so published disagreed with the
generic description as originally published. This ambiguity
had led to much argument, and much diversity of practice,
some workers assuming that the first decision took pre-
cedence over the second, others taking the opposite point
of view. The second difficulty arose from the fact that the
" Discussion " in Opinio a 46 laid down a long series of
- • criteria for determining the method to be adopted in ' ' recog-

nising " the species included in a genus belonging to the
present class, criteria which (as experience had shown) were

VOL. 4 L

160

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

(Previous reference:
Paris Session,
5th Meeting,
Conclusion 3)

( For a later decision
expanding the scope
of this decision, see
Paris Session, \2lh
Meeting, Conclusion
30)

totally unworkable. These criteria had fortunately not
been included in the " summary " of Opinion 46 and there-
fore did not form part of the substantive decision embodied
in that Opinion. Nevertheless, the publication of these
criteria in that Opinion in a manner which suggested that
they formed part of the Commission's decision had been
most misleading, and this also had given rise to much
misunderstanding and unnecessary confusion.

In further discussion it was agreed that the section of
Opinion 46 requiring that a species to -be eligible for selec-
tion as a type species must be " recognised from " or " come
under " the original generic description was not only in
contradiction with the later provision (that " the first
species published in connection with the genus becomes
ipso facto the type ") but also offended against the prin-
ciple (referred to in the discussion on Article 35 at the
Meeting noted in the margin) that the Regies should be
based as far as possible on objective nomenclatorial facts
and that their application should be independent of the
subjective taxonomic views of individual workers. The
first of the provisions in Opinion 46 had been found
unworkable in practice. By far the best course therefore
would be to delete the first part of the decision in Opinion 46,
which, through the subjective character of the rule so laid
down, was incapable of securing stability in the nomen-
clature of the genera concerned. Once this had been done,
the remaining portion of the decision in Opinion 46, namely
that the first species to be cited in connection with a genus
originally established without any clearly specified included
species was to be accepted as the type species would
constitute a rule that was clear, objective and easy to
operate.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to recommend that words shoidd be inserted in
the Regies to make 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 (b) with no nominal
species distinctly referred to it, the first nominal
species to be subsequently so referred to it by the
same or another author is to be deemed to have
been an originally included species and that species
automatically becomes the type species of the
genus in question ;

(2) to cancel the decisions embodied in Opinion 46,
other than the decision proposed in (1) above
to be incorporated in the Regies.

{^th M^etim/, Paris, July, 1948.

161

Article 30 and
" Opinion " 172
(selection of the
type species of a
genus in a literature-
recording serial)

Article 34 and
" Opinion " 147
(application to
generic names of
provisions in the
third paragraph of
Article 35)

{Previous reference:
Paris Session, 6th

Conclusion 7)

VOL. 4 L«

40. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
interpretation of Article 39 of the Regies given in Opinion
172 (which relates to the selection of the type species of a
genus in a literature-recording serial), together with the
proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraph 40 of
the list contained in Commission Paper I.C.(48)11.
THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—
that words should be inserted in the Regies to make it
clear that, where, prior to 1st January, 1931, a name
was published for a genus for which no species was
designated or indicated as the type species and the
first occasion on which one of the originally included
species was so selected or specified was in a literature-
recording serial, that type selection is to be accepted.

41. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
interpretation of Article 34 of the Regies given in Opinion
147 (which applied to generic names the provisions relating
to specific trivial names prescribed in the third paragraph of
Article 35), together with the proposals in regard thereto
submitted in paragraph 41 of the list contained in Com-
mission Paper I.C.(48)11.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) reminded the Commission that earlier during
the present meeting they had agreed to recommend that the
expression " of the same origin and meaning " should be
deleted from paragraph (3) of Article 35 and had taken note
that the adoption of this recommendation by the Congress
would require that a consequential amendment should be
made in Opinion 147 by which the provisions in regard to
specific trivial names contained in that paragraph had been
applied to generic names. The Commission had not,
however, amended that Opinion, in view of the proposals
submitted in Commission Papers I.C.(48)10 and 11 in favour
of the codification of decisions in existing Opinions, as it had
been thought that the most convenient method of attaining
the desired end would be to await the consideration of the
recommendation to l^e submitted to the Congress for the
codification of Opinion 147.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that, where it is evident that two generic names either (1) consist
ot the same Latin word or of the same Latinised word (includinff
proper namss other than modem jiatronymics). or (2) are based
upon the same modern patronymic, or (.3) are based upon the
name ot the same continent, country, district, town or other
place or upon the name of tlic same geographical feature
such as a mountani. island, sea. river or lake, and the said .Generic
names are distinguidied from one another only by one or more
ot the undermentioned differences in spelling, tlie two names
are to be tr.'ated as homonyms of one another.

162

I iUeniational Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

(Later Reference.
Paris Session,
9th Meeting,
Cotidimon 4)

Article 34 and
" Opinion " 25
(clarification of
provisions deter-
mining whether one
generic name is
identical with
another)

Article 35 (need for
definition of con-
ditions in which
one trivial name is
to be regarded as
identical with
another)

(a) the use of " ae," " oe," and " e " ;

(b) the use of " ei," " i," and " y " ;

(c) the use of " c " and " k " ;

(d) the aspiration or non-aspiration of a consonant ;

(e) the presence or absence of a " c " before a " t " ;

(f) the use of a single or double consonant.

42. In the course of the discussion recorded in the
preceding Conclusion, the attention of the Commission was
drawn to the interpretation of Article 34 given in Opinion
25, in which it had been ruled, in the case of the generic
names Damesiella Tornquist, 1899, and DameseUa Walcott,
1905, that a generic name was not to be rejected as a
homonyni of a previously published generic name if it
differed therefrom solely by the presence of the letter " i "
before the terniination " -ella." The view was expressed
that it was neither necessary nor desirable expressly to
include in the Regies the interpretation of i\jticle 34 given in
Opinion 25. In a case of this kind the only satisfactory
course was for the Regies to give a complete Ust of those
cases where differences in spelling were to be regarded as
being so small as to render a generic name spelt in one way
a homonym of a generic name spelt in the other way and,
having done this, clearly to lay it down that any generic
name which was distinguished from every other generic
name by any other difference in spelUng was to be regarded
as a distinct name and therefore not to be rejected as a
homonym. The first part of this two-fold need had already
been met in the Regies, for trivial names by Article 35
and for generic names by the decision in Opinion 147, by
which those provisions had been apphed to generic names.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that words should be inserted in the Regies to make it
clear that the provision relating to the differences in
spelling which were to be ignored in determining
whether a given generic name was a homonyni of
another generic name specified in Article 34 as amended
in accordance with Conclusion 41 above was an exhaus-
tive provision and therefore that no generic name
which differed from another generic name in any other
way was to be rejected as a homonym of that generic
name.

43. Arismg out of the discussion recorded in Conclusion
42 above, it was pointed out that the provisions in Article
35, prescribing the conditions in wliich one trivial name
is to be regarded as a homonym of another trivial name,
required clarification on the same lines as those proposed
for generic names in Conclusion 42 above. It was suggested
also that, although it should be evident from Article 14

aih Mcetiny, Paris, July, 1948.

163

Article 34 and
" Opinions " 125
and 148 (status of
emendations in
relation to generic
homonynty)

Article 34 and
" Opinion " 148
paragraph (3) :
interpretation in, not
to b'e incorporated
in the " Regies "
and to be cancelled

(which requires, inter alia, that, where a trivial name is an
adjective, it is to agree in gender with the name of the genus
to which the species in question is referred) that differences
in termination due t d differences of gender should be ignored
in considering whether any given adjectival trivial name is
a homonym of another such trivial name, it would be
helpful to some zoologists expressly to lay this down in
-.\rticle 35.

THE COMxMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that words should be inserted in the Regies to make
it clear : —

(a) that, in determining whether two trivial names,
each consisting of an adjective, are homonyms
of one another, no account is to be taken of the
gender in which either is expressed and accord-
ingly differences in termination due solely to
such differences in gender are to be ignored ;

(b) that, subject to the insertion in Article 35 of the
addition specified in (a) above and of paragraph
(e) of the third paragraph of Article 35 in its
existing form, the provisions relating to generic
names specified in Conclusion 42 above should
apply also to trivial names.

44. THE COMMISSION had unpler consideration the
interpretation of Article 34 of the Regies given in paragraph

(2) o^ Opinion 125 in an individual case and in general terms
in Opinion 148 (which relates to the status of a generic name
which is identical with a previously published emendation
of an earlier generic name), together with the proposals in
regard thereto submitted in paragraph 42 of the list
contained in Commission Paper I.C.(48)11.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that words should be inserted in the Regies to make it
clear that a generic name is to be rejected as a
homonym, where the word of which that name
consists has previously been published as an emenda-
tion, whether valid or invalid, of another generic name.

45. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
interpretation of Article 34 of the Regies given in paragraph

(3) of Opinion 148 (which laid it down that a generic name
published as a substitute for a generic name which is an
invahd homonym is not to be rejected on the ground that it
is of the same origin and meaning as the name which it
replaces), together with the proposals in regard thereto
submitted in paragraph 43 of the list contained in Commis-
sion Paper I.C.(48)11.

164

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Articles 34 and 35
and " Opinion" 102
(status of a generic
or trivial name when
a homonym of the
name of a unit of
sub-ordinal or
higher category)

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) that, having regard to the decision recorded in
Conclusion 41 above on the subject of the codifica-
tion oWpinion 147, the provisions of paragraph (3)
of Opinio7i 148 were no longer appropriate and
should" not be incorporated in the Regies.

(2) to cancel paragraph (3) of Opinion 148.

46. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
interpretation of Article 34 of the Regies given in Opinion
102 (which laid it down that the availability of a generic
name is not affected by the prior publication of the same or
a similar word as the name for a unit of a higher category),
together with the proposals in regard thereto submitted in
paragraph 44 of the list contained in Commission Paper
I.C.(48)11.

It was pointed out that the wording in the " summary "
was unsatisfactory, (a) because, in view of the coiiibined
provisions of Articles 4 and 8, the problem discussed in that
Opinion could not arise in connection with a family name
and was therefore confined to cases where the name given
to a new genus had already been given to a unit of sub-
ordinal or higher rank, and (b) because homonymy could
only arise if the name published for the new genus was the
sJlme name as that previously used for a unit of sub-ordinal
or higher category. The reference in the " summary " to a
situation in which the names used were similar but not
identical was therefore entirely misconceived. It was
necessary that these defects should be eliminated before
proposals were submitted for the codification of the decision
embodied in this Opinion.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

(1) that words should be inserted in the Regies to make
it clear that the Law of Homonymy does not apply
as between generic or trivial names on the one hand
and the names of units belonging to categories
above the family level on the other, and therefore
that, where such a name consists of a word which
has already been used as the name of a unit of
Sub-Ordinal or higher category, that name is not
to be rejected as an invalid homonym (Example :
The Ordinal name Siphonophora Eschschbltz,
1829, does not invalidate the generic name
Siphonophora Koch, 1855) ;

(2) that a Recommandation should be inserted at an
appropriate point in the Regies deprecating the
selection as generic or trivial names of words

&h Meeliruj, Paris, July, l'J48.

165

])reviously published as the names of units of
8ub-0r(linal or higher category.

Articles 25, 34 and
35 and " Opinion "
145 (subsequent
status of a name
first published in a
work rejected for
nomenclatorial
purposes)

{Laler reference:
Paris Session, 12th
Meeting Conclusion'SH)

Article 25 (meaning
of expression
" divulgue dans
une publication ") :
postponement of
consideration of
interpretations of,
in " Opinions " 15
and 51

{Later reference:
Paris Session, 1th
Meeting. Conclusion
15)

Repeal for inter-
pretative purposes
of certain
" Opinions "
rendered by the
Commission
(Previous reference:
Paris Session, Qth
Meeting, Conclusion
9(1)(6))

47. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
interpretation of Articles 34 and 35 of the Regies given in
Opinion 145 (in relation to the status of generic and specific
names, when those names have been previously published
in works rejected for nomenclatorial purposes), together
with the proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraph
45 of the list contained in Commission Paper I.C. (48)11.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that words should be inserted in the Regies to make it
clear that, where a work is rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes either under Article 25 or under a decision
taken by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature under their plenary powers, no name,
whether a generic name or a trivial name, which
first appeared in such a work, is to be treated as having
any status either in respect of the Law of Priority
(Article 25) or in respect of the Law of Homonymy
(Articles 34-36) as from the date of its appearance in
a work so rejected, and that in consequence no later
name is to be rejected as a synonym on the ground
that some other name had been applied to the genus
or species concerned in a work so rejected and no later
name is to be rejected as a homonym on the ground
that it had previously been used in such a work.

48. THE COMMISSION agreed :—

to defer consideration of the interpretations of the
expression " divulgue dans une publication " as used
in Article 25 of the Regies, given in Opinions 15 and
51, until they came to consider the general proposals
for the clarification of the foregoing expression
submitted in Commission Paper I.C.(48)14 (Point (26)).

49. On concluding the survey, recorded in Conclusions
11 to 47 above, of the interpretations of Articles of the
Regies given in the Opinions listed in Commission Pauer
I.C.(48)11, THE COMMISSION recalled the decision' in
regard to the status to be accorded to interpretative
Opinions after the interpretations given therein had been
incorporated in the Regies, in whole or in part, which they
had taken when earlier during the present meeting they had
considered Commission Paper I.C.(48)10 and agreed : —

166

Inlenialional Commission on Zoological Nomaidalure.

to repeal for interpretative purposes, that is to say
for all except historical purposes, with effect from the
date on which the amendments to the Regies made by
the present Congress become operative : —

(a) the whole of the undermentioned Opinions,
namely : —

Opinions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 35, 46, 62, 64,
65, 87, 141, 145, 147, 148, 164, 168, 172,
183, 191 ;

(b) the portions of the undermentioned Opinions
which contain interpretations of Articles of the
Regies, namely : —

Opinions 14, 16, 18, 25, 26, 27, 29, 36, 41,
43, 47, 49, 52, 59, 60, 61, 63, 88, 102, 125.

Resolutions on
questions relating
to nomenclature
embodied in
" Declarations "
rendered by the
Commission :
proposed codifica-
tion of

{Previous reference:
Paris Session, -ilk
Meeting, Conclusion

Mm) )

(Previous reference:
Paris Session, 'Srd
Meeting, Conclusion
7f2> )

50. THE COMMISSION had before them a memo-
randum by the Secretary to "the Commission containing
detailed proposals for the incorporation in the Regies of the
resolutions on various aspects of zoological nomenclature
embodied in the Declarations rendered by the Commission at
various dates (Commission Paper I. C. (48)13).

THE COMMISSION :—

(1) recalled that, since Commission Paper I. C. (48)13
had been prepared, they had agreed in principle
at the meeting noted in the margin to recommend
the incorporation in the Regies of provisions
embodying the resolutions recorded in certain of
the Declarations rendered by the Commission at
various times ;

(2) recalled that at the meeting noted in the margin
they had already agreed to recommend that the
Plenary Powers Resolution of March, 1913 (which
formed the subject of Declaration 5), as amended
at that meeting, should be incorporated in the
Regies;

(3) agreed that the questions dealt with in Declarations
9 and 10, being of the nature of statements of
policy, were not of a kind which could appropriately
be incorporated in the Regies;

(4) agreed to examine Declarations 1-4, 6-8, 11 and
12, and the recommendations in regard thereto
submitted in .Commission Paper I. C. (48)13, with
a view to reaching conclusions in regard to the
incorporation in the Regies of the provisions

ncluded in those Declarations.

Uh Mceliny, Paris, July, 1948.

167

" Declarations "
1 and 12 (Code of
Ethics)

" Declaration " 4
(avoidance of in-
temperate language
in the discussion of
zoological
nomenclature)

" Declaration " 2
(avoidance of issue
of separates in
advance of publica-
tion of the paper
concerned)

(Previous reference:
Paris Session. Qth
Meeting. Condvsion
19)

51. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
Resolutions relating to the Code of Ethics embodied in
Declarations 1 and r2, together with the proposal in regard
thereto submitted in paragraph 6 of Commission Paper
I.C.(48)13.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that there should be inserted in the Regies an Article
laying it down that, when a worker notices that a
generic or subgeneric name or a name of a species,
subspecies or infra-subspecific form published as a
new name by an author who is alive at the time of the
foregoing discovery is invalid by reason of being a
homonym and requires to be replaced, the author
making such a discovery should notify the author by
whom the name in c^uestion was published and,
before himself publishing a substitute name, should,
so far as practicable, give the original author an
opportunity of so doing, it being made clear that the
observance of the foregoing provision is a matter to be
left to the proper feelings of individual workers, it not
being part of the duties of the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature to investigate or
pass judgment upon alleged contraventions of this
prf)vision.

52. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
Resolution deprecating the use of intemperate language in
the discussion of zoological nomenclature embodied in
Declaration 4, together with the proposal in regard thereto
submitted in paragraph 7 of Commission Paper I.C.(48)13.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that there should be inserted in the Regies an Article
laying it down that the use of intemperate language
is to be avoided in the discussion of zoological nomencla-
ture.

53. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
Resolution deprecating the distribution of separates of a
paper prior to the publication of that paper embodied in
Declaration 2, together with the proposal in regard thereto
submitted in paragraph 8 of Commission Paper I.C. (48)13.

In submitting the foregoing matter to the Commission,
the ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING)
recalled that it had ah-eady l)een decided to recommend to
the Congress that words should be inserted in the Regies
embodying the interpretation of Article 25 given in Opinion
59, in which the Commission had laid it down that a new
name which appeared in the separate of a paper distributed

168

I idcnialioHul Coinndssioii on Zoological Noinenchdare.

prior to the publication of that paper in the book or serial
for publication in which it had been printed ranked for
purposes of priority not from the date of the distribution of
the separates but from the later date on which the paper in
question was actually published in the serial in question.
The Resolution embodied in Declaration 2 had been adopted
by the Commission simultaneously with Opinion 59, of
which it was intended to be a supplement ; it urged authors
to avoid the practice of distributing separates in advance of
the publication of the book or serial containing the paper
reproduced in such separates. Declaration 2 could therefore
appropriately be embodied in the Regies as a Recommanda-
iion to the portion of Article 25 in which the provisions of
Opinion 59 were to be embodied.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that there should be added to the portion of Article
25 in which the decision given in Opinion 59 was to be
embodied a Recommandation urging editors not io
make available, and authors not to distribute, copiet',
of papers prior to those papers being actually
published in the book or serial for inclusion in which
they had been printed.

" Declaration " 6
(need for clearly
indicating as new
every name when
first published)

{Previous reference:
Paris Session, 5th
Meeting. Conclusion
l(8)(a) and (6) )

54. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
portion of the Resolution embodied in Declaration 6 which
urged every author who publishes a new name clearly to
indicate that he is so doing, together with the proposal iu
regard thereto submitted in paragraph 9 of Commission
Paper I.C.(48)13.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) reminded the Commission that, since the fore-
going proposal had been submitted, they had agreed, at the
meeting noted in the margin, at which they had considered
the plan for regulating the nomenclature of subspecies and
infra-subspecific forms, to recommend the insertion in the
Regies of a Recommandation, urging every author, when
publishing a new subspecific name, to add the expression
" ssp.n." or some equivalent expression immediately after
the subspecific trivial name and, when publishing a name for
a new infra-subspecific form, the expression " form, n." or
some equivalent expression. For these two categories of
name, the Commission had therefore already agreed to
recommend the insertion in the Regies of a Recommandation
which would give effect to the Resolution embodied in
Declaration 6. In order fully to give effect to the
Resolution embodied in that Declaration, it was necessary
now to deal in a similar way with names at the species level

" Declaration " 6
(need for avoiding
the publication of
a name as new on
more than one
occasion)

" Declarations " 3
and 8 (need for
giving a clear
indication of date of
publication)

iith Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. jgy

namefo/r'T'^. ^^ '^' ^'^^'^ '^^' ^^« *" «-y> with
names of Families to names of species (both inclusive)

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :-
(1) that there should be added at some appropriate
point m the Regies a Recomrm.ulaUon urgLTery
author, when publishing a new Family or Inl
Family name clearly, to mdicate that that name is
a new name by mserting immediately after that
name a comma followed by the expression
fam.n. or sub-fam.n.", as the case may be
or some equivalent expression ;
(2) that there should be added to the Regies a Recom-
^mndation mgmg every author, when publishing a
new generic or subgeneric name or a new specL
name, clearly to mdicate that that name is a new
name by inserting immediately after that name a
comma followed by the expression " gen n »
subgen.n. , " sp.n.", as the case may be, or some
equivalent expression.

portio;oHheTTr'^''/f ^'^^^^ consideration the
nrir !^ ^"'°'^^i«" embodied in Dechration 6, which
urged authors not to publish names as new names on 2re
than one occasion, together with the proposal n regard
1 CT48)13 " P'^^^^P' ' '' Commission P^er

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend -

•^ll*n'^'^°^^ib« ^dded at some appropriate point
m the Regies a RecommmulMion or RecoZmndations

belonging to a category recognised in the RMes i e
a new name for any category from Family to infra-
subspecific form (both inclusive), (a) not to pub'h
that nanie as a new name in more than one book or
paper and (b) not to pubhsh in more than one seria
a paper containing a new name, without indicating
on the second, or any subsequent, occasion that the
paper m question had already been pubHshed and
giving a bibliographical reference to V sellln
which that paper had been first published.

Resob;™^ COMMISSION had under consideration the
Resolutions embodied in Declarations 3 and 8 regarding the
need for giving m every zoological book or other publSon
a clear indication of its date of publication, togeth rtS
the proposal in regard thereto submitted in parllraoh 10 •
of Commission Paper I.C.(48)13. Paragraph 10

170

International Commission on Zoological Nonienchtture.

" Declaration " 7
(need for citation of
bibliographical
references)

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that there should be added at some appropriate point
in the Regies a Recoimnandation urging every editor
or other person concerned with the publication of a
book or serial concerned with zoology to take all
necessary steps to ensure : —

(a) that its exact date of publication (year, month,
day) be clearly stated in every zoological work ;

(b) that, in the case of serials and separate works
published in parts, each part shall bear its exact
date of publication and that on the completion
of the volume concerned there shall be added a
statement giving the date on which each part
was published and specifying its exact contents
(both pages and plates).

57. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
Resolution on the need for the citation of bibliographical
references embodied in Declaration 7, together with the
proposal in regard thereto submitted in paragraph 11 of
Commission Paper I. C. (48)13.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that there should be added at some appropriate point
in the Regies a provision urging every author who
cites a generic, subgeneric, specific, subspecific, or
infra-subspecific name to insert at least once in the
paper concerned the name of the author, and the
date of publication, of each name cited or preferably
to give a full bibliographical reference to the original
place of publication of every such name.

" Declaration " 11
(need for indicating
the systennatic
position of new
taxonomic units)

58. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
Resolution on the need for indicating in original descriptions
the systematic position in the Animal Kingdom of the
taxonomic unit described, embodied in Declaration 11,
together with the proposal in regard thereto submitted in
paragraph 12 of Commission Paper I. C. (48)13.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that there should be added at some appropriate point
in the Regies a Recommandation urging every author,
when naming a new taxonomic unit from Family to
infra-subspecific form, clearly to indicate the syste-
matic position of that unit in the Animal Kingdom,
and, in the case of categories from genus to infra-
subspecific form (both inclusive), to indicate the
Class and Order to which the unit in question is

6th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

171

Repeal except for
historical purposes
of " Declarations "
so far rendered by
the Commission

{Previous reference:
Paris Session, &h
Meeting, Conclusion
9(2)(e) )

Miscellaneous
proposals for the
amendment or
clarification of the
"Regies " : first
instalment to be con-
sidered item byitem

(Previous reference :
Paris Session, 4th
Meeting, donchtsion 4)

Article 8 (need for
brevity in generic
names), insertion of
" Recommandation"
regarding

referable and, if the Order concerned is commonly
divided into Families, the name of the Family to
which the unit in question is referable.

59. On concluding the survey, recorded in Conclusions
51 to 58 above, of the Resolutions embodied in the
Declarations, regarding which proposals were submitted in
Commission Paper I.C.(48)13, THE COMMISSION recalled
the decision in regard to the status to be accorded to
Declarations after the Resolutions set forth therein had been
incorporated in the Regies, which they had taken when
earlier during the present meeting they had considered
Commission Paper I.C.(48)10.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

to repeal except for historical purposes the Declara-
tions so far rendered by the Commission, namely
Declarations 1-12, with effect from the date on which
the amendments to the Regies made by the present
Congress become operative.

60. THE COMMISSION had before them a memoran-
dum by the Secretary to the Commission containing a list
of twenty miscellaneous proposals for the amendment or
clarification of the Regies (Commission Paper I.C.(48)12).

THE COMMISSION :—

(1) recalled that, since Commission Paper I.C.(48)12
had been prepared, they had agreed in principle
at the meeting noted in the margm to recommend
the adoption of such amendments to the Regies as
might be necessary for the clarification of existing
provisions, for providing for matters not already
dealt with, and for removing blemishes due to
careless or inexpert drafting ;

(2) agreed to examine Commission Paper I.C.(48)12,
point by point, for the purpose of reaching
conclusions regarding the recommendations to be
submitted in regard to the questions raised therein.

61. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (Z.N.(S.)297) for the insertion of a provision in
Article 8 of the Regies designed to encourage authors to
select short words for new generic names, together with the
proposal in regard thereto submitted in Point (1) in
Commission Paper I.C.(48)12. This proposal had been
originally submitted by Professor J. C. Faure (University
of Pretoria, Union of South Africa) on behalf of himself
and others. More recently a similar proposal of somewhat

172

Internatioiml Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Article 13 (deletion
of provisions per-
mitting the use of a
capital initial letter
for a specific trivial
name in certain
cases)

wider scope had been received from Professor Pierre
Bonnet (University of Toulouse, France).

In the discussion on this proposal general agreement
was expressed regarding the desirability of the insertion in
Article 8 of a Recommandation (as proposed by Professor
Faure) urging authors to select short words when proposing
names for new genera and subgenera. It was felt, however,
hat there were objections to indicating (as was proposed)
a specified number of letters as the maximum to be used for
any generic or subgeneric name. The general view was
that the desired object could best be promoted by a
Recommandation urging that such names should be short.
It was agreed also to add to the Recommandation that such
words should be euphonious. Admittedly, there were words
which were euphonious in some languages but not in others,
but in judging whether for the present purpose a given name
was or was not euphonious, it must be borne in mind that,
as the language of zoological nomenclature was the Latin
language, it was from this standpoint that the question
must be viewed.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that there should be added either to Article 8 or to
Article 25, whichever was found to be the most con-
venient, a Recommandation, urging every author,
when naming a new genus or subgenus or renaming
a genus or subgenus the name of which is invahd by
reason of being a homonym, to select a name which
was short and, from the standpoint of the Latin
language, euphonious.

62. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) submitted in Point (2) of Commis-
sion Paper I.C.(48)12, that the provision in Article 13 under
which an author was given the option to write certain classes
of specific (and subspecific) trivial names with a capital
initial letter should be deleted from the Regies. This
proposal had been submitted independently also by
Professor Pierre Bonnet (France) in the fourth of the
propositions which he had laid before the Commission.

This proposal was warmly welcomed, the view of those
present being that the use of a capital initial letter for a
specific trivial name was objectionable, as being hable to
cause confusion l^etween specific trivial names so written
and generic names. This provision had been inserted in
Article 13 in Berlin in 1901 because at that time there were
many zoologists who habitually used capital initial letters
for certain classes of specific trivial name and who were

&th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

173

Article 14 (need for

brevity in specific

and subspecific

trivial names),

insertion of a

" Recommandation"

regarding

(Previous reference:
Paris Session, 6lh
Meeting, Condiision

Examples cited in
the " Regies " to be
drawn only from
works by binominal
authors

unwilling to abandon that practice. In the 50 years which
had suice elapsed the number of such zoologists had greatly
diminished and was now extremely small. The time had
therefore come when this obsolete provision should he
repealed.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—
that Article 13 should be redrafted so as to require
that every specific trivial name should be written
with a small initial letter.

63. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) submitted in Point (3) in Commis-
sion Paper I.C. (48)12 that, consequential upon the adoption
of the proposal submitted in Point (1) of that Paper that a
Recommandation should be added to Article 8 urging the
desirabiUty of selecting short words as the names of new
genera and subgenera, a corresponding RecommamUtion
should be added to Article 14, in regard to the selection of
new specific and subspecific trivial names.

The view was expressed that in this matter the provisions
in the Regies in regard to specific and subspecific trivial
names should correspond with those for generic and sub-
generic names. It would be necessary therefore to amend
the proposal submitted in the present case in the same way
as it had just been agreed to amend the corresponding
proposal in regard to generic and subgeneric names.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that there should either be added to Article 14 a
Recommandation, urging every author, when naming
a new species or subspecies or renaming a species or
subspecies the name of which was invalid by reason
of being a homonym, to select a name which is short
and, from the standpoint of the Latin language,
euphonious, or, if it were found more convenient to
attach to Article 25 the Recommandation regarding the
foregoing problem in relation to the names of genera
and subgenera, which, as agreed in Conclusion 61
above, it was proposed should be added either to
Article 8 or to Article 25, to include in that Recom-

■ mandation a reference to the trivial names of species,
subspecies and infra-subspecific forms.

64. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a note
(file Z.N.(S.)352) submitted in Point (4) in - Commission
Paper I.C. (48)12, in which attention was drawn to the fact
that, as Goeze was not a consistently binominal author,
it was not suitable that that author's usage of a previously

174 InterncUional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

published specific name should be cited as an example in
Article 24. It was accordingly proposed that this example
should be deleted from that Article and that another example
based upon the action of a strictly binominal author should
be inserted in its place.

It was pointed out in the discussion that Article 24
was not the only place in the Regies where a usage by Goeze
was cited as an example, and the view was expressed that it
was desirable that the proposal submitted should be
extended so as to cover all examples at present included in
the Regies which were drawn from tlie usage of non-bino-
minal authors.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that " examples " cited in the Regies to illustrate
particular provisions shoiUd be drawn only from the
works of strictly binominal authors and that, wherever
at present an " example " was drawn from a work by
an author who was not strictly binominal, that
example should be replaced by one which conformed
to the requirement specified above.

Article 22 (abbrevia- 65. THE COMMISSION had under consideration
nrmesVsibstUutioo ^ proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) submitted in Point (5) in
of a revised Commission Paper I.C.(48)12thatthe Recommandation which

"Recommandation" at present appearedin Article 22 of the Regies should be deleted
and that there should be inserted in its place a new Recom-
mandation urging authors, when citing scientific names, not
to abbreviate the names of the authors of such names,
except in the case of very well-known deceased authors.
As regards the first of these proposals, it was pointed out
that in the course of the last 50 years the existing Recom-
mandation contained in Article 22 had become obsolete and
unworkable, as the book which that Recommandation
advised authors to consult had long been out of print and
was virtually unol:)tainable. A proposal in the same sense
as the above had been received from Professor Pierre Bonnet
(France).

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that the existing Recommandation should be deleted
from Article 22 and that there should be inserted
in its place a Recommandation urging authors, when
citing previously published names or previously
published papers, to refrain from abbreviating the
name of the author of the name or paper concerned,
except, if it was so desired, the names of deceased
authors whose names, even if abbreviated, would be
easily recognised, by reason of the importance of their
published work.

Articles 25, 34 and
35 (status of
apparent new
names or new
combinations due
to errors in
literature-recording
serials defined)

Qtk Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 175

66. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a

r^r^v't ^o """'"^ ^^ ^'- ^"'^^'^ ^^^- Sabrosky (Washington)
(tile /..W.(S.)334), in regard to the status of apparent new
names (generic or trivial) and new combinations, where
these are due to err<n-s in abstracting or literature-recordiiur
serials, together with a proposal in regard thereto submitted
in J oint (6) in Commission Paper T.C.(48)12.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :-
that words should be added to Article 25 to make it
clear that, when reference to an original publication
shows that an apparent new name (whether generic
or trivial) or an apparent new combination appearinc^
in a literature-recording serial is due to an error in
that serial, the apparent new name or new com-
bination shall have no status in nomenclature and
IS not to be held to pre-occupy for the purposes of
Article 34 or Article 35 the same name or the same
combination when later published deliberately for
the same or another genus or species, as the case may

Article 25, Proviso

(b) (meaning of the

expression

" principes de la

nomenclature

binominale ")

(Previous reference:
Paris Se-9.s(0ii. 4lh
Meeting. ( '/inclusion 3)

Article 30
(clarification of
applicability to
generic names
published after
31st December.
1930)

VOL. 4 M

®^' w?,^.^?™^^^"^^ ^'^ "^der consideration a
proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) submitted in Point (7) in Commis-
sion Paper I.C.(48)] 2, in regard to the meaning of the expres-
sion prmcipes de la nomenclature binominale ", which it
had been agreed, at the meeting noted in the margin, should
be substituted for the expression '• principes de la nomen-
clature binaire, which at present appeared in Pro^aso
(b) to Article 2o of the Regies.

THE COMMrSSION agreed to recommend :-
that words should be inserted in Article 25 to make
It clear that, in order to qualify, for the purposes of
Proviso (b) to Article 25, as an author who had applied
^ les principes de la nomenclature binominale"
an author must have consistently apphed those
principles m the book or paper in question and not
merely m a particular section or passage thereof.

68. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) submitted in Point (8) in
Commission Paper I.C.(48)12, that the position should be
clarihed as regards the applicabihty of Article 30 of the
Megles to generic names published after 31st December 1930
that IS to say, to generic names published subsequent to the
entry into force of the provisions of Proviso (c) to Article
25 adopted by the Budapest Congress in 19->7

176

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

(Previous reference:
Paris Session, Mh
Meeting, Conclusion 8)

(Previous reference:
Paris Session, Gth
Meeting, Conclusions
27, 29, 30)

( Previous reference:
Paris Session, 6th
Meeting, Conchisions
27, 29, 30)

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) said that the wording of Article 30 had been
defective ever since the beginning of 1931, for, although,
as it stood, the wording implied that the Article applied to
every generic name, irresjDective of its date of publication,
Rules (b) and later Rules had as from 1st, January 1931,
been restricted, in their application, to names published
on or before 31st December, 1930, owing to the coming into
force on 1st January, 1931 of the amendment to Article
25 adopted by the Congress at its Budapest meeting in
1927. It was desirable that, as part of the general clean-up
of the Regies, words should now be inserted in Article 30
to make the position clear. As regards Rules (a) to (d) in
Article 30 the Commission had agreed (at the meeting
noted in the margin) to recommend that words should be
inserted in Article 30 to make it clear that in theii' present
form these Rules applied to names published on or after
1st January, 1931 as well as to names published before that
date. Earlier in the present meeting, the Commission,
when considering the action to be taken for the incor-
poration in the Regies of interpretations given by the
Commission in Opinions rendered before the opening of the
present Congress, had had under consideration the inter-
pretation of Rule (a) given in Opinion 7 and the inter-
pretations of Rule (d) given in Opinions 18 and 16, and had
agreed to recommend that words should be inserted in
Article 30 to give effect to those interpretations, so far
as regards generic names published on or before 31st
December, 1930, but that it should be made clear at the
same time that these interpretations of Rules (a) and
(d) in Article 30, which, in effect, represented relaxations of
those Rules, should not apply to generic names published
on or after 1st January, 1931, the date as from which
newly published generic names became subject to the more
rigorous provisions of Proviso (c) to Article 25.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

(1) that words should be inserted in Article 30 to
make it clear : —

(a) that in their present form (i.e. in their pre-
Paris Congress form) Rules (a), (b), (c) (as
relaxed by Opinion 47) and (d) apply
to every generic name, irrespective of its
date of publication ;

(b) that the wording which, in accordance with
the decision taken at the meeting noted in
the margin, it was now proposed should be
employed to enlarge the scope (i) of" Rule
(a) to give effect to the interpretation thereof

6th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

177

(Previous reference:
Paris Session, Hk
Meeting. Concliisinn S)

given in Opinion 7, and (ii) of Rule (d) to
give effect to the interpretations of that
Rule given in Opinions 16 and 18 should
be such as to make it clear that those
interpretations applied only to generic
names published prior to 1st January, 1931;

(c) that Rule (e) and subsequent Rules apply
only to nafiies published prior to 1st January
1931;

(2) that the words to be inserted in Article 25 to
give effect to the decision taken at the meeting
noted in the margin should be so selected as to
make it clear that no generic or subgeneric name
published after 31st December, 1930 is to be
treated as having been published with a designated
or indicated type species, unless such a species is
so designated or indicated in accordance with one
or other of the Rules in Article 30 lettered (a) to
(d), as those Rules existed at the openmg of the
present Congress, that is to say without the
extensions to Rules (a) and (d) specified in (l)(b)
above.

Article 30 (drafting
amendments
required to remove
ambiguities)

{Previous reference:
Paris Session, ilh
Meeting, Conclusicn
11)

VOL. 4 M2

69. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) submitted in Point (9) in Com-
mission Paper I. C. (48)12, that there should be inserted in
Article 30 such drafting amendments as might be necessary
to make it clear that the provisions of that Article were
concerned with nomenclature and not with taxonomy.
It was pointed out that what was required was that the
wording should be modified so as to make it clear that the
purpose of this Article was to provide rules by which, for
any given nominal genus (i.e. the concept denoted by a
given generic name) one of the originally included nominal
species (i.e. the concept denoted by one of the specific names
cited) is to be designated, indicated or selected as the tj^e
species of the nominal genus in question. One of the
modifications required was the substitution in this Article
of the expressions " nominal genus " and " nominal species "
for the expressions " genus " and " species " at present
used . The introduction of these expressions would eliminate
from this Article such expressions as " publication of a
genus ", which involved a serious confusion of thought.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) reminded the Commission that, when, at the
meeting noted in the margin, they had drawn up recom-
mendations for clarifying Article 31, they had found it
necessary to introduce the expression " nominal species "

178 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

for in no other way was it possible in that Article to dis-
tinguish, in the case of a composite species, between the
nomenclatorial concept of a " nominal species " and the
concept of the \'arious taxonomic species of which the
single " nominal species " was composed. The object of
the proposal to substitute the expression " nominal species"
for the expression " species " in Article 31 was to make it
clear that it -was the first and not the second of these
concepts with which that Article was concerned. It was
for similar reasons that it was proposed to substitute in
Article 30 the expression " nominal genus " for the
expression " genus ". wherever that expression was at
present employed. Finally, it was necessary to introduce
words into this Article to make it clear, as regards any
given " nominal genus " which were the " nominal species "
which were to be regarded as having been included in the
genus by the original author when he published the generic
name and therefore which were the " nominal species "
from among which a later author was entitled to select
the type species of the " nominal genus " concerned in those
cases where the type species was not designated or indicated
at the time when the generic name was first published.

In the discussion which ensued, there was general
agreement that, like Article 31, Article 30 was in need of
clarification in order to eliminate ambiguities and to secure
that the wording employed was directed solely to the
problem of nomenclature involved in determining the type
species of any " genus " represented by a given generic
name (i.e. any " nominal genus "). The question of the
nominal species to be regarded as having been originally
included in any given " nominal genus " and thus eligible
for selection as the type species of that nominal genus was
one of some difficulty. If it had been practicable, the most
satisfactory course would have been to restrict the field of
selection for the type species of a given nominal genus to
those nominal species which had been accepted by the
original author as taxonomically valid species and had been
included by him in the genus. In a large number of cases
however the currently adopted type selection of a
nominal genus was one in which some author had selected
as the type species a nominal species which had been
included by the original author of the generic name not as a
taxonomically valid species but as a synonym of one of the
nominal species accepted by him as a taxonomically valid
species and included by him as such in the nominal genus
concerned. It was undesirable to do anything which
would invahdate such type selections, for this would
involve considerable disturbance in existing -nomenclatorial
practice. The words to be inserted in Article 30 should
make it clear therefore that the nominal species to be

6th Metiting, Paris, July, 1948, 179

accepted as having been included in a nominal genus at the
time when the name of that genus was first published
comprised (1) all the nominal species cited by the author of
the generic name and accepted by tliat author as valid taxo-
nomic species and (2) any nominal species cited by that
author as a synonym of a nominal species falling in class
(1) above. The selection as the type species of a nominal
genus of a nominal species not cited by the original author
when first publishing the generic name in question could
not be accepted, for such a selection ran counter to the
provisions of Rule (e) {„) of Article 30. It should l)e made
clear however that, where an author selects a non-originally-
included nominal species to be the type species of a given
nonnnal genus antl at the same time synonymises that
nominal species with a nominal species which was in fact
an originally included species, he is to be accepted as
having selected that originally included nominal species to
be tlie type species of the nominal genus concerned.
THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

(1) that throughout Article 30 the expression
" nominal genus " should be substituted for the
expression " genus " and the expression " nominal
species " for the expression " species ", these
exi^ressions being defined as follows :—

Expression Definition

" Nominal genus " The concept denoted by

a given generic name.
" Nominal species " The concept denoted by

a given specific name.

(2) that the wording of the Rules in Article 30
should be modified to such extent as might
be necessary to secure the uniform use (a) of
the expression " establishment of a nominal
genus " in place of such expressions as the
*' publication of a genus ", (b), of the expres-
sion ■• type species of a nominal genus " in place
of such expressions as •• type species of a generic
name " and (c) of the words " designate " and
" designation " and " indicate " and " indication "
for the determination of the type species of a
nominal genus, in the first instance under Rule (a)
and in the second instance under Rules (b), (c)
and (d), the words " select " and " selection " to
be used only in connection with Rule (g) ;

(3) that words should be inserted at appropriate points
ill Article 30 to make it clear : —

(a) that the nominal species to be regarded
as having been included in a given nominal
genus at the time w-hen the name of that

180

Intenuitional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Substitution in the

" Regies " of the

expressions

" nominal genus "

and " nominal

species " for the

expressions

" genus " and

" species " in

certain cases

Article 30 (need to
eliminate the
expression " Rule "
from non-
mandatory
provisions)

genus was first published are (i) the nominal
species cited by the original author as
valid taxonomic species belonging to that
nominal genus and (ii) any nominal species
cited on that occasion as synonjTns of
nominal species falling in (i) above and
that for such a nominal genus the fore-
going nominal species were alone eligible
for selection as the type species ;

(b) that, where a subsequent author selects as
the type species of a nominal genus a
nominal species which is not an originally
included species, as defined in (a) above or
accepts the selection of such a nominal
species by a previous author and at the
same time synonymises that nominal species
with a nominal species which is one of the
originally included species, he is to be
accepted as having selected that originally
included nominal species to be the type
species of the nominal genus in question.

70. Arising out of the discussion regarding the phrase-
ology to be used in Article 30 recorded in the preceding
Conclusion,

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that throughout the Regies the expressions " nominal
genus " and " nominal species " should be substituted
for the expressions " genus " and " species " res-
pectively, wherever the proxdsion in question referred
not to a genus or to a species in the taxonomic sense
but to the concept represented by a given generic
name or specific name, as tlie case might be.

71. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) submitted in Point (10) in
Commission Paper I. C. (48)12, that the expression " Rule "
should be reserved in Article 30 for the mandatory provi-
sions (i.e. the provisions at present lettered (a) to (g)) and
that the remaining provisions in this Article, which (as
there expressly stated) were Recommandations should no
longer be lettered consecutively with the (mandatory)
Rules. The present arrangement of this Article, which was
no doubt due to inexpert drafting, was not only illogical
but (as the literature showed) was liable to give the
erroneous impression that provisions (h) and later pro-
visions, though described as Recommandations, nevertheless
possessed some mandatory character.

Gth Meelimj, Paris, July, 1948.

181

Article 30, Rule (g)
(status of a
statement as to the
type species of a
nominal genus
made otherwise
than as a
deliberate selection)

THE COMMISSION agreed to recoiumeud :—

(1) that the expression " Rule " in Article 30 should
be restricted to the first seven provisions (i.e.
the provisions lettered (a) to (g)) in that Article
which alone possess mandatory force ;

(2) that the non-mandatory precepts at present
lettered (h) to (t) should be given a serial notation
different from that adopted for the mandatory
provisions referred to in (1) above and should be
grouped in a Recommandation which would urge
every author, when selecting a nominal species
to be the type species of a nominal genus in
accordance with the procedure specified in Rule
(g), to guide himself in making that selection by
the precepts in question, those precepts being
applied successively in the order in which they
were there specified.

72. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N.(S.).352) submitted in Point (11) in
Commission Paper I.C.(48)12, that words should be inserted
in Rule (g) in Article 30 to make it clear that a definite
statement by a subsequent author that a given originally
included nominal species is the type species of a given nomi-
nal genus is to be accepted as a type selection, irrespective
of whether or not the author malang that statement con-
sidered himself as at that moment selecting a type species
for the nominal genus in question.

In the discussion on this proposal the view was expressed
that the issue raised was one on which it was important that
a definite ruling should be given ; many thousands of
cuixently accepted type selections rested upon action
taken before the introduction of the present Regies (i.e.
before their promulgation in 190-5) by authors who accepted
what was then known as the " Law of Elimination "
and who, after studying the eariier history of a given generic
name, had stated that, as the result of the action of such
and such an author or authors, a given nominal species was
the type species of the nominal genus concerned. Very
great confusion would arise if it were now to be ruled that
published statements of this kind were not to be accepted
as effective type selections under Rule (g) in Article 30.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that words should be inserted in the Regies to make it
clear that, for the purposes of Rule (g) in Article 30,
an author is to be treated as having selected a given
originally included nominal species to be the type

182

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Article 31 (proposed
redrafting of first
sentence of, to
promote greater
clarity)

(Previous reference:
Paris Session, ith
Meeting, Conclusion
11)

species of a given nominal genus not only vvlien he
cites such a species, other than a species excluded
inider Kule (e) in ^Vrticle 30 and expressly states that
he is so selecting that species but also when he does
no more than state that a specified such species is the
type species of the nominal genus concerned,
irrespective, in the latter case, of whether he states or
implies, either correctly or otherwise, that that
nominal species had been selected by some previous
author to be the type species of that noininal genus
or that the nomuial species in question had become
the type species of that genus through the operation
of some rule (for example, the so-called " Law of
Elimination ") not recognised in the 7?egles as a
mandatory provision, provided in such a case that
the author concerned makes it clear that he himself
accepts, for whatever reason, the species in question
as the type species of the genus concerned.'

73. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) submitted in Point (12) in Com-
mission Paper I. C. (48)12. that the first sentence of Article
31 of the Regies should be redrafted, so as to include a
direct statement of the provisions intended in place of the
present obscure wording by reference to the pro\'isions in
Article 30.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) explained that, since the foregoing proposal
had been submitted, the question involved had been settled
by the Commission, when considering Commission Paper
I.e. (48)6. No action was therefore now called for on the
present proposal. Article 31 would however require
further amendment if the Commission were to adopt the
proposals in regard to the terminology of type specmiens,
submitted in Point (14) in Commission Paper I.C. (48)12.
It would, he suggested, be more convenient to defer
consideration of this matter until the Commission came to
consider Point (14).

THE COMMISSION took note of the above statement.

Article 35 (status of
emendations in
relation to homo-
nymy in the names
of species and lower
taxonomic
categories)

74. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) submitted in Point (13) in
Commission Paper I.C. (48)12, that there should be inserted
in Article 35 (relating to specific homonymy) a provision
parallel to that laid down in connection with generic
homonymy in Opinion 148. Proposals for the incorporation
in Article 34 of the interpretation of that Article in relation
to the status of generic names published as emendations of

&h Meeli)ig, Paris, July, 1948. 1^3

earlier names had already been submitted to the Commission
m Commission Paper I.C.(48)1 1 ; the proposal put forward in
the present Paper was that, whatever decision in this matter
might be taken as regards Article 34 in relation to generic
names, that decision should be extended to cover also
Article 35 in relation to the names of species and subspecies

(Previous reference:
Paris Session, %th
Meeting, Conclusion
U)

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) recalled that the Commission had now adopted
recommendations based on the proposal in regard to generic
names submitted in paragraph 42 of Commission Paper
I,C.(48)11. He suggested therefore that the Commission
should now agree to adopt a recommendation in regard to
specific and subspecific trivial names parallel to that already
adopted in the case of generic names. The proposed
provision should apply also to the names of infra-subspecific
forms.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :-

that words should be inserted in the Regies; to make it
clear : —

(Previous rrferenre:
Paris .Session, dtli
Meeling, Conclusion
20)

(a) that a specific trivial name published as an
invalid emendation of an earlier specific
trivial name (i.e. a specific trivial name pub-
lished as an emendation in conditions which do
not satisfy the requirements of Article 19) is to
be rejected as a synonym of the earlier name,
where that name is an available name, the
type specimen of the nominal species having as
its name the invalid emendation being auto-
matically the same specimen as the type
specimen of the nominal species bearing the
name which has been invalidly emended ;

(b) that, where a specific trivial name is rejected
as an invalid homonym and the next oldest
name for the species concerned is an invalid
emendation of that name and that invalid
emendation is sufficiently different in spelling
. from the original name not to be a homonym
thereof under the provisions contained in Article
35, the specific trivial name originally pub-
lished as an invalid emendation becomes an
available name for the species in question and
such a name has priority as from the date on

184 Intcniatioital Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

which it was first published as an invalid
emendation and is to be attributed to the author
by whom it was so published ;

{Frerioiis reffrcncc: (c) that a specific trivial name is to be rejected

M[7i,ZToncu!Li as a homonym (either primary or secondary)

44) where the word of which that name consists

has previously been published as an emendation,
whether valid or invalid, of the specific trivial
name of another species either origmally
published, or subsequently placed, in the same
genus, save where the original name did not
comply with the requirements of Article 25 ;

(d) that the foregoing provisions apply also as
between the trivial name of a species and the
trivial name of a subspecies of a species
originally described or subsequently placed in
the same genus and as between the trivial
names of subspecies of one or more species so
described or so placed ;

(e) that the provisions specified in (a) to (c) above
apply as between the trivial names of infra-
subspecific forms of one or more species
originally described, or subsequently placed, in
the same genus.

?"e°*s'"°dmenJ- ^^- "^^^ COMMISSION had under consideration a

proposed insertion proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) that a new Article with accom-

in the " Regies " of panying Recoinmmidations should be inserted in the Regies

Articles and ^ regulating the terminology of type specimens, submitted

tions " regarding in Point (14) in Commission Paper I. C. (48)12. This

proposal included suggestions for the recognition of certain

specified categories of type specimens, for the designation

and marking of such specimens and the measures to be

taken for their safe custody.

In the discussion on this proposal, the following points
were made : —

(a) It was very desirable that the inadequate provision
in regard to type specimens at present included in the
Appe)idice to the Regies should be replaced by com-
prehensive regulations "on the lines suggested in the
paper submitted to the Commission. As submitted,
those proposals related only to animals which were
sufficiently large for individual specimens to be
mounted separately, and it would be necessary to
provide for the case where, by reason of the small

^th Meeliiuf, Paris, July, 1948. I85

size of the animals concerned, two or more specimens

t would be necessary to provide not only (as in
sLualT 'fT'f"^^!-^ species having separatS

(b) A Declaratory Article should be inserted in the

n^Tv to bfl fV"' ^P^^""^'^^ «f ^^^ -tegorie
now to be defined were the property of science
Such an Article would be of value in remindhrthe

rcurr:dt 'y^V^^'--^-^ of the responsibmties
nicurred by such ownership.

(c) The categories of type specimens which it was
desixable should be recognised and defined L the

ciatorial significance, namely holotypes, syntypes
and ectotypes. It was not necessary to reco W
Paratypes, for, although paratypes were of Ct
practical value in many ways, they possessed no
nomenclatorial significance, since in any given case
they came into existence only when a hob ype wa
designated or a lectotype selected.

(d) It was to be hoped that after the introduction of

the !' ;Th ""^'^'^ '^""'^ ^°°^"S^«^« ^«"ld abandon
tne use of the vague expression " type ".

(Later rffcrcnce' (a\ TU

Paris, scssior,, iih ^^' t^^ question whether provision should be made for

M^.fu,g, ConchMoa 3) ^^^^ recognition in the R^ks of the category " neo-

type should be deferred until the CommissL had

iiad an opportunity to consider the proposals

suWl^d m Point (16) in CommissiofTapt

^^^ InZrr'"'''''" '° ^^ ^^'"^^^^ "^ ^^« ^^^^ should
Lr su"f;ecr fonn.:. -' ^p-^-' -^«p-^- -<*

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :-

(1) that the inadequate provisions regarding type
specimens inserted in the J;>;,e.^.o. in the secoid
sentence of Section " A " and between Sections

PnLr .y , ' ^y ^^^^ ^^^*^ International
Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco
in 1913 should be deleted ;

(2) that there should be added either a new .Article
or as additions to Article 31 .—

186

I)ileniafio)ial Comminsion on Zooloyiad Nomenclalure.

(a) recognising and defining as follows the
under-mentioned categories of type speci-

[Prerious reference:
Paris Session, 6th
Meeting. Conclusion
73)

Category Definition of category.

Holotype . . The single specimen desig-
nated or indicated as " the
tj^e " by the original author
at the time of the publica-
tion of the original descrip-
tion.

Syntype . . One of a number of speci-
mens of equal nomencla-
torial rank which formed all
or part of the material before
the original author, in those
cases where that author did
not designate or indicate a
holotype.

Lectotype . . A single specimen selected,
subsequent to the publica-
tion of the original descrip-
tion, from a series of syn-
types to be " the type ",
such selection, in order to
be effective, to be a selec-
tion made known through
being announced in a
publication;

(b) making it clear for the purposes of (a)
above that it is immaterial whether the
specimen designated as the holotype or
selected as the lectotype is a separately
mounted specimen or is mounted with other
specimens in a single preparation provided,
in the latter case, that for this purpose a
single specimen is distinguished in some
appropriate manner from the other speci-
mens included in the preparation.

(3) that the expressions recognised in (2) above be
substituted, as appropriate, for the expression
" type ", wherever that expression is used in the
Regies in relation to a type specimen ;

(4) that a Declaratory Article should be inserted
in the Regies declaring that holotypes, syntypes
and lectotypes are the property of science and
should be so regarded by zoologists ;

6lh Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 137

(5) that the i^rovisions specified in (2) to (4) sliould
apply to the type specimens of all nominal forms
belongmg to the categories species, subspecies
and mfra-subspecific form ;

(G) that a liecommandalion should be added to the
Declaratory Article specified in (4) above, strongly
urgmg every author who publishes a description
ot and gives a new name to, a species or who
selects a lectotype from a series of syntypes of a
species which had previously been described and
named, to deposit the holotype or. as the case may
be the lectotype, of that species in a museum or
other institution where the specimen will be safeh-
preserved and will l)e accessible for purposes of
research ;

(7) that the following Recommandations be inserted
at appropriate points in the Regies :—

(a) a Recommandation strongly urging that
every author who publishes a description of.
and gives a new name to, a species should
clearly designate a single specimen (of
either but not both sexes, in the case of
animals having separate sexes, and of one
but not more than one, developmental
stage or form, in the case of species havincr
distinct developmental stages or more than
one form) -to be the holotype of that species.
and should indicate in the original des-
cription (1) the full locality and other data
on the label attached to that specimen,

(2) m the case of animals having separate
sexes, the sex of the specimen so selected,

(3) m the case of a species having distinct
developmental stages or more than one
form, the stage or form to which the speci-
men so selected is referable, (4) in the case
of parasitic species, the name of the host
species (5) the name of the collector by
whom the specimen was obtained, (6) the
collection in which the holotype is deposited
and the collection number assigned to the
specimen, (7) in the case of living terrestial
species, the elevation in metres above
sea level, and in the case of living marine
species, the depth in metres below sea level
at which the holotype was taken and (8) in
the case of fossil species, the estimated

188 Internatiotml Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

geological age of the species, measured, if
possible, by the number of metres by which
the spot where the liolotype was found
lies above, or below, a well-established
plane ;

(b) a Recommandation strongly urging that,
where, in default of a liolotype having been
designated or indicated by the original
author of a name, the same or another
author later selects from a series of syntypes
a specimen to be the lectotype, that author
should observe the principles specified in
the opening portion of the Recommandation
set out in (a) above and, in publishing
the selection so made, should give the
particulars numbered (1) to (8) in the said
Recommandation ;

(c) a Recommandation strongly urging every
author who : —

(i) publishes a description of, and gives
a new name to, a species should affix
to the specimen designated as the
holotype a conspicuous label in-
dicating that the said specimen has
■been so designated ;

(\\) in default of a holotyjie having been
designated or indicated by the
original author, selects a lectotype
from a series of syntypes, should
affix to the specimen so selected to
be the lectotype, a conspicuous
label indicating that the specimen in
question has been so selected ;

(8) that the Recommandations specified in (7) above
should apply to the holotypes and lecto types
of subspecies and infra-subspecific forms in like
manner as to those of species.

Consideration of

points (15) to (20) yg Q^ ^^Q proposal of the Acting President, THE

in Commission .-.,^,,,»xr^r,x/-vxT i

• Paper I.C.(48)12 COMMISSION agreed :—

postponed until the ., , . ,. ,■ .i • o ^i.

Seventh Meeting of to defer until their next meeting (i.e. their beventh

the Commission Meeting) the consideration of the remaining Points

tllion'" ^"" (Points (15) to (20) ) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)12.

Qth Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

189

Seventh and Eighth
Meetings of the
Commission during
its Paris Session :
date and time
appointed

77. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) proposed that the Commission should meet
again that evening at 2030 hours for the purpose of
completing their consideration of Commission Paper
I.C.(48)r2 and of considering Commission Paper I.C.(48)14.
On the following day, Friday, 23rd July, 1948, a meeting of
the Commission would be held at 0900 hours, concurrently
with the first meeting of the Section on Nomenclature.

THE COMMISSION took note of, and approved, tiie
above arrangements.

{The Commission thereupon adjourned at 1910 hours.)

{ 190 )

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Session held diniiig the Thirteenth Inlermilional Congress of Zoology,
Paris, 2}st-21th July, 1948

CONCLUSIONS of the Seventh Meeting held at the Sorbonne in the
Amphitheatre Louis-Liard on Thursday, 22nd July. 1948. at 2030 hours

PRESENT :

jVIt. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) {Acting President)

Professor E. Beltran (Mexico)

Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands)

Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.)

Professor L. di Caporiacco (Italy)

Professor Harold Kirby (U.S.A.)

Mr. N. D. Riley (United Kingdom)

Professor V. van Straelen (Belgium)

Profes.sor Robert L. Usinger (U.S.A.)

The following were also present :

Dr. E. A. Chapin (U.S.A.)
Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty (U.S.A.)
Professor E. Raymond Hall (U.S.A.)
Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark)

Mrs. M. F. \V. Hemming, Personal Assistant to the Secretary
Miss J. H. Shorey, Acting Documents Officer

75)

Terminology of I . Before continuing their consideration of Commission

Xose^'aTditional P^P^r I.C.(48)12, THE COMMISSION reverted to the
"Recommandation" question of the terminology of type .specimens, on which
they had reached certain conclusions shortly before the
(Previous reference: close of their previous meeting. The point raised was
Paris Session, lith concerned with the use of the expression "co-type." On

Meeting. Courlii.tion ^j^jg ^.j^^ ^j^^^. ^^^g expressed that it was desirable to dis-
courage the use of this expression, the meaning of which
had now become ambiguous, in view of the fact that, while
many authors used this expression iu a sense identical with
that of " syntype," there were numerous authors who used
this expression as though it had the same meaning as the
expression " paratype." A Recommandation deprecating
the use of this expression should be added to the Article
enumerating the names of the categories of type specimens
to be recognised for nomenclatorial purposes which it had
been agreed to recommend should be inserted in the Regies.

1th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

191

Need for provision
for naming of
nominotypical
subspecies

( Previous reference:
Paris Session, &h
Meeting, Conclusion
1(18))

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—
that there should be added to the new Article enumerat
ing the categories of type specimens to be recognised
for nonienclatorial purposes which, as agreed by the
Commission at the Sixth Meeting of their Paris
Session (Conclusion 75(2) ), was to be proposed for
addition to the Regies, a Recommandation urging
authors, in the interest of avoiding misimderstanding,
to refrain from using the expression " co-type."

2. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) relating to the trivial name of the
nominotypical subspecies of a species having two or more
subspecies submitted in Point (15) in Commission Paper
I.C.(48)12. It was pointed out that, although the Regies
contained a provision (Article 9) regarding the name to be
applied to the typical subgenus of a genus in which two or
more subgenera are recognised, there was no provision
relating to the parallel problem presented by the tjrpical
subspecies of a species having two or more subspecies (the
nommotypical subspecies). This was an anomaly which
should be corrected.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

(1) that there should be inserted in the Regies a new
Article making it obligatory to apply to the
typical subspecies of a species having two or more
subspecies (to be known as the nominotypical
subspecies) the same trivial name as that of the
species itself ;

(2) that an appropriate reference to the new Article
referred to in (1) above should be inserted in the
provision to be inserted in the Regies exempting
the trivial name of the nominotypical subspecies
from liability to rejection as a homonym of the
trivial name of the species concerned.

Neotypes : proposed
recognition as a
category of type
specimens :
Secretary to prepare
comprehensive
report on

3. THE- COMMISSION had imder consideration a
proposal for the recognition in the Regies of the category
" neotype " submitted by Dr. Don L. Frizzell and Dr. Harry
E. Wheeler, the text of which had already been published
in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (1945, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1 : 106-108) (file Z.N.(S.)24), together with a note
on certain of the problems raised by this proposal by the
Secretary to the Commission (see 1945, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
1 : 108-111) and the suggestions as to the best approach to
be made to this subject submitted in Point (16) in Commis-
sion Paper I.C.(48)12.

vol, 4 N

192 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

THE COMMISSION :—

(1) took note that there was considerable difference
of opinion among zoologists regarding the
desirability of inserting provisions in the Regies
recognising the category " neotype," some workers,
particularly in palaeontology, being strongly in
favour of this course, while others were opposed
to it on the ground that the recognition of this
category would be Ukely to give rise to abuses
(commercial and other) and to lead to greater
confusion than uniformity ;

(2) agreed : —

(a) that the proposal to recognise the category
" neotype " raised complex problems which
required much closer and more detailed
study than had yet been given to them ;

(b) that, if the Congress were to be recommended
to recognise the category " neotype," it
would be essential that the proposals so
submitted should be comprehensive in
character and should contain adequate safe-
guards against the abuse of the new
provisions by mercenary or irresponsible
persons ;

(c) that, in view both of the intrinsic diffi-
culties involved in the proposed recognition
of the category " neotype " and of the wide
differences of opinion on the subject which
at present existed among zoologists, it was
essential that further discussions should be
held with interested groups of specialists
before the Commission submitted any
recommendation to the Congress for the
amendment of the Regies to deal with this
subject ;

(3) agreed to recomniend : —

that the Secretary to the Commission should be
invited to make a thorough study, in con-
junction with interested specialists, of the
problems involved in the proposal that the
category " neotype " should be recognised in
the Regies and to submit a Report thereon, with
recommendations, for consideration by the
Commission at their meeting to be held during
the next (XlVth) meeting of the Congress, with
a view to the submission by the Commission of

Misuse of the
" Regies " in a
manner calculated
to give political,
religious or
personal offence :
measures to
prevent

VOL. 4 JJ"

1th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 193

a considered statement of their views on this
subject and, if they decided in favour of
recommending that the foregoing category of
type specimen should be recognised in the
Regies, of a comprehensive scheme to that end.

4. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a

Svof)t TT f ""^'^ ^' ^°^"^ *" P^^^de against the
n.t ^ % '^^'' ^"'"^ "'"^ f^^ *^« purpose of giving
occT 'h T- " "'""'' "^^^^ ^* "^« ^ W had refently
Z nTs mA. .''' ?r '"T'^^ ^^ " P^^^i^^^^ ^^^tance (file
Z.N.(S.)348 , together with proposals for dealing with the
above problem submitted by the Secretary to the Com-
mission m Point (17) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)12 The
Secretary, while agreeing with the view expressed by the
inw'T f^^'l^:^' ^^«^^ble that a provision should be
nserted in the Regies to deal with the misuse of the Regies
in this way, suggested that this provision should be so
drafted as to cover cases of the use of zoological nomen-
clature in a manner calculated to give not only personal

f unds T '^r f--.f^- 0- PoHtical or" Lligls
grounds. Legal advice might be needed in the appUcation
ot tne proposed provision.

THE COMMISSION

(1) agreed to place on record their strong disapproval
of the use of the Regies in any manner calculated to
give offence on political, religious or personal
grounds ; ^

(2) agreed to recommend that there should be
eS'^i"' t^« ^¥es provisions to the following

(a) The use for a generic or subgeneric name or
tor the trivial name of a species, subspecies
or intra-subspecific form of a word (whether
sunple or compound) which can reasonably
be regarded, m any language, as calculated
to give offence on political, rehgious or
personal grounds is prohibited.

(b) No name published in contravention of the
provisions of (a) above is to possess any
status m zoological nomenclature

(c) It shall be open to any person or group of
persons who is, or are, of the opinion that a
given name has been published in contra-
vention of the provisions of the present

194 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Article to refer the question to the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, and it shall be the duty of the said
Commission promptly to consider every
case so submitted to it, and, if satisfied that
the submission is well-grounded, to order
the name concerned to be suppressed for all
purposes, in accordance with the provisions
of (b) above.

(d) The procedure to be followed by the Com-
mission in considering applications sub-
mitted under (c) above shall be governed by
such regulations as the Commission may
from time to tune prescribe.

The " Regies " : 5. THE COMMISSION had under consideration pro-

aLTndments to"*' PO^^^^ (^^^ Z.N.(S.)352) submitted by the Secretary in
secure greater Points (18), (19) and (20) in Commission Paper I.C.(4:8)12,

clarity and to for the improvement of the Regies by the insertion of certain

necessary and minor drafting amendments designed to secure greater

undefined repetitive clarity or "to eliminate the unnecessary and therefore
phrases misleading use of two or more undefined expressions to

denote the same concept.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that, when the jurists were requested to embody in
the Regies such amendments and other changes as
might be agreed upon by the present Congress, they
should at the same time be requested to make such
minor drafting changes as might be necessary : —

(a) to secure that in the mandatory portions of the
Regies nouns should, for the sake of clarity, be
used, wherever possible, in the singular number
in preference to the plural nimiber, thereby
eliminating anomahes such as those presented
by the wording at present employed in the
opening phrase of Article 20 and in the corres-
ponding phrase of Article 30 ;

(b) to remove verbal inconsistencies in drafting such
as the indiscriminate use in Article 30 of the
phrases " type species," " generic type " and
"type" to denote the same concept and the use in
the same Article of the expression "publication"
(in Rules (a) and (b) ) and the expression
" proposed " (Rule (c) ) to denote exactly the
same idea ;

1th Meetiitg, Paris, July, 1948.

195

Miscellaneous
proposals for the
amendment or
clarification of the
"Regies " : second
instalment

{Previous referetice:
Paris Session, 6lh
Meeting, Conclusion
60)

(c) to delete unnecessary and undefined repetitive
expressions such as the expressions " seu
diagnosis ; seu definition ; seu condensed
description " used in Proviso (c)(1) to Article 25
as synonyms of the expression " summary of
characters " and the expressions " seu genotype ;
seu autogenotype ; seu orthotype " used in
Proviso (c)(3) to the same Article as synonyms of
the expression " type species."

6. THE COMMISSION had before them a memorandum
by the Secretary (Commission Paper I.C.(48)14) containing
a second instalment of miscellaneous proposals received
from various sources for the amendment or clarification of
the Regies. For convenience of reference these proposals,
which were twelve in number, had been numbered con-
secutively with the proposals brought forward in the paper
containing the first instalment (Commission Paper
I.e. (48)12). The present proposals were therefore numbered
(21) to (32).

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

to examine Commission Paper I. C. (48)14, point by
point, for the purpose of reaching conclusions regarding
the recommendations to be submitted on the questions
raised therein.

Article 8 (case of a
generic name
treated as a noun
in the nominative
singular but which
was in fact a
latinised version of
a noun in another
language in a case
other than the
nominative or a
number other than
the singular)

7. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal submitted by Commissioner H. Boschma designed
to secure the incorporation in Article 8 of a provision to
cover the case of a generic name which, though published
by its original author as a noun substantive in the nomina-
tive singular, was in fact a latinised version of a word in
some other language, where the word so used was in some
case other than the nominative or some nimiber other than
the singular (file Z.N.(S.)223), together with a note on the
same subject, submitted in Point (21) in Commission
Paper I.C.(48)14.

It was explained that the kind of case here contemplated
was that presented by the generic name Potamon Savigny,
1816, which, though published by its original author as a
noun substantive in the nominative singular, was in fact a
latinised version of the Greek word Hora/xwr, i.e., of the
genitive plural of the Greek noun IToTa/xo?, having thus the
meaning " of rivers." It would be unreasonable to reject
a generic name formed in this way on the ground that it had
not been published in the nominative singular. If such
rejection were to be avoided, it would be necessary to

196 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

{Previous reference: insert a Saving clause in Article 8, in view of the decision
Paris Session &h already taken that the substance of the interpretation of

Meeting, Conclusion -J . ._.. ,„r>i iii • ^i-

12) Article 8 given in Opinion 183 should be incorporated in

that Article.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that there should be added to Article 8 of the Regies,
when amended in the manner agreed upon at the
Sixth Meeting of the Commission during their present
Session (Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 12), a
Proviso making it clear that a generic name which was
treated by its original author as a latinised noun in the
nominative singular is not to be rejected as invaUd on
the sole ground that it consists of a latinised version of
a word or combination of words belonging to any
language other than Latin, the word or words as
so used being, prior to latinisation, in some case
other than the nominative or some number other than
the singular or in both case and number other than
the nominative singular.

Article 14 (addition 8. THE COMIMISSION had under consideration a

of a " Recom- _ proposal submitted by Professor Pierre Bonnet (France)

Others 'to* avoi'd"*^ that a Eecomniandation should be added to Article 14 urging

giving as new trivial authors not to select for the trivial names of species and

names words _ subspecies words already published as the names of species

allied groups) or subspecies in allied groups and indicating the criteria

recommended to be followed by authors in this matter (file

Z.N.(S.)352), together with a note on the foregoing proposal

submitted by the Secretary in Point (22) in Commission

Paper I.C.(48)U.

There was general agreement that the selection as new
trivial names of such words as vulgaris, domesticus, niger,
silvestris, etc., was liable to give rise to confusion when those
names had already been pubhshed as the trivial names of
species and subspecies in aUied groups, even when the words
could properly be used in this way in the sense that such
employment did not involve a breach of the Law of
Homonymy. It was felt, however, that no advantage
would be served by attempting to specify in the proposed
Recommandation the exact limits within which the pubUca-
tion of trivial names already published for species and
subspecies in allied groups should be avoided.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that there should be added to Article 14 a Recom-
mandation urging authors when selecting trivial names
for new species or subspecies or when selecting such

\

1th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 197

names as substitutes for names which are invahd
under the Law of Homonymy, to refrain from
selectmg words abeady published as the trivial names
of species or subspecies occurring in any part of the
world, where the species concerned are referred to
genera allied to that to which the species or subspecies
to be named is assigned.

Article 15 (proposed
redrafting of, to
eliminate the
existing option to
link by hyphens the
components of a
trivial name
consisting of a
compound word)

9. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal submitted by Professor Pierre Bonnet (France)
that .Article 15 should be re-drafted in such a way as to
eliminate the option contained in this Article in its present
torm, under which it is legitmiate to use as the trivial name
ot a species or subspecies a combmation of words hnked
together by a hyphen (file Z.N.(S.)352), together with a note
on the foregoing proposal submitted by the Secretary in
Point (23) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)14.

The object of Professor Bonnet's proposal was not to
prohibit the use of combinations of words as the trivial
names of species and subspecies, but to secure that when
names were formed in this way, the two words formincr the
combination should be ^Titten as one and should no't be
linked together merely by a hyphen. It was generally felt
that the object sought was desirable but that, in the form
in which It was actually submitted, the proposal was too
tar-reaching : there were certain trivial names which were
deliberately designed to show that the species so named
possessed a distinguishing mark in the form of a letter (e g
the trivial name c-album published by Linnaeus as PapiUo
c-album m 1758, for a butterfly which was distinguished by
having on the under-side of the hindwing a white mark in the
form of the letter " c "). It would clearly be undesirable to
requu-e that this name should be printed as " calbum "
instead of " c-albumr It was suggested also that the present
opportumty should be taken to make it clear that, where a
binominal author introduces a new trivial name consisting
ot a compound word and that trivial name, on being first
published, IS incorrectly printed as though it consisted of
two words. It IS not on that account to be rejected but is to
be corrected by later authors in the same way as names
incorrectly formed under Articles 14-16, 18 or 20. For
example the trivial name novce hispaniae published bv
Gmehn in 1789 for a species of Coluber should not be
rejected but should be corrected to novaehispaniae.
THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :-

(1) that words should be inserted in Article 15 to make
It clear that, where a trivial name is formed from
a combmation of words, those words are to be

198

International Cmmnission on Zoological Nomenclature.

{Previous reference:
Paris Session. 4<A
Meeting, Conclusion 5)

treated as constituting a single word and are not
to be merely united together by a hyphen, save
that, where a trivial name has been formed for the
purpose of indicating that the taxonomic unit
concerned is distinguished from other such units
by a mark having the form of a letter of the Latin
alphabet (for example, a name such as c-album),
the letter of the alphabet forming the first portion
of the name is to be separated from the remaining
portion of the name by the interposition of a
hyphen ;

(2) that either in Article 15 or elsewhere in the Regies
as may be found appropriate there should be
inserted words to make it clear that, where an
author who in the book or paper concerned has
duly applied the principles of binominal nomencla-
ture, as required by proviso (b) to Article 25,
publishes a trivial name consisting of a compound
word, which, on being so first published, is printed
as though it consisted of two separate words (for
example the trivial name novae hispaniae Gmelin,
1789), that name is not on that account to be
rejected but is to be treated as though it had been
duly published as a single compound word (e.g.
novaehispaniae) ;

(3) that, where a trivial name is published in a manner
which contravenes either (1) or (2) above, that
name is automatically to be corrected by subse-
quent authors, and shall rank for purposes of
priority as from the original author and date of
publication in accordance with the provision
relating to the correction of names published in
contravention of Articles 14-16, 18 and 20 agreed
upon at the meeting noted in the margm.

Article 15 (ortho-
graphy of com-
pound trivial
names, where the
first part of the
compound consists
of a number)

10. In the course of the discussion on the item recorded
in the preceding conclusion, the attention of the Com-
mission was drawn to the anomalous position which existed
in the case of the trivial names of species w^ere the name was
a compound name and the first part was a number. There
were many such names, for the presence of a specified
number of markings of a given kind often constituted a good
diagnostic character. Such names were often formed in
combination with adjectives such as gutiatus, signatus, etc.
In some cases the nmnber forming the first part of the name
was indicated by its Latin name, while in other cases it was
often indicated by the Arabic niimerical sign appropriate
for the number in question. Thus, the same name

Ith Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 199

might sometimes appear as " qualtuor-yutlatus " (or
" quatluorguttatus ") or as " i-gutlatm."

The view was expressed that, as zoological nomenclatm:.e

consisted of a system in which Latin words were used in

particular ways and not of a system of numerals, it was

wrong in principle to employ as a trivial name a hybrid

designation such as " i-gidtalus," which consisted partly of

a numeral and partly of a word. Quite apart from this

important theoretical objection, there were also important

practical objections to the use of names formed in the

oregoing manner. Names so formed, were, for example, a

source of difficulty to those zoologists who possessed no

knowledge of the Latin language : they led to errors and

inconsistencies in the alphabetisation of trivial names and,

in extreme cases, were responsible, in conversation, for such

verbal monstrosities as " four-guttatus," " eleven-signatus,"

etc. Moreover, the use of names written in this way led to

difficulties in the application both of the Law of Priority and

of the Law of Homonymy. For example, there were cases

of trivial names originally pubhshed as say " 4-maculatus "

of which the numeral had sometimes been (correctly)

transliterated as a cardinal number (i.e. as quattuor),

while at other times it had been treated as an ordinal

number, the form " quadri- " being adopted.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that there should be inserted in the Regies, either in
Article 15 or elsewhere, a provision or provisions
making it clear : —

(a) that, where the trivial name selected for a
species, subspecies or infra -subspecific form is a
compound word, constructed so as to indicate
that the taxonomic unit concerned may be
recognised by a specified number of character-
istics or by the presence of a specified number
of examples of a given characteristic and the
first portion of the name is intended to denote
the number of characteristics in question or the
number of examples of a given characteristic in
question, as the case may be, that portion of the
name is to be indicated by the Latin word
representing the cardinal number concerned (as,
for example, " quatluorguttatus ") and is not to
be indicated by a numeral (as, for example,
i-guttatus ") ;
(b) that, where a trivial name of the kind specified
in (a) above has been, or is, published with the
first part of the name indicated by a numeral
instead of by a word indicating the cardinal
number concerned : —

200

InternaUonal Commissicm on Zoological Nomenclature.

(Previous reference :
Paris Session, 4th
Meeting, Condvsion 5)

(i) the name in question is automatically
to be corrected by subsequent
authors, the two words of which such
a name, when so corrected, is
composed being printed as a single
word and not united merely by a
h}1)hen ; and

(ii) the name so corrected is to rank for
the purposes of the Law of Priority
and the Law of Homonjnny as from
the date on which it was originally
published in the incorrect form and is
to be attributed to the author by
whom it was so published, in like
manner as trivial names when cor-
rected to comply with the pro%asions
of Articles 14-16. 18 or 20.

Article 14
(clarification of
provisions relating
to the formation of
trivial names based
upon the names of
persons)

11. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) suggested that at this point the Commission
should consider a proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) submitted by
Professor Pierre Bonnet (France) for the clarification of the
provisions in Article 14 relating to the formation of tri\dal
names in those cases where it was desired to give honour to
some person by using his or her name as the basis of the
trivial name. As all systematic workers knew from
experience, the existing portion of Article 14 dealing with
this matter was both badly worded and also incomplete.
The proposals submitted by Professor Bonnet could be
smnmarised as follows : —

(a) Trivial names in the genitive case which are based

(1) upon the names of personages of antiquity or

(2) upon the prenoms (as contrasted with the
surnames) of modern personages, whether living or
dead, should follow the rules of Latin declension in
those cases where the names in question were of
Latin origin ;

(b) Trivial names based on the surnames of modern per-
sonages, whether li\-ing or dead, including surnames
derived from words of Latin origin, should, subject
to the exceptions noted in (c), (d) and (e) below,
consist, as at present, of the exact surname of the
person concerned to which should be added the
appropriate termination in the genitive case, the
terminations in question being : —

(i) the termination " -i " where the trivial name
is based on the name of a man ;

1th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 201

(ii) the termination " -ae " where the trivial name
is based on the name of a woman ;

(iii) the termination " -orum " where the trivial
name is based on the name of two or more
men, each having the same surname ;

(iv) the termination " -arum " where the trivial
name is based on the names of two or more
women, each having the same surname ;

(c) Where a trivial name is based upon the name of a
modern jiersonage and that personage is a woman
whose surname ends in the letter " a ", the trivial
name based thereon should be formed by substituting
the termination " -ae" for the termination " -a" ;

(d) Where a trivial name is based upon the surname of
any of the following modern personages, that name
should be formed as follows : —

Modern surname Trivial name based on

sunmme in column (1)

(1) (2)

Lmnaeus or Linne linnaei (not linnaeusi or

linnei)
Fabricius fabricii (not fabriciusi)

Poda podae (not podai)

(e) Where a trivial name is based upon the surname of a
modern personage and that surname ends with the
letter " q ", the letter " u " is to be inserted im-
mediately after the letter "q" and before the
appropriate genitival termination ;

(f ) Where a trivial name is based upon the surname of a
modern personage and that surname is preceded by a
nobihar particle (e.g. the particle " de," " di,"
" von," etc.), that particle is to be omitted when
forming the trivial name in question (the correct
form for a trivial name based, for example, upon the
modern surname " de Lessert " thus being lesserti
nf)t delesserti), save in those cases : —

(i) where the particle is actually attached to the
modern surname in question (as in the case of
the surname " Dujardin ") or where, by long
custom, it forms an integral portion of the
surname (as in the case of the surname " De •
Geer "), in either of which cases the particle
is to be retained when forming a trivial name
based upon the surname in question (the
correct form for trivial names based upon the

202 International Cotnmission on Zoological Nomenclature.

modern surnames cited in the foregoing
examples being in the first case dujardini (not
jardini) and in the second case degeeri (not
geeri);

(ii) where the particle consists either of the letters
" Mac " or " Mc " or the letter " " followed,
in the latter case, by an apostrophe, in either
of which cases the particle and, in the second
case, the apostrophe also, is to be retained
when forming a trivial name based upon the
surname in question, the first letter of the
portion of the surname following the particle
being written with a small letter (trivial names
based upon the modern surnames MacCook
and O'Connor thus taking the forms maccooki
and o'connori respectively) ;

(g) Where a trivial name is based upon a modern
surname commencing with the particle " Mc," the
letter " a " should be inserted between the letter
" m " and the letter " c " ;

(h) Where a trivial name is based upon a modern French
surname and that surname is preceded by the definite
article (" le," " la " or " les ") (as in the case of the
surname " Le Sueur "), the definite article is to be
incorporated in the trivial name (the correct form of
trivial name in the example cited above thus being
lesueuri, not sueuri) ;

(i) Where a trivial name is based upon a modern French
surname and that name is preceded first by the
particle " de" and second by the definite article " la",
the definite article is to be incorporated in the
trivial name but not the particle " de " (the correct
form for a trivial name based on the surname
"delaKoche" thus being larochei not dehrochei);

(j) Where a trivial name is based upon the surname of a
modern personage and that surname consists of two
surnames linked together by a hyphen, one only of
the two names in question should be selected when
forming the trivial name in question, preference
being given to the better known of the two surnames
in question (for example, in forming a trivial name
based on the surname of the French naturalist
Guerin-Meneville, preference should normally be
given to the name Guerin, by which this natiiraUst
was commonly known, rather than to Meneville,
the trivial name formed being thus guerini, though
the trivial name menevilki would also be permissible)

1th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.
(k) Where a trivial name is based upon the name of a

^ Christian Saint, the ^^^^i^^^g .^^^f f^ itukd
Sainte, Sancti, Sancto, San, etc.) should be excluded
from the trivial name, a trivial name based upon the
name of Saint Remy thus taking the form remyi).

In the discussion which ensued the following points
were made : —
(i) Proposal (a): The first part of this proposal
dealt with a matter which was already covered
bv Article U, though only inferentially, and it
was certainly desirable that an express provision
should be inserted to deal with it. The second
part of this proposal dealt with a matter on which
the Regies were at present silent. It was certainly
a defect that no distinction should be made in
Article 14 between " prenoms" on the one hand
and surnames on the other in the case of names of
modern personages where those names were
selected to form the basis of a trivial name.
The proposal submitted was desurable and should
be accepted. It would be necessary for the new
Article to deal separately with names of Latin
and Greek origin and to provide that the latter
should follow the rules of Greek declension.

(ii) Proposal (b) : This proposal was in the main a
restatement of the existing provision in Article 14.

It was however an improvement on the existing
text both because it made it clear that the
provisions in question applied only to tlie sur-
names of modern personages and also because
it gave clearer and more precise directions
regarding the termmations to be attached to the
end of a modern surname, when it was decided to
use that surname as the basis of a trivial name
formed in the genitive case. It was pointed out
however, that there was one situation which
had not been covered, namely where it was
desired to form a trivial name based upon the
surname of two or more persons and those persons
were of different sex. Clearly, in such a case the
normal rule of Latin grammar should be apphed
and the termination to be selected should be in
the masculme gender. This should be made clear
when Article 14 is redrafted,
(iii) Proposal (c) : The question raised in this proposal
^ ^ reqvfired consideration, for although the addition
of the " -ae " to a feminine name which ended in

204 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

the letter " a " was both inharmonious and ano-
malous, it was felt that further study of the
implications of the proposal was desirable before a
recommendation on this subject was submitted to
the Congress.

(iv) Proposal (d) : This proposal was warmly wel-
comed, it being felt that it would be absurd to
insist that a trivial name based upon the name of
Linnaeus should take the form linnaeusi, though,
as the name Linnaeus was a modern surname,
this was what was required by the existing
provisions of Article 14. It was obvious that
special provision would need to be made for
exceptional cases of this kind. It was likely
that experience would show the need for adding
to the list of exceptions in this matter.

(v) Proposal (e) : This proposal was also warmly
welcomed. It was a barbarism, in any system of
nomenclature which purported to use the Latin
language to permit the existence of words in
which the letter " q " was followed by any
• . letter other than the letter " u ". The fact that

this matter was not dealt with in the existing
text of the Regies was no doubt due to inadver-
tence on the part of the original draftsmen.

(vi) Proposal (/) : A long discussion took place on the
first part of this proposal. It was agreed that in
principle the proposal was well founded but the
evidence brought forward showed that in some
languages (for example, in Italian) it would be
impossible in practice to apply a provision of
the kind suggested. The second part of this
proposal met with general approval.

(vii) Proposal (g) : It was considered that, although
logical, this proposal was misconceived, for it
was explained that it was often no matter of
accident whether a surname of the class in question
started with the letters " Mac " or " Mc ".
It was agreed however that it should be made
clear at an appropriate point in the Regies that,
where the foregoing was the only difference in
speUing between two surnames, the publication
of a trivial name based upon one such name (say,
the trivial name maccooki based upon the sur-
name MacCook) would render invalid as a homo-
nym a later published trivial name based upon
the other surname (e.g. a name mccooki based

Ilh Meeting, Paris, July, 194«, 205

upon the name McCook would in such circum-
stances be invalid).

(viii) Proposal (h) : General agreement was expressed
with this proposal. It should be extended to
cover modern surnames of French origin as
well as modern French surnames.

(ix) Proposal {i) : It was felt that further study of the
probable effects of a rule of the kind proposed
was desirable before a proposal thereon was
submitted to the Congress.

(x) Proposal (j) : This proposal was logical but it
was considered that in this case also further
study was required before a proposal was sub-
mitted to the Congress. It would be necessary
'to co-ordinate any provision on the lines sug-
gested with the existing provisions relating to the
formation of trivial names based upon the names
of places. It would probably be found that,
while there were many trivial names based upon
the names of places (e.g. St. Helena), the first
portion of which, when Latinised, started
with the adjective sanctus or sancta (as in Sancta
Helena), the number of trivial names actually
selected for the purpose of honouring Saints
was very small.

THE COMMISSION :—

(1) agreed to recommend that Article 14 should be
redrafted to such extent as might be necessary
to provide : —

(a) that a trivial name formed in the genitive
case which is based either (i) upon the name
of a personage of Classical Antiquity (in-
cluding gods, goddesses and mythological
characters) or (ii) upon a "prenom" (i.e.
any name borne by a person in addition
to his or her surname) of a modern
personage, whether living or dead, in
any case where that first name is of
Latin or Greek origin, should follow
the rules of Latin declension in the case of a
name of Latin origin and the rules of
Greek declension in the case of a name of
Greek origin ;

(b) that a trivial name based upon the surname
of a modern personage, whether living or
dead, including a trivial name based upon a
surname of Latin or Greek origm, should,
subject to the provisions of (c) and (d)

206 International Ccnmnission on Zoological Nomendalure.

below, consist of the exact surname of the
person concerned, to which should be added
the appropriate termination in the genitive
case, that is to say : —

(i) in the case of a trivial name based on
the surname of a man, the ter-
mination " -i " ;

(ii) in the case of a trivial name based on
the surname of a woman, the ter-
mination " -ae " ;

(iii) in the case of a trivial name based on
the surname of two or more persons
having the same surname, where
one or more of the persons is a man,
the termination " -orum " ;

(iv) in the case of a trivial name based on
the surname of two or more persons
having the same surname, where all
the persons concerned are women,
the termination " -arum " ;

(c) that, where a trivial name is based upon the
surname of any of the undermentioned
modern personages, that name should be
formed as follows : —

Surname of modern Trivial name based
personage on surname specified

in Column (1)

Linnaeus (Linne) linnaei (not linnaeusi or

linnei)
Fabricius fabricii (not fabriciusi)

Poda podae (not podai)

(d) that, where a trivial name is based upon the
surname of a modern personage and that
surname ends with the letter " q ", the
letter " u " is to be inserted between the
letter " q " and the appropriate genitival
termination ;

(e) that, where a trivial name is based upon the
surname of a modern personage and the
first portion of that surname consists either
(i) of the particle " Mac " or " Mc " or
(ii) of a particle composed of the letter " "
followed by an apostrophe, the particle,
in the first case, and the particle and the

1th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 207

apostrophe in the second case, is to be
retained in the trivial name, the first letter
of the remaining portion of the surname
being written witli a small letter, trivial
names based, for example, on the modern
surnames " MacCook " and " O'Connor '
thus taking the form of nuiccooki and o'cou-
nori respectively ;
(f) that, where a trivial name is based upon a
modern French surname or upon a modern
surname of French origm and that surname is
preceded by the definite article (" le ",
"la", or "les") (as in the surname,
" Le Sueur "), the definite article is to be
incorporated in the trivial name (the
correct form of a trivial name based on the
surname cited in the foregoing example
thus being lesueuri not sueuri) ;
(2) agreed to postpone for further consideration the
undermentioned proposals : —

(a) that, where a trivial name is based upon the
surname of a modern personage and that
personage is a woman whose surname ends
in the letter " a ", the trivial name so based
shoidd be formed by substitutmg the
termmation " -ae " for the existing termina-
tion " -a " ;

(b) that, where a trivial name is based upon a
modern French surname or upon a modern
surname of French origm and that surname
is preceded first by the particle '' de ''
and second by the definite article "la ,
the definite article is to be incorporated
in the trivial name but not the particle
" de ", the correct form of a trivial name
based.' for example, on the French surname
" De la Roche " thus being lawchei not
delarochei ;

(c) that, where a trivial name is based upon the
name of a Christian Saint, the qualifying
adjective sanctus should be omitted from
the trivial name, the correct form of a
trivial name based, for example, on the
name of St. Remy thus being remyi ;
(3) agreed to reject the undermentioned proposals :—
(a) that, where a trivial name is based upon the
surname of a modern personage and that

VOL. 4 <J

208 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

surname is preceded by a nobiliar particle
(e.g. the particle " de ", " di ", " von ",
etc.), that particle is to be omitted when
forming the trivial name (the correct form
of a tri\aal name based, for example, on
the modern surname ' de Lessert " thus
being lesserti not deJesserti), save in those
cases where the particle is actually attached
to the modern surname in question (as,
for example, in the case of the surname
" Dujardin ") or, where, by long custom,
it forms an integral portion of the surname
(as, for example, in the case of the surname
■' De Geer "), in either of which cases the
particle is to be retained when forming a
trivial based thereon, the correct form for
trivial names based, for example, on the
modern surnames cited above being in the
first case dujardini (not jardini) and in
the second case degeeri (not geeri) ;

(b) that, where a trivial name is based upon
the surname of a modern personage which
commences with the particle " Mc ", the
letter " a " should be inserted between
the letter " m " and the letter " c " ;

(4) agreed to recommend that provision should be

made in the Article which was to rejjlace the
existing Article 35 to secure that, where a
trivial name is based upon the surname of a
modern personage, the first part of which con-
sists of the particle " Mac " or " Mc ", as the
case may be, the trivial name so formed is to be
rejected as a homon\Tn if there is a species or
subspecies which was either originally described,
or is now placed, in the same genus, which is
based upon the surname of another modern
personage which is identical with the surname
on which the later published trivial name is
based, save that the first part of the surname
consists, as the case may be, of the particle "Mc"
or the particle " Mac " and that a corresponding
addition should be made to Article 34 in relation
to generic names so formed ;

(5) agreed to recommend that a Recommandatian

should be added to Article 15, urging any author,
when proposing to publish a trivial name based
upon the surname of a modern personage,
whose surname is a compound name consisting

tth Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 209

of two surnames, whether or not, linked
together by a hyphen, to give serious con-
sideration, in the interests of brevity in nomen-
clature, to the possibihty of basing the trivial
name upon one only of the two surnames of
which the compound surname is composed, and,
if this course is found to be feasible, to give
preference to whichever is the better known of
the surnames in question (for example, if it
were decided to base a trivial name upon the
surname " Guerin-MeneviUe " but to make use
tor this purpose of one only of the surnames of
which that compound surname is com-
posed, preference should be given to the name
-Guerm" by which this French naturalist
was commonly known rather than to the name
"MeneviUe", the trivial name selected bein^
t\m^ guenni, though the trivial name mmevillei
would m such a case also be permissible.)

pr^jSns HEMMTN^f ^'^™? PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS

submitted by HEMMING) suggested that it would be convenient if at

review of position '\^'^'^,'^ '^P""^ *« ^^"^ propositions, seventeen in number

regarding which had been submitted to them by Professor Pierre

i5onnet (France) for consideration, if possible, during the

present (Pans) Session. The propositions in question^ were

concerned with the following matters :—

(1) the question whether the names published in
tlerck s Ammi svecici should be made available fo-
nomenclatorial purposes, notwithstanding the fact
that they were published in 1757, i.e. before the
starting pomt of zoological nomenclature as pre-
scribed m Article 26 of the Regies (file Z.N. (S.) 238) ;

(2) the insertion in the Regies of a provision recognising^'
""Jl^'^ of Prescription which would prevent the Law
ot Priority from upsetting well-estabhshed names in

[rzV'(s:r359)r'"' '^' ^^^^ ^^^^ ^-^^"-

(3) the partial suspension of the Law of Homonymy for
the purpose of protecting weU-estabhshed generic
names (file Z.N. (S.) 359) ;

(4) the deletion from Article 13 of the option to use a
capital when writmg the first letter of certain trivial
names (file Z.N. (S.) 352) ;

VOL 4 O*

210 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

(5) the insertion in Articles 14 and 15 of provisions
designed to remove certain ambiguities and to fill
in certain gaps (file Z.N. (S.) 352) ;

(6) the insertion of a Recommandation in Article 11,
urging authors not to publish trivial names consist-
ing of words already used as such for species in allied
genera, families or Orders (file Z.N. (S.) 352) ;

(7) the deletion from Article 15 of the option to use a
hyphen joining together the two parts of a com-
pound trivial name (file Z.N. (S. 352) ;

(8) the insertion of three new Articles dealing with the
formation of compound trivial names (file Z.N.
(S.) 390) ;

(9) the agreement of* trivial names, when adjectives,
with the gender of the generic names with which
they combined (file Z.N. (S.) 352) ;

(10) the insertion in the Regies of a new Article dealing
with polymorphism of certain words used as trivial
names (file Z.N. (S.) 356) ;

(11) the need for co-ordination of the provisions of
Articles 19 and 32 of the Regies (file Z.N. (S.) 352) ;

(12) the need for avoiding the selection, as names, of
words which were either inharmonious or unduly
long or which carried a bizarre meaning (files
Z.N. (S.) 297 and 352) ;

(13) the amendment and clarification of Article 22
(file Z.N. (S.) 352) ;

(14) the deletion from Article 14 of the obsolete
Recommandation relating to the abbreviation of
authors' names (file Z.N. (S.) 352) ;

(15) the addition to Article 14 of a provision relating
to the formation of adjectival trivial names having
a geographical meaning and ending in the termination
" -ensis " (file Z.N. (S.) 391) ;

(16) the modification of the Recommandation to Article
20 of the Regies (file Z.N. (S.) 392) ;

(17) a minor amendment of the document which at
present figures as Section " F " of the Appendice
to the Regies (file Z.N. (S.) 393).

Continuing, the Acting President said that, in view of
the importance of, and the wide interest taken in. Professor
Bonnet's Proposition 1, he proposed in his capacity as
President of the Section, to call upon Professor Bonnet to
make a statement on Clerck's Arachnid names at an early
meeting of the Section. He further proposed that, in the

1th Meethif), Paris, July, 1948. 211

light of the general discussion so afforded, the Commission
should consider this proposal in detail at a later meeting
during the present Session. Professor Bonnet's Propositions
2 and 3 were closely related to one another and could be
conveniently considered together with the proposal on
the same subject which stood in the name of Dr. Henning
Lemche (Denmark). These three proposals would, therefore,
be considered in the first instance at a meeting of the Section
on Nomenclature, after which the Commission would be
asked to formulate recommendations for the approval of the
Section. The Commission had already taken decisions on the
issues raised in Professor Bonnet's Propositions 4 and 14
and on the first and third parts of his Proposition 12, when
they had had Paper I.C.(48) 11 under consideration, while
Propositions 5, 6, and 7 and been dealt with at the present
meeting. He (the Acting President) proposed to deal, in
papers shortly to be circulated in the I.C.(48) series, with
Professor Bonnet's Propositions 9, 11, 13, and the second
part of his Proposition 12. He suggested therefore that the
consideration of these Propositions should be deferred until
the relevant I.C.(48) papers were available. The subject
dealt with in Professor Bonnet's Proposition 10 was closely
connected with the general problem raised by Article 19
and he (the Acting President) suggested therefore that the
subject raised by Professor Bonnet in this Proposition
should be referred to the general study of Article 19 which,
when considering Paper I.C.(48)11, the Commission had
agreed should be undertaken by the Secretary to the
Commission before the next meeting of the Congress. The
Acting President suggested that the consideration of the
remaining Propositions submitted by Professor Bonnet
(namely Propositions 8 and 15-17) .should be deferred until
after the close of the present Congress.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

as regards the 17 propositions submitted by Professor
Pierre Bonnet : —

(a) that, in view of the decisions already taken,
no further action was called for as regards the
propositions numbered 4 to 7 and 14 and the
first and third parts of the proposition num-
bered 12 ;

(b) that, having regard to the close connection
between the subject dealt with in the proposi-
tion numbered 10 and the general problem
raised by Article 19, the question raised in

Sir'SLSToir'' *''•''* proposition should be included among the

Meeting, Conclusion questions to be studied in the examination

15) : ■ - of Article 19 which it had been agreed at the

212

International Commission on Zoological Nomencluture.

meeting noted in the margin should be under-
taken by the Secretary to the Commission with a
view to the consideration of the whole matter
during the next (XlVth) meeting of the Congress ;

(c) that the propositions numbered 1 to 3, 9, 11 and
13, together with the second part of the pro-
position numbered 12, should be considered at
later meetings during the present Session in
the manner proposed by the Acting President ;

(d) that the consideration of the propositions
numbered 8 and 15 to 17 should be deferred
until after the close of the present Session of
meetings.

Article 18
(nomenclature of
hybrids) : drafting
amendments

{Previous reference :
Lisbon Session,
4:th Meeting,
Conclusion 5)

13. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N. (S.) 21) for the insertion of certain
drafting amendments in the provisions of Article 18,
relating to the nomenclature of hybrids submitted by Dr.
Hans Bytinsky-Salz (Rovigno d'lstria), together with a note
thereon submitted by the Secretary in Point (24) of Com-
mission Paper I. C. (48)14.

It was explained that the sole object of this proposal
was to eliminate certain drafting defects in the existing
text of Article 18 of the Regies. This proposal which had
been published in 1933 {Int. Ent. Z. 27 : 153-162) had been
received by the Commission later in the same year. It was
unfortunate that they had not found it possible to deal
with this application at their meeting held in Lisbon in
1935. It shoukl be made clear also that a specific name
given under Article 18(d) was subject to all the provisions
governing specific names.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that Article 18 of the Regies should be amended in
the manner indicated below : —

(a) Section (a), at end add:—" In the case of a
hybrid between two species belonging to the
same genus, the trivial names of the two
parents united by the sign of multiplication
may be placed in round brackets (parentheses)
and cited immediately after the name of the
common genus. Example : Tetrao {tetrix
X urogallus)."

(b) Section (6), at end: — Substitute the words " who
first puiaUshed a description of the hybrid as
such " for the words " who first recognised
the hybrid torm as such " ;

1th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

213

Names published
either anony-
mously or over
initials only :
status under the
Law of Priority

(c) Section (c), after the example at present cited:
add the words : —

Tetrao tetrix

"or X GaUus gallus"

Tetrao urogaUus

(d) Section (d), at the beginning : — Substitute the
words " When the identity of either of the
parents of a hybrid is not incontestably
estabHshed both as to species and sex " for
the words " when the parents of a hybrid are not
known as such " and after the words " specific
name " add the words : "a name so given
being subject to all the provisions governing
specific names."

14. THE COMMISSION had under consideration
the status of names (generic and trivial) published either
anonymously or over initials only (file Z.N. (S.) 84) and
in this connection had before them a note submitted by
the Secretary in Point (25) in Commission Paper I.C. (48)14.

It was clearly most undesirable that new names should
be published either anonymously or over initials only,
for the publication of a name in this way made it difficult
for later authors clearly to cite that name. On the other
liand there was nothing in the existing text of Article 25
(Law of Priority) to suggest, still less to prescribe, that a
name published in this way forfeited the rights which it
would otherwise have possessed under the Law of Priority.
It was suggested that Article 25 should be amended to
secure that in future a name so published should have no
rights under the Law of Priority until such later date as it
was republished by an author whose name was stated in
the paper in which the name was so re-published. It was
felt, however, that it would not be practicable or desirable
to give retroactive effect to this provision, for in the older
literature there was a number of important books which
had lieen published anonymously. One example of such a
book was the celebrated work on the Lepidoptera of Europe,
commonly known as the " Vienna Catalogue " which was
published anonymously in 1775 by (as was now known)
the two Viennese priests Schiffermiiller and Denis. If this
book were to be ruled out for the purposes of the Law of
Priority, numerous well-known names would cease to be
available, the type localities of many other species would
have to be changed and great confusion would ensue. It
was accordingly proposed that the new provision ruling out
for availability names until they had been published in a
work, in which the author's name was given should come
into effect as from the same future date as that selected as

214 InternatioTivil Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

the date on which other new provisions now proposed to be
inserted in the Regies should become operative.
THE C0:\1MISSI0N agreed to recommend :—

(1) that Article 25 should be amended in such a way
as to make it clear : —

(a) that, when, prior to midnight Greenwich
Mean Time, 31s< December 1950/ls< Janu-
ary 1951, a name belonging to a category,
to which Article 25 applies, is published
anonymously, over a pseudonym or over
initials only, that name, notwithstanding
its having been so published, is to be
accepted as having availability under
Article 25, provided that its manner of
publication satisfies the requirements speci-
fied in that Article ;

(b) that, when, subsequent to the point of time
specified in (a) above, a name belonging to a
category, to which Article 25 applies, is
published anonymously, over a pseudonpn
or over initials only, that name is to have no
availability under Article 25 until such
later date as it is re-published by the same
or some other author in a book or paper in
which that author's name is given ;

(c) that the fact of re-publication by a named
author shall be sufficient to confer avail-
ability upon the name in question for the
purposes of Article 25, provided either : —

(i) that the author by whom the name is
republished complies, when so doing,
with the requirements specified in
Provisos (b) and (c) to Article 25, or
(ii) in cases where the foregoing require-
ments had been duly compUed with
in the earlier book or paper in which
the name had been published anony-
mously, over a pseudonym or over
initials only, that the author by
whom the name is republished cites,
when so doing, a bibhographical
reference to the book or paper in
which the name had previously
been published anonymously, over
a pseudonym or over initials only ;
(d) that, when a name originally published
anonymously, over a pseudonym or over
initials acquires availability under Article 25

Ith Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 215

through being republished in the manner
specified m (c) above, that name shall rank
for purposes of priority as from the date on
which It so acquired such availability and
shall be attributed to the author of the book or
paper, the pubHcation of which conferred
/o\ ^u ^^^^^^^'^ilability upon the name in question ;
(Z) that a Recommandation should be inserted in the
portion of Article 25 containing the provisions
specifted in (1) above, recommending authors
when citing a book or paper which was published
anonymously, over a pseudonym or over initials
only, but the author of which is known from other
sources or when citing the name of a taxonomic
unit published in such a book or paper prior to
the date specified in (l)(a) above, to place square
brackets round the name of the author of the
book or paper concerned or. as the case may be
round the name of the author of the taxonomic
unit cited, in order to indicate that the work or
name concerned had originally been published
anonymously, over a pseudonym or over initials
only;

(3) that a Recomtmndation should be added to the
portion of Article 25 containing the provisions
specified m (1) above recommending that every
author, on validating a name previously published
anonymously, over a pseudonym or over initials
only by republishing that name in the manner
specified in (1) above, should make it clear in
the book or paper concerned that he is conferrin^r
availability upon the name in question and
should notify the fact that availability under
Article 25 has been so conferred upon the name in
question to a literature-recording serial such as the
Zoological Record " as soon as possible after
the publication of the book or paper concerned
either by sending to that serial a marked copy
of that book or paper or otherwise, so that the
fact that the name in question has acquired
availability under Article 25 may be recorded
in the next issue of that serial ;
(4) that the provisions in (1) to (3) above should applv
'"^'«<'s mutandis to names formed under Article i
(meanlnVofthe ,. ^^r ™ COMMISSION had under consideration a

expression Justorical account of the deliberations of the Commission

J^&'onT ""' !T '''' -.the question of the meaning to be attached
to the expression - divulgue dans une publication " as used
in Article 25, submitted by the Secretary to the Commission.

2 IP International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

together with proposals for action, in Point (26) in Com
mission Paper 1.0.(48)14.

The lack of an aHthoritative definition of what consti-
tutes publication for the purposes of zoological nomenclature
was a constant source of difficulty for zoologists, and the
failure of the Commission adequately to grapple with this
problem had led to much well-merited criticism. A start
had been made in 1910 (in Opinion 15) and the matter had
been carried a little further two years later when in 1912
Opinion 51 had been pubHshed. Nothing more was done
in this matter until some years after the close of the war
of 1914-18. In the late twenties, however, the subject was
extensively discussed between the members of the Com-
mission and in 1930 this subject (which by then had been
given the reference number " 1930H ") was the subject of
a tentative proposal which had shortly before lieen published
by Dr. C. W. Stiles, then Secretary to the Commission
(Trans. IV int. Congr. Entom. : 628-629). Though brought
before the Commission at their meeting held in Padua in
] 930, this matter was not discussed at that meeting. It was
not even placed on the Agenda for the Lisbon meeting in
1935. Although the proposal put forward in 1930 had been
shelved at that time, the proposal itself raised a number of
valuable points to which careful consideration had been
given durmg the recent re-examination of this subject. The
correspondence which had led up to that proposal (file
Z.N.(S.)84), though incomplete, had also proved of great
interest.

The proposition laid down in 1910 (in Opinion 15) was
that : " Publication, in the sense of the Code, consists in
the pubHc issue of printed matter." In 1912 (in Opinion 51)
the Commission had re-stated the proposition enimciated
two years earlier and had added : " The qualifying word
' public ' in this definition indicates that the printed matter
in question is not intended for special persons only or for a
limited time, but that it is given to the world, or used in the
nature of a permanent record." In the 36 years which had
elapsed since the publication of the more recent of these
Opinions, a development had occurred which had not been
anticipated by the Commission, namely the publication — if
it could properly be called " publication " — of new names
in books and papers reproduced by some method (e.g.
photographic and lithographic processes of various kinds,
mimeographing and similar systems) other than printing.
Some of these methods were extremely unsatisfactory but
others attained a high degree of technical excellence. It
would be unreasonable to accept new names appearing in
papers reproduced by methods falling in the first of these

1th Meting, Paris, Jtdy, 1948. 217

classes, but it would be equally unreasonable to reject new
names appearing in papers reproduced by methods falling
in the second of these classes, some of the methods of repro-
duction being fully as good as printing, the finished paper
being indeed better than some papers reproduced by actual
printing. The preliminary definitions given in 1910 and
1912 needed, therefore, to be reviewed from this point of
view.

The proposals now submitted had been the subject of
extensive consultations with specialists, both by corres-
pondence and by personal discussion notably during the
\dsit paid by the Secretary to the United States and Canada
at the end of 1947. These consultations had led to certain
modifications of the proposals previously considered. For
example, it was evident that it would not be appropriate
to require that, in order for a paper to qualify as ha\ang
been " published," at least some copies must have been
placed on sale, for it had then been ascertained that certain
University institutions in the United States distributed the
whole edition of their publications free of charge, no copies
being placed on sale. It would clearly be wrong so to define
" pubhcation " as to render invalid, because not " pub-
lished," new names appearing in papers which had been
" divulgues " in this way.

Finally, the whole subject had been carefully reviewed
in order to exclude provisions of a " ritualistic " character,
that is to say technical provisions, the non-compliance with
which would have the effect of invahdating names. With
this object in view, the proposals had been drawn up in two
groups : (1) mandatory provisions specifying the minimum
standard which must be complied with in order to enable a
book or paper to qualify as having been published and
therefore to ensure that a new name which appeared therein
had been duly " divulgue dans une publication " ; (2) Hon-
mandatory provisions to be inserted in Article 25 as
Recommandations setting out the ideal standard to be aimed
at.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to recommend : —

(a) that, either in Article 25 or at some other
appropriate point in the Regies, there should
be inserted provisions prescribing : —

(i) that a name made public, prior to
midnight G.M.T. {Greemoich Mean
Time), Z\st December, 1950/lsf Janu-
arij, 1951, is to be deemed to have
been made pubUc in a publication

218 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

(" divulgue dans une publication ")
only if the document containing the
name satisfies both of the following
conditions : —

(a) it must have been reproduced
either by printing or by some
other mechanical method of
reproduction which secures that
every copy is identical with
every other copy ;

{0) it must be a document issued
for purposes of record and
therefore of consultation by
interested persons and must
accordingly not be a document
issued for exclusive considera-
tion by special persons only,
or only for particular purposes
or for a limited time ;

(ii) that a name made pubUc, subsequent
to the point of time specified in (i)
above, is to be deemed to have been
made public in a publication
("divulgue dans une publication"),
only if the document containing the
name satisfies all of the following
conditions : —

(u) it must have been made public
in conditions which satisfy the
requirements both of section
(a) and of section O) of (i)
above ;

(/8) it must be reproduced on paper,
and with ink, of quality and
durability sufficient to offer a
reasonable prospect of per-
manency ;

(y) where the document containing
the name is distributed by, or
on behalf of, its author to
certain selected persons, at
least some copies must also be
placed on sale or made avail-
able for issue free of charge to
any institution or person who
may apply for a copy ;

1th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

219

(iii) that, where there is any reasonable
doubt as to whether a given book or
paper has been made pubUc in con-
ditions which satisfy the requirements
of section (i) or section (ii) above, as
the case may be, and therefore as to
whether new names contained therein
have been made pubUc in a pubhca-
tion ("divulgue dans une pubUca-
tion"), the question should be
referred forthwith to the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature for decision;
(b) that, associated with the provisions specified
in (a) above, provisions should be inserted
in the Regies making it clear that a new name
is not to be deemed to have been made
pubhc in a pubUcation (" divulgue dans une
publication ") if the only action or actions
to make that name pubUc consists ot :—
(i) the deposit of the paper contammg
the new name in a public Ubrary or m
the library of a scientific institution,
however that document may have
been reproduced ;
(ii) the mention of the new name in a
paper presented orally before a
meeting of any kind ;
(iii) the aflhxing of the new name on the
label attached to a museum specunen;
(c) that the provisions specified in (b) above
should be Unked with the undermentioned
provisions which it had abeady been agreed
at the present Session should be mserted m
the Regies, namely the provisions relatmg
to the status of a new name when the only
action taken to make that name pubhc
consists of: — . <?

(i) the distribution of prmter s proot
sheets of the book or paper contammg
the new name (Paris Session, 6th
Meeting, Conclusion 19(a) ) ;
(ii) the distribution oUeparata m advance
of the appearance of the paper m
question in the book or serial, for
inclusion in which it was printed
(Paris Session, 6th Meetmg, Con-
clusion 19(b) ) ;

220 International Commission an Zoological Notnenclature.

(iii) the introduction of the new name in
a note in explanation of a photograph
or other illustration, where that note
and accompanying photograph or
other illustration is merely dis-
tributed by the author to colleagues
or students or inserted by him in
separates of a paper which did not
itself contain the new name accom-
panied by an indication (Paris Session
6th Meeting, Conclusion 19(c) ) ;

(iv) the inclusion of the new name in a
book or paper published anony-
mously or over a pseudonym or
initials only, where that book or paper
is pubhshed subsequent to midnight
(G.M.T.), 31st December, 1950/lst
January, 1951 (Paris Session, 7th
Meeting, Conclusion 14(l)(b)) ;

(d) that there should be added to the provisions
specified in (a) above a Recommandation,
urging institutions and individuals respon-
sible for the pubhcation of books and papers
affecting the status of names to secure that
there appears in the book or, as the case
may be, the part of the book or serial
affecting, or comprising papers affecting,
such names, a clear statement specifying : —

(i) the name of the institution, firm or
individual responsible for publishing
the book or serial concerned ;

(ii) the address from which the book or
serial concerned may be purchased
or, where the book or serial is not
placed on sale, the address from which
a free copy may be obtained ;

(iii) the price for which a copy may be
purchased, in those cases where the
book or serial is placed on sale ;

(e) that there should be added to the provisions
specified in (a) above a Recmmnandation
urging institutions, authors and other
persons responsible for the publication of
books and serials on zoological or
palaeontological subjects to avoid pubhsh-
ing anything affecting the status of names

7th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

221

( Pre vio us refere no- :
Paris Session,
4lh Meeting,
Conclusion 3(3) (a)
(ii))

iu books or serials reproduced by any
method other than printing ;

(f) that there should be added to the provisions
specified in (a) above a Recommandation
urging authors not to publish in the non-
scientific press zoological or palaeontological
papers containing new names ;

(g) that the first sentence (relating to the
languages recommended as the only lan-
guages to be used for describing new
systematic units) of Section " A " of the
Appendice to the Regies (in future to be
known, in accordance with the decision
noted in margin, as the " Second Schedule "
to the Regies) should be deleted and that, iu
order to give greater prominence to this
important question, there should be added
to Article 25 a Recomnumdation urging that
in every book or paper containing the name
of a new genus, subgenus, species, subspecies
or infra-subspecific form or a new name for
any unit belonging to any of the foregoing
categories, the existing name of which
requires to be replaced under the Law of
Homonymy, the description, definition or
indication published for the unit to which
the new name is given should be published
in one or other of the five following
languages, namely, German, English, French,
Italian or Latin, in addition to the
language in which the book or paper is
written, when that language is not one of
the five languages specified above ;

(2) to repeal Opinions 15 and 51 for interpretative
purposes.

Names of new
taxonomic units
published in
abstracts in advance
of the paper or of the
portion of the paper
containing the
description of the
new unit : status of

16. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
conmiunication submitted by Dr. Waldo L. Schmitt
(Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.) regarding the
status of names published in abstracts in advance of the
paper containing the description of the new taxonomic
unit concerned (file Z.N.(S.)262), together with a proposal
on this subject submitted by the Secretary to the Com-
mission in Point (27) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)14.

Formerly, new names had often been published by
learned societies in abstracts printed and distributed before
the meeting at which the paper containing the new names

222

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

was to be presented. This practice had led to difficulties,
for it had often involved the publication either of nomina
nuda or of names of genera and species so inadequately
characterised that it was a matter of doubt and dispute
whether the name had been pubUshed with an indication,
within the meaning of Article 25 of the Regies. It had,
moreover, often been a matter of difficulty to determine
whether a new name made pubUc in this way had been
" divulgue dans une pubUcation " within the meaning of
Article 25 and therefore whether it possessed any avail-
ability under the Law of Priority. This method of publish-
ing new names was open to strong objection and should be
discouraged. SunUar objections applied to the pubUcation
of a new name in an abstract or summary at the head of a
paper and to the pubhcation of a new name in the intro-
ductory portion of a paper in advance of the description of
the new taxonomic unit concerned.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that a Recommandation should be added to Article 25
of the Regies, urging institutions and individuals
responsible for the publication of books or papers
containing new names to refrain from publishing those
names for the first time either (1) in abstracts issued
in advance of the pubUcation of the book or paper
containing the description of the taxonomic imit so
named or (2) in abstracts placed at the head of the
book or paper containing the description of the new
taxonomic unit or in the introductory portions of the
book or paper concerned in advance of the actual
description of the new taxonomic unit.

Generic and
trivial names
first published in
keys : status of

17. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
commmiication submitted by Dr. Waldo L. Schmitt
(Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.) regarding the
status of generic and trivial names first pubUshed in keys
(file Z.N.(S.)262), together with a proposal on this subject
submitted by the Secretary to the Commission in Point (28)
in Commission Paper I.C.(48)14.

It would clearly be wTong to refuse to accept names of
new genera or species when those names were first pubUshed
in keys. Nevertheless, this method of pubUshing new
names was open to objection, for this method of publication
made it difficult, and, in the case of trivial names, \'irtuaUy
impossible, properly to comply with the requirements of
Article 25 of the Regies. It was desirable therefore that this
method of publishing new names should be discouraged.

7th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

223

Article 25 (criteria
to be adopted in
determining the
date of

publication of a
given book or
paper)

{ Previous reference.
Farts Session,
Ith Meeting,
Conclusion 15)

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—
that a Recommandation should be added to Article 25
urging authors not to publish new names for the first
time in keys, or, if it were desired to publish such
names in a book or paper which contained, or consisted
primarily of, a key, to pubhsh those names with
accompanying descriptions at the beginning of the
book or paper concerned and in advance of the key.

18. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
note on the question of the criteria to be adopted in
determining the date of publication of a given book or paper,
submitted by the Secretary to the Commission in Point (29)
in Commission Paper I. C. (48)14.

It was explained that the question of the meaning of the
expression " date of publication " and the criteria to be
adopted for determining, for any given book or paper, what
was the date of its pubUcation, had received some considera-
tion from the Commission when, during the inter- war years,
they had examined the cognate problem of the criteria to
be adopted for determming whether or not a given book or
paper had been pubHshed at all and therefore whether new
names appearing therein had been duly made public in a
publication (" divulgue dans une publication ") for the
purposes of Article 25 (file Z.N.(S.)84). No effective
progress had, however, been made in this matter and
zoologists had been left without any guidance as to the line
which they should follow when it was impossible to deter-
mine with certainty the relative dates either of two names,
each applying to the same unit, or of the same name applied
to different taxonomic units. The object of the present
proposals was to fill this gap by inserting in the Regies
simple riUes which followed the general lines of the
unofficial practice of zoologists in this matter.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—
the insertion in or near Ai'ticle 25 of the following
provisions : —

(a) the date on which copies of a work (the expression
'■ work " for the purpose of the present provision
and of provisions (b) and (c) below, to inchule any
independent work or serial publication or, in either
case, a volume or part thereof) produced in con-
ditions which constitute publication are mailed to
subscribers or are placed on sale or, where the whole
edition is distributed free of charge, are mailed to
institutions and individuals to whom such free
copies are normally distriljuted. is to be taken to
be the date of |)ublicatioii of that work.

(b) where a work bears a date purporting to sjjecify or
to indicate the date of pul)lication, that date is to
be deemed to be correct, unless and until evitlence is
published showing that date to be incorrect, in which

v'OL. 4 p

Inter nut io)(al Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

ease tlie work or any specified portion thereof is to
be deemed to have be«n published on the latest
date (v^hether eai-lier or later than the date specified
or indicated in the work itself) that is compatible
with the evidence so adduced ;

(c) where there is no evidence to suggest that the date
specified or indicated in a given work is incorrect,
the date as on which that work is to be deemed to
have been published is to be determined in ac-
cordance with the following rules : —

(i) a work which bears a statement of the year,
month and day of publication is to be deemed
to have been published on the date so specified ;

(ii) a work which bears a statement of the year
and month, but not of the tlay of publication
is to be deemed to have been published on the
last ilay of the month so sj)ecified, save where
evidence is published showing that publica-
tion took place during the month in question
on some day prior to the last day, in which
case the work in question is to be deemed to
have been published on the latest day compat-
ible with the evidence so adduced ;
(iii) a work which bears a statement of the year
but not of the month and day of publication
is to be deemed to have been published on the
last day of the last month of that year, save
where evidence is published showing that
publication of the whole or of some portion
or portions of the work concerned took place
during the year in question but jjrior to the
last day thereof, in which case the work or
the portion or portions concerned is, or are,
to be deemed to have been published on the
latest date compatible with the evidence so
adduced, any portion of such a work in
respect of which no such supplementary
evidence regarding the date of publication is
forthcoming is to be deemed, as provided
above, to have been published on the last
day of the last month of the year concerned ;
(iv) a work which contains no evidence regarding
the date on which it was published, except
a range of years, specified on the title page
or elsewhere, is to be deemed to have been
published on the last day of the last month of
the later, or, as the ease may be. the latest of
the years so specified, save that, where
evidence is jjublished showing that a portion,
or that portions, of that work, was. or. as
the case may be, were, published prior to the
date specified above, each portion concerned
is to be deemed to have been published on the
latest date compatible with the evidence so
adduced, any portion of the work in respect
of which no such supplementary evidence
regariling the date of publication is forth-
coming to be deemed, as provided above,
to have been published on the last day of the
last month of the later, or. as the case may
be. the latest of the yeai's specified in the
range of years given in work concerned ;
(d) where e work contains no direct evidence regarding
the date on which it. or any })ortion of it, was pub-
lished, the date of ])ublicati(m is to be determined

Date of publication
of a name :
method of citation
recommended

VOL. 4 p2

1th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 225

by reference to sueli evidence as may be available
troni other sources, including evidence afforded by
the date of pubheation of the first ])ublished book
or serial publication or portion thereof containing a
reference to the work in question or any j.ortTon
thereof, the date to be adopted as the date of pub-
evrdence " ^''^^^ "^^^^ compatible with such

19. THE COMMISSION turned next to consicler the
proposals for the insertion in the Reyles of Reco„nnandutioHs
regarding the method of notation to be adopted by authors
Mdien citing the date of pubheation of a given name, for the
purpose of distinguishing between (1) a date expressly
specihed in the volume in which the name concerned was
farst published, (2) a date ascertamed from indirect evidence
obtained from an examination of the volume in question
and (.3) a date ascertained solely by reference to external
sources file Z.N.(S.)84). In this connection, the Commission
.liad before them certain proposals submitted by the
,Zn'J ^« the Commission in the second portion of rt,int
(jy) ot Commission Paper I.C.(48)14.

It was pointed out in discussion that care would be
needed in the choice of the wording to be used in the
Regies to give effect to the present proposals, owing to the fact
that the expression " bracket " was used in different senses in
I^ngland and America, in the former country this expression
having the meaning of a sign, either semilunar or square
used to divide off certain words in a sentence from other
parts of the sentence, the word " bracket " being qualified
by the adjective " round " or "square " according to the
torm of the sign used, whereas in America onlv the square
sign (called a square bracket " in England) was denoted
by the expression " bracket," the semilunar form beiny ■
denoted by the expression " parenthesis."

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :-
that there should be added to the mandatory pro-
visions recommended in Conclusion 18 above a
Recommandation urging authors when cithi<r the
date of publication of a name :— ""

(a) to refrain from placing either semilunar signs •
(i.e. parentheses or round brackets) or square
signs (i.e. square brackets) round the date of
pubheation of a name, if that date is given on
the title page of the volume containing the
name or in an express statement regarding the
date of publication of the volume or of the parts
in which that volume was published, where
such a statement is included in the volume
itself ;

226

Inlenialional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

(b) to enclose within semilunar signs (i.e. paren-
theses or round brackets) the date of publication
of a name or a part of that date (e.g. the month
of pubhcation), where that date or that part of
that date cannot be ascertained directly in the
manner specified in (a) above, but can be
ascertained indirectly by reference to other
evidence afforded by the volume in which the
name was originally published, e.g. evidence
afforded by dates either printed on the first
pages of individual signatures or on the
wrappers (covers) in which successive portions
of the volume were pubUshed ;

(c) to enclose within square signs (i.e. square brac-
kets) the date of pubhcation of a name or a part
of such a date (e.g. the month of publication),
where that date or that part of a date cannot be
ascertained either directly or indirectly in the
manner specified respectively in (a) and (b)
above and can be determined only by reference
to external sources of evidence.

Article 25 (priority
to be accorded to
a name published in
a work issued in
instalments where
that name is pub-
lished on one date
and the relevant
description or part
of it at a later date)

(Later reference:
Paris Session,
llih Meeting,
Conclusion 12)

20. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
question of the priority to be accorded to names published
in books or journals issued in instalments, in those cases
where a new name appears in one instalment and the
description of the taxonomic unit so named or a part of that
description appears in a later instalment (file Z.N.(S.)352).
In this connection, the Conuuission had before them a
proposal submitted by the Secretary to the Commission in
Point (30) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)U.

No difficulty arose where a name was published without
any description, definition or indication in the portion of
the text of a book issued in one instalment, the whole of the
description, definition or indication being published in a
later instalment, for in that case the name, as published in
the earlier instalment, was a nomen nudum. Clearly in
such a case the name in question could rank for purposes of
priority only from the date of pubhcation of the later
instalment containmg the description, definition or indica-
tion of the taxonomic unit to which the new name was
applied. There was, however, a real difficulty in those
cases where a new name appeared in one instalment of a
work and that instalment contained part only of the
description, definition or indication, the remaining part
appearing on the first page of the next instalment. In
such cases the criterion to be applied should be whether
the descriptive matter given in the first instalment

1th Meetiufi, Paris, July, 1948.

227

Article 25
(status of a
trivial name
published in
conjunction with a
generic name which
does not comply
with the
requirements of
Proviso (c) )

was .suliicieut to afford an indication for the purposes
of Article 25 of the Regies. The question was of some
importance, for owing to the interval which sometimes
occurred between the publication of successive parts of a
given work, cases might arise where the relative priority
of two names for (say) the same species or subspecies might
turn on the answer to be given to the foregoing question,

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

( 1 ) that there should be added to Article 25 a provision
that, where a new taxonomic unit to which that
Article applies is described in a book or serial
which is published in parts and the name of the
taxonomic unit is published in one instahiient and
the description, definition or indication relating to
the taxonomic unit so named is published partly
in the instalment in which the name is published
and partly in the next succeeding instalment, the
name is to rank for purposes of the Law of Priority
as from the date of publication of the later
published of the parts concerned, except where
the portion of the description, definition or
indication contained in the earlier published part
is sufficient to comply with the requirements of
Article 25 ;

(2) that there should be added to the mandatory
provision recommended in (1) above a Recom-
mandation urging institutions and individuals
responsible for the publication of books or
serials containing new names to ensure that,
where a book or serial is published in parts, the
description of a new taxonomic unit, belonging to
a category to the names of which Article 25 applies,
is not cut into two portions, the first portion being
published at the end of one instalment and the
remainder at the beginning of the next succeeding
instalment.

21. THE COMMISSION had under consideration
coninmnications in regard to the status of a trivial name
published subsequent to 31st December, 1930, in cases
where the generic name used in conjunction with the trivial
name in question is invalid by reason of its not satisfying
the requirements of Proviso (c) to Article 25 received (a)
from President Karl Jordan and (b) from specialists in the
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (file Z.N.(S.)315),
together with a note on the same subject submitted by the
Secretarv to the Commission in Point (31) in Commission
Paper I.C.(48)14.

228

International Co7nmisfiion on Zoological Nomenclature.

Schedule replacing
the former
" Appendice "
to the " Regies " :
proposed addition
to, of a section
on the

transliteration of
words from the
Cyrillic to the
Latin alphabet

{Previous reference:
Pan's Session,
4th Meeliiiff,
Conclusion 3(3){a) (ii))

In view of the fact that doubts had been raised as to the
correct interpretation of Article 25 in relation to trivial
names published in the manner described above, it was
clearly desirable that words should be inserted in Article 25
to make the position absolutely clear. As regards the
nature of that action, it would clearly be " ritualistic " in
the highest degree to prescribe that a trivial name published
in the foregoing circumstances is invalid and possesses no
status under the Law of Priority until such later time as it is
republished in a binominal combination in which the generic
name was a nomenclatorially available name. Moreover,
such a decision would have the further serious disadvantage
that it would make it necessary to provide also that a
trivial name published in a binominal combination in which
the generic name was invalid by reason of being a homonym
was itself invalid until such later time as it was republished
in combination with a generic name which was a nomen-
clatorially available name.

THE COMMISSION agreed to reconunend :—

that words should be inserted in Article 25 to make
it clear that the status of a trivial name (specific,
subspecific or infra-subspecific) is not adversely
affected where the generic name with which it was
combined when first published is a name which was
itself either an unavailable name by reason of its
having been published in conditions which do not
satisfy the requirements of Article 25 (Law of Priority)
(proviso (c) cases) or was invalid under the Law of
Homonymy.

22. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N.(S.)310) that there should be added to the
Appendice to the Regies a section giving particulars as to the
manner in which words belonging to languages using the
Cyrillic alphabet should be transliterated into the Latin
alphabet in cases where words belonging to such languages
were selected to form the basis of generic or trivial names
and had therefore to be Latinised in accordance with the
provisions of Article 3. In this connection, the Commission
had before it also a note submitted by the Secretary to the
Commission in Point (32) in Commission Paper I. C. (48)14.

It was pointed out that the Appendice to the Regies
(henceforward, as agreed upon at the meeting noted in the
margin, to be a Schedule to the Regies) contained a Section
prescribing the manner in which words of Greek origin
should be transliterated into the Latin alphabet in cases
where such woids required Latinisation as a preliminary
to being used as generic or trivial names, and that it was

7/// Mccliuff, Parii, July, 1948.

229

(Previous refereiire:
Paris Session,
Mh Meeting.
Conclusion 3)

etiiially (l('sinil)l(' to provide a corrcsfiondiiif;; Section relating
to the transliteration for the same purpose of words
belonging to languages using the Cyrillic alphabet. The
rules governing the transliteration of such words were
known to very few persons not personally acquainted with
languages using the Cyrillic alphabet ; the growing number
of scientific names based upon such words made it in-
creasingly necessary to provide guidance on this subject.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

( 1 ) that there should be added to the Schedule which
it had been agreed should replace the existing
Appendice to the Regies a Section setting out the
manner in which words belonging to languages
using the Cyrillic alphabet should be transliterated
into the Latin alphabet, for the purpose of
forming zoological names in accordance with the
provisions of Article .3 ;

(2) that, consequential upon (1) above, the Section
forming Section G to the present Appendice should
be amended so as to exclude from the scope of the
recommendations set forth therein geographical
and proper names originating in languages using
the C\Tillic or Greek alphabets (for the first of
which provision would be made under (1) above,
while, for the second, provision had already been
made in Section F of the Appemlice) and to .secure
that the recommendations set forth in this
Section should relate to the proper method of
transliteration into the Latin alphabet only of
geographical and proper names originating in
languages which either used alphabets other than
those .specified above or which had no recognised
alphabet.

Eighth Meeting of
the Commission
during its Paris
Session : date and
time noted

(Previous referenrc:
Paris Session :
t'tlli Meeting,
( 'nnrlusion 77)

23. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS

HEMMING) proposed that, now that the examination of
C'onnni.ssion Paper I.C.(48)14 had been completed, the
Comniission .should adjourn for the day. As already
arranged, the next meeting of the Commission, which would
i>e held concurrently with the First Meeting of the Section on
Nomenclature, would take place on the morning of the
following day (Friday. 2.3rd July. 1948) at 0900 hours.

THE COMMISSION took note of the above arrange-
ments.

( The Commission thereupon adjourned td 2250 hours)

( 230 )

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Session held during the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology,
Paris, 21st-27th July, 1948

CONCLUSIONS of the Eighth Meeting held at the Sorbonne in the
Amphitheatre Louis-Liard on Friday, 23rd July, 1948, at 0900 hours

{Meeting held concurrently with the First Meeting of the Section on Nomenclature)

PRESENT :

Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) (Acting President)

Professor E. Beltran (Mexico)

Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands)

Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.)

Professor L. di Caporiacco (Italy)

Professor Harold Kirby (U.S.A.)

Mr. N. D. Riley (United Kingdom)

Professor R. Sparck (Denmark)

Professor V. van Straelen (Belgium)

Professor Robert L. Usinger (U.S.A.)

The following were also present :
M. H. Berthet (France)
Dr. E. A. Chapin (U.S.A.)
M. Andre Chavan (France)
Mr. J. Delacour (U.S.A.)
Mr. C. F. dos Passos (U.S.A.)
Professor E. Raymond Hall (U.S.A.)
Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark)
Mr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (United Kingdom)
Miss Louise Russell (U.S.A.)

Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming, Personal Assistant to the Secretary
Miss J. H. Shorey, Acting Documents Officer

Procedure proposed 1. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
'"reVenf (d*hthT *''* HEMMINCx) said that the present meeting ol the Com-
Meeting mission was a public meeting held concurrently with the

first meeting of the Section on Nomenclature. All the
matters which would be brought forward would be of
interest to the Commission as a body, and he proposed there-
fore that the Commission should remain in continuous
session throughout the meeting. He (the Acting President)
anticipated that matters might be brought before the Section
during the joint meeting on which the Commission might

Sth Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

231

Emendation to
Psolos of the
spelling of the
generic name
Psodos Treitschke,
1827 (Class Insecta,
Order Lepidoptera):
M. H. Berthet's
proposal

feel tliat, if thoy were given the necessary opportunity, they
would be able to reach an immediate decision which could
then be reported back to the Section forthwith. If the
discussion were to develop in this way, it was his intention,
in his capacity as President of the Section, to invite the
Section formally to adjourn to enable the Commission to
consider matters so brought forward. Those members of
the Section who were not members also of the Commission
would remain in their places during any such adjournment
and would be free, as at the previous public meetings
of the Commission, to take part in the discussion of the
Commission to such extent as they might desire.

THE COMMISSION :—

took note of, and approved, the procedure propo.sed
by the Acting President.

2. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal submitted by M. H. Berthet (Paris, France) that
they should render an Opinion declaring that under Article
19 of the Regies the spelling of the generic name Psodos
Treitschke, 1827 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) should
be emended to Psolos (file Z.N.(S.)362).2

THE COMMISSION agreed :- ■

(1) to render an Opinion stating that the spelling
Psoidos Treitschke, 1825, and the spelling Psodos
Treitschke, 1827 (Class Insecta^ Order Lepidoptera)
were erroneous and should be emended to Psolos
under the provisions of Article 19 of the Regies.

(2) to place the name Psolos (emend, of Psoidos and
Psodos) Treitschke, 1825 in Ochsenheimer,
Schmett. Europa 5 (Abth. 2) : 434 (type species :
Phalaena equestrata Fabricius, 1777, Geyi. Ins. :
288) (type spocies selected by Duponchel, 1829, in
Godart, Hist. nat. Lepid. France 7(2) : 112) on the
" Official List of Generic Names in Zoology."

Extension, and
incorporation in
the " Regies ", of
the provisions
relating to the
Commission's
plenary powers :
Dr. H. Lemche's
proposal

3. THE COMMISSION, jointly with the Section on
Nomenclature, had under consideration a communication
(file Z.N.(S.)359) submitted by Dr. Henning Lemche
(Copenhagen, Denmark) on behalf not only of himself but
also of a large group of Scandinavian zoologists, in which
the applicants asked that there should be inserted in the
Regies a provision embodying, and at the same time expand-

= For the text of the communication made by M. Berthet, see page 157 of Volume 3 of this
journal, and for the record of the discussion in the Section on Nomenclature, see pages 3-5 of
Volume 5.

232

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

{See Section on
yomeiiclaliire
Paris Session
1st Meeting,
Minute 3)

{Preriotui reference:
Paris Session.
:ird Meeting.
Conclusion 7)

{Previous reference:
Paris Session,
'Ard Meeting,
Conclusions l-fi, S)

ing the scoj)e of. the provisions of the Resohition adopted
by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meetuig held at Monaco in 1913. under which plenary
powers to suspend the provisions of the Regies in certain
cases were conferred upon the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.'

A long discussion (which is fully reported in the Minutes
of the Meeting of the Section on Nomenclature) then ensued,
in the course of which the ACTING PRESIDENT (:MR.
FRANCIS HEMMING), in his capacity as President of the
Section, submitted for approval the more modest proposals
for dealing with the problem of the plenary powers which the
Commission had agreed to submit when they had had
Commission Paper I. C. (48)5 under consideration, together
with the proposals of the Commission for the reform of the
composition of the Commission (based upon the proposals in
Commission Paper I. C. (48)3) and for the introduction of
improvements in the procedure of the Commission when
dealing with applications submitted to it for decision (based
on the proposals submitted in Commission Paper I.C.(48)4.
At the conclusion of this discussion. Mr. LEMCHP]
(Denmark) intimated that, while the proposals submitted
by the Commission for the reform of the plenary powers
procedure did not go as far as he and liis colleagues had
advocated, he recognised that the reformed procedure was a
great improvement on that laid down in 1913. The Section
on Nomenclature thereon unanimously approved the recom-
mendations submitted by the Commission :^

THE COMMISSION took note :—

that, in view of the outcome of the discussion in the
Section on Nomenclature on the proposal for the
extension of the plenary powers submitted by Dr.
Henning Lemche (Denmark), no action was called
for on the part of the Commission.

Incorporation in

the " Regies "

of a provision

establishing a

Law of

Prescription

limiting the scope
of the Law of
Priority : proposals
of Dr. H. Lemche and
Professor P. Bonnet

4. THE COMMISSION, jointly with the Section on
Nomenclature, had under consideration a communication
(file Z.N.(S.)359) submitted by Dr. Henning Lemche
(Copenhagen, Denmark) on behalf not only of himself l)ut
also of a large group of Scandinavian zoologists, in which
the applicants asked that a provision should be inserted
in the Regies limiting the Law of Priority, in its
application to names published prior to the year 1850 but
not used subsequent to that date, by a Law of Prescription

' For the text of the comiminicatioii madejbv Dr. Henning Lemehe. see passes 158, 159-lfil
of Vohiuie 3 of this journal, and for the record of the discussion in the Section on Xomenclature.
see pages 5-1.3 of N'ohime 5.

(See Serf ion on

m Meetim,, Pari,, July, 1948. .„o

Zoo

t:t ::;l;l.ii;™;:;r"^;i;:f - ' -'«ti.u,„i &,

and the Section ha un.l,.;! """'™' 'I-" '^'"n'mmion

.Vo;«^«r/„^,... . ,/^ The course of a long discussion (mh\n\. \. . ^ •

I'nris, Session. fi'H m the Minutes of the Sp.f- ^ ^r '^ ^^P^'^'ted m

]./ J/..,;„,. hecame evident tl nl n„.i ^^^^^o^on Nomenclature) it

"""'' *) stron..ly that Ion- ""'"^^ous members of the Section felt

secure" greater ^ZS'T'^' T'^'' «^-"W be found to
in.posm'g some res Ei^n "''"If "^ ''''' '^ '^^' "^--"t
Priority: No menlTr 7th?r.'''' ''T "^ '^'' ^aw of
continuance of the nrese . r''"" T"^'" "^ ^^^^^"^ «f the
Priority not only S,T tn^ '"' T^'' ^^'^^^ ^^e Law of
^.self Actively Ztrumntal Tr^^' ""^°™'*^ '^"^ ^-«
-^taWlity n/nomfncK; "'"^^^ ''^ ^^'^^"'^^^'^ --^

it w:sTit7t"Af/^^^^^^^^^ consideration,

N. D. RILEY mnited1.-rt^\^ COMMISSIONER
should be XltoconsLr'fr'^ '^^' '^' Commission
on, means to i e Xnft^f' T^ ''P^'* *^ ^'^^ »«^t Congress

unearthin. of old b£l! ^'^^g-up of old names and the

Act.ngp-S ;tTRlS^XS^^^^^^^ ''■'

^;Torfed'lhe'p^^^

R.ley. Th tbTecrbefirP^^'^ ^^''''"^*^ Commissione;
was, Ixe pointed out 2^5 Commission and the Section,
all systeLtrioTLs /rf ^"^7 to

ensure that full accoun was aC^^^^^ '^"'^" *^

tions and also of all points of view 41 ,1'''''"''' '"^^^^^^^-
meeting were in favour of ! . , *^" those present at the
harm which, as i seemed to Jh" ""°" ^'^^ '^ ^'""^ ^^e
fettered opemtion of theT^w f p"'' '''"^''^ ^^^"^ the un-
but, as a c^oixitiricat on uhThl ^^'^ '"^ ''' P^^'^^^t form,
specialists at he Sm I In ^^'^^^/^^^i^ed from certain
cLrlyshowexl t5ier ;tr^^^^^ ^f''"'^"^' Washington,
ultimate unifo m trirnonf ?.' ^"'"'^ '^'^^ ^^P'^^ «f
and who in cor^leZeT {"l""'' "P"'^ '^'-^^ Law alone
^^-^Pense Of S^^S:^ %^- ;^- W at

to P^ipfnf a d™^yjf ■^^^•"^"^•) --1 that the proposal
be made acceplble • at t ' """P"''""' "^""^^ could only
a tieco>nma Jain silt '"'"'^^^ '^ ^^'«^« '-^^^^d thai

text of P.ofe.or Bonnet, paper, .see pages 177-179 of Voin.e 3.

234 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

clature by upsetting well-known names in favour of long-
forgottcn names but instead at once to report to the
Commission any case where the Law of Priority appeared
to require the upsetting of a name in this way and to
maintain in use the currently accepted name until such time
as the Commission had decided whether the Law of Priority
should be permitted to operate in the case in question.

Considerable further discussion took place, in which
the importance of devising a satisfactory solution of the
difficulties caused by the unfettered operation of the Law
of Priority was stressed and, in some cases, regret was
expressed at the prospect of a further period of four or
five years during which no remedy would be available for
countering the present ills. The view 'was expressed that
the proposed Recommandation should single out for special
mention as names requiring particular consideration names
of importance in medicine, agriculture and other fields of
applied biology.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to take note of the applications submitted (i) by
Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) and (ii) by
Professor Pierre Bonnet (France) in favour of the
incorporation in the Regies of a provision recog-
nising a Law of Prescription which would prohibit
the replacement, on grounds of priority, of well-
known names by names published long previously
and not subsequently used for a long period ;

(2) to invite the Secretary to the Commission to
examine, in consultation with interested specialists,
all means which might secure greater stability
in zoological nomenclature and to submit a
Report thereon, with recommendations, for
consideration by the Commission at their meeting
to be held during the next (XlVth) meeting of the
Congress, with a view to the submission by the
Commission of proposals for the insertion in the
Regies of provisions to secure the end specified
above ;

(3) to recommend, without prejudice to the proposal
to be submitted to the next meeting of th
Congress in the report referred to in (2) above, that
there should at once be inserted at an appropriate
point in the R^les a provision : —

(a) that, where a worker discovers that a well-
known name in common use, particularly
a name of importance in medicine, agri-

8</t Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

235

Nomenclature of
Protozoan and
other parasites of
Man : need for
stabilisation :
Prof. E. Beltran's
communication

(ib'ee Seclio)i on
Nomenclature,
Paris Session,
Isl Meeting,
Minute 5)

culture, veterinary science or other applied
fields of biology, is invalid under either the
Law of Priority or the Law of Homonymy
or, in the case of a generic name, has as its
type species a species not commonly
accepted as referable to the genus in
question or to a segregate thereof, that
worker should at once report the case to the
International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature for such action as the
Commission may deem to be proper ;
(b) that in such cases neither the worker by
whom the error in accepted practice is
discovered nor any other worker should
change that practice by substituting some
other name for that in common use, until
such time as the decision on the future
status of the name in question is made
known by the said Commission.
5. THE COMMISSION, jointly with the Section on
Nomenclature, had under consideration a communication
(file Z.N.(S.)397) submitted by Alternate Commissioner
Enrique Beltran (Mexico) on the subject of the nomen-
clature of Protozoan parasites of Man.^

ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER BELTRAN pointed
out that at the present time many of the Protozoan parasites
of JMan were known to bacteriologists by names which
possessed only a de facto basis and were not in accordance
with the provisions of the Regies. Tlie situation so created
was extremely unsatisfactory and should be rectified as
quickly .as possible. Alternate Commissioner Beltran sug-
gested the appointment of a connnittee of protozoologists
charged with the duty of studying the nomenclature of
Protozoa, particularly species parasitic on Man, with a view-
to the submission of recommendations to the Commission
for the addition to the " Official List " of the names of
genera, in those cases where it was found that the names in
question were available under the Hegles for use in the sense
in which they were commonly employed, and in the case of
names not found to be so available for validation by the
Conunission with a view to their being also placed on the
*' Official List."

In the course of his presentation of the foregoing problem,
Alternate Commissioner Beltran alluded to the need for the
Commission to exclude taxonomic considerations when
deciding whether to include generic names on the " Official

* For the text of the communication made by Alternate Commissioner Beltran, see pages
162-163 of Volume 3 of this journal, and for the record of the discussion in the Section on Nomen-
clature, see pages 19-23 of Volume 5.

236 Inlernalional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

List." He therefore welcomed the action taken by the
Commission in Opinion 104, when deahng with the names
of the human malaria parasites, in avoiding any attempt to
express an opinion on the question whether two genera or
one genus only were involved. The Commission had, in his
view, acted with wisdom on that occasion in placing on the
" Official List " two generic names (Plasmodiam and
Laverania) for use for these parasites, the first by those
specialists who regarded the quartan and aestivo-autumnal
parasites as congeneric and by all specialists for the first of
these parasites, the second for use for the aestivo-autumnal
parasite by those specialists who regarded it as generically
distinct from the quartan parasite.

In the subsequent discussion general agreement was
expressed with the proposal submitted l^y Alternate Com-
missioner Beltran that a special effort should be made to
stabilise the names of parasites of importance in human
medicine. It was felt that it was indefensible that the Laws
of Priority and Homonymy, in which only systematic zoo-
logists were interested, should be allowed to cause confusion
and disturbance in the nomenclature of such species. On the
other hand, it was most undesirable that the present
situation, in which many such species were habitually known
by names which were incorrect under the Regies, should be
permitted to continue. For names of the kind under
consideration there was a clear prima facie case for the use
by the Commission of their plenary powers. The view was
expressed also that the problem raised by Alternate
Commissioner Beltran regarding the nomenclature of
parasites of Man was by no means confined to Protozoa ;
that there were numerous similar instances in Phyla
other than Protozoa. It was agreed by all present that the
proposals submitted by Alternate Commissioner Beltran
should be expanded to apply to the names of genera con-
taining species parasitic on Man, irrespective of the Phyla
to which they belonged.

On the question raised by Alternate Commissioner
Beltran regarding the need for the Commission to avoid
taking, or appearing to take, a view on taxonomic issues,
when placing generic names on the " Official List," the
Commission, in agreement with the Section on Nomen-
clature, decided that, in future, in order to eliminate
taxonomic problems from consideration when names are
added to the " Official List of Generic Names in Zoology,"
two or n.iore generic names should l)e placed on tliat List,
in cases where specialists were agreed on the importance
of stabilising the nomenclature of a particular group but
were not unanimous on the purely taxonomic question of

8th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 237

whetlier more than one genus was involved and that this
decision should be embodied in the regulations governing
the preparation of the " Official List."

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to take steps, in compliance with the request
addressed to them by the Section on Nomen-
clature, to concert with specialists to secure the
appointment of a committee or committees (a) to
study the nomenclature of the Phylum Protozoa
and other Phyla containing species which were
parasites of Man and (b) to make proposals to the
Commission for the addition to the " Official List
of Generic Names in Zoology," whether under
their plenary powers or otherwise, of the names
of leading genera of such Phyla, particularly
genera containing species which were parasites of
Man, for the purpose of promoting the stabilisa-
tion of the nomenclature of the groups concerned ;

(2) to issue a statement drawing the attention of
specialists to the action proposed in (1) above.

" Official List 6' Arising out of the discussion recorded in Conclusion

of Generic Names in 5 above, THE COMMISSION agreed :—
Zoology " :

addition to the to take note that the Section on Nomenclature had

refating*to* of a decided that there should be added to the regulations

provision designed governing the preparation of the " Official List of

to eliminate Generic Names in Zoology " a provision that, in order

contrderations to eliminate taxonomic considerations when names

were added to the said " Official List," two or more

generic names should be added thereto, in cases where

specialists were agreed on the importance of stabilising

the nomenclature of a particular group but were not

unanimous on the purely taxonomic question of

whether more than one genus was involved.

Ninth and Tenth 7. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS

Meetings of the HEMMING) recalled that it had previously been contem-

Commission , , , • ■ , . c ^i r,

during its Paris plated that it would be necessary tor the Commission to

Session : date and \\o\({ two further meetings that day, the first in the afternoon

time appointed ^^^^^ ^j^^ second in the evening. Such good progress had

been made by the Commission in the consideration of their

Agenda that it was now pos.sible for him to propose that

there should be no meeting that afternoon, thereby making

it possible for such members of the Commission who so

desired to take part in the excursion to the Chateau de

Versailles which had been arranged by the authorities of

the Congress. This change in plan would make it possible

238 hiterncUi&nal Cotmnission on Zoological Nonieticlature.

also for him to make progress with the preparation of further
documents for the consideration of the '^Jomniission. He
proposed therefore that the next meeting of the Coniniission
should be held that evening at 2030 hours. As regards the
following day there would be a joint meeting with the Section
on Nomenclature at 0900 hours.

THE COMMISSION took note of the above arrange-
ments.

{The Commission thereupon adjourned at 1205 hours)

( 239 )

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Session heU. during the Thirteenth Intermtioml Congress of Zoohqy
Paris, 21st-27th July, 1948

CONCLUSIONS of the Ninth Meeting held at the Sorbonne in the Amphitheatre
Louis-Liard on Friday, 23rd July, 1948, at 2030 hours

PRESENT :

Mr Franci^ Hemming (United Kingdom) {Acting President)

Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.)

Professor L. di Caporiacco (Italy)

Mr. N. D. Riley (United Kingdom)

Professor V. van Straelen (Belgium)

Professor Robert L. Usinger (U.S.A.)

The following were also present
13r. E. A. Chapin (U.S.A.)
Professor E. Raymond Hall (U.S.A.)
Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark)

Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming, Personal Assistant to the Secretary
Miss J. H. Shorey, Acting Documents Officer

Miscellaneous
proposals for the
amendment or
clarification of
the " Regies " :
third instalment

{Previous reference:
Paris Session,
7th Meeting,
Conclusion 6)

Article 27

(proposed insertion
of words making
it clear that this
Article applies,
inter alia, to the
naming of forms
of polymorphic
species)

VOL. 4 Q

1 . THE COMMISSION had before them a memorandum
by the Secretary (Commission Paper I.C.(48)15), containing
a third mstalment of miscellaneous proposals received from
various sources for the amendment or clarification of the
Hegles. For convenience of reference these proposals
which were 31 m number, had been numbered consecutively
with the proposals brought forward in the paper containina
tlie second instalment (Commission Paper I.C.(48)14) The
present proposals were therefore numbered (33) to (63).
THE COMMISSION agreed :~
to examine Commission Pajier I.C.(48)15, point by
point, for the purpose of reaching conclusions regarding
the recommendations to be submitted on the questions
raised therein.

2. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a

zT/ImLm "","'^.^^ ^'- ^'- ^^- Hoare (London) (file
Z.N.(h.)291) asking for the addition of words to Article 27
to make it c ear that the provisions of that .Article applied
to polymorj.hic species, together with a note on the same

l.t.(48)lo. It was not clearly stated in Article 27 tliat its

240

Inleniational (Jommissiou on Zoological Noimuclaiure.

Article 35

(polymorphism in
trivial names
arising from use of
the same word in
noun and
adjectival form)

provisions applied to cases where one form of such a species
was named before another in the same way as to different
stages in the metamorphosis of a species possessing only a
single adult form. Dr. Hoare observed that, while the
present wording might be appropriate for the needs of the
Metazoa, it did not meet the needs of the Protozoa, where
the problem of species possessing both sexual and asexual
forms was of special importance.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEM-
MING) observed that Dr. Hoare had drawn attention to
what was undoubtedly a technical flaw in Article 27 as that
Article at present stood and words should be inserted to
make this matter clear. The adoption of an amendment in
the sense projjosed would not lead to changes in the current
nomenclature of the Protozoa, for protozoologists had
rightly assumed that the intention, though not the wording,
of Article 27 was that its provisions should apply to names
given to forms of polymorphic species. This Article had
always been so interpreted, for example, in the synonymy of
the names given to the human malaria parasites, a subject on
v,'hich Professor Rol^ert L. Usinger and himself had each
made a special study and on which proposals would be laid
before the Commission at a later meeting. Though the
problem raised by Dr. Hoare was of special importance to
protozoologists, it was not a problem confined to the
Protozoa, for polymorphism of a very similar kind occurred
also in the Class Insecta, where also other forms of poly-
morphism commonly occurred. It was desirable therefore
that the wording to be proposed to meet the point raised by
Dr. Hoare should be sufficiently wide to cover all forms of
polymorphism in species.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that words should be inserted in Article 27 to make it
clear that the provisions of that Article applied to
names published for forms of polymorphic species and
therefore that, in the case of such species, the oldest
available specific or subspecific trivial name applied to
an)' form is to be accepted as the trivial name of the
species as a whole.

3. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
conununication received from Mr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr.
(SaTi Diego, California, U.S.A.), on the question whether
trivial names which differed from one another only by the
form of tlieir termination, for example, in the use of the
terminations "' -costa " and " -costata " (file Z.N.(S.)309)
should be regarded as homonyms of one another, together
with a note on the same subject contained in the first part
of Point (34) in Commission Paper I. C. (48)15.

9</j Meeting, Paris, July, 194«. 241

lu his submission on this matter Mr. Baily had taken
the view that, as the spelUng differences referred to above
were not among the differences specified in paragraph (3)
of Article 35, names differing from one another only in this
way were not to be rejected as homonyms under the Regies.
At the same time he brought forward two pairs of names of
this kind, where, in his opinion, confusion had already
arisen through the great suuilarity of the trivial names
concerned. The cases in question were those presented (1)
by the names Cardita crassicosta Lamarck, 1819, and
Cardita crassicostata Sowerby, 1825, and (2) Cardita
laticosta Bichwald, 1830, and Cardita laticostata Sowerby,
1832. In each of these cases, Mr. Baily -asked that the
Commission should use their plenary powers to suppress the
later published of the two names in question. In Com-
mission Paper I. C. (48)15, the Secretary to the Commission
took the same view as Mr. Baily regardmg the interpretation
of the Regies in this matter but recommended that Article 35
should be amended to make names belonging to this class
homonyms of one another.

In the discussion which ensued the view was expressed
that no objection need be taken in principle to the con-
current use in the same genus of trivial names differing from
one another solely by reason of the fact that in the one case
the word concerned was in noun form and could therefore
be treated as being a nominative singular in apposition to
the generic name, while in the other case the name was in
adjectival form and thus required to agree in gender with
the generic name. There should normally be no room for
confusion in such cases, having regard to the fact that, under
the decisions which had been taken during the present
Congress, it would now be made absolutely clear that the
list of spelHng differences specified in paragraph (3) of
Article 35 was an exhaustive Hst and therefore that no name
was to be rejected as a homonym of another name which dif-
fered from it in speUing in any other way. On the other
hand, it was desirable that trivial names within a given genus
should be readily distinguishable from one another. Authors
should therefore be recommended to avoid selecting as the
trivial name of a new species or subspecies a name which
differed only in its termination (noun form or adjectival
form, as the case might be) from a trivial name already
published for a species in the same genus or aUied genera.
Naturally, the recognition of names of the land under
discussion as available names, notwithstanding their close
similarity, would not preclude the Commission from using
their plenary powers to suppress such a name where in an
individual case it could be shown that the concurrent

VOL. 4 Q =

242

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

{Previous reference.
Paris Hession,
&h Meeting,
Condvsion 43)

existence of two such closely similar names had already
caused, or was likely to cause, confusion.

THE COMMISSION :—

(1) agreed that, having regard to the fact that it had
now been decided to make it clear that the list of
differences in spelling given in paragraph (3) of
Article 35 was an exhaustive list, no action
required to be taken in regard to trivial names of
the same origin and meaning which differed from
one another only by reason of the fact that in one
case the name was in a noun form, while in the
other it was in an adjectival form (e.g. crassicosta
and crassicostatus, -a, -um), for it would now be
clear that, where such names occurred in a single
genus, they were not to be regarded as homonyms
of one another ;

(2) agreed to recommend that there should be inserted
in the Regies a Recommandation urging authors not
to select a compound word as a new trivial name,
where there already existed either in the same
genus or in an allied genus a compound trivial
name of the same origin and meaning differing
therefrom only by reason of the second part of that
name consisting of a word in a noun form whereas
the corresponding part of the proposed new name
consisted of the same word in an adjectival form
or vice versa. (Example : where in a given
genus or group of genera there already exists a
trivial name crassicosta (noun form), an adjectival
trivial name such as crassicostatus, -a, -um, should
be avoided, and vice versa.) ;

(3) agreed to recommend that, where in any given
case it could be shown that the concurrent existence
within a single genus or group of allied genera of
trivial names differing from one another only ui
the manner indicated in (1) above has caused, or
was likely to cause, confusion, an end should be
put to such confusion or, as the case might be, such
confusion should be prevented from arising, by
the use of the plenary powers ;

(4) agreed that the Secretary should explain the
position in this matter to Mr. Baily and should ask
him whether in the circumstances he desired to
pursue his application in regard to the two pairs
of names in the genus Cardita Bruguiere, 1792
(Phylum Mollusca) which he had already sub-
mitted to the Commission (file Z.N.(S.)309).

9th Meeting. Paris, July, 1948.

243

Articles 34 and 35
(third paragraph)
(proposed addition
of a further
category)

{Prerioiis reference:
Fun's Session,
(till Meeting,
dondusionsAX & 4.'{)

Articles 34 and 35
(words differing
from one another
solely by having as
the accented syllable
the syllable " an "
or " en " : proposed
insertion of a
" Recommandation "
urging avoidance)

Article 4 :

(situation where the
application of
existing Provisions
leads to the
establishment of
identical family
names in
different groups)

4. THE (JOMMISSION had under consideration an
application submitted by Captain E. Rivenhall Goffe
(King's Somborne, England) asking that certain additions
should be made to the list of spelling differences specified in
paragraph (3) of Article 35 (file Z.N.(S.)198), together with a
proposal in regard thereto submitted in the second part of
Point (34) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that the following differences in spelling should be
added to the list of such differences to be inserted
in the Articles replacing the present Articles 34 and
35 as differences to be ignored in determining whether
one name is a homonym of another :— (1) the tran-
scription of the semivowel or consonantal " i " as
" y," " ei," " ej " or " ij " or (2) the use of the letters
"f"and"ph".

5. Arising out of the discussion on the question dealt
witli in Conclusion 4 above, THE COMMISSION agreed to

recommend : —

that a Recommandation be added both to Article 34
(generic names) and Article 35 (trivial names) urging
authors to avoid selecting as a generic name or a
trivial name a word which, in the former case, differs
from an existing generic name only by having as its
accented syllable the syllable " en " or " an " as the
case may be, as in the case of the names Tarentula and
Tarantula, and, in the latter case, differs only in the
same respect from an existing trivial name in the
same genus or group of allied genera.

6. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
situation which arises when the application of Article 4 in
its present form leads to the formation of identical family
names for famihes in different parts of the Animal Kingdom,
together with a note on this subject submitted by the
Secretary in Point (35) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15. In
this connection, the Commission had under consideration
also correspondence on this subject which had passed
between Commissioner H. Boschma (Netherlands) and the
Secretary, consequent upon the former having proposed
that means should be found to put an end to the anomaly
created by the concurrent existence of the family name
C'YPRiNiDAE in two parts of the Animal Kingdom (namely
the Class Pelecypoda and the Class Pisces )(file Z.N.(S.)210).

In the discussion on this question, the view was generally
expressed that it was a grave defect in the Articles of the
Regies relating to the formation of family names that,

244

Jnlernational Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

(Previous reference:
Paris Session,
(Uh Meeting,
Conclusion 11)

although those Articles contained a provision (admittedly
confused and inadequate as it was) regarding the application
of the principle of priority to family names, those Articles
contained no provision at all for the equally important
question of the application of the Law of Homonymy. This
was clearly a matter which should be dealt with in the
Report on the reform of the provisions in the Regies relating
to the nomenclature of families which it had been agreed that
the Secretary should prepare for consideration at the next
(XlVth) meeting of the Congress. The existence of duplicate
family names in different groups might not be a source of
inconvenience to workers who specialised in a narrow field,
but it constituted an indefensible anomaly in the classifica-
tion of the Animal Kingdom as a whole. Pending the
complete redrafting of Articles 4 and 5 of the Regies, it
would be possible to deal with this problem on an ad hoc
basis ; it was desirable that this should be done, for the
sooner the more glaring of the present anomalies were
removed the better. It should normally be possible to
find appropriate solutions on the lines adopted by the
Connnission in Opinion 140 when dealing with the question
of the form of the family names to be constructed from the
generic nanies Merops Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves) and
Merope Newman, 1838 (Class Insecta).

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that, without prejudice to any decisions that might be
taken in the light of the comprehensive Report which
the Secretary had beeii invited to prepare on the
question of family names, there should be inserted
in the Regies a provision that, where the application of
Article 4 led to the establishment of two or more
families having the same name, the case is to be
referred to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, whose duty it shall be to determine
the name to be applied to each of the families
concerned.

Article 4 (name
to be applied to a
family where two
or more existing
families are
united on taxonomic
grounds) :
postponement of
decision pending
general inquiry

7. THE COMMISSION had under consideration an
application submitted by the late Dr. A. Steven Corbet
(British Museum (Natural History), London) on the question
of the procedure to be followed for determining the name of a
family when two or more previously established families are
united on taxonomic grounds (file Z.N.(S.)265), together
with a note on the same subject submitted by the Secretary
in Point (36) in Commission Paper I. C. (48)15. The particu-
lar case raised by Dr. Corbet was concerned with the relative
priority to be accorded to the family names riodinidak
(formerly KRYriNiDAE) and i.tbythefdae (Class Insecta,

9tk Meethig, Paris, July, 1948.

245

{Previous reference:
Paris Session,
^th Meeting,
Conchisioa 11)

Article 3
(definition of the
expression " Latin '
as there used)

Order Lepiuoptera), by an author who regarded tliese two
groups as forining a single family only.

In the discussion on tliis (juestion, the view was expressed
that it was important that provision should be made in the
Regies as soon as possible for determining the name to be
applied to a family in the circumstances described above, for
the problem involved was one of the most central of the
issues awaiting settlement in the field of family names. It
was felt, however, that, inconvenient and unsatisfactory as
it was that there should be no rules governing this matter,
it would be a mistake to prejudge the issue of the proposecl
investigation into the problem of the nomenclature of
families by making a recommendation to the present
Congress on this subject.

THE COMMISSION agreed:—
that the question of the provisions to be inserted in the
Regies in regard to the name to be adopted for a
family when two or more existing families were
united on taxonomic grounds was one of the problems
to which special attention should be paid in the
Report on the nomenclature of families and super-
generic groups below family level which at the meeting
noted in the margin the Commission had invited the
Secretary to prepare for their consideration at their
meeting to be held during the next (XlVth) meeting
of the Congress.

8. THE COMMISSION had under consideration an
application submitted by Professor L. W. Grensted (Oxford
University) in regard to the need for the introduction into
Article 3 of the Regies of words defining the sense in which
the word " Latin " is used in that Article (file Z.N.(S.)313),
together with a proposal in regard thereto submitted by
the Secretary in the first part of Point (37) in Commission
Paper I.C.(48)15.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that a provision on the following lines be inserted in
Article 3 :—

In the interpretation of this Article regard is to
be paid to the fact that Latin as used for zoological
nomenclature is a living language and therefore that,
while classical Latin is necessarily the standard to
which zoological names should, so far as possible,
conform, that standard is not to be applied in such
a way as to ignore later developments of the language
or as to override considerations of scientific accuracy,
uniformity, intelligibility or practical usefulness.

24()

International Commission on Znoioqical Nomenclature.

Article 4

(proposed removal
of ambiguities
regarding the
method to be
followed in
forming a family
name from a
given generic
name)

Article 14
(agreement in
gender with the
generic name of a
trivial name,
when an
adjective)

{PrevioHS reference:
Paris Session.
1th Meetiw),
Conclusion 12;

9. THE COMMISSION had under consideration an
application submitted l\y Professor L. W. Grensted (Oxford
University) in regard to the need for removing from Article 4
the ambiguities regarding the procedure to be followed when
forming a family name from a given generic name (file
Z.N.(S.)313), together with a proposal in regard thereto
submitted by the Secretary in the second part of Point (37)
in Commission Paper I. C. (48)1 5.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

(1) that, in confirmation of the decision taken by the
Eighth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Graz in 1910, that the word
" stem " should be substituted for the word
" root " in the English translation of Article 4 of
the Regies, the word " theme " should be
substituted for the word " radical " in the
substantive French text of that Article ;

(2) that a provision to the following effect should be
added to Article 4 : —

The expression " stem " is to be interpreted as
meaning either (1) the grammatical or classical
stem or (2) a part of the stem, the choice to be
made in favour of whichever of the foregoing
methods both shows most clearly the relation-
ship between the generic name on the one hand
and the name of the family on the other and
provides the simpler and more euphonious
form compatible with that relationship.

10. THE COMMISSION had under consideration (1) a
proposal submitted by Mr. W. Parkinson Curtis (United
Kingdom) and (2) a proposal submitted by Professor Pierre
Bonnet (France) on the subject of the agreement in gender
with the generic name of trivial names, when adjectival i-n
form (file Z.N.(S.)214), together with a note on the same
subject submitted by the Secretary as Point (38) in Com-
mission Paper I.C.(48)15. Mr. Parkinson Curtis suggested
that the provision that an adjectival trivial name should
agree in gender with the generic name should be -deleted
from Article 14 on the ground that it was obsolete and
virtually unworkable. Professor Bonnet's proposals were
designed to elucidate certain obscurities in regard to the
application of the present provisions, while those submitted
by the Secretary were more far-reaching in character, being
designed to provide a means for determining the gender of
every generic name. In Point (39) of the same Commission
Paper (Commission Paper I.C.(48)15) a proposal was sub-
mitted that, for the convenience of those zoologists who

(Previous rpferfince:
Paris Session,
4<A Meeting,
Conclusion 9)

(Later reference.;
Paris Session,
121 h Meeting,
Conchision 25)

m Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 247

axWec to the Second Schedule to the R^ks a statement of
the rules governing the gender of Latin nouns, together
with particulars of the better known of those no;ns which
were exceptions to the normal rules.

MINoVh^^^T P^.ESI^^ENT (MR. FRANCIS HEM-
MING) said that, as the existing provisions of Article 14

gender with the generic names with which they were
conjoined, as also the supplementary provision! now
proposed to be added to those provisions, were a da ory
n character. It would not, as he had pr;viously tCiX
l^e appropriate to include the proposed statement of the
rules governing the gender of Latin nouns in the Sch dule
which was to replace the present Appendice to the S
for, as already agreed at the meeting noted in the maS'
It was now to be made clear in the R^les that th provS

to tke i?rf "' ""^ ''"^'"" '' *^^ ««h^^"J« -l-h was
therefore hpp' ""- "^'^^"^^"datory in character. If,
theretore, the Commission adopted the proposal that the
rules governing the gender of Latin nouns when used as
generic names should be added to the Rigles, it wouH be
necessary, m view of the mandatory character of hose
provisions to place them in a Schedule distinct from that

The t. '^;^"^.!f-g ^PP^^^o^ was to be incorplteS
The Acting President went on to say that he desired to

JfiT""?." "'' "^P^^' '^' P^^P-^^1 -hich he had sub
mitted in this matter. It was not onlv the determinat on

tcation t th r'' "^° ^'^'^ °^^ ^^d ^ «l-««ical
adWHv ) ?^"' governing the declension of Latin

falnn o . "''' S ^''"^ 'T^^' ^""'^ ^''' '^^ it ^-« easy to
of the ndZ ■• " ''r.^^^'^Sly proposed that particulars
of the rules governing this matter also should be included
in the suggested Schedule. n^ciuaed

THE COMMISSION agreed:—

(1) that, haying regard to the provisions of Article .3
ot the Regies, it was essential and inevitable that a
trivial name, when an adjective, should agree in
gender with the generic name and that the
application submitted by Mr. Parkinson Curtis
should therefore be rejected :

(2) that it was essential that the clearest possible
directions should be included in the RMes
regarding the procedure to be followed for
determinmg the gender of generic names •

248 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

(3) in view of (2) above, to recommend : —

(a) that the following provisions should be
inserted in the Regies for the purpose of
determining the gender of nouns used as
generic names and consequently for deter-
mining the gender in which trivial names,
when adjectives, should be cited : —

(i) where a generic name or, in the case
of a name consisting of a compound
word, the terminal portion of such a
name consists either of a classical
Latin noun or of a noun, which,
though unknown in classical Latin,
is found in the later history of the
Latin language, the generic name
concerned is to be treated as being
of the same gender as that of the
Latin noun in question, save that,
where a Latin noun occurs in more
than one gender, the generic name
consisting of that noun is to be
treated as being of the masculine
gender ;

(ii) where a generic name or, in the case
* of a name consisting of a compound

word, the terminal portion of such a
name, consists of a Latinised Greek
noun either of the classical or non-
classical period, the generic name
concerned is to be treated as being
of the same gender as the Latinised
Greek word in question in like
manner as in (i) above, Greek nouns
for this purpose to retain their
original gender, save in any case
where a Greek noun became an
integral part of the Latin language
and, on being so incorporated, was
treated as being of a gender different
from that which it possessed prior to
being so incorporated ;

(iii) where a generic name or, in the case
of a name consisting of a compound
word, the terminal portion of such a
name consists of a word unknown in
any stage of the Latin or Greek
languages, except in so far as it is

9lh Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 249

treated as a Latin or Latinised word
for the purposes of zoological nomen-
clature, the following rules are to be
followed in determining its gender :—

(1 ) if the word so treated as a Latin
or Latinised noun has a ter-
mination found in the nomina-
tive singular of any of the
Latin declensions, that word,
if having a termination found
in the first or fifth declensions,
shall be treated as being of the
feminine gender, and, if having
a termination found in the
. second, third or fourth declen-
sion, shall be treated as being
of the gender normally appro-
priate to a noun having that
termination, save that every
such word having the termina-
tion " -us," or, as the case
may be, the termination " -es"
shall be treated in the former
case as being of the masculine
gender, and in the latter case
of the feminine gender ;

(2) if the word has a termination

not found in the nominative

singular of any of the five

Latin declensions, that word

is to be treated as being of the

masculine gender.

(b) that, in order to faciUtate the determination

of the gender of any given generic name and

the correct formation of adjectival trivial

names : —

(i) there should be added to the Regies
a Schedule, to be inserted at an
appropriate point among the other
Schedules, containing a concise state-
ment of the rules governing : —

( 1 ) the gender of Latin nouns and of Greek
nouns, when latinised, together with
jmrticulars of the better known of such
nouns, the gender of which differed
from that normally appropriate for a
noun belonging to the declension con-
cerned and having the termination in
question ;

250

Internatiotml Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

(2) till" f'i)riii.ilioii of tli(- icsjK-ctivc gcndtTs
of J^atiii !i<lji'ctivos anil of Greek
acljcotivps, when latinised, together
with particulars relating to the better
known of such adjectives, the genders
of which were not formed in accordance
with the normal rules ;

(ii) there should be inserted in relation to
sub-paragraph (a) of the first para-
graph of Article 14 words prescribing
that the gender of generic names is to
l)e determined in accordance with the
rules specified in (a) above as supple-
mented by the Schedule specified in
(b) (i) above, and the gender of
adjectives is to be formed in accord-
ance with the rules specified in the
said Schedule.

Article 25,
Proviso (c;
(point of time as
from which
effective)

11. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) for the clarification of the point of
time decided upon by the Tenth International Congress of
Zoology at its meeting held at Budapest in 1927 as the
point of time as from which the proviso (c) then added to
Article 25 was to come into operation, submitted by the
Secretary in Point (40) in Commission Paper I. C. (48)15.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that words should be inserted in the Regies to make it
clear that the provisions of Proviso (c) to Article 25
came into operation as from midniglit G.M.T.
(Greenwich Mean Time) 31st December, 1930/lst
January, 1931.

'' Appendice " to the
" Regies "
(proposed
correction of an
error in section
" G ")

12. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal submitted by Commissioner H. Boschma (Nether-
lands) for the correction of a minor error in Section " G " of
tlie Appendice to the Regies (file Z.N.(G.)IO), together with
a note thereon submitted by the Secretary in Point (41) in
Commission Paper I. C. (48)15.

{Previous reference:
Paris Session,
4th Meeting,
Couchision 3)

THE COMMISSION agreed :--

(1) to take note that the statement contained in the
sentence " the soft aspirate may be used to
represent the Arabic «?>?," which appeared at the
end of the sixteenth of the recommendations
enumerated in Section G of the Appendice to the
Regies, shortly to be converted into a Schedule,
was incorrect ;

9<A Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

251

{Previous reference
Paris tSessioii,
1th Meeting.
Conclusion 22)

(2) to recommend that the error referred to in (1)
above should be corrected when the wording of
the recommendations set forth in Section G of the
Appendice were revised as agreed upon at the
meeting noted in the margin.

Article 14
(status of a
trivial name
consisting of an
unchanged surname
of a modern
personage treated
as a Latin or
Latinised word)

13. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal submitted by the late Professor T. D. A. Cockerell
(U.S.A.) (file Z.N.(S.)165) that a ruling should be given on
the question whether a trivial name consisting of an
unchanged surname of a modern personage but treated as a
Latin or Latinised word should be corrected to comjily with
the requirements of .Article U (see Cockerell, 1945." Bull,
zool. Nomencl. 1 : 89), together with a note thereon sub-
mitted by the Secretary in Point (42) in Commission Paper
I.C.(48)15.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEM-
MING) said that until fairly recently almost the only cases
of the kind referred to in Professor Cockerell's apphcation
were those found in the works of French authors of the early
decades of the XlXtli century. Within recent years there
had, however, been a recrudescence of this type of trivial
name, as the result — as it appeared from correspondence —
of a misreading of the first paragraph of Article 14 which
provided that a trivial name might be a noun in the
nomhiative singular in apposition to the generic name.
Trivial names consisting of unlatinised modern patronymics
nmst however be regarded as defective, for such a method
of forming a trivial name based on a modern patronymic
was hiconsistent with the intention, if not with the actual
provisions, of the third paragraph of Article 14. Moreover,
even where such names were printed in italics it was
difficult to sustain an argument that a name, so formed, had
been " latinise " within the meaning of Article 3 of the
Regies. Whatever decision the Commission might take on
the question raised by Professor Cockerell, it was desirable
that the provisions in Article 14 relating to the formation of
trivial names based upon the surnames of modern
personages should be co-ordinated with the general
provisions relating to the formation of trivial names specified
in the first paragraph of that Article.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend : —

(1) that words should be inserted in the Regies to
make it clear that, where a trivial name is pub-
lished in the form of an unchanged surname of a
modern personage (e.g. where, to honour the
Frenchman Cerisy, Godart published in 1824 a

252 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

trivial name cerisy in the binominal combination
Papilio cerisy) and (as in the example cited above)
the author treated the name, so formed, as a Latin
or Latinised word, the form of the trivial name so
published is to be corrected so as to comply with
the requirements of the paragraph of Article 14
which deals with the formation of trivial names
based on modern patronymics (the name cerisy in
the example quoted above thus being corrected to
cerisyi), the name so corrected to retain priority
as from the date on which it was published in the
incorrect form (i.e. in the above case from 1824,
the date when the name was published in the
incorrect form cerisy) and to continue to be
attributed to the author by whom it was so
published ;

(2) that Article 14 should be amended in such a way
as to make it clear that the provision in the first
paragraph of that Article that a trivial name may
be a noun in the nominative singular in apposition
to the generic name does not apply to trivial
names based on the surnames of modern
personages.

Article 14 (status 14. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a

cJnsisTnglra'"^ proposal Submitted by Mr. R. G. Fennah (St. Lucia, B.W.I.)
phonetic (file Z.N.(S.)163) that a ruhug should be given on the question

reproduction of the whether a trivial name based upon the phonetic reproduction
more persons) of ^^e initials of a zoologist or zoologists complied with the

requirements of the Regies (see Fennah, 1945, Bull. zool.

Nomencl. 1 : 89), together with a note thereon submitted

by the Secretary in the first part of Point (43) in Commission

Paper I.C.(48)15.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to reconmiend that words should be inserted in
Article 14 to make it clear that a trivial name
(like a generic name) may consist of an arbitrary
combination of letters, a trivial name so formed
to be treated as an indeclinable noun in the
nominative singular ;

(2) that, on the adoption of the recommendation
submitted in (1) above, a trivial name consisting
of a phonetic reproduction of the initials of one or
more persons would, if treated as a Latin word,
comply with the requirements of Article 14.

y^/t Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

253

Article 8
(conversion of
'' Recommanda-
tions " into
mandatory
provisions)

{Later reference :
Paris Session,
dth Aleetuig,
Vondusion 37)

Articles 8 & 14

(proposed

" Recommanda-

tion " condemning

names suggesting

a bizarre or

other objectionable

meaning in some

language other

than Latin)

( Previous reference-
Paris Session,
ll.h Aleetiny,
Conclusion 12)

15. In the course of the discussion on the proposal
dealt with in Conclusion 14 above, attention was drawn to
the fact that in its present form Article 8 was defective,
since the second and third of the three provisions concerned
(of which the third was exactly parallel to the provision
which it had now been agreed to be added to Article 14)
appeared not as mandatory provisions but, quite inappro-
priately, as Recommundations.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—
that on the forthcoming revision of the text of the
Regies, the two provisions which at present appeared
as Reco7mnandations annexed to Article 8 be con-
verted into mandatory provisions, subject as regards
the second, to names falling within the scope of sub
paragraph (h) being excluded from the scope of
sub-paragraph (k).

16. TPIE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal suJMnitted by Professor Pierre Bonnet (France)
that a provision should be inserted in the Regies invalidating
names which, while purporting to be Latinised words, were
combinations of syllables conveying in some language other
than Latin a meaning that was bizarre or otherwise improper
(file Z.N.(S.)352), together with a note thereon submitted by
the Secretary in the second part of Point (43) in Commission
Paper I.C.(48)15.

In submitting this proposal Professor Bonnet had drawn
attention to the generic names Ochisme and Marichisme
published in 1904 by the British zoologist Kirkaldy, names
which might appear innocuous to any non-English speaking
zoologist but which to any person acquainted with the
English language were obviously unsuitable and improper
being no more than the Enghsh expressions " 0, kiss me"
and "Mary, kiss me " written together as though the
three words were one. Such names were on a par with names
like Vienferdodoleon or Prentoncafelea if coined by an
irresponsible Frenchman. Names of this kind were open to
strong objection and their publication should be prohibited.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend:—
(1) that there should be added to Article 8 a
Reco-mmandatian condemning the selection as a
generic name of a word which purported to be an
arbitrary combination of letters but which, when
pronounced, appeared to be a word or words in
some language other than Latin, especially where
those words had a bizarre, comic or otherwise
objectionable meaning, and urging authors to
refrain from publishing such names ;

264

1 iUernational Commission on Zoological Nomencl<Uure.

(2) that a Recommandation in terms similar to those
specified in (1) above but relating to trivial names
should be inserted in Article 14.

Article 23
(proposed
clarification in
certain respects)

PURCHASE5

26 [;IAr 1360

17. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
following papers relating to the use of parentheses (round
brackets) in cases where subgeneric names are cited in
addition to generic names or the status of a tri^'ial name is
altered in a given genus.

(a) a request received from Dr. C. F. W. Muesebeck
(U.S.A.) for a ruling on the interpretation of Article
23 in cases where a species is originally described as
being both in a genus and in a subgenus and later the
subgenus is elevated to generic rank and the species
is transferred to the genus so erected (file Z.N.(S.)
128) (see Muesebeck, 1945, Bull. zool. No)ne)icl., 1 :
92);

(b) a request received from Professor R. Chester
Hughes (U.S.A.) for a ruling on the interpretation of
Ai'ticle 23 in relation to the use of parentheses (round
brackets) when citmg the name of an author of a
subspecific trivial name when that name appears in
conjunction with the same generic name but not in
the same relationship thereto as when origmally
pubUshed (file Z.N.(S.)129) (see Hughes, 1945, Bull,
zool. Nomenc., 1 : 91-92) ;

(c) a note on the above cases submitted by the Secretary
in Point (44) in Commission Paper I. C, (48)15.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

(1) that iVrticle 23 should be redrafted, so far as
necessary, to make it clear that the provisions of
that Article apply only to the case of a species or
subspecies which is originally described as belonging
to one nominal genus but later is transferred to
another nominal genus, and therefore that it is
irrelevant for the purposes of Article 23 whetlier
a species or subspecies, when first described, in
addition to being placed in a genus was placed also
in a subgenus, as also is the question whether a
species or subspecies originally published in a
genus without a subgenus being cited is later cited
under botli a generic and a subgeneric name and
rice verso :

(2) that the name of an author is not to be placed in
brackets (parentheses) when a trivial name
originally jjublished as the name of a species is

THANKS TO U.N.E.S.C.O.

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, on behalf
of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have
great pleasure in expressing their grateful thanks to the UNITED
NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL
ORGANISATION (U.N.E.S.C.O.) for the financial assistance
afforded towards the cost of producing the present volume.

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Notice to subscribers regarding the arrangements made for the

completion of volume i and for the publication of

volumes 2, 3, 4 and 5

The following arrangements have been made for completing volume 1
of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and for the publication of
volumes 2, 3, 4 and 5 : —

Volume I : A concluding Part (Part 12), containing, inter alia, the Title
Page, Table of Contents, and alphabetical subject index, will be
published shortly.

Volume 2 : This volume, like Volume 1, will be devoted to the publica-
tion of appUcations in regard to nomenclatorial problems submitted
by specialists to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature for decision. Publication will commence at an early date.

Volume 3 : This volume, which is now complete in 9 Parts, is devoted
to the publication of the memoranda, reports and other docu-
ments considered by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature and by the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology at their meetings held in Paris
in July 1948.

Volume 4 : This volume will be devoted to the publication of the
Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in July 1948.
Parts 1-9 have already been published and the remaining Parts
are in the press.

Volume 5 : At the request of the Bureau of the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, this volume will be devoted to the pubUcation
of the Official Record of Proceedings of the Section on Nomenclature
of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948,
together with the Reports submitted to the Congress by the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the Section
on Nomenclature.

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 Metcuim and Son, Ltd., Westminster, London

VOLUME 4. Parts 10/12 9th June, 1950

pp. 255—350.

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL

ro NOMENCLATUL.,^,,.,^

The Official Organ of ^^It m •^•^''

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 :

The Official Record of Proceedings of the International Page

Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its
Session held in Paris in July 1948 :

Conclusions of Ninth Meeting

{concluding portion) ----- 255-271

Conclusions of Tenth Meeting - - - 272-279

Conclusions of Eleventh Meeting - - - 280-305

Conclusions of Twelfth Meeting

(first instalment) 306-350

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological

Nomenclature on instructions received from the Thirteenth

International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948,

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.

1950

Price One pound, eight shillings.

(All rights reserved)

9<A Meei

\July, 1948.

255

later treated as the name of a subspecies and vice
versa, so long as that species or subspecies is cited
in its original nominal genus.

Article 25
(question whether
a description of
the work of an
animal but not
of the animal
itself constitutes
an " indication ")

(Previous reference:
Paria Session,
6th Meeting,
Conclusion IG)

18. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
request submitted by Commissioner J. Chester Bradley
(U.S.A.) (file Z.N.(S.)140) for a ruling on the question
whether the description of the work of an animal (for
example, the borings made by a beetle), unaccompanied by
any description of the animal itself or of any part of it
constitutes an " indication " for the purposes of Article 25
(see Bradley, 1945, Bull. zool. Noniencl., 1 : 93-94), together
with a note thereon submitted by the Secretary in Point (45)
in Commission Paper I.C. (48)15.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

(1) the insertion in Article 25 of words to make it clear
that the description of the work of an animal
constitutes an " indication " for the purposes of
Article 25, even if unaccompanied by a description
of the animal itself and that a name so given is not
to be rejected on the grounds that it is based upon
a hypothetical form ;

(2) the addition to Article 25 of a Recommandation
urging authors, so far as possible, to avoid giving
names to new taxonomic units, where those units
are based solely upon the work of an animal.

Article 25
(Question whether
a generic name
based solely upon a
figure is published
with an
" indication ")

19. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
request submitted by Dr. Harald A. Rehder (U.S.A.) (file
Z.N.(S.)68) for a ruling on the question whether a generic
name based solely upon a figure satisfies the requirements
of Article 25 (see Rehder, 1945, Bull. zool. Noynencl., 1 :
94-95), together with a note thereon published by the
Secretary in 1945 {Bull. zool. Nomencl., 1 : 95-96) and a
supplementary note submitted by the Secretary in Point
(4G) in Commission Paper I.C. (48)15.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that words should be inserted in Article 25 to make it
clear that a generic name published prior to 1st
January, 1931, on a legend to a plate or plates but
without explanatory matter is to be treated as
having been published with an " indication " for the
purposes of Article 25.

VOL. 4 R

256

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Trivial name
" aegyptiellus "
Strand, 1909, con-
ditionally published
for a subspecies of
" Halictus
morbillosus "
Kirchbaumer, 1873 :
status of, determined

{Previous reference :
Paris Session,
ath Meeting,
Conclusion 17)

20. THE COMMISSION had under consideration an
application submitted by the late Professor T. D. A.
Cockerell (U.S.A.) (file Z.N.(S.)45) for a ruling on the
authorship and date to be attributed to a trivial name
published conditionally in the Order Hymenoptera (Class
Insecta) (Cockerell, 1945, Bull. zool. Notnencl., 1 : 97),
together with a note submitted by the Secretary in Point
(47) in Commission Paper I. C. (48)15.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

that the point of principle raised in the application
submitted had been settled by the decision taken at
the meeting noted in the margin at the time when
Opinion 49 was under consideration and therefore that
the trivial name aegyptiellus given conditionally as the
trivial name of a subspecies of Halictus morbillosus
Kirchbaumer, 1873, ranked for priority as from 1909,
the year in which it had been published by Strand and
is to be attributed to that author.

Article 25
(significance of
the citation of
the host species in
an original
description of a
parasite)

(Previous reference:
Paris Session,
&h Meeting,
Conclusion 23)

Article 25
(significance of
the citation of a
geological horizon
in an original
description of a
fossil species)

21. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal submitted by President Karl Jordan (United
Kingdom) (file Z.N.(S.)167) that a ruling should be given on
the question whether the citation, in the case of a parasitic
species, of the name of the host species, unaccompanied by
any description of the parasite itself, constituted an
" indication " for the purposes of Article 25 (see Jordan,
1945, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 1 : 97-98), together with a note
thereon submitted by the Secretary in Point (48) in Com-
mission Paper I. C. (48)15.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that words should be inserted in the Regies to make
it clear that the citation of the name of the host species
of a parasitic species, unaccompanied by any other
particulars does not constitute an " indication "
for the purposes of Article 25 but that the
provision regarding the significance of the citation
of a type locality in an original description which
at the meeting noted in the margin they had agreed
to recommend should be inserted in the Regies should
be expanded to cover also the citation, in the case
of a parasitic species, of the name of the host
species.

22. Arising out of the discussion on the preceding item,
THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that the provision recorded in Conclusion 21 above
should be extended to cover also the citation, in the

^Ih Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

257

Article 25
(meaning of the
expression " le
plus anciennement
design^ ")

(Previous reference:
Paris Session,
1th Meeting,
Conclusion 18)

case of a fossil species, of the geological horizon in
which the fossil was found, where no descriptive
matter is given.

23. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal submitted by Dr. Satyu Yamaguti (Japan) (file
Z.N.(S.)125) that a ruling should be given regardino- the
manner in which the expression " le plus ancieimetnent
designe " as used in Article 25 should be interpreted (see
Yamaguti, 1945, Bull. zool. Nomencl, 1 : 102), together with
a note thereon submitted by the Secretary in Point (49) in
Commission Paper I.C.(48)15.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) said that the principal point raised by Dr.
Yamaguti had been settled by the decision taken at tlie
meeting noted in the margin that there should be added to
the Regies provisions prescribing the method to be followed
in determining the exact date to be assigned, for the purposes
of the Law of Priority, to any given book. It would be
useful, however, if the Commission were now to deal with
the position which arose when two competing names were
found to have been published in different books on the same
date.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that words should be inserted in the Regies prescribing
that, where two books, each containing a different
name for the same taxonomic unit or the same name
for different taxonomic units are published on the
same day or, under the decisions taken by the present
(Paris) Congress, are to be treated as having been so
published, by reason of the exact date of publication
of the books concerned being unknown, the question
as to which of the two names is to be given priority
over the other is to be referred to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for decision.

Article 28

(relative advantages

of the " First

Reviser " and

" Page Precedence "

principles).

Secretary to

submit Report on

VOL. 4 rs

24. In the course of the discussion regarding the
relative priority to be accorded to identical names published
on the same day in different works recorded in the im-
mediately preceding Conclusion, a discussion took place also
on the cognate question of the provisions in Article 28 in
its application to different names published for the same
species, or the same name published for two or more
different species, in the same book. It was generally at^reed
that the present wording of this Article was unsatisfactory.
At the same time the view was expressed that it was desir-

258

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

(Later reference:
Paris Session,
I'lth Meeting,
Coiic'usion 17)

able that consideration should be given to the practical
difficulties involved in applying the " first reviser " principle
laid down in that Article and that in this connection an
examination should be made of the relative advantages on
the one hand of retaining the " first reviser " principle and
on the other of substituting for this provision a provision
prescribing that in such cases relative priority should be
determined in accordance with the principle of page
precedence.

At the conclusion of the discussion, THE COMMISSION
agreed : —

to invite the Secretary to make a study, in the light of
the foregoing discussion, of the problems involved in
Article 28 and to submit a Report thereon, with
recommendations, at the earliest possible moment.

Article 22
(Dr. Jacot's
proposal that this
article be
deleted)

25. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N.(S.)12) submitted by the late Dr. Arthur
P. Jacot (U.S.A.) that Article 22 should be deleted from the
Regies and that in its place there should be inserted a
Recommamlation that authors' names should not normally
be cited (see Jacot, 1945, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 1 : 90),
together with a counter-proposal submitted by the
Secretary in the first part of Point (50) in Commission
Paper I.C.(48)15.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—
to reject the proposal in regard to Article 22 submitted
by the late Dr. Arthur P. Jacot.

Article 23
(proposal by the
American
Malacological
Union that this
Article be deleted)

Article 1 and
Articles 34 & 35 :
co-ordination of,
in relation to the
names of species
transferred from
the Animal
Kingdom to the
Vegetable
Kingdom

26 . THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
Resolution (file Z.N.(S.)142) adopted by the American
Malacological Union urging the deletion from the Regies
of Article 23 (see Robertson, 1945, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 1 :
93), together with a counter-proposal submitted by the
Secretary in the second part of Point (50) in Commission
Paper I.C.(48)15.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

to reject the proposal in regard to Article 23 submitted
by the American Malacological Union.

27. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) said that with the consideration of Point (50)
in Commission Paper I. C. (48)15, the Commission had
concluded their examination of all the proposals affecting
the interpretation of the Regies published in Part 5 of
Volume 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature with the
exception of a proposal (file Z.N.(S.)155) submitted by

9th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

259

(Previous reference:
Paris Session,
6th Heeling,
Conclusion 1)

Article 25
(authorship of
nomina nuda and
manuscript names
when first
validly published
with an
" indication ")

(Previous reference :
Paris Session,
6th Meeting,
Conclusion 18)

himself (Hemming, 1945, Bull. zool. NomencL, 1 : 103-106)
on the interpretation of Article 34 in relation to the pro-
visions in regard to the status of names of genera which
were originally described as belonging to the Animal King-
dom but were later transferred to the Vegetable Kmgdom.
There was no real doubt, on any reasonable interpretation
of the wording actually used in the substantive French text,
that paragraph (3) of Article 1 (though a poorly-drafted
provision) governed Article 34 and therefore that, where a
genus, originally described as belonging to the Animal
Kingdom, is later transferred to the Vegetable Kingdom,
the generic name published for that genus retains its
original status in zoological nomenclature for the purposes
of the Law of Homonymy (Article 34). It would be well,
however, to take advantage of the present clean-up of the
Regies to make this clear. The same principle should be
made clear also in relation to the application of paragraph
(3) of Article 1 to Article 35 (i.e. to the Law of Homonymy
in relation to specific names and specific trivial names).

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

(1) that the provisions contained in the concluding
portion of Article 1 should be redrafted, so as to
bring out more clearly that those provisions were
concerned with the status in zoological nomencla-
ture of the generic and specific names given to a
species in the belief that that species belonged to
the Animal Kingdom, when later that genus or
species was treated as belonging to the Vegetable
Kingdom ;

(2) that such drafting amendments should be made in
Article 34 (generic homonymy) as might be
necessary to ensure that it was consistent with
Article 1 and that regard should be paid to the
same consideration in the choice of the wording to
be employed in the Article which (as agreed at the
meeting noted in the margin) is to replace the
existing Article 35 (specific homonymy).

28. THE COMMISSION had under consi^leration a
proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) regarding the authorship to be
attributed to a name, when first published with an
" indication," in cases where the name in question had,
prior to being so published, been either a nomen nudum or a
manuscript name, together with a proposal in regard thereto
submitted by the Secretary in Point (51) in Commission
Paper I.C.(48)15.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that words should be inserted either in Article 25 or
some other part of the Regies to make it clear that,

260

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Article 30
(interpretation of
Rule (g))

(Previous reference:
Paris Session,
ath Meeting,
Conclusion 72)

when a name is validly published in conditions which
satisfy the provisos to Article 25 and the name in
question accordingly acquires rights under the Law
of Priority and, prior to being so published, that name
had either been published as a nomen nudum or had
been a manuscript name, the name is to be attributed
to the author by whom it was first published in
conditions which satisfied the requirements of the
said provisos to Article 25 and not to the earlier
author by whom it had either been published as a
nomen nudum or had been given currency as a
manuscript name.

29. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) relating to the interpretation of
Rule (g) in Article 30 submitted by the Secretary in Point
(52) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEM-
MING) said that, since this proposal had been drafted, the
point at issue had been dealt with by the Commission, when
considering the proposal submitted in Point (11) in Com-
mission Paper I.C. (48)12. No action was called for,
therefore, on the part of the Commission as regards the
present proposal.

THE COMMISSION took note of the above statement.

Title to be given to
the " Regies " as
amended by the
present Congress

30. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) relating to the title to be applied
to the Regies as revised at the present Congress, submitted
by the Secretary in Point (53) in Commission Paper
I.C.(48)15.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

(1) that an Article should be inserted in the Regies
prescribing : —

(a) that the title of the Regies as amended by
the Thirteenth International Congress of
Zoology at its meeting held in Paris in 1948
shall be the " Regies Internationales de la
Nomenclature Zoologique, 1901-1948 " ;

(b) that the foregoing Regies may be referred to
by the short title " Regies, 1901-1948 " ;

(2) that a provision should be inserted in the Regies
revised as in (l)(a) above, repealing the Regies
previously in force as from the date on which the
revised Regies come into force.

Addition of a
further Schedule
or Schedules to the
" Regies " for
recording decisions
by the

Commission on the
invalidity of books
or names

(Lafer reference .
Paris Session,
V2th Meeting,
Conclusion 19)

Words having the
terminations
" -idae " and
" -inae " :
restriction on use
other than for
names of families
and subfamilies

m Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 261

31. THE COMMISSION had under consideration «

to be adopted for recording decisions taken by the Com-
mjssicni either (1) that a given work is not Available "r
(2) that a given name or class of name (for example the

PapTi I C (48)15 ' ''^ '^ ^""'' (^^^ "^ Commission

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :-

(1) that decisions taken by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature (a) that a
given book is not available for nomenclatorial
purposes or (b) that a given name is not available
should be recorded in a further Schedule or if
found more convenient, in two further Schedules
to be attached to the Regies-

(2) that it should be left to the jurists to determine
the ordex in which the several Schedules to the
Kegles should be arranged.

32. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N(S.)200) submitted by CWmissSne^H
Boschma (Netherlands) proposing an amendment to the
Regies to secure that words having the terminations " -idae "

2 Jr'' /r^""^'^ "'/'^^'^^ * ^' '^' terminations for
the names of famihes and subfamilies, shall not be used
either (1) as names for suprageneric groups other than those
respectiv-ely specified in Article 4 or (2) as names of genera
or of units of lower rank, except where such a termination
s required for a trivial name formed in the first declension
m the genitive singular. At the same time also the Com-
nXTbtl^f " *^"" '.P^^P^^^^ ^'^ ^his subject sub-
Tcuiil T ^T'^'y \^. ^"'^^ (^5) ^^ Commission Paper
1.0.(48)15. In his application on this subject, Com-
missioner Boschma referred to the highly object onable
practice adopted by certain authors in coining t me of tt
above kmd as the names (for example) of sections of sub
nqofiff^ll "^ V^'' connection the use by Hancock
ie ! 1? ? "^^"l^Bufonidae as the name of a section of

Wt'ordt oSpTraf ''' ''''''' ^^^^^^^ (^^-
THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :-

that provisions should be inserted at appropriate
points in the Regies:— ^ F^opudte

(a) prohibiting the use of words having either the
termination " -idae " or the termination "-inae"
as the names of suprageneric groups other than

262 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

families or, as the case may be, subfamilies,
and invalidating such names when published
for such purposes ;

(b) prohibiting the use of words having either of
the terminations specified in (a) above as the
names either (i) of genera or (ii) of taxonomic
imits of lower rank and invalidating such
names when published for such purposes, save
in the case of a trivial name which consists of
the name of a place or personage of which the
nominative singular has the termination " -ina "
or " -ida," cited in the genitive singular (as,
for example, the trivial name catharinae).

Article 12 33. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a

(redrafting of, to proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) for the redrafting of Article 12 of
eliminate confusion K '^^^ , . \ i t ■ ? ^i e ■

between taxonomy the Regies m such a way as to enmmate the contusion
and nomenclature) between taxonomic ideas and nomenclatorial facts which at
present marred that Article, submitted by the Secretary in
Point (56) in Commission Paper I. C. (48)15.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that Article 12 of the Regies should be redrafted on
the following lines :• —

When a specimen or specimens originally des-
cribed as representing a species is or are treated by
a later author as representing a subspecies, the
name published as the specific trivial name of the
species becomes the subspecific trivial name of
the subspecies, and vice versa.

Article? 34. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a

(redrafting of, to proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) that Article 7 should be redrafted
bet'ween*axonomy" ^o eliminate the confusion between taxonomy and nomen-
and nomenclature) clature implicit in the present wording, submitted by the
Secretary in Point (57) in Commission Paper I. C. (48)15.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that Article 7 of the Regies should be redrafted on the
following lines : —

When a species or group of species originally
descibed as constituting a genus is treated by a
later author as constituting a subgenus, the name
published as the generic name for the genus
becomes the subgeneric name of the subgenus, and
vice versa.

9th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

263

Articles 6 & 11 :
co-ordination of
texts

Articles 19& 32 :
co-ordination of
texts

{Previous reference:
Paris Session,
7lh Meeting,
Concliisioii 12)

Article 8 :
(amendment of
provision

proposed in replace-
ment of second
"Recommandation"

35. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) that the discrepancy between the
wording employed in the parallel Articles 6 and 11 of the
Regies (a discrepancy which was undoubtedly due to
inadvertence in drafting) should be rectified by amending
Article 6 so as to bring the wording used in that Article into
line with that employed in Article 11, submitted by the
Secretary in Point (58) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—
that, in order to bring the texts of Articles G and 11
into line with one another, the Avords " et recom-
mandatioHs " should be inserted in Article 6 after the
word " regies.^'

36. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) recalled at this point that among the proposi-
tions submitted by Professor Pierre Bonnet (France) was
one which also related to the formal co-ordination of two
Articles of the Regies, which he suggested might be con-
veniently considered by the Commission at the present
point. This proposition (file Z.N.(S.)352) aimed at securing
that words should be inserted in the Regies to make it clear
that Article 32 did not impose any Ihnitation on the
generality of the provisions of Article 19 of the Regies.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that words should be inserted in the Regies to ensure
the co-ordination of Articles 19 and 32 by making it
clear that nothing in the last-named Article detracts
from the generality of the provisions of Article 19.

37. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N.(S.)253) submitted by Professor L. W.
Grensted (United Kingdom) that Recommandation (2)(b)
to Article 8, relating to the formation of a compound name
where the words used in forming that compound name are of
Greek origin, should be amended so as to eliminate the
sentence condoning the formation of such a name in an
incorrect manner, such a sentence being unnecessary and
inappropriate in a non-mandatory provision such as a
Recommandation. It was bad enough to have such a
generic name as Hippopotamus which Linnaeus had
presumably thought meant a " river-horse " but which, in
fact, through being incorrectly formed, meant a " horse-
river," but it was intolerable that an incorrectly formed
name of this kind should be gratuitously referred to in a
provision which was ostensibly concerned only to show the
correct manner of forming compound names. At the same

264

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

(Previous reference:
Paris Session,
9th Meeiing,
Conclusion 15)

( For a proposed
addition to this
" Becommandation '
See Paris Session,
II th Meeting,
Conclusion 20)

time the Commission had before them a proposal on the
same subject submitted by the Secretary in Point (59) in
Commission Paper I. C. (48)15.

It was pointed out in discussion that, since the foregoing
proposals had been formulated, the Commission had agreed -
to recommend that the Recommandations to Ai'ticle 8
should be converted into mandatory provisions. This
decision made it necessary that in the ir^terest of stabihty
in nomenclature words should be inserted to preserve
compound names consisting of words of Greek origin, even
when formed in a totally incorrect manner (as in the case of
the name Hippopotamus). It was suggested that this end
might best be secured by confining to a bare enumeration
of the permissible tyj^es of generic names the portions of
Recommandation (2) to be made mandatory and byYetaining
as Recommaiulations the comments included in the present
provision in regard to certain of the types of names there
enumerated.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend:—

(1) that, when, as agreed at the meeting noted in the
margin, the second of the two Recommandations
to Article 8 was redrafted as a mandatory pro-
vision, that provision should be confined to a
bare enumeration of the types of words there listed
as words admissible for selection as generic names,
together with appropriate examples, and that the
comments which were at present attached to,
or which at present constitute, items (a), (b), (c),
(f), (h), (8), (€) and (C), (i), (j) should be given as
Recommandations attached to the provisions
relating to the items concerned ;

(2) that, in the case of category (b), the whole of the
existing comment should be deleted, namely, the
words " in which the attributive should precede
the principal word," the examples cited im-
mediately thereafter and the whole of the
following paragraph (" This does not . . .
Biorhiza ") and that, in place thereof, there should
be inserted a Recommandation on the following
lines : —

Where a name consisting of a compound word
is formed from words of Greek origin, the
attribute should, if it expresses a quality,
precede the principal word, but where it ex-
presses either an action or an activity or a
state, may either precede or follow the word
with which it is conjoined.

Articles 34 & 35 :
relative precedence
to be given to
generic and
subgeneric
homonyms and to
specific and
subspecific
homonyms of the
same date

(Previous reference:
Paris Session,
f>th Meeting,
Concltision I)

Article 36
(re-allocation to
Articles 34 and 35
of

^ Recommanda-
tions ")

Previous reference :
Paris Session,
6l/i Meeting,
Concltision 1)

(Previous reference:
Paris Session,
9lh Meeting,
Conclusion 9)

9lk Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. ^65

38. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) for the conversion into a mandat-
ory provision of the addition relating to the relative
precedence to be accorded to homonyms of identical date
made to Article 36 by the Xlth International Congress
of Zoology at Padua in 1930 which at present appears as a
Recommandation, submitted by the Secretary in Point
(bO) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15.

m^^u^nf™^. PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) pointed out that this provision was totally
valueless in the form of a Recommandation onlv, and that
It was only if it became a mandatory provision that it
could have any practical utilitv. That this provision
appeared in the Regies as a Recommandation and not
as a mandatory provision might well be due to editorial
inadvertence, for it was expressly stated in the Commission's
_ Opinion 124, which dealt with another aspect of the same
matter, that the provision in question was an " amendment
to .Irticle 36 ", a statement which would not have been
correct if this provision had been no more than a Recom-
mandation. In any case this Recommandation was quite
inajipropriately placed in Article 36, to which it was
unrelated in subject.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :-
that the provision relating to homonyms of identical
date added by the Eleventh International Congress
of Zoology to Article 36 in the form of a Recomman-
dation should be converted into a mandatory provision
and that the portion concerned with generic and
subgeneric names should be related to Article 34 and
that concerned with specific and subspecific triVial
names to Article 35, when the last-named Article was
redrafted in accordance with the decision aheady
taken at the meeting noted in the margin.

39. Arising out of the discussion recorded in Conclusion
38 above, THE COMMISSION agi-eed to recommend :-
(1) that, when Article 36 was redrafted in accordance
with the decision taken at the meeting noted in the
margin, the provisions which at present appear as
Recommandations attached to that Article should,
subject to any necessary drafting amendments,
be allocated respectively to Article 34, so far as
generic nanies are concerned, and to Article 35,
so far as trivial names are concerned ;
(2) that, consequential upon the recommendation
agreed to be submitted to give effect to a correction
made in Article 4 by the Eighth International

266

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Graz
in 1910, a corresponding correction (by the substi-
tution of the word " theme " for the word " radical ")
should be made in the third and fourth of the
unnumbered Recommandations at present attached
to Article 36.

Status of certain
alleged subgeneric
names : completion
of decision given
ID " Opinion " 124

{iMler reference :
Paris Session,
llth Meeting,
Conclusion 0)

(TMler reference:
Paris Session,
13lh Meeting
Conclusion 2)

40. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N.(S.)394) for the completion of the decision
regarding the status of certain terms, published in circum-
stances which had something of the appearance of giving to
those names a subgeneric status recorded in Opinion 124,
submitted by the Secretary in Point (61) in Commission
Paper I.C.(48)15.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS

HEMMING) said that this question, which had first been
raised by Dr. Ashley B. Gurney (U.S.A.), was one of a
number which arose in connection with the failure of the
Commission on some occasions in the past to deal in their
Opinions with the whole of a given problem submitted to
them for decision. A proposal for dealing with this anomaly
had been received from Commissioner H. Boschma
(Netherlands) and would be brought before the Commission
at a later meeting. In the case of Opinion 124, the defect
which required to be rectified was that, as worded, that
Opinion applied only to terms of the class in question
(alleged subgeneric names), as published by Linnaeus in the
10th edition of the Sy sterna Naturae, whereas the decision
in that Opinion should have covered the use of such terms
in all the works of Linnaeus, for, when he used such terms
in other works, he always did so in a sense similar to that
adopted in the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae. It
was desirable also that, when the Commission made this
correction, they should extend the decision in regard to the
use of the terms in question by Linnaeus to cover the use
of the same or similar terms by Fabricius (J.C), who in this
matter had followed a practice exactly parallel to that
adopted by Linnaeus.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) that, where in any of his works (and not merely in
the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae) Linnaeus,
when citing the name of a species, placed an
intermediate term or intermediate terms between
the name of the genus and the trivial name of the
species, an intermediate term so used was not
to be treated as having thereby acquired the
status of a subgeneric name as from the date of
being so published ;

Olh Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

267

(-) that the decision set out in (1) above applies also
to nitermediate terms phiced between the generic
name and the trivial name of a species by Fabricius
(J.C.) in any of his works ;

(3) to render an Opinion recording the decision speci-
fied m (1) and (2) above.

" Official List of
Generic Names in
Zoology " : status
of names placed on

( Previous reference:
Paris Sessim,
8th Meeting,
Vonchision 4)

41. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) that a provision should be inserted
ni the Regies clarifying the status of a generic name, once
It has been placed on the " Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology ", submitted by the Secretary in Point (62) in
Commission Paper I.C.(48)15.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) observed that the object of this proposal was
to lay down clearly the status of a generic name once it was
placed on the " Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ".
Ihis proposal did not prejudge in any way the general
investigation into the problem of finding ways and means
tor stabilising zoological nomenclature, which at their
nieeting held that morning the Commission, at the request
ot the Section on Nomenclature, had undertaken to carry
out before the next meeting of the Congress. All that
the present proposal did was to provide a breathing space
between the time when a mistake in the " Official List "
was detected and the time when action was taken to correct
that mistake.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to recommend that there should be inserted in the
Regies provisions : —

(a) prescribing that, for the purpose of pro-
moting the stabiUsation of generic nomen-
clature, there shall be an " Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology ", on which shall
be inscribed the following classes of generic
name, each name being accompanied by the
name of the type species of the genus
concerned and particulars as to the manner
m which that species was so designated,
indicated, or selected : —

(i) every generic name validated by the
Commission under its plenary powers
or for which the type species has
been similarly designated ;

268 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

(ii) the name of every genus, when an
available name, in respect of which
or its tjqje species the Commission
has rendered an Opinion ;
(iii) the name of any genus which the
Commission, in consultation with
specialists concerned, considers it
desirable to stabilise ;

(b) directing that, when a generic name has
been placed on the " Official List ", that
name is to be used, in preference to any
other name, for the species which is the type
species of the genus so named, save that,
where, as agreed at the meeting noted
in the margin, the Commission, in order not
to appear to prejudge a purely taxonomic
question, place on the " Official List "
the names of two or more genera, the
respective type species of which are regarded
by some systematists as belonging to differ-
ent genera but by others as being con-
generic with one another, the later pub-
lished of the two generic names in question
is for use only by those workers who regard
the respective type species of the two geiiera
concerned as not being congeneric with one
another ;

(c) specifying that, where a generic name
belonging either to the second or the third
of the classes specified in (a) above is
found, after having been placed on the
" Official List ", either (1) not to be an
available name or (2) not to be the oldest
name available, there being an older name
for a genus having as its type species
a species either subjectively identified
with, or subjectively regarded as being
congeneric with, the type species of the
genus the name of which has been placed on
the " Official List " or (3) to have as its type
species some species other than the type
species attributed to it in the " Official
List ", the generic name in question is
nevertheless not to be discarded in favour
of some other name or used in a sense
different from that specified in the " Official
List ", unless and until the Commission,
on having the facts laid before it, shall
so direct ;

9/// Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

269

(d) prescribing any other provisions relating
to the " Official List " which the present
Congress may enact in regard to the said
" Official List " ;

(e) laying it down that it is the duty of the
International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature to maintain the said "Official
List " and to foster its development by
every means in its power ;

(2) agreed that the duties imposed upon the
Commission in (1) above should be specified in the
By-Laws of the Commission when revised in the
light of the decisions taken by the present (Paris)
Congress.

" Official List of
Specific Names in
Zoology " :
establishment of,
and status of names
placed on

(For a decision to
alter the title of this
" Official List,"
see Paris Sess)07i,
llth Meeting,
Conclusion 5)

42. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N.(G.)48), that there should be established
an "Official List of Trivial Names in Zoology " parallel to
the •■ Official List " estabhshed for generic names by the
Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held
at Monaco in 1913, submitted by the"^ Secretary in Point
(63) in Commission Paper 1.0.(48)15.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) pointed out that, although the Plenary Powers
Resolution adopted by the Congress in 1913 applied both to
generic names and to trivial names, the " Official List "
established by the Congress at the same meeting was
concerned only with generic names. This was an anomaly
which should be corrected. The " Official List of Trivial
Names "now proposed would be an exact parallel of the
existing " Official List of Generic Names in Zoology " and
the status of names placed on these " Official Lists " would
be subject to similar regulations. A reference to the new
" Official List " would be needed in the body of the Regies.
A parallel reference would be needed also in the By-Laws
of the Commission, when revised in the light of the decisions
taken by the present Congress.

In the discussion which ensued, general agreement was
expressed with the proposal that there should be established
an " Official List " of the kind proposed. It would provide
a valuable means both for recording decisions taken by the
Commission in regard to the names of particular species and
also for stabilising the names of important species. The
view was expressed however that it might be better if this
" Official List " were given the title of " Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology " rather than the title of
" Official List of Trivial Names in Zoology ".

270

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

( For a later decision
modifying the title of
the " Official List " *
here established, see
Paris Session,
1 Uh Meeting,
Conclusion 5)

THE COMMISSION :—

(1) agreed to recommend the insertion in the Regies
of provisions prescribing :

(a) that there should be an " Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology ", parallel to the
" Official List of Generic Names in Zoology",
on which should be inscribed the oldest
available trivial name of any species, the
specific name of which it was desired should
be stabilised, together with the generic
name, in combination with which the trivial
name in question was originally published ;

(b) that the status of a specific name, once
placed on the " Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology " shall be subject to
regulations similar to those prescribed for
the status of generic names placed on the
" Official List for Generic Names in Zoo-
logy ", that is to say, a specific name once
stabilised in this way is to be used in
preference to any other name for the species
in question and the trivial name in question
is not to be replaced by any other trivial
name, even if later it is found either (1) that
the trivial name in question is not an avail-
able name or (2) that it is not the oldest
available trivial name for the species in
question, unless, and until, on the facts
being laid before the Commission, the Com-
mission shall so direct ;

(c) that the names to be included in the
" Official List of Specific Names in Zoology "
should include : —

(i) every name validated by the Com-
mission under its plenary powers ;

(ii) any name, being an available name,
on which the Commission has at any
time rendered an Opinion ;
(iii) the name of the type species of any
genus, the name of which is placed
on the " Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology ", save where
such a name is not, either objectively
or subjectively, the oldest available
name for the species in question, in
which case there shall be added to the
" Official List of Specific Names in

9(/t Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

271

" Official List of
Generic Names in
Zoology " :
additional
provision
relating to

Tenth Meeting of
the Commission
during its Paris
Session ; date and
time noted

{Previous reference:
Paris Session,
Sth Meeting,
Condimon 7)

VOL. 4 s

Zoology " the oldest available name
for the taxononiic species concerned ;
(iv) the oldest available name for :—

(1) species of importance in mcdiciuo,
agriculture, veterinary science and other
iiclils ol" applied biology, in stratigraphy
and ill the teaching of zoology ;

(2) species, the nonienelature of which the
Commission, in eonsultatiou with
specialists eoucerned, consider it
desirable to stabilise ;

(d) that the insertion on the " Official List " ot
a given specific name is not to be interpreted
as an expression of opinion on the taxonomic
question whether the animal so named
should be regarded as being on the one hand
a distinct species or on the other hand a
subspecies of some other species ;

(e) that it is the duty of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to
maintam the said " Ofl&cial List " and to
foster its development by every means m its
power ;

(2) agreed that the duties imposed upon the Commis-
sion in (1) above should be specified in the By-
Laws of the Commission, when revised in the light
of the decisions taken by the present (Pans)
Congress.
43 Arising out of the discussion m regard to the scope
of the proposed " Official List of Specific Names in Zoology"
recorded in Conclusion 42 above, THE COMMISSION
agreed to recommend : — r( i •

that the recommendation specified in Conclusion
42(l)(c)(iv)(l) above in relation to names to l)e
admitted to the " Official List of Specffic Names in
Zoology " should be applied also in relation to the
" Official List of Generic Names in Zoology."

44. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) proposed that, now that the Commission had
completed their examination of the recommendations
submitted in Commission Paper LC.(48)15, they should
adjourn until the next day. As already announced, then:
next meeting, which would be held concurrently with the
second meeting of the Section on Nomenclature, would take
place on the morning of tlie following day (Saturday, 24th
July, 1948) at 0900 hours.

THE COMMISSION took note of the above statement.

(The Commission thereupon adjourned at 2315 hours).

( 272 )

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Session held durinij l/ic Tliirleeidh International Congress of Zoology,
Paris, 2lst-27th July, 1948

CONCLUSIONS of the Tenth Meeting held at the Sorbonne in the Amphitheatre
Louis-Liard on Saturday, 24th July, 1948, at 0900 hours

{Meeting held concurrently iiith the Second Meeting of the Section on Nomenclature)

PRESENT :

Mr. Francis Hemnimg (United Kingdom) {Acting President)

Professor L. di Caporiacco (Italy)

Dr. E. Hindle (United Kingdom)

Professor Harold Kirby (U.S.A.)

Mr. N. D. Riley (United Kingdom)

Professor V. van Straelen (Belgium)

Professor Robert L. Usinger (U.S.A.)

The following were also present :
M. J. Aubert (Switzerland)
Professor Pierre Bonnet (France)
Dr. E. A. Chapin (U.S.A.)
M. Andre Chavan (France)
M. Georges Deflandre (France)
Mme. Marthe Deflandre-Rigaud (Francej
Mr. C. F. dos Passos (U.S.A.)
Professor E. Fischer-Piette (France)
M. H. Gisin (Switzerland)
Professor R. Jeannel (France)
Dr. P. Jespersen (Denmark)
Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark)
Mr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (United Kingdom)
Dr. H. H. J. Nesbitt (Canada)
Mr. C. D. Radford (United Kingdom)
Miss Louise Russell (U.S.A.)
M. J. Segal (U.S.S.R.)

Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming, Personal Assistant to the Secretary
Miss J. H. Shorey, Actitig Docutnents Officer

loth Meetiitg, Paris, July, 1948.

273

Nomenclature of
supergeneric
groups below
family level :
communication by
Prof. R. Jeannel

{Previous reference:
Paris iSessioii,
6(A Meeting,
Conclusion 11)

Nomenclature of
families and
sub'families :
Prof. R. L. Usinger's
communication

(Previous reference:
Paris Session,
6th Meeting,
Conclusion 11)

The concepts
" grade " and
" pseudo'genus " :
communication by
M. G. Deflandre

1 . THE COMMISSION, jointly with the Section on
Nomenclature, had under consideration a conununication
(file Z.N.(S.)357) submitted by Professor R. Jeannel
(France) on the subject of the nomenclature of supergeneric
groups below the family leveP.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

that the i)roblem of the nomenclature of supergeneric
groups submitted by Professor R. Jeannel should be
included among the matters to be dealt with in the
Report on the problems arising in connection with
Family and Sub-Family names which it had been
agreed at the meeting noted in the margin the Secre-
tary to the Commission should be invited to prepare
for consideration by the Commission at their meeting
to be held during the next (XlVth) meeting of the
Congress.

2. THE COMMISSION, jointly with the Section on
Nomenclature, were informed by Professor Robert L.
Usinger (U.S.A.) that he did not now propose to make the
communication (file Z.N.(S.)357), of which he had given
notice, for, as this was concerned with the rules governing
the nomenclature of families, it could, he thought, better be
treated as forming part of the documentation which would
form the basis of the Report by the Secretary, to which
reference had just been made.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

that the paper on the nomenclature of families and
subfamilies by Professor E. Gorton Linsley and
Professor Robert L. Usinger which had been received
from Professor Usinger should form part of the mater-
ial to be studied by the Secretary to the Commission
in preparing the Report which at the meeting noted in
the margin the Commission had asked him to furnish
for their consideration at their meeting to be held at
the next (XlVth) meeting of the Congress.

3. THE COMMISSION, jointly with the Section on
Nomenclature, had under consideration a communication*
submitted by M. Georges Deflandre (France), in which the
applicant asked that the Regies should be amended to
provide recognition of the concepts " grade " and " pseudo-
genus " (file Z.N.(S.)363).

' For tho text ofthecoinmunicatioii made bv Professor Jeannel, see pages 104-U55 in \'ohiine 3
of this journal, and for the record of the discussion in the Section on Nonienclatuie, see ]jages
28-29 in Volume .'■..

« For the text of the communication made by M. Deflandre, see page 106 of Volume 3 of this
journal, and for the record of the discussion in the Section on Nomenclature, see pages 30-31
in Volume .5.

VOL. 4 S''

274

International Commission on Zoological Notnendature.

(Later reference:
Paris Session,
lUh Meeting,
Conclusion 13)

Fragnnents
(organites and
sclerites) of fossil
invertebrates :
communication by
M. G. Deflandre and
Mme. M. Deflandre-
Rigaud

(Later reference:
Paris Session,
llth Meeting,
Conclusion H)

Arachnid names
published in
Clerck, 1757 :
proposal to make
available : pre-
liminary discussion

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

to take into consideration as soon as possible the
proposal that recognition should be given in the
Regies to the concepts " grade " and " pseudo-genus ".

4. THE COMMISSION, jointly with the Section on
Nunienclature, had under consideration a communication

.submitted by M. Georges Deflantlre and Mme. Marthe
Deflandre Rigautl (France)', in which the applicants asked
that the Regies should be amended so as to recognise a new
system of terminology — the terms concerned to be those
used in the Roman military hierarchy — for use for frag-
ments (organites and sclerites) of certain fossil invertebrates
(file Z.N.(S.)364).

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

to take into consideration as soon as possible the
pro])osal that recognition should be given in the
• Regies for a new system of terminology for use for
fragments (organites and sclerites) of certain fossil
invertebrates.

5. THE COMMISSION, jointly with the Section on
Nomenclature, had under consideration a communication
submitted by Professor Pierre Bonnet (France)^" and similar
communications received from M. Maurice Thomas
(Belgium), in which the applicants asked that the Commis-
sion should make available nomenclatorially the generic
name Araneus and the trivial names published for certain
Arachnid species by Clerck in his Aranei svecici, notwith-
standing the fact that those names were published in 1757,
i.e. prior to the date prescribed as the starting point of
zoological nomenclature in Article 26 of the Regies (file
Z.N.(S.)238).

PROFESSOR PIERRE BONNET (FRANCE) said
that the proposal which he laid before the Commission was
one of the utmost importance in the study of Arachnology.
That pro])osal aimed at securing an exception to the pro-
visions of Article 26 in favour of the Arachnid names pub-
lished by Clerck in 1757, the year prior to the starting point
of zoological nomenclature as prescribed by that Article.
The precise form of the method to be adopted to secure this
end was of indifference to himself and was primarily a
matter for the Commission to determine. What was
essential was to provide authority for the use of the names
published l)y Clerck, for these names were used by the great
majority of Arachnologists, and great confusion would
result if an attempt were made to apply to the species

' Kor the text of the comimmieation tnadi- by M. and Mine. Deflandre, see page 107 of Volume
3 of this journal, and for the record of the discussion in the Section on Nomenclature, see pages
31-32 of Volumes.

'" P'or the text of the communication made by Professor Bonnet, see pages 173-176 of
\'ohime 3, and for the rccoril of the discussion in tiio Section on Nomenclature, see pages 33-
35 of Volume 5.

10th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 275

the'S!' ""t '•''''■ ""'^'^' '"'"P"^^^ "J^l^'^^^'^'« tl^«reto under

vvcrt the ulfen.ative names which shonl.l strictly l,e used

not ZHTTT '^^' ""'" """""^^^ ^•f «I-^'-li«^« -'- 'Hd
not use the (derckian nan.es had found it necessary to cite
not only the names wluch they believed to be the correct
names under the Ragles but also the correspondmg ClerckTan

ihaTlVrV r f' '/ '' ^^°^^^ ^^^^ '"^^y could e"s"r
to whf r T.^' ''^^^^S '^''' ^«^^^« ^«"Jd understand
bv rWl'^''''M ^^ ^'"^ ''^''"'^^- The 54 species named
o^thl T' '. T'T''''' ^^^'^P^^^ «P«c^«« ^^d prior
to the adoption of tlie Regies the great majority of these
names had been m universal use. It had been a g^ve error
on the part of the authors of the R^les not to Jrovlle an
exception in Article 26 in favour of the Clerckian names
notwithstanding the fact that they had been puWish dTe

poL?r '' f'' 'f "'^^'"^ "^ *h^ ^^^- - ^he starting
sTmit?ed'tn ?.'''p nomenclature. The application now
submitted to the Commission in favour of action which
would render the Clerckian names available was based upo
a consultation which had been carried out with the^62
spemhsts in different parts of the world who today consti-
t^ited the entire body of workers in the field in question
w'y'nT:"'' '' had furnished statements 'of thei;
views. 48 of these specialists had expressed themselves

In <^ ! had considered themselves not suflSciently exper-
ienced to justify them in expressing an opinion Of the 8
specialists who had not replied, 6 we're natiLals of coui tr es

Am U IJ""" -F"'''^""' ^•^^''^""^ communication was
diflScult and their silence shoukl certainly not be interpreted
as indicating a desire on their part to absLn fron'voE on
the present application. It would be seen therefore that
there was an overwhelming consensus of opinion on the
part of interested specialists in favour of the present
apphcation. -In returning a favourable reply to the present
application, the International Commission^n ZoowTca
Nomenclataire would give much satisfaction to the S
niajonty of the specialists interested in this group whfal
ready used tlie names pubhshed by Clerck and%vere anximi
that tins usage shoukl now be officially approved. Such a
decision wouki give satisfaction also to almo,^ all of the snaU
mmority who di<l not at present use the Clercktn X
Hit who had expressed themselves as most anxious to io o
If official approval were to be given to this course. The
grant of the present application by the Commission would
anfwoVl?" 1 '"f ' °" '^' nomenclature of Arachnology

276

I)itenuilio)ial Connmssio)) o)> ZoaJnfjiraJ Nnmenclat^irp.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) said that the sul)ject matter of the present
tH)phcatioii had constituted a serious problem in the group
concerned long before the present Regies Avere adopted.
It had not been fomad possible m the Regies to provide an
exception in favour of Clerck's Arachnid names and in
consequence it had not been possible to make any progress
in this matter in the period between 1901, the year in which
the Regies were adopted, and the year 1913, when the
Congress had granted plenary powers to the Commission
to suspend the Regies in cases where they were satisfied that
greater confusion than uniformity would otherwise ensue.
It was unfortunate that this case, which was admitted by
all to be one of great importance to specialists in the group
concerned had not long ago formed the suliject of an apph-
cation for the use by the Commission of their plenary
powers. The long delay which had occurred in submitting
such a request naturally made the problem more difficult
of solution. Moreover, if the Commission were now to find
it possible to grant the request submitted, they would
equally have been able to so do thirty years before. Thus,
the delay had caused also quite unnecessary inconvenience
to all students of the group concerned and the expenditure
of much unnecessary time on discussion of a question which
could readily have been settled in one sense or another a
generation earlier.

Continuing, the Acting President said that, in view of
the exceptional interest of this case and of the special
features which it presented, he considered that the best
course would be to defer its further consideration until a
later meeting of the Commission, in order to allow everyone
who had heard Professor Bonnet's presentation of the case
to consider the issues involved. He accordingly proposed
that this application should be considered at a later meeting
of the Commission to be held jointly with the Section on
Nomenclature. In the meanwhile, he proposed to hand the
dossier relating to this case to Professor di Caporiacco,
whom he would call upon to make a further explanatory
statement at the opening of the meeting when this matter
was next considered.

{Later reference:
Paris Session,
I2th Meeting,
ConrhiDion 10)

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

to defer further consideration of the application that
they should use their plenary powers to make available
nomenclatorially the names published for certain
taxonomic units in the Class Arachnida by Clerck in
1757, prior to the date fixed by Article 26 of the Regies
as the starting point of zoological nomenclature until

10/A Meeting. Paris, July, 1948.

277

a lator nioftin<f to be held jointly with the Section on
Nonienclature on Mondav, 2()th Julv, 1018.

Report to be
submitted by the
Commission to the
Congress on the
work performed
during its
Paris Session

6. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) said that he had originally expected that it
would be necessary to ask the Commission, as also the
Section on Nomenclature, to meet again that afternoon and
perhaps also in the evening. Both the Commission and the
Section had, however, made such good progress in the
consideration of the matters requiring their attention that
it would not now be necessary to ask either body to meet
again before the weekend. That this should be so would,
he felt sure, be welcomed by the members of the Commission
and the Section, some of whom, no doubt, desired to attend
the function organised for that afternoon by the authorities
of the Congress. A day and a half's break in the meetings
of the Commission would also be most valuable to himself
(the Acting President), for it would provide him with an
opportunity to prepare the draft of the Report to be sub-
mitted l)y the Commission to the Congress on their work
during their Paris Session, which, in his capacity as
Secretary to the Commission, it was his duty to prepare for
the consideration of the Commission. He proposed that,
as on former occasions, the first part of the Report should be
devoted to giving a succinct account of matters relating
to the work and personnel of the Commission which had
been dealt mth since the last meeting of the Congre-ss,
including particulars in regard to such matters as changes
in the membership of the Commission, together with the
proposals of the Commission for the filling of certain of its
offices which would fall vacant at the close of the present
Congress, and for the filling of vacancies in the membership
of the Commission arising from the completion of the term
of ser\Tice of the Class 1949. Second, he proposed that the
Report should set out the proposals of the Commission for
the reform of their composition and of their procedure and
matters connected therewith. Finally the Report should
deal with the cpiestion of the reforms which it had been
agreed to recommend should be made in the Regies. It
would not be necessary to refer in detail to the numerous
minor changes which it had been agreed to recommend, for
these had all been agreed with the Section on Nomenclature,
to which, jointly with the Commission, the Congress looked
"for advice in such matters. It was however, desirable that
the Report should give a geneial picture of the reforms pro-
posed and in particular that it should refer specifically to the
more important features of those reforms.

Turning to rne question of the procedure to be adopted
in considering the draft Report, the Acting President

278

International Commissimi on Zoological Nomendature.

recalled that the following Monday, 26th July, 1948, was
the last tlay on which it woukl be possible to hold meetings
of the Commission and the (Section prior to the final
Concilium Plenum of the Congress to be held on the morning
of the foUowmg day, Tuesday, 27th July. In spite of the
excellent progress made by the Commission and the Section
during the past week, there still remained a large amount
of work to be despatched if the full programme was to be
carried through to a successful issue. It was essential
therefore that the best possible use should be made of
the limited amount of working time which still remained.
To this end, he (the Acting President) suggested that the
draft of the Commission's Report should be considered
first at a meeting to be held jointly between the Commission
and the Section on Nomenclature on the morning of Monday,
26th July. This procedure would have the advantage that,
while affording the Commission the fullest opportunity for
considering the document submitted for their consideration,
it would also enable them to obtain the views and advice
of the members of the Section on Nomenclature at a stage
when their Report was still in draft and changes in wording
and emphasis could be made in a way which would not be
possible — except with considerable difficulty — if the Report
were to be formally adopted by the Commission prior to
its being brought before the Section. Under the procedure
suggested the Commission would be able to make any
changes in the draft Report which they might consider
desirable and at the same time to incorporate in that docu-
ment any suggestions for its improvement which might
have been made during the joint consideration of the draft
with the members of the Section. It shoiild be possible in
this way to secure the fullest agreement between the
Commission and the Section on the Report to be submitted
to the Congress and to do so in the promptest and most
businesslike manner. At the present stage of the Congress
this latter consideration was of great importance, in view
of the large nuniber of individual problems of nomenclature
Btill awaiting decision.

THE COMMISSION took note of, and approved, the
proposals submitted by the Acting President in regard to
the procedure to be adopted in the preparation, and sub-
sequent consideration, of the Report to be submitted to the
Congress.

Eleventh Meeting 7. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS

of the Commission HEMMING) then proposed that the Commission should

dufinfif its X &i*is

Session : date and adjourn for the day. As already annoimced, the next

time noted meeting of the Commission, which, like the present meeting.

10th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 279

would be held concurrently with a meeting of the Section
o.i Noinoudature, would take place on Monday, 26th July,'
i J48. Ihc nieetnig would start at 0900 hours.

THE COMMISSION took note of the above arrange-
uients. °

{The Cmnmissim thereupon adjourned at 1210 hours).

( 280 .)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Session Iiehl duriiui the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology,
Puiis, •21st-27th July, 1948.

CONCLUSIONS of the Eleventh Meeting held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi-
theatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July, 1948, at 0930 hours.

{Meeting held concurrently with the Third Meeting of the Section on Nomenclature.)

PRESENT :

Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) {Acting President)

Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands)

Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.)

Professor L. di Caporiacco (Italy)

Dr. E. Hindle (United Kingdom)

Professor A. R. Jorge (Portugal)

Professor Harold Kirby (U.S.A.)

Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark)

Professor K. Mansour (Eg^^jt)

Mr. N. D. Riley (United Kingdom)

Professor R. Sparck (Denmark)

Professor V. van Straelen (Belgium)

Professor Robert L. Usinger (U.S.A.)

The foUow-ing were also present :

Dr. E. A. Chapin (U.S.A.)

M. Andre Chavan (France)

Mr. C. F. dos Passos (U.S.A.)

Mr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (United Kingdom)

Miss Louise Russell (U.S.A.)

Signor Antonio Valle (Italy)

Mr. R. Winckworth (United Kingdom)

Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming, Personal Assistant to the Secretary

Apology by the 1. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS

ftVlate^a'rrilld"* HEMMING) apologised for ha\'ing kept the meeting waiting.
The reason, as the Commission appreciated, was that,
although ever since the close of the meeting on Saturday he
liad been engaged continuously on work in connection with
today's meetings of the Commission and the Section on
Nomenclature, he had only just completed the preparations
necessary for that purpose.

Uth Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 281

uSg^rb:;!^ >n<niJmP. '^^i^T. PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
during the day ni<.lMi\llJNb) outlined the procedure which he proposed for

the meetings to be held that day. In spite of the excellent
progress made at the meetings lield during the previous
week, there remained a large number of matters awaiting
the attention of the Commission. These included a con-
siderable number of further proposals for the improvement
of the Regies and also a large number of applications relating
to individual problems of nomenclature which had been
submitted to the Commission for decision. It was impor-
tant that decisions should be taken on as many as possible
of these applications : first, because the applicants con-
cerned, many of whom— owing to the war and other causes
—had been waiting for a decision for a number of years,
were most anxious to secure a settlement of the problems
which they had submitted to the Commission, second,
because it was important that the Connnission shoidd decide
as many of these cases as possible without further delay,
m order to demonstrate to zoologists generally that they
were capable of reaching definite decisions on cases which
had been carefully prepared and properly submitted.

Continuing, the Acting President said that it would be
necessary for the Commission— as also the Section on
Nomenclature— to devote to the purpose the whole of the
present day and in addition probably to meet again in the
evening after dinner. All the meetings to be held that
day would, like the present meeting, be concurrent meetings
of the Commission and the Section on Nomenclature.
This procedure would enable the Commission to reach
decisions on the matters awaiting their attention in the
presence of the members of the Section and with the assis-
tance and advice of any members of the Section who might
desire to take part in these discussions. Under this
procedure, it would be possible to report to the Section
recommendations agreed upon by the Commission directly
they had been formulated. He proposed therefore from
tnne to time to adjourn the meeting of the Commission,
to ena])le him, in his capacity as Secretary to the Commis-
sion, to report to the Section recommendations and con-
clusions reached by the Commission.

THE COMMISSION.—

took note of the programme outlined by the Acting
President and approved the proposals which he
had submitted in regard to the procedure to be
adopted.

282

Internatioiml Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Election of
Professor K.
Mansour (Egypt)
to be an Alternate
Member of the
Commission
for the duration
of the Paris Session

(Previous refei-ence:
Paris Session, Isl
Meeting. Conclusion
6(2))

Withdrawal of
Professor R. Sparck
and nomination of
Dr. H. Lemche as
prospective Danish
member of the
Commission

(Previous reference:
Paris Session. 'Ind
Meeting, Conclusion,
17(3) )

3. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) reported that, in accordance with the arrange-
ment made at the fii\st meeting of the Commission during
its present Session, Professor K. Mansour (Egypt) had
been invited to serve as an Alternate Member of the
Commission diiring the present (Paris) Session of meetings,
vice Professor Bela Hanko (Hungary) who was unable to
be present. This invitation had been accepted by Professor
Mansoiu:.

THE COMMISSION :—

took note of the above statement and welcomed
Professor Mansour to their table.

{The election of Professor K. Mansour to he an
Alternate Member of the Commission was tJiereupon
reported to the Section on Nomenclature).

4. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) said that he had to report that, much, as he
felt sure, to the regret of all members of the Commission,
Professor R. Sparck (Denmark) had intimated that on
reflection he felt that pressure of his other duties, especially
duties in connection with the next meeting of the Congress,
would make it preferable that some other Danish zoologist
should be nominated to be the Danish member of the
Commission in succession to Dr. Th. Mortensen, whose
resignation on grounds of ill-health had caused such regret
to all members of the Commission. Discussions on this
question had accordingly been held between the Danish
zoologists present at the Congress, who had recommended
that the vacancy caused by the withdrawal of Professor
Sparck should be filled by the election of Dr. Henning
Lemche. Dr. Lemche was well known to the members
of the Commission not only through his pubUshed work but
also on account of his active participation both in the public
meetings of the Commission and in the meetings of the
Section on Nomenclature during the present Congress.

THE COMMISSION :—

(1) took note with regret that on account of pressure
of other work Professor R. Sparck (Denmark)
had felt bound to ask for permission to withdraw
his acceptance of nomination as the Danish
member of the Commission in succession to
Dr. Th. Mortensen (resigned on account of ill-
health) ;

(2) agreed to nominate Dr. Hennmg Lemche (Den-
mark) to be the Danish member of the Commission
as from the close of the Paris Congress in succession

Ulh Meeliitg, Paris, July, 1948.

283

Report to be
submitted by the
Commission to the
Congress :
detailed
examination of
draft proposed

(Previous reference:
Paris Session, 10th
Meeting, Conclusimi 6)

Danish

representation on
the Commission
and the
arrangements
proposed to be
adopted in place of
the system of three
nine-year Classes
in the membership
of the Commission
Previous references:
Paris Session, IWi
Meeting, Conchmon 4 ;
3/-rf Meeting,
Conclusion 3)

Proposed " Official
List " of names of
species : title to
be changed

(Previous reference:
Paris Session, 9th
Meeting, Conchmon
42)

to Commissioner Th. Mortensen (resigned) and to
appoint Dr. Lemche to be an Alternate Member of
the Commission for the remainder of the Paris
Session vice Professor J. R. Dymond (Canada)
who had been unable to attend that Session.
{Dr. Lemche thereupon took his place as an Alternate
Member of the Commission.)

{The Nomhmtion of Dr. Lemche to be a metnber of the
Commission in succession to Commissioner Th. Mortensen
{Denmark) vice Professor R. Spdrck {witlidrawn) was
thereupon reported to the Section on Nomenclature.)

5. THE COMMISSION then turned to consider the
draft of the Report to be submitted by them to the
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology at its final
Plenary Session to be held on the following day (Tuesday,
27th July, 1948) (Commission Paper I.C.(48) 20), which, as
arranged at the meeting noted in the margin, had been
prepared for their consideration by their Secretary, Com-
missioner Francis Hemming.

After having satisfied themselves regarding the general
scope and form of the proposed Report, THE COMMISSION,
m conjunction with the Section on Nomenclature, examined
the draft Report, paragraph by paragraph. In the course
of this examination, THE COMMISSION, in agreement with
the Section, signified their intention to make the under-
mentioned changes in the following paragraphs of the
proposed Report —

(1) Paragraphs 17 and 19.— These pargaraphs would
need to be amended (a) to take account of the
changes in the arrangements for Danish representa-
tion on the Commission which had just been agreed
upon, and (6) to indicate (in the second of these
paragraphs) the revised arrangements which, at the
meeting noted in the margin, it had been agreed to
substitute for the existmg system by which the
membership of the Commission was divided into
three 9-year Classes ;

(2) Paragraphs 44 and 45.— It was desirable that these
two paragraphs, of which the first was concerned
with the " Official List of Generic Names in Zoo-
logy " and the second with the "Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology," should be drafted in
similar terms. Paragraph 45 should therefore be
redrafted to correspond with paragrapli 44. It was
desirable to indicate the types of name which it was
proposed should be placed on the new " Official
List " and also to emphasise that the names to be

284

ItUenicUianal Cmnmission on Zoological Nofmnclatwe.

Verification of

text of revised

" Regies " :

an ad hoc Editorial

Committee

substituted for the

Executive

Committee of the

Commission

{Pretwus reference:
Paris Session, 4th
Meeting, Conclusion
12)

standardised in that " Official List " were the
trivial names comprised in the specific names con-
cerned, and to make it clear that, although the
generic name with which any such trivial name was
originally published must necessarily be included in
the " Official List," such inclusion did not confer any
status on the binominal combination in which that
trivial name had originally been published or imply
any view on the taxonomic question of the genus to
which the species so named should be referred.
For this purpose, it was desirable that the title of
this " Official List " should be changed from the
" Official List of Specffic Names in Zoology " to
the " Official List of Specific Trivial Names in
Zoology." It was desirable that an explanation on
the foregoing lines regarding the scope of this
'' Official List " should be prefixed to this " List "
when it was published. These points should be
made clear in the revised draft of paragraph 45.

(3) Paragraph 47. — It was felt that, although this
paragraph, as drafted, correctly represented both the
reconmiendation which the Commission had sub-
mitted to the Section on Nomenclature regarding the
procedure to be adopted after the Congress for
seeing the revised text of the Regies through the
press and also the conclusion thereon reached by the
Section, the subject was of such great importance
that it was desirable, if possible, to strengthen the
arrangements that had been proposed. It was
suggested that this end would be achieved if the
duty of making a close examination of the draft text
of the Regies prepared by the jurists were entrusted
not to the Executive Committee of the Commission
(as hitherto proposed) but to a specially appointed
ad hoc Editorial Committee composed of three
members (or Alternate Members) of the Commission
who had been present throughout the discussions held
in Paris. The duties involved v/ere heavy, and it was
felt that they could better be discharged by such a
body than by the Executive Committee of the
Commission, only one of the three members of which
had been present at the Paris Congress. It was
agreed that the change suggested was an improve-
ment over the arrangement hitherto contemplated
and that paragraph 47 should be redrafted accor-
dingly. As regards the composition of the proposed
ad hoc Editorial Committee, it was felt that a
decision should be postponed until later in the day

lilh Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

285

(Later reference:
Paris Session,
1-ilh Meelitig,
Conclusion 62)

(Previous reference:
Paris Session, 9lh
Meeting, Conclusion
42)

in order to permit of informal consultations for the
purpose of bringing forward a proposal whicli would
be generally acceptable.

At the close of the foregoing discussion, attention was
drawn to the fact that, as the Commission was to sit
continuously throughout the day, it might happen that
they would wish to make some addition to their Report in
the hght of the further business which they would then have
transacted. While it was agreed that it was desii-able that
the Commission should at once seek the approval of the
Section on Nomenclature for their Report, that approval
should be sought on two understandings. The first of
these understandings related to the scope of the approval
given by the Section to miscellaneous amendments of, and
changes m, the Regies. The Report, as drafted, covered all
such amendments or changes as had already been approvetl
by the Commission and confirmed by the Section. In
addition, however, there were other proposals for amend-
ments and changes in the Regies awaiting consideration by
the Commission and the Section. The reference in the
Report to the approval of miscellaneous amendments of,
and changes in, the Regies was therefore, to be understood
as applying not only to the amendments and changes abeady
approved but also to any other such amendments or changes
as might be approved by the Commission and confirmed by
the Section either later during the present meeting or at
meetings to be held later during the present day. Second,
it must be understood that, if subsequent to tlie adoption of
the Report by the Commission and of its approval by the
Section, the Commission desired to include in the Report
references to other decisions taken later in the day, they
should be free to do so, provided that in every such case
they obtained the approval of the Section for the insertion
in the Report of the passage concerned.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) in the light of the discussion held jointly with the
Section on Nomenclature, recorded above, to
modify as follows the under-mentioned recommen-
dations previously adopted, that is to say : —

(a) to substitute for the reconmiendation agreed
upon at the meeting noted in the margin,
that the new " Official Li.st " of the names
of species should be given the title " Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology ", the
recommendation that the title to be given
to this '• Official List " should be the

286 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

" Official List of Specific Trivial Names in
Zoology " ;
{Previous rtferetux: (b) to substitute for the recommendation agreed

Paris Session, 4/A ^ ' . , , , . i j ■ av, •

Meeiing, Conclusion upon at the meetmg noted m the margm,

12) that the duty of examining the draft text

of the Regies revised in accordance with the
decisions of the Paris Congress, when that
draft text was received from the jurists,
should be entrusted to the Executive
Committee of the Commission, the recom-
mendation that this duty should be en-
trusted to an oc? hoc Editorial Committee of
three Members or Alternate Members of
the Commission who had been present
throughout the discussions held during the
Paris Congress ;

(2) that, subject (a) to the incorporation in the
paragraphs numbered 17 and 19 in the draft
(relating to the Danish representation on the
Commission and to the arrangements proposed
to be adopted in place of the system of three
9-year Classes in which the membership of the
Commission was at present divided) of the correc-
tions noted in the discussion recorded above, and
(b) to the redrafting of the paragraphs numbered
45 and 47 in the draft (relating respectively to the
new " Official List " of the names of species and
to the body to which should be entrusted the duty
of examining the revised draft of the Regies, when
received from the jurists) to conform with the
conclusions respectively recorded in regard thereto
in (l)(a) and (l)(b) above and subject also to the
incorporation in the first of these paragraphs of the
drafting amendments agreed upon in the discus-
sion with the Section on Nomenclature recorded
above, the draft Report prepared by Secretary
Hemming (Commission Paper LC. (48)20) gave
full effect to the conclusions reached by the
Commission during their Paris Session and to the
action taken thereon by the Section on Nomencla-
ture, and that a Report in these terms would
provide the Congress with all the data required
to enable it to judge of the results achieved diiring
the present Session ;

(3) with reference to (l)(b) above, to request the
Acting President to confer with leading European
and American zoologists present at the Congress
on the question of the composition of the ad hoc

nth Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 287

Editorial Committee and to submit recoinirienda-
tioris in regard tliereto at a later meeting to be
held in the course of the same day.

Unanimou. 6. THE COMMISSION agreed :—

adoption by the ^

itrRrort*to the (1) to adopt as their unanimous Report to the

ThirtMnth ** * Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology the

International draft prepared by Secretary Hemming (Com-

Zoo"logy" *** "'^^''°'' P^P^^ I.C.(48)20), subject to the incor-

poration therein of the drafting and other changes
specified in Conclusion 5 above ;
(2) to authorise and request Commissioner Hemming,
in his capacity as Secretary to the Commission,
to sign their Report, in the form unanimously
approved and adopted in (1) above, and to submit
it on their behalf to the Section on Nomenclature^
with a recommendation that the Section : —

(a) approve and adopt each and all of the indivi-
dual recommendations submitted in the
Report ;

(b) agree : —

(i) that their approval to the passage
relating to the adoption of miscel-
laneous amendments of, or changes in,
the Regies should be understood as
applying not only to such amend-
ments and changes as had already
been approved but also to any other
such amendments or changes as
might be adopted by the Commission
and confirmed by the Section either
later during the present meeting or at
other meetings held later during the
f^ay ;

(ii) that if, as the result of further
discussions either later during the
present meeting or at other meetings
held later during the day, the
Commission desired to insert addi-
tional passages in their Report, they
should be free so to do, provided that
in each case they first obtained the
concurrence of the Section for the
addition so proposed to be made and
that, on any such addition being so
approved, Commissioner Hemming,
as Secretary to the Commission.

VOL. 4 T

288

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Miscellaneous
proposals for the
amendment or
clarification of the
" Regies " :
Fourth
Instalment
{Previous reference:
Paris Session, 9lh
Meeting. Conrlitsion
I)

Article 32
(suggested
amendment to
provide for the
rejection of
trivial names
on grounds of
inappropriateness
in certain cases)

should be authorised and requested
to incorporate the addition in
question, before the Commission's
Report was submitted to the Congress
at the Plenary Session to be held on
the following day (Tuesday, 27th
July, 1948) ;
(c) approve the Commission's Report as a
whole, subject to the understandings speci-
fied in (a) and (b) above, and should
authorise and request Mr. Hemming, as
Secretary to the Commission, to submit
that Report to the Congress at the Plenary
Session to be held on the following day and,
in doing so, to inform the Congress that the
Report had been unanimously approved and
adopted by the Commission, by whom it
had been submitted to the Section on
Nomenclature, by whom in turn it had been
unanimously approved and adopted.
{The Report of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature was thereupon submitted to the.
Section on Nomenclature for approval.^^)

7. THE COMMISSION had before them a memorandum
by the Secretary (Commission Paper I. C. (48)16), containing
a fourth instalment of miscellaneous proposals for the
amendment and clarification of the Regies. For con-
venience of reference these proposals, which were seventeen
in number, had been numbered consecutively with the
proposals brought forward in the paper containing the
third instalment (Commission Paper I.C. (48)15). The
present proposals were therefore numbered (64) to (80).

THE COMMISSION agreed:—

to examine Commission Paper I.C. (48)16, point by
point, for the purpose of reaching conclusions regard-
ing the recommendations to be submitted on the
questions raised therein.

8. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal submitted by Mr. Philip P. Graves (Eire) (file
Z.N.(S.) 205) that Article 32 should be amended so as to
provide for the rejection of trivial names in certain cases
on the ground that those names were totally inappropriate,
having been selected by the original author as the result of
a misapprehension on a question of fact (e.g. where a butter-
fly occurring only in the Philippine Islands was named

" For the record of the approval of tlio Conimi.ssion'8 Report l)y the Section on Nomen-
clature, see page 80 of \'olunie 5,

" Opinion " 124 :
extension to cover
certain terms
intermediate
between generic
and trivial names
published by
Hiibner (J.)

( Previous reference :
Paris Session,
9lh Meeting.
Conclusion 40)

VOL, 4 T«

Uth Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 289

califoniim by a credulous systematist who purchased an
examjjle labelled " California "), together with a note on
the foregoing proposal submitted by the Secretary in
Point (64) in Commission Paper I.C.(48) 16.

The view was expressed in the discussion on this pro-
posal that, although at first sight this appeared a logical and
desirable proposal, it was in fact one which contained a
considerable element of danger. If Article 32 were to be
relaxed in the manner suggested, it might lead to consider-
able instability in the case of trivial names based upon the
names of countries, for it might lead to numerous requests
for changes in such names, where, as the result of poUtical
changes, there were changes in the status of countries or
parts of countries or changes in the names by which
countries were known.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—
to reject the proposal that express provision should be
made in Article 32 for the rejection in certain circum-
stances of trivial names on the ground of inappro-
priateness.

9. THE COMMISSION had under consideration :-
(a) a proposal submitted by Dr. R. Ferreira d'Almeida
and Dr. Jose Oiticica Filho (Brazil) that in the
case of names of species of the Order Lepidoptera
(Class Insecta) published by Hubner (J.) in
volume 1 of his Sammlung exotischer Schnetter-
Ungl in (apparently) trinominal form, as (for
example) the name Princeps dominans capys, the
trivial name {capys) should be accepted for
nomenclatorial purposes but not either of the
other names (i.e. in the example cited, the names
Princeps and dominans) (file Z.N.(S.) 218) ;
{h) a letter addressed to Dr. Ferreira d'Almeida by
Professor Charles D. Michener (U.S.A.) con-
curring in the proposal that in the case of names of
the kind discussed in (a) above the int-ermediate
term (for example, dominans) should be rejected
and that the third term (for example, capys)
should be accepted, but expressing the view that it
would not be reasonable to exclude the first term
(Princeps) from nomenclatorial availability as
well as the second (file Z.N.(S.) 218) ;
(c) a proposal, that in the case of the names in question
the intermediate terms (in the present example,
the term domhians) should be rejected as not of
subgeneric status by an extension to these terin.s

290

Internal tonal Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

of tlie decision given by the Commission in
Opinion 124 in regard to- somewhat similar inter-
mediate terms pubHshed by Linnaeus in 1758
in the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae for
species belonging to the same Order of the Class
Insecta, submitted by the Secretary in Point
(65) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)16.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr. FRANCIS HEM-
MING) said that the above system of nomenclature had
been employed by Hiibner not only in the Sammlung
exotischer Schmetterlinge but also in the Systematisch-alpha-
hetisches Verzeichniss, published in 1822. Whatever de-
cision was taken should apply to both works.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) that, where in volume 1 of the work Sammlung
exotischer Schmetterlinge or in the Systematisch-
alphabetisches Verzeichniss, Hiibner (J.) cited a
species under a name having an apparently tri-
nominal form (e.g. the name Princeps dominans
eapys). the generic name (Princeps) and the
specific trivial name [capys) are to be accepted as
satisfying the requirements of Article 25 of the
Regies but that the intermediate term {dominans)
is not to be treated as having acquired the status
of a subgeneric name by Aartue of having been so
pubHshed ;

(2) to render an Opinion, supplementary to Opinion
124, embodving the decision specified in (1)
above.

Addition to the
" Regies" of a
provision defining
the functions of the
International
Commission on
Zoological
Nomenclature

10. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N.(S.) 352) that a provision should be
inserted in the Regies defining the functions of the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, sub-
mitted by the Secretarv in Point (66) in Commission
Paper I.C.(48)16.

In the foregoing paper the Secretary reminded the
Commission that, among the provisions which, on the
proposal of the Commission, the Section on Nomenclature
had agreed to recommend the Congress to add to the
Regies, were several provisions entrusting special duties
to the Commission. In these circumstances, it was
necessary that there should l)e inserted in the Regies a
provision defining the functions of the Commission, for it
would not be either logical or practicable to include in the
Regies provisions conferring special duties upon the Cora-

UthMeetiiuj, Paris, July, 1948.

291

{Later reference
Pan's Session,
11th Meeting,
Conclusion 16)

( Previous references
Paris Session, &h
Meelinij, Conclusion 0)

mission without having first defined generally the functions
of that body.

THE ACTING PKESIDENT (Mr. FRANCIS HEM-
MING) said that the functions enumerated in Point (6G)
were all functions already entrusted to the Commission
before the opening of the present Congress. To these
must be added the function in regard to the rendering of
Declarations on a new basis which has been agreed upon
during the present Congress.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—
that a provision should be inserted in the Regies
defining the functions of the International Commis-
sion on Zoological Nomenclature on the following
lines : —

{a) The centralisation, discussion and elaboration
of all questions relating to zoological nomen-
clature are entrusted to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (here-
inafter referred to as the " Commission "),
which is charged with the following duties, in
addition to such other duties as are prescribed
elsewhere in these Regies : —

(1) the submission, as may be required, to
the International Congress of Zoology
(hereinafter referred to as the "Congress")
of recommendations for the amendment
or clarification of, or for the insertion of
additional provisions in, the Regies
Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoo-
logique (hereinafter referred to as the
" Regies "), where, in its opinion, such
amendments, clarifications or additions
are required ;

(2) the preliminary consideration, on behalf
of the Congress, for such a period, not
exceeding one year, as in any given case
the Commission may decide, of every
proposition relating to a proposed change
in the Regies which may be submitted to
the Congress from any source ;

(3) the rendering, during periods between
successive Congresses, of Declarations
embodying recommendations for changes
in the Regies adopted l)y the Commission
under (1) above in respect of proposals
dealt with by the Commission during such
periods ;

292

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Article 25
(status of a
holotype or lectotype
in relation to an
inadequate original
description)

(4) the rendering of Opinions on questions of
zoological nomenclature submitted to the
Commission, the decisions embodied in
which to become operative immediately
upon the Opinion in question being so
rendered, without further reference to the
Congress ;

(5) the compilation of the '' Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology " and the
" Official List of Specific Trivial Names in
Zoology " and of the Official Indexes of
Rejected and Invalid Names and the
rendering of Opinions in regard thereto ;

(6) such other functions as have been, or
may be, agreed upon by the present
Congress ;

(b) The Commission possesses also plenary powers
to suspend, in whole or in part, any Article of these
Regies, other than the present Article, as applied
to the names in any book or to any individual
name, where, in its opinion, . . . (here should
be inserted the provisions in regard to the use
by the Commission of its plenary powers as
agreed upon by the Ninth International
Congress of Zoology at Monaco in 1913, as
amended by the present (Paris) Congress,
together with all other provisions relating to the
plenary powers agreed upon by the present
(Paris) Congress.).

11. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N.(S.)'291) submitted by Dr. C. A. Hoare
(London) that Article 25 should be clarified to indicate
whether, where the original description of a species is poor
and the identification of the species named therefore either
difficult or uncertain — the case cited was that of Trypano-
sotna suis Ochmann, 1905 — the type specimen, if available,
can be called in aid to supplement the published description.
At the same time, the Commission had under consideration
a proposal in regard to this question submitted by the
Secretary in Point (67) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)16.

It was pointed out in discussion that Article 25 was
concerned only with the nomenclatorial status of names ;
for the purpose of that Article the taxonomic application of
a name was irrelevant. The question of the taxonomic
sj)ecies to which should be applicable a specific name (pub-
lished in conditions which satisfied Article 25) when there

11//? Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

293

( Previous reference :
Paris Session,
■ith -yieeting.
Conclusion 11)

Article 25
(priority to be
accorded to a name
in a work issued in
instalments where
that name is
published on one
date and the
relevant description
or part of it on a
later date) :
supplementary
decision

(Previous reference-
Paris Session, 1th
Meeting, Conclusion
20)

existed a recognisable type specimen (holotype or lectotype)
had Ijeen settled in connection with the amplification of
Article 31 agreed upon at the meeting noted in the margin.

THE COMMISSION agreed to reconuucnd :—

tliat in the foithcoming revision of tlie licyles a clear (iistinctiou
slidulil lie drawn between (1) the (|iiestii>n whether a given specific
name was an available name in the sense that it possessed rights
under the Law of Priority antl (2) the tiuestion of the tuxonomic
miit to which any given specific name was to be treated as
adhering, the first of these questions depending upon- whether the
name in question satisfied the requirements specified in Article 25,
wliile tlic second was a matter to be determined in accordance with
the rules laid down in Article 31.

12. THE COMMISSION reviewed the decision taken
at the meeting noted in the margin regarding the priority to
be accorded to a specific or generic name where that name
is published on one date and the description or part of the
description relating thereto is published on a later date, in
the light of a note submitted by the Secretary in Point (68)
in Commission Paper I.C. (48)14. In this note the Secretary
pointed out that special provisions of a rather more stringent
character needed to be adopted in the case of generic names
published after 31st December, 1930 (i.e. after Proviso (c)
to Article 25 became operative) since, as regards these
names, it was essential to make it clear that no name was to
be accepted as having satisfied the requirements of the
foregoing Article until a clear designation of its type species
had been published.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that words should be inserted in the provision whicli it liatl been
agreed at the Seventh Meeting of their Paris Session (Conclusion
20) should be added to Article 23, to make it clear that, where, in
the case of a generic name published subsequent to 31 st December,
1930, the description of the genus so named is published in two
successive portions of a book or serial published in instalments,
such a name is to rank for purposes of priority' only as from the
later of the instalments concerned, if the designation of the type
si)ecies of the genus is not included in the caj-lier published of the
instalments concerned.

The expressions

" grade " and

" pseudo-genus " :

proposed

recognition of,

in the " Regies " :

rejection of proposal

{Previous reference:
Paris Session, lOth
Meeting, Conclusion 3)

13. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N.(S.)363) submitted by M. Georges
Deflandre (France) that a provision should be inserted in
the Reglea, recognising the categories " grade " and " pseudo-
genus," together with a summary of a note thereon, sub-
mitted by the Secretary in Point (69) in Commission Paper
I.C.(48)16.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) that, while the expressions " grade " and " pseudo-
genus " had been found convenient by some
palaeozoologists for certain taxonomic purposes,

294

International t'ommissiun on Zoological Nomenclature.

those expressions were to be regarded as technical
terms only and, as such, fell outside the scope of
zoological nomenclature ;

(2) that, in view of (1) above, it would be inappropriate
to include definitions of the foregoing expressions
in the Regies;

(3) to render a Declaration recording the foregoing
decision.

Proposed new
system of
nomenclature for
fragments of fossil
invertebrates found
in sedimentary
rocks :
rejection of proposal

(Previous reference:
Paris Session, \Oth
Meeting, Conclusion 4)

Status of
interpretations of
the " Regies "
given in

" Declarations "
rendered by the
Commission in
periods between
successive
Congresses

14. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N.(S.)364) submitted by M. Georges
Deflandre and Mme. Marthe Deflandre-Rigaud (France) that
provisions should be inserted in the Regies prescribing a
special system of nomenclature to be applied only to certain
fragments (organites and sclerites) of fossil invertebrates
found in sedimentary rocks, together with the sunmiary of
a note thereon, submitted by the Secretary in Point (70) in
Commission Paper I.C. (48)16.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) that, while for certain purposes palaezoologists
might require to make use of a special system of
terminology for denoting certain fragments, such
as organites and sclerites, of fossil species of
invertebrates found in sedimentary rocks where
the fragments in question were not sufficient to
form the basis of a taxonomic unit of a category
recognised in zoological nomenclature, the expres-
sions employed to denote such fragments were to
be regarded as technical terms and not as zoo-
logical names and as such fell outside the scope of
zoological nomenclature ;

(2) that, in view of (1) above, it would be ina|Jfpro-
priate to include in the Regies provisions speci-
fying and defining the terms to be used for the
foregoing purposes and therefore that no term so
pubhshed was to be recognised as having any
status in zoological nomenclature ;

(3) to render a Declaration recording the foregoing
decision.

15. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) that a provision should be
inserted in the Regies defining the status of interpretations
of the Regies given by the Commission in Declarations
rendered l)y the Commission in periods between successive
Congresses, submitted by the Secretary in Point (71) in
Commission Paper I.C. (48)16,

11th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

295

( Previous reference:
Paris Session, 6lh
Meetimj, Conclusion 9,
aiid l\th Meeting,
Conclusion 10)

Method to be
followed in
amending the
" Regies " :
insertion in the
' Regies " of a
provision regarding

(Previous reference:
Paris Session, lith
Meeting, Conclusion
10(a)(2) )

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :-
that an Article should be inserted in the Regies to
make it clear that when, during a period between
successive Congresses, the Connnission give an
hiterpretation of the Regies in a Declaration, the
interpretation so given is to become operative im-
mediately upon the publication of the said Declaration
and is, until the next meeting of the Congress, to have
like force and vigour as though it had abeady been
embodied in the Regies, and that the proposed
auiendment on clarification of, or addition to, the
Regies specified in the said Declaration shall be
considered by the Section on Nomenclature at the
next meetuig of the Congress, with a view to the
submission thereby of a recommendation to the
Congress that the Regies should be amended, clarified
or extended in the manner indicated in the Declaration
m question.

16. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) that a provision should be
mserted m the Regies prescribing the manner by which alone
changes can be made in the Regies, submitted by the
Secretary in Point (72) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)16.
THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—
that an Article should be inserted in the Regies
prescribing that no amendment in, clarification of, or
addition to, the Regies may be made by the Congress,
save on the recommendation of the Section on
Nomenclature at Congresses where such a Section is
established and in other cases on the recommendation
of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature but that in the former case no such
recommendation may be submitted by the Section on
Nomenclature, unless the proposal "that the Regies
should be amended, clarified or extended in the
manner proposed has been submitted to the Com-
mission for a period of one year prior to the openuig
of the Congress or for such less time as in any given
case the Commission may agree is suflicient and the
Commission has submitted to the Section a recom-
mendation as to the action desirable on the said
proposal.

17. THE COMMISSION reviewed the decision taken
at the meeting noted in the margin to recommend the

Article 35

(polymorphism in

trivial names • ,• -iU^D^; j> n o— —^ ^tx^

arising from the insertion m the Regies ot a Recomniandation urging authors

use of the same to avoid publishuig as the trivial name of a species a

296

International Commission oil Zoological Nomenclature.

word in noun and
adjectival form) :
addition of a further
example in
" Recommandation "

(Frcrioiijs reference-
Paris Session. Wh
Meeting, Conclusion 3)

Article embodying
the plenary powers
of the Commission :
drafting
amendment

(Previous reference:
Paris Session, 3rd
Meeting, Conclusion 7)

compound word having as its termination a word in noun
form (e.g. -costa) where a similar compound word having as
its termmation the same word in adjectival form (e.g.
-costatu^ or -costata) has already been published as the
trivial name of another species in the same or an allied genus,
and in this connection had under consideration a supple-
mentary proposal submitted by the Secretary in Point (73)
in Commission Paper I. C. (48)16.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that the example afforded by the use of the noun-
form " Cauda'" and the adjective-form 'caudatiis, -a,
-urn ", should be added to the Recommandation which,
at the meeting noted in the margiu, it had been
agreed to recommend should be added to the Regies
regarding the need for avoiding, so far as possible,
the use in the same or aUied genera of compound trivial
names differing from one another solely through
having as their respective terminations the same words
in noun-form or acljec"tive-form or vice versa.

18. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
note submitted by the Secretary in Point (7i) in Commission
Paper I. C. (48)16, drawing attention to the inadvertent
inclusion in paragraph 6(2)(a) of Commission Paper
I.e. (48)4, of a recommendation that, when the Plenary
Powers Kesolution of 1913 {Declaration 5) was embodied in
an Article of the Regies, there should be embodied at the
same time the fourth of the four Articles of which the
foregoing Resolution was composed, this Article being con-
cerned with a matter of great importance (collaboration
between the Connuission and gi"oups of specialists), which,
however, it would be inappropriate to deal with in the
proposed Article.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that the fourth of the four Articles which together
constituted the Plenary Powers Resolution of 1913
should not be embodied in the Article which, at the
meeting noted in the niargm, it had been agreed to
recomxnend should be inserted as a new Article of the
Regies.

Neotypes (erroneous
statements regarding,
deleted from
" Opinion " 126)

19. THE COMMISSION had under consideration
certain unfortunate obiter dicta, included in Opinion 126
(relating to the status of new names in d'Orbigny's Prodrome),
which were so drafted as to give the misleading impression
that the Commission had aheady given a ruling on the
status of neotypes, together with a proposal m regard

11th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 297

thereto submitted by the Secretary in Point (75) in Com-
mission Paper I.C.(48)16.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) that the decision in regard to the status of
new names published in d'Orbigny's Prodrome of
1850 (i.e. that the specific names published in
the above work are available under i\\Q Regies,
when accompanied by a description or indication)
given in the " summary " to Opinion 126, should
be incorporated in the appropriate schedule to the
Regies ;
(2) in order to remove such misunderstandings as had
arisen, expressly to place on record that, as in
the case of other Opinions, the decision taken by
the Commission in Opinion 126 was to be looked
for only in the " summary " of that Opinion and
that no observation contained in the body of
Opinion 126 but not included in the " summary "
thereof was to be regarded as recording a decision
by the Commission as respects either the inter-
pretation of the Regies or any other matter.

^,jj^l^8 20. THE COMMISSION reviewed, in the hght of a

(addition to be recommendation submitted by the Secretary in Point (76)

made to Section (fc) ^^ Commission Paper I.C.(48)16, the recommendation which,

txi^LT at the meeting noted in the margin, it had been agreed to

" Recommanda- submit regarding the amendment of item (b) of the second

ilTcor "orationi J*' of the two Recommandations at present attached to Article 8,

the" iTegles " prior to the incorporation of the provisions of that Recom-

as a mandatory nmndation in the Regies as a mandatory provision.

provision)

(Previous references: rjjjjg COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

Pans Session, Wi ^-^ «= i u i j i i

Meeting, Conclusions ^\^^l ^j^g generic name Stenogyra should be added as

3' «'"^ 1^) an example of the class of name referred in the first

part of the Recommandation proposed to be attached

to the substantive provision which it had been agreed,

at the meeting noted m the margm, should be

incorporated in the Regies in place of the second of

the two existing Recommandations to Article 8, item

(b), and that the generic names HydrophUus and

(Previous reference: Philydrus should be inserted as examples of the class

Paris Session, Qth q£ ^ame referred to in the second part of the proposed

Meeting, Conclusion , .

37) Recommamation.

Addition of 21 . THE COMMISSION had under consideration a

paragraph numbers proposal that reference to Articles of the Regies containing

lom^oTe Articles more than one paragraph should be facUitated by the

in the " Regies " allocation to each such paragraph of a serial number.

298

International Commission on Zoological Xomcnclature.

submitted by the Secretary in Point (77) in Commission
Paper 1.0.(48)16. In submitting this recommendation, tlie
Secretary cbew attention to the error fallen into by many
authors through the lack of such paragraph numbers in the
case, for example, of Article 14, where the first paragraph,
which graumiatically consisted of a single sentence, was
divided into three subheads, lettered " a," " b," and '" c "
respectively, and where the letter " c "' had commonly been
cited as though it were a designation wliich governed the
whole of the remainder of the Article which in fact consisted
of two distinct and entirely independent paragraphs.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recoimnend :—

that, when the text of the Regies was revised in the
hght of the amendments agreed upon by the present
(Paris) Congress, serial nmnbers should be allotted
to each paragraph of any Article consisting of more
than one paragraph.

Addition of serial
numbers where,
there is more than
one

"Recommandation"
in any given Article
of the " Regies "

22. Arising out of the discussion recorded m Conclusion
20 above, THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—
that, when the text of the Regies was re\'ised in the
hght of the amendments agreed upon by the present
(Paris) Congress, serial numbers should be allotted
to Recommandalions in cases where more than one
such Recommandation was attached to any given
Article.

Subdivision into
paragraphs of
Articles and
" Recommanda-
tions " consisting
of two or more
sentences

23. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal that reference to the Articles of the Regies should
be simplified by the subdivision into two or more paragraphs
of those Articles which at present consisted of two or more
sentences, each containmg a separate provision, submitted
by the Secretary in Point (78) in Commission Paper
1.0.(48)16.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that, when the text of the Regies was revised m the
hght of the amendments agreed upon by the present
(Paris) Congress, any Article and any Recommandation
which consisted of two or more sentences, each
containing a separate provision, should be subdivided
into paragraphs, each containing only a single
sentence and each serially numbered.

Article 30, Rule (e)
(clarification of)

24. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
request received from Mr. R. G. Fennah (Trinidad, B.W.I.)
(file Z.N.(S.)236) for an interpretation of the expression
" species inquire)ida " as used in Rule (e)'in Article 30 of

Wlfi Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

299

Article 30
(expression to be
used to denote a
species designated
or selected as the
type species of
a genus)

the Regies, together with a note thereon submitted by the
Secretary in Point (79) in Commission Paper I. C. (48)16.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that the second section (section (/?) ) of Rule (e) in
Article 30 of the Regies should be redrafted so as to
make it clear that the species there referred to are
species, regarding the taxonomic identity of whicli the
author of the genus expressed a douljt at the time of
the original publication of the generic name, either
because the species concerned was or were unknown
to him or because of difficulties in identifying it or
them or for any other reason, other than that specified
in Section (y) of the same Rule.

25. THE COM:^nSSION had under consideration a
jiroposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) submitted by the Secretary hi
Point (80) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)16, that, in view of
the widespread use of the expression '' genotype " by
geneticists in a sense entirely different from that in which
that expression had been used in zoological nomenclature,
a Recommandation should be inserted in Article 30 of the
Regies urging zoologists to refrain from using that expression
when referring to the type species of a genus.

In the discussion on this proposal, the point was made
that the expression " genotype " had been used by
zoologists to denote the type species of a genus long before
it was used by geneticists. If therefore zoologists desired
to retain the use of this expression, they would be in a
strong position if they were to approach geneticists with a
request that some other expression should be adopted in
genetics. The general view was against an attempt being
made to retain the use of this expression in zoological
nomenclature. The expression " genotype," viewed as
an attempt to latinise the concept of the type species of a
genus, could not be regarded as a success ; the expression
was consequently far from clear in meaning ; moreover, its
use in zoological nomenclature was much less common now
than formerly and its elimination would be welcome. The
proposal that a ReconiuKDidation should be inserted in the
Regies urging authors to al)andon the use of this expression
accordingly received general support.

At the same time the view was generally expressed that
it was desirable not to stop short at giving this negative
advice ; it was desirable that zoologists should be given
positive advice as to the expression which it was desired
shoidd be used to denote the concept in question. The
relative merits of a number of expressions, such as
" generitype,"" " generotype," etc., were discussed, but, as

300

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

" Necator " Stiles,
1903 (Class
Nematoda), an
invalid name
inadvertently
placed on the
" Official List of
Generic Names
in Zoology " in
" Opinion " 66 :
validation of, under
the plenary powers

the French and French-speaking zoologists present pointed
out, all expressions of this kind were unacceptable, since
it would be impossible to employ them in the substantive
French text of the Regies, as, if so used, such expressions
would be either incomprehensible or definitely misleading.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

(1) that, where in the Regies (as in Article 30) or in
the Schedules thereto, it was necessary to refer
to the concept of " a tjrpe species of a genus," the
expression " espece type," and, in the English
translation, the expression " type species " should
invariably be employed ;

(2) that there should be inserted in Article 30 a
Recommandation urging zoologists when referring
to the concept of the type species of the genus
always to employ the expression " espece type "

'^ or " type species " or strictly corresponding
expressions in other languages and to refrain from
using the expression " genotype " or any other
expression for this concept.

{At this -point the recommendations adopted by the
Cammission in the course of the discussion of Commission
Paper /. (7.(48)16 tvere reported to the Section on
Nomenclature.)

26. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) said that, when, in his capacity as Secretary
to the Commission, he had checked the bibliographical
references given in the Opinions in which names had been
placed on the " Ofiicial List of Generic Names in Zoology "
in the course of preparing that " List " for publication, he
had found that there were a number of errors in the entries
concerned, errors which had led in some cases to erroneous
citations of type species and in others to names which were
actually invalid being placed on the " List." All these
errors would need to be corrected in one way or another
before the " List " was published and as many as possible
of the cases concerned would be brought before the Com-
mission diu-mg its present Session. One of the generic
names in question had been referred to in a different connec-
tion in an earlier discussion and it would, he felt, be
convenient if the Commission were now to consider this
case (file Z.N.(S.)366).

Continuing, the Acting President said that the name in
question was Necator Stiles, 1903, the name of a genus of
Nematodes, which had been included in the first instalment
of names placed on the " Official List " in 1915 {Opinion 66).

llt/i Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

301

This name was invalid because, under the decision given in
Opinion 125 (relating to Borus Agassiz, 1846— an emenda-
tion of Bows Herl>st, 1797— and Borus Albers, 1850),
iVeca/o/- Stiles, 1903, must be regarded as a junior homonym
of Necator Sclater and Saunders, 189G, an emendation of
Nicator Finsch and Hartlaub, 1870. a genus in the Class
Aves. Immediately upon making the foregoing discovery,
he, as Secretary to the Commission, had consulted the late
Dr. W. L. Sclater, who had informed him that no incon-
venience would be experienced by ornithologists if the
Commission were to suppress the name Necator Sclater and
Saunders, 1896 (in the Class Aves), for the purpose of validat-
ing the generic name Necator Stiles, 1903, in the Class
Nematoda, for the genus of birds concerned was always
known by the name Nimtor, the spelling originally used by
Finsch and Hartlaub.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to use their plenary powers : —

(a) to suppress for all purposes the generic
name Necator Sclater and Saunders, 1896
(Class Aves), an emendation of the name
Nicator Finsch and Hartlaub, 1870 ;

(b) to validate the generic name Necator Stiles,
1903 (Class Nematoda) ;

(2) to confirm the entry of,the name Necator Stiles,
1903, made in the " Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology " in accordance \vith the
directions given in Opinion 66 ;

(3) to render an Opinion setting out the foregoing
decisions.

Validation, under
the plenaify powers,
of long-established
use of the generic
names " Tethys "
and " Aplysia "
(Class Gastropoda)
and matters
incidental thereto

27. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N.(S.)22) submitted by Dr. H. Engel
(Netherlands) that the Commission should use their plenary'
powers to validate the long-established usage of the generic
names Tethys and Aplysia (Class Gastropoda), to desig-
nate the type species of those genera in a manner which
would eliininate all further possibility of confusion in
regard to the foregoing names, and to take certain other
action incidental thereto.

In the discussion on this proposal, the \^ew was generally
expressed that a decision on this case was long overdue,
both because of the importance of the names concerned and
because of the excessive delays which had occurred in the
handling of this case by the Commission.

302

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

(Later reference:
Paris Session,
1 'ilft Meeting,
Conclusion 2)

COMMISSIONER H. BOSCHMA (NETHERLANDS)

said that he shared the general view that a decision ought
now to be taken by the Commission for stabilising the usage
of the names Tethys and Aplysia ; he pointed out however
tliat the application submitted asked also for decisions in
regard to certain specific trivial names which were not
directly concerned with the main problem at issue. He
suggested that the Commission should deal as proposed witli
the names Tethys and Aplysia but that they should defer
taking decisions regarding the portion of the application
which related to specific trivial names not directly involved
in the stabilisation of the foregoing generic names.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) said that it would be impossible to deal with
the generic names Tethys and Aplysia without at the same
time dealing with the associated question of the trivial
names of the species to be designated as the type species of
those genera. The question of the trivial names of the
other species dealt with in the present application could
however be dealt with separately at a later stage, although
the adoption of this course would offend against the canon
suggested by Commissioner Boschma in another case that
the Commission should in future carefully abstain from their
former practice of giving answers to a part only of any given
application submitted to them for decision.

IN FURTHER DISCUSSION it was generally agreed
that the questions submitted in the present application in
regard to certain specific trivial names, other than those of
the species to be specified as the type species of the genera
Tethys and Aplysia, might properly be deferred for later
consideration, provided, first, that these matters were
brought to a decision as soon as possible after the close of
the present Session, and, second, that the postponement of
a decision on this part of the application submitted should
not be held available to be cited as a precedent for similar
action on any future occasion.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) that under Article 19 of the Regies the spelling of
the generic name Laplysia Linnaeus, 1767 (Syst.
Nat.) (ed. 12), 1(2) : 1089) was to be emended to
Aplysia;

(2) to use their plenary powers : —

(a) to suppress for all purposes the generic name
Tethys Linnaeus, 1758 {Syst. Nat. (ed. 10),
1 : 653) and any other use of that name,
prior to the publication of the generic jiame
Tethys Linnaeus, 1767 ;

VOL. -i U

^^^^ Meeting, Paris, July, im

303

Linnaeus, 1767 of H,. / ^"""^ ^«'%

of^,4J:rL;;,tr'r7#tr'^r'-''''-

publication, in t|,~ , , • )'"°' to 'ts
Syt. Nat. (ocl. 13, , . 3j'^^j<"' Lnmaeus,

""Lln„::!;f'r767*''^»^™ -- ^-%»

to be used in n3 ^^°^^ ^^^mes were

names for thTt!r '° '"^ ^^^^ *^™I
cerned:- ^''^'^ respectively con-

(i) tie trivial name depihns as published

,,, , ;-»tTi:ir- nif -*-

Linnaeus, 1767, made prior to t^ '^'

decision, and to direct tW ^i, . P'"^'"^^
of these genera shdlll ^ ' *^' '^P^^^^s
below :- ^^ ''^ ^^^ «P««ies specified

Name of genus r.

^*^L.jae„. .,,j^^::

«<.»Li„uaeu.. .^^^

Linnaeus, 1767

Order Opisftobrau„;;L?,;"M'it\v'*°P"'"'
severally specified abov» j .^P" "V^^'os

List ofVcifie TritrSames i^z'^, " °?™'

- the bi„o„,i„al co.„b,„a2 "^Sf
(4) without preiudice fa the

aecis.ons^sidL^i;t7;rcS£u't'

304 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

all questions raised in any given application and
on the strict understanding that the action now
to be taken should not be held available to be
cited on any future occasion as a precedent in
favour of dilatory procedure, to postpone for
further consideration the question of fixing, under
the plenary powers, the identity of the species to
which the undermentioned specific trivial names
shoidd apply : —

fasdata Poiret, 1789 (as published in the
binominal combination Aphjsia fasciata Poiret,
1789, Voy. Barbare, 2:2);

punctata Cuvier, 1803 (as pubUshed in the
binominal combination Laplysia [sic] punctata
Cuvier, 1803, Ann. Mus. Hist, nat., Paris, 2 :
310).

(5) to request the Secretary to the Commission to
resubmit the portion of Dr. Engel's appUcation
relating to the names specified in (4) as soon as
possible after the close of the present Session,
with a view to a decision being taken by the
Commission thereon without further delay ;

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

" Venus " Linnaeus, 28. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a

pllLy^odl): proposal (file Z.N.(S.)189) submitted by Mr. Joshua L.

designation of type Baily, Jr. (U.S.A.), that the Commission should use their

species, under the plenary powers to set aside the designation of Venus dione

p enary powers Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of Venus Limiaeus, 1758,

and to validate the long-established usage of that generic

name, by designating, as the type species, either Venus

verrucosa Linnaeus, 1758, or Venus mercenaria Linnaeus,

1758.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—
(1) to use their plenary powers to set aside all selec-
tions of the type species of the genus Venus
Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pelecypoda, Order
Eulamellibranchia), made prior to the present
decision and to designate Venus verrucosa
Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of this
genus ;
(2) to place the generic name Venus Linnaeus, 1758
(type species : Venus verrucosa Linnaeus, 1758), on
the " Official List of Generic Names in Zoology " ;

ilth Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

305

(3) to place the specific trivial name verrucosa
Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal
combination Venus verrucosa), on the " Official
List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology " ;

(4) to render an Opinioti setting out the decisions
specified in (1) to (3) above.

" Bulla " Unnaeus, 29. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a

1758 (Class proposal (file Z.N.(S.)190) submitted by Mr. Joshua L.

Snrtion'^oftype Bailv, Jr. (U.S.A.), in consultation with Dr Harald E.

species of, under the Rehder (U.S.A.), that the Commission should use then:

plenary powers plenary powers to set aside the designation of Bulla naucum

Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of the genus Bulla

Lumaeus, 1758, and to preserve the long-established usage

of the name by designating Bulla ampulla Lumaeus, 1758,

as the type species.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to use their plenary powers to set aside all selec-
tions of the t>T)e" species of the genus Bulla
Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Gastropoda, Order BuUo-
morpha), made prior to the present decision and to
designate Bulla ampulla Linnaeus, 1758, to be
the type sp^bies of this genus ;

(2) to place the generic name Bulla Linnaeus, 1758
(tjT^e species : Bulla ampulla Linnaeus, 1758), on
the " Official List of Generic Names in Zoology " ;

(3) to place the specific trivial name a»ijiw//« Linnaeus,
1758 (as pubUshed in the bmominal combination
Bulla ampulla) on the " Official List of Specific
Trivial Names in Zoology " ;

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

{At this point the decisions reached by the Commission
in regard to the names Tethys ami Aplysia, Venus atd
Bulla were reported to the Section on Nornendature.)

30. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) then proposed that the Coumiission and the
Section on Nomenclature should now adjourn. The next
meeting which, Uke the present nieetmg, would consist of
concurrent meetings of the Commission and of the Seotion,
would be held at 1445 hours that afternoon.

Twelfth meeting
of the Commission
during its
Paris Session :
time appointed

{Previous referetice:
Paris Session, 1 1th
Meeting, Conclusion 2)

THE COMMISSION took not« of the above arrange-
ments.

{The Commission thereupon adjourned at 1225 hours)

VOL. 4 tr*

( 30(3 )

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Session held during the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology,
Paris, 2lst-27th July, 1948.

CONCLUSIONS of the Twelfth Meeting held at the Sorbonue iu the Amphi-
theatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 1445 hours

{Meeting held concurrently vnth the Fourth Meeting oftJie Section on Nomenclature)

PRESENT :

Mr. Francis Hemmuig (United Kingdom) {Acting President)

Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands)

Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.)

Professor L. di Caporiacco (Italy)

Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark)

Professor K. Mansour (Egypt)

:\Ii-. N. D. Riley (United Kingdom)

Professor Robert L. Usinger (U.S.A.)

The following were also present :

M. Belloc (France)

Dr. E. A. Chapin (U.S.A.)

Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty (U.S.A.)

Dr. Isabel Gordon (United Kingdom)

Professor E. R. Hall (U.S.A.)

Mr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (United Kingdom)

Dr. H. H. J. Nesbitt (Canada)

M. G. Ransoii (France)

Miss Louise Russell (U.S.A.)

Dr. Ethelwynn Trewavas (United Kingdom)

Mr. R. Winckworth (United Kingdom)

Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming, Personal Assistant to the Secretary

"Gryphaea" 1. THE COMMISSION, jointly with the Section on

|Cla*s Pelecypoda) Nomenclature, had under consideration a communication ^^
problem of type submitted by M. Gilbert Ranson (France) on the question of

species of : t]ie type species of the genus Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801 (Class

M Gilbert Ranson Pelecypoda, Order Pseudolamellibranchiata) (file Z.N.(S.)
365).

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

to defer for consideration after the close of the present
(Paris) Congress the a})plication submitted by M. G.

" For the text of the communication made by 11. Bfanson, see pages 168-170 of Volume 3
of this journal, and for the record of the discussion in the Section on Nomenclature, see pages
96-8 of Volume ,').

\2ih Mcetwfi. Pan.<i,Ju1i/, 1948.

307

Status of
generic names
published in books
dealing with
classification of
taxonomic units
down to the
genus level but no
further :

case of Brunnich,
1771, " Zoologiae
Fundamenta"

Ranson in regard to the type species of the genus
Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801 (Class Pelecypoda, Order
PseudolameUibranchiata) .

. 2. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
request submitted by Mr. R. Winckworth (United Kingdom)
that a ruHng should be given on the question whether new
generic names published by Brunnich in 1772 in his
Zoologiae Fundamenta were to be regarded as complying
with the provisions of Article 25, Proviso (b) (file Z.N.(S.)i51).
The text of Mr. Winckworth's application had been published
in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomemlature in 1945 [Bull.
zool.Nomencl.,1 : 113-117 , facsimile).

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEM-
MING) said that, while it was important that a decision
should be taken on the status of the nine generic names
published for the first time in Briinnich's Zoologiae
Fundamenta, which formed the subject matter of Mr.
Winckworth's application, it was much more important
that the Commission should reach a decision on the question
of principle involved in the acceptance or rejection of those
names, namely whether an author was to be regarded as
having applied the principles of binominal nomenclature
(" appUque les principes de la nomenclature binominale "),
as required by Proviso (b) to Article 25, as amended by the
present Congress, where, in the work in question, that author
was concerned with general questions of classification and
did not carry his analysis below the genus level. A new
generic name published in such a book after 31st December,
1930, was clearly ruled out by the terms of Proviso (c), the
proviso added to Article 25, Avith effect from that date,
under a decision taken by the Tenth International Congress
of Zoology at its meeting held at Budapest in 1927. The
status of a new generic name pubhshed in such a work prior
to 1st January, 1931, had never been clearly defined, and
the present was a good opportunity for reaching a decision
on this subject with a view to the submission to the Section
on Nomenclature of a recomniendation for the clarification
of the Regies in this regard. On a point of detail, it should be
noted that, subsequent to the publication of Mr. Winck-
worth's paper, the attention of the Commission had been
drawn by Dr. Eurt Teichert (University of Western
Australia) to the fact that the University of Copenhagen
possessed a copy of Briinnich's Zoologiae Fundamenta,
dated " 1771," as well as copies dated " 1772," the date
cited by Mr. Winckworth. The two editions were identical
except for the date on the title page. In view of this
information, this book should in future be attributed to

308 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

the year 1771. The Acting President added that the
Commission were very glad to have Mr. Winckworth with
them that afternoon and he called upon him to present his
application in person.

MR. R. WINCKWORTH (UNITED KINGDOM) said
that in the Zoologiae Fundamenta Briinnich gave a general
description in Latin (left-hand pages) and Danish (right-hand
pages) of the classification of the Animal Kingdom, including
tables of all the genera. He did not, however, cite the names
of species, as regards which he stated in the preface :
" Enumeratio specierum nimis foret prolixa." It was
evident that it was only on the grounds of space that
Briinnich stopped short at the genus level. He (Mr.
Winckworth) asked the Commission to declare that the
generic names used by Briinnich in the Zoologiae Fundamenta
were available under Article 25 of the Regies. He asked
also that one of the new names published by Briinnich,
namely Tonna Briinnich, should be placed on the " Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology " with Buccinum, galea
Linnaeus, 1758, as type species. The other new generic
names published in the Zoologiae Fundamenta would need
to be dealt with on their merits in the light of advice
received from specialists, but it might be thought appropriate
to suppress the name Orthoceros Briinnich, for, if Nautilus
orthocera Linnaeus, 1758, were to be taken as the type
species, it would run counter to the plan of Briinnich's book
which was not concerned with fossils.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEM-
MING) suggested that it might be convenient to take a
decision first on the general issue involved, and second,to
take such decisions as might be considered appropriate in
regard to individual names concerned. As to the nature of
that decision, he was in full agreement with Mr. Winck-
worth that Briinnich's Zoologiae Fundamenta satisfied the
requirements of Article 25 and that it was desirable that
the Commission should render an Opinion to that effect.
He was however of the opinion also that, in order to prevent
the recurrence in the case of other books of doubts similar
to those which had arisen in the present case, it was desir-
able that the Commission should recommend to the Section
on Nomenclature that words should be inserted in the
Regies clarifying the application of Proviso (b) to Article 25
in relation to books such as Briinnich's Zoologiae Funda-
menta. The Acting President further observed that, as the
Commission were painfully aware from their experience
with Meigen's Nouvelle Classification of 1800, it was often
very dangerous for the Commission to give a ruling that a
given book was an available book without at the same time

12th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 309

examining the ofTect of that decision on the nonicnelature
of the group concerned, for such a decision, altliough
perfectly correct, was capable of causing great confusion in
nomenclature, unless appropriate preventive action were
taken immediately by the Commission under its plenary
powers. He accordingly suggested that the Commission
should recommend to the Section on Nomenclature that
there should be inserted in the Regies a provision prescribing
that, where the Commission gave a ruling that a given book
satisfied the requirements of Article 25, it should be the
duty of the Commission, in consultation with specialists,
to examine the names first published in that book and,
having done so, to place on the appropriate " Official
List " such of the names concerned as were nomenclatorially
available and also the oldest available names for the taxo-
nomic units concerned, except, where the adoption of
any given name concerned would lead to instability and
confusion in the nomenclature of the group concerned, in
which case it should be made the duty of the Commission
to suppress the name concerned under their plenary powers.
It should be the duty of the Commission also to place on
the appropriate " Official Index " any new name pubHshed
in such a book that was either not available nomenclatori-
ally or was not the oldest available name for the taxonomic
unit concerned, together with any name which might have
been suppressed under the plenary powers under the
procedure suggested above.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) that, where, prior to 1st January, 1931, an author
had published a new generic name in a work
dealing with classification down to the generic
level but no further, it was not necessary for the
purpose of Proviso (b) to Article 25 that in the
work concerned the author in question should
have cited trivial names of species under that
genus or other genera discussed in the book
concerned, provided that it was evident that tlie
author concerned would have applied the principles
of binominal nomenclature for species if in the
book concerned he had dealt with taxonomic units
below the genus level ;

(2) to recommend that words should be inserted in
Article 25, embodying, in relation to Proviso (b)
to that Article, the interpretation given in (1)
above ;

(3) to render an Opinion stating that, for the reasons
given in (1) above, the generic names published in

310 J nter national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Briinnicli, 1771, Zoologiae Fundamenta complied
with the requirements of Article 25 of the Regies ;

(4) to recommend that a provision should be inserted
in the Regies prescribing that, where the Commis-
sion gave a ruling that a given book of previously
doubtful status satisfied the recpirements of
Article 25, it should be the duty of the Com-
mission, in consultation with specialists, to
examine the names first published in that book
and, having done so, (a) to place on the
appropriate " Official List " such of the names
concerned as are (i) nomenclatorially available
and (ii) the oldest available names for the taxo-
nomic units concerned, save, in the latter event,
where, in the opinion of the Commission, the
adoption of the name concerned would cause
instability and confusion in the nomenclature of
the group concerned, in which case the name
in question should be suppressed under the plenary
powers, and (b) to place on the appropriate
" Ofl&cial Index " any name found to be either not
available nomenclatorially or not the oldest name
for the taxonomic unit in question, together with
any name or names suppressed under the plenary
powers in accordance with (a) above.

" Tonna " Brunnich, 3. Arising out of the discussion on the proposal (file

*Idi)^^faced on'" Z.N.(S.)151) in regard to the status of generic names first

the " Official List published in Briinnich, 1771, Zoologiae Fundamenta,

of Generic Names recorded in Conclusion 2 above, THE COMMISSION

in Zoology" agreed:—

(1) to place the generic name Tonna Briinnich, 1771,
Zool. Ftmdamenta : 248, 232 (type species :
Buccinum galea Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10),
1 : 734, designated by Suter, 1913, Manual N.Z.
Moll. : 314) on the " Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology " ;

(2) to place the specific trivial name galea Linnaeus,
1758 (as pubhshed in the binominal combination
Buccimim galea), on the " Official List of Specific
Trivial Names in Zoology " ;

(3) to render an Opinion recording the decisions set
out in (1) and (2) above.

The word ^^ 4. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS

val^'aud'as^'a"'' HEMMING) said that one of the names which, as matters
generic name as now stood, was a name first published by Brunnich in the

(Cl*° ^J?"^^"S' .^'58 Zoologiae Fundamenta, was the name Cercopithecus
Ordlt Prlm^es)!' Briinnich, 1771 (Class Mammalia, Order Primates). This

12th Meetivfj, Paris, July, 1948.

311

and type species
designated, under
the plenary powers

" Limulus " Miiller,
1785 (Class
Arachnida, Order
Xiphosura)
placed on the
" Official List of
Generic Names in
Zoology " by
" Opinion " 104,
a synonym of
"Xiphosura "

word had originally been published in the nominative plural
(as " Cercopitheci ") by Linnaeus in 1758 {Syst. Nat.
(ed. 10), 1 : 26), as the name of a subdivision of the genus
Simia Linnaeus, 1758. It possessed no status, however, as.
a sul)generic name as from that date, for in Opinion 124
the Commission had ruled that these infra-generic group
names, as used by Linnaeus in 1758, were not to be accepted
as of subgeneric rank as from the date of being so published.
Unfortunately, however, in an earlier Opinion, Opinion 104
(published in 1928), the Commission had inadvertently
accepted a proposal that Cercopitheeus, attributed to
Linnaeus, 1758, should be placed on the " Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology " (with Simia diana Linnaeus,
'1758, as type species). This error must be rectified either
by deleting the foregoing entry from the " Official List " or
by validating it imder the Commission's plenary powers.
The latter course was the one which he (the Acting
President) recommended. If this course were to be adopted
no problem would arise in connection with the name
Cercopitheeus Briinnich, 1771.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to use their plenary powers to vaUdate the name
Cercopitheeus as from Linnaeus, 1758, and to
designate Simia diana Linnaeus, 1758, as the
type species of this genus ;

(2) .to confirm, in the hght of (1) above, the (previously
erroneous) entry of the name Cercopitheeus
Linnaeus, 1758 (type species as specffied in (1)
above), made in the " Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology " in accordance with the
directions given in Opinion 104 ;

(3) to place the specific trivial name diana Linnaeus,
1758 (as originally published in the combination
Simia diana Linnaeus, 1758), on the " Official
List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology " ;
and the name Cercopitheeus Briianick, 1771, on
the " Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology " ;

(4) to render an Opinion setting out the decisions
recorded in (1) to (3) above.

5. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) next drew attention to the fact that, as pointed
out by Mr. Winckworth (1945. Bull. zool. Nomenel, 1 : 116),
one effect of accepting the new generic names pubHshed by
Briinnich in his Zoologiae Fundamenta of 1771 was to
vahdate as from that date the generic name Xiphosura
Briinnich, with Monoculus polyphemus Linnaeus, 1758, as
type species. This result was objectionable from two points

312

Intern/itional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Briinnich, 1771 :
situation so disclosed
to be given
immediate
consideration

of view : (1) Monoadus polyphemus Linnaeus, 1758, was the
type species of the well-known genus Limulus Miiller, 1785,
the name of which had been placed on the " Official List
of Generic Names in Zoology " by Opinion 104. In the
circumstances now disclosed, that entry was seen to have
been erroneous and must now either be validated (under
the Commission's plenary powers) or cancelled. (2) The
genus Limulus Miiller belonged to the Order Xiphosura of
the Class Arachnida, and it would be objectionable to have
in an Order a genus bearing the same name {Xiphosura
Briinnich) as that of the Order itself. It appeared to him
(the Acting President) that this was a case where the strict
application of the Regies would lead to greater confusion
than uniformity, but he thought that it would be desirable
that the Commission should take the views of interested
specialists before reaching a decision. The matter was
urgent, however, for it should certainly be settled before the
" Official List of Generic Names in Zoology" (now in the
press) was published in book form.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

that consideration should be given as soon as possible
after the close of the present (Paris) Congress to the
question whether the name Limulus Miiller, 1785,
erroneously placed on the " Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology " by Opinion 104 should be
validated under the plenary powers or alternatively
be removed from the " Official List ", and that to
this end the Secretary to the Commission be asked
to prepare a Report on this subject, with recommenda-
tions, for the consideration of the Commission.

" Orthoceros "
Briinnich, 1771 :
decision on
postponed, pending
further

consultations with
palaeontologists

6. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING), referring to the generic name Orthoceros, which
now became an available name as from Briinnich, 1771, said
that, prior to the opening of the present (Paris) Congress,
lie had had correspondence with Mr. Winckworth on the
question whether it was desirable that this name should be
suppressed by the Commission under their plenary powers.
He had had also correspondence on this subject with Dr.
A. K. Miller (U.S.A.), Dr. Kurt Teichert (University of
Western Australia) and others (file Z.N.(S.)44). In view
of the interest of palaeontologists in this name, he suggested
that the Commission should at this point confine themselves
to taking note of Mr. Winckworth's suggestion that the
name Orthoceros Briinnich, 1771, should be suppressed for
nomenclatorial purposes and should defer taking a final
decision on this question until the views of palaeontologists
had been more fully ascertained,

I2th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

313

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

to invite the Secretary to complete as quickly as
possible his consultations with palaeontologists on the
action to be taken in regard to the generic name
Orthoceros Brunnich, 1771, and in the Ught of those
consultations and of the present discussion, to submit
a proposal to the Commission for consideration.

l^T^Xim, HFMM^P^ ^^T^^^ PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
"Rosmarus" HEMMING) said that there were three generic names

fna^it'rUlt" f^r'^^.' Rosmam^, Ammonia) which, in consequence of
Brunnict ml: *^ ^f T"" "^^'"^ ^^^ ^"'^ '^^^^ ^^^en (in Conclusion 2
Report on, asked for above) that new generic names published in Brunnich 's
Zoologiae Fundumenta satisfied the requirements of Article
"\ V J , ^^^^* ^®^*^ '^^"^ ^^^^ ^^st to have been vaUdly
published in the foregoing work. In accordance with the
procedure which the Commission had agreed (in the same
Conclusion) to adopt in such cases, these three generic
names should either be placed on the appropriate " Official
I^ist or Official Index " or, as the case might be, sup-
pressed by the Commission under their plenary powers.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

to invite the Secretary to confer with speciaUsts
in the groups concerned with the purpose of
submitting a Report, with recommendations, on
the action to be taken in regard to the following
generic names fii-st validly published by Briinnich
m 1771 in his Zoologiae Fundumenta: (1) Manatus
Brunnich; (2) Rosmarus ^vxxmnch: {Z) Ammonia
Brunnich.

"Regnum Animale " . f' ^^ the course of the discussion of the generic names
(status of generic ti^st published by Briinnich in 1771 in his Zooloqiae Funda-

c^n^ideS?:?,'"^- 'Zt^TZ'^^^^li^^^T'^^" Conclusion, THE ACTING
postponed ' PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) observed that
the status of five of the generic names published in that
wonc {Lutra Hyaena, Giraffa, Tapirus, Ceratodon) could
not be finally determined until a decision had been taken
by the Comniission on the status of the generic names
published by Brisson in 1762 in the Second Edition of his
HegnumAntmale, for each of the five names concerned had
been published by Brisson in the foregoing work and should
be attributed to that author if the Regnum Animale were

f .1 « ", ^"^ ^°"'P^>^ ""'^^^ *^^ requirements of Article 25
ot the Rjgles. If however it were necessary to reject that
work, then Briinmch's Zoologiae Fumkitnenta was the

314 International Commismon on Zoological Nom£)idature.

first work in which those names had been vaUdly pubHshed
with an indication ])y a binominal author. Continuing, the
Acting President said that, as the Commission would recall,
the question of the availability of names in Brisson's
Regnutn Animale had been submitted to them for decision
in a brief note prepared by Dr. G. H. H. Tate (American
Museimi of Natural History. New York) (file Z.N.(S.)r24),
which had been published in 1945 (Tate, 1945, Bull,
zool. Noniend. 1 : 115). Having regard to the importance
of this question to mammalogists and in view also of the
rarity of Brisson's Regnum Animale, he (the Acting Presi-
dent), in his capacity as Secretary to the Commission, had
come to the conclusion that a full presentation of the issues
involved was desirable before a decision was taken by the
Commission. He had accordingly prepared for the con-
sideration of the Commission a paper on this subject, illus-
trated hy facsimile reproductions of extracts from Brisson's
book. This paper would be published as soon as possible in
the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. In the circum-
stances, he (the Acting President) suggested that the
Commission should defer taking a decision on the status
of the names in Brisson's Regnum Animale of 1762 until
they had had an opportunity of studying the paper referred
to above but that, in taking this decision, they should take
note of the fact that, if the foregoing work were to be rejected
as not satisfying the requirements of Article 25, the place in
which the five generic names to which he had referred
would be found to have been first validly pubUshed in
conditions which satisfied the requii-ements of Article 25
would be Briinnich's Zoologiae Fundamenta of 1771

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to take into consideration the question of the
status of generic names first pubhshed in Brisson,
1762, Regnum Animale, as soon as possible after
the publication in the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature of the paper on this subject
prepared by the Secretary ;

(2) to take note that, if it were found that the above
work did not satisfy the requirements of Article
25, the names of the undermentioned genera in
the Class Mammalia Lutra, Hyaena, Giraffa,
Tnpirus, Ceratodon would be found to have been
first published by Briinnich in 1771 in his
Zoologiae Fundamenta .

" Hyaena " Brisson, 9. Arising out of the discussion on the item recorded

"i^^V " n • in Conclusion 8 above, THE COMMISSION agreed :—

Lutra Bnsson, ' "

1762, and to defer, until a decision had been reached on the

" Meles " Brisson,
1762:

postponement of
proposal for
addition to the
" Official Ust of
Generic Names in
Zoology ", pending
decision on status of
Brisson's " Regnutn
Animate" under
Proviso (b) to
Article 25

l2th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 315

question of the availabUity of generic names published
in Brisson in 1762, Regnum Amrmle, consideration of
the proposal submitted by the late Dr. C. W. Stiles
(file Z.N.(S.)177) (on which a note had been published
by Secretary Hemming, 1945, Bull. zool. Nmiend.

-nJ^-^T^^^^ ^^^* *^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^d^^d to the
Umcial List of Generic Names in Zoology " the
names of three genera {Hyaem, Lutra, Meles) of the
Order Carmvora (Class MammaUa) published by
Brisson m the Regnum Animale, from species of which
had been reported parasites common to Man.

Clerck, 1757,

" Aranei Svecici " :

proposed

validation for

nomenclatorial

purposes of the

names published in ;

discussion on,

concluded

(Previous reference:
Paris Session, lOlh
Meeting, Conclusion 5)

HFlnnlin? ^"^^^ PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HJiMMING) proposed that at this point the Commission
should resume their consideration of the proposal that the
names pubhshed in 1757 in Clerck's Aranei svecici should be
accepted for nomenclatorial purposes, notwithstanding
that, having been published before 1758, those names had
been published before the starting point of zoological
nomenclature, which had been submitted to the Conmiission
at then- Tenth Meeting (held concurrently with the Second
Meeting of the Section on Nomenclature) by Professor
Pierre Bonnet (France) on behalf of a large group of
Arachnologists. The Commission would recaU that on the
adjourimient of their earlier discussion of this problem he
(the Actmg President) had handed the dossier relating to
this case (file Z.N.(S.)238) to Professor L. di Caporiacco as
the Arachnologist member of the Commission and had
intunated that he would call upon him to open the discussion
when the Commission reverted to the consideration of this
problem. .

PROFESSOR L. DI CAPORUCCO (ITALY) said that
m accordance with the request made to him by the Acting
President at the tenth meeting of the Commission held 01!
24th July, he had carefully studied the whole dossier relating
to the application for the vahdation of the names fo?
certam species of spiders published in 1757 in Clerck's
Aranei svecici. For the reasons which he proposed to
place before the Commission he was satisfied that it was
desirable that they should take appropriate steps, either
under the plenary powers or otherwise, to vaUdate these
names.

It should be noted, first, that in his Aranei svecici
Uerck used a strictly binominal terminology in describing
the species dealt with in that work. The descriptions given
by Clerck were fully recognisable : there was no doubt at all
regarding the identity of the 68 nominal species concerned
ot which 55 were to-day universally accepted as good species,'

316 tniernatwnal Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

while the remaming 13 nominal species were perfectly
recognisable synonyms of other species described by Clerck
in the same work. When one turned to Linnaeus, one found
that most of the species which he described would be
unrecognisable, if in a nmnber of cases he had not himself
cited the names previously published by Clerck or if in
other cases there had not been other sources from which it
could be shown that the nominal sjDecies in question were
synonyms of species described by Clerck.

Almost all Arachnologists since the time of Linnaeus
had adopted the names published by Clerck and had
attributed those names to Clerck, instead of adopting the
names published by Linnaeus or, when the names were the
same, attributing them to Linnaeus. Professor Bonnet
had given some very interesting statistics regarding the
niunber of times on which the names pubhshed by Clerck
had been used by Arachnologists in preference to those of
Linnaeus, prior to the year 1892 when it was laid down in
the Regies adopted by the Second International Congress of
Zoology at its meeting held in Moscow that the year 1758
was to be accepted as the starting point of zoological nomen-
clature. These statistics showed that during this long period
the names published by Clerck were used three times as
frequently as those published by Linnaeus.

In spite of the decision taken in 1892 there was no
change after that year in the practice of Arachnologists
in this matter. An overwhehning majority continued to
use Clerck's names in preference to those of Linnaeus. In
the 56 years concerned Clerck's names had on the average
been used four times as frequently as those of Linnaeus.
The balance of usage in favour of Clerck's names thus
actually increased after 1892. It could be said that in
modern times only the German and Hungarian Arachno-
logists had used the names published by Linnaeus in
preference to those of Clerck, but even those Arachnologists
had reaUsed that Clerck's names were so much better known
than those of Linnaeus that, in order to make themselves
imderstood by other speciahsts, they had adopted the
practice of citing Clerck's names in brackets whenever they
used the Linnaean names.

Looking forward into the future, there was no prospect
that the situation was likely to change with the passage of
time. It should be noted that in all works dealing with the
arachnological fauna of particular countries the names
used were those of Clerck and not those of Linnaeus. Thus,
when a young student first studied the Class Arachnida, he
always became acquainted with the commonest European
species under the Clerckian names ; when he had become

VMli Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 317

thoroughly accustomed to using those names, it was unlikely
that he would later be wilUng to abandon them in
favour of those published by Linnaeus. Professor Bonnet
had made an inquiry on this subject among all working
Arachnologists. Of the G2 specialists consulted, 47 used
the Clerckian names, while 13 used those of Linnaeus ; the
remaming two, not bemg workers on the European fauna,
had no occasion to use either the Clerckian or the Linnaean
names. Professor Bomiet had been prevented by circum-
stances from obtaining repUes from two of the speciaUsts
who used the Linnaean names, but, as regards the remaining
11, It was noteworthy that seven— that was, a substantial
majority— had declared themselves as being in favour of
the Clerckian names. Thus, out of the total of 62 specialists
m Arachmda, four only had declared themselves as opposed
to the adoption of Clerck's names. Of these, one was an
Austrahan who had never dealt with the spiders of Europe,
with which alone the names of Clerck were concerned, while
another (Mr. Hull) used the trivial names of Clerck,' whUe
refusing to accept the generic name Araneus Clerck (or
indeed the generic name Aranea Linnaeus).

As there was almost complete unanimity in favour of
the validation of Clerck's names, it would be useful to
examine the nature of the reasons advanced against that
course. These were found to be two in number.

First, it was argued that Clerck's name " Araneus "
was not a generic name, because he divided his " Genus
Araneus " into a number of families. If this was a vahd
argument, then not only the generic name Araneus Clerck
but also the genera estabhshed by Latreille, Walckenaer and
some of the other early entomologists would have to be
rejected, for they were all accustomed to divide their genera
into what they termed families. The fact was that in the
XVIIIth century and the early part of the XlXth century
the expression " family " had an entirely different meaning
from that which it had since acquired. Zoologists did not
reject— and no zoologists had urged the rejection of— the
generic names published by Latreille, Walckenaer and others
on the ground that they divided their genera into famihes.
There was therefore no reason why on this account the names
published by Clerck should be rejected.

The second argument which had been advanced against
the acceptance of Clerck's names was prompted by the fear
of creating a precedent : once the inviolability of the year
1758 had been abandoned for one group, there was risk, it
was argued, that specialists in other groups might ask for
similar exceptions. Against this argmnent must be set the
fact that there was ahnost complete unanimity among

3l8 international Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Araclinologists in favour of an exception being made for
Clerck's names, while the fact that the number of workers in
other groups was much greater than the number of workers
on the Arachnida made it virtually impossible to secure
among, for example, malacologists or ornithologists (who
would be the groups most likely to raise such proposals) the
same degree of unanmiity as was found among the 62
Arachnologists.

There was therefore no good ground for rejecting the
request for the validation of the Arachnid names published by
Clerck in 1757. On the other hand, the refusal of that
request would mean that in the future, as in the past, the
commonest European spiders would be designated either by
names which were not in accordance with the Regies
IntertuUionales or be known by a double name (the Linnaean
and the Clerckian). In either case, the result would be
greater confusion than uniformity.

A LONG DISCUSSION then ensued in which general
agreement was expressed in regard to the need for meeting
the wishes of the applicants, and in which, in consequence,
attention was concentrated upon the means to be adopted to
secure this end. On the one hand, it was evident that any
decision, to produce the results desired, must be such that it
gave precedence to the Clerckian names over those published
by Linnaeus in the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae,
which, under the terms of Article 26 of the Regies, when read
with the interpretation given in Opinion 3, was deemed to
have been published on 1st January, 1758, and therefore
prior to any other zoological work published in that year.
On the other hand, it would be embarrassing to validate the
Clerckian names as from the date of their publication in 1757,
for this would run counter to another provision in Article 26,
namely that 1st January, 1758, was to be taken as the
starting point of zoological nomenclature. In the course
of the discussion, a suggestion was put forward that the
Commission should overcome these difficulties by using
their plenary powers to prescribe that Clerck's Aranei
svecici was to be deemed to have been published in 1758 on
some date prior to the pubhcation of the Systema, Naturae
of Linnaeus, but this suggestion was rejected on the grounds
that it would be objectionable deliberately to falsify the
date of publication of a book, of which the true date of
publication was well known. It was then suggested that,
while it should be recognised that Clerck's Aranei svecici
was published in 1757, it should be laid down by the
Commission that for nomenclatorial purposes names
published in that work were to be accorded priority (under
Article 25) as from 1758 and were to be granted precedence

12th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 319

over names for the same taxonomic miits (the genus Araneus
and the species placed by Clerck in that genus) pubUshed
by Lmnaeus m 1758 in the 10th edition of the >Syste7m
JSaturae. The view was expressed, however, that, having
regard to the exceptional character of the present case it
would be preferable that the proposed decision should 'be
expressly recorded in Article 26 as an exception to the
general rule there laid down rather than that the Commission
should act in this matter under their plenary powers (as
they clearly could, if they were so to decide) and that the
decisions so taken should then be recorded in the Schedule
to the Regies set apart for the recording of decisions taken
under those powers. It was important to mark in every
possible way the exceptional character of the decision
taken in the present case.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that a proviso should be added to Article 26 directing
that, notwithstanding the general provisions of that
Article, the generic name Araneus and the specific
trivial names for species of the Class Arachnida
pubUshed m 1757 in Clerck's Aranei svecid are to be
treated as though they had been published subsequent
to the starting point of zoological nomenclature and
are to have priority as though they had been published
in the year 1758 on some date prior to the publication
of the 10th edition of Linnaeus's Systema Naturae.

" Bilharzia " Meckel l^- THE COMMISSION had under consideration the

iss^S^suppSd ^^'!r'"^ papers relating to the case of the generic names

185b. suppressed. Bdha Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856, and Schistosorrm.

"Schistosoma" Wemland, 1858 (Class Trematoda, Order Digenea) (file

Weinland. 1858 Z.N.(S.)138) :— ^ ' ^

(Class Trematoda),

Syl-oreJ:' *' (^^ f' application received from Dr. H. Vogel, Institut

fur SchiflFs- und Tropenkrankheiten, Hamburg, for a
declaration that the generic name Bilharzia attri-
buted to Meckel von Hemsbach, the first author by
whom it was published, and with priority as from
1856 (the date on which it was published by thai
author) had precedence over, and should be used in
place of the later name Schistosoma Weinland, 1858,
published for the same species (Vogel, 1947, Bull,
zool. Nomencl., 1 : 193-194) ;

(b) a note by the Secretary to the Commission drawing
attention to the fact that the name Schistosoma
Weinland, 1858, had been placed by the Commission
on the " Official List of Generic Names in Zoology "

VOL. 4 X

320 International Commission oti Zoological Nomenclature.

by a decision taken in their Opinion 77, and that, in
consequence, the recognition of the prior rights of
the name Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856
, (the existence of which was not known to the

Commission when they rendered their Opinion 77)
would involve the removal of the name Schistosoma
Weinland, 1858, from the " Official List," and inviting
interested specialists to inform the Commission
whether they considered that in the circumstances
the removal of the name Schistosoma Weinland,
1858, was desirable or whether it would be
preferable, in the interest of avoiding confusion
that the Commission should use their powers to
suppress the name Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach,
1856, and to validate the name Schistosoma
Weinland, 1858 (Hemming, 1947, Bull. zool.
Nomencl, 1 : 195-196).
THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEM-
MING) said that in response to the invitation contained in
the paper published by himself in the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature in 1947 and of the notices on the subject to
which it had given rise in the journal Science, 15 specialists
had written to him on this subject, of whom one only was in
favour of the strict appUcation in this case of the Law of
Priority and in consequence of the use of the name Bilharzia
Meckel von Hemsbach, while 14 were in favour of the use
by the Commission of their plenary powers to validate the
name Schistosoma Weinland. Since his arrival in Paris,
Professor K. Mansour (Egypt) had spoken to him in regard
to this case and had indicated that he was in favour of
reviving the use of the name Bilharzia. Of the specialists
who had conmiunicated their views on this subject, the two
who favoured the name Bilharzia were British and Egyptian
respectively, while of the 14 who favoured the suppression
of that name in favour of the name Schistosoma, 12 wrote
from the United States, one from Canada, and one from
Great Britain. The Acting President added that it
appeared clear to him that there was an overwhelming
consensus of opinion in favour of the validation of the name
Schistosoma Weinland. The Commission had placed that
name on the " Official List " in good faith, beUeving it to
be the oldest name for this important genus, it being then
thought by all concerned that the name Bilharzia had not
been publihed imtil 1859 (by Cobbold), i.e. not imtil a year
after the publication of the name Schistosoma. They
certainly would not have taken that action at that time,
when the name Bilharzia (attributed to Cobbold) was in wide
use if they had known what the true position was. In the
26 years that had elapsed since the name Schistosoma was

VOL. 4 X«

12th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 321

placed though erroneously, upon the " Official List," that
name had very largely replaced the name Bilharzia- new
issues were therefore raised by the discovery that Bilharzia
was the older name, for it was necessary to consider also
the effect on medical literature of a reversal of the practice
which for over a quarter of a century had been beliWed to
possess the highest nomenclatorial authority. In view of
the general sense of the advice received from interested
specialists, he (the Acting President) recommended that the
Comm^sion should use their plenary powers to suppress the
name Bilhmzm Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856, and to validate
tlie name Schistosoma Weinland, 1858.

The following are the names of the specialists who marie
repre.,entat.ons to the Commission either in fovourof the 2me
Bilharzia or of the name Schistosoma:—

(1) Specialists in favour of the name Bilharzia :—

Tr.n^'ftrr ^- '^; ^^^'I'*^'"' ^""^^'i School of Hygiene and
SbrstEngfanr' ""^'^"^^ ^^ Agricultural Paras.^lgy, Stl

Professor K. Mansour, Fouad University, Cairo, Egypt.

(2) Specialists in favour of the name Schistosoma :—

Dr. H. A. Baylis, British Museum (Natural Historv)
DepartmentofZoology, London, England. "•stor3).

Professor Harold Kirby, University of California Depart-
ment of Zoology, Berkeley, Cal., U.S.Ai i^epart-

M ^•^''■.y' "■ "^^'"g^it. Chief, Division of Tropical Diseases
National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.A

Dr Eloise B. Cram, Medical Parasitologist, Division of
Il"r&. ulT '''*''°'' '"'"*"*' ''' "^"'*'^' ^''^'^-'

nf T^''- ^^'1? "^^ ^"Xt^""' S^"'""" Assistant Scientist. Division

Maryland, UsT'"' ""' ^'^*''"*" "^ ^''^'^' ^''^'^^'

Dr. Myrna F. Jones, Zoologist, Division of Tropical
Diseases, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland,

n,« ^'■' ^xw^"^ ,^; ^°'''"' Zoologist, Division of Tropical
Diseases, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland,

\f ?"' L" ^•,.^- <^*?l^™"' Director, Institute of Parasitology
Macdonald College of McGill University, Que., Canada.

Dr. M. S Ferguson, U.S. Public Health Service, Communic-
able Disease Center, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.

Dr. Hugh Pankhurst, Gloucester, Mass., U.S.A.

Professor Ernest CarroU Faust, The Tulane University of
Louisiana, School of Medicine, Department of Trooical
Mechcine, and Public Health, New Orleans. U.S.A.

Dr David S. Ruhe, U.S. Public Health Service, Com-
municable Diseases Center, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.

Professor Deane P. Furman, University of California
SSeTey! cf iTu S.A: ^'""^'"^ ^^ Entomology and Parasitology.'

Professor Charles H. Blake, Massachusetts Institute of
leehnology. Department of Biology, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.

322 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

In the discussion which foUowed PROFESSOR R. L.
USINGER (U.S.A.) supported the proposal that the
plenary powers of the Commission should be used to validate
the name Schistoso)na which had become deeply embedded in
the literature relating to the Trematoda and in medical
literature generally. Nothing but confusion would result
if it were necessary to revert to the name Bilharzia.

PROFESSOR K. MANSOUR (EGYPT) said that this
problem was one of special interest to Egyptian zoologists
and Egyptian medical men, for it was in Egypt that the
disease bilharziasis was of special importance ; the name
Bilharzia was still universally used in Egypt for the
Trematode parasite concerned. Now that it was clear that
the name Bilharzia had priority over the name Schistosoma,
it should be brought back into universal use.

DR. ELLSWORTH C. DOUGHERTY (U.S.A.) (a
member of the Section on Nomenclature present at the
meeting) strongly supported the proposal that the name
Schistosoma should be vahdated. Any other course would
lead to confusion in medical Uterature.

COMMISSIONER H. BOSCHMA (NETHERLANDS)
expressed support for the proposal that in the circumstances
the name Schistosoma should be vaUdated, in spite of the
fact that at one time the name Bilharzia had been much
more frequently used.

PROFESSOR K. MANSOUR (EGYPT) said that he
recognised that American workers used the name Schistosoma
in preference to the name Bilharzia, but the medical problem
involved, and therefore the nomenclatorial issue, was of
much more direct concern to Egyptian workers who had
never used the name Schistosoma. He recognised that the
balance of opinion was in favour of validating the entry of
the name Schistosoma on the " Official List." Nevertheless,
this was not a proposal which he could support, and he
would feel bound to vote against it.

THE COMMISSION, Professor Mansour dissenting,
agreed : —

(1) to use their plenary powers : —

(a) to suppress for the purposes of Article 25 the
generic name Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach,
1856 (Class Trematoda) ;

(b) to validate the name Schistosoma Weinland,
1858 (Class Trematoda) ;

(2) to confirm the entry of the name Schistosoma
Weinland, 1858, on the " Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology " ;

12th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

323

Miscellaneous
proposals for the
amendment or
clarification of the
" Regies " :
fifth instalment

{Previous referetwe:
Paris Session, llth
Meeting, Conclusion 7)

The plenary powers
of the

International
Commission on
Zoological
Nomenclature :
use of, in relation
to particular
purposes

(Previous reference:
Paris Session, Ath
Meeting, Conclusion 3)

(3) to render an Opinion recording the decisions
specified in (1) and (2) above.

12. THE COMMISSION had before them a memoran-
dum by the Secretary (Commission Paper I. C. (48)17)
containing a fifth instalment of miscellaneous proposals
received from various sources for the amendment or
clarification of the Regies. For convenience of reference
these proposals, which were 13 in number, had been
numbered consecutively with the proposals brought forward
in the paper containing the fourth instalment (Commission
Paper I.C. (48)16). The present proposals were therefore
numbered (81) to (93).

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

to examine Commission Paper I.C. (48)17, point by
point, for the purpose of reaching conclusions
regarding the recommendations to be submitted on
the questions raised therein.

13. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352), set forth in Point (81) in Com-
mission Paper I.C. (48)17, that words should be inserted in
the Article which, as agreed at the meeting noted in the
margin, the Section on Nomenclature had been invited to
propose to the Congress should be added to the Regies
in regard to the plenary powers of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, the object of the
words so proposed to be inserted in the foregoing Article
being to draw the attention of the Commission to the need
for giving special consideration to certain classes of
applications designed to promote stability in nomenclature.

In the ensuing discussion there was general agreement
in regard to the foregoing proposal, but the view was ex-
pressed that the scope of the proposal should be expanded
to cover cases where the resuscitation of a long-forgotten
type designation or t}'pe selection of a genus would lead
to the sinking in synonymy of a well-known generic name or
to an alteration of the mamier in which such a name should
be appUed.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that in the Article to be added to the Regies relating
to the grant of plenary powers to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature words should
be inserted enjoining the Commission to give special
consideration to appHcations for the use of the
plenary powers in cases where the appUcations in
question are concerned either (1) to suppress for

324

International Commission on Zoological Nomenchiture.

nomenclatorial purposes some old long-forgotten or
long-ignored work containing new names, the intro-
duction of which would sink in synonymy names
that are well established in current use, or (2) to
suppress any long-ignored name, or in the case of a
generic name, any long-ignored t)^e designation or
type selection where the acceptance of that name or, as
the case might be, that type designation or t}^e
selection would in the first case sink in synonymy, or
in the second case, sink in synonymy or alter the
meaning to be attached to, some well-known name in
current use.

The plenary powers
of the

International
Commission on
Zoological
Nomenclature :
application to
cases of doubt
arising from
impossibility of
determining the
species to which
a given trivial name
should apply

14. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) submitted by the Secretary in
Point (82) in Commission Paper I. C. (48)17 that in the
Article to be added to the Regies in regard to the grant of
plenary powers to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature provision should be made not
only to cover (as already agreed) cases where greater
confusion than uniformity would result from the strict
application of the Regies but also to cover those cases where,
owing to the impossibihty of determining to which of two
or more species a given trivial name should be apphed, a
serious and irremediable state of confusion was inevitable
imless the Commission were empowered to use their
plenary powers definitely to select a given species to be the
species to which the trivial name in question w^as to apply.
It was explained that, although this proposal contemplated
an extension of the plenary powers of the Commission, the
extension proposed w'as concerned not with widening the
field in which the Commission was empowered to authorise
exceptions being made from the Regies but with providing
a means by which the Regies could be strictly applied in those
cases where, without the intervention of the Commission,
the appUcation of the Regies was impossible and doubt and
confusion in nomenclature was inevitable.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that in the Article to be added to the Regies in regard
to the plenary powers of the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature there should be inserted
words to make it clear that, included among the
classes of case for which those powers may be used
are cases where confusion exists and is likely to persist
through the impossibihty, in the absence of the use of
such powers, of determining the species to which a
given specific or subspecific trivial name should be
apphed.

12th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

325

International
Commission on
Zoological
Nomenclature :
insertion in the
"Regies " of an
Article relating
to composition of

{Previous reference:
Paris Session , Wth
Meeting, Conclusion
10)

15. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
note submitted by the Secretary in Point (83) in Commission
Paper I. C. (48)17, drawing attention to the fact that now
that it had been decided to recommend the inchision in the
Regies of an Article relating to the functions of the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Point
(66) in Commission Paper I. C. (48)16), it was necessary also
to include an Article dealing with the composition of the
Commission and the method of electing its members. The
Article should be in general terms but should specify the
principal decisions in this matter taken by the Congress.

{Previous reference
Paris Session, 3rd
Meeting, Conclusion 1)

{Previous reference:
Paris Session, 3rd
Meeting, Conclusion 3)

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that there should be inserted in the Regies a provision
dealing in general terms with the composition of the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
and the method of electing its members, this provision
to specify all decisions in this regard taken by the
present Congress and to provide, inter alia: —

(a) that the Commission shall consist of such
number of members, not being less than 18,
as the Congress or the Commission acting on
behalf of the Congress, may from time to time
determine ;

(b) that one-third of the members of the Com-
mission, being those members who have had the
longest service as such since their election or,
as the case may be, their most recent re-election
as members of the Commission, shall vacate
their membership of the Commission at each
successive Congress and that the vacancies
so created shall be filled by elections made by
the Congress for such periods and subject to
such conditions as may from time to time be
determined by the Congress, members of the
Commission vacating their position as such
under the present section being eUgible for
immediate re-election by the Congress ;

(c) that the number of ofiicers of the Commission,
their titles and duties, shall be determined
from time to time by the Congress and that,
when at a meeting of the Congress, a member
of the Commission who holds one of the said
offices is one of the members of the Commission
who, under (b) above, is required to vacate his
membership, the oSice in question is to be
deemed to have fallen vacant and shall be filled
by the Congress by election from among the

326 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

members of the Commission, the retiring officer,
if re-elected to be a member of the Commission,
being eUgible for immediate re-election to the
office so vacated by him, and further that,
until the Congress otherwise determines the
Officers of the Commission shall consist of a
President, a Vice-President and a Secretary ;

p''^*''^"* ''.^f^''^''^^-' (d) that during periods between successive Con-

mding'Tc^icliLioni) grcsses the Commission may, subject to (a)

above, vary the number of members of the
Commission and may, in the manner agreed
upon at the meeting noted in the margin, elect
zoologists to fill additional places so created,
may fill casual vacancies which may occur in
the membership of the Commission during such
periods as the result of death, resignation or
otherwise, such elections being made for such
periods and subject to such conditions as the
Commission may, subject to (b) above, from
time to time determine, and may also, subject
to (c) above, fill vacancies in the offices of the
Commission which during such periods may
arise by reason of any of the causes aforesaid ;

(e) that, if, as the result of an emergency, it is
not possible to hold a Congress at the appointed
time, the Commission or the Executive Com-
mittee of the Commission, or failing which,
the Secretary to the Commission, may assume
and exercise such extraordinary powers as it
or he may consider necessary to secure the
continued existence of the Commission, pro-
vided : —

(i) that the powers so assumed shall not
include the power to vary the Regies or
to render Declarations or Opinions on
behalf of the Commission ;

(ii) that at the first Congress to be held
after the end of such emergency the
Commission shall submit a Report to the
Congress regarding the extraordinary
powers assumed during the emergency
and the action taken by the Commission
or, as the case may be, the Executive
Committee or by the Secretary to the
Commission thereunder ;

(f) that, in filling places in the Commission, due
regard is to be paid to the need for securing (i)
that there is an appropriate balance in the

12th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 327

membership of the Commission as between
different parts of the world and (ii) that there
is an appropriate representation of different
types of knowledge and experience (1) in the
various branches of the Animal Kingdom
as respects both living and fossil species and
also (2) of the needs of workers not only in the
field of systematic zoology, including palaeo-
zoology, but also in such of the applied fields
as are concerned with biological subjects.

International 16. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
Zodulricar" **" "°^ submitted by the Secretary in Point (84) in Commission
Nomenclature : Paper I. C. (48)17, drawing attention to the fact that now that
.'.■J^f J'**" *°|*''* it had been decided to recommend the inclusion in the
Art^le^relating Regies of an Article defining the functions of the Inter-
to the By-Laws of national Conmiission on Zoological Nomenclature (Point (66)
{Previous reference: in Commission Paper I.e. (48)16), it was necessary also to
Paris Session nth include an Article relating to the By-Laws of the Commission

Meeting, Conrlusion . '^ i • i i ri ■ •

10) and specifymg the extent to which the Commission was

free to alter the provisions laid down therein.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that a provision should be inserted in the Regies
providing : —

(a) that the functions and composition of the
Commission and its procedure and other
matters concerned with the conduct of its
affairs shall be governed by By-Laws to be
adopted by the Commission, consisting in
part of Organic Articles specifying those
matters on which decisions have been taken by
the Congress and in part of Articles dealing
with other questions relating to the matters
aforesaid ;

(b) that the Organic Articles to be incorporated
in the By-Laws shall not be subject to change
by the Commission, except that in so far as the
Congress may from time to time vary the pro-
visions in the Regies relating to the functions,
composition and procedure of the Commisison,
it shall be the duty of the Commission to amend
the relevant Organic Articles to such extent
as may be necessary to bring those Articles into
harmony with the decisions so taken by the
Congress ;

(c) that, in addition to, and subject to the provisions
of, the Organic Articles, there may be included

328

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

in the By-Laws such provisions as the Com-
mission may deem to be necessary or expedient
relating (i) to the election of officers during
inter-Congress periods and the duties to be
assigned to each such officer, (ii) to the election
of members of the Commission, (iii) to the
methods to be followed in voting on matters
requiring decision, and (iv) generally to any
other matter concerning the conduct of the
business of the Commission ;

(d) that, subject to (b) above, the Commission may
at any time vary its By-Laws to such extent and
subject to such conditions as it may from time
to time decide to be necessary or appropriate ;

(e) that it shall be the duty of the Commission to
make arrangements with the International Trust
for Zoological Nomenclature (the corporation
responsible for the conduct of all financial
matters on behalf of the Commission) for the
By-Law^s of the Commission to be printed by
the Trust and for supplies of the By-Laws, so
printed, at all times to be held available for sale.

Article 28 relative

merits of the " first

reviser " and

" page precedence

principles :

Report by the

Secretary

{Previous reference:
Paris Session, 9lh
Meeting, Conclusion
24)

17. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
Report (Point (85) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)17)
prepared by the Secretary to the Commission in response
to a request made to him at the meeting noted in the margin,
on the subject of the relative advantages of the " first
reviser " and " page precedence " principles in relation to
names (whether generic or trivial) published in the same
book or paper for the same genus or species and to a single
name when applied in such circumstances to different genera
or to different species.

In this Report the Secretary both summarised the
existing position in this matter and drew attention to the
diversity of practice among zoologists. The Secretary
concluded that the first essential was to redraft Article 28
in such a way as to eliminate all doubt regarding the require-
ments of the Regies on this question. Owing to the lack
of uniformity in existing practice, some inconvenience was
inevitable for individual workers if a common practice Avas
now to be obtained for names in all parts of the Animal
Kingdom. There were two important considerations which
should be borne in mind : first, the importance of selecting
the solution which would be both the most satisfactory on
merits and would also be likely to lead to the minimum of
inconvenience and disturbance of existing practice ;
second, the need for adopting measures to minimise the

I2th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 329

bad effects of such disturbance in existing practice as was
inevitable, whatever solution was adopted. On the first
of these points, the Secretary had reached the conclusion that
the principle of page precedence was on merits greatly to be
preferred to that of the first reviser, owing to the simplicity
with which it could be applied, whereas in many cases the
application of the second of these principles was a matter
of difficulty and doubt ; further, it appeared that a large
and increasing number of zoologists were in fact already
applying this principle, notwithstanding the present
provisions of Article 28. On the second of the points to
which he had drawn attention, the Secretary suggested that,
where the adoption of the principle of page precedence would
lead to hard cases, those hard cases should be met by the
Connnission through the use of their plenary powers.

A long discussion ensued on the Report suljmitted by
the Secretary, in the course of which general support was
expressed for the proposals submitted. Special considera-
tion was given to the question whether the new provisions
should be given retroactive effect or whether those provisions
should apply only to those names, the relative status of
which had not been determined under the existing pro\asions
of Article 28 prior to a date to be specified in the Regies.
It was realised, however, that, in view of the fact that a very
large number of names were to-day treated as though the
principle of page precedence were abeady enshrined in
Article 28, a decision not to make the new provisions retro-
active would fail to secure the desired object, for it would
involve the widespread disturbance in existing nomen-
clatorial practice which it was the object of the Commission
to avoid. Moreover, the lack of precision in the existing
provisions of Article 28 in regard to the manner in which the
" first reviser " principle was to be applied (for example,
the difficulties often encountered in determining whether
in a given work a given author had in fact acted as a first
reviser) had led to doubt in many cases as to the way in
which those provisions should be applied. On balance,
therefore, it was felt that more harm than good would be
done if the new provisions were to be brought into operation
only as from some future date. At the conclusion of this
part of the discussion, the Commission turned to consider
the safeguards that could usefully be adopted to remedy
the inconvenience arising from the disturbance in existing
nomenclatorial practice in certain cases through the grant
of retroactive effect to the principle of page precedence. It
was generally agreed that it was desirable that there should
be attached to the new provision a supplementary provision
prohibiting the disturbance of existing practice, without the
prior approval of the Commission, and recommending the

330 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Commission to consider sympathetically applications for
the use of their plenary powers in such cases to prevent
disturbance of existing nomenclatorial practice, and, in
particular, in the case of names of importance in medicine,
agriculture, veterinary science and other applied fields of
biology or in the teaching of zoology.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

(1) that in place of the provisions in Article 28 re-
lating to names of the same date there be inserted
in the Regies at an appropriate point provisions
(a) that, where two or more names were published
for the same taxonomic unit, or where the same
name was published for more than one taxonomic
unit, m the same book or serial or in the same part
of any book or serial and were in consequence of
identical date, the name printed on the earlier of
the pages concerned is to have precedence over
the name or names published on a later page, (b)
that, where two or more such names are published
on the same page, the name which appears on the
line nearest to the top of the page is to have pre-
cedence over any name or names which appear
lower down that page and (c) that, where two or
more such names are printed in the same line, a
name appearing earlier, is to have precedence over
any name or names appearing later, in the same
line ;

(2) that the provisions specified in (1) above should
be subject to the following conditions : —

(a) that, where the application of the foregoing
provision would lead to a change in the
name of a taxonomic unit of importance,
particularly in the fields of medicine, agri-
culture, veterinary science or other applied
fields in biology or in the teaching of zoo-
logy, specialists may apply to the Commis-
sion for the use of its plenary powers to
maintain existing nomenclatorial practice
and that, on such an application having
been submitted, no change in that practice
should be made until the Commission's
decision is made known ;

(b) that the said International Commission shall
give sympathetic consideration to applica-
tions for the use of its plenary powers for
the purpose of stabilising names, when
requested to do so in accordance with
(a) above ;

Uth Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 331

(3) that the existing Recommandation to Article 28,
being inconsistent with the provisions now
proposed to be inserted in that Article, should be
deleted therefrom.

The use by the 18. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a

tLei^^ieni" **' proposal (Point (86) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)17) that

power^ f "*'*' th^re should be included in the Schedule which it had been

supplementary agreed at the meeting noted in the margin should be

?o proiedure*'**''"^ established for the recording of decisions taken by the

Commission under their plenary powers particulars also of

(Previous reference: (decisions taken by the Commission refusing applications for

Paris Session, 4th the use of those powers. It was proposed also that pro-

Meeting. Conclusion 3) vision should be made for the automatic repeal, for all

except historical purposes, of Opinions recording decisions

taken by the Commission under their plenary powers when

those decisions were recorded in a Schedule to the Regies.

There was general agreement that it was desirable that
it should be made clear in an appropriate Schedule to the
Regies what was the position where the Commission had
been asked to use their plenary powers to validate one name
by suppressing another but had come to the conclusion that
the circimistances did not warrant the use of their plenary
powers for the purpose in question. The view was expressed,
however, that it was undesirable in such a case that the
Commission should stop short by giving a negative decision
of this kind. The proper course, it was felt, was that the
Commission should in such a case take a positive decision
on the issue involved by stating in their Opinion what was
the name which should be used under the Regies, that name
being at the same time added to the appropriate " Official
List." It was this decision which should be recorded in
the appropriate Schedule.

THE COMMISSION agreed:—

(1) that, when in future the Commission refused to
grant an apphcation for the use of their plenary
powers to vaUdate a given name by suppressing
another name, the Opinion to be rendered should
not only record the refusal of the Commission to
use their plenary powers in the manner proposed
but should also state clearly what was the name
which under the Regies should be used in the case
in question ;

(2) to recommend : —

(a) that the provisions governing the use of the
plenary powers should be amended to
provide as specified in (1) above ;

332

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

(b) that, whenever a decision, whether vaUdat-
ing or suppressing a given book, or a given
name, was inscribed in the Schedule to the
Regies which at the meeting noted in the
margin it had been agreed to estabUsh
for the recording of such decisions, the
Opinimi in which that decision had originally
been promulgated should be repealed for all
except historical purposes ;

(3) to invite the Secretary to the Commission to
examine every Opinion so far rendered, in which
an application for the use of the plenary powers
had been rejected, with a view to the submission
by him of proposals for the completion by the
Commission of the decisions so recorded, where
those decisions did not comply with the require-
ments specified in (1) above.

Decisions in regard
to individual books
or names taken by
the Commission
otherwise than
under their
plenary powers :
record of, to be
made in a Schedule
to the " Regies"

{Previous references:
Paris Session, ith
Meeting, Conclusion 3;
9th Meeting,
Conclusion 31)

19. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (Point (87) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)17) that
the decisions already taken during the present Session for
the recording in Schedules to the Regies of decisions em-
bodied in certain Opinions rendered by the Commission
should be extended in such a way as to secure that every
decision given in an Opinion rendered by the Commission in
regard to the status of a given book or name or nomencla-
torial usage (e.g. the determination of the type species of a
given genus) should be recorded in an appropriate Schedule
to the Regies. It had already been agreed at the Fourth
Meeting of the Paris Session that all such decisions whether
vahdating or suppressing a given book, name or usage taken
by the Commission under its plenary powers should be so
recorded, while at the Ninth Meeting of the same Session it
had been agreed that a similar record should be made of
every decision where the Commission ruled that a given book
or name was not available under the Regies. In order to
complete the system of record so begun, it was desirable that
there should be recorded in the appropriate Schedule a record
of every affirmative decision taken by the Commission,
otherwise than under their plenary powers, i.e. every
decision that a given book or name was available under the
Regies. It was proposed also that, on the transfer to the
Schedule concerned of any decision relating to the status,
whether available or unavailable, of a given book or name,
the Opinion in which that decision had originally been
promulgated should be repealed for all except historical
piirposes.

12th Meetitig, Paris, July, 1948.

333

" Official List of
Generic Names in
Zoology " and
" Official List of
Specific Trivial
Names in Zoology"
and corresponding
Indexes of Rejected
and Invalid Names :
establishment of
Schedules to the
" Regies " for
reception of

(Previous reference:
Paris Session, 9th
Meeting, Conclusions
41 and 42)

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

(1) that the decision taken at the Ninth Meeting of
their Paris Session that there should be established
a Schedule in which should be recorded every
decision taken by the Commission that a given
book or a given name was not available under the
Regies (that is to say every such decision other
than a decision taken by the Commission under
their plenary powers) should be extended in such
a way as to provide also that every such decision,
affirming that a given book or name or nomen-
clatorial usage was available under the Regies or,
as the case may be, correct thereunder should be
recorded in the said Schedule ;

(2) that, whenever a decision falling in the classes
specified in (1) above was inscribed in the
Schedule to the Regies concerned, the Opinion in
which that decision had originally been promul-
gated should be repealed for all except historical
purposes.

20. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal (Point (88) in Commission Paper I.C. (48)17) that
two further Schedules should be added to the Regies for the
reception respectively of the " Ofl&cial List of Generic
Names in Zoology " and the " Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology," and matters consequential thereto.

There was general agreement that, now that (as agreed
at the meeting noted in the margin) a provision was to be
inserted in the Regies prescribing and defining the scope of
the two " Official Lists," it was desirable that entries of
names on those " Lists " should be formally recorded in
the manner proposed. It was recalled that, since the
present proposal had been drafted, the Commission had
proposed, and the Section on Nomenclature had agreed,
that the title of the second of these " Official Lists " should
be changed to that of " Official List of Specific Trivial
Names in Zoology." It would be necessary therefore to
make a corresponding change in the decision to be taken on
the present proposal.

The Commission were informed that, in the preparations
which had already been made for the pubhcation of the
" Official List of Generic Names in Zoology " in book form
there had been added to that " List " an " Index " of
rejected and invalid names, giving particulars of all names
which the Commission had either suppressed under their
plenary powers or had declared were otherwise unavailable

334 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

under the Regies. This course had been taken because it
had been felt that it was only in this way that it would be
possible to provide a readily accessible alphabetical list of
such names. From the point of view of working zoologists
a knowledge of decisions taken by the Commission either
suppressing, or declaring invalid, individual names was just
as important as a knowledge of the corresponding affirmative
decisions. It was accordingly suggested that the Schedules
now proposed to be established should be divided into two
parts, the first part, in each case, for the reception of the
" Official List " concerned, the second for the reception
of the corresponding Index of rejected and invalid names.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

(1) that further Schedules should be added to the
Regies for thereceptionrespectively of the " Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology " and the
" Official List of Specific Trivial Names in
Zoology " and that Indexes of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names and of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Trivial Names should either be
added to the respective Schedules concerned or
should be recorded in further Schedules, which-
ever might be found the more convenient ;

(2) that, in order to prevent the volume containing
the Regies and the Schedules thereto already
agreed to be estabhshed from becoming too bulky,
the Schedules referred to in (1) above should be
published separately from time to time in parts ;

(3) that, on the forthcoming publication of the
" Official List of Generic Names in Zoology "
(already in the press), the volume so formed
should constitute the first instalment of the
relevant Schedule referred to above, and that, as
from the date of the publication of that volume,
all the Opinions rendered by the Commission in
relation to names recorded in the Schedule con-
cerned should be repealed for all except historical
purposes ;

(4) that, as and when sufficient further names should
have been added to the " Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology " or to the " Index of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names " or should have been
placed on the " Official List of Specific Trivial
Names in Zoology " or on the corresponding
" Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial
Names ", further instalments in the first case and
instalments in the second case should be added

12th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 335

to the appropriate Schedule and thereupon
published as further instalments of the supple-
mentary volumes of the Regies, as prescribed in
(2) above and that the Opinions in which the
decisions that the names in question should be
placed on an Official List or Index, a» the case
might be, had been originally published should
thereupon be repealed for all except historical
purposes.

Incorporation in 21. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a

" Riglel*" S ***' proposal (Point (89) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)17) that,

decisions given in prior to the incorporation in Schedules to the Regies of

" Opinions " : decisions embodied in Ojnnions rendered by the Commission,

cancellation and certain of the Opinions in question should be cancelled,

amendment of because they had either never been correct or were no

certain Opinions longer correct, and that certain other of those Opinions

already published i*,], j: ^ ■ ^
should be amended m certam respects.

THE COMMISSION agreed:—

(1) that the undermentioned Opinions should, for
the reasons severally specified below, be cancelled
except for historical purposes : —

(a) Opinion 9 (" The use of the name of a
composite genus for a component part
requiring a name "), because it contained
no effective decision ;

(b) Opinions 23 and 24 (" Aspro versus Cheilo-
dipterus or Ambassis " and " Antennarius
Commerson, 1798, and Cuvier, 1817, versus
Histrio Fischer, 1813 "), the decision in each
of which was incorrect, being based upon an
erroneous interpretation of the expression
" nomenclature binaire " as hitherto used
in the Regies;

(c) Opinion 32 (" The type of the genus Sp/«ex "),
because it had been rendered superfluous
and misleading by the later decision by the
Commission in Opinion 180 to designate the
type species of this genus under their plenary
powers ;

(d) Opinion 44 (" Leptocephalus versus Conger "),
because it had been rendered superfluous
and misleading by the later decision taken
by the Commission in Opinion 89 to
suppress " Gronow, 1763 " under their
plenary powers ;

336

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

{Previous reference:
Paris Session, 6th
Meeting, Conclusion 1)

{Previous reference:
Paris Session, 6th
Meeting, Conclusion
26)

( Previous reference :
Paris Session, 6th
Meeting, C'onchmon
46)

(e) Opinion 74 (" Apstein's (1915) List of
Nomina Conservanda "), because it dealt
with a bygone question of procedure and
not with nomenclature ;

(f) Opinion 133 {"'TJrothoe Dana and Phoxo-
cephalidae Sars "), because the decision
obscurely stated in that Opinion had later
been stated with precision in Opinion 141 ;

(2) that, as regards Opinion 76 (" Status of Pyrosoma
versus Monophora; . . . Appendicularia and
Fritillaria "), the decision recorded in the second
sentence of the " summary " should be preserved,
but that the remainder of the Opinion should be
cancelled, as being no longer correct and not
suitable for incorporation in a Schedule to the
Regies;

(3) that, in view of the fact that the decision of
principle enunciated in the first sentence of the
" Summary " of Opinion 83 (" Acanthiza pyrrho-
pygia Vigors and Horsfield, 1827, versus Acanthiza
pyrrhopygia Gould, 1848 ") was now to be clearly
laid down in the Regies, there was no need to
record in the Schedule to the Regies the now self-
evident proposition set out in the second sentence
and therefore that this Opinion should be
cancelled except for historical purposes ;

(4) that, on the incorporation in the Regies of the
decision of principle recorded in the first sentence
of the " Summary " of Opinion 88 (" Otarion
diffractum versus Cyphaspis burmeisteri ") in the
manner agreed upon at the meeting noted in the
margin, the decision recorded in the second
sentence of the " summary " should be preserved
when the above Opinion was cancelled for all
except historical purposes, subject to the sub-
stitution therein, of the word " available " for
the word " valid," the former expression being
one to be reserved for nomenclatorial considera-
tions while the latter was to be reserved for
taxonomic matters ;

(5) that, on the incorporation in the Regies, and the
consequent cancellation, of the interpretative
portion of the first sentence of the " Summary "
of Opinion 102 (" Protocephala Blainville, 1828,
versus Protocephalus Weinland, 1858 ") in the
manner agreed upon at the meeting noted in the
margin, the remaining portion of this Opinion

12th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 337

should be cancelled, that portion being concerned
not with nomenclature but with taxonomy ;

(6) that the decision regarding the name EcJiino-
ctjamus pusillus Miiller (O.F.), 1776, recorded in
the last two lines of the " Summary " of Opinion
107 (" Echinocyanms jmsillus versus Echino-
cyamus minuius ") should be entered in the
appropriate Schedule to the Regies and the
remainder of the Opinion cancelled ;

(7) that, on the incorporation in the appropriate
Schedule of the decision embodied in Opinion 113
{" Sarcoptes Latreille, 1802, t3^e scabiei, placed
on the ' Ofl&cial List ' "), the date given for the
generic name Sarcoptes Latreille should be
amended, that name dating from a year calculated
according to the French Revolutionary Calendar
and therefore in a period overlapping into two
years calculated in accordance with the Christian
era.

"Opinions" 22. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the

129^*' ^'' ^*' *'' ^^'^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^ proposals relating to Opinions previously

supplementary rendered by the Commission submitted in Point (90) in

decisions in regard Commission Paper I.C.(48)17.

*" THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) that the erroneous decision in Opinion 31 in
regard to the type species of the genus Columbina
Spix should be cancelled and that there should be
substituted therefor the amended decision sug-
gested by the late Dr. Stejneger and published in

^ 1911 (the year following the issue of the erroneous

decision referred to above) as a footnote to the
first page of Opinion 38 ;

(2) as regards Opinion 68 (" The type species of
Pleuronedes Linnaeus, 1758 ") and Opinion 69
(" The type species of Spams Linnaeus, 1758 ") : —

(a) that the incomplete and unhelpful decisions
given in the foregoing Opinions should be
supplemented as soon as possible bv
Opinions specifying the type species of the
genera concerned and placing the generic and
trivial names concerned on the relevant
" Official Lists " ;

(b) that the Secretary to the Commission be
invited to confer with specialists for the
purpose of submitting proposals to the
Commission to give effect to the decision
recorded in (a) above ;

VOL. 4y«

338 Internaiional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

(c) that on the publication of the supplementary
Opinions referred to in (a) above, the
decisions so rendered should be inserted in
the appropriate Schedules to the Regies and
Opinions 68 and 69 repealed for all except
historical purposes ;

(3) that, as regards Opinion 97 (" Did Hiibner's
Tentamen, 1806, create monotypic genera ? "),
the entry to be made in the appropriate Schedule
should be that this leaflet was not published within
the meaning of Article 25 and therefore that the
new names which appeared therein did not acquire
availability as from the date on which copies of
that leaflet were distributed by its author ;

(4) as regards Opinion 78 (" Case of Dermacentor
andersoni versus Dermacentor venustus ") and
Opinion 99 (" Endamoeba Leidy, 1897, versus
Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895 ") : —

(a) that the decisions given in the foregoing
Opinions should be reviewed by the Com-
mission as soon as possible ;

(b) that, pending the conclusion of the review
referred to in (a) above, the decisions
recorded in the foregoing Opinions should
not be incorporated in the Schedules to the
Regies;

(c) that a statement should be issued announc-
ing the decisions recorded in (a) and (b)
above, stating that, pending the completion
of the review specified in (a) above, the
matters dealt with respectively in Opinion
78 and Opinion 99 are to be treated as being
sub judice, and inviting specialists to
communicate to the Commission their
views on the action to be taken by way of
confirming, modifying or reversing the
decisions recorded in those Opinions.

Suppression of 23. THE COMMISSION had under consideration (1) a

names under the proposal that the scope of the decision given in Opinion 129

plenary powers : , ,, • r>- • • o took j

principles to be to suppress the generic name Btptnnaria fears, lo3o, and

followed certain other generic names published by that author should

be clarified and (2) that the Commission should lay down for
their future guidance the relative extent to which names
should be suppressed under their plenary powers (a) when
the object of suppressing a given name is to validate the
later use of that name in some other sense, and (6) when the

12th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948,

339

(Previous reference:
Paris Session, 4th
Meeting, Conclusion 3)

object of suppressing the name in question is to validate
some other name (fifth and sixth proposals submitted in
Point (90) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)17).

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

(1) that there should be inserted in the Article
embodying the plenary powers a provision pre-
scribing that the following principles are to be
followed by the Commission, when suppressing a
generic name or a specific or other trivial name
under those powers : —

(a) Where a name is suppressed for the purpose of
validating the use, in some other sense, of the
name in question as published at some later
date, the name so suppressed is to be suppressed
absolutely, so far as concerns its publication by
the author, and in the work, cited at the time
of its being suppressed, that is to say a name so
suppressed is to be suppressed both for the
purposes of Article 25 (Law of Priority) and for
the purposes of Article 34 (in the case of a
generic name) and Article 35 (in the case of a
trivial name) (Law of Homon5Tny) ;

(6) Where a name is suppressed for the purpose of
validating some later name given to the
same taxonomic unit, the name in question
is to be suppressed for the purposes only
of Article 25 (Law of Priority) and is to retain
its rights under Article 34 (in the case of a
generic name) and Article 35 (in the case of a
trivial name) (Law of Homonymy) ;

(2) that the principles specified in (1) above are to be
applied retrospectively to decisions already taken
by the Commission for the suppression of names
under their plenary powers, before the decisions
in question were recorded in the appropriate
Schedule to the Regies in the manner agreed upon
at the meeting noted in the margin.

Schedules to the
" Regies " :
procedure to be
followed in the
transfer thereto
of decisions
recorded in
" Opinions "
rendered by the
Commission

24. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal, submitted in Point (91) in Commission Paper
I.e. (48)17, in regard (1) to the method to be adopted in
citing names when entries in regard thereto were transferred
from Opinions to the appropriate Schedule of the Regies
and (2) to the procedure to be followed in correcting any
errors in Opinions on questions of fact which might be
detected in the course of such transfer.

340 International Commission on Zoological NomencUdure.

THE COMMISSION agreed:—

(1) to invite the Secretary to the Commission as
soon as possible after the conchision of the present
Congress (a) to examine in detail (i) the Opinions
so far rendered by the Commission and (ii) the
Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commission
during its present Session, and (b) on the basis
of that examination, to construct for insertion
in the Regies, as amended by the present Congress,
the Schedules recording decisions taken by the
Commission in regard to individual books and
individual names, which it had been agreed to
attach to the Regies so amended ;

(2) that, when, m accordance with (1) above, any
name on which a decision had been taken by the
Commission was so placed in a Schedule to the
Regies: —

(a) the name so transferred should be correctly
cited and there should be inserted the biblio-
graphical reference to the place of publication
of that name and, in the case of a generic name,
the bibliographical reference both to the place
where the name of the type species was first
pubUshed and to the place where that species was
designated, indicated or selected to be the type
species of the genus in question ;

(6) in the case of a specific trivial name, the generic
name, in combination with which that name was
originally published (a particular commonly
omitted from the Opinions rendered by the
Commission) should be inserted ;

(3) that, if, when the Secretary to the Commission
re-examined the Opinions rendered by the Com-
mission with a view to the transfer of their
contents to the Schedules to the Regies, that
Officer were to find errors or obscurities additional
to those dealt with in Conclusions 21 and 22 of the
present Meeting, he should at once submit particu-
lars of the cases concerned to the Commission and
that the Commission should treat as a matter of
urgency the correction of such errors, in order to
avoid any unnecessary delay in the publication of
the Regies as revised by the present Congress and
to this end should eliminate all procedural delays,
if necessary under suspension of the By-laws.

\2th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

341

" Official List of
Generic Names in
Zoology " :
gender of generic
names to be
specified in

Revision of the
"Rigles" by the
Paris Congress :
arrangements to be
made for early
promulgation and
entry into force

25. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal, submitted in Point (92) in Commission Paper
I.C.(48)17, that there should be inserted in the " Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology " a statement of the
gender of every name placed on that " List."

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—
that the provisions relating to the " Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology" to be inserted in the
Regies should prescribe inter alia: —

(a) that every Opinion rendered hereafter in
which a name or names were added to the
said " Official List " should specify the gender
of the name or names concerned ;

(b) that, when any instalment of the Schedule
containing the foregoing "Official List", is
published, there should be added thereto an
alphabetical list of all the names comprised
therein and that against each generic name so
recorded should be specified its gender.

26. THE COMMISSION had under consideration
proposals (Point (93) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)17) in
regard to the arrangements to be made for the early pro-
mulgation and consequent entry into force of the revision of
the RegUs carried through by the present (Paris) Congress.

There was complete agreement in the discussion which
took place on the foregoing proposals that it was of the
utmost importance that the text of the Regies, as revised by
the present Congress, should be promulgated and brought
into operation at the earliest possible moment. Working
zoologists all over the world would quickly learn that
valuable improvements had been made in the Regies at the
Paris Congress ; they would be anxious to secure the benefit
of those improvements in their current work but would not
be able to do so until the revised text had been promulgated.
As suggested in the present proposal, such zoologists would
however be able to guide themselves in their work even
before the revised text of the Regies was available as soon as
the detailed record of the Paris decisions was made available
by the publication of the Minutes of the Paris Session in the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Every possible effort
should therefore be made to expedite the publication of this
record. Zoologists had had to wait far too long already for
the reform of the Regies and now that an important step in
that direction had at last been made, it was essential that
every worker should be able to take advantage of the pro-
gress so made at the earliest possible moment.

342

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

(Previous reference :
Paris Session,
4th Meeting,
Conclusion 12)

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

( 1 ) that the Minutes of the meetings of the Commission
during their Paris Session should be so drafted
as to give a full and detailed account of the
decisions taken during that Session and that
these Minutes, together with the supporting
documents in the light of which many of those
decisions had been taken and also the Reports to
be submitted by the Commission to the present
(Paris) Congress at its final Plenary Session, should
be published as soon as possible in the Bulletin
of Zoological Nomenclature;

(2) to recommend : —

(a) that, when the documents specified in (1) above
were published in the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature in the manner there prescribed,
they should be prefaced by a short note ex-
plaining the arrangements in hand for the early
publication of the revised Regies and advising
all zoologists thenceforward to guide themselves
in their work by reference to the decisions
recorded in the Minutes of the meetings of the
Commission and thus proceed as though the
revised Regies were already published ;

(b) that the International Trust for Zoological
Nomenclature (the corporate body charged with
the duty of undertaking all financial work on
behalf of the Commission) should be requested
in the name of the Congress to publish the
revised text of the Regies, as soon as that text
had been approved in the manner which had
been agreed upon, and that the Regies, as
revised by the Paris Congress, should formally
enter into force as from the date on which they
are so published ;

(c) that an Article should be inserted in the Regies
prescribing the date of their entry into force as
from the date specified in (6) above.

Miscellaneous
proposals for the
amendment or
clarification of
the " Regies " :
sixth instalment

27. THE COMMISSION had before them a memoran-
dum by the Secretary to the Commission (Commission
Paper I. C. (48)18) containing a sixth instalment of miscel-
laneous proposals received from various sources for the
amendment or clarification of the Regies. For convenience
of reference, these proposals, which were ten in number, had
been numbered consecutively with the proposals brought

12th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

343

(Preyioua reference: forward ill the paper containing the fifth instalment

Parts Session, I2lh ,^ . . t> t r. /.r.M -,v mi , i

Meeting, Conclusion ('^ommission Paper I.C.(48)l7). The present proposals
12) were therefore numbered (94) to (103).

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

to examine Commission Paper 1.0.(48)18, point by
point, for the purpose of reaching conclusions regard-
ing the recommendations to be submitted on the
questions raised therein.

Article 35
(a trivial name not
to be rejected as a
homonym where
two species having
that name are
placed in different
genera which,
through the
accident of
undetected generic
homonymy, bear
the same generic
name)

(Previous reference:
Paris Session, &h
Meeting, Conclusion 1)

28. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a note
submitted by the Secretary to the Commission in Point (94)
in Commission Paper 1.0.(48)18, further regarding the
provisions to be inserted in the Regies in the Articles which
it had been agreed at the meeting noted in the margin
should replace the existing text of Article 35 relating to
specific homonymy. The question raised by the Secretary
was concerned with the status of a specific trivial name in a
case where two species having identical trivial names were
either originally described, or subsequently placed, in
different genera but where those genera, through the
accident of an undetected generic homonymy, bore the
same name as one another.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEM-
MING) recalled that, when the Commission had considered
this matter in relation to the proposals submitted in Com-
mission Paper I.C.(48)8, they had reached the conclusion,
though with some hesitation, that on balance it was de-
sirable that in a case of the kind under discussion the later
published of the two identical specific names should be
rejected as a homonym of the earlier published name.
Since the meeting at which this conclusion had been reached,
Commissioner Chester Bradley had suggested that it would
be well if this matter were further considered by the Com-
mission. As a preliminary to such further consideration,
he (the Acting President) had re-examined the issues
involved, and, as the Commission would see from the note
which he had circulated, he had come to the conclusion
that this type of case should be treated as faUing within the
field of generic homonymy (Article 34) rather than that of
specific homonymy (Article 35). He accordingly suggested
that the Commission should modify the view which they
had previously taken in this matter and should recommend
the Congress to approve an alternative proposal under
which a specific or subspecific name would not be
liable to rejection as a homonym in a case where two species
or subspecies were originally described, or subsequently
placed, in different genera, which, however, through the

344 IntenuUional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

accident of undetected generic homonymy, bore the same
generic name. If this recommendation commended itself
to the Commission, the desired end could be secured by
modifying the definitions proposed to be given to the
expressions " primary homonym " and " secondary homo-
nym " respectively. In order, however, to prevent the
risk of any misunderstanding in this matter, it might be
advantageous to include in the Regies an express provision
on this subject, even though this would not really be
necessary if the foregoing definitions were amended in the
sense suggested.

IN A SHORT DISCUSSION which ensued, general
agreement was expressed with the proposal submitted, it
being felt that it would be ritualistic to treat a specific name
as a homonym in a case where that species had never been
placed in a genus containing a species having the same
trivial name, the existence of an older identical binominal
combination as the specific name for another species being
due solely to an undetected case of generic homonymy.

THE COMMISSION :—

{Previous reference: (1) agreed to substitute for the recommendation

Pans Session, m agreed upon at the meeting noted in the margin

in regard to the status to be accorded under the
Regies to the name of a species or subspecies
having a trivial name identical with that of
another species or subspecies which, though not
originally described, or subsequently placed, in
the same genus, was so described or placed in a
genus which, through the accident of undetected
generic homonymy, bore the same generic name,
a recommendation for the insertion in the Regies
of a provision which would secure that in such
a case the later published of the two trivial names
should not be rejected on grounds of homonymy
with the earlier published name ;

(2) agreed, in view of (1) above, to recommend : —

(a) that the reference to cases of apparent
specific homonymy arising from an unde-
tected generic homonymy should be deleted
from : —

(i) the definition of the expressions
" primary homonym " and " secon-
dary homonym " recommended for
insertion in the Regies under Section
(2) of the First Conclusion adopted by
the Commission at the Sixth of the

Uth Meetitig, Paris, Juli/, 1948.

345

Article 25,
Proviso (a)
(meaning of the
expression
" indication " in
relation to generic
and trivial names) ;
amplification of
previous decision
relating to

{Previous reference:
Paris Session, fith
Meeting, Conclusion
21)

Meetings held during their Paris
Session ;

(ii) the Section of the foregoing Con-
clusion numbered (18);

(b) that the section of the conclusion referred
to in (a)(i) above, numbered (11) should
be deleted ;

(c) that there should be inserted at an appro-
priate point in the Regies a provision that,
where two species or subspecies bearing
identical trivial names are either originally-
described, or subsequently placed, in
different genera which, through the accident
of undetected generic homonymy, bear or
formerly bore the same generic name, the
lat-er published of the two trivial names is
not to be rejected on grounds of homonymy
with the earlier published trivial name an
example being cited.

29. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal submitted by the Secretary (Point (95) in Com-
mission Paper I.C.(48)18) that a slight ampHfication should
be made m the decision taken at the meeting noted in the
margin to codify the decision relating to the interpretation
of the expression " indication " as used in Proviso (a) to
Article 25 in its relation to specific names given by the
Commission in their Opinim 1. Through an inadvertence
m the drafting of that Opinion, a trivial name published as
a substitute for a previously published trivial name would
be held to have been published with an " indication " even
if the name so replaced had been a nomen nudum. Similar
considerations applied to generic names so published.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :-

that their recommendation agreed upon at the meeting
noted in the margin regarding the incorporation
in Article 25 of the interpretation of the expression
'' indication " as used in Proviso (a) to that Article
in relation to specific trivial names should be amphfied
by the insertion of words to make it clear that a
trivial name published as a substitute for an earher
but invalid trivial name is to be treated as having been
published with an " indication ", only if the name so
replaced had itself been published with a description
or definition or indication and that a corresponding
provision should be inserted in Article 25 in relation
to generic names similarly published.

346

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Article 30

(species eligible for
selection as the
type species where
no nominal species
was distinctly
referred to the genus
by its original
author) :
amplification of
previous decision
relating to

(Previous reference:
Paris Session, 6th
Meeting, Conclusion
39)

30. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal submitted by the Secretary (Point (96) in Com-
mission Paper I. C. (48)18) that a sUght ampHfication should
be made in the decision taken at the meeting noted in the
margin to insert in Article 30 words to give effect to the
ruling given in the last sentence of the " Summary " of
Opinion 46 on the subject of the species to be regarded as
the type species of a genus originally published with no
nominal species distinctly referred to it. Through an
inadvertence in the drafting of this portion of Opinion 46,
the decision there given was incomplete, for, although that
Opinion provided for the case where some later author
placed one but not more than one species in such a genus,
it contained no provision for the case where the first
subsequent author to place a species in such a genus placed
in it two or more species.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—
that their recommendation agreed upon at the
meeting noted in the margin regarding the insertion
in the Regies of words to make it clear what species
should be regarded as the type species of a genus
originally established with no nominal species
distinctly referred thereto should be amplified by the
insertion of words providing that, where the first
subsequent author to refer such species to such a
genus referred to it two or more such species and did
not designate or indicate one of those species to be
the type species, the species so referred become for
the purposes of Article 30 the sole originally included
species, from which alone therefore the type species
of the genus may be selected by a subsequent author.

Article 30
(clarification of
certain
ambiguities in)

31. THE COMMISSION had under consideration
the position as regards the selection of a species to be the
type species of a nominal genus which arose in cases where
the author selecting that species referred not to the occasion
on which the generic name in question had first been pub-
lished in conditions which satisfied the requirements of
Articles 25 and 26 of the Regies but to some other occasion
on which the name in question had been published either
prior to 1758 or subsequent both to 1757 and to the date on
which the name was first validly published within the
meaning of the Articles of the Regies referred to above,
together with the proposals in regard thereto submitted in
Point (97) in Commission Paper I. C. (48)18. It was pointed
out that in the case of the earlier generic names, later
authors in the XlXth century when selecting type species,
had not infrequently attributed those names either to the

\2th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 347

wrong author or to some work by the correct author other
than that in which he first vahdly pubhshed the name in
question, with the result, in either case, that the originally
included species (from which alone the type species could
be selected) might not be, and often in fact were not, the
same as those placed in the genera concerned, when the
generic names in question were first validly published.
It was proposed that words should be inserted in Article
30 to make clear the position in this matter. Again, in
some cases, authors, when selecting the type species of a
genus, the name of which had first been published before
1758 (i.e. prior to the starting point of zoological nomen-
clature, as defined by Article 26), had attributed that name
to the work of some author which had been pubhshed before
the year 1758. In this class of case also the effect was to
give the appearance of ehgibility for selection as the type
species of the genus in question to species, which had not
been included in the genus at the later date subsequent to
1757 when the generic name was first published in conditions
which satisfied the requirements of Articles 25 and 26,
and which therfore were in fact ineligible for being so
selected. Rule (g) in Article 30 expressly laid it down that
that rule was to be apphed " rigorously ", and it could not
be claimed that this injunction had been complied with,
when a type selection was based upon the use of the generic
name in question in some work other than that in which it
was first validly pubhshed. Still less could it be claimed
that the foregoing provision in Rule (g) had been complied
with, when the type selection was based upon the use of the
generic name in question prior to 1758, i.e. before the
starting point of zoological nomenclature. It was proposed
that words should be inserted in Article 30 to make it clear
that this kind of procedure did not comply with the
requirements of Rule (g) in Article 30 and accordingly that
any type selection so made was to be rejected.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :—

that words should be inserted in the Regies to make it
clear : —

(a) that Article 30 relates only to the designation,
indication or selection of the type species of a
nominal genus published subsequent to 31st
December, 1757, that is to say to the name of a
genus as originally published subsequent to
the above date by a given author in a given
work, and that the action then taken by that
author is alone relevant to the question : —
(i) of what species are to be regarded as
having been originally included in the

348

International Commission on Zoological Nomendaiure.

Subspecific
trivial names :
position where,
on being first
published, such a
name is preceded
by a serial letter or
by a serial numeral

{Previous reference:
Paris Session, 6th
Meeting, Conclusion
14)

Revision of the
" Regies " by the
Paris Congress :
date of entry into
force

genus concerned for the purposes of
Rules (e), (f) or (g) in the foregoing
Article ; or

(ii) of whether the type species of the genus
in question is to be treated as having been
designated under Rules (a), (b), (c) or (d)
of the foregoing Article at the time of the
original publication of the generic name
concerned ;
(b) that no selection of the type species for a given
nominal genus, which is related to any publica-
tion of the name of that genus other than its
first valid publication by its author or, as the
case may be, the first subsequent such publica-
tion in which one or more species were dis-
tinctly referred to the genus so named, is to be
accepted as a selection of the type species of
that genus for the purposes of Rule (g) in
Article 30.

32. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
position of subspecific trivial names originally pubhshed in
hsts in which they were preceded by serial letters (file
Z.N.(S.)352), submitted in Point (98) in Commission Paper
I.e. (48)18. It was desirable that it should be made clear
in the Regies that, where a subspecific trivial name was
published in the foregoing circumstances, the serial letter
by which it was preceded, when originally published, did
not form part of the name in question.

It was pointed out that this proposal did no more than
apply to the trivial names of subspecies the decision already
taken in regard to the trivial names of species. As in the
case of the latter class of name, the decision now to be taken
should apply to names preceded by serial numerals as well
as to names preceded by serial letters.

THE COMMISSION agreed to reconmiend :—

that words should be inserted in the Regies to make it
clear that, where a subspecific name was first pubhshed
in a list in which the trivial name of the subspecies
was preceded by either a serial letter or a serial
numeral, that letter or numeral did not form part of
the trivial name in question.

33. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) explained that the next Point in Commission
Paper I.C.(48)18 (namely Point (99) ) had been inserted
by inadvertence, the question of the date of entry into force
of the Regies as revised by the present Congress (with which

12th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

349

( Previous reference:
Paris Session, I2lh
Meeting, Conclusion
26)

this Point was concerned) having been dealt with in the
earUer Point (93) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)17. The
Commission had now taken a decision on the question
raised in Point (93) and in consequence no action was
required on Point (99).

THE COMMISSION took note of the above statement.

Article 34 and
" Opinion " 116
(position as regards
faomonymy of
generic names
differing from one
another only by the
terminations
"nus" and "«inus")

{Previous reference:
Paris Session, &th
Meeting, Conclusion
43)

34. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
interpretation of Article 34 (relating to generic homonymy)
and Opinion 116 (which laid it down that two generic
names differing from one another by having in the one case
the termination " -nus " and in the other case the termina-
tion " -mus " were not to be regarded as being homonyms
of one another) and the proposals in regard thereto sub-
mitted in Point (100) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)18.

In the discussion of this question the view was expressed
that it was not necessary or desirable to insert in the Regies
provisions recording negative decisions such as that given
in Opinion 116, in view of the fact that it had been agreed
to recommend that words should be inserted in Article
34 to make it clear that the list of differences in spelling
which were to be ignored in determining whether one generic
name was a homonym of another which (through the
codification of the decision given in Opinion 147) was now
to be inserted in that Article was an exhaustive list. Thus,
it followed automatically that generic names which differed
from one another in spelling in any way not specified in that
list were not to be treated as being homonyms of one
another.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) that, having regard to the fact that the list of
differences in spelling in generic names which,
at the meeting noted in the margin, it had been
agreed should be inserted in Article 34 was to be
treated as an exhaustive list, no advantage would
be served by inserting in the Regies express pro-
visions regarding differences in spelling which were
not to be regarded as making one generic name a
homonym of another ;

(2) that, in view of the decision on the question of
principle involved recorded in (1) above, the
interpretation of Article 34 given in Opinion
116 was now superfluous and therefore that the
portion of that Opinion containing that interpre-
tation should now be repealed for all except
historical purposes.

350

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Article 25
(status of a name
first published in a
work rejected for
nomenclatorial
purposes) :
amplification of
previous decision

{Previous references:
Paris Session, 6th
Meeting, Conclusions
47 and 18)

23

Article 25
(status of a
generic name when
first published in
a specific
synonymy)

(Previous reference:
Paris Session, 6th
Meeting, Conclusion
24)

35. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal submitted by the Secretary (in Point (101) in
Conunission Paper 1.0.(48)18) that the decision taken by
the Commission when incorporating in the Regies the ruling
given by the Commission in Opinion 145 (on the status of
generic names and specific trivial names when those
names are first published in works rejected for nomen-
clatorial purposes) (a problem discussed in paragraph 45 of
the list contained in Commission Paper 1.0.(48)11) should
be amplified to bring it completely into line with the
decision previously taken at the same meeting to incorporate
in the Regies the ruling given by the Commission in Opinion
4 (regarding the status of manuscript names) (a problem
discussed in paragraph 12 of the list contained in Com-
mission Paper 1.0.(48)11) by making it clear that, until
such names are (i) validly published and (ii) so published
with an indication, their status is exactly the same as that
of a manuscript name.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend:—

that their recommendation for the incorporation in
the Regies of the ruling given in Opinion 145 (Paris
Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 47) should be ampli-
fied to make it clear that, where a name is first
published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial pur-
poses, that name, until (i) validly published and (ii)
so published with an indication, has a status identical
with that of a manuscript name, that is to say the
status specified in the ruling given in Opinion 4,
which it had already been agreed should be incorpora-
ted in the Regies (Paris Session, 6th Meeting,
Conclusion 18).

36. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
question of the status of a generic name first published as the
generic component of a binominal combination constituting a
specific name cited in a specific synonymy, together with
the proposals in regard thereto submitted in Point (102) in
Commission Paper 1.0.(48)18.

It was pointed out that generic names originally pub-
Ushed by pre-1758 authors and quoted as part of a specific
name by post- 1757 authors when giving specific synony-
mies were already ruled out by the decision taken at the
meeting noted in the margin to incorporate in the Regies
the ruling given in Opinion 5, for a pre-1758 generic name
so published after 1757 was neither adopted nor accepted by
the author by whom it was so republished. There were two
other classes of generic names which might appear in a
specific synonymy, namely (1) a name published after 1757

THANKS TO U.N.E.S.C.O.

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, on behalf
of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have
great pleasure in expressing their grateful thanks to the UNITED
NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL
ORGANISATION (U.N.E.S.C.O.) for the financial assistance
afforded towards the cost of producing the present volume.

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Notice to subscribers regarding the arrangements made for the

completion of volume i and for the publication of

volumes 2, 3, 4 and 5

The following arrangements have been made for completing volume 1
of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and for the publication of
volumes 2, 3, 4 and 5 : —

Volume I : A concluding Part (Part 12), containing, inter alia, the Title
Page, Table of Contents, and alphabetical subject index, will be
pubUshed shortly.

Volume 2 : This volume, like Volume 1, will be devoted to the publica-
tion of applications in regard to nomenclatorial problems submitted
by specialists to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature for decision. PubUcation will commence at an early date.

Volume 3 : This volume, which is now complete in 9 Parts, is devoted
to the publication of the memoranda, reports and other docu-
ments considered by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature and by the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology at their meetings held in Paris
in July 1948.

Volume 4 : This volume is devoted to the pubUcation of the Official
Record of Proceedings of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in July 1948. Twenty-one
Parts have been published and this volume is now complete except
for the index which will be published in a concluding Part.

Volume 5 : At the request of the Bureau of the Tliirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, this volume will be devoted to the publication
of the Official Record of Proceedings of the Section on Nomenclature
of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948,
together with the Reports submitted to the Congress by the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the Section
on Nomenclature.

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 Metchim and Son, Ltd., Westminster London

VOLUME 4 Parts 13/15 9,^ ^„^, 1950

pp. 351 — 446.

PU

THE i^ULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
;:w : I^bMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSIONON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by

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

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Contents :

The Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission Page

on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in July
1948:

Conclusions of Twelfth Meeting {concluding instalment) 351—353

Conclusions of Thirteenth Meeting 354__424

Conclusions of Fourteenth Meeting {first instalment) 425—446

LONDON :

Printed by Order of die International Commission on Zoological

Nomenclature on instructions received from the Thirteenth

International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948,

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.

1950

Price One pound, eight shillings.

{All rights reserved)

Article 30
(question of the
type species of a
genus, the name of
which was first
published in a
generic synonymy),
Report by Secretary
asked for

{Previous reference:
Paris Session, 6th
Meeting, Conclusion
24)

(Previous reference:
Paris Session, 6th
Meeting, Conclusion
18)

VOL. 4 z

\2th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 351

by a non-binominal author and not vaUdly republished by a
binonunal author prior to being cited in a specific synonymy
and (2) a name which previously had existed only as a
manuscript name or as a nomen nudum. Names of genera
accidentally introduced into the Uterature in this way
were usually Ignored and it was desirable that official
sanction should now be given to this practice.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :-

that words should be inserted in Article 25 to make it
clear that a generic name is not to be treated as having
l^een published with an indication by virtue only of
Its having been published as the generic component of
a specific name cited in a synonymy given for a nominal
species, and accordingly that a generic name so
published does not thereby acquire any status in
zoological nomenclature.

37. THE COMMISSION had mider consideration the
question of the apphcation to generic names published in
generic synonymies of the provisions of Article 30, together

nno/ rP'°P°'^^' "" '^^^"^^ ^^«^^*o submitted in Point
(W6) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)18.

It was pointed out that, under the. decision taken at the
meeting noted in the margin (by which the ruling given in
Opmionb was to be incorporated in the ReqlesUsenenc
name originally published before 1758 did not acquire any
rights under the Law of Priority (Article 25) when after 1758
it was republished in a generic synonymy, for publication in
this manner did not constitute either adoption or acceptance
by the author by whom the name was so published There
remained however the case of manuscript generic names
which first appeared in print after 1758 in generic synony-
mies. These names were in a position similar to that of
manuscript txivial names, the position of which had been
clarified by Ojnmon 4 (the ruUng in which it had been
agreed at the meeting noted in the margin should now be
incorporated intheMegles). There was however an essential
difference in this matter between a manuscript trivial name
first published 111 a specific synonymy on the one hand and a
manuscript generic name first pubhshed in a generic
synonymy on the other. For the manuscript trivial name
on being so pubhshed, could apply only to the same species
as the nommal species of which it was pubhshed as a svtio-
nym. On the other hand, a genus estabhshed without a
designated type species is indetermbate until its type
species has been selected under Rule (g) (or exceptionally
under Ru^ (e)) m Article 30. What species should therefore
be treated as the type species of a genus, when its name

352

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

after having existed first as a manuscript name (or a noynen
nitdutn) was published in a generic synonymy ? Was the
type species of such a genus automatically the same species
as the type species of the nominal genus, of which the
generic name in question had been published as a synonym ?
Or was it an independent generic unit, for which a later
author was free to select as the type species any of the
species included in the genus to which the generic name in
question was sunk as a synonym at the time of its first
publication ? The question was a difficult one, for it often
happened that, where a manuscript generic name "A "
was first pubhshed as a synonym of a previously pubhshed
generic name " B," the species on that occasion referred to
the genus having the name " B " were different, in whole
or in part, from those placed in that genus at the time when
the generic name " B " was itself first pubhshed. These
and other complicated aspects of the problem needed to be
carefully examined before a decision was reached. It was
thought desirable therefore that no decision should be
taken at the present Session, but that an inquiry should be
put in hand at once, so that a final decision could be taken
by the Commission at its meeting to be held at the next
(XlVth) Congress.

THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend:—

that the Secretary to the Commission should be
invited to make a thorough study, in conjunction
with interested specialists, of the problems relating to
the determination of the type species of a genus, the
name of which was first published in the synonymy of
some other genus, and to submit a comprehensive
Report thereon, with recommendations, for considera-
tion by the Commission at their meeting to be held
during the next (XlVth) meeting of the Congress,
with a view to the submission by the Commission to
the Congress of reconnnendations for the insertion in
the Regies of appropriate provisions dealing with the
above matter.

Thirteenth'meeting
of the Commission
during its Paris
Session :
time appointed

38. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) suggested that, as the Commission and the
Section had completed their examination of the proposals
in regard to the amendment and clarification of the Regies
submitted in the series of Commission Papers ending with
Commission Paper I. C. (48)18, they should adjourn for a
short break. He suggested that the Commission and the
Section should meet again for their next joint meeting
(which would be the Thirteenth Meeting of the Commission
and the Fifth Meetmg of the Section) at 1730 hours. The

12th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 353

^d^bf th^ ^' '"f ^'''^ ^^^^ '^' Commission resumed
would be the proposals m regard to eight individual nomen
datorial problems submitted in Com^sion Paper 1 0(48)

After general concurrence in the foregoing proposal had
been expressed both by the members of the Commission

TJJL^" T"*^"^ ^^ '^^ ^^^<^--' THE COMMISSION
agreed to adjourn until 1730 hours the same afternoon.

{The Commission t/iereupon adjourned at 1635 h<mrs.)

VOL. 4 Z *

( 354 )

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION onZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Session held during the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology,
Paris, 21st-27th July, 1948.

CONCLUSIONS of the Thirteenth Meeting held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi-
theatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July, 1948 at 1730 hours.

{Meeting held concurrently with the Fifth Meeting of the Section on Nomenclature)

PRESENT :

Mr. Francis Hermiiing (United Kingdom) {Acting President)

Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands)

Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.)

Professor L. di Caporiacco (Italy)

Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark)

Professor K. Mansour (Egypt)

air. N. D. Riley (United Kingdom)

Professor Robert L. Usinger (U.S.A.)

The following were also present :

M. Belloc (France)

Dr. E. A. Chapin (U.S.A.)

Dr. EUsworth C. Dougherty (U.S.A.)

Dr. Isabel Gordon (United Kingdom)

Professor E. R. Hall (U.S.A.)

Mr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (United Kingdom)

Dr. H. H. J. Nesbitt (Canada)

Miss Louise Russell (U.S.A.)

Dr. Ethelwynn Trewavas (Uni<^f^d Kin'r'loiii)

Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming, Personal Assistant to the Secretary

Eight individual 1 . THE COMMISSION had before them Commission

nomendatuM Paper I.C. (48)19, Containing proposals in regard to eight

raised in individual nomenclatorial problems.
Commission Paper

I.C.(48)19 : THE COMMISSION agreed :—

rJeardlo* "* ^'^ examine in turn each of the eight proposals relating

to indi\'idual problems of zoological nomenclature
submitted in Commission Paper I.C. (48)19, for the
purpose of reaching conclusions in regard thereto.

" Opinions "
rendered without
including an
answer to all the
points raised :
arrangements for
completion of

" Calliphora "
Robineau-Desvoidy,
1830 (Class Insecta,
Order Diptera)
to be added
to the " Official
List of Generic
Names in Zoology " :
decision completing
" Opinion " 82

13th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948 355

2 THE COMMISSION had under consideration the
problem created by the fact that in the past Opinions had
sometimes been rendered dealing with part only of the
apphcation submitted to the Commission in L case
Swn • 'p^ ^'^^P^.^P^^-l^ in regard thereto, submitted in
On wi^«? ^^"''f^'^r'^ P^Pe^ I-C.(48) 19. In the case of
Opvmon 82, to which attention liad been drawn by Com-

TnTZ "wT ^^^' ^•^•(^•)201) the issue of the Opinion
n an incomplete form appeared to have been due solely to
madvextence, for no issue of principle of any kind was
raised by the question which had been omitted. In the case
of Opinion 95, to which attention had been drawn by Pro-
fessor Harold Kirby (file Z.N.(S.)245), the omission had
been dehberate and had been stated to be due to a desire
to provide further opportunity for consideration of the
issues involved. In this case, the issue of an Opinion
dealing with part only of an application was not open to
objection; what was a matter for criticism was that no
action of any kind was ever taken subsequently to deal with
ost^ one^ application on which a decision had been

THE COMMISSION :—

(1) took note with disapproval, of the practice by
which in the past an Opinion had sometimes been
rendered which dealt with part only of the appU-
cation submitted, no decision having been taken
either then or at a later date on the remainder of
the application in question ;

(2) agreed to invite the Secretary to the Commission
to examine all the Opinions so far rendered by the
Commission, with a view to ascertaining every
instance where part only of an application had
been dealt with, and to submit proposals as soon
as possible for the rendering, as a matter of urgency
of supplementary Opinions deaUng with the ques-
tions left unanswered in the earlier Opinions
concerned.

1 3-.^THE COMMISSION had before them the proposal
submitted by Commissioner Boschma (file Z N (S )20n
and supported in Point (2) in Commission Paper' I.C (48)19
that an 0;>^n^o.^ supplementary to Opinion 82 should now
be rendered dealing with the application for the addition of
the genenc name CaUiphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830
(Class Insecta, Order Diptera) to the Official List of Gemric
Names ^n Zoology which had been left undecidid when
Opimonm was rendered. The apphcation was entirJy
non-controversial, once a decision had been taken (as it
was m Opiman 82) on the type species of the genus Miisca

366

International Coinmission on Zoological Nomenclature.

"Mabuya"
Fitzinger, 1826
(Class Reptilia) :
correction in the
" Official List of
Generic Names
in Zoology " of
entry relating to :
correction of error
in " Opinion " 92

" Porina " Walker,
1856 (Class Insecta,
Order

Lepidoptera)
(proposed validation
of, under the
Commission's
plenary powers) :
rejection of proposal

Linnaeus, 1758, for the omission from that Opinion of a
decision on the generic name Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy
could only be due to inadvertence.

THE COMMISSION agreed:—

(1) to place the generic name Calliphora Robineau-
Desvoidy, 1830 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera)
(type species by original designation : Musca
vomitoria Linnaeus, 1758) on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology and the t^i^^al name
vomitmia Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the
binominal combination Musca vomitoria) on the
Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ;

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

4. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal submitted in Point (3) in Commission Paper
I.e. (48)19 that an Opinion should at once be rendered
correcting the erroneous entry on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology in regard to the generic name Mabuya
Fitzinger, 1826 (Class ReptiUa), which had occurred as the
result of a mistake in Opinion 92. In that Opinion the
type species of this genus had been stated to be Scineus
sloani Daudin, 1803, a species which had not been referred
to the genus Mabuya by Fitzinger when he foimded that
genus. The type species of this genus was Lacertus mahouya
Lacepede, 1788, by absolute tautonymy.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) that the statement that Scineus sloani Daudin,
1803 was the type species of Mabuya Fitzinger,
1826 (Class ReptiUa) inserted in the Official List
of Generic Names in Zoology as the result of a
mistake in Opinion 92 shoxild be deleted and that
in its place there should be inserted a statement
that the type species was Lacertus mahouya
Lacepede, 1788, by absolute tautonymy.

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

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

5. THE COMMISSION had under consideration :—
(a) a proposal submitted by Dr. J. T. Salmon (New

Zealand) that the generic name Porina Walker,
1856 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), the name
widely used for an important pasture pest in New
Zealand, should be validated by the use by the

ISth Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

367

(Previous reference:
Paris Session, I2lh
Meeting, Conclusion
18)

(Previous reference:
Paris Session, I2th
Meeting, Conclusion
20)

Commission of their plenary powers for the sup-
pression of the older name Porina d'Orbigny, 1852
(Class Bryozoa) (file Z.N.(S.)194) ;
(b) a note on the foregoing proposal submitted by
the Secretary to the Commission in Point (4)
in Commission Paper I.C. (48)19, (i) drawing atten-
tion to the fact that Porina d'Orbigny, 1852,
was the name of a leading genus in the Class
Bryozoa (Cretaceous Section), (ii) expressing
the opinion that it would be \vrong for the
Commission to use their plenary powers to give
relief to workers in one group of the Animal
Kingdom if the adoption of that course were to
cause confusion among, or inconvenience to,
workers in another group, and (iii) recommending
that for this reason the application specified in
(a) above should be rejected.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to reject, for the reasons set out in Point (4)
in Commission Paper I.C. (48)19, the application
referred to in (a) above that they should use their
plenary powers to validate the generic name
Porina Walker, 1856 (Class Insecta, Order
Lepidoptera) by suppressing the generic name
Porina d'Orbigny, 1852 (Class Bryozoa) ;

(2) in conformity with the decision in regard to the
procedure in cases where an application for the
use of the plenary powers is rejected taken at the
meeting noted in the margin, to place on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the oldest
available name for the genus for which the invalid
name Porina Walker, 1856, had been published,
namely the generic name Oxycanus Walker, 1856
(type species, by selection by Kirby (1892, Syn.
Cat. Lep. Het. : 892) : Oxycanus australis Walker,
1856) ;

(3) in conformity with the decision in regard to the
procediire to be adopted where the Commission
either suppresses a generic name or rules that

• is invalid under the Regies taken at the meeting
noted in the margin, to add the name Porina
Walker, 1856 (type species, by monotypy : Porina
novaezealandiae Walker, 1856), to the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology ;

(4) to place the specific trivial name australis Walker,
1856 (as published in the binominal combination
Oxycanus australis) on the Official List of Specific
Trivial Names in Zoology ;

hiternatiotml Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

" Flebotomus "
Rondani, 1840 :
(Class Insecta,
Order Diptera)
Emendation of
name to
" Phlebotomus '

(5) to render an Opinion setting out the decisions
specified in (1) to (4) above.

6. THE COMMISSION had under consideration appli-
cations in favour of the emendation of the generic name
Flebotomus Rondani, 1840 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera)
to " Phlebotomus " submitted independently by Professor
C. T. Brues (U.S.A.) and by Dr. G. B. Fairchild and Dr.
Marshall Hertig (Mexico) (file Z.N.(S.)169), together with a
summary of the issues involved submitted by the Secretary
in Point (5) in Commission Paper I.C. (48)19. In addition,
Dr. Fairchild had furnished also letters of support for the
emendation of this name which he had received from
Dr. A. da Costa Lima (Brazil) and from Dr. Alan Stone
(U.S.A. ). As is well known, this name is of great importance
in medical literature, where it is almost invariably spelt
with an initial " Ph- " and not " F-", the former spelling
being also in general, though not in universal, use in
systematic literature. As had been pointed out by Mr.
WiUiam F. Rapp, Jr. (U.S.A.), this generic name had been
originally published by Rondani (in 1840) with an initial
letter " F-", it not having been until 1846 that this spelling
had been emended to the " Ph-" spelling by Agassiz. Two
questions were involved : (1) whether the original " F-"
spelling was due to an error, in which case it should be
emended to the " Ph-" spelling under Article 19 of the
Regies ; (2) if the original spelling was intentional, was this
a case where, in order to prevent confusion, the Commission
should use its plenary powers to validate the commonly
accepted " Ph-" spelling ?

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) recalled that, when in 1944 Mr. Rapp had
first suggested in the journal Science that the original spelling
of Flebotomus should be restored, it had appeared to him,
as Secretary to the Commission, that this was exactly the
type of change in a name of importance in applied biology
which ought not to be made on technical nomenclatorial
grounds until the issues involved had been submitted to,
and considered by, the Commission, for such changes were
incomprehensible to, and were resented by, workers in those
fields and should certainly be avoided, if at all possible.
He had accordingly published a note inviting specialists to
respect the " Ph-" spelling until the Commission had been
able to consider the whole matter. When later he had
himself looked into the origin of the word on which this
generic name was based, he had found that no proper
examination of this matter had ever been made. The
technical problems involved were complex and he had had
to appeal to expert linguists and lexicographers for advice,

IM Meetinff, Paris, July, 1948.

359

" Papilio
plexippus "
Linnaeus, 1758
(Class Insecta,
Order

Lepidoptera) :
determination' of
identity of, under
the plenary powers

As the result of these studies he had reached the conclusion
that, from the standpoint of an educated Italian of the
mid-XIXth century, such as Rondani, the " F-" spelling
was correct and consequently that this was not a case which
could properly be dealt with under Article 19 of the Regies.
In view however of the importance of this name in medical
/iterature, it seemed to him that a reversion to the spelling
origmally used by Rondani would lead to confusion outside
systematic circles and was the type of name change which
brought discredit on zoological nomenclature among
workers who were not concerned with, or interested in,
the minutiae of the rules adopted by zoologists for their
own work. He accordingly commended to the favourable
consideration of the Commission the request that the
"^ Ph-" spelling of this name should be preserved by the
Commission by the use of the plenary powers.

PROFESSOR L. DI CAPORIACCO (ITALY) said that,
speaking both as a zoologist and as an Italian, he was
strongly in favour of the maintenance of the " Ph-" spelling
of this well-known name. He was surprised that any other
course should have been suggested.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to use their plenary powers to emend to Phle-
botomus the generic name originally published by
Rondani in 1840 as Flebotomus (Class Insecta,
Order Diptera) ;

(2) to place the generic name Phlebotomus Rondani,
1840 (type species : Bibio papatasi Scopoli, 1786,
by monotypy) on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology and the trivial name papatasi
ScopoH, 1786 (as originally published in the
binominal combination Bibio papatasi), on the
Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ;

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

7. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a
proposal submitted by the late Dr. A. Steven Corbet
(United Kingdom) that they should use their plenary
powers to determine the identity of the species to which the
name Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order
Lepidoptera), should be applied. Without such a ruling
there was no possibUity of putting an end to the present
state of confusion arising from the fact that this name was
applied by all American and by many other lepidopterists
to the common American Danaid species known in the
United States as the " Monarch " but was used also by
other lepidopterists for the common Indo-Oriental species
of the same genus, to which the name Papilio genutia had

360

International Cmnmission on Zoological Nomenclature.

(Previous reference:
Paris Seision, 12?A
Meeting, Conclusion
H)

been given by Cramer in 1779 and which was universally
known as Danaus genutia (Cramer) by all those workers
who applied the trivial name plexippus Linnaeus to the
" Monarch " butterfly. This case was dealt with in the
Commission's file Z.N.(S.)323, and a summary of the issues
involved was given in Point (6) in Commission Paper
I.e. (48)19 now before the Commission.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) said that, speaking as a lepidopterist, he con-
sidered it essential that a decision should be taken by the
Commission in this matter, for the species Papilio plexippus
Limiaeiis was the type species of the well-known family
DANAiDAE and the fact that that species was at present
indeterminate was a cause of great confusion. There was
no doubt that Linnaeus had included both the species
concerned imder the name Papilio plexippus in 1758 ;
the short main description might refer to either species but
the longer diagnosis could not apply to the North American
" Monarch ". On the other hand, Linnaeus had stated
that this species occurred in North America and, in doing
so, could only have been referring to the " Monarch ".
Later, moreover, he had elaborated this statement (in
the Mus. Lud. Ulr.) by adding that he had received speci-
mens from Peter Kalm, the Swedish naturalist who had
collected for him in North America. On merits, therefore,
it seemed to him (Commissioner Hemming) that the balance
of the argument lay in favour of a decision that this name
should apply to the American and not to the Indo-Oriental
species. Looking at the cjuestion more generally, there were
two reasons why he favoured a decision in this sense :

(1) owing to its migratory habits a large non-systematic
literature had accumulated in regard to this species.

(2) it would be most confusing if the trivial name (plexippus)
commonly applied to it were to be transferred to a closely
allied species in the same genus, involving, as it would,
exactly the type of name transfer which the Congress, when
granting plenary powers to the Commission, had directed
the Commission to prevent. It was to enable the Commis-
sion to' deal adeqviately with cases of this type that the
proposals set out in Point (82) in Commission Paper
I.e. (48)17 had been submitted by the Commission to, and
had been approved by, the Section on Nomenclature at the
present Congress. The use of those powers would involve
the selection of a well-known and unmistakable figure of
whatever species the Commission might direct to be the
species to which the name Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758,
should apply. If the Commission were to decide in favour of
the North American "Monarch", a suitable figure would
be that which appeared as fig. 1 on plate 7 of Holland's

" Colymbus "
Linnaeus, 1758
(Class Aves)
(type species of) :
determination of,
with the minimum
of further delay

ISth Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 3^1

"Butterfly Book " (revised edition issued in 1931) a work

MR. N. D. RILEY (UNITED KINr-DOM^

the prop , ,hat the CoUssioTsho"^ 7^3^^'
stahhse the manner in which this name shouIdTlSed
I'icoS"' ''''''''' "°^^^^' ^^ ^«^^-^' be generally
THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to use their plenary powers to direct that the trivial
name plextpjn,s Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in
the bmommal combination Papilio plexippns)
hould be apphed to the American species /^el
as DanmsphMppus by Holland (W. J.), 1931
Butterfly Booh as figure 1 on plate 7 ;

^^^ n^H^r. '^^^*T^' 7r P^'^^'VP^' Linnaeus,
1758 (as origmally published in the binomina
comhnation Papilio pleMppus), as determinedTn

Na:^Zzi^:y'^^'''''' '''' '^'''''^' '-'-'^

8 THE COMMISSION had under consideration a note
by the Secretary (submitted in Point n\ n
PaDprTr^i«^7Q\ """"^^.eti in romt (7) m Commission
i-aper LC.(48)19) summarising the history of the aDolication
for the determmation of the type spedes of tTe genus

tear that, whatever decision might be given an imnortanf
^oup of ornithologists would be offefded 'thro3 be^"*

involved was not only the LmtoTa' .S .^.t^^^^^^^^

S^enu^'^T^ "^"^ ^' ^ ^,T"^ ^^"^ ^^^- b^sfd ";on
that genus. These names could not properly be used both

that b'. ^"^"" ?^ ^"^ '^' divers, \nd the longer

that they were used mdiscriminately for both these ioum

he grea er would become both the confusion in orSo

logical literature and the difficulty of securing a ret^n t"

362 IrUerncUioncd Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

uniformity. Serious-minded ornithologists, including Dr.
Alexander Wetmore, the Secretary of the Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, were anxious to see the Commis-
sion face its responsibiUties in this matter by rendering an
Opinion stating what was the type species of this genus
under the Regies. The Commission could not deal with
this question duruig their present Session, for they would
need jfirst to be furnished with, and to study carefully, a
comprehensive and objective examination of the nomen-
clatorial issues involved and of the arguments which had
been adduced in favour of each of the two possible solutions.
He hoped, however, that the Commission would place on
record their determination to reach a decision on this case
with the least further delay possible and should initiate
such action as they might consider calculated to promote
this end.

THE COMMISSION :—

(1) agreed : —

(a) that it was important that a decision on the
question of the type species of the genus
Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves),
should be taken with the least possible
further delay ;

(b) that, in order to assist the Commission in
taking a decision on the foregoing question,
the delay in the consideration of which had
been due less to its intrinsic difficulty than
to its controversial character, it was
desirable that the Commission should be
furnished with a report on the issues
involved prepared by a zoologist who was an
authority on nomenclature but was not
himself an ornithologist and who therefore
had not had to prejudge this question in
the course of his own work ;

(2) in view of (l)(b) above, invited Commissioner
Francis Hemming to examine the question of
what species was under the Regies the type species
of the genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class
Aves), and to furnish a Report thereon at the
earliest possible moment ;

(3) agreed to examine the issues involved and to
reach a decision thereon immediately upon
receipt of the Report referred to in (2) above,

13th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

363

Unnecessary delays
in reaching
decisions on
individual
nomenclatorial
problems involving
controversial,
though not
necessarily difficult,
issues : need for the
avoidance of

9. .\risuig out of the discussion on the question of
pruiciple raised at the end of Point (7) in Commission
Paper I.C.(48)19, recorded in Conclusion 8 above THE
COMMISSION:—

(1) took note of, and disapproved, the unnecessary
delays which had been allowed to occur in reaching
a decision on the question of the type species of the
genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves) ;

(2) placed on record their conviction that, where an
apphcation relating to an individual nomenclatorial
problem raised controversial, though not necessarily
difficult, issues the dehberate adoption of procedures
leading to unnecessary delays in reaching a decision
was calculated both to prejudice the attaimnent of
stabihty m the nomenclature of the group concerned
and a,lso to impair the authority and prestige of
the Commission as an eflfective, impartial inter-
national tribunal ;

(3) affirmed their intention in future to avoid all
unnecessary delays in reaching decisions on appli-
cations of the kmd specified in (2) above and to give
an answer to such questions promptly and without
fear or favour.

Linnean system of
binominal
nomenclature
not available
for the

nomenclature of
monsters :
generic and trivial
names published
for such purposes
to have no status
in zoological
nomenclature

10. THE COMMISSION had under consideration :-

(a) a communication received from Professor E. T.
Leiper (United Kmgdom) (file Z.N.(S.)285)
drawmg attention to the misuse of the Linnean
system of nomenclature to denominate certain
types of monster (1) by Gurlt (1832, Lehrbuch der
pathobgischen Amitomie), who had erected for
various monsters a number of so-called " genera "
(each given a Latin generic name), including one
named " Schistosomus ", to which various so-
called " species " (each given a Latin trivial name)
were referred, (2) by Eisenbarth (1908, Wsckr.
Tierlmlk. Viehz.) in pubHshing a description of
a monster under the so-called " specific name "
Schistosorm reflexum, and (3) by Notter (1927, in
Virchow's Arch.f. path. Anat.) who had foUowed
the same practice in a paper entitled "Schistoso-
men beim Schwein " ;

(b) a note on the above case submitted by the
Secretary in Point (8) in Commission Paper
I.C.(48)19. ^

364

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

It was generally agreed that it was a misuse of the
Linnean system of binominal nomenclature to apply it
for the nomenclature of monsters. Such a use of the
binominal system was particularly objectionable, when (as
in the present case) one of the so-called generic names
(Schistosoma) was identical with the name of a genus of
the Animal Kingdom of great importance in an applied
field of science (e.g. medicine). In this particular case,
confusion had already arisen, the papers by Eisenbarth
(1908) and Notter (1927) having appeared in a bibliography
of Schistosomiasis.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to recommend that words should be inserted in the
Regies to make it clear that Latin names given
to monsters possess no status in zoological
nomenclature under the Regies and therefore that
no name so given preoccupies a generic name
under Article 34 or a trivial name under Article
35;

(2) to invite the attention of teratologists to the
grave inconvenience and risk of confusion likely
to arise through the use of the Linnean system of
binominal nomenclature for the naming of mon-
sters, with a view to securing their concurrence
in the abandonment of this practice.

Applications
relating to
individual problems
of nomenclature :
cases published in
the " Bulletin of
Zoological
Nomenclature "
to have priority
of consideration

11. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) suggested that the Commission should now
direct their attention to the applications relating to indivi-
dual problems of nomenclature, the texts of which had
already been published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature. The Parts of the Bulletin containing such applica-
tions were Parts 5, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Some considerable
time had elapsed since the earlier of these applications had
been published and members of the Commission had there-
fore had ample time to consider the issues involved.

THE COMMISSION approved the proposal submitted
by the Acting President, as specified above.

Part 5 of Volume I
of the " Bulletin of
Zoological
Nomenclature " :
consideration of
applications
published in

12. THE COMMISSION had before them Part 5 of
Volume 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
containing five applications relating to individual problems
of nomenclature, in addition to fourteen appUcations
relating to the amendment or clarification of the R^les,
which had already been considered by the Commission at
earlier meetings during their present Session.

13<A Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 365

THE COMMISSION :—

took note that three of the appUcations relating to

individual problems of nomenclature included in

^PariX^eslilrim ^^^^ ^ °^ Volume 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-

MeeLr<^MusU>ns ^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^een considered at the meeting noted in

2, 8 and 9) the margm, m order to suit the convenience of certain

specialists attending the Section on Nomenclature,

and agreed to consider forthwith the cases included in

the foregoing Part of the Bulletin on which decisions

had not yet been taken.

°t^,^'!S- n'im^f ""^V^^ PRESIDENT (ME. FRANCIS

Naturgeschichte " : WJi.MMlJ\b) recaUed that at the meetmg noted in the

status of new _ margin the Commission had agreed that the consideration

names published .n of a proposal submitted by the late Dr. C. W. Stiles (U.S.A.)

(Previous reference: for the addition to the Official List of Generic Names in

MeZ^!^Mon D) f^^^^^.?^ ^^^ ^^^«« ^^ *^*^« g^^^^a of the Order Carnivora
(Class Mammaha) published by Brisson in 1762 in the
Regnum aniniale should be postponed until after a decision
had been taken by the Commission on the status of generic
names pubhshed in that work. As explained in the note
(file Z.N.(S.)177) which he (Commissioner Hemming) had
pubhshed in regard to Dr. Stiles's proposal (Hemming 1945
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1:112-113), Dr. Stiles had at the same
time submitted a similar proposal in regard to the names of
three genera belongmg to the same Order which had first
been pubhshed by Oken in 1815-1816 in his Lehrbuch der
Naturgeschichte. The names were of importance m human
medicine, for parasites common to Man had been reported
from species of each of the genera concerned. It was not
possible however for the Commission to reach a decision on
Dr. Stiles's proposals until they had first decided whether
Oken's Lehrbuch was a work which comphed with the
requirements of proviso {b) to Article 25 (requirement that
an author must in any given work have apphed the prin-
ciples of binominal (formerly "binary") nomenclature).
An apphcation for a ruhiig on the question of the
availabihty of names first published in Oken's Lehrbuch
had been submitted to the Commission (file Z.N.(S.)153) by
the late Dr. Wilfred H. Osgood, of Chicago, but had not yet
been pubhshed in the Bulletin. This work contained new
names m a wide range of groups m the Anunal Kingdom
and the new names in it had been accepted by workers in
some groups and rejected by others. Doubt as to the status
of names pubhshed in such a work was most undesirable
and should be brought to an end as quickly as possible by
an authoritative decision by the Commission. Dr.
Osgood, who had been one of the foremost of American zoo-

366 Tntemational Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

legists in his forthriglit criticism of the slowness of the work
of the Commission and, as it seemed to him, of the lack of
vision and corn-age displayed by the Commission in the
past, had expressed the view that the manner and spirit in
which the Commission tackled the difficult problem pre-
sented by Oken's Lehrbuch would be looked upon by many
zoologists as the touchstone of the capacity of the Com-
mission to deal with difficult problems. From the point of
view of reassuring progressive American zoologists regarding
the capacity of the Commission to discharge impartially
and effectively the duties entrusted to it, it was thus of
importance, quite apart from other considerations, that an
early decision should be taken by the Commission in this
matter. The issues involved were however complicated and
the consideration of this subject was rendered difficult by
the fact that few zoological libraries contained a copy of
Oken's Lehrbuch.

THE COMMISSION agreed:—

(1) to take into consideration as soon as possible after
the close of the present Session the appUcation
submitted by the late Dr. Wilfred H. Osgood
(U.S.A.) for a ruling on the availabiUty under
Proviso (6) to Article 25 of names first published
by Oken, 1816, Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte (file
Z.N.(S.)153) ;

(2) to the Secretary to confer with specialists in the
groups concerned on the question of the practice
(whether acceptance or rejection) adopted in their
respective groups in regard to the Lehrbuch
names and to submit a Report thereon ;

(3) pending a decision on the question in (1) above,
to defer a decision on the application submitted
by the late Dr. C. W. Stiles for the addition to the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the
names of three genera of the Order Carnivora
(Class Mammalia) first published by Oken in the
work referred to in (1) above (file Z.N.(S.)177).

Geoffroy (E.L.),
1762, " Hist. Ins.
Env." Paris :
status of new names
published in

14. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a note
(file Z.N.(S.)168) on the question of the availabihty under
the Regies of generic names as first published by Geoffroy
(E. L.) in 1762 in the work entitled Histoire abregee des
Insectes qui se trouvent aux Environs de Paris submitted by
the Secretary to the Commission (Hemming, 1945, Bull,
zool. Nomend. 1:117).

(Previous reference:
Paris Session, 13th
Meeting, Conclusions
8 and 9)

IZth Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 3Q7

MING)''..^.i™^r''^'J^^NT (MR. FRANCIS HEM-

oS tots J '' ''? ^r '^^ ^^^^^^-^ ^« ^he class
o t^e a LSn o frr' '"'^^ ^'''' "^"^^^ ^'^ ^^e discussion
iiinnaeub 1758 (Class Aves), where, owing to the difficultv

Agriculture, Forest wfgatfonf 6^X0^ ^^

". connection w.th the nLe sX::""' l^^Zm^tt

sub.;i:^rh^^^^^^^ - ^ppncation

ruling in regard to the name Corixa Geoffroy, 1762Tme Z N
(S.)147 which would be laid before the Commission as the
next following item. Continuing, the Acting Pr ident sS
that the recommendation in regard to the interpretation of

ttnlSTonhr"'^^^^*"^^^"^^^ " -d ^etSL^'
rreed Tnnn f ^ ^^P^^^^ion nomenclature binominale "
agreed upon by the Commission at the meeting noted in
itndS\rth''^ subsequent approval of tf arrecom
(Previous reference: 7^TJI f"^ ^^^ff" "'^ Nomenclature carried the
Pans Session, m Present case a considerable step further forward Nn r....
Meeting, Condusion^ disputed that in the work in qLtion JeoZ^ L been a
binary but not a binominal author. Accordingly unSer
the decision referred to above, new names published bv?W
author .ntY^e mstoire ahregee did not satisfy the repute
ments of Proviso (6) to Article 25 anrl in . require-

n^ available under\he'St'\rrt^^^^^^^

Srh^lX' ,'V'^^^^^^ \ ^^^ Comission ani hf
inn r u ^ ''^' l^^^'^^er, that sympathetic considera-
tion should be given to the question of validatina the^nert
names .n works rendered unavailable thereunder or to pa"^

^ terest TsSbintr '' '"'' .'' ^'^"'^ ^^^^ '' -« -^ ^^
mterest ot stability m nomenclature that names nublishpd

ZvT}r\' "^^ ^' ^''''''' i- common u^e should be

rhetr1nv'LTi^"'r^ ^^^ ^"— -^ ^o -side
wnetner any, and, if so, what special action should be taken

762t the 'T" "'"" ^' ^''' P^'^^-^-^ brGeo&oy "
1762 m the work now under consideration. ^

A CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION took place on the
question whether availability should be g'ven to M the
generic names published in the Histoire aWoTe Tr olvZ
some of them. Some of these names should Tt was aSed
certamly be preserved, but the position was'l so el- '3

368 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

regards others. It was felt that this was a subject which it
would be better to deal with piecemeal, Order by Order, in
the light of recommeudations submitted by entomologists
who were specialists in the Orders concerned.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) that, having regard to the recommendation
adopted at their Fourth Meeting (as noted in the
margin) that the expression " nomenclature
binominale " should be substituted for the expres-
sion " nomenclature binaire " in Proviso (b) to
Article 25 of the Regies and to the subsequent
approval of that recommendation by the Section
on Nomenclature (at its First Meeting), names
as published by Geoffroy (E. L.) in 1762 in the
work entitled Histoire abregee des Insectes qui se
trouveiit aux Environs de Paris were not available
under the Regies, as Geoffroy had not appUed the
principles of binominal nomenclature in that work,
as required by Proviso (b) to Article 25, as
amended in the manner specified above ;

(2) that certain of the generic names published
in the foregoing work, being in wide use, should
certainly be validated in the interest of stability
in nomenclature, but that, having regard to the
large number of Orders of insects dealt with by
Geoffroy in the foregoing work, it would be better
to consider separately for each Order, in the Ught
of advice from speciaUsts in the Order concerned,
the question whether some or all of the generic
names published in the foregoing work should be
rendered available rather than to render available
en bloc all the generic names so published.

(3) to invite the Secretary to the Commission as soon
as possible after the close of the present Session
to arrange with specialists in the several Orders of
insects concerned for the submission to the
Commission of statements examining each of the
generic names published for that Order by
Geoffroy in the Hist, abreg. and containing pro-
posals for the validation, under the plenary
powers, of such of the names concerned, the
rejection of which would lead to instability or
confusion in the nomenclature of the group
concerned, so that, in the light of the statements so
received, the Commission may validate such of
the names concerned as may appear to it to be
appropriate and place the remainder on the

IM Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

369

" Corixa " Geoffroy
1762 (Class
Insecta, Order
Hemiptera) :
validation of,
and type species
under the plenary
powers

VOL. 4 AA»

"Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology " ;

(4) to render an Opinion recording the decision
specified in (1) above, reference being made at
the same time to the decisions specified in (2)
and (3) above.

' MTQ^^* ^"^"^8 ""*^ "^^ *^'^ foregoing discussion, THE COM-
MISSION considered the problems relating to the generic
name Conxa Geoffroy, 1762 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera)
which had been specifically raised by Professor H B
Himgerford (file Z.N.(S.)137), the application regarding
which had been published in Part 11 of Volume I of the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Hungerford 1947
Bull. zool. NormnclA : 258-259). At the same time the
Commission had under consideration a note on this apphca-
tion submitted by the Secretary to the Commission
(Hemming, 1947, Bull. zool. NomendA : 259).

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) said that the only letters which, as Secretary
to the Commission, he had received in regard to this case,
apart from tliat from Professor Hungerford, were from
Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History) ), who
supported the validation of the name Corixa Geoffroy and
from Dr. G. A. Walton (London School of Hygiene and
Tropical Medicine), who regarded that name as invaUd, but
had expressed himself as being anxious to see a final
decision given in this matter. The question of the type
species of this genus would not be of practical importance
unless the Commission were to decide to use theh: plenary
powers to validate the generic name Corixa as published
by Geoffroy in 1762. It appeared to hmi (Commissioner
Hemmmg) that, if the Commission were to take that line,
their best course would be to use the same powers to desi*^-
nate Cortxa geoffroyi Leach, 1817, as the tyi^e species of this
genus, as recommended by Professor Hungerford and Dr.
China. This name was commonly treated as havmg l^een
published in 1818, Init, as shown by Sherborn (1926) it
was in fact published in 1817.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—
(1) to use their plenary powers : —

(a) to vaUdate the generic name Corixa Geo&oy,

1762, Hist. Ins. En v. Paris 1 : 478 (Class
Insecta, Order Hemiptera) ;

(b) to designate, as the type of the foregoing

genus, the species Corixa geoffroyi Loach°
1817, Trans, linn. Soc. Lond. 12(1): 17-

370

ItUernational Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

"Naucoris "
Geoffroy, 1762
(Class Insecta,
Order Hemiptera)
question of
validation of,
under plenary
powers to be
considered

(2) to place the generic name Corixa Geoffroy, 1762
(with the above species as its type species), on
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ;

(3) to defer taking a decision on the question whether
the trivial name of the type species of the genus
Corixa Geoffroy should be placed on the Official
List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology until after
further consideration had been given to the
question whether that name (^^eq^ro^/i Leach, 1817)
was the oldest available trivial name for the
species in question and to invite the Secretary to
submit a Report on this subject as soon as possible
after the close of the present Session ;

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

1 6. Arising out of the discussion on the question of the
validation of generic names published by Geoffroy in his
Histoire abtegee of 1762, recorded in Conclusion 14 above,
ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER ROBERT L. USINGER
(U.S.A.) brought before the Commission the question of the
name Naucoris Geoffroy, 1762. Professor Usinger first pro-
posed that this well-known name should be validated
forthwith in the same way as the name Corixa Geoffroy had
just been validated, but after further discussion he with-
drew this proposal, being of the opinion that it would be
better for this matter to be further considered by specialists
before a decision was taken.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) said that he felt also that this question should
be deferred. He had had some correspondence with Dr.
W. E. China in regard to this name, and he would prefer
to have an opportunity of considering this case again
before expressing an opinion on the action to be taken.
He agreed however that it would be desirable to take a
decision on this name as soon as was practicable.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) that consideration should be given, as soon as
practicable after the close of the present Session,
to the question whether the generic name Naucoris
should be validated as from Geoffroy, 1762, in
the Order Hemiptera (Class Insecta) by the use
of the Commission's plenary powers and, if so,
what species should be selected as the type
species of the genus so named ;

(2) to invite the Secretary to the Commission to
submit a Report on the above matter as soon as
possible after the close of the present Session.

ISth Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

371

" Buprestidae ", a
pamphlet believed
to have been
written by
F. W. Hope and
distributed in
1836 : declared not
published within
the meaning of
Article 25

{For the definition of

the expression

" divulgue dans une

publication," see

Paris Session, 1th

Meeting, Conclusion

15)

17. THE COMMISSION had under consideration :—

(a) an application submitted by the late Mr. H. J.
Carter (file Z.N.(S.)57) that the Commission
should give a ruling that the names which appeared
in the pamphlet entitled " Buprestidae " pri-
vately and anonymously issued by Hope (F.W.)
were not available under the Regies, those names
not having been published (" divulgues dans une
publication ") within the meaning of Article 25
(Carter, 1945, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 117-118) ;

(b) a note supporting the foregoing application
submitted by President Karl Jordan (1945,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 118).

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) said that, since the foregoing papers had been
published, Mr. F. J. Griffin, the British bibliographer, had
furnished additional material showing that this pamphlet
had never been published, including a photograph of the
first page of Hope's own copy, now preserved in the Hope
Department of Entomology at the Oxford University
Museum, on which Westwood (the first Hope Professor
of Zoology) had himself written the word " unpublished ".
From these indications there could be no doubt that this
pamphlet had never been published within the meaning
of Article 25. The evidence that publication had never
taken place was so strong that it appeared to him (Com-
missioner Hemming) there was no need for the Commission
to use their plenary powers in this case, it being sufficient
to render an Opinion stating that this pamphlet had never
been published within the meaning of the Regies. No
objection had been lodged by any author against the
course proposed, specialists concerned having, with the
exception of Dr. J. Oldenberger of Prague, all rejected the
new names in this pamphlet.

' THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) that the names contained in the anonymous
pamphlet entitled " Buprestidae " believed (a) to
liave been written by F.W. Hope and (b) to have
l)een distributed by that author in 1836 were not
published (" divulgues dans une publication ") as
prescril^ed l>y .\rticle 25 aiul that they therefore
liad no standing under the Regies as from the date
of distribution of that pamphlet ;

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

372

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Part 8 of Volume I
of the " Bulletin of
Zoological
Nomenclature " :
consideration of
application
published in

18. THE COMMISSION had before them Part 8 of
Vohuuc 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
coutainiug 21 papers relating to 18 individual problems,
of nomenclature.

THE COMMISSION agreed :— "

to examine, in turn, each of the applications, the
texts relating to which had been published in Part 8
of Volume 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature.

Koch (C.L.),

1835-1842,
" Deutschlands
Crustaceen,
Myriapoden und
Arachniden " :
definition of species
eligible for selection
as type species of
genera first named

19. THE COMMISSION had under consideration an
application submitted by the late Dr. Arthur P. Jacot
(file Z.N.(S.)90) for a ruling in regard to the species to be
accepted as the type species of certain genera in the Class
Arachnida, for which diagnoses had first been published
and type species designated (or selected) by Koch (C. L.)
in 1842 in his Ubersicht des Arachnidensystems but the names
of which had previously been published by that author as
components of the names of new species described by that
author in his work Deutschlands Crustaceen, Myriapoden und
Arachniden (Jacot, 1946, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 161).
Dr. Jacot explained that between 1835 and 1842 Koch had
described in the last-mentioned work a number of new
species to which he liad applied new generic names. In 1842
in the Ubersicht he had given diagnoses for these genera
and had figured one species of each. In an introductory
note he had referred to the species so figured as " Typus
dienend ". This note was accepted by most specialists as
constituting a designation or selection of the species so
figured to be the type species of the genera in question.
Dr. Jacot had gone on to say that some specialists had
cj[uestioned the propriety of this view, arguing that the
type specie.s of the genera in question should be looked for
not in the Ubersicht of 1842 but in the Hefte of the Deut-
schlands Crustaceen in which those names had first appeared.
Dr. Jacot had taken the view that to go back to the
Deutschlands Crustaceen in this way " hardly seems con-
sistent with the author's idea or with customary usage."
He had therefore asked the Commission to give a ruling
on this question.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS
HEMMING) recalled that many years ago the Commission
had dealt (in Opinion 30) with a somewhat similar case
which had been concerned with certain generic names in the
Class Aves published by. Swainson in a paper on Mexican
birds which had accidentally appeared before the paper
(at the same time in the press) in which Swainson had given

ISth Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 373

diagnoses for .these genera and had designated type species
tor them. In that case the Commission had ruled that the
generic names m question were available as from the date
on which they were published as the generic components
ot the names of new Mexican birds and that, where one
species only was cited under one of these new names that
species was automatically the type species of the genus
concerned by monotypy. In the present case, therefore
It must be accepted that, when Koch had published new
generic names in this manner in the Deutschlands Crustaceen
the generic names in question were available under the
Kegles as from the date of being so pubhshed. Thus where
m that work Koch applied a new generic name to one species
only on the occasion on which that name was first published
that species was automatically the type species by mono-
tj-py; similarly, where on that occasion he applied that
generic name to two or more species (as in the case of the
generic name HoplopJiora) those species alone were eligible
,p . , *'''' selection at a later date as the type species of the

{Previons reference: o-eniis rnnpprnprl T,-. fl„-„ i.- ■. f^'^^^'' '^^ ^''t;

Paris Session, f Concerned. In this connection, it was important

m Meeting, *« remember that, at the meetings noted in the margin

m"MtiZa^'' Commission had agreed during the present Session to

64<-7''/l723) recommend that provisions should be inserted in the

Regies prescribing the method to be followed in determining
the date of publication of a given book or part of a book and
directing also that the expression " le plus anciennement
designe , as used in Article 25, was to be interpreted
rigorously. Accordingly, it must be reahsed in the present
case that the only species which could be accepted as
originally included species of a genus established by Koch
in the Deutschlands Crustaceen was, or were, the species
cited under that generic name in the Heft of that work in
which that generic name first appeared or, if that name
appeared in two or more Hefte pubhshed simultaneously
in those Hefte. Turning to the statement made by Koch
in the introduction to the volume of his tJbersicht published
in 1842, the Acting President said that some specialists
by whom this matter had been considered had been doubtful
whether in using the phrase " Typus dienend " Koch had
mtended to refer to the concept of a " type species of a
genus. It might well be that, as had been suggested Koch
had used this phrase to indicate that he regarded the species
which he figured as a typical representative of the genus
rather than as its type species in the nomenclatorial sense
It was not possible— or appropriate— in a code of law to
seek to interpret what was in the mind of a given author
when making a particular statement. All that could
properly be done was to look at the words which he had
used and to determine what on a strict interpretation was

374 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

the meatiing'applicable tp them. Judged by this objective
test, the statement made by Koch appeared to him (the
Acting President) to satisf}'- the requirements in Rule (g) in
Article 30. Even, however, if one thus granted that, in
making that statement, Koch had made type selections
under the foregoing Rule, it did not follow that the selection
so made was a valid one, for this would be the case only (1) if
the genus in question was not monotypical, when first pub-
lished in the Deutschlmuls Crustaceen and did not contain a
species having as a trivial name either the word tijjms
or the word typicus or a word which was tautonymous with
the generic name, and (2) if the species selected in the
Ubersicht was one of the species originally included in
the genus on the occasion when the name in question had
been first published in the Deutschlands Crustaceen. Dr.
Jacot had not given particulars regarding the generic
names covered by his application and in the absence of such
particulars, it was not possible to determine whether the
application of the Regies to those names would lead to
confusion or not. If, after examining the position as regards
any of the names in question, any specialist were to be of the
opinion that the strict application of the Regies in that case
would lead to instability and confusion in the nomenclature
of the group concerned, it would be possible for him to
submit to the Commission a statement setting out the
facts of the case, with a request that the Commission should
use their plenary powers to designate as the type species
of the genus concerned some species, the designation as
such of which was in harmony with current practice and
would prevent confusion from occurring.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) that, in accordance with the principle illustrated
by the decision given by the Commission in
Opinion 30, the generic names pubUshed for the
first time by Koch (C. L.) in Hefte of the work
Deutschlands Crustaceen, Myriapoden und Arach-
niden during the period 1835-1842, when forming
new specific names for previously unnamed
species are available as from the date of being so
published and the type species of a such a genus is
determined under Rules (b), (c) and (d) in Article
30, where, as the case may be, an originally
included species (i) bears the trivial name typus
or typicus, or (ii) is the sole species so included, or
(iii) bears a trivial name which is tautonymous
with the generic name and in other cases under
Rule (g) in that Article ;

13/A Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 375

'2) that the reference in the last paragraph of the
Vorwort " to the Erste Abt eUung of the third
volume [DriUes Heft) of tlie tJbersicht cUs Arach-
nulensystems (puhlislied in 1842) to the single
species figured in that volume for each genus as
lypus dienend " is to be accepted as constitutin^r
a selection of that species to be the type species of
that genus under Rule (g) in Article 30 ;
^3) that, in the case of a genus, the name of which was
hrst published in the Deutschlmids Crustaceen the
type selection made for that genus by Koch in the
Ubersicht in the manner specified in (2) above is a
valid selection only (a) when the genus in question
was not monotypical at the time when it was
first named and did not contain a species having
as a trivial name either the word typus or the word
tijpicus or a word which was tautonymous with
the generic name, and (b) when the species so
selected was one of the species referred to the
genus in the Heft of the Deutschlands Crustaceen in
which the generic name was first published or
where two or more Hefte were published simul-
taneously and the generic name appeared in
more than one of these Hefte, one of the species
so referred in any of these Hefte;
(4) that if, on applying the foregoing decisions,
specialists are of the opinion that the adoption
as the type species of any given genus of the
species so determined as such would lead to
instability and confusion in the nomenclature of
the group concerned, it was open to those special-
ists to submit an application to the Commission
lor the use of the plenary powers and the Com-
mission, on receiving such an application supported
by adequate particulars relating to the name in
question and the grounds on which instabiUty
and confusion was apprehended, could then
judge whether or not the plenary powers should
be used to vary the type species of the genus in
question ;

(5) to render an Opininn recording the decisions
specified in (1) to (3) above, reference being made
at the same time to the decision recorded in
(4) above.

vu?;:?h ""^ 20. THE COMMISSION had under consideration an

Schmeil.1897 application submitted by Dr. Robert Gurney (United

(Class Crustacea, Kingdom) (file Z.N.(S.)8) on the question of (he oldest

376

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Order Copepoda) :
Validation, under
the plenary powers
of the trivial name
" vulgaris "

available trivial name for the species renamed Diaptomus
vulgaris by Schmeil in 1897 (Class Crustacea, Order
Copepoda) (Gurney, 1946, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 1 : 162).
The above name had been given by Schmeil as a name for
the species of Copepod to which Fischer (1853) had applied
the name Cyclopsina coerulea. That name would have been
an available name if it had been given as a new name, but
ixnfortunately Fischer had made it clear that the trivial
name coerulea was not a new name but was the same name
as that used by 0. F. Miiller in 1785, when he published the
then new name Cyclops coeruleus. Milller's species was
generally regarded by modern workers as unidentifiable,
although one worker claimed to have established such an
identification. Accordingly it remained a matter of con-
tinual doubt whether Miiller's name coeruleus could be
correctly applied to the species to which Schmeil had later
given the trivial name vulgaris. It was to resolve this
difficulty that the present application had been submitted
to the Commission.

{Previous reference:
Paris Session, I2th
Meeting. Conclusion
14)

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEM-
MING) said that the present was a case which fell within
the class of case for which, at the meeting noted in the
margin, the Commission had recommended an extension
of their plenary powers. There was no question here of
confusion arising through the strict application of the'
Regies. The confusion involved was of a different kind,
arising through the impossibility of determining how the
Regies should be applied. He recommended that the
Commission should dispose of the difficulty in the present
case by suppressing the name published by Miiller in 1785
as unrecognisable, and validating the name (Diaptomus
vulgaris) published by Schmeil in 1897, that name being
not only fully documented but also the name generally
(though not universally) in use for this species.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to use their plenary powers : —

(a) to suppress the trivial name coeruleus
Miiller (O.F.), 1785 (as pubhshed in the
binominal combination Cyclops coendeus)
for the purposes of Article 25, but not for
those of Article 35 ;

(b) to validate the trivial name vulgaris
Schmeil, 1897 (as published in the bino-
minal combination Diaptomus vulgaris) for
the species of the Order Copepoda (Class
Crustacea) so named ;

13th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

377

(2) to put the trivial name vulgaris Schmeil, 1897
(as published in the binominal combination
Diaptomus vulgaris) on the " Official List of
Specific Trivial Names in Zoology " and the
trivial name coeruleus Miiller (O.F.), 1785 (as
published in the binominal combination Cyclops
coeruleus) on the " Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology " ;

(3) to render an Opinion recording the decisions
specified in (1) and (2) above.

The generic name
" Graptolithus "
Linnaeus, 1768 and
the specific name
" Graptolithus
scalaris "
Linnaeus, 1768
(Class

Graptolithina,
Order

Graptoloidea) :
suppression of,
under the plenary
powers

21. THE COMMISSION had under consideration an
appUcation submitted by Dr. 0. M. B. Bulman (United
Kingdom) (file Z.N.(S.)ll) for the use by the Commission
of their plenary powers to suppress the name Graptolithus
Linnaeus, 1768, as a generic name and the name Grapto-
lithus scalaris Linnaeus, 1768, as a specific name, having
regard to the fact (a) that Linnaeus himself regarded these
names as applying to inorganic matter and (2) that the
name scalaris was now regarded as probably applying to a
Graptolite, but that it could not be identified with certainty
and thus remained a menace to stability in graptolite
nomenclature, as long as it possessed availability under the
Regies (Bulman, 1946, Bull. zool. Nomencl, 1 : 163-164)_

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to use their plenary powers to suppress for
purposes of Article 25 but not for those of Article
34 or, as the case might be. Article 35 : —

(a) the generic name Graptolithus Linnaeus,
1768 (Class Graptolithina) ;

(b) the trivial name scalaris Linnaeus, 1768
(as published in the binominal combination
Graptolithus scalaris) ;

(2) to place the name Graptolithus Linnaeus, 1768,
on the " Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology " and the trivial name
scalaris Linnaeus, 1768 (as originally published in
the binominal combination Graptolithus scalaris)
on the " Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Specific Trivial Names in Zoology " ;

(3) to render an Opinion recording the decisions
specified in (1) and (2) above.

378

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

" Monograptus

(emend, of

" Monograpsus ")

Geinitz, 1852

(Class

Graptolithina,

Order

Graptoloidea) :

validation of,

under the plenary

powers

" Retiolites "
Barrande, 1850
(Class

Graptolithina,
Order

Graptoloidea) :
validation of, under
h e plenary powers

22. THE COMMISSION had under consideration aii
application submitted by Dr. 0. M. B. Bulman (United
Kingdom) (file Z.N.(S.)ll) for the use by the Commission of
their plenary powers to validate the generic name Mono-
graptus (emend, of Monograpsus) Geinitz, 1852, with
Lomatoceras priodon Bronn, 1834, as its type species, and
for this purpose to suppress the generic names Lo^natoceras
Bronn, 1834, and Monoprion Barrande, 1850 (Bulman,
1946, Bull. zool. Nomencl, 1 : 164-166). The name
Monograptus had been in continuous use for nearly 80
years, and was extensively employed in stratigraphical
literature, being probably the most important and widely
distributed single graptolite genus. Great confusion,
unaccompanied by any corresponding advantage, would
result from the rejection of the name Monograptus on purely
nomenclatorial grounds.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to use their plenary powers : —

(a) to suppress the generic names Lomatoceras
Bronn, 1834, and Monoprion Barrande,
1850, for the purposes of Article 25 but not
for those of Article 34 ;

(b) to validate the generic name Monograptus
(emend, of Monograpsus) Geinitz, 1852,
with Lomatoceras priodon Bronn, 1834, as
its type species ;

(2) to place the generic name Monograptus Geinitz,
1852 (Class Graptolithina, Order Graptoloidea),
emended and validated as above and w^th the
above species as its type species, on the " Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology " and the trivial
name priodon Bronn, 1834 (as published in the
binominal combination Lomatoceras priodon) on
the " Official List of Specific Trivial Names in
Zoology " ;

(3) to place the generic names Lomatoceras Bronn,
1834, and Monoprion Barrande, 1850, on the
" Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology " ;

(4) to render an Opinion recording the decisions speci-
fied in (1) to (3) above.

23. THE COMMISSION had under consideration an
application submitted by Dr. 0. M. B. Bulman (United
•Kingdom) (file Z.N.(S.)ll) for the use by the Commission
of their plenary powers to validate the generic name
Retiolites Barrande, 18.50, by suppressing the name
GladiQlites Barrande, 1850 (Bulman, 1946, Bull, zool,

ISth Meeting, Paris, July, 1948.

379

" Diplodinium "
Schuberg, 1888
(Class Ciliophora)
trivial name of
type species of

NomencL, 1 : 166). It was explained that Barrande,
when proposing the latter of these names, had thought that
objection might be taken to it on the ground that it was too
near to the generic name Gkuliolus in plants and had
accordingly at the same time publishetl the name Reliolites
as an alternative name for this genus. The name
Gladiolites had not since been used for grajjtolites, its place
having been taken by Reliolites. The latter was widely used
in stratigraphy, the " RetioHtes Shale " being a well-known,
long-established and important stratigraphical unit in the
Upper Silurian of Sweden, extensively quoted not only in
Scandinavian literature but also in correlation with Europe
and America. Further the name Reliolites figured in
nearly every elementary textbook of palaeontology and
stratigraphy.

THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to use their plenary powers : —

(a) to suppress the generic name Gladiolites
Barrande, 1850, for the purposes of Article
25 but not for those of Article 34 ;

(b) to validate the generic name Reliolites
Barrande, 1850, with Gladiolites geinilzianus
Barrande, 1850, as type species ;

(2) to place the generic name Reliolites Barrande,
1850 (Class Graptolithina, Order Graptoloidea),
validated as above and with the above species as its
type species, on the " Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology " ;

(3) to place the generic name Gladiolites Barrande,
1850, on the " Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology " ;

(4) to place the trivial name geinilzianus Barrande,
1850 (as published in the binominal combination
Gladiolites geinilzianus) on the " Official List of
Specific Trivial Names in Zoology " ;

(5) to render an Opinion recording the decisions
specffied in (1) to (4) above.

24. THE COMMISSION had under consideration :—

(a) an application submitted by the late Professor C.
A. Kofoid (U.S.A.) (file Z.N.(S.)13) for a ruling
regarding the trivial name of the type species of
the genus Diplodinium Schuberg, 1888 (Class
Ciliophora) (Kofoid, 1946, Bull. zool. NomencL,
1 : 167) ;

(b) a note on the foregoing application submitted by
the Secretary to the Commission (Hemming,
1946, Bull. zool. NomencL, 1 : 168) ;

380 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

(c) an extract from a letter addressed to the Secretary
to the Commission by Professor Harold Kirby
giving certain additional information asked for by
Secretary Hemming (Kirby, 1946, Bull. zool.
Nomencl, 1 : 169-170).

THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEM-
MING) explained that, at the time when Professor Kofoid
first submitted this application to the Commission (i.e. in
1930), he accepted as probably correct the conclusion reached
by Eberlein (1895) that Schuberg was in error when he
identified with Entodinium dentatum Stein, 1858, the species
on which he based his genus Diplodinium. Later, however,
in his monograph (written jointly with MacLennan) (1932),
Professor Kofoid had given grounds for believing that no
error of identification had been made by Schuberg and that
Eberlein himself had been in error in disputing Schuberg's
identification. This view was shared also by Wertheini
(1935) and, as the Commission would see, by Professor
Kirby. In these circumstances all difficul