etetrt b0. (ae) oo be 7 Pit ate Wi Tatady WeGe laa aiarh te on el thy Sa EE Rah een Ply ' OWL HC NSU Hae TES Ae iol RYE Vas Phir itd 1 } ea RAY AL Aig rea) ua be 4 yin HA i Nxt ht Nae A 44 4, nde: % i aia * : unt yee % } HY ile GU ase Mets aul Soe Aen Sd cia Meta RM a a eH es fod lated sede ye ee anh ate a AL a4 ‘ye 4 W4rh 48 ee Vq ihr ‘yy wae i) ve rats niinte in yn! ih ie BY eB gH vi ay. sala te te bed, tet, Se cbewee Ay | 145 DAW) Lai 7 } es AS Dee UH Ne ita tiay! i wt als aS Cok trad sn H it 5! ati } ’ ‘ ry A ’ ai race sin). "y it ia tetiaat SMH Ha 4 wid ihe te wie ANDY ; 4 with Wanled by v t : ‘eraee4 Agas i) 7 ets Ti » ME at latin Wuededdcicn Reval i) CN si iaica! u Mites ‘). Mei ap WOMAN tie wi) ; i Ma bar} aie ooo: Hide Shea Hap LT & Haig A. sa ts a} \) Ny 3! Mea hs als Ur ), Me 1 AY Aly tet aR tat ‘a fa ati ify} ! f, Vie Dai ata 7 “ 4 : ay ih MR Kron Mek CEH i SSA tl " Van ah Vee Pa 4 Mt ti “te \ } . iy! ALO Sa EEL ta ea BYES PPE ‘gs! wath Hae yy 4 eye A <i sta 4 Paling a it ehh i) tw ‘ ; 7) WV letiae ri y end ‘ ! i "5 KY: ") i) [tay yale iy Gee teeta ah Hed & ee) aed! op FI py ye yOhigh Fesaralarh dat Ay i) 4 4 if t H leg aH) ve IL TEE UL ee tga t Vie een ee Tr taka Ce erin ef ir / M wes Ht A td al iag hy Aceiadale Ne PU UM Ela alelal if te de ache bet teat itstaty HoMdat df heat MF ss “ ; eet Ae) Vake dees fled sees on iat * 1a) Nit eS the oat Po ie ‘ia mat PL SRE DT fer ae ee ‘1 y had 4 ‘ et 19,9 wh \ ats yids i" 4 Va oa’ a Nectar? § 4 Mey aevnat nl yh un iM to uy we ely " #2", i, Hi late eae ornstid i, j Lt : vs | : ale 7 8 ‘ re eM Ea edcatagd ie Hien ® ey Hh yt sie ee aie MI er EY MAN tedata hy tk sau! a uM sah} a) pith sek eae 4 ai rhg ora ie | ona) ” We a oe sit) J j i , 1} ba wt ( i " fell 4 oe ‘ ,? f i ut "4 as 4M badaey 1 i aderdad ‘' Y q hah i i 18 ett a walt} "i ) ile wi the Seay bl 0 rT 1 a) oot! } fie ia gi ee ety i AL MOON RR byl da ie ay We St sit } " J Faye ‘ Bee I, ‘ a, it i" : ! i Fire aete t | “ vay i re qetrgs bs HY eae! ‘ je rey wth dat We Vad Dodd ny hes y , } es ye ‘ He my \ aii i ils ry ; tr ‘ ) ihe badly if} ea Vayseaney i at q ‘get ’ ’ Ay *y Neee 3 ts 3 , BN im) « ‘ : why te ee . Wit iamrgeg beri ath ny ! Lad i 1 yds ’ es teae) ) QQ iy ‘ A) i $1 Lai! ne oN ; Aly th ne ani 1h " RO ae ee) ST adic adge alata LU at oa BNA aa bea at heen i neh A tM, sees yn abe DEe Pee De OECD thd pc ) 4} in hs taregs SDs e@iyeir 4 Fy P ‘ Sih ae vlog tty) saee ean) ye le Ta Hat) hae tht aM Nace di ai mM vai Hf PIMA es OAL ut sh ateti? iff oh Se i ° HP ae a hs h dead yh Hs "e Mi be te NRE STE ‘ ue t “sy if sa He ait t eal von \ } \ re f } Wile’, ‘ , : J Be FS igs aadalaet Dy aah steng ea ace tA ) seta ih bx Mth is ‘ttm Hea An (a0 f \") eran e a\0y HT ‘ hit bahia I Lapa) { i. ‘ MY re ¢ - ' idotuas Valli ee Mas War) HS an ' Myahtaen ii any it Rye Velen Pe a Meee a Taira i sg eae Ne vA Asie ah nt RA pelt ihe Mbit 4 tit ny Vi 4 [ bing A ‘ 1 La? ve 8 a 4 bane Vlas eas ' "chia! \ i 4} Veit Aton some hatte iy is § f Y { io URL RUN MA UPTO a AMA SHITE bogus HN DaRan ER HA SE Re EARS HAL Motes CUT ATH ,) ae. abi’) 4 Tet 4d) Madey hal gta laid tye, 8 1344 ‘het Ke yt dl? (has: sare ‘ 43) ‘ ’ ee Lek Ls 4 % bind ve yt 7 HA ad 4 hate Nei tntant | ft i ae slat ete iy i iy / + t aha th Poche DAME LAUR PALATE Wed te ait 14) 4)))) }4) sap! rb LANL ao secatieimary m4 J th A, Meo We (ited piuneetetay sy ree hla with PHL ee S| Nos \¥ay #4) y <i - oy’ a Niger Veh Niatty LP MLEMEL SOLS bh, han PL eb ka st) RATT Marte ea at 4 ne Bite Hh i} hd ha wrt Ate fast sie! ' Mah at Da lge EDOM DL VIe PY ee Rea 81 he River alas Toh ‘aft i: iva 4; is Hans ‘et Nets fi rH it 1 WES fF i] i) 2, gaye) ‘i fraPeteule ; q ‘~* » Wt) DOV DR i esata pena 3 HOH Wh NV) TMK | Mais \ hae at 4} tet : ‘i hh . f » iia { , ' ‘ep sh i i + iy bee ‘ 4 oe ‘ ' j AH HY Oy ee , i 4 * 7 aged’: ¢ ‘ ) 4 i ( } it) A) ; faa [ ee ON ; ve ., " Xt ie 4 ‘ i V i : dealt A va el’ WIA tet ie i Phe Fal 1 Ti ey ‘ ue Wie AE att i! DPE HA Mae Arian alee ta tents by % M ? Mi eT ae pithy ] ; es a ts j x i wath | 4) Hah Mt) ee Ht a bana 4 { . rot te Pa BT wate, : peg Ht) gai" ay pe Fel 4 EL PSH | 4 ri ty ‘ yey the 5 74! | M Goel. + ' i vm APE eat ’ , F By) ‘ 7. a "I oy, ‘ BY Ba bide Ph oPe A baa 6 1) Ba 14 4 iH vent ih ya Later | "i aay sf ! ’ ae : " *: ‘ , i nit iY) 4} ih) shat i it ete ee 4) azal Ay ne ” i , ' 3 vit), heat ny Mala a ih ; ) iy 7 4 ' A 4 ane Pa Hi ihe Hi}, if} Nh : i) Dae. 4 haa 7 dit } Lah fh ) ; Me ' ut 1s i inant ii hat My UCM Daag Teed reabe ett ° eae haa! ity: y aU | ii ry ae sess At Medd dott? a) | f a 54 | } ie hey tal ; 4 j shy) ite di ‘ it t iit j i ‘ send oy 7) , 4 4 a a ; eet ; ‘ 1 Ved qe ded ‘es 1. : y et. ; v { Hy ; it f y : ' 4 Het Nt 3 ; lea < RE e’ 4 ‘ \ ce “it ‘ A ; ; f ‘mah! a : Pt ea ~) i Se Hy) eh oy u D aA Up it: “ ‘ t#e i] HW nent ys : Pee ey ‘ waa ct it te A AST: ‘1 i ) ; ee ene tts cel oP pepe eae cD f |) pee aU i femaetiat vie 4 fade , ut Hee | \ re Hs tilt Pr HDec RT ea Re ah Ba atine ote dBanit ce 634) Signin i ! fs de 3 Hes i itt x ; at reat ey if WW oe { ‘ Ot) hs ‘ ; , } A » “Tt ‘ 4 Pet he ia ee ied 6 Sedan { Peel. Ly pheaes« Nhe Ch f y ' . . ed ay ae ey ; ney ehh % } nt wie ih hy Wh 7) * a Hoh ARV at hy Ha f ity ee a a : iit { aa : r oy tae} ; ‘ iy oi” J iuatis Ay es ite hn (3 (5 Ni Hest ty Ht {hai st lt 33 at Pepe i ‘ ¢ Haver sity ines , H } ith eB au Wee es phat Kah his dis itie Litt vA ts a1) Na Ai ty putes, Aa tt ; i bd mith, i es only fi fit i bite $52 =: = ’ Hero a ge hiy ; “TI MWIIED 4 WUE AADERMVDES! AL HITE) E pay! i ; wae ft bt RAR TLNA D Yai wy whi Wy ay sabia 3 ws iy Hs hy ene ii To iy, = =: a2 | T Ht. “yt, Vian ATU anh ;) i}! oy ay ‘hs ee ee i itd tits he , pots Mie My + ya WF Hew isin ay aT lid Loy mi } Wait) hee Gi a th ie uy i He y a it Kf habit f i i. Vai ‘al i al Ws i a X ‘ hay AEE NT (H a | ad tito Steet ni aes i i Lp eitesutr i) Sa bea L eet Py tb a ee rr is Teele hak el he et : 4 iS iit yt ae Sains cet try nit whi eure a gin by ‘i if 1h ti5 We baie Hurt ea Yt agit ‘ j I its AY} Sibi aby! Wiiky fs wl i ‘ Hf tes vg pei Mh Wine Gs ‘ My a ie in ti : IML RHTUT ANTENA stint Shi Vat ee ay) ' REE ye ita yet wa Hise it ne iy) ‘ e } q rf * | i Ha aa Ret hes tnt ats WAsddedsitd )aeNNte dns htied 4 ero wags oti aad Hy ‘! May bY ESOS Th PL ernest. fy } ey | 1“ aed ) ’ ‘ doe het i] a rah i ' | ve a . : 4 iy Pal ck an Ay atic t Pee ee tig ni iWietileg, sit aa ANGE % oA yg ed iy AP day Sint hed Weenis al hyo CN egy ah} theo weniy\ dy esd al ics na tom ty an , ei D Wp a BM eae g | it iy paren! ei il in lita i aly whi Sort | mis ys vj SOOM OON ii) TM ‘way Vata ert TEU IRCA Ct yy PEA Rise i inti Hs HEY Vita! I Hh ies rae See S53: =. b sees —— Te abet pa bas oats : ee it ey —s ye sili Divi Ha T HAY ees Rata Hie ie : i a ae He a fa ae > BR tates as ie lili ee Ni ‘ a ris Pane eat irs rs i ie | ee : nt at ’ iy faa i oo OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE VOLUME 14 Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1956—1957 (Ail rights reserved) —_ Bits } i | ’ j La , M ANTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE OPINIONS, DECLARATIONS AND DIRECTIONS PUBLISHED IN THE PRESENT VOLUME Vr Ve A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JORDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary: Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso EsAKI (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEy (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (/nstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitét zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. DyMonpD (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezégazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Stout (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Hottuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KiHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitaét, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) ee F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November ) Professor Ernst MAyr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘ G. Doria’’, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) IV INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE (continued) 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. MEET. We Hemming Honorary Archivist : Mr. Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A. Consulting Classical Adviser: Professor The Rev. L. W. Grensted, M.A., D.D. “ Official Lists” Section: Miss D. N. Noakes, B.Sc. ““ Régles”’ Section: Mrs. A. F. Wilson, M.A. ( Mrs. J. H. Newman Miss C. W. Kirton Mrs. I. Saltman Secretariat: ) Mrs. B. Lester Mrs. C. Slater ee D. Fidler Indexer : Miss Mary Cosh, M.A. INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Chairman: The Right Hon. Walter Elliot, C.H., M.G.,. BR:S., M.P. | Managing Director and Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B:E: Publications Officer: Mrs. C. Rosner Trust Duties Officer: Mrs. J. H. Newman ADDRESSES OF THE COMMISSION AND THE TRUST Secretariat of the Commission: 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1. Offices of the Trust : 41 Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. FOREWORD The present volume—the fourteenth of the present Series— contains the fifth instalment of Opinions, Declarations and Directions adopted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature since the close of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology at Copenhagen in 1953. In addition, during the same period a substantial start was made by the International Commission in the review of Rulings given in Opinions rendered prior to July 1948 which it undertook in accordance with a General Directive issued by the Thirteenth International Congress at its meeting held in Paris in July of that year. The decisions so taken have been embodied in volumes numbered as Sections of Volume 1 of the present Series. At the time of the completion of the present volume, Sections C and D had been completed (except for Index Parts) and two Parts of Section E had already appeared. Impressive as is the foregoing achievement, it is seen to be much more striking when account is taken of the fact that during the same period six other volumes (Volumes 4—9) and the greater part of a seventh volume (Volume 3) were published by the International Trust. Of these Volumes, the concluding portion of Volume 3 and the whole of Volumes 4 to 7 were devoted to the publication of Opinions and Declarations embodying decisions taken by the Commission at its Session held in Paris in 1948, while Volumes 8 and 9 contained Opinions and Declarations embodying decisions taken by the Commission in the period between the close of the Paris Congress in 1948 and the opening of the Copenhagen Congress in 1953. For the sake of completeness it should be noted that two Declarations adopted in 1954 were incorporated in Volume 6 in order to avoid the long delay in promulgation which, owing to the then existing backlog of cases, would otherwise have been unavoidable. It should be noted also that nine Directions VI embodying the result of the survey of the Rulings given in Opinions published in the period 1939—1947 were published in 1954 and were incorporated in Volumes 2 and 3, the volumes containing the Opinions so reviewed. When account is taken of this large additional volume of publications issued, it is seen that within a period of less than forty months the total number of Opinions, Declarations and Directions published amounted to the impressive total of three hundred and nineteen (Opinions, 241 ; Declarations, 17 ; Directions, 61). 2. The present volume contains nineteen Opinions (Opinions 417—435). In the immediately preceding volume a start was made with the publication of Opinions embodying decisions taken by the International Commission on applications published in Volume 9 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The present volume contains a further instalment consisting of thirteen Opinions based upon applications published in that volume of the Bulletin (the Opinions concerned being Opinions 417, 418, 422, 423, 425, 427—434). In addition the present volume contains one Opinion (Opinion 435) based upon an application published in the next volume of the Bulletin devoted to applica- tions on individual cases, namely, Volume 11, no such applications having been published in Volume 10 of the Bulletin which was wholly devcted to the publication of documents relating to the Agenda for the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature held in Copenhagen in 1953. The remaining five Opinions published in the present volume contain decisions taken by the Commission on applications published in earlier volumes of the Bulletin which it had previously been found necessary to postpone for one reason or another. The Opinions concerned are Opinions 419—421, 424, and 426. Of these Opinions, the first three (Opinions 419—421), which were submitted by the same applicants and form a natural group, are based upon applications published in Volume 6 of the Bulletin. The postponement until the present volume of the Commission’s decisions in these cases arose from the fact that subsequent to the submission of the applications in question the applicants asked that the proposals which they had submitted might be VII amplified in certain respects. The fourth of the Opinions belong- ing to the foregoing group (Opinion 424), which is based upon an application originally published in Volume 1 of the Bulletin is concerned with a subject (the question of the species to be accepted as the type species of the genus Formica Linnaeus, 1758) on which the receipt in 1954 of additional information made it necessary for the Commission to undertake an entirely fresh examination of the issues involved. The last of the Opinions falling in this group (Opinion 426) which is based upon an application published in Volume 2 of the Bulletin, is concerned with certain ammonite names. In this case postponement until the present volume of the Opinion embodying the Com- mission’s decision was due to a request on the part of the applicant for a modification of a portion of the proposals submitted, a request which made it necessary for supplementary investigations to be undertaken by the Office of the Commission and for a further vote to be taken by the Commission on the issues so disclosed. 3. The three Declarations included in the present volume are Declarations 27, 28 and 29. The first of these Declarations (Declaration 27) contains an interpretation of Rule (f) in Article 30 of the Régles which applies to the determination of the species to be accepted as the type species of a nominal genus established in substitution for a previously established such genus, a principle similar to that laid down by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, in relation to the interpretation of a nominal species established partly as a substitute for a previously established such species but in part based also upon certain specified specimens. Declaration 29 is also concerned with Article 30 of the Rég/es, though in this case the subject matter dealt with relates not to the interpretation of that Article but to a question of terminology arising in connection with one of the Rules there laid down. The Rule concerned is Rule (d) which prescribes the determination in certain cases of the type species of genera “by absolute tautonymy’”. By a Ruling given by the Commission many years ago in its Opinion 16 (a decision which in a clarified form was written into the Régles by the Paris Congress in 1948) an essentially different method of determining the type species of a nominal genus—namely, the citation in the synonymy of one, but not more than one, of Vill the species originally included in a given genus of a pre-1758 univerbal specific name consisting of the same word as the generic name—is to be accepted as coming within the scope of the fore- going Rule. The application of the expression “ type species by absolute tautonymy ”’ to the indication of a type species by the special method described above would clearly be inappropriate and confusing, and it was to overcome this difficulty that in the Declaration here under consideration the Commission introduced and defined the expression “‘ type species by Linnean tautonymy ” this expression being selected because it is largely in the works of Linnaeus that are to be found nominal genera to which this Special Rule is applicable. In Declaration 28 the Commission gave a clarification of the Rules regarding the giving of names to family-group taxa adopted in 1953 by the Copenhagen Congress in relation to the status to be accorded to names belonging to the above category in cases where the nominal family-group unit so established is based upon a misidentified type genus. 4. The single Direction (Direction 62) included in the present volume contains decisions by the Commission on the family- group-name implications of the Rulings given in the nineteen Opinions discussed above. 5. The present volume comprises 572 pages (T.P.—XX, 1— xxxll, 1—520) and one Plate. This volume is of substantially the same size as previous volumes. 6. Of the nineteen Opinions included in the present volume three deal with names belonging to two different Classes of the Animal Kingdom and one deals simultaneously with names of a particular Class and with the status of an individual book, thus bringing the total number of cases up to twenty-three. Several of the applications relating to these cases were submitted by more than one author and when account is taken of this fact, the total number of applicants is seen to amount to thirty-three. 7. Three of the applications dealt with in the present volume were concerned with the status of books and the remaining IX twenty with individual names. Of this latter group, nineteen (95 per cent.) involved the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers. The use of those Powers was not involved in the applications relating to the status of individual books. 8. The twenty applications relating to individual names dealt with in the Opinions published in the present volume, when grouped by reference to the Classes of the Animal Kingdom to which the genera or species concerned belong, are distributed as shown in the following table. In the same table the applica- tions are arranged so as to distinguish those which involved the use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers from those which did not. TABLE: 1 Distribution of applications (a) by Classes of the Animal Kingdom and (b) by whether they involved the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers Number of applications Name of Involving the Class use of the Others Plenary Powers Ciliophora Anthozoa Crustacea Insecta Gastropoda Cephalopoda Brachiopoda Amphibia = WW nw WW Totals N a) x 9. When the thirty-three applicants are arranged by reference to the countries in which they are resident, applications are seen to have been received from the following countries (arranged in alphabetical order) :— TABLE 2 Distribution of applicants by country of residence Country of Residence | Number of applicants Netherlands Switzerland United Kingdom United States of America Total 10. By the Rulings given in the Opinions comprised in the present volume, together with the Ruling given in the Direction referred to in paragraph 4 above, a total of 350 names have been added to the Official Lists and corresponding Official Indexes XI relating to specific names, generic names, family-group names and the titles of zoological works. The distribution of these entries is seen to be as follows :— TABLE 3 Additions to the ‘* Official Lists ’’ and ‘* Official Indexes ”’ respectively Category Official Lists Official Indexes | Specific Names 35 Generic Names 188 Family-Group Names Bp Titles of Works 3 Totals 248 11. The twenty cases dealing with individual names published in the present volume contain 52 comments from interested specialists. In some instances these comments are joint comments from two or more specialists and in several cases specialists commented on applications which dealt with more than one Class of the Animal Kingdom. When account is taken of these facts, a total number of 89 specialists contributed comments in the present volume. In addition, 31 comments were received on the status of individual books, XII 12. If the comments relating to individual names are grouped according to the Class in the Animal Kingdom to which the genus or species concerned belongs, the distribution of the comments is found to be as follows :— TABLE 4 Distribution of comments on applications relating to individual names, by Classes of the Animal Kingdom Name of Class Number of Comments Ciliophora Anthozoa Crustacea Insecta Gastropoda Cephalopoda Brachiopoda Amphibia ] WOnNWNN Nn Total Nn i) 13. When the authors of the comments contained in the Opinion published in the present volume are grouped by reference XII to their country of residence, the distribution is found to be as follows :— TABLE 5 Distribution of comments on applications, by country of residence of the specialists concerned Country of Residence | Number of Comments British West Indies Czechoslovakia Denmark France Germany Japan New Zealand United Kingdom United States of America 56 NOR RB OS eS Ee N Total 14. As in the case of Volume 12 and preceding volume in this Series, the Commission is indebted to Miss Mary Cosh, M.A., XIV for the preparation of the indexes of the present volume. In style and scope these indexes follow exactly the models laid down for earlier volumes. FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, LONDON, N.W.1. 17th May 1957. TABLE OF CONTENTS Declarations DECLARATION 27 Clarification of the question of the species to be accepted under Rule (f) in Article 30 as the type species of a nominal genus established as a substitute for a previously established such genus but with a designated type species different from that of the nominal genus so replaced ai: on DECLARATION 28 Clarification of the status of a name given to a family-group taxon based upon a mis-identified type genus see DECLARATION 29 Introduction and definition of the expression “ Linnean tautonymy ”’ in relation to the determination of the type species of a nominal genus under Rule (d) in Article 30 Opinions OPINION 417 Rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of volume 3 (Zoologie) of the work by Lorenz Oken entitled Okens Lehrbuch der rie aaa Sl sao in 1815—1816 ne OPINION 418 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Stentor Oken, 1815 (Class Ciliophora) OPINION 419 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the names published by William Martin in 1809 in the work entitled Petrificata Derbiensia for eight species of the Class Brachiopoda and for two species of the Class Anthozoa and matters incidental thereto Page Xl XXV 43 69 XVI OPINION 420 Addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the specific names for eleven species of the Class Brachiopoda and for two species of the Class Cephalopoda originally published by Martin (W.) in 1809 in the nomenclatorially invalid work entitled Petrificata Derbiensia and now available as from the first subsequent date on which they were severally published in conditions satisfying the require- ments of the Régles OPINION 421 Designation under the Plenary Powers © of a type species in harmony with accustomed usage for the genus Martinia M©Coy, 1844 (Class Brachio- poda) Ay. a 7 3 ye A = OPINION 422 Determination under the Plenary Powers of the species to which the specific name mammillatus Schlotheim, 1813, as published in the combination Ammonites mammillatus shall apply and designation under the same Powers of the foregoing species to be the type species of the genus Douvilleiceras de Gross- ouvre, 1893 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) OPINION 423 Addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the generic name Xantho [Leach], [1814] (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) and valida- tion under the Plenary Powers of the family-group name XANTHINAE Dana, 1851 OPINION 424 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the specific name rufa Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the combination Formica rufa, and designation under the same Powers of the species so named to be the type species of the genus Formica Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) Page 129 169 181 197 On XVI Page OPINION 425 Addition to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology of the name Palmatotriton Smith (H.M.), 1945 (Class Amphibia)... 243 OPINION 426 Designation under the Plenary Powers of type species in harmony with accustomed usage for the genera Pictonia Bayle, 1878, and Rasenia Salfeld, 1913 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic) .. te bs A Bi - eer ANT OPINION 427 Rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of the work by Renier (S.A.) known as Tavole per servire alle classificazione e connescenza degli animali and commonly attributed to the year 1807 and addition to the Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology of certain names first used in the foregoing work or in two earlier works by the same author commonly known as the Tavola alfabetica and the Prospetto respectively and both commonly attributed to the year 1804 .. ‘ a: Ry. ne motel Lok OPINION 428 Suppression under the Plenary Powers of the specific name royerianus dOrbigny, 1841, as published in the combination Ammonites royerianus and designation under the same Powers of a type species in harmony with accustomed practice for the genus Cheloniceras, Hyatt, 1903 nhs PED ERORS Ah Order Ammonoidea) .. aii OPINION 429 Direction under the Plenary Powers limiting to suppression for the purposes of the Law of Priority the suppression of the generic name Argus Bohadsch, 1761 (Class Gastropoda) prescribed by the Ruling given in Opinion 185 thereby securing that the generic name Argus Scopoli, 1763 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) shall remain invalid under the Law of Homonymy zs w: we Wy Pat 323 XVIII OPINION 430 Use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of making the specific name minimus Miller (J.S.), 1826, as published in the combination Belemnites minimus, the oldest available name for the species concerned (Class Cephalopoda, Order Dibranchia). . OPINION 431 Use of the Plenary Powers to secure that the generic name Helicella Férussac, 1821 (Class Gastropoda) shall be available for use in its accustomed sense OPINION 432 _ Rejection, as an unpublished proof, of the paper by Binney (W.G.) dated “ 9th December 1863 ” and entitled Synopsis of the Species of Air-breathing Mollusks of North America (Confirmation of Ruling given in Opinion 87) and validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Carinifex Binney, 1865 Class Gastropoda) OPINION 433 Use of the Plenary Powers to secure that the generic name Discias Rathbun, 1902 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) shall be the oldest avail- name for the genus concerned .. us oe re OPINION 434 Use of the Plenary Powers to secure that the names Upogebia [Leach], [1814], and Processa Leach, [1815], shall be the oldest available names for the genera in question and that the family-group names based upon those generic names shall be the oldest available names for the family-group taxa con- cerned ; OPINION 435 Suppression under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Achorutes Templeton, 1835, and designation under the same Powers of type species in harmony with current usage for the genera Hypo- gastrura Bourlet, 1839, and Neanura MacGillivray, 1893 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola) 339 347 ais 203 403 425 XIX Directions Page DIRECTION 62 Addition to the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology or, as the case may be, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology of the family-group names involved in the cases dealt with in Volume 14 of the work Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, other than names already dealt with either in Opinions included in that volume or in a separate Direction .. 2. 459 Corrigenda Ay om we: a e yt oe) ATS Index to authors of applications dealt with in the present volume and of comments on those applications ore ade Subject Index .. a rs oe oP 2 re a Particulars of dates of publication of the several parts in which the present volume was published ie rhe) OED Instructions to binders a ot we ms a 520 ay Mg ag nn poi at gu | Ye mpi on we ie al Wu ie ay A, eae SAS Ene 0 Ms) oi , pve Phin ie" Wate Mi un A by ‘ re Wie Hy ‘I tir Hiri” rab eae eh, aS Reads A ah e i gun, i t¢ 16 , Ay f ee)" hints i Le Meee Sy ee he a oe Jann Nios fo i | ghana ela oe nn ne or ADA, me ee ba i ; ‘ : : : be SLA ie oh. Tay eae hy oo sad Saat Pas}: ye voi NOD ae Die 5! b a Lh m { (a i Ae . eS "i (rf r ee : : , 4 if ous ee ie ‘ i ' ‘ f : ; Ai, (ay : “- ' Ply we ans = 4 ¢ Z i i; woe) ie abet ty is ju aaa: oy ie Fe 1 ‘ : + A sha a? Pe } ; i Vee an ‘ +0 ue 4 Se tee . P exis ’ 4 hy Le ‘ ti Raed A ~~. ‘ + Val 7 Arist heey eve ev ahi Aa i 49 A As ‘ = I 4 alg Pew ~~) j 7 “) * im) ‘ 4 ' ' . te / ron (4 i» Be + i Pes fF Sn Ne ahi ” ry } i ya Ns be i, "ae ’ r A ane - : i* he i * oT { ' ? W < ft ; " ae ty iro Ml i « 4 i ‘ : a “fu wk? : 7 a i . ‘i i je) Ae’ ae = Lt . Le thy. \ a i, ‘ pei 7. » t : j \ Vi a mee. ont a aii Ww ¥ # i wo aN : i aan ie ag i ; p ‘% it | ra j : 4) * / . y A , t ae oa a sy 7 uy p fi . “ vi t ¥ ‘ , J "4 by 4 : | | FS y ’ { « it?é ’ net % oft ‘ 4 h ig ay ’ f 7 Ri tS ih , . as eee. i,’ i P i: 7 ae re - j (an OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 14. Part 19. Pp. i—x DECLARATION 27 Clarification of the question of the species to be accepted under Rule (f) in Article 30 as the type species of a nominal genus established as a substitute for a previously estab- lished such genus but with a designated type species different from that of the nominal genus so replaced LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1956 Price Six Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 5th December, 1956 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DECLARATION 27 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JORDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BosCHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. ear a (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th uly Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEy (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (/nstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitdt zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) s Professor Béla HANKO (Mez0Ogazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. HoLtuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (ASth October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum V Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KUHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitdt, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Gatasay S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November Professor Ernst MAyYR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ‘* G. Doria’’, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) DECLARATION 27 CLARIFICATION OF THE QUESTION OF THE SPECIES TO BE ACCEPTED UNDER RULE (f) JIN ARTICLE 30 AS THE TYPE SPECIES OF A NOMINAL GENUS ESTABLISHED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A PRE- VIOUSLY ESTABLISHED SUCH GENUS BUT WITH A DESIGNATED TYPE SPECIES DIF- FERENT FROM THAT OF THE NOMINAL GENUS SO REPLACED DECLARATION :—(1) Where a generic name, when first published, is expressly stated to be a substitute (e.g., by the use of such an expression as “nom. nov.” or ““nom. mut.) for a previously published generic name but where the author of the substitute name designates as the type species of the genus bearing that name a nominal species other than that which is the type species of the genus the name of which is so replaced, the type species of the genus bearing the substitute name is in all circumstances the nominal species which is the type species of the genus the name of which is so replaced. i Tee StArLEMENE OF THE. CASE On 22nd October 1954 Mr. Francis Hemming (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) sub- mitted to the International Commission a request for the adoption ya 8 iv OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS of a Declaration clarifying the question of the species to be accepted as the type species cf a nominal genus established as a substitute for a previously established such genus but with a designated type species different from that of the nominal genus the name of which was so replaced. The immediate cause for the submission of this application was that the foregoing problem was involved in connection with the generic name Neanura MacGillivray, 1893 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola), one of a number of names involved in a case centred around the generic name Achorutes Templeton, 1835, which had been submitted to the International Commission by M. Herman Gisin (Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle, Genéve) and on which a decision could not be taken by the Commission until] a Ruling had been given by it on the question of principle dealt with in the present Declaration. M. Gisin’s application in regard to the foregoing generic names (Z.N.(S.) 303) was published on 31st January 1955 (Gisin, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 35—37) in the same Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as that containing Mr. Hemming’s request for the present Declaration. The paper submitted by Mr. Hemming was as follows :— | Request for a ‘‘ Declaration ’’ as to the type species of a nominal genus established as a substitute for a previously established nominal genus but with a designated type species different from that of the nominal genus so replaced By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The object of the present application is to invite the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to adopt a Declaration defining the species to be accepted as the type species of a nominal genus established as a substitute for a previously established nominal genus in a case where the author of the substitute name designates DECLARATION 27 V as the type species a species other than that which is the type species of the nominal genus so replaced. 2. The following is an imaginary example of the class of case for which a Ruling is now sought :— (a) In 1820 an author “‘ A ”’ established a nominal genus to which he gave the name X-us. Either author “‘A” himself desig- nated or indicated the nominal species O-us p-us as the type species of the genus X-us or some later author validly selected that species to be the type species of the genus X-us. (b) In 1870 an author ‘‘B”’ observed that the generic name X-us “A ’’, 1820, was invalid by reason of being a junior homonym of the generic name X-us ““F”’, 1772. Author “ B” accord- ingly replaced the name X-us “‘ A” by the new name Qu-a. When publishing the name Qu-a, author “B”’, by using the expression “‘ nom. nov. pro” or some equivalent expression, made it absolutely clear that he was publishing a substitute name and was not establishing a new nominal genus. (c) Unfortunately author “B” did not know that the nominal species O-us p-us had already been designated, indicated or selected as the type species of the genus X-us “‘ A’’, 1820, and thought that the type species of that genus was a quite different species, namely O-us y-us. Accordingly, when establishing the substitute genus Qu-a, author ““B”’ added that the type species of the substitute genus Qu-a was the nominal species O-us y-us. (d) The question on which a Declaration is now sought is whether the type species of Qu-a ‘*‘ B’”’, 1870, is :— (ii) O-us p-us, the species which is the type species of the genus X-us “‘ A’’, 1820, for which the genus Qu-a ‘“‘B’’, 1870, was established as a substitute ; or (ii) O-us y-us, the species designated as the type species of the substitute genus Qu-a by the author “‘ B”’, when pub- lishing that generic name. 3. An exactly similar problem arises where an author publishes a generic name as a substitute for the name of some previously established Vi OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS nominal genus for which no species had been designated or indicated as the type species by the original author and for which at the date in question no one of the originally included species had been selected by a later author to be the type species, if the author of the substitute generic name designates for the genus so named a nominal species which was not one of those included by the original author in the genus, the name of which is so replaced. 4. The foregoing problems raise an issue of principle on which it is desirable on practical grounds that a decision should be reached as soon as possible. Moreover, the first of these two problems has already arisen in the case of the name Neanura MacGillivray, 1893, in Dr. H. Gisin’s application relating to the name Achorutes Templeton, 1835.(Z.N:8:):303)2 5. Fortunately, there exists in the present case a precedent set by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, for that Congress considered the exactly parallel case which arises where an author publishes a new specific name which he states is a substitute name for some previously published specific name but for which also he gives a description based upon particular specimens, which in fact are referable not to the species which bears the name so replaced but to some other species. On this question the Copenhagen Congress decided to insert the following provision in Article 31 of the Régles: “‘ Where a specific name is expressly stated to be a substitute (e.g., by the use of such an expression as ‘nom. nov.’ or ‘nom. mut.’) for a previously published name but is at the same time applied to particular specimens, the species to which the new name applies is in all circumstances that to which the previously published name is applicable” (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 75—76, Decision 142). 6. Recommendations : In the light of the foregoing decision by the Copenhagen Congress at the species-name level, I recommend that the Commission should now adopt the following Declaration clarifying the meaning of the Rég/es in relation to the corresponding problem at the generic-name level :— PROPOSED DECLARATION : Where a generic name, when first published, is expressly stated to be a substitute (e.g., by the use of such an expression as “‘nom, nov.”’ or “‘ nom. mut.’’) for a previously published generic name but where the author of the substitute name designates as the type species of the genus bearing that name a nominal species other than that which is the type species of the genus, the name of which 1 The decision which in the light of the present Declaration has been taken by the International Commission in regard to the names Achorutes Templeton and Neanura MacGillivray has been embodied in Opinion 435 which is being published as Part 21 of the present volume (425-458). DECLARATION 27 Vil is so replaced, the type species of the genus bearing the substitute name is in all circumstances the nominal species which is the type species of the genus, the name of which is so replaced. Il. THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application: Upon receipt of Mr. Hemming’s application the question of the adoption of a Declaration regarding the interpretation of Rule (f) in Article 30 in the terms recommended was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 867. | 3. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was sent to the printer on 22nd November 1954 and was published in Part 2 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature on 31st January of the following year (Hemming, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 35—37). 4. Issue of Public Notices: Public Notice of the possible adoption of a Declaration, as recommended in the application submitted in the present case, was given in like manner as though the foregoing application involved the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers on 3lst January 1955 (a) in Part 2 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which Mr. Hemming’s application was published) and (b) to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition such Notice was given also to certain general zoological serial publications in Europe and America. Vili OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 5. No objection received: The publication of the present application elicited no objection to the action proposed from any source. Il. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 6. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(55)15 : On 5th August 1955, a Voting Paper (V.P.(55)15) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “the proposal for the adoption of a Declaration clarifying the interpretation of the Rég/es in relation to the question of the type species of a genus established as a substitute genus as set out in paragraph 6 on page 37 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature” {i.e. in the paragraph numbered as above in the paper reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Declaration]. 7. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on Sth November 1955. 8. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(55)15: At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(55)15 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty-four (24) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Bodenheimer; MHolthuis; Riley; Stoll; Hering; Bradley (J.C.) ; Lemche ; Prantl ; Jaczewski; Hanko ; Mayr ; do Amaral ; Esaki; Kuhnelt ; Dymond ; Key ; Mertens; Bonnet; Hemming; Miller; Sylvester- Bradley ; Cabrera; Boschma; Tortonese ; DECLARATION 27 ix (b) Negative Votes, one (1) : Vokes ; (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. 9. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 6th November 1955, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(55) 15, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 8 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 10. Preparation of the present ‘* Declaration ’’ : On 14th May 1956 Mr. Hemming prepared the present Declaration and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Declaration were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting faper V.P.(55)15. 11. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Declaration is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said Internationa] Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. X OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 12. The present Declaration shall be known as Declaration Twenty-seven (27) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Fourteenth day of June, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Six. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by MetcaLtFe & Cooper LimiTEp, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 14. Part 20. Pp. xi—xxiv DECLARATION 28 Clarification of the status of a name given to a family- group taxon based upon a misidentified type genus LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1956 Price Nine Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 5th December, 1956 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DECLARATION 28 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JORDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. ee Se (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July Professor Teiso EsAkI (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEY (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitadt zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (A2th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezdégazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Hottuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) on August 1953) ior: H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Cue A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum V Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KUHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Professor F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 4 Protessor Ernst MAYR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ‘** G. Doria’’, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) DECLARATION 28 CLARIFICATION OF THE STATUS OF A NAME GIVEN TO A FAMILY-GROUP TAXON BASED UPON A MISIDENTIFIED TYPE GENUS DECLARATION :—(1) Except as is provided in (2) below, an author publishing a new family-group name is to be assumed to have correctly determined the nominal genus selected by him as the type genus of the nominal family-group taxon so established. (2) Where in the opinion of later authors there 1s evidence in the original publication that the author of a family-group name treated the type genus of the family- group taxon so named as having as its type species some nominal species other than that which either already was or later became the type species, the case is to be referred to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature for decision. (3) On receipt of an application submitted under (2) above, it shall be the duty of the International Com- mission to give a Ruling on the question (a) whether the author of the family-group name in question correctly determined the genus selected by him to be the type genus of the nominal family-group taxon so established or (b) whether he misdetermined that genus and thus in effect established a family-group taxon based upon a different genus bearing an invalid homonymous name. (4) Where the said Commission gives a Ruling that a given nominal family-group taxon was based upon a misdetermined type genus, the family-group name in question is to be rejected as possessing no rights under either the Law of Priority or the Law of Homonymy. yu - g 199! XIV OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS I. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT “ DECLARATION ~ On 15th December 1954 following extensive correspondence with the Office of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, M. Hermann Gisin (Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle, Genéve) submitted to the International Commission an application for the purpose of putting an end to the long-standing difficulties associated with the generic names Achorutes Templeton, 1835 Hypogastrura Bourlet, 1839, and Neanura MacGillivray, 1893 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola). This application at the family-group-name level raised an issue regarding the status of a name given to a family-group taxon by an author who takes as the type species of the type genus of the taxon so named some species other than that which is the type species of that genus under the Régles. At that time there existed no authoritative Ruling as to the status of a family-group name so published. It was necessary, however, for the family-group names involved in this case to be dealt with in the application to be submitted to the Commission. On this issue M. Gisin took the view that a name of the kind discussed above ought not to be treated as possessing any status in zoological nomenclature and that the publication of such a name ought not to prejudice a later-published family- group name having the type species of the type genus correctly determined under the Rég/es. It was on this basis therefore that | M. Gisin framed the proposals which he submitted to the Commission. The particular family-group name in which the foregoing problem was involved that was included in M. Gisin’s application was the name ACHORUTINI Borner, 1901, which, as Borner’s paper clearly showed was based upon an erroneous determination of the type species of the type genus of the family- group taxon so named, Borner in that paper having incorrectly assumed that Achorutes viaticus Tullberg, 1872, was the type species of Achorutes Templeton, 1835, the type genus of the new family-group taxon in question. M. Gisin’s proposals regarding the present matter are so closely interwoven with those relating to the generic names also involved that it has been decided that the more convenient course would be to reproduce M. Gisin’s application in full in the Opinion containing the Commission’s decision on the generic-name problems involved rather than to divide M. Gisin’s paper into two portions, DECLARATION 28 XV the one dealing with the generic-name problems and the other with the family-group-name problem discussed above. Accord- ingly, M. Gisin’s application has been reproduced in extenso in Opinion 4351 containing the Commission’s decision regarding the generic name Achorutes Templeton and associated names which is being rendered simultaneously with the present Declaration and to confine the statement of the case in the present Declaration to the foregoing summary of the issue involved and the manner in which M. Gisin proposed that it should be dealt with. feerne SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE PRESENT CASE 2. Registration of the present application : Upon receipt from M. Gisin of his first communication relating to the generic name Achorutes Templeton and to certain other generic names in the Order Collembola, the problems so involved were pro- visionally allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 199. When work was commenced on the individual cases submitted by M. Gisin, the problems associated with the name Achorutes Templeton were allotted the separate Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 303. Later, in conformity with the procedural decisions described in paragraph 6 below to separate the portions of M. Gisin’s application it was decided that, while all matters relating to the name Achorutes Templeton and other individual names should continue to be dealt with on the File referred to above, a new File should be opened for the consideration of the question of principle in regard to the status of a family-group name based upon a misidentified type genus involved in M. Gisin’s application. The new File so opened was allotted the Registered Number Z.NA(S.) 1038. 3. Publication of M. Gisin’s application : M. Gisin’s application involving jointly (a) certain problems relating to the name Achorutes Templeton and other names and (b) the problem of ' The Opinion here referred to is being published in the immediately following Part (Part 21) of the present volume. XVI OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS the status of a name published for a family-group taxon based upon an erroneously determined type genus was sent to the printer on 3lst December 1954 and was published on 3lst January 1955 in Part 2 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Gisin, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 38—48). 4. Issue of Public Notices: Under the revised procedure prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51—56) Public Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in relation to certain matters dealt with in M. Gisin’s application was given on 31st January 1955 (a) in Part 2 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which M. Gisin’s application was published) and (b) to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition, such Notice was given also to certain general zoological serial publications and to seven entomological serials in Europe and America. 5. No objection received: Neither the publication of M. Gisin’s application in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature nor the issue of the Public Notices in regard thereto specified in paragraph 4 above elicited any objection to any part of the action proposed. 6. Procedural arrangements decided upon at the close of the Prescribed Six-Month Period following the publication of the present application in the ‘°° Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature ’’: Following the close of the Prescribed Six-Month Period following the publication of M. Gisin’s application in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the procedure to be adopted in placing that case before the Commission for decision was reviewed by the Secretary who on 8th November 1955 executed a Minute in which, after recalling the General Directive issued by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 136—137) that questions affecting the interpretation of the Régles be dealt with in the “ Declara- tions’ Series and no longer be included in Opinions relating DECLARATION 28 XVil to individual names, directed that the application submitted by M. Gisin be divided into two portions, the first with the question of the status of names given to family-group taxa when based upon a misidentified type genera, a question on which a decision was a pre-requisite to the adoption of by the Commission of a Ruling upon a part of the case submitted by M. Gisin, the second concerned with the name Achorutes Templeton and with the other individual names raised in the application submitted by that specialist. 7. Bipartite proposals submitted to the International Com- mission in January 1956: In conformity with the procedural arrangements described in paragraph 6 above, two Voting Papers (Voting Papers V.P.(56)2 and V.P.(56)3) were submitted . to the Commission in connection with M. Gisin’s application. The first of these was concerned with the question of principle involved, the second with the case of the name Achorutes Templeton. The proposals in regard to that name which were thus laid before the Commission were those which M. Gisin had summarised in paragraph 12 of his application (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 46—48). The terms of the proposed Declaration involved in the foregoing application were as follows :— Where, when publishing a name for a nominal family-group taxon, an author takes as the type species of the type genus of that taxon some species other than that which is the type species under the Régles, the family-group name so published is to be rejected as possessing no status under the Law of Priority, and the publication of such a name is not to invalidate the subsequent publication of a name for a nominal family-group taxon with the same genus as type genus but with the type species of that genus correctly determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of the Régles. Example: The publication in 1901 of the name ACHORUTINI with Achorutes Templeton, 1835, as type genus but with the type species of that genus incorrectly determined as Achorutes viaticus Tullberg, 1872, did not invalidate the family-group name ACHORUTINAE Borner, 1906, with the same genus as type genus but with the type species of that genus correctly determined as Achorutes muscorum Templeton, 1835. XVIil OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 8. Submission to the International Commission of a revised draft in the present case in July 1956 : When in April 1956 the Prescribed Voting Period for the two Voting Papers (V.P.(56)2 and V.P.(56)3) came to a close it was found that the proposals submitted therewith had been approved by the International Commission but that as regards the proposal submitted with the first of those Voting Papers important comments on the form of presentation to be adopted had been furnished by four Members of the International Commission. In these circumstances the Secretary came to the conclusion that the correct course would be to bring these comments to the attention of the Commission and at the same time to submit for consideration a revised formula for the proposed Declaration which would take account of the comments referred to above. Accordingly, on 31st July 1956 Mr. Hemming submitted a further paper to the Commission in regard to the present case, together with a new Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(56)15)?._ The first two paragraphs of the paper so submitted contained a brief recital of the principal points involved in the present case ; the remainder was as follows :— Status of a family-group name based upon an incorrectly determined type genus By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 3. Both the foregoing proposals were approved in the votes taken on the foregoing Voting Papers but in the case of the proposed Declaration an important question of presentation was raised by four members of the Commission (Boschma; Holthuis; Jaczewski; Sylvester- Bradley) when returning their completed Voting Papers. The point made by these Commissioners was that it would be anomalous if the provision to be adopted for dealing with the problem presented by names for family-group taxa based upon erroneously determined type genera were to be different in kind from that already adopted for dealing with the very similar problem involved in the interpretation of genera based upon erroneously determined type species. There appears to me to be great force in this comment and the purpose of the present note is to re-examine the question of the form of presentation to be employed in formulating the Declaration, the adoption of which 2 See paragraph 9 below DECLARATION 28 he was approved in principle by the vote taken by the Commission in its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(56)2. 4. The problem of the treatment to be accorded to the names of genera based upon misidentified type species was among the first to emerge after the adoption in 1901 of the present Régles. A real difficulty was involved, for those zoologists who were averse from name- changing on narrow technical grounds were forced to rely on subjective arguments regarding the intentions of the authors of the names of nominal genera established in this defective fashion, while those who rightly pointed out that subjective taxonomic judgments ought not to have any part in determining nomenclatorial problems found it necessary to become the champions of name-changing in cases of this sort. Twice during the period the Commission intervened in this dispute, first in 1914 in Opinion 65 (Smithson. Publ. 2256 : 152—169) and again in 1935 at Lisbon in Opinion 168 (1945, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 411—430). In the first of these Opinions the Commission leaned towards the views of the objectivists, though to a very limited extent it attempted also to give some satisfaction to those zoologists whose primary interest in nomenclature was the maintenance of established usage. In the later of these Opinions the Commission took the same general line but in response to the growth during the twenty years following the publication of Opinion 65 of the desire for stability in nomenclature, it adopted a more con- ciliatory attitude to zoologists of this group by issuing an invitation to zoologists to submit to it for decision cases where it would be clearly contrary to the facts to assume that the author of a given generic name had correctly identified the species which he designated as the type species or which later was selected as such. 5. The present case was, however, a problem for which no genuine solution was possible as long as the Congress was unwilling to consider proposals for the amendment of the Régles, for what was needed was the insertion in the Régles of a provision which on the one hand unequivocally laid down the proposition that in general the author of a generic name must be assumed to have identified correctly the nominal species placed by him in the genus so named, but on the other hand provided also a mechanism for avoiding undesirable name-changing in those cases where specialists were of the opinion that such an assumption would be contrary to the facts and where in fact the generic name was currently used in the sense which it was considered had been the intention of the author of the generic name. The willingness shown by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology at Paris in 1948 to grapple with difficult problems which had been burked by earlier Congresses provided an opportunity for a settlement of this problem in a realistic manner which, while meeting in full the point of view of the objectivists, at the same time provided machinery to secure that nomenclatorial stability should not be XX OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS endangered (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 158—159). The main features of the provisions so adopted were (1) the affirmation of the principle that the author of a generic name was to be assumed to have correctly identified the species placed by him in his new genus and (2) the adoption of a provision that, where in the opinion of later workers, the foregoing assumption would run counter to the facts, the case was to be submitted to the Commission whose duty it would then become to use its Plenary Powers to designate as the type species of the genus the nominal species intended by the original author or a species consistent with the intentions of that author, save where such a designation would itself lead to name-changing, in which case it became the duty of the Commission to direct that the nominal species cited by the author of the generic name be accepted as the type species of the genus in question. This matter was considered again by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, 1953, which made some minor amendments in the terms of the decision reached by the Paris Congress, but these did not affect in any way the main structure of that decision (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 68—69, Decisions 127, 128). 6. Having now examined the present state of the Rég/es in relation to nominal genera established on misidentified type species, we are in a position to consider how far those provisions could be made applicable to the somewhat similar problem presented by nominal family-group taxa based on misdetermined type genera. In the light of the comments received in this case during the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(56)2, I am of the opinion that the logical course to adopt for the purpose of giving effect to the decision in principle then taken would be to incorporate in the proposed Declaration the principle that the author of a family-group name is to be assumed to have correctly determined the genus selected by him to be the type genus of the nominal family-group taxon so established, but that this should be qualified to provide that, where, in the opinion of later workers, the author of the family-group concerned misdetermined the genus which he selected to be the type genus of his new nominal family-group taxon, the case is to be referred to the Commission for decision. So far the proposed Ruling would be exactly parallel to the existing provisions in regard to the determination of genera based upon misidentified type species. I suggest also, that, again following the general pattern of the rules relating to genera based upon misidentified type species, the proposed Ruling should make it the duty of the Commission, when such a case was referred to it, to give a Ruling as to whether the nominal family-group taxon concerned was based upon a misdetermined type genus or not. In the case of a genus based upon a misidentified type species, the Commission, when varying the type species of the genus concerned, is required to act under its Plenary Powers. This is necessary because in such a case it must always be a matter for subjective (taxonomic) judgment whether the author of a DECLARATION 28 XXi generic name correctly identified the nominal species placed by him in his new genus. In the case, however, of family-group names the position is otherwise, for here it is a matter of objectively ascertainable fact whether or not the author of the family-group name took as the type species of the type genus the nominal species which is in fact the type species under the Régles or a species consistent therewith. At the family-group-name level therefore the required Ruling is one which it will be possible for the Commission to give under its ordinary powers without resort to its Plenary Powers. Finally, it is necessary to consider what is to be the status of a family-group name after the Commission has given a Ruling that the nominal family-group taxon was based upon a misdetermined type genus. At this point the present problem differs radically from that presented by a genus based upon a misidentified type species. For in that case the object of making an application to the Commission is to secure that the generic name concerned shall be used in the sense intended by its original author, while at the family-group-name level the object of the application to the Commission will be to get rid of a family-group name based upon a misdetermined type genus, in order to make way for a later homonymous family-group name based upon a correct determination of the same type genus. On this point the Commission by its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(56)2 has taken the view that a family- group name rejected on the above ground possesses no status in zoological nomenclature and that “‘ the publication of such a name is not to invalidate the subsequent publication of a name for a nominal family-group taxon with the same genus as type genus but with the type species of that genus correctly determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of the Régles’’. This, it is suggested, is the right way in which to deal with this part of the problem, for it is strictly logical and in addition alone provides the means for securing the object desired in cases of this kind. 7. It is accordingly recommended that the form of the Declaration adopted by the Commission in principle by its vote on Voting Paper (56)2 should be remodelled so as to secure that, so far as may be practicable, it shall conform with the lines laid down in the existing provisions relating to the determination of nominal genera based upon misidentified type species. For this purpose I propose that the vote taken on the foregoing Voting Paper be treated as having been an informal preliminary vote and that a substantive vote be now taken in the light of the considerations advanced in the present paper. For this purpose I submit for the consideration of the Commission a revised formula designed on the one hand to take account of the substance of the decision taken in principle on Voting Paper V.P.(56)2 and on the other hand to harmonise the form of that decision with the provisions already inserted in the Régles in regard to the analogous problem presented by genera based on misidentified type species. The formula SO prepared is given in the Annexe to the present paper. XX OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS ANNEXE ‘* Declaration ’’ relating to the status of family-group names based upon misdetermined type genera (Voting Paper V.P.(56)2) Revised draft of proposed wording modelled on the existing provisions in the ‘* Régles’’ relating to the interpre- tation of nominal genera based upon misidentified type genera (1) Except as is provided in (2) below, an author publishing a new family-group name is to be assumed to have correctly determined the nominal genus selected by him as the type genus of the nominal family- group taxon so established. (2) Where in the opinion of later authors there is evidence in the original publication that the author of a family-group name treated the type genus of the family-group taxon so named as having as its type species some nominal species other than that which either already was or later became the type species, the case is to be referred to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for decision. (3) On receipt of an application submitted under (2) above, it shall be the duty of the International Commission to give a Ruling on the question (a) whether the author of the family-group name in question correctly determined the genus selected by him to be the type genus of the nominal family-group taxon so established or (b) whether he misdetermined that genus and thus in effect established a family-group taxon based upon a different genus bearing an invalid homonymous name. (4) Where the Commission gives a Ruling that a given nominal family-group taxon was based upon a misdetermined type genus, the family-group name in question is to be rejected as possessing no rights under either the Law of Priority or the Law of Homonymy. Wl. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 9. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)15 : On 31st July 1956 a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(56)15) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “‘the proposal for the remodelling on the lines of the DECLARATION 28 XXili provisions in the Rég/es relating to the status of generic names based upon misidentified type species of the Declaration in regard to the status of names published for nominal family- group taxa based upon misdetermined type genera approved in principle by the vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(56)2, as recommended in the Annexe to the paper bearing the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1038, submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper ”’ [1.e. in the Annexe to the paper reproduced in paragraph 8 of the present Declaration]. 10. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 31st August 1956. 11. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)15 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)15 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty- four (24) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Riley ; Bodenheimer; Prantl; Boschma; Holthuis ; woxcs,: ) Herme,; Mertens: . Bradley (J.C.) 5: Stoll ; Sylvester-Bradley ; Esaki; do Amaral; Tortonese ; Hank6; Mayr; Cabrera; Lemche; Hemming ; Dymond; Kiuhnelt; Miller; Bonnet ; Jaczewski ; (b) Negative Votes, one (1): Key; (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. XXIV OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 12. Declaration of Result of Vote: On Ist September 1956, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)15, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 11 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 13. Preparation of the present ‘‘ Declaration’’?: On 7th September 1956 Mr. Hemming prepared the present Declaration and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of this Declaration were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)15. 14. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Declaration is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 15. The present Declaration shall be known as Declaration Twenty-Eight (28) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. DONE in London, this Seventh day of September, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Six. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by MretcaLFE & CoopER LIMITED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 14. Part 22. Pp. xxv—xxxii DECLARATION 29 Introduction and definition of the expression “* Linnean tautonymy ”’ in relation to the determination of the type species of a nominal genus under Rule (d) in Article 30 LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1956 Price Five Shillings (All rights reserved) ee A Aa I LO TE I TE IIL ELIE A ELLE ALTE EET TE TNE TE Issued 20th December, 1956 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DECLARATION 29 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JoRDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President: Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary ;: Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Henning LemMcHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso EsAkI (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEy (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZESWKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. DyMoND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezdgazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Hottuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. 1K; L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum vy Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KiiHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Professor F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November Professor Ernst MAYR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico TORTENESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ‘‘ G. Doria’’, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) DECLARATION 29 INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITION OF THE EXPRESSION ‘‘LINNEAN TAUTONYMY ” IN RELATION TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE TYPE SPECIES OF A NOMINAL GENUS UNDER RULE (d) IN ARTICLE 30 DECLARATION :—Where the type species of a nominal genus is determined under the extension of the provision in Rule (d) (type species by absolute tautonymy) in Article 30 made by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 194&, (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 155), the type species of the genus con- cerned is to be said to have been determined “ by Linnean tautonymy ”’. aoe SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT ** DECLARATION ” On 31st July 1956, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature the following paper in which he asked for guidance as to the term to be used in making entries on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in cases where the type species of a genus was deter- mined under the extension of Rule (d) (type species by absolute tautonymy) in Article 30, approved by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 155) when incorporating into the Régles the substance of the Ruling given in 1910 in Opinion 16 (entitled ‘“‘ The status of XXVill OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS pre-binomial specific names (published prior to 1758) under Art. 30D ”’) :— Proposed introduction of the expression ‘‘ Linnean tautonymy ”’’ to denote the method of determining the type species first authorised by the Ruling given in ‘*‘ Opinion ’’ 16 By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to give a Ruling introducing and defining the expression “‘ Linnean tautonymy ”’ as the term to be employed for denoting the method of determining the type species of a genus first authorised by the Ruling given by the Commission in Opinion 16 (1910, Smithson. Publ. 1938 : 31—39 ; annotated re-issue in 1947, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 1(A) : 255—304). 2. The subject raised in the foregoing Opinion was whether the citation in the synonymy of a nominal species included in a genus established without a designated type species of a pre-1758 univerbal specific name consisting of the same word as the generic name could properly be held to constitute the indication of that species to the type species of the genus under Rule (d) in Article 30 (type species, by absolute tautonymy). On this question the Commission returned an affirmative answer. The Ruling so given contained, however, various ambiguities which militated against its practical application. At Paris in 1948, the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology decided, on the recommendation of the International Commission, to clarify the Ruling given in this Opinion and, having done so, to incorporate it into the Régles. The provision so adopted by the Paris Congress was as follows :— Where, prior to Ist January 1931, a genus was established without a designated or indicated type species and where in the synonymy cited for one, but not more than one, of the included nominal species there was cited a name which prior to 1758 had been published as a univerbal specific name and that name consists of the same word as the name of the new genus to which the species in question was referred, the nominal species under which the pre-1758 tautonymous univerbal specific name was cited as a synonym is the type species of the genus by absolute tautonymy. DECLARATION 29 XX1X 3. In framing the foregoing decision the expression ‘ absolute tautonymy ”’ was employed in order to link up this method of deter- mining the type species of a nominal genus with the only existing Rules in Article 30 with which at that time it could be associated, namely, Rule (d), the Rule which provides for the “indication ”’ of a type species for a genus “ by absolute tautonymy ”’. 4. The need for further consideration of the phraseology employed in the Rule quoted in paragraph 2 above became apparent after the Paris Congress in the course of the preparation of the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for publication in book form. For example, the type species of the genera Hippopotamus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Mammalia) and Struthio Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves), are both determined under the foregoing Rule, the type species of the former being Hippopotamus amphibius Linnaeus, 1758, and the type species of the latter Struthio camelus Linnaeus, 1758. It will be immediately apparent that in cases of this class the expression “‘ type species by absolute tautonymy ”’ is entirely inappropriate for the specific name amphibius is not a tautonym of the generic name Hippopotamus and the specific name camelus is not a tautonym of the generic name Struthio. 5. This problem arose in a striking manner in the preparation of the first of the Reports which at Paris in 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 581—583) the International Commission asked me to prepare for the purpose of enabling it to take decisions in regard to the generic names, the status of which had been discussed but left unsettled in Opinion 16. This First Report was concerned with the names of seventeen genera of birds, the type species of each of which had been determined under the Rule quoted in paragraph 2 above. In pre- paring this Report, which was published in 1952 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 70—75) I took the view that it would be as misleading as it would be incorrect to state that the type species of Caprimulgus Linnaeus, 1758, had been determined by absolute tautonymy by reason of the fact that the specific name of the type species of the genus so named consisted of the non-tautonymous word “‘ europaeus” or that the type species of Corvus Linnaeus, 1758, had been determined by absolute tautonymy by reason of the type species of this genus having the non- tautonymous specific name “‘ corax”’. I accordingly sought for some other expression to use to denote the fact that the type species of these and the other genera concerned had been determined by the special extension of the Rule of Absolute Tautonymy quoted in paragraph 2 above. The conclusion to which I then came was that the most suitable and the most distinctive expression to employ to denote this method of determining the type species of a genus would be the expression “‘ Type species by Linnean tautonymy ”’, for Linneaus was the first and principal author in whose works this problem arises and JAN - 8 1957 XXX OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS was moreover the author in respect of a work by whom (the Systema Naturae) the Ruling on this subject was originally given by the Com- mission in Opinion 16. 6. The proposals submitted in the foregoing Report were approved by the Commission by its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)73 and the decision so taken was later embodied in Direction 17 (1955, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 1(C) : 89—112). The names dealt with in that Direction were thereupon inscribed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, the type species of each of the genera concerned being entered as having had its type species determined *“by Linnean tautonymy”’. 7. While the procedure adopted in Direction 17 provides a clear and intelligible indication of the method by which the type species of each of the genera concerned was determined, the problem involved is not confined to the generic names dealt with in that Direction but is a recurring one which will automatically arise whenever the type species of a genus is determined under special extension of the Rule of Absolute Tautonymy quoted in paragraph 2 above. I feel therefore that the phraseology employed in Direction 17 ought to be generalised so as to apply automatically to the case of every generic name, where the type species of the genus so named is determined in the special manner discussed above. Under the procedural decisions taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, Rulings of this kind, being of a general character, should be embodied, not in Opinions, but in Declarations (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 135—137). 8. For the reasons set out above I now recommend that the Inter- national Commission should adopt a Declaration that, where the type species of a genus is determined by the special extension of the principle of tautonymy inserted in the Régles by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 155), the type species of the genus concerned is to be said to have been determined ‘* by Linnean tautonymy ”’. 2. Registration of the present application: Upon the receipt of Mr. Hemming’s application the question of the possible adoption of a Declaration giving directions as to the form of citation to be employed in making entries in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in cases where the type species of the genus concerned had been determined under the provision inserted in the Rég/es in 1948 for the purpose of consolidating the Ruling previously given in Opinion 16 was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1151. DECLARATION 29 XXX1 II. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 3. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)17 : On 31st July 1956, a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(56)17) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “the proposal relating to the adoption of a Declaration defining the expression *‘ Linnean tautonymy’, as recommended in paragraph 8 of the memorandum by the Secretary numbered Z.N.(S.) 1151 submitted simultaneously with the present Voting Paper” [i.e. in the paragraph numbered as above reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Declaration]. 4. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 31st August 1956. 5. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)17 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)17 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty- five (25) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Riley ; Bodenheimer ; Boschma; Holthuis; Vokes ; Hering; Mertens; Bradley (J.C.); Stoll; Sylvester- Bradley ; Esaki; do Amaral; Tortonese ; Hanko ; Mayr ; Cabrera ; Lemche ; Hemming ; Key ; Dymond ; Kiuhnelt ; Miller ; Bonnet ; Jaczewski ; Prantl ; (b) Negative Votes: None ; XXXIl OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. 6. Declaration of Result of Vote: On Ist September 1956, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)17, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 5 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 7. Preparation of the present ‘‘ Declaration ’’ : On 26th Septem- ber 1956, Mr. Hemming prepared the present Declaration and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of this Declaration were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)17. 8. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Declaration is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 9. The present Declaration shall be known as Declaration Twenty-Nine (29) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-Sixth day of September, Nine- teen Hundred and Fifty-Six. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by MretcaLtFeE & CoopPEerR LimiITeED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 =a OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 14 Part 1. Pp. 1—42 OPINION 417 Rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of volume 3 (Zoologie) of the work by Lorenz Oken entitled Okens Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte published in 1815—1816 LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1956 Price Thirty Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued \st September, 1956 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 417 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JORDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) yr. eee ea Gan (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th uly Professor Teiso EsAk! (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEy (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitadt zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. DyMonpD (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mez&gazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Hottuutis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) Ae dec 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum vy Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KiiHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Professor F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954) OPINION 417 REJECTION FOR NOMENCLATORIAL PURPOSES OF VOLUME 3 (ZOOLOGIE) OF THE WORK BY LORENZ OKEN ENTITLED ** OKENS LEHRBUCH DER NATURGESCHICHTE ” PUBLISHED IN 1815—13816 RULING :—(1) It is hereby ruled that in Volume 3 (Zoologie) of the work entitled Okens Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte published in 1815—1816 Lorenz Oken did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature as required by Proviso (b) to Article 25 of the Régles, as amended by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, and therefore that no name published in the foregoing volume of the above work acquired the status of availability by reason of having been so published. (2) The title of the foregoing work is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature with the Title No. 33. (3) Specialists in the groups dealt with in the foregoing work are invited to submit to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature applications for the validation under the Plenary Powers of any name published in it, the rejection of which would, in their opinion, lead to instability or confusion in the nomen- clature of the group concerned. SEP 9 2 1986 4 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS I. THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 20th May 1944, Dr. Wilfred H. Osgood (Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) submitted to the Commission the following request for a Ruling as to the avail- ability under the Rég/es of names published in volume 3 (Zoologie) of Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte published tn 1815—1816 :— Application relating to the status of the names in Oken’s ‘‘ Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte ’’ submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by Dr. Wilfred H. Osgood in May 1944! Are the names in Oken, 1815—1816, ** Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte *’ 3 (Zoologie), available under the Régles ? By WILFRED H. OSGOOD (Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) Oken’s names were especially brought to attention by J. A. Allen in 1902 (Bull. amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 16 : 373—379). At this time Allen said: ‘‘ Oken was almost as erratic and irregular in nomen- clatorial matters as was Zimmermann in his Specimen Zoologiae Geographicae* published in 1777, but in some respects is less satisfactory, since he failed to cite authorities for the names used, and gave no reference to his sources of information. Both diagnosed generic, subgeneric and other groups, as well as species, under either vernacular or systematic names, as seemed to please their fancy, and employed the names given by previous authors as these authors used them, regardless of whether the generic portion of the name conformed or not to the genus to which they assigned the species. Yet they each had a ““system’’—sadly defective, however, when tried by the nomen- clatorial usages of today.”’ 2. Allen then discussed a number of Oken’s generic and specific names of mammals which might be adopted for use instead of those 1 When this application was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, it appeared as Appendix | of the Report on the status of new names published in Oken, [1815—1816], Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte, prepared by Mr. Hemming at the request of the International Commission and the International Congress of Zoology at the meetings of those bodies held in Paris in July 1948. Mr. Hemming’s Report is reproduced in paragraph 13 of the present Opinion. It was considered, however, that for the purposes of preparing this Opinion it would be more convenient if the documents annexed to Mr. Hemming’s Report were detached from that position and were inserted in the Opinion in their original historical sequence. 2 The Specimen Zoologiae of Zimmermann has since been rejected by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature as a work which does not comply with the requirements of Article 25, Proviso (6). See Opinion 257. OPINION 417 5 current at the time. Nowhere does he say that they must be used and his entire paper is factual rather than argumentative, his attitude being that of suspended judgment rather than conviction. In other words, his paper is that of a reporter rather than an advocate and what he says essentially is that, if Oken’s names are acceptable, then certain changes are necessary. 3. Nevertheless, the Oken names have been accepted especially by British and American mammalogists and have been in general use for more than forty years. Among them are some of wide use not only in taxonomic but in general literature for some of the best known animals in the world. Examples are Citellus Oken, which replaced Spermophilus Cuvier for the very large group of ground squirrels of -Asia and America, including species concerned in the transmission of disease and therefore dealt with in medical literature ; Panthera Oken, which has been adopted as a genus or subgenus for the larger cats including the lion, tiger, leopard and some others ; and Thos Oken for the jackals. 4. In 1904 (S.B. Ges. naturf. Fr. Berlin 1904 : 55), only two years after Allen’s paper, the German mammalogist Matschie demurred by saying : “‘ Die in Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte verwendeten Bezeichnungen diirfen deshalb nicht gebraucht werden, weil die Grundsatze der binaren Nomenklatur is diesem Buche nicht befolgt sind.” 5. In 1927 Stiles and Orlemann (Bul/. U.S. hyg. Lab. 145 : 29), in dealing with the Primates, said of Oken’s work : “‘ From our view- point the nomenclature used by Oken, 1816, pp. 1223—1232, is not in harmony with International Rules, is neither consistently binary nor consistently binominal, hence is not available under the Law of Priority.” 6. In 1932 (Trab. Mus. Cienc. nat., Madrid (Zool.) 57 : 106), Cabrera referred to Oken saying : “‘ este autor no siguid la verdadera nomenclatura binaria, y por consiguiente sus nombres no deben admitirse’’’. (Since, this author has consistently refused to recognise Oken’s names and recently has issued a detailed defence of his position (1943, Ciencia, Mexico 4 : 108—111).) 7. The fact remains that Oken’s names have attained wide currency in spite of expressed objection to them. They seem to be similar to the names of Gronovius, which were accepted by the Commission under Opinion 20 and later rejected by exercise of Plenary Power under Opinion 89. In fact it might well be argued that they are even less deserving than the names of Gronovius. Regardless of interpreta- tion of the Code, a ruling on them appears to be necessary, since it is 6 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS > now a question of “ greater confusion than uniformity ’ subject only to the exercise of the Plenary Power.® apparently 2. Supplementary Note by Dr. Osgood: On receipt of the foregoing application Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, took the view that it would be helpful to the Commission if Dr. Osgood were to indicate more clearly the action which he recommended that the Commission should take. In response to an invitation addressed to him on this subject by Mr. Hemming, Dr. Osgood on 13th September 1944 wrote as follows :— In regard to Oken’s Lehrbuch, I would prefer to see it entirely sup- pressed. Allen, who first uncovered it and who has been followed considerably, did not make a very good case for it, and later authors, including both Stiles and Stejyneger, I believe, have argued that it does not conform to the Code. Il. THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 3. Registration of the present application : Upon the receipt of Dr. Osgood’s application the question of the status of names in Oken’s Lehrbuch was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 153. 4. Report on the system of nomenclature employed by Oken in the ‘*‘ Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte ’’ furnished by Dr. Karl Jordan in June 1944 : At the time of the receipt of Dr. Osgood’s application no copy of Oken’s Lehrbuch was conveniently available for study in London owing to the evacuation as a precaution 3 It should be noted that Opinion 20 was rendered at a date prior to the grant to the International Commission of Plenary Powers to suspend the rules in certain cases. That Opinion, therefore, dealt only with the sole question, with which the International Commission was then empowered to deal, namely, the interpretation of the Code, the question then submitted being whether Gronovius in 1763, Zoophylacium, had “applied the principles of binary nomenclature ’’ as required by proviso (b) to Article 25 of the International Code. The question dealt with in Opinion 89 is entirely different from that dealt with in Opinion 20, since Opinion 89 is not concerned in any way with the interpretation of the Code but with the question whether or not the Plenary Powers conferred upon the International Commission at Monaco in 1913 should or should not be used to suppress Gronovius, 1763, Zoophylacium, and certain other works. OPINION 417 I against the risk of destruction in air-raids of the greater part of the contents of the great zoological libraries of London. Knowing, however, that there was a copy of this work in the library of the Zoological Museum at Tring, Mr. Hemming asked Dr. Karl Jordan, at that time President of the International Commission, whether he would kindly examine this work and furnish a report on the system of nomenclature used by Oken in it. In response to the foregoing invitation, Dr. Jordan on 10th June, 1944 furnished the following report :— On the system of classification used by Oken (L.) in his ** Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte ’’ of 1816+ By KARL JORDAN, Ph.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring) (Extract from a letter dated 10th June 1944, from Dr. KARL JORDAN (then President of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) to the Secretary to the Commission) In order to understand Oken’s classification and nomenclature, two main points must be kept in mind. (1) Animals were created according to a definite plan : a tribe (which he calls Sippschaft) consists of four genera in every family (Oken’s Zunft) ; the number of species in each genus varies. Often there are so many kinds known that Oken sub- divides the genus concerned. These divisions and subdivisions of amie are marked by letters (e-¢:' the letters “a”, “bb”, “c”’, etc.). These are usually followed by one or more Latin names. The classification and nomenclature used are complicated. (2) Apart from the part relating to European animals, Oken’s Lehrbuch is mainly a compilation. When uncertain about the systematic position of an animal, Oken often refers to the same animal in different places and gives more than one Latin name for it. The names so given are usually taken from the literature. He cites no authors’ names and gives no bibliographical references for the Latin names cited. At the end of the volume he gives a short bibliography. The nature of Oken’s system of classification may be illustrated by anexample. I therefore give below his classification for the first genus of his fifth tribe (5 Sippschaft, 1 Gattung), from which I have omitted his descriptions. 4 When this letter was originally published, it appeared as Appendix 2 to the Report by Mr. Hemming which is reproduced in paragraph 13 of the present Opinion. For reasons similar to those explained in Footnote 1 in relation to Dr. Osgood’s original application it has been judged more convenient in preparing this Opinion to insert the text of the above letter in its original chronological position. 8 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Classification used by Oken for the first genus of his fifth tribe 5. Sippschaft 1. Gattung. Muffer [The German names—often spaced—are mostly Oken’s invention. ] a. Dachse a. Meles, Dachs ; 1. Art. M. vulgaris, Ursus Meles, Taxus, gen. D., Graving ; 2. Art. M. americana, Ursus labradorius ; 3. Art. M. indica ; Der lang bekannte Meles indicus ist augenscheinlich Galeopithecus ! b. Stunk, Mephitis, Viverra, Stinthier, Muffer ; 1. Art. Zweistreifiger St. [no Latin name cited] a. Teufelskind oder Stinkthier (Viv. Mephitis) ; b. Yaguara, Zorilla, Muffer von Chili ; Here probably a Muffer from Chili, but the white on frons and occiput broader, more probably Grunzer or Blaser at Magellan’s Strait, Stinkfiichse, Putorius americanus. Stinkthier in Luisiana, Schweitzer, Ortohula, Teufelskind and Chinche. (translation) c. Gulo quitensis, Atok oder Zorra (Fuchs) ; As the Atok has been placed in Gulo, one should expect that its dentition would be the same; but we doubt it. (translation) 2. Art. Fiinfstreifiger St. ; [no Latin name cited] a. Putorius americanus striatus (Viv. Putorius) ; [At the end of the description of colour and habits there occurs—over the page—the name Putorius americanus striatus (int’d K.J.)] b. [Oken made no entry under this sub-item. int’d K.J.] c. Conepate (Viv. Putorius); [sei the equivalent of the Latin seu K.J.] Coneptl, amerik. Iltis gestreiften. 3. Art. Einstreifiger St. ; [no Latin name cited] a. Cinche (Viv. Mephitis) ; sei Yzquiepatl (schlechthin) ; b. Mapurito (Viv. Mapurito); . . . sei Viverra Putorius ; [The word ‘‘ Mapurito ’’ is here used as a specific name. int’d K.J.] OPINION 417 9 o, ‘iitis St. 1. Art. Geflekter St. ; [no Latin name cited] a. Mapurito oder Mafutiliqui (Viv. Zorilla); [The word **Mapurito”’ is here used as a vernacular name. int’d. K.J.| [If here Zorilla ? Query Zorinna or Anna ? (transl.)]| b. Chingha (Viverra Chingha) ; c. Zorille ; sei eine mit Mafutiliqui und Ortohula d. Graving, Grison : [The word “‘ Graving”’ is slightly spaced. K.J.] 1. Art. Ziigel G.; [no Latin name cited] a. Chinche (Viv. vittata) ; Sei Maikal oder Yagiane.— b. Viverra vittata, Grison : Mustela gujanensis, Foine von Giana ; Auron minor, Martes Grison: [Note : The above are not vittata but are two additional distinct species, each with its own description. int’d. K.J.] Perhaps here Yzquiepatl (Viv. Vulpecula), Teufelskind and Chinche from Brazil. Grison (Viv. vittata) and Galera belong together ?, the former probably here. (translation) e. Schnopp, TJayra: 1. Art. Gelbkehliger Sch. ; [no Latin name cited] a. Mustela barbara, Tayra oder grose Wiesel ; Einerlei Gr. Marder von Guiana, Must. poliocephalus. b. M. lanata, kl. Foina von Giana ; c. Mustela canadensis, Pekan ; There are three animals in Paragay similar to the marten, pine marten and polecat, but larger... They are Huron minor, major, Yaguare ; Huron major (Furo m.); Martes Tayra;... 1s Mustela barbara different? It seems to be Ichneumon de Yzquiepatl (Viv. Quasja), Pekan (Must. canadens.), kleine Foina von Giiana (Must. lanata), Tayra (M. barbara). (translation) 2. Art. Schwarzer Sch. [no Latin name cited] a. Yzquiepatl, seu Vulpecula quae Maizium torrefactum semulatur colore (Viv. Vulpecula) ; There are two other small foxes of this sort. One is generally called Yzquiepat]... The other is called Conepatl seu Vulpecula puerilis, . . . (translation) b. Stinkthier, (Viv. Putorius) 10 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 3. Art. Brauner Sch. ; Ichneumon de Izquiepatl (Viv. Quasja) One could put Coase here if anteriorly it has five toes. (translation) {. Jarl, Gulo Ursus: 1. Art. G. vulgaris, Urs. Gulo, Hyaena, Glouton, Rosomak, Filfrass (Rahmfrass), Schnopp, gem. J. ; 5. Publication in 1945 of a preliminary notice regarding the present application : In a note dealing with three of the names published in Oken’s Lehrbuch published in the Bulletin of Zoo- logical Nomenclature on 26th July 1945 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 112—113), Mr. Hemming drew attention to the present application (which at that time it was hoped would shortly be published in the Bulletin) and to the question of principle involved in the decision which the Commission would be called upon to take in this case. Proposal by the late Commissioner C. W. Stiles for the addition to the ** Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ’’ of certain names proposed by Brisson (M.J.), 1762, ‘‘ Regnum animale ”’, and by Oken (L.), 1815—1816, ‘* Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte ”’ By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) In February 1934 the late Commissioner C. W. Stiles proposed the addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of a long list of names of genera in the Order Carnivora (Class Mammalia). This list was taken from the manuscript of a paper enumerating the parasites for Carnivora. In making this proposal, Commissioner Stiles observed that over 250 of these parasites had also been reported for man and expressed the view that in consequence “‘it becomes important from a standpoint of public health to establish as firmly as possible the generic names of the animals which harbour these parasites ’’. The paper from the manuscript of which these generic names were taken by Commissioner Stiles was published in December 1934 in U.S. Nat. Inst. Health Bull. 163 : 911—1223 (Stiles (C.W.) and Baker (C.E.), “* Key-Catalogue of Parasites reported for Carnivora (Cats, Dogs, Bears, etc.) with their possible Public Health Importance ’’). 2. The list of generic names submitted by Commissioner Stiles was considered by the International Commission at their Session held at OPINION 417 | 11 Lisbon in September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 16, for the text of which see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1:41). The Com- mission then agreed that such of the names in question as had not been objected to by the specialists consulted should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. In accordance with this decision, the great majority of the generic names included in Com- missioner Stiles’s list have since been placed on the Official List in an Opinion, now awaiting publication. 3. Among the names proposed by Commissioner Stiles for inclusion in the Official List were certain names published by Brisson (M.J.), 1762, Regnum animale, and by Oken (L.), 1815—1816, Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte. The names in question were the following :— (i) Names proposed by Brisson : Hyaena Brisson, 1762, Regn. anim. (ed. alt.) : 168 Lutra Brisson, 1762, ibid. (ed. alt.) : 201 Meles Brisson, 1762, ibid. (ed. alt.) : 183 (11) Names proposed by Oken : Genetta Oken, 1816, Lehrb. Naturgesch. 3 (Zool.) (2) : 1010 Grison Oken, 1816, ibid. 3 (Zool.) (2) : 1000 Tayra Oken, 1816, ibid. 3 (Zool.) (2) : 1001 4. When Commissioner Stiles’s list was under consideration, Com- missioner Angel Cabrera expressed the view that the acceptance of generic names proposed by Brisson, 1762, Regnum animale, and by Oken, 1815—1816, Lehrb. Naturgesch. would be contrary to proviso (5) to Article 25, since, in his opinion, neither of these authors in the works concerned “‘had applied the principles of binary nomenclature ”’. Commissioner Cabrera added, however, that ‘it would be good to see others’ opinions about this ”’. 5. In these circumstances, the six names enumerated in paragraph 3 above have not been included in the Opinion referred to above but have been deferred for further consideration. Commissioner Stiles’s proposal that these names should be added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology will be reviewed, when decisions have been taken by the International Commission on the application submitted by Dr. G. H. H. Tate in regard to Brisson, 1762, Regnum animale (see page 112 above) and the application submitted by Dr. Wilfred H. Osgood in regard to Oken, 1815—1816, Lehrb. Naturgesch., which will shortly be published in the present journal. 6. Comment received in 1947 from Mr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (British Museum (Natural History), London) : On 18th January 1947, Mr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (British Museum (Natural History), London), commented as follows on the question whether, 12 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS if Oken’s Lehrbuch were to be found to be invalid, measures should be taken to validate new names published in it which had come into general use :— On the question of the use of generic names published in Oken’s ** Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte °° (Extract from a letter, dated 18th January 1947, from Mr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott, Deputy Keeper, Depart- ment of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History) to the Secretary to the Commission) I think that the elimination of Oken’s Lehrbuch would be a very retrograde step, so far as mammals are concerned. At last we are getting some sort of order into things. Works like Allen (1939) Checklist of African Mammals and Simpson (1945) The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals are the foundations on which we now build and there is a growing feeling among mammalogists that the foundations should not be disturbed. The need for stability in order to take stock of the mass of undigested knowledge overrides the following of rules for the sake of pedantic uniformity—or that is the way I see it. Both Allen and Simpson use Oken’s names—not merely Pan but Panthera, Genetta, etc., and it would be crazy to eliminate these names. 7. Preliminary consideration given to the present application by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at Paris in 1948 : Preliminary consideration was given to the present application by the International Commission at its Session held in Paris in 1948. The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Thirteenth Meeting of that Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphithéatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 17.30 hours (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 365— 366) :— 13. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) recalled that the Commission had agreed that the consideration of a proposal submitted by the late Dr. C. W. Stiles (U.S.A.) for the addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the names * When this letter was originally published, it appeared as Appendix 4 to the Report by Mr. Hemming which is reproduced in paragraph 13 of the present Opinion. For reasons similar to those explained in Footnote 1 in relation to Dr. Osgood’s original application it has been judged more convenient in preparing this Opinion to insert the text of the above letter in its original chronological position. OPINION 417 13 of three genera of the Order Carnivora (Class Mammalia) published by Brisson in 1762 in the Regnum animale should be postponed until after a decision had been taken by the Commission on the status of generic names published in that work. As explained in the note (file Z.N.(S.) 177) which he (Commissioner Hemming) had published 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 belonging to the same Order which had first been published by Oken in 1815—1816 in his Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte. The names were of importance in 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 complied with the requirements of proviso (5) to Article 25 (requirement that an author must in any given work have applied the principles of binominal (formerly ‘“‘ binary’’) nomenclature). An application for a ruling on the question of the availability of names first published in Oken’s Lehrbuch had been submitted to the Com- mission (file Z.N.(S.) 153) by the late Dr. Wilfred H. Osgood, of Chicago, but had not yet been published in the Bulletin. This work contained new names in a wide range of groups in the Animal 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 published 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 zoologists in his forthright criticisms of the slowness of the work of the Com- mission and, as it seemed to him, of the lack of vision and courage displayed by the Commission in the past, had expressed the view that the manner and spirit in which the Commission tackled the difficult problem presented by Oken’s Lehrbuch would be looked upon by many zoologists as the touchstone of the capacity of the Commission to deal with difficult problems. From the point of view of reassuring progressive American ‘zoologists regarding the capacity of the Com- mission 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 application submitted by the late Dr. Wilfred H. Osgood (U.S.A.) for a ruling on the availability under Proviso (6) to Article 25 of names first published by Oken, 1816, Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte (file Z.N.(S.) 153) ; 14 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (2) to invite 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). 8. Completion by Mr. Francis Hemming in August 1950 of the draft of the Report on the present application asked for by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 and initiation of further discussions with specialists : In the period immediately following the close of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology in August 1948 the entire resources of the Office of the International Commission were devoted for some eighteen months to the preparation and publication of the Official Record of the Meetings of the International Commission during its Paris Session and of the Section on Nomenclature of the Paris Congress. Accordingly, it was not until 1950 that it was possible for the Secretary to turn his attention to the present and other cases on which he had been invited by the Paris Congress to submit special Reports. By August 1950, however, Mr. Hemming had completed his Report on the present case. In this Report he reached the conclusion that for the reasons there stated Oken did not apply the principle of binominal nomenclature in his Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte and therefore that new names in that work did not acquire the status of avail- ability under the Rég/es in virtue of having been published therein. Mr. Hemming did not at that time sign the Report which he had prepared, thinking it better first to seek the views of interested specialists on the question whether it would be desirable that some at least of the names published in this work should be validated by the Commissicn under its Plenary Powers. The specialists so consulted included the following :— (a) Dr. Angel Cabrera (La Plata, Argentina) : On 20th July 1950, Dr. Angel Cabrera addressed a letter to the Office of the Commission strongly urging OPINION 417 15 the rejection of Oken’s Lehrbuch and referring to a paper published in 1949 in which he advocated that course. Dr. Cabrera’s letter is reproduced in the immediately following paragraph of the present Opinion. (b) Dr. George Gaylord Simpson (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) : On 24th August 1950, Dr. George Gaylord Simpson wrote as follows :— The proposal to issue the Opinion invalidating Oken’s Lehrbuch simultaneously with decisions validating selected names from that work seems to me an excellent and practical idea... I used some of these names in my Classification of Mammals, and in general might hope that the nomen- clature used there will survive as far as possible. (c) Dr. W. I. Follett (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.) : On 19th January 1951, Dr. W. I. Follett wrote intimating his willingness to examine the names used for genera of fishes in Oken’s Lehrbuch. As a first step Dr. Follett invited Mr. Norman J. Wilimovsky to make a special study of this question. 9. Comment received in 1950 from Dr. Angel Cabrera (La Plata, Argentina) : On 20th July 1950, Dr. Angel Cabrera (La Plata, Argentina) addressed the following letter to the Secretary setting out his views on the question of the status under the Régles of Oken’s Lehrbuch :— On the question of the status of names in Oken, 1815—1816, ‘** Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte ’’ 3 (Zoologie)® By ANGEL CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (Extract from a letter dated 20th July 1950 from Dr. CABRERA to the Secretary to the Commission I have read very attentively the fourth volume of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The question about the names in Oken’s 6 When this letter was originally published, it appeared as Appendix 3 to the Report by Mr. Hemming which is reproduced in paragraph 13 of the present Opinion. For reasons similar to those explained in Footnote | in relation to Dr. Osgood’s original application it has been judged more convenient in preparing this Opinion to insert the text of the above letter in its original chronological position. 16 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Lehrbuch interests me very much. I received some time ago your request regarding my paper on this subject, but unfortunately I had not myself a copy of this paper and was therefore forced to ask for one from Mexico, where it was published seven years ago (in Ciencia 4 (Nos. 4-5) published on 20th October 1943). My reasons for rejecting Oken’s names are similar in every way to those advanced by Hershkovitz in 1949 (J. Mammal. 30 : 289—301). The following is a translation of a part of my paper :— Though this book [Oken’s Lehrbuch] was published in 1816, naturalists in general ignored Oken’s names until 1902, when J. A. Allen gave a list of those which, in his opinion, ought to be accepted in Mammalogy. He did not do so, however, without giving the warning that Oken was “erratic and irregular in nomenclatorial matters’’ and that his manner of naming animals was “ sadly defective when tried by the nomenclatorial uses of today’’. From that date, however, North American zoologists began to use these names, and their example was soon followed by the Europeans. A noteworthy exception was Paul Matschie (1904), who rejected them on the ground that Oken never followed the true binary nomen- clature, a very important opinion, coming, as it did, from a fellow- countryman of the author under criticism. Many years afterwards, when studying the nomenclature of the apes, Stiles and Orleman (1927) expressed the same views... As said by Stiles and Orleman, the author of a book or publication must be “ consistently binary and consistently binominal”’ in order that the names in his book may be accepted. Indeed, if an author does not practise binary and binominal nomenclature, it would be absurd to accept one or two of his names, merely because they are accidentally formed of two words. This being so, it is not possible to consider Oken as an author applying the principles of binary nomenclature in his Lehrbuch .. . Some of Oken’s genera (Gattungen) have a name composed of two words in violation of the principle established by Linnaeus and now embodied in Article 8 of the Régles. Among the genera of fishes, there is one named ‘‘ Regalecus lanceolatus’”’ and another has as its name ‘‘ Lepidopus goranensis”’. Many of the genera have not even a technical name, being cited only under the vernacular German name, such as ‘‘ Schlenderschwanz’’ among reptiles and ** Muffer ’? among mammals. In the genus “‘ Lepidopus goranensis ”’ there is found a species named “ Botrichthys sinensis”’, whereas the name of another is “‘ Botrichthoides oculatus”’. The genus of reptiles ‘“‘ Schlenderschwanz’”’ include the species “‘ Stellio Lacerta caudiverbera’’, ‘* Stellio fimbriatus”’ and ‘“‘ Stellio tetradactylus”’, while later another genus is named Ste//io and contains other different species ... Oken’s specific names are frequently binominal, but many of them are trinominal and even plurinominal. Thus, the orang-outang appears as “* Faunus indicus, rufus”. If we do not see here a trinominal denomination, we shall be forced to regard this OPINION 417 17 expression not as a name at all, but as an abbreviated description such as those used by Seba, Brisson, etc. In the genus Cercopithecus, we find similar instances ; among its species there is a “‘ Cercopithecus angolensis major’’, a ‘‘ Cercopithecus angolensis alius’’ and a “* Simia nigra magnitudinis mediae’’. Other examples given in my paper are the same as those pointed out by Hershkovitz. To sum up, I conclude by saying that Oken’s nomenclature “‘is merely an irregular mixture of generic names, sometimes in Latin and sometimes in German, indistinctly composed of one or of two words, with specific names as often binominal as uninominal or polynominal. It is impossible, in my opinion, to use the names belonging to such a system of nomenclature, if we reject those given by Frisch, Gronow or Catesby. To accept these names as valid, in clear breach of the principles of Article 25 of the Régles Internationales, would be to declare the futility of the Régles themselves or, at least to agree with those that ignore them ”’. 10. Publication in 1952 of an appeal by the Secretary to specialists for advice : In the winter of 1951/1952, Mr. Hemming decided to publish in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature a series of brief Reports on each of the cases which had been referred to him for study by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948. These Reports were published on 15th April 1952. The Report on the present case was as follows (Hemming, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 195—196) :— Case 1: Status of names published in Oken (L.), [1815—1816], ** Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte ”’ 3. A comprehensive Report on the status of names, as published in 1815—1816 in the Zoologie volume of Lorenz Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte, has been prepared in consultation with interested specialists and will be published in an early Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.? In addition, steps are being taken to obtain from specialists their views as to which of the Oken names ought in the interest of stability and for the purpose of avoiding confusion, to be preserved with priority as from Oken in the event of its being decided that from the nomenclatorial standpoint Oken’s Lehrbuch is not an acceptable work. It would be particularly helpful if specialists in as many groups as possible would co-operate with the Commission by sending statements of their views on the foregoing subject, so far as concerns names of genera and/or species in their own groups. Such information will be of great value, in whichever sense the International Commission answer the question raised in the present case, for, if it is decided that the Lehrbuch is an acceptable work, it will be possible at once to place on the Official List generic names so submitted by specialists. * The Report here referred to is reproduced in paragraph 13 of the present Opinion. 18 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 11. Comments from Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London), Mr. Francis Hemming (London) and Dr. Angel Cabrera (La Plata, Argentina) elicited by the appeal for advice issued to specialists by the Secretary in 1952: The appeal for advice addressed to specialists in the note published in 1952 (paragraph 10 above) elicited the following communications :— (a) Comment by Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London) (statement furnished under cover of a letter dated 21st April 1952) : The invalidation of Oken’s 1815—1816 work is immaterial to hemipterists since all the generic names listed are of prior origin. No nomenclatorial changes will be necessary whether this work is accepted or not. (b) Comment by Mr. Francis Hemming (London) (letter dated Ist June 1952): So far as the nomenclature of the butterflies is concerned, Oken’s Lehrbuch is not of importance. There are few new generic names in this work in this group and without exception those names are already invalid for other reasons. There are therefore no Oken names in current use in the butterflies. If there had been such names, I should certainly have advocated their validation by the Commission under its Plenary Powers in accordance with the procedure laid down for adoption in such cases by the International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 65, Point (3)(111)), a procedure which appears to me to be of great value for promoting stability in nomenclature and avoiding vexatious and unnecessary name-changing. (c) Comment by Dr. Angel Cabrera (La Plata, Argentina) (statement dated 22nd June 1952)8: Both as a mammalogist and as a member of the International Commission, I am openly against all and every one of the Mammal names in Oken’s Lehrbuch. This book has been deemed unavailable for nomenclatorial purposes by Matschie, by Stiles and Orleman, and by myself, and as to the names of Mammalia in it, they have been thoroughly discussed by Herschkovitz (1949, Journ. Mamm. 30 : 289), who arrives to the same negative results. A significant fact about these 8 The statement here reproduced is in the nature of a supplement to the comment furnished by the same specialist in July 1950, reproduced in paragraph 9 of the present Opinion. OPINION 417 19 names is that they were apparently ignored by every specialist until 1902, when J. A. Allen (Bull. amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 16 : 373) revived several of them, although, curiously enough, he considered Oken’s peculiar nomenclature to be “ erratic and irregular’. JI am quite in accordance with all the Herschkovitz’s conclusions. Moreover, about the suggested possibility of preservation of some names “ with priority as from Oken’”’, I can’t see how we can include in Zoological Nomenclature a name as from a book nomenclatorially unavailable without incurring an absurd contradiction. If a work is declared unavailable for nomenclatorial purposes and we use the names published in it, in order “‘ to avoid confusion’? or under any other pretext, what does “ un- availability’? mean and where is the utility of that declaration ? 12. Comment by the Committee on Zoological Nomenclature of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists : On 12th June 1953, Dr. W. I. Follett (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.) transmitted to the Office of the Commission a report dated 5th June 1953 on the status of names in Oken’s Lehrbuch which at his request (paragraph 8(c) above) had been prepared by Mr. Norman J. Wilimovsky (Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A.). In this report Mr. Wilimovsky recommended (a) that Oken’s Lehrbuch “ be ruled unavailable from a nomenclatorial standpoint’ and (b) that “‘any new generic names which properly date from this particular work by Oken and which are in long established use be placed on the list of nomina conservanda’”’. In forwarding this report, which is reproduced below, Dr. Follett added that the recommendations embodied in it “ are hereby adopted as those of the Committee on Zoological Nomenclature of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists ’? :-— Report on the status of names in Oken’s °** Lehrbuch ”’ Herewith is the report on Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte. I have spent a very considerable time going over your typewritten copy of this rare volume. The task has not been as simple as we first suspected. Any simple check of the italicized names contained in Oken with some standard nomenclature such as Neave did little to answer any question whether or not this work should be retained from a nomenclatorial point of view. 20 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Volume Three of Oken’s Lehrbuch comprises the fishes. His nomenclatorial style is somewhat confusing. Even the rather helpful paper of J. A. Allen (1902, Bull. amer. Mus. nat. Hist., 14 : 373—379) which gives some insight as to the nomenclatorial technique of Oken did not solve important points as whether an italicized word was meant as a generic name or merely a common name. Oken’s work, in my estimation, is not consistently binomial, but this problem of binomiality does not compare with the difficulty in determining whether a series of names, some italicized and some not, is meant as a series of common descriptive terms or whether Oken is introducing a set of alternate generic and/or specific names as he sometimes did. Oken’s 1816 Lehrbuch contains about 295 generic names. Of these, some 17 (or almost 6 per cent.) are emendations for other generic names proposed therein for the first time. Apparently, some 19 names are proposed for the first time. These 19 generic names, or about 64 per cent. of the total nomenclatorial content, are those with which we are primarily concerned, and should be the basis upon which we decide whether or not to retain this particular work of Oken’s as nomenclatorially valid. Under the principle of priority the retention of Oken’s work would mean changing a number of well-established generic terms. For example, the genus Pholis would require another name as we now understand it. On the other hand, a number of generic names which are currently well established were originally proposed by Oken (i.e., Bodianus, Lampetra, Lonchiurus), although several of these terms are currently ascribed to other authors. In many instances, the contents of the genera as “‘ defined ’’ by Oken are not comparable to our current viewpoints regarding these genera. Therefore, in view of this situation, I respectfully recommend to you that you suggest to the International Commission that Oken’s 1816 Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte be ruled unavailable from a nomenclatorial standpoint. Secondly, I suggest that any new generic names which properly date from this particular work by Oken and which are in long established use be placed on the list of nomina conservanda. This latter action of course will require that the list of new generic terms proposed in this work be reviewed by a panel of “specialists”. If this latter action is deemed advisable, I shall be most happy to furnish a list of those generic names which I believe were proposed for the first time in this work. I have purposely refrained from mentioning too many of the generic names in Oken’s book for obvious reasons. 13. Report submitted by Mr. Francis Hemming in response to an invitation by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 : The present case was reviewed in the early part of 1954 by Mr. Francis Hemming, who concluded (a) that, having regard to the fact that nearly two years had elapsed since the OPINION 417 2h publication of his appeal to specialists for advice, it was likely that the comments received constituted a representative sample of opinion among zoologists regarding the status of Oken’s Lehrbuch and (b) that, although, if it had been practicable, it would have been advantageous for the Commission to deal simultaneously with (i) the status of the above work and (ii) the validation, if that work were to be rejected, of any generic names in it that were in common use, the adoption of this procedure in the present case would greatly increase the considerable delay which had already occurred in obtaining a decision from the Commission on the central issue involved, namely, whether generic names published in Oken’s Lehrbuch were to be accepted as having acquired the status of availability under the Régles by reason of having been so published. Accordingly, Mr. Hemming proceeded to complete the Report, the first draft of which he had prepared in 1950 (paragraph 8 above). The Report so com- pleted, which was signed by Mr. Hemming on 9th March 1954, was as follows :— Report on the status of new names published in Oken, [1815—1816], ‘‘ Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte ”’ By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Reference : Official Record of Proceedings of the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 13) I. Introductory In pursuance of the request addressed to me by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the third of their Meetings held during their Paris Session on Monday 26th July 1948 (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 13), I submit herewith for the consideration of the Commission and of interested zoologists generally the following Report on the question of the status of new names published in Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte, Volume 3 (Zoologie), issued in two Abtheilungen, of which the first (‘‘ Fleischlose Thiere ’’, pp. xxviii, 842, xviii, iv, 40 pls.) appeared in 1815 and the second (‘‘ Fleischthiere ”’, xvi, 1270 [2], 1 tab, with pp. 843—SO supplementary to Abth. 1) in 1816. 2. An authoritative statement on the status of new names in the Lehrbuch is long overdue, for there has been great diversity of practice among zoologists in regard to this matter, specialists in some branches (particularly in mammalogy) having in recent decades taken to using some or all of these names, while specialists in other groups have 22 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS largely ignored this work. The late Dr. Wilfred H. Osgood of Chicago therefore rendered a valuable service when in 1944 he invited the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to give an authoritative ruling on this subject. 3. It was evident from the outset that considerable difficulties must be anticipated, whatever the decision taken by the Commission. If the Commission were to rule that in the Lehrbuch Oken had complied with the requirements of the Régles, a great deal of work would be involved in many groups in determining the application of the numerous names which would then be seen to possess availability either as generic or subgeneric names and, in view of the early date of the Lehrbuch, there was every likelihood that this investigation would show that some, possibly many, of the Oken names were appplicable to, and were the oldest names for, genera for which later names were in common use. If, on the other hand, the Commission were to rule that in the Lehrbuch Oken had not complied with the requirements of the Régles, then also it was evident that well-known genera currently known by Oken names would be found to require new names under the Law of Priority. In either case therefore it was certain that important issues affecting the stability of nomenclature were involved in the status to be accorded to names published in the Lehrbuch. 4. At the time when Dr. Osgood submitted his application, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for the Commission to reach a conclusion on this matter, for a large part of the arguments which had been advanced for and against the acceptance of Oken’s names turned on the meaning to be attached to the expression ‘“‘ nomenclature binaire ’’ which then figured in Proviso (6) to Article 25. This latter problem, which formerly had been the cause of much controversy, was, at the time of the receipt of Dr. Osgood’s application, sub judice, the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Lisbon in 1935 having decided that it was essential that this matter should be settled once and for all at the next (Thirteenth) International Congress and having, to this end, instructed the Commission to prepare a comprehensive Report on this subject for consideration by the Thirteenth Congress. ¢ 5. The question of the meaning of the expression “‘ nomenclature binaire ’’, the settlement of which was—as already explained—a pre- requisite to the consideration of the status of Oken’s Lehrbuch names was disposed of by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology in Paris in July 1948. On the unanimous recommendation of the Commission, with the equally unanimous support of the Section on Nomenclature, the Congress, after ruling that the foregoing expression had a meaning identical with that of the expression “‘ nomenclature binominale ”’, decided to delete from Proviso (6) to Article 25 (and also from Article 26) the expression “‘nomenclature binaire”’ and to replace it by the expression ‘‘ nomenclature binominale ”’ (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 63—66). At the same time the Congress recognised that, where under the foregoing clarification of the Reégles, OPINION 417 23 it became evident that a given book did not satisfy the requirements of Article 25, rapid use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers would be needed to prevent instability from arising in the nomenclature of any group in which names first published in the book concerned were in common use. For this purpose, the Congress decided that in such cases the prescribed period of waiting might be waived by the Commission which should therefore be free at once to act for the purpose of preventing well-known names from being discarded in favour of names hitherto treated as synonyms (see Proceedings of the Commission, Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 13(3)(a)(111), published in 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 65). 6. Later during its Paris meeting the Thirteenth Congress approved also a recommendation that words should be inserted in the Régles making clear the meaning of the expression “‘ les principes de la nomen- clature binominale ”’ as used in Proviso (b) to Article 25 (as amended earlier during the Congress). As so clarified, Proviso (b) to Article 25 provides that, in order to qualify as having applied “les principes de la nomenclature binominale”’ in any given work, an author must have consistently applied those principles in the book in question and not merely in a particular section or passage (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 175). The purpose, and the effect, of this clarification of Article 25 is to make it clear that, when an author who does not use a binominal system of nomenclature nevertheless here or there in a given work applies to some species a name which, by reason of consisting of two words only, happens to constitute a binominal combination, the name in question is not to be treated as acquiring availability under the Régles. 7. The late Dr. Osgood’s application regarding the status of names published in Oken’s Lehrbuch was considered by the Commission at the third of its meetings held on Monday, 26th July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 365—366). In the discussion which then took place stress was laid upon the importance and urgency of the problem submitted by Dr. Osgood. It was then explained that the application had not been published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 365) ; nor has it since been published, as it was considered that it would be more convenient if publication were to be delayed until the present Report was also available. It is now annexed as Appendix I.° At the Paris meeting it was felt that a further opportunity for study was desirable, in which to examine the situation anew in the light of the decisions that had just been taken to amend and clarify Proviso (b) to Article 25. The situation was complicated both by the diversity of practice among zoologists in different parts of the Animal Kingdom and by the fact that, owing to its rarity, relatively few zoologists had had an opportunity of studying Oken’s Lehrbuch at first hand. The Commission therefore agreed (a) to take into consideration Dr. Osgood’s application in regard to Oken’s Lehrbuch as soon as possible after the close of the Paris Congress, and (b), for the purpose of facilitating that consideration, to invite the ® See Footnote 1. 24 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Secretary to confer with specialists on the question of the practice (whether acceptance or rejection) adopted in their respective groups, and to submit a Report thereon. If. On the question whether in the ‘‘ Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte ”’ Oken consistently applied the principles of binominal nomenclature 8. In the early part of 1944, shortly before the receipt of Dr. Osgood’s application in regard to the status of names in Oken’s Lehrbuch, I had occasion myself to investigate this matter in connection with a proposal submitted to the Commission by the late Dr. C. W. Stiles that the names of genera of the Order Carnivora from species of which had been reported parasites common to Man should, because of their importance from the point of view of Public Health, be added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. For among the names which thus became candidates for admission to the Official List there were three Oken names (Genetta Oken ; Grison Oken ; Tayra Oken).'° At that time the principal scientific libraries had been evacuated from London to avoid risk of destruction by air-raids and it was therefore not possible for me personally either to examine the entries in Oken’s Lehrbuch in regard to the foregoing names or to review the conclusions in regard to the status to be accorded to that work which I had formed when before the outbreak of war I had had occasion to consider this question in the course of my survey of the generic names of the butterflies. There was, however, as I knew, a copy of the Lehrbuch in the library of the Zoological Museum, Tring, and I accordingly sought the assistance in this matter of Dr. Karl Jordan, at that time the President of the International Commission. Dr. Jordan at once undertook to investigate this matter and in a letter dated 10th June 1944 he very kindly furnished a detailed Report. This Report is annexed to the present Report as Appendix 2.4 At the same time I took the view that the general problem of the status of new names published in Oken’s Lehrbuch (which had been raised by Dr. Osgood) and the particular problem of how to stabilise the names of the three genera of Carnivora from which parasites common to Man had been reported and for which names had been published by Oken in the Lehrbuch (which had been raised by the late Dr. Stiles) were of such importance that they should at once be brought to the attention of interested specialists, even though the war conditions then obtaining would inevitably render such a consultation only preliminary in character. I accordingly prepared a short note on this subject, which, however, owing to the long delays in printing inevitable at that time was not actually published until July 1945 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 112—113).?° 9. The general character of Oken’s Lehrbuch is well illustrated by the analysis given by Dr. Jordan of the treatment accorded by Oken to what he called the first genus (1 Gattung) of his fifth tribe (5 Sipp- schaft). The genus is divided into six groups ; no Latin name is applied 10 See paragraph 5 of the present Opinion. 11 See paragraph 4 of the present Opinion. OPINION 417 25 to the genus which has for its title only the German word “‘ Muffer ”’. Of the six groups into which the genus is divided four are headed both by a vernacular name and by a Latin noun, one is headed by a vernacular name (Stunk) and by two Latin nouns (Mephitis and Viverra), while the third group has only a vernacular name (Iltis). When we come to examine the terms applied to species (Arten), we find an equal lack of consistency of treatment. In the first group (Meles, Dachs) of the genus, each of the three species recognised is given an apparently binominal name, the first part of which consists of the word Meles. When we come to the second group (Stunk, Mephitis, Viverra), we find that each of the three species recognised is given a vernacular German name only (Zweistreifiger St. ; Fiinfstreifiger St. ; Einstreifiger St.). Finally we have to note that each species is in turn subdivided, the appellations given to these subdivisions being of every possible variety, e.g. (a) vernacular names such as Teufelskind ; (5) a vernacular word followed by a Latin noun (which may be either a generic name or a univerbal Latin specific name in the manner of Gesner and other writers of the pre-1758 age), an example of this kind being provided by the second subdivision of the first species of the second group (Stunk) of the genus “‘ Muffer’’, where we find the entry “‘ Yaguare, Zorills, Muffer ’’ ; (c) a Latin binominal name such as Gulo quitensis (first species, third subdivision) ; and (d) a Latin trinominal name such as Putorius americanus striatus (second species, first subdivision). 10. The examples cited above show (1) that the sytem of nomen- clature used by Oken in his Lehrbuch is utterly lacking in consistency ; (2) that it consists of the random use of Latin words and vernacular German words for the various categories recognised ; (3) that even if the terms applied to the genus (Gattung) and species (Arten) are dis- regarded, there is abslutely no consistency in the use of the terms employed to denote the units into which the various species are sub- divided, it being apparently pure chance whether (i) a vernacular German word or (ii) such a word cited in conjunction with a Latin noun or (iii) a binominal combination of the Linnean type or (iv) a trinominal of the pre-1758 kind is used to denote the taxonomic unit in question. 11. In these circumstances I have no hesitation in reporting that in Volume 3 (Zoologie) of the Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte Oken did not apply “‘les principes de la nomenclature binominale’’. Accordingly, no name appearing in the above volume of the Lehrbuch acquired any availability under the Rég/es in virtue of having been so published. 12. I have further to add that, prior to the clarification of Proviso (d) to Article 25 of the Régles by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology in Paris in 1948, the question of the availability of the names in Oken’s Lehrbuch was examined by a number of authorities who rejected the claims advanced in favour of those names by Allen (J.A.) (1902), notwithstanding the fact that, before the Paris Congress, the presence in Proviso (5) of the ambiguous expression ‘* nomen- clature binaire’’ offered some scope for the defence of those names, 26 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS which has disappeared now that that expression has been replaced by the unequivocal expression ‘‘ nomenclature binominale’’. These authorities include: (1) Stiles (C.W.) & Orleman, 1927, Hyg. Lab. Bull. 145 ; (2) Cabrera (A.), 1943, Cienca 4 (Nos. 4—5) ; Hershkovitz (P.), 1949, J. Mammal. 30 : 289—301. Of these authorities Dr. Cabrera, who is himself a member of the Commission, has kindly furnished me with a supplementary statement of his views, together with extracts from the salient portions of his paper of 1943. This statement is annexed to the present Report as Appendix 3.1? III. On the effects of alternative treatments to be accorded to the names published in Volume 3 (Zoologie) of Oken’s ‘Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte’’ on_ stability in nomenclature 13. The late Dr. Osgood pointed out that a number of names which first appeared in volume 3 (Zoologie) of Oken’s Lehrbuch der Natur- geschichte had come to be commonly accepted for well-known and important genera, instancing in this connection in the Class Mammalia the names Cite/lus Oken (for the very large group of ground squirrels of Asia and America), Panthera Oken (as a subgeneric name for the large cats, including the lion, the tiger, the leopard and others) and Thos Oken for the jackals.4% Dr. Osgood himself (as he made clear in his letter to me of 13th September 1944, an extract from which is appended to his application) was strongly opposed to the acceptance of Oken’s names but his references to the generic names cited above, coupled with the concluding remarks in his application, where he referred to the Commission’s Plenary Powers, suggests that he had in mind that the Commission, when rejecting Oken’s Lehrbuch, should make use of its Plenary Powers to preserve those of Oken’s names which had taken deep root in the literature of mammalogy. 14. If such were in fact the ideas which Dr. Osgood had in mind, he only anticipated by a few years the view widely held and strongly expressed both within the Commission and in the general body of the Section on Nomenclature of the Paris and Copenhagen Congresses that means should be found for preventing decisions on purely technical nomenclatorial matters from having the effect of upsetting well- established names. It was indeed because the Paris Congress recognised that the declaration against the availability of non-binominal works that had hitherto been accepted (in whole or in part) on the ground that the nomenclature used therein, though not ‘ binominal’’ was “binary ’’ and therefore acceptable under the Régles might in some cases lead to the upsetting of well-known names that it took the action already described (paragraph 5) for simplifying the procedure to be followed by the Commission when using its Plenary Powers for the 12 See paragraph 9 of the present Opinion. 13 See paragraph 1 of the present Opinion. 14 See paragraph 2 of the present Opinion. OPINION 417 pF | purpose of validating generic names found to be invalid consequent upon the final rejection of the argument that the expression “* nomen- clature binaire’’ possessed a wider meaning than the expression **nomenclature binominale’’. 15. Oken’s Lehrbuch being, in my opinion, a book which must be rejected as not satisfying the requirements of Proviso (b) to Article 25 (paragraph 11), it is necessary to consider whether any of the Oken names which, on the foregoing argument, are seen to be unavailable are nevertheless in such widespread use as to call for preservation under the Plenary Powers. This is a matter on which, for each group of the Animal Kingdom, only the specialists in that group are qualified to express an opinion. In the case of mammalogy it is already evident, however, that some authorities would be strongly opposed to the elimination of certain well-known Oken names now commonly used for important genera. Among these may be numbered first the late Dr. Osgood himself who would certainly have objected to the elimina- tion of the names Citellus, Panthera and Thos (paragraph 13). Second, Mr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (Deputy Keeper, Department of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History), London), with whom and Dr. Edward Hindle (Scientific Director, Zoological Society of London) I had correspondence in 1946 and 1947 regarding the name Pan Oken as applied to the chimpanzee, has expressed himself as strongly opposed to the entire elimination of Oken’s generic names for mammals. The relevant part of Mr. Morrison-Scott’s letter is annexed to the present Report as Appendix 4.1° As will be there noted, Mr. Morrison-Scott points out that some of Oken’s generic names have been accepted in such important works as Allen (G.M.), 1939, Checklist of African Mammals and Simpson (G.G.), 1945, The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals. 16. Where a book fails to satisfy the requirements of Article 25, but the names in it are in general use or, if not all in use, can readily be assigned to their appropriate position in synonymy, it would be possible for the Commission to secure stability in the nomenclature in the group concerned by validating the whole book under its Plenary Powers. Accordingly, any name in such a book which was the oldest available name for a given genus would become the valid name for that genus, while names applicable to genera, for which there were older available names would disappear in synonymy. Theoretically, it would be possible for the Commission, if it so thought fit, to deal with Oken’s Lehrbuch in this manner, that is, to validate it under the Plenary Powers. In fact, however, the adoption of this course would cause as much instability in nomenclature as would the disappearance of the Oken names, for the Lehrbuch would then need to be examined systematically, page by page, by specialists in all groups in the Animal Kingdom, since, although some Oken names have been brought into use, there are many more names included in the Lehrbuch which have 15 See paragraph 6 of the present Opinion. 28 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS been completely ignored and which it would then be necessary to take into account. This would be an extremely complicated and difficult task in view of the utter lack of consistency shown by Oken in the terminology applied by him to the species described in the Lehrbuch. This is well illustrated by the example given in the Report prepared by Dr. Jordan (Appendix 2).1® The virtual impossibility in many cases of determining whether a name was used as a generic name or | was a trivial name printed with a capital initial letter would lead to endless difficulty in determining the status of the names in question, and at times would be virtually certain to lead to such confusion that the use of the Plenary Powers would be necessary to suppress the name in question. Moreover, even if ultimately, with occasional help from the Commission, the generic names employed in Oken’s work could be reduced to some kind of order, there would still remain the difficulty presented at the species level of the treatment to be accorded to the specific names used by Oken, for (as already explained) though many of these are binominal (e.g. Gulo quitensis, the name for one of the sub-units of Species 1 in Division “‘ b’’ of the first genus of the fifth Sippschaft), many also are trinominals (e.g. Putorius americanus striatus, the term applied to the first sub-unit of the second species of the same Division of the genus referred to above). I conclude therefore that any action to be taken by the Commission to secure availability for those of Oken’s generic names which are in common use should certainly not take the form of using the Plenary Powers to validate Oken’s Lehrbuch as a whole, for that course would give rise to more numerous and more serious difficulties than would follow from the rejection of the Lehrbuch under the normal operation of the Régles and would be calculated to cause far greater instability and confusion in nomenclature. 17. If therefore express action is to be taken to prevent the confusion and instability which would follow the elimination in synonymy of certain of Oken’s generic names, that action must, it is suggested, be selective in character and directed exclusively towards meeting the particular ends in view. Fortunately, it is possible in this matter to draw upon the precedent set by the Commission when dealing with the very similar problem presented by the generic names used for insects by Geoffroy (E.L.) in his celebrated Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux Environs de Paris, an admittedly non-binominal work published in 1762, many of the generic names published in which are, however, in general use. The problem presented by this book was considered by the Commission in Paris (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusions 14—16) (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 336—370), and the decision then taken is, I consider, extremely relevant to the consideration of the action to be taken in regard to the Lehrbuch of Oken. The action taken by the Commission as regards Geoffroy’s Histoire abrégée was threefold in character: (1) the Commission 16 See paragraph 4 of the present Opinion. OPINION 417 29 declared that this work did not satisfy the requirements of Article 25 and therefore that names appearing in it were not available under the Régles ; (2) the Commission at once used its Plenary Powers to validate one of the most important names thus found to be invalid (Corixa Geoffroy) ; (3) the Commission placed on record its view that ‘* certain of the generic names published in the foregoing work, being in wide use, should certainly be validated in the interests of stability in nomen- clature’’. In accordance with the last of these conclusions the Commission invited me, as the Secretary to the Commission, to confer with specialists in the various Orders of insects concerned, with a view to “‘ the submission to the Commission ”’ of “* proposals 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 in question, so that, in the light of the state- ments so received, the Commission may validate such of the names concerned as may appear to it to be appropriate’’. The adoption of a similar procedure in the case of generic names published by Oken in his Lehrbuch, when these are found to be in general use, would seem to me to be both highly appropriate and extremely desirable. 18. In addition to the names of the three genera of Carnivora published by Oken on which (as explained in paragraph 8 above) there is an outstanding application by the late Dr. C. W. Stiles, the Commission has had before it for some time an application (Z.N.(S.) 261) submitted by Professor Harold Kirby (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) for the validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic name Stentor Oken, 1815 (Class Ciliophora). In agreement with Professor Kirby, the publication of this application was deferred until it could be published at the same time as the present Report. It is accordingly now published immediately after the present Report.!’ 19. In March 1952 J issued a general appeal to specialists to furnish statements of their views on the question of the availability of names published in Oken’s Lehrbuch and at the same time to furnish particulars of any generic names published by Oken currently in use in their respective groups which, in their opinion, ought to be preserved, if the Commission were to rule that in his Lehrbuch Oken did not satisfy the requirements of Article 25 and therefore that no name published in that work acquired the status of availability in virtue of having been so published (Hemming, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 195—196).18 None of the specialists who responded to the foregoing appeal considered that Oken’s Lehrbuch was a nomenclatorially available work. A number of these specialists, however, furnished particulars relating to individual Oken names in common use for genera _ In their own groups which they recommended should be validated under For the decision of the International Commission in regard to the name Stentor Oken see Opinion 418. 18 The text of the appeal here referred to has been reproduced in paragraph 10 of the present Opinion. 30 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS the Plenary Powers, in order to prevent the disturbance and confusion in nomenclature which would otherwise be inevitable. These applica- tions will be published in the Bulletin as soon as possible. Summary of Conclusions 20. In the light of the evidence examined, and of the considerations advanced in the present Report, I now summarise, as follows, the conclusions which I have formed on the subject of the availability of the names published in the period 1815—1816 in Volume 3 (Zoologie) of Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte :— (1) In Volume 3 (Zoologie) of the Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte which was published in the period 1815—1816, Oken did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature, as required by Proviso (4) to Article 25 of the Régles, as clarified by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (paragraphs 9—10). (2) In consequence of (1) above, no name published by Oken in the foregoing work acquired any status in zoological nomenclature in virtue of having been so published (paragraph 11). (3) In some groups of the Animal Kingdom, e.g. in mammalogy, certain generic names are commonly accepted with priority from Oken’s Lehrbuch. In some cases genera to which these names are applied are well known and of wide distribution. The elimination of the Oken names for these genera would lead to instability and confusion in the nomenclature of the groups concerned (paragraphs 13—15). (4) Availability for the Oken generic names now in common use could be provided by the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers to render Volume 3 of Oken’s Lehrbuch available under the Rég/es and thus to validate en bloc the new names published in that book. The adoption of this course in the case of Oken’s Lehrbuch would, however, be open to strong objection, for the nomenclature employed by Oken in that work is so confused that the grant of availability to that work as a whole would be bound to give rise to numerous and serious difficulties by reason of the large number of names introduced by Oken which have hitherto been ignored (para- graph 16). (5) Availability could be secured for such of Oken’s generic names as are in common use and the disappearance of which in synony- my would give rise to instability and confusion by the selective use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers, in the same way that the Commission has already decided to use those Powers in relation to the parallel case of the generic names published OPINION 417 31 in 1762 by Geoffroy (E.L.) in his Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux Environs de Paris. This is the course which I recommend should now be taken (paragraph 17). FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Secretariat of the Commission : 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, LONDON, N.W.1, England. 9th March, 1954. Appendix 11° Application relating to the status of the names in Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by Dr. Wilfred H. Osgood in May 1944. Appendix 27° On the system of classification used by Oken (L.) in his Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte of 1816. By Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. Appendix 3?! On the question of the status of names in Oken, 1815—1816, Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte 3 (Zoologie). By Angel Cabrera. Appendix 4”? On the question of the use of generic names published in Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte. By T. C. S. Morrison-Scott. 19 This appendix has already appeared in Paragraph 1 of this Opinion. 20 This appendix has already appeared in Paragraph 4 of this Opinion. *1 This appendix has already appeared in Paragraph 9 of this Opinion. 22 This appendix has already appeared in Paragraph 6 of this Opinion. 32 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 14. Publication of Mr. Hemming’s Report and associated documents : Mr. Hemming’s Report, together with the associated documents annexed thereto as Appendices, was published on 11th May 1954 (Hemming, 1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 193— 201 (Report) ; Osgood, 1954, ibid. 9 : 202—203 (application) ; Jordan, 1954, ibid. 9 : 204—206 (technical survey) ; Cabrera, 1954, ibid. 9 : 206—207 (comment) ; Morrison-Scott, 1954, ibid. 9 : 207 (comment)). 15. Comments elicited by the publication of Mr. Hemming’s Report : The publication of Mr. Hemming’s Report elicited comments from three specialists, namely (1) Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Frankfurt a.M.) ; (2) Dr. Philip Hershkovitz (Chicago, Jil.) ; (3) Professor E. Raymond Hall (Lawrence, Kansas)?*. These specialists were all agreed that the system of nomenclature used by Oken in his Lehrbuch did not satisfy the requirements of Article 25 of the Régles. On the question whether names first published by Oken and in common use should be validated by the Commission under its Plenary Powers there was, however, disagreement. Professor Mertens who had himself submitted a recommendation in this sense on behalf of a name published by Oken for a genus belonging to the Class Amphibia”4 considered that Oken names should be validated in suitable cases, while Dr. Hershkovitz and Professor Hall were opposed to the valida- tion of any of Oken’s names, considering that these names should take priority in relation to other names as from the first date subsequent to Oken’s Lehrbuch on which they were validly published. The communications so received are reproduced in the immediately following paragraphs. 16. Comment received from Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Forschungs-Institut und Natur-Museum Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) : In an application relating to the generic name Bombina Oken, 1816 (Class Amphibia) Professor Dr. Robert *3 After the issue of the Voting Paper relating to the present case (see paragraph 20 of the present Opinion) a letter dated 17th December 1954 was addressed to the Commission by Dr. Robert R. Miller (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.), urging that ‘‘ all the names in Oken, 1816, be ruled out if the Commission should decide that this work is unavailable ”’. *4 See paragraph 16 this page. OPINION 417 33 Mertens (Forschungs-Institut und Natur-Museum Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M.) wrote on 20th October 1954 as follows (Mertens, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 132) :— 3. Recently there has, however, been a tendency to reject generic names published by Oken in his Lehrbuch and at the present time the status of that work is under examination in accordance with a request addressed to the Secretary to the International Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 365—366). I agree with the conclusion reached by Mr. Hemming in his Report on this subject (1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 193—201) that Oken did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature in his Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte. It is important therefore that the Commission should now protect the well- known generic name Bombina Oken. 17. Comment received from Dr. Philip Hershkovitz (Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A): On 3rd November 1954, Dr. Philip Hershkovitz (Chicago Natural Museum, Chicage, Illinois, U.S.A.) addressed a letter to the Office of the Commission with which he enclosed a memorandum entitled ** Critical Remarks on the Status of Names in Oken’s Lehrbuch, together with a number of offprints of a paper of his entitled ** Status of Names credited to Oken, 1816’’, which had been published in 1949 (J. Mammal. 30 : 289—301). The following is the text of the first of the foregoing papers, exclusive of the portion which is concerned with the discussion of the names of individual genera of mammals which, though of great interest from the point of view of those names, falls outside the scope of the present case which is concerned only with the general principle involved. The portion so excluded has been transferred to the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 482, relating to the mammal names proposed in Oken’s Lehrbuch, of which it will form one of the basic documents. Critical Remarks on the Status of Names in Oken’s ‘* Lehrbuch ”’ Availability of names published in Oken’s Lehrbuch des Natur- geschichte (1815—1816) has been discussed by Francis Hemming 34 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (9 : 193—201, 1954). His report is summarized in five conclusions (pp. 200—201). Conclusions (1) and (2) point to the lack of status of names published in the Lehrbuch because Oken’s system does not conform to the principles of binominal nomenclature. I agree with these conclusions. Conclusion (3) states that ‘‘ generic names ”’ for certain well-known and widely distributed mammals are commonly accepted with priority from Oken’s Lehrbuch and that the elimination of these names “* would lead to instability and confusion in the nomenclature ”’. This conclusion is ambiguous in some respects and contradictory in others, for the following reasons : (a) Names used by Oken cannot be certified as ‘‘ generic names ”’ according to the Régles in general, and according to Hemming in particular, as shown by him in paragraph 10 (p. 196) of his report in the Bulletin cited above, and in Conclusions (1) and (2) referred to above. (b) In my opinion, instability in nomenclature is an inevitable consequence of the misapplication of a name, and of the use of an improperly constituted name published in a work that does not consistently apply the principles of binominal nomenclature. Con- versely, stability is derived from the correct application of technical names according to Article 25 of the Régles, as clarified. (c) After roundly condemning the Lehrbuch as a virtual Pandora’s box of nomenclatorial confusion and irrationality, the Honorary Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature concludes that the acceptance of certain names from the Lehrbuch implies stability and that their rejection invites instability. It was shown by me in 1949 (Journal Mammal. 30 : 289) that the discard of a// name for mammals attributed to Oken (though not necessarily introduced by him) does not result in confusion and instability. Conclusion (4) given by Hemming states that validation en bloc of names in the Lehrbuch would “‘ give rise to numerous and serious difficulties by reason of the large number of names introduced by Oken which have hitherto been ignored (paragraph 16)’. This is too true. Conclusion (5) recommends that “‘ availability could be secured for such of Oken’s generic names as are in common use and the dis- appearance of which in synonymy would give rise to instability and confusion by the selective use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers .)..07 OPINION 417 35 This conclusion offers a solution for a problem that does not exist. In any case, the remedy offered is worse than the ill imagined. No action of the Commission can change the text of the Lehrbuch to give a semblance of valid generic status to its names. With the exception of Citellus, Pan and Panthera, identical names in current use here- tofore attributed to Oken can be cited without loss of priority from nomenclaturally legitimate sources. ‘‘ Citellus’? and ‘*‘ Pan’ as employed by Oken merit no special consideration. They can be validated from binominal works of later date by suspension of the Régles. No power, including the Plenary Powers of the Commission, can convert the ‘*‘P’’ of Oken into Panthera or into anything else except “‘ P.’’, or possibly ‘“‘ P[ardalis] ’’, as employed by Oken. In Opinion 110 the Commission adopted Lagidium Meyen, 1833 in prefer- ence to “‘ Viscaccia ’’ Oken, 1816, by suspension of the Régles. The Secretary to the Commission now proposes that Oken’s name be given preference by the same device of Rule suspension! Conclusion If stability is gained by validation of certain names attributed to Oken, the names should be validated from authorities employing the principles of binominal nomenclature. The Commission can use its Plenary Powers to suspend Article 25 for the conservation of names that would lose their priority if dated later than 1816. If, however, the Commission uses its powers to suspend the Régles in toto, as would be required for validation of the Lehrbuch or parts of it, the Com- mission would destroy the very source of its own power. 18. Summary and recommendations prepared by Mr. Hemming for consideration by the Commission when voting on the present case : On 22nd November 1954, Mr. Francis Hemming completed the following paper summarising the history of the present case and submitting a recommendation for consideration by the Commission when voting on the present case :— On the status of new names published in Oken’s ‘*‘ Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte ”’ By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Character of Oken’s ‘‘ Lehrbuch ’’ : The character of the nomen- clature used by Oken in his Lehrbuch is clearly shown in the Report by Dr. Karl Jordan*® (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 204—206). This seems to me to leave no doubt on the question of the availability of new names published in Oken’s Lehrbuch, the confused and inconsistent system of nomenclature employed not being consistent with the requirement 2° For Dr. Jordan’s Report see paragraph 4 of the present Opinion. 36 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS in Proviso (a) to Article 25 that, in order that a given book may be accepted as complying with the Régles, the author must in that work have consistently applied the principles of binominal nomenclature. It cannot be said that Oken did this in his Lehrbuch. (2) Views received on the question of the availability of names in Oken’s ‘* Lehrbuch ”’ : Without exception all the zoologists who have submitted statements of their views on the question of the “‘ availability ”’ of Oken’s Lehrbuch are in agreement that in this work Oken did not comply with the requirements of Article 25 of the Régles. Com- munications in this sense have been received from :—(1) Wilfred H. Osgood (Chicago), by whom this matter was first brought to the attention of the Commission (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 202—203) ; (2) Karl Jordan (Tring, England), Honorary Life President of the Commission (Bull. zool. Nomencl 9 : 204—206) ; (3) Commissioner Angel Cabrera (Cuidad Eva Peron, Argentina) (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 206—207) ; (4) The Committee of Zoological Nomenclature of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists ; (5) Com- missioner Robert Mertens (Frankfurt a.M.) ; (6) Commissioner L. B. Holthuis (Leiden) ; (7) Philip Hershkovitz (Chicago). (3) Possible courses before the Commission : If it be accepted that Oken’s Lehrbuch does not satisfy the requirements of the Régles, there are, it seems to me, three possible courses of action open to the Commission, namely :— (a) to rule that the Lehrbuch is not available for nomenclatorial purposes and to leave specialists in the various groups (i) to trace the first work subsequent to Oken in which a name was validly given to the genera and species for which names appear in the Lehrbuch and (11) to ascertain when and in what sense the rejected Oken names were first subsequently used ; (b) to use its Plenary Powers to validate Oken’s Lehrbuch ; (c) to rule that the Lehrbuch is not available for nomenclatorial purposes but to intimate at the same time its willingness to give sympathetic consideration to applications submitted to it for the validation of individual names in the above work which can be shown (a) to be in general use and (b) to be names, the rejection of which would give rise to name-changing with consequent instability and confusion in the nomenclature of the groups concerned. (4) Course (a) (rejection of Oken’s ‘* Lehrbuch ’’ unaccompanied by any further action) : This seems to me to be open to strong objection. Its adoption would throw a heavy and unnecessary burden upon specialists in those groups where Oken names are in use, but, much worse than this, it would inevitably lead to the disappearance of im- portant names which ought in the interests of nomenclatorial stability OPINION 417 37 to be preserved. It would, in my view, be inconsistent with the basic principles underlying the Régles, as laid down in the Preamble prefixed thereto by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copen- hagen, 1953 (Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 22, Decision 19), for the Commission deliberately to act in a way which courted instability and confusion in nomenclature. Moreover, the adoption of Course (a) would run counter to the expressed view of all except one of the special- ists who have communicated with the Commission on this subject. The exception is Hershkovitz (Chicago) who in a paper received on 8th November (i.e. only three days before the expiry of the Prescribed Period of Public Notice) and therefore too late for publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature examined the generic names used by Oken for mammals and expressed the view that, on the rejection of Oken’s Lehrbuch, the genera concerned would bear either the same names, though attributed to different authors and to later dates, or would bear other names now currently used for them. Without expressing a view on the foregoing conclusions beyond observing that they do not tally with views expressed by other mammalogists, it must be noted that in the only other document received in which this aspect of the problem is directly discussed—the report by Wilimovsky sub- mitted by the Committee on Zoological Nomenclature of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists—it is stated that to leave priority to take its course would lead, in the case of the names of fishes, not only to the disappearance of well-established generic names but also in some cases to the introduction as from later authors and later dates of names published by Oken, the nominal genera bearing these later names representing a different concept from that represented by the same names as published by Oken. (5) Course (b) (validation of Oken’s ‘‘ Lehrbuch ’’ under the Plenary Powers): No one has suggested that Oken’s Lehrbuch should be validated under the Plenary Powers, and this possibility is only mentioned here, since on any theoretical analysis of the courses of action which might be adopted by the Commission this is clearly one which ought to be considered, even if only to be at once dismissed. It is only necessary to observe that the validation of Oken’s Lehrbuch would involve not only the validation of the large number of generic names not currently accepted by specialists but also the validation of the very much larger number of specific names first published in this work which are not now in use. The resuscitation of these names would involve name-changing on a very large scale and would certainly cause great confusion. From every point of view, Course (b) may therefore at once be ruled out. (6) Course (c) (rejection of Oken’s ‘‘ Lehrbuch ’’, combined with an intimation by the Commission of its willingness to validate Oken names where necessary in the interests of nomenclatorial stability) : In some groups, for example in the Class Insecta in the Orders Hemiptera (China, in /Jitt., 21st April 1952) and the butterflies (Hemming) Oken’s 38 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Lehrbuch does not present a serious problem, the new generic names introduced in the Lehrbuch being junior synonyms of generic names of older date. In other groups it is far otherwise. For example, in the Class Ciliophora the name Stentor Oken is involved ; in the Class Crustacea, the name Mitella; in the Class Amphibia, the name Bombina ; in the Class Pisces, a number of important names in current use; in the Class Mammalia such names as Pan, Genetta, Panthera, etc. Of the numerous specialists who have expressed opinions on the method to be adopted for preventing the confusion which would result from the disappearance of important Oken names all except one favour the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating important Oken names in current use. These include :—(1) the late Harold Kirby (University of California, Berkeley, Cal.) ; (2) G. Kolosvary (Hungary) ; (3) Dora Priaulx Henry (Seattle) ; (4) L. B. Holthuis (Leiden) ; (5) Robert Mertens (Frankfurt a.M.) ;(6) the Committee on Zoological Nomenclature of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists (W. I. Follett ; Norman J. Wilimovsky ; Charles M. Bogert ; Fred. R. Cagle ; Hobart M. Smith ; Robert C. Stebbins); (7) Ethelwynn Trewavas (British Museum (Natural History)); (8) T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (British Museum (Natural History)); (9) George Gaylord Simpson (American Museum of Natural History, New York) ; (10) J. C. Trevor (University Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge University). The one specialist who holds a different view is Philip Hershkovitz (Chicago) who, while advocating the rejection of the Lehrbuch (a question on which all the specialists concerned are agreed) also advocates (as noted in paragraph (4) above) the rejection without exception of all the names published in that work?®. (7) Course Recommended : For the reasons set out in the Report now submitted (see paragraph 1 above), I recommend that the Com- mission should give a Ruling that in the Zoologie volume of the Lehrbuch Oken did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature and that new names in that work accordingly possess no status in nomenclature in virtue of having been so published. On the question of the procedure to be adopted in relation to generic names in common use with priority as from Oken, it is relevant to recall that in Paris in 1948 the Commission dealt with an exactly similar problem when it considered the treatment to be accorded to important names currently accepted as from non-binominal authors; the Commission then recommended, and the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology so approved, that there should be inserted in Article 25 a provision prescribing a special simplified procedure for the purpose of enabling the Commission rapidly to use its Plenary Powers for the purpose of preserving well-known names published in non-binominal works found to be invalid (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 65). At the same *° Subsequent to the completion of the above paper a communication in a similar sense was received from Professor E. Raymond Hall (Kansas). See paragraph 19 of the present Opinion. OPINION 417 39 Session, the Commission applied the foregoing provision for the » purpose of validating the generic name Corixa Geoffroy, 1762, a name published in the non-binominal work entitled Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux Environs de Paris, and, when dealing with foregoing work as a whole, issued a general invitation to ento- mologists to submit applications for the validation of important names -published in it, at the same time giving an assurance that sympathetic consideration would be given to applications so submitted (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 368—370). The foregoing decisions have since been embodied in Opinion 228 (Geoffroy) and Opinion 281 (Corixa). The procedure for dealing with cases such as the present has thus been already laid down and I recommend that it should now be followed. (8) Draft Ruling submitted : In the light of the foregoing particulars, I submit in the attached Annexe the draft of a Ruling on the present case which I commend to the consideration of the Commission. The wording proposed follows closely that employed in Opinion 228 (case of Geoffroy, 1762). ANNEXE Draft Ruling relating to the status of Oken’s ‘‘ Lehrbuch ”’ submitted for the consideration of the Commission RULING :—(1) In Volume 3 (Zoologie) of the work entitled Okens Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte, published in 1815—18i6, Lorenz Oken did not apply the principles of binominal nomen- clature as required by Proviso (b) to Article 25, as amended by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, and accordingly no name published in the foregoing work acquired the status of availability by reason of having been so published. (2) The title of the foregoing work is accordingly hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature. (3) Specialists in the groups dealt with in the foregoing work are invited to submit to the International Commission on Zoo- - logical Nomenclature applications for the validation under the Plenary Powers of any name published in it, the rejection of which would, in their opinion, lead to instability or confusion in the nomenclature of the group concerned. 40 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 19. Comment received from Professor E. Raymond Hall (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.): On 18th — November 1954, Professor E. Raymond Hall (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) addressed a letter to the Office of the Commission commenting upon the present case and also on the case of the individual name Stentor Oken, 1815 (Class Ciliophora). Though received in the Office of the Com- mission just before the issue to the Commission of the Voting Paper in the present case, Professor Hall’s letter was too late to permit of reference being made to it in the summary then submitted to the Commission (paragraph 18 above). The following is the portion of Professor Hall’s letter which was concerned with the present case :— Receipt of a copy of comments on... the status of names published in Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte as transmitted to you under date of 3rd November 1954, by Philip Hershkovitz?” [Commission Reference Z.N.(S.) 153] prompts me to write that we have re-examined pertinent materials available here, including pages 193—218 of volume 9 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, and that we agree with Hershkovitz. That is to say, we favor dropping such of Oken’s names as are in use in favor of the next available authority or even name. Indeed, we have in practice been doing this. See, for example, our use of Spermophilus instead of Citellus in Univ. Kansas Publ., Mus. nat. Hist. 7 : 483 ; 7 : 543, 1954. Not using Oken, in our view, will be a convenience in mammalogy, and also a means of achieving desirable stability. Ill. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL ~ COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 20. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(54)91 : On 26th November 1954, a Voting Paper (V.P.(54)91) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “the proposal relating to the nomenclatorial status of Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte submitted in the Annexe to the paper by the Secretary [i.e. in the Annexe to the paper reproduced in paragraph 18 of the present Opinion] simultaneously with the present Voting Paper ”’. 27 For Dr. Hershkovitz’s communication see paragraph 17 of the present Opinion. OPINION 417 A] 21. The Prescribed Voting Period : As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 26th February 1955. _ 22. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)91 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54) 91 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty- two (22) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Mertens ; Holthuis ; Hering ; Lemche ; Stoll; Bradley (J.C.); Vokes; Esaki; Jaczewski; Bodenheimer ; Dymond ; Bonnet ; Riley ; Hanké ; Boschma ; Miller ; Key ; do Amaral ; Hemming ; Cabrera (except Ruling (3) ) ; Kuhnelt ; Sylvester-Bradley ; (b) Negative Votes : one (1) (for a portion only) : Cabrera (Ruling (3) only) ; (c) On Leave of Absence : one (1) : Prantl ; (d) Voting Papers not returned : None. 23. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 27th February 1955, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(54)91, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 22 above and declaring that the proposal sub- mitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 42 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 24. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present °*‘ Opinion ”’ : On 2nd March 1956, Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)91. 25. At the time of the submission of the present application the name applicable to the second portion of a binomen was “trivial name’’. This was altered to “specific name” by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, which at the same time made corresponding changes in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of names of this cate- gory. These changes in terminology have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 25. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 27. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Four Hundred and Seventeen (417) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Second day of March, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Six. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING & baad “=~, Printed in England by MrtcaLFe & CoopPER LimiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 14. Part 2. Pp. 43—68 OPINION 418 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Stentor Oken, 1815 (Class Ciliophora) Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1956 Price Seventeen Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 1st September, 1956 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 418 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JoRDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England). President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948). B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BOSCHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Histoire, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R. Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr: Sea Sea (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th uly Professor Teiso EsAk! (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEy (British Museum (Natural History), (London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. DYMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezégazdasagi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (A2th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. HoLttuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KiiHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) hrc F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November OPINION 418 VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE GENERIC NAME “STENTOR ” OKEN, 1815, (CLASS CILIOPHORA) RULING :—(1) The following action is hereby taken under the Plenary Powers :— (a) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby suppressed :— (i) for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy :— («) Eclissa Modeer, 1790 ; (8) Ecclissa Schrank, 1803 ; (y) Linza Schrank, 1802 ; (11) for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy: Stentor Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1812 ; (b) The under-mentioned generic name is_ hereby validated : Stentor Oken, 1815 (a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes) ; (c) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby sup- pressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy :— (i) stentoria Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Hydra stentoria ; (11) stentorea Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Hydra stentorea (an emenda- SEP 9 © 1956 46 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS tion of stentoria Linnaeus, 1758, as pub- lished in the combination Hydra stentoria) ; (d) It is hereby directed that the nominal species Stentor muelleri Ehrenberg, [1832], be inter- preted by reference to the description and figures published therefor by Ehrenberg in 1838 (Die Infusionsth. : 262) ; (e) All type selections for the genus Stentor Oken, 1815, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside and the nominal species Stentor muelleri Ehrenberg, [1832], as defined under (d) above, is hereby designated to be the type species of the foregoing genus. (2) The under-mentioned generic name is_ hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 998: Stentor Oken, 1815, as vali- dated under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b) above (gender : masculine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (1)(e) above : Stentor muelleri Ehrenberg, [1832], as defined under the Plenary Powers under (1)(d) above). (3) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) The three generic names specified in (1)(a)(i) above, as there suppressed under the Plenary Powers (Name Nos. 440 to 442 respectively) ; (b) Stentor Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1812, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (1)(a)(ii) above (Name No. 443) ; (c) Tubaria Thienemann, 1828 (a junior objective synonym of Stentor Oken, 1815) (Name No. 444) ; OPINION 418 47 (d) Stentorella Reichenbach, 1828 (a junior objective synonym of Stentor Oken, 1815) (Name No. 445) ; (4) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 733: muelleri Ehrenberg, [1832], as published in the combination Stentor muelleri and as interpreted under the Plenary Powers under (1)(d) above (specific name of type species of Stentor Oken, 1815). (5) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) The two specific names specified in (1)(c) above, as there suppressed under the Plenary Powers (Name Numbers 312 and 313 respectively) ; (b) solitarius Oken, 1815, as published in the combina- tion Stentor solitarius (a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes) (Name No. 314). I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE The question of the possible use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating the generic name Stentor Oken, 1815 (Class Ciliophora)!, the problem with which the 1 For the decision by the Commission rejecting Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte see Opinion 417 (published in the immediately preceding Part of the present Volume). 48 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS present Opinion is concerned, first formed the subject of corres- pondence between the Secretary and the late Professor Harold Kirby (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) in the summer of 1945. Professor Kirby then intimated that in view of the complexity of the early literature some time would need to elapse before he was in a position to submit to the Commission an analysis of the history of this case. It was agreed in later correspondence between Mr. Hemming and Professor Kirby that the issues involved in the present case should be laid before the Commission simultaneously in two documents, namely: (1) a paper by Professor Kirby dealing with the historical and taxonomic aspects of this case and indicating in general terms the nature of the solution which he desired the Commission to adopt; (2) a brief Report by the Secretary setting out the detailed action which it would be necessary for the Commission to take if it were to approve the solution advocated by Professor Kirby. The paper prepared under this arrangement by Professor Kirby, which was received in the Office of the Commission on 20th April 1950, was as follows :— On the need for validating the name ‘‘ Stentor ’’ Oken, 1815 (Class Ciliophora) for use in its accustomed sense By HAROLD KIRBY (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) Several species of well-known ciliates have for more than a century usually been placed in the genus Stentor, and because of the particular value of these ciliates for research and in class instruction, as well as the frequency with which they come to the attention of microscopists, there is a large literature under the name Stentor. The name has not yet been placed in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Examination of the nomenclatural status of the genus has shown that several points of confusion, hitherto usually ignored, must be cleared up. The name for the genus and its type species should be decisively established as soon as possible by appropriate action by the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 2. The first record of observation of ciliates now included in Stentor was read by Abraham Trembley to the Royal Society of London in 1744 and was published in 1745 in the Philosophical Transactions, 43 : 180 ff. He reported having seen in fresh water animalcula which De Réaumur judged to belong to the general class of Polypi. Part of the OPINION 418 49 paper is devoted to an account of clustering Polypi, which Trembley stated were named by De Réaumur “les Polypes en bouquet ”’ ; these were colonial vorticellids, probably Zoothamnium. Trembley also wrote of small Polypi of a different sort from those that are found in clusters, which De Réaumur thought proper to distinguish by the name of Tunnel-like Polypi. He gave a sufficiently informative account of these animalcula and their manner of division so that it is evident that he dealt with Stentor. He reported being acquainted with three species of these Polypi, which are respectively green, blue, and white. 3. In Employment for the Microscope (1753, pp. 330—334) Henry Baker wrote of Funnel-Animals which he found attached to a parcel of snail’s eggs, and he quoted Trembley’s account, stating in a footnote that he was pleased to find that de Réaumur and Trembley had ideas of the creature so nearly like his own. He gave a figure (pl. 13, fig. 1) which evidently depicts a species of the genus known later as Stentor, though he supplied no sufficient information by means of which one could identify it with St. polymorphus, as did Ehrenberg (1838, Infusionsth, : 263). 4. Figures of an organism of this group were published in 1775 by Rosel von Rosenhof (/nsectenbelust., 3 : pl. 94, figs. 7, 8) who discussed it in the text (:585) under the name “der schallemeynahnliche Affterpolyp’’. The figures represent one of the colorless species, which Ehrenberg (1838, Infusionsth. : 262) considered to the one that he later named St. muelleri; but the species represented by Rdsel cannot actually be identified. 5. The first scientific name given to a ciliate that now belongs to the genus Stentor was Hydra stentoria Linnaeus (1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 817). The name was applied to the representation of the organism by R6sel. Under the name, Linnaeus referred to four of ROsel’s figures (nsectenbel., 3 : pl. 94, figs. 5, 6, 7, 8). Figures 5 and 6 depict a rotifer; Ehrenberg (1838, Infusionsth. : 404) included a reference to them in the synonymy of Lacinularis socialis. Thus the name given by Linnaeus in 1758 was applied both to a rotifer and the ciliate. 6. Linnaeus later (1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 1321) published an emendation of the specific name as stentorea, and under H. stentorea referred to an extended list of references : the accounts by Trembley and Baker and the latter’s figure which I have mentioned ; ROsel’s figs. 7 and 8 (not 5 and 6) ; references by Ledermuller and by Pallas. Linnaeus (1767) referred to Rosel’s figures 5 and 6 under Hvdra socialis. He had evidently restricted his concept of H. stentorea so far as the original reference of 1758 was concerned, to Résel’s figures that actually represented the ciliate. Pallas (1766) used the name 50 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Brachionus stentoreus, with varieties alba, viridis, and caeruleus; he removed the stentorid of Linnaeus to that genus, along with some rotifers and vorticellids. 7. O. F. Miller, recognising that the ciliate dealt with by Linnaeus could not be put in the genera Hydra or Brachionus, included it in Vorticella. Under Vorticella stentorea (1773, Verm. terrest. fluviat. : 111), he quoted the description of Hydra stentorea by Linnaeus. In the genus he also treated of several species that were in Linnaeus’s genus Vorticella, together with a heterogeneous assemblage of ciliates and some rotifers. In this work Miiller dealt with two other stentorid cilliates, which he named Vorticella nigra (op. cit. : 96) and V. poly- morpha (op. cit. : 98). Later (1786, Animalc. Inf. : 262) he described a third species, Vorticella multiformis. _A peritrich dealt with in the latter work is Vorticella versatilis (op. cit. : 281, pl. 39, figs. 14—17). In that peritrich, individuals occur abundantly in the periphery of large, gelatinous masses. 8. Vorticella stentorea was included in the genus Linza Schrank, 1802, by Schrank (1802, 1803). This genus contained the colonial peritrich, then widely known as Ulva pruniformis, which was Miiller’s Vorticella versatilis, and of which the currently used name is Ophrydium versatile; Miiller’s Vorticella flosculosa (1786, Animalc. Inf. : 304, pl. 43, figs. 16—20), which is the colonial rotifer known later as Lacinularia socialis: and Miiller’s Vorticella socialis (op. cit. : 304, pl. 43, figs. 13—15), which is in part also Lacinularia socialis. Schrank’s genus Linza was a complex of a peritrich, a rotifer, and a stentorid ciliate. Neave (Nomenclator Zoologicus) lists Linza as in Rotifera. 9. The stentorids that had been named by Miiller (1786) Vorticella nigra and V. polymorpha were placed by Schrank (1803) in the genus Ecclissa, as E. nigra and E. viridis, along with various species of Miller’s Vorticella. 10. Biitschli (1899 in Bronn, Klass. Ord. Thierreiches, 1 : 1728) listed Ecclissa and Linza spp. Schrank in the synonymy of Stentor. Stein (1876), Organ. In. fusionsth. : 221) had written of the injustice of the neglect suffered by Schrank’s names, but recognised the futility of attempting to revive one or the other of them for the stentorid ciliates. The history of those names is complicated and obscure, and they have never come into use. To complicate the matter still further I find that Lamouroux ef. al. (1824, Hist. nat. Zooph., 2 : 291) refer to the genus Ecclissa established by Ocken [sic] for vorticellids, and to Linze, a genus established by Guettard in sponges. Also there is Eclissa Modeer (A.), 1790, emended in Agassiz (1842—46, Nomenclator Zoologicus) to Ecclissa Modeer, in Vorticellina. 11. These names are associated with the older history of the nomenclature of stentorid ciliates, and so have been discussed, but they OPINION 418 51 are not necessarily important in relation to the present problem. The type of Linza Schrank may be considered to be Vorticella flosculosa Miiller, which is the rotifer Lacinularia socialis ; and that of Ecclissa Schrank may be considered to be one of the peritrichs he included in it. Thus these problems are removed to other groups than that which now concerns us, though it would be well if the Commission used its Plenary Powers to suppress the names Linza Schrank and Ecclissa Schrank, as well as Eclissa Modeer. 12. Oken (1815, Lehrb. Naturgesch., Thiel 3, Abt. 1 : 45) applied the name Stentor to the same group of organisms as that in Schrank’s genus Linza, though he did not refer to that fact. In the genus he gave three species: St. solitarius Oken, 1815 (Vorticella stentorea renamed); St. socialis, which was the rotifer Lacinularia socialis ; and St. pruniformis otherwise known as Ulva pruniformis or Linza pruniformis (Ophrydium versatile). Oken (1815) also listed the genus Ecclissa, with E. nigra (Vorticella nigra) and E. viridis (Vorticella viridis) as the species. Oken had distributed the species within the group we now know as Stentor into two genera, Ecclissa in his listing containing only members of that group, Stentor containing a hetero- geneous assemblage of organisms, one of which belonged to the group in which we are presently interested. 13. The name Stentor Oken, 1815, was preoccupied. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1812, Ann. Mus. Nat. Hist. 19 : 107) had proposed the name Stentor for a genus of South American monkeys, listing six species. For that group of howling monkeys, however, two generic names had already been supplied. Stentor Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1812, is antedated by Alouatta Lacépede, 1799, and by Mycetes Uliger, 1811 (Palmer, 1904, Index generum mammalium, North Am. Fauna, No. 23). Consequently, Stentor has never been in use among mammalogists, and is often neglected even as a synonym, 14. A comparable case is that of Necator Stiles, 1903, which was dealt with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomencla- ture at the 7th Meeting in Paris, July, 1948 (Off. Record Proceedings : 301—302)?._ It was found by Mr. Hemming that the above generic name is a junior homonym of Necator Sclater and Saunders, 1896, an emendation of Nicator, Finsch and Hartlaub, 1870, a genus in the Class Aves. Necator has not been in use by ornithologists, Nicator having always been the name by which the genus is known. At this meeting, the Commission used its Plenary Powers to suppress Necator Sclater and Saunders, 1896, and to validate the generic name Necator Stiles, 1903. * See Opinion 201 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 267—274). 52 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 15. Another aspect of this problem is its relation to a matter that came to the attention of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its 13th Meeting in Paris, July 1948 (Off. Record Proceedings : 365—366). It concerned a proposal that had been made by Stiles for addition to the Official List of Generic Names of three genera of Carnivora first published by Oken (1815—16) in his Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte, and an application by Osgood for a ruling on the question of availability of names first published in Oken’s Lehrbuch. The Commission agreed to take into consideration as soon as possible the question of a ruling on the availability of Oken’s names, and to defer a decision on the application by Stiles for addition of three of Oken’s genera of Carnivora to the Official List until there had been a decision on the availability of those names. 16. Since Stentor Oken, 1915, is a name also published in the Lehrbuch in question, its placement in the Official List of Generic Names is subject to the same consideration. 17. Several other names have been proposed for the ciliates of this generic group. Bory (1824, Lamouroux, Bory de Saint-Vincent, et Eud. Deslongchamps, Enc. méth., Hist. nat. Zooph., 2 : 533, 697) gave the name Stentorina to a genus which included the stentorids which Miller had grouped in Vorticella : V. polymorpha, V. nigra, and V. multiformis. This was the first bringing together of these species into a single independent genus. Bory’s concept of their relationship was obviously far superior to that of Oken. Bory did, however, carry on an error that others had made before him, in giving the names Stentorina roéselii and S. biloba to a rotifer, the one later known as Lacinularia socialis. 18. The generic name Tubaria was proposed by Thienemann (1828, Lehrbuch Zool. : 12), since the name Stentor had been used for a genus of apes by Geoffroy. He gave the species name J. viridis, which, according to Ehrenberg (1838) is Stentor polymorphus. I have not been able to refer to Thienemann’s book, but the name has no signifi- cance for the present nomenclatural problem. 19. Reichenbach (1828, Zoologie in Allg. ‘Taschenb. Naturw., Th. 5, 1:95) substituted the name Stentorella for Stentor Ok. non Geoffr. He did not refer to any species. This name was neglected for more than a century, not even being included in nomenclatorial indices (Agassiz, 1842—46 ; Sherborn, 1902). Recently Bhatia (1936, Fauna Br. Ind., Prot : Ciliophora : 234) noted pre-occupation of Stentor for a genus of Mammalia and adopted instead Srentorella Reichenbach. Bhatia neglected the prior claim of Stentorina, if substitution is to be made, and his proposal to use Stentorella is invalid. 20. Another problem exists in regard to identification of the type species of Stentor Oken, 1815. When proposed, it contained only the OPINION 418 53 one heterotrich St. solitarius Oken, 1815, along with the peritrich and rotifer. St. solitarius is a name supplied as equivalent to Vorticella stentorea Miller, 1773, so stated by Oken. It is also equivalent to Hydra stentoria Linnaeus, 1758. The trail of references occurring in the different authors’ works goes back to Linnaeus. But the same or equivalent names were not necessarily applied to the same organisms, and species identification of the ciliates as named and described by these authors is not possible. 21. Ehrenberg (1832, Abh. Akad. Wiss. Berlin 1831 : 99) substituted the name Stentor muelleri E. for Vorticella stentorea Miiller. A recognisable figure of Stentor muelleri was published by Ehrenberg (1837, op. cit. 1835 : pl. 1, fig. 16). A full, illustrated account of the species was provided by Ehrenberg (1838, Infusionsth. : 262). In that work Ehrenberg listed Stentorina muelleri Bory de Saint-Vincent, 1824 in the synonymy of Stentor muelleri. I have been unable to find that Bory used that name, though he did give Stentorina stentorea for Miiller’s Vorticella stentorea, a fact that Ehrenberg did not refer to in the synonymy in discussion. 22. Ehrenberg (1832, op. cit. : 99) stated that Stentor muelleri was Vorticella stentorea Miiller, and in 1838 he listed St. solitarius Oken in the synonymy of St. muelleri. St. solitarius is the type, being the only ciliate in Oken’s genus Stentor at the time it was proposed. Prior to Ehrenberg’s accounts of 1832, 1837, and especially 1838 itis impossible to tell what species of colourless stentorids are referred to by the names that were given. The description of Stentor muelleri by Ehrenberg can, as Mr. Hemming suggested, be designated by the Commission as that to be accepted for the nominal type species of Stentor Oken, 1815. Since 1830 the specific names of this nominal species, solitarium Oken or the older stentoria or stentorea, have not been in use. It would be undesirable to revive them. The Commission should consider suppress- ing those specific names and designating the type species of Stentor as St. muelleri Ehrenberg, [1832] (Abh, Konig Ak. Wiss. Berlin 1831: 99). 23. There is not complete agreement about the taxonomic status of Stentor muelleri. Stein (1867, Org. Infusionsth. Abt. 2 : 223, 229) maintained that St. muelleri is not more than a colourless form of St. polymorphus (1.e., without zoochlorelle), and placed (: 247) Hydra stentorea L., 1758 ; Vorticella stentorea Miiller, 1773 ; Stentor solitarius Oken, 1815 ; and Stentorina stentorea Bory, 1824 in the synonymy of Stentor roéselii Ehrbg. This species like St. muelleri is colourless and may occur in a gelatinous lorica. Stentor muelleri is recognised, however, in recent literature in protozoology. 24. In his list of proposed Nomina Conservanda Apstein (1915, Sitzungsber. Gesell. Naturf. Freunde Berlin 1915 : 123) included Stentor Oken, 1815, and gave as the representative species (“‘ eine art gennant, fiir welche die Gattung erhalten bleiben soll”) polymorphus 54 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Miill., 1773. However, under Article 30, that species is excluded as the type species of Stentor, since it was not included under the generic name at the time of publication. 25. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is faced with a problem in considering the placing of the name of this important ciliate genus on the Official List of Generic Names. If it is decided that new names in Oken’s Lehrbuch are available, Stentor Oken, 1815, may be preserved by suppression of Stentor Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1812. If it is decided that the new names in Oken’s Lehrbuch are not available, the problem of selecting a name for these ciliates must be considered further. Perhaps Stentorina Bory de Saint- Vincent, 1824, could be adopted, with the type species Vorticella polymorpha Miller, 1773. A change of so well-known and long used a generic name as Stentor should be avoided if possible. References Apstein, C., 1915. Nomina conservanda. Sitzungsbericht der Gesell- schaft naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin, 1915 : 119—202 Baker, Henry, 1753. Employment for the microscope. (London) Bhatia, B. L., 1936. Protozoa: Ciliophora. The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. (London, Taylor & Francis) Bory de Saint-Vincent, J. B., 1824. Mucroscopiques in Lamouroux, Bory de Saint-Vincent, et Eud. Deslongchamps: Histoire naturelle des zoophytes, ou animaux rayonnés, pp. 515—543. Encyclopédie Méthodique. (Paris) Bory de Saint-Vincent, J. B., 1824. Stentorine; Stentorina in Lamouroux, Bory de Saint-Vincent, et Eud. Deslongchamps : Histoire naturelle des zoophytes, ou animaux rayonnés, pp. 697—700. Encyclopédie Méthodique.: (Paris) Ehrenberg, C. G., 1832. Uber die Entwickelung und Lebensdauer der Infusionsthiere ; nebst ferneren Beitragen zu einer Vergleichung ihrer organischen Systeme. Abhandlungen der Koniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1831 : 1—154 Ehrenberg, C. G., 1837. Zusatze zur Erkenntnis grosser organischer Ausbildung in den kleinsten thierischen Organismen. Abhand- lungen der KGniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1835 : 151—180 Ehrenberg, C. G., 1838. Die Infusionsthierchen als vollkommene Organismen. (Leipzig, Leopold Voss.) OPINION 418 55 Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, I., 1812. Tableau des Quadrumanes, ou des Animaux composant le premier Ordre de la Classe des Mammiféres. Annales du Muséum d Histoire Naturelle, 19 : 85—122. Ledermuller, M. F., 1764. Amusement mocroscopique tant pour Pesprit, que pour les yeux. (Nuremberg.) Linnaeus, C., 1758. Systema Naturae, edition decima, Tomus I. (Holmiae) Linné, Caroli, A., 1767. Systema Naturae, ed. duodecima. (Holmiae) Miller, O. F., 1773. Vermium terrestrium et fluviatilium. (Hauniae et Lipsiae) Miller, O. F., 1786. Animalcula infusoria fluviatilia et marina. (Hauniae) 7 Oken, L., 1815: Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte. Dritter Thiel. Zoologique. Erste Abth. Fleischlose Thiere. (Jena, Schmid und Com.) Reichenbach, L., 1828. Zoologie oder Naturgeschichte des Tierreichs. Erstes Bd. in Allgemeine Taschenbibliothek der Naturwissen- schaften, fiinfter Th. (Dresden, Hilschersche Buchh.) R6sel von Rosenhof, A. J., 1755. Der monatlich-herausgegebenen Insecten-Belustigung. 3 : 585—596. Vier fiinf und Sechs und Neunzigste Supplements-tabelle. Der gesellige, keulenformige Affterpolyp. Tab. XCIV, XCV und XCVI Schrank, F. von P. von., 1802. Briefe naturhistorische, physikalische und 6konomische Inhalts an Nau. (Erlangen) Schrank, F. von P. von., 1803. Fauna boica.3 pt. 2. (Niirnberg) Sherborn, C. D., 1931. Index Animalium. pt. 25. (London, British Museum) Stein, F., 1867. Der Organismus der Infusionsthiere. Wi. Abthteilung. (Leipzig, Engelmann) Trembley, Abraham, 1745. Observations upon several newly discovered species of freshwater Polypi. Philosophical Transactions, London. 43 (Numb, 474) : 169—183 56 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 2. Report submitted by Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Commission : Upon the receipt of the paper relating to the generic name Stentor Oken, 1815, reproduced in the immediately preceding paragraph Mr. Hemming prepared the Report which, as has been explained, it had been agreed between Professor Kirby and himself should be submitted to the Commission simultaneously with Professor Kirby’s paper. Mr. Hemming’s Report, the terms of which were agreed with Professor Kirby in November 1950, was as follows :— Report on the Status of the Generic Name ‘‘ Stentor ’? Oken, 1815 (Class Ciliophora, Sub-Class Ciliata) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G.,C.B.E- (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) In correspondence relating to the name Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, Professor Harold Kirby (University of California, Berkeley, Cal., U.S.A.) drew my attention to the fact that the name universally applied to the well-known genus of Ciliates known as Stentor was invalid and suggested that the problems involved should be studied by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature as a preliminary to the name Stentor Oken, 1815, being placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. I at once asked Professor Kirby to prepare a statement of the case for consideration by the Commission, and this he kindly undertook to do at the first opportunity. The investigation has proved unexpectedly complicated, for it was found not only that the generic name Stentor Oken is invalid, being a junior homonym of the name Stentor Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1812 (as was already known), but also that no effective type selection had apparently ever been made for the genus Stentor Oken and further that the identity of the only originally included species (Stentor solitarius Oken, 1815) that could be regarded as being a member of the genus as at present universally understood was open to doubt. All of these questions are dealt with fully in the paper prepared by Professor Kirby, which is now laid before the Commission for consideration. (2) In submitting this paper, Professor Kirby deliberately stopped short of formulating concrete proposals for the consideration of the Commission, asking me, as Secretary to the Commission, to undertake this task. This I consented to do and the present Report has accordingly been prepared for the consideration of the Commission. When the present Report was in draft, I submitted it to Professor Kirby, who notified me that he was in agreement with the conclusions and recommendations now submitted. OPINION 418 ay) (3) In approaching the present task, I started with the premise that in the case of a name such as Stentor Oken every responsible zoologist would recognise how grave would be the confusion if it were found necessary to reject that name for purely technical nomen- clatorial reasons and would strongly support the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers to prevent so disastrous a result. In the following paragraphs I deal briefly with each of the three problems which, as Professor Kirby explained, arise in the present case. (4) On the measures necessary to provide availability for the generic name ‘‘ Stentor ’’ Oken, 1815: The first step necessary in any plan to preserve the current use of the generic name Stentor would be the suppression, under the Plenary Powers, of the older generic name Stentor Geoftroy Saint-Hilaire, 1812 ; no possible objection could be raised to this course, since, as Professor Kirby pointed out, the name Stentor Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire is a name that was applied to a genus of monkeys which has at least two older available names. Once Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire’s Stentor had been removed from the field in this way, the name Stentor Oken, 1815, would cease to be invalid, as the junior homonym of another generic name. The next question to be considered is whether Oken, in his Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte,? consistently applied the principles of binominal nomenclature (as required by Proviso (b) to Article 25) and therefore whether the name Stentor Oken is an available name. On this general subject I have submitted a Report (Z.N.(S.) 153) to the Commission in accordance with a request addressed to me by it at its Paris Session, in which I reach the conclusion that Oken did not in the Lehrbuch, satisfy the provision cited above and therefore that new names in the Lehrbuch did not acquire any rights under the Law of Priority. At the same time I have drawn attention to the fact that, if the Commission accept the conclusion reached in my Report, the names in the Lehrbuch will fall to be dealt with under the special procedure laid down by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology for the purpose of validating with the utmost despatch generic names of importance that might in such cases be found to be invalid (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 6366). Clearly the name Stentor Oken, 1815, would come under this heading and I accordingly recommend that, simultaneously with the adoption of my Report on the status of Oken’s Lehrbuch, the name Stentor Oken should be validated under the Plenary Powers. (5) Certain old generic names associated with the ‘Stentor ”’ problem : Professor Kirby pointed out that the name Linza Schrank, 1802, a name which has never been used, is a potential danger to the name Stentor Oken, since no type species has ever been selected for Schrank’s genus and some of the species originally included in it are stentorids. I fully support, therefore, the conclusion reached by Professor Kirby that this name should now be suppressed under the 3 See Footnote 1, 58 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Plenary Powers and thus rendered incapable of causing confusion in the literature. Similarly, I support Professor Kirby’s conclusion that the long-forgotten name Eclissa Modeer, 1790, and its variant Ecclissa Schrank, 1802, should be suppressed under the Plenary Powers. (6) On the type species of the genus ‘‘ Stentor’? Oken, 1815: As already noted in the present Report, no nominal species appears ever to have been validly selected to be the type species of the genus Stentor Oken, 1815 ; the selection of a type species is naturally an indispensable preliminary to the definition of the genus. Professor Kirby pointed out that Stentor solitarius Oken, 1815, is the only originally included species, the selection of which as the type species could secure the continued use of the name Stentor in its accustomed sense, but that there are substantial reasons which would render the selection of this species as the type species open to strong objection. In the first place, it must be noted that the name Stentor solitarius Oken was not based upon a description by Oken of a new species, but was published as a nom. noy. pro the species referred to by Miiller (O.F.) (1773) as Vorticella stentorea. Next, we have to note that Miller never published this name as a new name ; what he did was to place in the genus Vorticella the species which Linnaeus in 1758 had named Hydra stentoria (a name which in 1767 Linnaeus himself emended to stentorea). Thus, the identity of Oken’s Stentor solitarius turns entirely upon the identity of the species Hydra stentoria Linnaeus. Professor Kirby examined the taxonomic questions involved and reached the conclusion that, prior to Ehrenberg’s work, and, in particular, his Die Infusions- thierchen of 1838, it is impossible to identify with certainty to what species should be applied to names published for colourless stentorids. It was to overcome these difficulties that (as explained in Professor Kirby’s paper) I suggested (in /itt.) that the best course would be for the Commission to use its Plenary Powers to secure that Ehrenberg’s figure for Stentor muelleri Ehrenberg, [1832], should be taken to define the nominal species, to be designated as the type species of Stentor Oken. The advantage of this course lies in the fact that Ehrenberg’s name Stentor muelleri is a substitute name for Miiller’s Vorticella stentoria, which (as already explained) is objectively identical with Oken’s Stentor solitarius. This suggestion commended itself to Professor Kirby and is included in the proposal submitted at the close of the present Report. It is naturally an essential part of that plan that the specific name muelleri Ehrenberg should be preserved for the species to which it is always applied. Accordingly it is proposed not only that the specific name stentoria Linnaeus, 1758 (and its emenda- tion stentorea Linnaeus, 1767), both being specific names for species which cannot be certainly identified, should be suppressed under the Plenary Powers, but also that the specific name solitarius Oken should be suppressed for similar reasons. The suppression of nomina dubia, when their clarification might give rise to confusion, is clearly the best means of promoting stability in nomenclature and of avoiding confusion. If these names are disposed of in this way, it will be OPINION 418 59 necessary to designate some other nominal species to be the type species of the genus Stentor Oken. Clearly, the most appropriate choice would be the nominal species Stentor muelleri Ehrenberg, [1832], as defined by the description and figures published by that author in 1838. (7) The settlement of the Stentor problem on the foregoing lines would provide valid force for the current use of that name, without causing the slightest inconvenience or difficulty in any other field. I accordingly recommend the foregoing solution to the favourable consideration of the Commission. The detailed action recommended is that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should :— (1) use its Plenary Powers :— (a) to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not of the Law of Homonymy the under-mentioned generic names :— (i) Eclissa Modeer, 1790 ; (ii) Ecclissa Schrank, 1802 ; (iii) Linza Schrank, 1802 ; (b) to suppress for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy the generic name Stentor Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1812 ; (c) to validate the generic name Stentor Oken, 1815 (in the event of Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte being declared unavailable for nomenclatorial purposes); (d) to suppress the under-mentioned specific names for the purposes of the Law of Priority :— (i) stentoria Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the com- bination Hydra stentoria ; (ii) stentorea (emend. of stentoria) Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Hydra stentorea ; (1) solitarius Oken, 1815, as published in the com- bination Stentor solitarius ; (e) to direct that the name Stentor muelleri Ehrenberg, [1832], is to be interpreted by reference to the description and figures published therefore by Ehrenberg in 1838 (Die Infusionsth. : 262) ; (f) to designate Stentor muelleri Ehrenberg, [1832], as defined in (e) above, to be the type species of Stentor Oken, 1815 ; * See Footnote 1. 60 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (2) to place the name Stentor Oken, 1815 (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (1)(f) above : Stentor muelleri Ehrenberg, [1832], as defined under the Plenary Powers under (ec) above) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) the three generic names proposed under (1)(a) above to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers ; (b) the name Stentor Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1812, proposed under (1)(b) above to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers ; (c) the under-mentioned generic names which are junior objective synonyms of Stentor Oken, 1815: (i) Tubaria Thienemann, 1828 ; (i1) Stentorella Reichenbach, 1828 ; (4) to place the specific name muelleri Ehrenberg, [1832], as published in the combination Stentor muelleri, as defined under the Plenary Powers under (1)(e) above, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the three specific names specified in (1)(d) above, as there proposed to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers. Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 3. Registration of the present application : At the time when in 1945 Professor Kirby first brought forward the question of the name Stentor Oken, the problems involved were allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 261. OPINION 418 61 4. Publication of the present application : In view of the fact that the present application was concerned with a generic name published in Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte it was considered that it would be to the convenience of the Commission if the submission of the present case to it were to be deferred until it was possible also to submit proposals for determining the availability of names published in Oken’s Lehrbuch. Hence it was that the documents relating to the present case were not published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature until 11th May 1954 (Kirby, 1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 208—214 ; Hemming, 1954, ibid. 9 : 214—218). 5. Issue of Public Notices: Under the revised procedure prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51—56) Public Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in the present case was given on 11th May 1954 (a) in Part 7 of Volume 9 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which Professor Kirby’s and Mr. Hemming’s papers were published) and (b) to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition, such Notice was given also to a number of general zoological serial publications and to certain specialist serials in Europe and America. 6. No objection received during the Prescribed Waiting Period : No objection to the action proposed was received in the Office of the Commission during the Prescribed Waiting Period of six months following the publication of this application in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Shortly after the close of the foregoing period and subsequent also to the preparation of the Voting Paper to be submitted to the Commission in this case (paragraph 8 below), an objection was received from one American zoologist. The communication so received is repro- duced in the immediately following paragraph. 7. Objection received from Professor E. Raymond Hall (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) subsequent to the close of the 62 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Prescribed Waiting Period : On 23rd November 1954 a letter, dated 18th November 1954, was received in the Office of the Commission from Professor E. Raymond Hall (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) intimating a general objection to the validation of any of the names introduced for genera of mammals by Oken in his Lehrbuch and in addition a particular objection to the validation of the name Stentor in ciliates. The portion of Professor Hall’s letter relating to the first of these questions has been reproduced in Opinion 417 dealing with the general question of the status to be accorded to generic names as published in Oken’s Lehrbuch. The following is the portion of Professor Hall’s letter relating to the name Stentor Oken :— Concerning the name Stentor of Oken as applied to non-vertebrate animals [Commission Reference Z.N.(S.) 261], certain considerations additional to those that pertain to Oken’s names for mammals need to be taken into account but, even so, when all angles are considered, including convenience to teachers of zoology, of which I am one, my view is that Stentor Oken should not be made available and that the next available name should be used. II.L—THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 8. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(54)92 : On 26th November 1954, a Voting Paper (V.P.(54)92) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, ‘the proposal relating to the generic name Stentor Oken, 1815 (Class Ciliophora) as set out in Points (1) to (5) in paragraph (7) on page 217 and continued on page 218 of volume 9 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’ [i.e. in the Points numbered as above in paragraph (7) of the Report by Mr. Hemming reproduced in paragraph 2 of the present Opinion]. OPINION 418 63 9. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 26th February 1955. 10. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)92 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)92 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty (20) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Molthuis:; Hering ;. Lemche; Stoll; Bradley (J.C.) ; Vokes; Esaki; Bodenheimer; Dymond; _ Bonnet; Jaczewski; Hanko; Boschma; Miller; Key; Riley; do Amaral; Hemming; Kihnelt ; Sylvester-Bradley ; (b) Negative Votes, one (1): Cabrera ; (c) On Leave of Absence, two (2) : Mertens ; Prantl ; (d) Voting Papers not returned : None. 11. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 27th February 1955, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, 64 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(54)92, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 10 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 12. Clarification of two drafting points involved in the present case : On 26th October 1955 Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, placed the following Minute on Commission File Z.N.(S.) 261, clarifying the position as regards two drafting points on which decisions were required as a preliminary to the preparation of the Ruling to be included in the Opinion embodying the decision taken by the Commission in the present case :— Two drafting points involved in the preparation of the Ruling to be included in the ‘‘ Opinion’? embodying the decision of the Commission in relation to the name ‘‘ Stentor ’’ Oken, 1815 (Voting Paper V.P.(54)92) MINUTE by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Two drafting points call for decision in connection with the pre- paration of the Ruling to be included in the Opinion embodying the decision taken by the International Commission in its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)92 in relation to the generic name Stentor Oken, 1815. The points concerned are set out below. 2. First, the application submitted in this case was prepared at a time when the status of names published in Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte was still a matter of doubt. - Accordingly, in order to make sure that the solution sought in this case should not be frustrated by the fact that the specific name solitarius Oken, 1815, as published in the combination Stentor solitarius, possessed the status of availability, if under a general decision relating to the status of names published in the foregoing work that name were later found to be an available name, a proposal for the suppression of this name under the Plenary Powers was included in the application submitted (Recom- mendation (1)(d)(iii) in paragraph (7) of my Report). By its vote on OPINION 418 65 Voting Paper V.P.(54)91, the Voting Paper immediately preceding that on whch the Commission voted in the present case, the Com- mission has now ruled that names published in Oken’s Lehrbuch did not acquire thereby the status of availability under the Reégles. Accordingly, the name solitarius Oken, 1815, as published in the combination Stentor solitarius, is now seen to be invalid without the intervention of the Commission’s Plenary Powers. 3. The second point which calls for consideration is in relation to the determination of the species to be accepted as the type species of the genus Stentor Oken, 1815. In this case, it will be recalled, the solution recommended by Professor Kirby was that the Commission should use its Plenary Powers to designate as the type species of this genus a nominal species (Stentor muelleri Ehrenberg, [1832]) which, having been established long after the introduction of the nominal genus Stentor Oken, 1815, could not possibly be the type species of that genus without the use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers. A proposal that the Plenary Powers should be used for the purpose of designating the above species to be the type species of Stentor Oken was accordingly included in the proposals submitted (Recommenda- tion (1)(f) in paragraph (7) of my Report). At that time it was believed that no valid type selection had ever been made for the genus Stentor Oken and it was accordingly judged unnecessary to include in the recommendation submitted a proposal that any type selection made prior to the Ruling asked for should be set on one side. The use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of fixing the type species of this genus in the sense recommended by Professor Kirby has now been approved by the Commission in its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)92. In a letter dated 7th December 1954 received during the Prescribed Voting Period for the above Voting Paper Commissioner Harold E. Vokes pointed out that “‘in his statement of the case (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9(7) : 208—214) Kirby clearly, though certainly inad- vertently, designated Stentor solitarius as the type species of the genus Bremar (sce p. 212, line 15)”.° Reference to the passage cited by Professor Vokes fully supports his contention that Professor Kirby did inadvertently select the above species to be the type species of this genus. That this is so does not, however, affect in any way the decision of the Commission to designate the nominal species Stentor muelleri Ehrenberg, [1832], to be the type species of the genus Stentor Oken, for, as that decision has been under the Plenary Powers, it automatically serves to set aside any previous type selection which may have been made. I agree, however, with Commissioner Vokes that for the sake of the record it is desirable that the formal position in this matter should be made clear in the Ruling to be given in the Opinion embodying the Commission’s decision in the present case. ® The type selection sentence here referred to appears in line 3 of paragraph 22 of the paper by Professor Kirby reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion. 66 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 3. For the reasons set out above, I now, as Secretary to the Commission, hereby direct that in the Ruling to be prepared in this Case -— (a) the specific name solitarius Oken, 1815, as published in the combination Stentor solitarius, be treated as a name which is invalid by reason of having been published in a work which has been rejected for nomenclatorial purposes and not as a name suppressed under the Plenary Powers ; (b) words be inserted in relation to the designaton of Stentor muelleri Ehrenberg, [1832], under the Plenary Powers to be the type species of Stentor Oken, 1815, to make it clear that this use of the Plenary Powers automatically carries with it a decision under the same Powers to set aside any type selection for the above genus made prior to the Ruling now to be given. 13. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘* Opinion ”’ : On 3rd March 1956 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)92, subject to the clarification of | two drafting points in the manner specified in the Minute executed by the Secretary earlier on the same day. The text of the Minute here referred to has been given in paragraph 12 of the present Opinion. 14. Original References: The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Ecclissa Schrank, 1803, Faun. boic. 3(2) : 21, 101 Eclissa Modeer, 1790, K. Svensk. Vetensk-Akad. Handl., Stock- holm 11(4) : 242 Linza Schrank, 1802, Briefe naturhist. physikalisch. 6konom. Inhaltes an Nau : 91 muelleri, Stentor, Ehrenberg, [1832], Abk. k. Akad. Wiss. Berlin 1831 : 99 OPINION 418 67 solitarius, Stentor, Oken, 1815, Lehrbuch Naturgesch. 3(1) : 45 Stentor Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (E.), 1812, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat., Paris 19(110) : 107 Stentor Oken, 1815, Lehrbuch Naturgesch. 3(1) : 45 stentorea, Hydra, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(2) : 1321 Stentorella Reichenbach, 1828, Allg. Taschenb. Naturwiss. 5, Zool. 1 : 95 stentoria, Hydra, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 817 Tubaria Thienemann, 1828, Lehrbuch Zool. : 12 15. Family-Group-Name Position: The family-group-name position was not considered at the time of the submission of the application dealt with in the present Opinion, for that application was prepared prior to the establishment of the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. This aspect of the present case is at present being examined on Commission File ZNAS.) 1113. 16. At the time of the submission of the present application the name applicable to the second portion of a binomen was “trivial name”’. This was altered to “ specific name” by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, which at the same time made corresponding changes in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of names of this category. These changes in terminology have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 17. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 68 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 18. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Four Hundred and Eighteen (418) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Third day of March, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Six. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by MretcaLFe & Cooper LimiITED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 14. Part 3. Pp. 69—128, 1 pl. OPINION 419 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the names published by William Martin in 1809 in the work entitled Petrificata Derbiensia for eight species of the Class Brachiopoda and for two species of the Class Anthozoa and matters incidental thereto LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1956 Price Forty-One Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 17th September, 1956 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 419 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl JoRDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) President: Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BOSCHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) PL ee LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th uly Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEy (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt- Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice President) Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Corneil University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (i2th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKS (Mez6gazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. HoLtuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KUHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) eros F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November Professor Ernst MAyR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ‘‘ G. Doria,’ Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) OPINION 419 VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE NAMES PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM MARTIN IN 1809 IN THE WORK ENTITLED ‘‘ PETRIFICATA DERBIENSIA ” FOR EIGHT SPECIES OF THE CLASS BRACHIOPODA AND FOR TWO SPECIES OF THE CLASS ANTHOZOA AND MATTERS INCIDENTAL THERETO RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers the under- mentioned specific names published by Martin (W.) in 1809 in the work entitled Petrificata Derbiensia are hereby validated as from the above date and work :— (a) resupinatus Martin, 1809, as published in the combination Conchyliolithus Anomites (resupin- atus) (Class Brachiopoda)! ; (b) semireticulatus Martin, 1809, as published in the combination Conchyliolithus Anomites (semireti- culatus) (Class Brachiopoda) ; (c) crumena Martin, 1809, as published in the com- bination Conchyliolithus Anomites (crumena) (Class Brachiopoda) ; (d) trigonalis Martin, 1809, as published in the com- bination Conchyliolithus Anomites (trigonalis) (Class Brachiopoda) ; - Dr. Helen Muir-Wood (the applicant for this portion of the present case) has notified the Office of the International Commission that, in her opinion, the term Brachiopoda should be reserved for use as the name for a Phylum. On this view, the Phylum Brachiopoda consists of two Classes, of which one is the Class Articulata, to which all the species of Brachiopoda discussed in the present Opinion should, Dr. Muir-Wood states, be referred. OCT 1 1 1956 72 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (e) subconicus Martin, 1809, as published in the com- bination Conchyliolithus Anomites (subconicus) (Class Brachiopoda) ; (f) striatus Martin, 1809, as published in the combina- tion Conchyliolithus Anomites (striatus) (Class Brachiopoda) ; (g) productus Martin, 1809, as published in the combina- tion Conchyliolithus Anomites (productus) (Class Brachiopoda) ; (h) pugnus Martin, 1809, as published in the combination Conchyliolithus Anomites (pugnus) (Class Brachio- poda) ; (1) duplicatus Martin, 1809, as published in the com- bination Erismatolithus Madreporites (duplicatus) (Class Anthozoa) ; (j) floriformis Martin, 1809, as published in the com- bination Erismatolithus Madreporites (floriformis) (Class Anthozoa). (2) The under-mentioned specific names of species of the Class Brachiopoda, as validated under the Plenary Powers Ruling in (1)(a) to (1)(h) above respectively, are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below, the entries so made to be endorsed in each case in the manner shown hereunder :— (a) resupinatus Martin, 1809, as published in the com- bination Conchyliolithus Anomites resupinatus, the species so named to be interpreted by the neotype therefor designated by George (T.N.) & Ponsford (D.A.) in 1938, particulars of which are given in Section (1) (paragraphs 5—7) of Appendix | to the present Opinion (Name No. 734) ; OPINION 419 ; 73 (b) semireticulatus Martin, 1809, as published in the combination Conchyliolithus Anomites semireti- culatus, the species so named to be interpreted by the neotype therefor designated by Muir-Wood (H.M.) in Section (2) (paragraphs 8 and 9) of ee 1 to the present Opinion (Name No. v's) & (c) crumena Martin, 1809, as published in the combina- tion Conchyliolithus Anomites crumena, the species so named to be interpreted by the neotype therefor designated by Muir-Wood (H.M.) in Section (3) (paragraphs 10—12) of Appendix | to the present Opinion (Name No. 736) ; (d) trigonalis Martin, 1809, as published in the com- bination Conchyliolithus Anomites trigonalis, the species so named to be interpreted by the neotype therefor designated by Muir-Wood (H.M.) in Section (4) (paragraphs 13—15) of Appendix 1 to the present Opinion (Name No. 737) ; (e) subconicus Martin, 1809, as published in the com- bination Conchyliolithus Anomites subconicus, the species so named to be interpreted by the neotype therefor designated by North (F.J.) in 1921, particulars of which are given in Section (5) (paragraphs 16—18) of Appendix 1 to the present Opinion (Name No. 738) ; (f) striatus Martin, 1809, as published in the combina- tion Conchyliolithus Anomites striatus, the species so named to be interpreted by the neotype therefor designated by Muir-Wood (H.M.) in Section (6) (paragraphs 19—21) of Appendix | to the present Opinion (Name No. 739) ; (g) productus Martin, 1809, as published in the com- | bination Conchyliolithus Anomites productus, the species so named to be interpreted by reference to Martin’s holotype, now preserved in the British Museum (Natural History), particulars of 74 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS which are given in Section (7) (paragraphs 22—24) of Appendix | to the present Opinion (Name No. 740) ; (h) pugnus Martin, 1809, as published in the combina- tion Conchyliolithus Anomites pugnus, the species so named to be interpreted by reference to Martin’s holotype, now preserved in the British Museum (Natural History), particulars of which are given in Section (8) (paragraph 25) of Appendix 1 to the present Opinion (Name No. 741). (3) The under-mentioned specific names of species of the Class Anthozoa, as validated under the Plenary Powers under (1)(a) and (1)(b) above respectively, are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified below and respectively, the entries so made to be endorsed in the manner shown in each case below :— (a) duplicatus Martin, 1809, as published in the com- bination Erismatolithus Madreporites duplicatus, the species so named to be interpreted by reference to the neotype therefor designated by Stanley Smith in 1916, particulars of which are given in Section (a) of Appendix 2 of the present Opinion (Name No. 742) ; (b) floriformis Martin, 1809, as published in the com- bination Erismatolithus Madreporites floriformis, the species so named to be interpreted by reference to the neotype therefor designated by Stanley Smith in 1916, particulars of which are given in Section(b) of Appendix 2 of the present Opinion (Name No. 743). (4) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) Lonsdaleia M°Coy, 1849 (gender : feminine) (type species, by original designation : Erismatolithus Madreporites duplicatus Martin, 1809, as validated OPINION 419 75 under the Plenary Powers under (1)(i) above and as defined in (3)(a) above) (Class Anthozoa) (Name No. 999) ; (b) Schizophoria King, 1850 (gender : feminine) (type species, by original designation : Conchyliolithus Anomites resupinatus Martin, 1809, as validated under the Plenary Powers under (1)(a) above and as defined under (2)(a) above) (Class Brachiopoda) (Name No. 1000) ; (c) Productus Sowerby (J.), 1814 (gender : masculine) (type species, by absolute tautonymy : Conchylio- lithus Anomites productus, as validated under the Plenary Powers under (1)(g) above and as defined under (2)(g) above) (Class Brachiopoda) (Name No. 1001) ; (d) Dictyoclostus Muir-Wood, 1930 (gender : masculine) (type species, by original designation : Conchylio- lithus Anomites semireticulatus, as validated under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b) above and as defined under (2)(b) above) (Class Brachiopoda) (Name No. 1002). (5) It is hereby directed that, when, in accordance with (2) and (3) above, the under-mentioned specific names are entered on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, an endorsement be made that the names in question are the specific names of the type species of the genera severally specified below :— (a) resupinatus Martin, 1809, as published in the com- bination Conchyliolithus Anomites resupinatus : specific name of type species of Schizophoria King, 1850 ; (b) semireticulatus Martin, 1809, as published in the combination Conchyliolithus Anomites semireti- culatus : specific name of type species of Dictyo- clostus Muir-Wood, 1930 ; (c) productus Martin, 1809, as published in the com- bination Conchyliolithus Anomites productus : 716 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS specific name of type species of Productus Sowerby (J.), 1814; (d) duplicatus Martin, 1809, as published in the com- bination Erismatolithus Madreporites duplicatus : specific name of type species of Lonsdaleia M‘“Coy, 1849). (6) It is hereby directed that the entry of the generic name Spirifer Sowerby (J.), 1816, as Name No. 472 on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoolog gy made by the Ruling given in Opinion 100, as supplemented by the General Directive relating to the placing on that List of any name which has been made the subject of a direction under the Plenary Powers issued to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the Thir- teenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, be amended to read as follows :— 472. Spirifer Sowerby (J.), 1816 (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers [Opinion 100] : Conchyliolithus Anomites striatus Martin, 1809, as vali- dated under the Plenary Powers [under (1)(f) above)]). (7) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) conaxis M°Coy, 1849, as published in the combina- tion Strombodes conaxis (a junior objective synonym of floriformis Martin, 1809, as published in the combination Erismatolithus "Madreporites floriformis, as validated under the Plenary Powers under (1)(j) above and as defined under (3)(b) above) (Class Anthozoa) (Name No. 315) ; (b) semistriatus Sowerby (J.), 1821, as published in the combination Annomites [sic] semistriatus (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling of semireticulatus Martin, 1809, as published in the combination Conchyliolithus Anomites semireticulatus) (Class Brachiopoda) (Name No. 316). OPINION 419 Fi I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present case.arises out of the decision taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in 1948 that in the work published in 1809 under the title Petrificata Derbiensia William Martin did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature and therefore that new names in the foregoing work did not acquire the status of availability by reason of having been published therein. This decision was published in 1950 in the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commission at its Paris Session (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 450—452) and has since been formally promulgated in Opinion 231 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 239—248). In taking the foregoing decision, the International Commission recognised that there might be names in Martin’s Petrificata of 1809 which had come into general use and which it was desirable should be preserved in the interests of nomenclatorial stability ; the Commission accordingly placed on record its willingness to give sympathetic consideration to any applications which might be submitted to it on this account. The open invitation so issued led to correspondence in the spring of 1950 between the Secretary to the Commission on the one hand and Dr. C. J. Stubblefield (Geological Survey and Museum, London) and Dr. Helen Muir-Wood (British Museum (Natural History), London) on the other hand. This correspondence culminated in the submission by the foregoing specialists of the following application on 18th September 1950 :— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the trivial names of two nominal species of the Class Anthozoa and of eight nominal species of the Class Brachiopoda, published by William Méartin in 1809 in the work entitled ‘‘ Petrificata Derbiensia ”’ and matters incidental thereto By HELEN M. MUIR-WOOD, D.Sc. (Department of Geology, British Museum (Natural History), London) and Cy. .STFUBBLEFIELD, .D.Se..-F.R:S. (Geological Survey and Museum, London) At its Session held in Paris in July 1948 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ruled that the works by W. Martin 78 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS published respectively in 1793,* under the title Figures and Descriptions of Petrifactions collected in Derbyshire and in 1809 under the title Petrificata Derbiensia did not comply with the binominal requirements of the Régles and therefore that no new “ names” published therein possessed any availability under the Régles in virtue of being published therein. It is assumed that in arriving at this decision consideration was taken of the publication by W. Martin of “ Outlines of an Attempt to establish a Knowledge of Extraneous Fossils and Scientific Principles ’’, [Macclesfield] 1809, pt. 1, vi, chapter headed ‘* Principles of Nomenclature ’’, pp. 202—203, where the following statement occurs: “‘ Names of the Species. The name of a species properly consists of the generic (i.e. name of the genus) and trivial name. The trivial name is a word added to the name of the genus, in order to form a distinctive appellation for a species ’’.t In its ruling, the International Commission placed on record its intention “‘ to give sympathetic consideration to any application which might be submitted by interested specialists for the valida- tion as from Martin, 1809, of any trivial name first published by that author in his Petrificata Derbiensia where that name was in general use for a common species and it could be shown that under (1) above it would be necessary to change the name of that species and that such change would lead to confusion in nomen- clature’’. (Commission Minutes, Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 15 (2) 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 (16/18) : 450— 452.) 2. It is in accordance with the invitation so extended to specialists that the present application is submitted for consideration. It relates to the trivial names of ten species published in Martin’s Petrificata Derbiensia of 1809. Several of the nominal species so named by Martin are the type species of important and well-known genera. The fossil genera in question contain species of common occurrence which are * In the Official Record of the decision by the International Commission the date given for this work is 1793, the date which it bears, but according to a statement by Martin himself (1869, Petrificata Derbiensia, Preface: v) this work was published in Parts, the first Part not having been issued until 1794. it has not, however, proved possible to find any confirmation of this statement. + “In writing or speaking of permanent species of reliquia, of which the originals are unknown, it will generally be found convenient to use the family name, with the generic and trivial ones—as, CONCHYL. Anomites striatus— CONCHYL. Anomites productus, &e., &c. In this mode, a more deter- minate idea is given of the reliquium, than if the trivial name were used with the generic one alone. Nor is the insertion of the family name between the generic and trivial appellations, as just given, contrary to the practice of our first naturalists, who, in treating of detached species belonging to genera in which Linnaeus found it necessary to establish families or subdivisions, frequently use the family name in conjunction with the generic and trivial denominations—as, ‘PHALAENA Geometra rufata—PAPILIO Eques Hector—PHALAENA Tinea pratella,’.”” OPINION 419 79 of importance in Carboniferous and Permian stratigraphical palae- ontology, not only of Europe and Asia but also of America. Failure to validate these species would cause considerable confusion in strati- graphical and palaeontological literature. The request now submitted to the International Commission is that it should (1) validate each of the trivial names concerned under its Plenary Powers, and, having done so, should (2) place the trivial names in question on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. 3. In some of the cases now submitted the identity of the nominal species bearing the trivial names which form the subject of the present application has been determined by later authors, acting under Article 31. We recommend that in placing the trivial names in question on the Official List, the Commission should include a reference to such determinations in the same way as we understand was done in similar cases when names were placed by the Commission on this Official List during its Paris Session. 4. The names which we ask the Commission to validate under its Plenary Powers are specified in the following paragraphs where we give also the grounds on which we base the applications so submitted. (1) & (2) The trivial names ‘‘ duplicatus ’’ and ‘ floriformis ”’ Martin, 1809, as published respectively in the combina- tions ‘*‘ Erismatolithus Madreporites (duplicatus) ’’ and ** Krismatolithus Mad¢reporites (floriformis) ”’ 5. The species name Erismatolithus Madreporites (duplicatus) Martin (W.), 1809 (Petrif. derb. : sign. N[4], pl. 30, figs. 1, 2) is the name. of the coral nominal species which is the type species of the genus Lonsdaleia M°Coy (F.), 1849 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 3:12). The species was designated as type species of the above genus by M°Coy in 1849 (Joc. Git: ). 6. Erismatolithus Madreporites (floriformis) Martin, 1809 (Petrif. derb. : sign. U[1], pl. 43, figs. 3, 4 and pl. 44, fig. 5) has for more than seventy years been referred to the genus Lonsdaleia. 7. Lonsdaleia is a commonly occurring genus of Anthozoa in Carboniferous rocks, and the species Lonsdaleia floriformis (Martin) has, for over forty years, been used as a zonal index in Lower Carboni- ferous stratigraphy. 8. The first reviser of Martin’s species was J. Fleming who, in 1828 (The History of British Animals : 509), assigned E. M. duplicatus to the recent genus Caryophyllia Lamarck, 1801 (Syst. Anim. sans Vertébr. : 80 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 370) and placed FE. M. floriformis in his new genus Lithostrotion (: 508). Fleming gave no new illustration of these species, but W. Lonsdale in 1845, ‘‘ Description of some Characteristic Palaeozoic Corals of Russia ”’? (in Murchison & others, The Geology of Russia in Europe and the Ural Mountains 1 : 603) selected Martin’s species E. M. floriformis as the type species of Fleming’s genus Lithostrotion. To stabilize modern concepts of both the genera Lonsdaleia M*Coy and Lithostrotion Fleming, however, the International Commission in Opinion 117 published in 1931 (Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 7) : 18— 19) suspended the Rules and standardised Lithostrotion Fleming, 1828, with Lithostrotion striatum Fleming, 1828 (loc. cit. : 508) as the type species. 9. The genus Lonsdaleia has been made the subject of a special study by Stanley Smith in a paper entitled “The Genus Lonsdaleia and Dibunophyllum rugosum”’, published in 1916 (Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond. 71 : 218—272, pls. 17—21). The nomenclatorial history of the two Lonsdaleia species in question thus received particular attention, the results of which it would be confusing to workers to disturb. All Martin’s syntypes of the two species now being considered are lost, but Stanley Smith chose two neotypes from the Sedgwick Museum collections, which he illustrated in his 1916 paper ; (1) for Erismatolithus Madreporites duplicatus as pl. xvii, fig. 1 and (2) for E. M. floriformis as pl. xix, figs. 1—3. The latter specimen was the type-specimen of Strombodes conaxis M°Coy (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 3 : 10, pl. 49). 10. There appears, therefore, to be a strong case for the validation of the trivial names of Martin’s nominal species Erismatolithus Madre- porites duplicatus and Erismatolithus Madreporites floriformis (commonly known as Lonsdaleia duplicata and L. floriformis respectively), since both the species in question are well known and commonly occurring Lower Carboniferous species, and any disturbance of these names would cause confusion. (3) The trivial name ‘‘ resupinatus ’’ Martin, 1809, as published in the combination ‘* Conchyliolithus Anomites (resupinatus) ”’ 11. The species name Conciyliolithus Anomites (resupinatus) Martin, 1809 (Petrif. derb. : sign. Z[4], pl. 49, figs. 13, 14) is the name of the nominal species of brachiopod which is the type species of the genus Schizophoria King, 1850 (Mon. Permian Foss. (Palaeont. Soc.) : 105) by original designation. 12. Martin’s species was redescribed by Sowerby (J.) in 1822 (Min. Conch. 4 : 25, pl. 325) as Terebratula resupinata from the Mountain Limestone of Derbyshire. The same _ species-name Terebratula OPINION 419 81 resupinata was, however, previously used by Sowerby (J.) in 1816 (Min. Conch. 2 : 116, pl. 150, figs. 3, 4) for a Middle Lias brachiopod from Ilminster, Somerset. 13. The species name Terebratula resupinata J. Sowerby, 1822 (=Conch. Anomites resupinatus Martin) is, therefore, preoccupied by Terebratula resupinata J. Sowerby, 1816. 14. Confusion would be caused if the name given by Martin to this species were invalidated, since the next use of the trivial name resupinata by Sowerby in 1822 in the combination Terebratula resupinata for Martin’s species, is itself invalid by the previous use of the trivial name resupinata for another species in the same combination, Terebratula resupinata by Sowerby in 1816. 15. Furthermore, T. N. George and D. A. Ponsford in 1938 (Trans. Leeds geol. Assoc. 5(4) : 228) selected a shell figured by Davidson in 186) (Mon. Brit. Foss: Brach..2(5)(4) : 130; pl. 29, figs. 1, la,. 1b), from Bolland preserved in the British Museum (Natural History), as a neotype of Martin’s species, since Martin’s original shell has not been found. This neotype was refigured and described by G. Bond in 1942 (Proc. geol. Assoc. 52(4) : 289, pl. 21, figs. A—C). 16. It is therefore recommended that the trivial name resupinatus Martin, 1809, in its published form Anomites resupinatus, commonly known as Schizophoria resupinata should be validated under the Plenary Powers. (4) & (5) The trivial names ‘‘ productus’’ Martin, 1793 and 1809, as published in the combinations ‘* Conchyliolithus Anomia (productus) ’’ and ‘‘* Conchyliolithus Anomites (productus) ’’, and ‘‘ semireticulatus ’’ Martin, 1809, as published in the combination ‘* Conchyliolithus Anomites (semireticulatus) ”’ 17. The species name Conchyliolithus Anomites (productus) Martin, 1809 (Petrif. derb. : sign. K[2], pl. 22, figs. 1—3) or Conchyliolithus Anomia (productus) Martin, 1793 (Figs. Descr. Petrifactions Derb. : sign. L[3], pl. 22, figs. 1—3) is the name of the nominal species which is the type species of the genus Productus Sowerby (J.), 1814 (Min. Conch. 1 : 153) by subsequent designation of Thomas (I.) in 1914 (Mem. geol. Sury. Gt. Brit. (Palaeont.) 1(4) : 258). 18. The species name Conchyliolithus Anomites semireticulatus Martin, 1809 (ibid. : sign. O[3], pl. 32, figs. 1, 2, 3 and pl. 33, fig. 4) is the name of the nominal species which is the type species of the genus 82 | OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Dictyoclostus Muir-Wood, 1930 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10)5 : 103) by original designation. 19. In the discussion on his genus Productus, Sowerby (J.) (1814, loc. cit.) stated—‘* His (Martin’s) Conch. Anomites productus is a good type of the Genus, therefore, as the name Anomites must be laid aside, I have adopted his specific name as the Generic one. . .”’ Sowerby renamed Martin’s species C. Anomites productus, calling it Productus martini. = 20. Confusion arose, however, owing to Sowerby (J.) having figured three distinct species in 1821 (Min. Conch. 4 : pl. 317, figs. 2—4) as Productus martini, one of which was said to be intermediate between P. martini and Productus antiquatus, the latter nominal species being described by Sowerby as possibly Martin’s Anomites semireticulatus (erroneously quoted as Annomites [sic] semistriatus on page 15). 21. Several later authors regarded P. martini and P. semireticulatus as synonymous. Dall in 1877 (Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 8 : 58) gave the type species of Productus Sowerby as P. martini Sow.=Anomites semireticulatus Martin4-A. productus Mart. S. A. Miller in 1889 (N. Amer. Geol. Palaeont. : 363) quoted P. semireticulatus and P. longispinus as types. Oehlert in 1887 (in Fischer (P.), Manuel de Conchyliol. (Appendix) : 1277) gave P. martini Sowerby=Anomites productus Martin as the type, while Hall and Clarke in 1894 (Eleventh Ann. Rep. State Geol. N.Y. : 297) quoted P. semireticulatus as the type species. Schuchert in 1897 (Bull. U.S. Geol. Surv. : 87 : 319) gave the type species as Anomites productus Martin=Productus martini Sowerby=Productus semireticulatus (Martin). 22. Thomas (I.) (1914, loc. cit.) was the first to make a clear selection of a type species for Productus Sowerby, so selecting Productus productus (W. Martin). This was adopted by Chao in 1927 (Pal. sinica (B) 5(2) : 26), by Muir-Wood in 1928 (Mem. geol. Survey Gt. Brit. (Palaeont.) 3(1) : 235) and by Schuchert and Levene in 1929 (Foss. Cat. 1: 42 Brachiopoda, Generum et Genotyporum Index et Biblio- graphia) : 100). 23. In 1930 the two species P. productus (Martin) and P. semireticulatus (Martin) were finally disentangled by Muir-Wood (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10)5 : 103), who then selected P. semireticulatus (Martin) as the type species of the genus Dictyoclostus Muir-Wood. This revision is now generally adopted by authors. 24. The invalidation, for these two species, of the trivial names given to them by Martin would cause considerable confusion in OPINION 419 83 nomenclature and the disentangling of Sowerby’s nominal species, in order to determine the trivial names which would have to replace them, would necessitate a considerable amount of research. There appears, therefore, to be a good case for the validation of the trivial name productus Martin, 1809, as published in the combination Conchyliolithus Anomites (productus) for the species commonly known as Productus productus (Martin), and of the trivial name semireticulatus Martin, 1809, as published in the combination Conchyliolithus Anomites (semireticulatus) for the species commonly known as Dictyoclostus semireticulatus (Martin). (6) The trivial name ‘‘ crumena ’’? Martin, 1809, as published in the combination ‘‘ Conchyliolithus Anomites (crumena) ”’ 25. The nominal species Conchyliolithus Anomites (crumena) Martin, 1809 (Petrif. derb. : sign. R[1], pl. 36, fig. 4) was assigned to the genus Camarophoria (emend. of Camerophoria) King, 1850 (Mon. Perm. Foss. (Palaeont. Soc.) : 113) by King, 1850 (ibid. : 119, footnote). It was subsequently redescribed and figured as Camarophoria crumena from the Lower Carboniferous by Davidson in 1861 (Mon. Brit. Foss. Brach. 2(5)(3) : 113, pl. 25, figs. 3—9), Martin’s figure being reproduced for comparison. 26. Prior to this, however, in 1815, Sowerby (J.) (Min. Conch. 1 : 190, pl. 83, figs. 2, 2*, 3) used Martin’s trivial name crumena in describing the species as Terebratula crumena. 27. Sowerby’s T. crumena includes three unrelated species, two Rhynchonellids from the Jurassic which are both figured in pl. 83, and Martin’s Lower Carboniferous species mentioned in the description but not figured by Sowerby. Martin’s type specimen is not preserved in the Sowerby collection and is not refigured in pl. 83, fig. 3. 28. In view of this confusion and of Sowerby’s misidentification of Martin’s species, there appears to be a good case for the validation of the trivial name crumena, 1809, as published in the combination Conchyliolithus Anomites (crumena) for the species commonly known as Stenoscisma [olim Camarophoria] crumena (Martin), since from 1861 onwards when the species was redescribed by Davidson, this trivial name is well established in Carboniferous literature. (7) The trivial name ‘* pugnus ’’ Martin, 1809, as published in the combination ‘* Conchyliolithus Anomites (pugnus) ”’ 29. In 1793 (Figs. Descr. Petrifactions Derbyshire : sign. L{4], pl. 22, figs. 4, 5) Martin published the name Conchyliolithus Anomia (quinque- lobatus) ; in 1809 (Petrif. derb. : sign. K[4], pl. 22, figs. 4, 5) Martin 84 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS republished the above figures, to which on this occasion he assigned the name Conchyliolithus Anomites (pugnus). No reason was given by Martin for this change ; the specific name Anomites quinquelobatus is not preoccupied. Thus, if the names published in Martin’s two books were available for the purposes of zoological nomenclature, the entirely unknown name quinquelobatus Martin, 1793, would replace pugnus Martin, 1809, a name which is universally used for this common Lower Carboniferous species of brachiopod. 30. Sowerby (J. de C.) in 1825 (Min. Conch. 5 : 155, pl. 497, figs. 1— 6) was the next author to describe Martin’s species, which he assigned to the genus Terebratula. In 1840 (in the alphabetical index to volume 7 of the Min. Conch.) Sowerby transferred this species to the genus Atrypa Dalman, 1828 (K. Vetensk-Akad. Handl., Stockholm 1827 : 93, 102). Five of the specimens assigned by Sowerby to Terebratula pugnus are from Ireland and one from Derbyshire. They belong to more than one species, but none is identical with the species to which Martin applied the trivial names guinquelobatus (in 1793) and pugnus (in 1809), the holotype of which is still in existence. 31. Thus, if the trivial name pugnus Martin, 1809, were not preserved by the International Commission, the name pugnus, as from Sowerby (1825), would have to be applied to a species different from that for which it is now universally used, a change which would certainly lead to great confusion. There is therefore a good case for the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers to validate the trivial name pugnus Martin, 1809, as published in the combination Conchyliolithus Anomites (pugnus) for use for the species to which it is now always applied. (8) The trivial name ‘* subconicus ’? Martin, 1809, as published in the combination ‘‘ Conchyliolithus Anomites (subconicus) ”’ 32. The species name Conchyliolithus Anomites (subconicus) was published by Martin in 1809 (Petrif. derb. : sign. Z[2], pl. 47, figs. 6—8). The species so named was first redescribed in 1840 (Trans. Geol. Soc. Lond. (2) 5: pl. 57, fig. 10 and expl.) by Sowerby (J. de C.), who misidentified it from the British Devonian, citing it as Spirifera subconica var. Sowerby’s figure represents an unrelated species nowadays identified as Cyrtina heteroclita (Defrance, 1827). This misidentifica- tion was furthered by Phillips in 1841 (Figs. Descr. Pal. Foss. Cornwall : 72, pl. 29, fig. 126), while de Koninck in 1843 (Descr. Anim. foss. Belg. : 255, pl. 12 bis, figs. 5, 5a, b, c) confused subconicus Martin with another unrelated species from the Belgian Lower Carboniferous. The species which de Koninck then erroneously called Spirifer subconica is identified nowadays as Davidsonina septosa (Phillips, 1836), var. transversa (J. W. Jackson). | OPINION 419 85 33. The confusion in regard to the identity of Martin’s species was finally cleared up by Davidson in 1858—59 (Mon. Brit. foss. Brach. 2(5)(1) : 48, pl. 9, fig. 3) and in 1863 (ibid. 2(5)(5) : 224, pl. 52, fig. 4) when an accurate description and illustration of the species were given under the name Spirifera subconica. 34. North (F.J.) in 1921 (Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond. 76 : 203) assigned this species to his new genus Tylothyris North, 1921 (ibid. 76 : 195), applying to it the name Tylothyris subconica subconica. At the same time he selected but did not illustrate a neotype. 35. If the name subconicus Martin, 1809, were to be treated as unavailable for nomenclatorial purposes, it would not be possible to apply that trivial name, as from a later author, to the species for which it is at present habitually used, since (as shown above) the first author after Martin to make use of this name (J. de C. Sowerby) applied it, as the result of a misidentification, to a different species ; in consequence, it would be necessary to provide this species with a new name. As this is a common British Lower Carboniferous species, such a change of name would certainly cause confusion. There is therefore a good case for the use by the International Commission of its Plenary Powers to validate the trivial name subconicus Martin, 1809. (9) The trivial name ‘‘ trigonalis ’’ Martin, 1809, as published in the combination ‘‘ Conchyliolithus Anomites (trigonalis) ”’ 36. The species name Conchyliolithus Anomites (trigonalis) was published by Martin in 1809 (Petrif. derb. : sign. Q[2], pl. 36, fig. 1). This trivial name was first republished in 1820 by Sowerby (J.) (Min. Conch. 3: 117, pl. 265, figs. 2, 3). Martin’s type specimen is not preserved ; it was not refigured by Sowerby. Sowerby’s syntypes, which are extant, are referable not to Anomites trigonalis Martin but to a species near Spirifer bisulcatus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1825 (Min. Conch 5°:-152). 37. McCoy in 1844 (Syn. Carb. Limest. Foss. Ireland : 135) in his description of Spirifera trigonalis stated that there were two species— that of Martin and that of Sowerby—confused under this name. These two species were disentangled by Davidson in 1858 (Mon. Brit. foss. Brach. 2(5)(1) : 29, pl. 5, figs. 25, 29—33) and 1863 (ibid. 2(5)(5) : 222, pl. 50, figs. 3, 4, nec S—9). Later, however, in 1880 (ibid. 4(3) : 276, pl. 32, fig. 13; pl. 34, figs. 2—5) Davidson again confused this species with other Carboniferous Spirifers. Schwetzov in 1925 (Bull. Soc. Nat. Moscou 33 : 155) included Martin’s species in his Spirifer trigonalis Martin, var. typica. 86 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 38. We find therefore that on the occasion of the first use, subsequent to Martin (1809), of the trivial name trigonalis (namely that by J. de C. Sowerby in 1820) this trivial name was applied not to the species so named by Martin but to another species, and, therefore, that, if the name trigonalis Martin, 1809, were not to be validated by the Inter- national Commission, it would be necessary to apply it in an entirely unaccustomed sense and at the same time to provide a new name for the species now known as Spirifer (or Fusella) trigonalis. This is a common Lower Carboniferous species and its trivial name trigonalis is well established in stratigraphical and palaeontological literature. Any disturbance of that name would certainly give rise to confusion, and there is therefore a good case for the use by the International Commission of its Plenary Powers to validate the trivial name trigonalis Martin, 1809, for use in its customary sense. (10) The trivial name ‘‘ striatus ’? Martin, 1809, as published in the combination ‘‘ Conchyliolithus Anomites (striatus) ”’ 39. The species name Conchyliolithus Anomites (striatus) was published by Martin in 1809 (Petrif. derb.: sign. L[1], pl. 23, figs. 1, 2). The same trivial name had previously been applied by Martin to the same species in the combination Conchyliolithus Anomia (striatus) in 1793 (Figs. Descr. Petrifications Derbyshire : sign. M[1], pl. 23, figs. 1, 2 et expl.). This is an extremely well-known species and for nearly 100 years has been treated as the type species of the genus Spirifer Sowerby (J.), 1816 (Min. Conch. 2:41). Under the Régles, this usage was incorrect and accordingly in 1924 Muir-Wood submitted an application to the International Commission asking for the use of the Plenary Powers to regularise universally accepted nomenclatorial practice by designating the above species as the type species of Spirifer Sowerby. This application was approved by the Commission, whose decision was promulgated in Opinion 100 published in 1928 (Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 5) : 9—12). The Commission was not asked on that occasion to validate the trivial name striatus Martin (the question of the availability of names in Martin’s two books not then being raised as such), the only request put to the Commission, and the only question on which it gave a decision, being concerned with the type species of the genus Spirifer Sowerby. The present opportunity is accordingly taken to ask the International Commission to complete the case dealt with in Opinion 100 by using its Plenary Powers to validate the trivial name striatus Martin, 1809, as published in the combination Conchylio- lithus Anomites (striatus). Recommendations 40. Since we understand from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4) that OPINION 419 87 it is the policy of the International Commission and of the International Congress of Zoology to develop the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology to the fullest extent possible and since a large part of the case on which the present application is based rests upon the fact that several of the specific trivial names which we ask should be validated are the names of type species of important genera, we recommend that the names of those genera should be placed on the Official List for such names at the same time that the trivial names now proposed to be validated are placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. 41. We accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) under the procedure laid down under Section (2) of the Fifteenth Conclusion at the Fourteenth of its Meetings held in Paris in July 1948 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 452), to use its Plenary Powers to validate the under-mentioned trivial names published by Martin (W.) in 1809 in the work entitled Petrificata Derbiensia :— (i) Class Anthozoa (a) duplicatus Martin, 1809, ibid. : sign. N[4], pl. 30, figs. 1, 2, as published in the combination Erismatolithus Madre- porites (duplicatus) ; (b) floriformis Martin, 1809, ibid. : sign. V[1], pl. 43, figs. 3, 4, as published in the combination Erismatolithus Madre- porites (floriformis) ; (11) Class Brachiopoda (c) resupinatus Martin, 1809, ibid. : sign. Z[4], pl. 49, figs. 13, 14, as published in the combination Conchyliolithus Anomites (resupinatus) ; (d) semireticulatus Martin, 1809, ibid.: sign. O[3], pl. 32, figs. 1—3, pl. 33, fig. 4, as published in the combination Conchyliolithus Anomites (semireticulatus) ; (e) productus Martin, 1809, ibid. : sign. K[2], pl. 22, figs. 1—3, as published in the combination Conchyliolithus Anomites (productus) ; (f) crumena Martin, 1809, ibid. : sign. R[1], pl. 36, fig. 4, as published in the combination Conchyliolithus Anomites (crumena) ; (g) pugnus Martin, 1809, ibid. : sign. K[4], pl. 22, figs. 4, 5, as published in the combination Conchyliolithus Anomites (pugnus) ; 88 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (h) trigonalis Martin, 1809, ibid. : sign. Q[2], pl. 36, fig. 1, as published in the combination Conchyliolithus Anomites (trigonalis) ; (i) subconicus Martin, 1809, ibid. : sign. Z[2], pl. 47, figs. 6—8, as published in the combination Conchyliolithus Anomites (subconicus) ; (j) striatus Martin, 1809, ibid. : sign. L[1], pl. 23, figs. 1, 2 et expl., as published in the combination Conchyliolithus Anomites (striatus) ; (2) to place the ten trivial names specified in (1) above on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, subject, in the under- mentioned cases, to the addition of the following notes specifying the manner in which the nominal species in question is to be interpreted :— (a) duplicatus Martin, 1809 : the nominal species so named to be interpreted by reference to the specimen illustrated as fig. 1 on plate 17 in the paper by Stanley Smith published in 1916 (Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond. 71) ; (b) floriformis Martin, 1809 : the nominal species so named to be interpreted by reference to the specimen illustrated as figs. 1—3 on plate 19 in the paper by Stanley Smith published in 1916 (Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond. 71) ; (c) resupinatus Martin, 1809 : the nominal species so named to be interpreted by reference to the specimen illustrated as figs. 1, la, 1b, on plate 29 in the portion of Davidson’s monograph published in 1861 (Mon. brit. foss. Brach. 2(5)(4) (specimen refigured by Bond in 1942, Proc. geol. Assoc. 52(4) : 289, pl. 21, figs. A—C) ; (d) crumena Martin, 1809 : the nominal species so named to be interpreted by reference to the specimens illustrated as figs. 3—8 on pl. 25 in the portion of Davidson’s mono- graph published in 1861 (Mon. brit. foss. Brach. 2(5)(3)) ; (e) subconicus Martin, 1809 : the nominal species so named to be interpreted by reference to the specimen illustrated by Davidson in 1859 as fig. 3 on plate 9 (Mon. brit. foss. Brach. 2(5)(1)) ; and as fig. 4 on plate 52 (ibid. 2(5)(5)) published in 1863 ; (f) trigonalis Martin, 1809 : the nominal species so named to be interpreted by reference to the specimen illustrated as fig. 25 on plate 5 and as figs. 3—4 on plate 50 of David- son’s monograph published in 1858 and 1863 (Mon. brit. foss. Brach. 2) ; OPINION 419 89 (g) pugnus Martin, 1809 : the nominal species so named to be interpreted by reference to Martin’s type specimen (No. B.61451 in Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.)) illustrated by Muir-Wood in 1951 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (12) 4: pl. 4, figs. 3a—c) ; (h) striatus Martin, 1809 : the nominal species so named to be interpreted by reference to the specimen illustrated in 1820 by Sowerby (J.), as upper figure on plate 270 (err. as 170) of Min. Conch. 3. (Specimen preserved in the Coll. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) No. B.61016) ; (i) semireticulatus Martin, 1809 : the nominal species so named to be interpreted by reference to the specimen (No. B.3685 in Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.)) illustrated as figs. 2a—c on pl. 4 in 1928 by Muir-Wood (Mem. geol. Surv. Gt. Brit. (Palaeont) 3(1)) ; (j) productus Martin, 1809 : the nominal species so named to be interpreted by reference to the specimen (No. 32453 in Geological Survey Museum) illustrated in 1928 as figs. la—d on pl. 1 by Muir-Wood (Mem. geol. Sury. Gt. Brit. 3(1)). (3) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Lonsdaleia M°Coy, 1849, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 3: 11 (type species, by original designation : Erismatolithus Madreporites duplicatus Martin, 1809, as proposed, under (1)(a) above, to be validated under the Plenary Powers, the nominal species so named to be interpreted as specified in (2)(a) above) (Class Anthozoa) ; (b) Schizophoria King, 1850, Mon. Perm. Foss. (Palaeont. Soc.) : 105, 106 (type species, by original designation : Conchylio- lithus Anomites resupinatus Martin, 1809, as proposed under (1)(c) above, to be validated under the Plenary Powers, the nominal species so named to be interpreted as specified in (2)(c) above) (Class Brachiopoda) ; (c) Productus Sowerby (J.), 1814, Min. Conch. 1 : 153 (type species, by subsequent selection by Thomas (I.), 1914 (Mem. geol. Survey Gt. Brit. (Palaeont.) 1(4) : 258): Conchyliolithus Anomites productus Martin, 1809, as proposed, under (1)(e) above, to be validated under the Plenary Powers) (Class Brachiopoda) ; (d) Dictyoclostus Muir-Wood, 1930, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10) 5 : 103 (type species, by original designation : Conchylio- lithus Anomites semireticulatus Martin, 1809, as proposed, under (1)(d) above, to be validated under the Plenary Powers) (Class Brachiopoda) ; 90 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (4) to amend the entry in relation to the name Spirifer Sowerby (J.), 1816, made in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology under Opinion 100, as supplemented by the decision taken in 1948 that every generic name for which the Plenary Powers are used is to be placed on the foregoing List (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 267), to read as follows :— Spirifer Sowerby (J.), 1816, Min. Conch. 2 : 41 (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers (Opinion 100) : Conchyliolithus Anomites striatus Martin, 1809 (as pro- posed, under (1)(j) above, to be validated under Plenary Powers)) (Class Brachiopoda) ; (5) to place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : (a) conaxis M°Coy, 1849, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 3 : 10, pl. 49, as published in the combination Strombodes conaxis (trivial name of a nominal species, the holotype of which is the specimen, by which, as specified in (2)(b) above, the nominal species Erismatolithus Madreporites floriformis Martin, 1809, as proposed, under (1)(b) above, to be validated under the Plenary Powers, is to be interpreted) ; (b) semistriatus Sowerby (J.), 1821, Min. Conch. 4:15, as published in the combination Annomites [sic] semistriatus (a faute de transcription for “‘Anomites semireticulatus ”’ Martin, 1809). Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : At the time of the commencement of the preliminary correspondence which led up to the submission of the present application, the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 461 was allotted to the problem involved in the suggested validation under the Plenary Powers of certain of the names for species of the Classes Anthozoa and Brachiopoda published by Martin in 1809 in his Petrificata Derbiensia. OPINION 419 91 3. Publication of the present application : After the submission of the present application discussion was necessary in regard to various minor matters. This was completed in April 1951 and the present application was thereupon sent to the printer. Publication took place on 28th September 1951, the present application appearing in Part 1 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Muir-Wood & Stubblefield, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 7—17). 4. Issue of Public Notices : Under the revised arrangements approved by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51—56), Public Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in the present case was given on 28th September 1951, both in Part 1 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which the present application was published) and also to the prescribed serial publications. In addition, such Notice was given also to a number of general zoological serial publications and to certain palae- ontological serials in Europe and America. 5. Comments received: The issue of the Public Notices referred to in paragraph 4 above elicited support for the action proposed from one specialist in Germany, from two specialists in the United Kingdom and from an organised group of palaeontologists in the United States. The communications so received are reproduced in the immediately following paragraphs. No objection was received from any source. 6. Support received from Dr. Herta Schmidt (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Senckenberg-Anlage, Frankfurt a.M., Germany): On Ist November 1951 Dr. Herta Schmidt (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M.) indicated as follows her support for the present application (Schmidt (H.), 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 219) :— Soweit die Vorschlage Brachiopoden betreffen, stimme ich ihnen zu. 92 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 7. Support received from Dr. Stanley Smith (University of Bristol, Bristol, England) : On 24th November 1951 Dr. Stanley Smith (University of Bristol, England) addressed the following letter to the Commission in support of the present application (Smith (S.), 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 219) :— I wish to support the application made to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature by Dr. H. Muir-Wood and Dr. C. J. Stubblefield to validate the trivial names of certain Carboni- ferous corals and brachiopods published by William Martin, 1809, in Petrificata Derbiensia specified by them in Bulletin Zoological Nomenclature, vol. 6, Pt. 1, September, 1951. The names in question have been in constant use for a very long time, and to discard them now would give rise to serious difficulties and confusion. 8. Support received from Dr. J. Shirley (University of Durham, King’s College, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England) : On 10th January 1952 Dr. J. Shirley (University of Durham, King’s College, Newcastle-upon-Tyne) addressed the following letter to the Commission in support of the present application (Shirley, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 219—220) :— The dropping of Martin’s work on the Carboniferous Limestone Fossils of Derbyshire (1809) for the purpose of nomenclature, comes as a shock to those engaged on the palaeontology and stratigraphy of this system and I would like urgently to support the efforts of Drs. Stubble- field and Muir-Wood to reinstate some of Martin’s names. In my opinion his names were strictly binominal since the prefix Conchyo- lithus meant nothing more than that the shell was fossil and the above workers’ quotation from Martin (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 7) drives this point home. It is true that the descriptions are inadequate for modern purposes, but many of the illustrations are very good for their time, and there is little difficulty in recognising almost all the species among collections of specimens from Derbyshire. I would particularly like to support the use of the Plenary Powers of the Commission (Z.N.(S.) 461) in the matter of the species there listed. As an example of their frequency in the literature, I have taken the Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society back to 1940 and listed the articles in which they are mentioned as definite identification. OPINION 419 93 Out of seven papers on the Lower Carboniferous, the species are mentioned, generally frequently, in the number of papers given :— duplicatus 2 floriformis 4 resupinatus 4 semireticulatus 4 productus l crumena 1 pugnus 3 trigonalis 5 subconicus 0 striatus 3 Only one species receives no mention in these papers. This is for only one journal. I think it would be true to say that it is almost impossible to pick up any general work on the stratigraphy-palaeonto- logy of the British Lower Carboniferous which does not mention as definite identications some of the species of Martin, and you can imagine the confusion which would arise if Martin’s species names were dropped. 9. Support received from the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America : On 9th April 1952 there was received the following letter dated 18th February 1952, in which Professor G. Winston Sinclair (then of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.), Chairman of the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America, reported that nine members of the Committee supported the present application, while two were opposed to it :— The Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America has considered this subject, and I wish to inform you that, being polled, they voted : To support the petitions (9) :—Katherine V. W. Palmer; A. Myra Keen; G. Winston Sinclair ; J. Marvin Weller ; R. C. Moore ; John B. Reeside, Jr. ; Bobb Schaeffer ; Bryan Patterson ; Siemon W. Muller. To oppose the petition (2) :—John W. Wells ; Don L. Frizzell. Il]—THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 10. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(52)42 : On 15th May 1952, a Voting Paper (V.P.(52)42) was issued in which the Members of 94 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the proposal “ relating to the names of certain species and genera in the Classes Anthozoa and Brachiopoda as set out in Points (1) to (5) on pages 15 to 17 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (i.e. in the concluding paragraph of the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion. 11. The Prescribed Voting Period for Voting Paper V.P.(52)42 : As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 15th August 1952. 12. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)42 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)42 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following fifteen (15) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Hering ; Calman ; Dymond ; Hanko ; Bonnet ; Vokes ; do Amaral; Pearson; Bradley; Hemming; Esaki ; Riley ; Lemche ; Stoll; Boschma ; (b) Negative Votes, one (1) : Cabrera ; (c) On Leave of Absence, one (1) : Mertens ; (d) Voting Papers not returned, one (1) : Jaczewski. OPINION 419 95 13. Declaration of Result of Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(52)42 : On 23rd August 1952, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the Inter- national Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(52)42, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 12 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 14. Supplementary applications submitted in 1954 by Dr. Helen Muir-Wood and Dr. C. J. Stubblefield : In April 1954 Dr. Helen Muir-Wood and Dr. C. J. Stubblefield (the original applicants in the present case) notified the Office of the Commission that, having regard to the decision by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, to incorporate in the Régles provisions recognising the concept of neotypes as a category of type specimen, they had come to the conclusion that in those cases where they had originally asked that the Commission should direct that given species should be inter- preted by reference to specified previously published figures it would be preferable if the Commission would now direct that the species concerned should be interpreted by neotypes. In due course supplementary applications in this sense were submitted both by Dr. Muir-Wood and by Dr. Stubblefield. In her supple- mentary application Dr. Muir-Wood asked that in the case of six out of the eight nominal species of the Class Brachiopoda, the names of which had been dealt with in her original application, neotypes should be recognised by the Commission. In two cases unofficial neotypes had previously been established by other specialists and these Dr. Muir-Wood asked should now be officially recognised. In the remaining cases the neotypes suggested were either specimens, figures of which she had previously proposed that the Commission should make the sole standard of reference for the identification of the species concerned or other historical specimens of similar origin which for various reasons she had now concluded were more suitable for designation as neotypes. Dr. Stubblefield’s original applica- tion had been concerned with two species of the Class Anthozoa, for both of which unofficial neotypes had previously been designated, and in that application Dr. Stubblefield had asked 96 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS that figures of the specimens so designated should be made the sole standard of reference for the species concerned. In his supplementary application Dr. Stubblefield asked that in place of his earlier recommendation the neotypes themselves should now be formally recognised. Dr. Muir-Wood’s supplementary application is annexed to the present Opinion as Appendix 1, and that by Dr. Stubblefield as Appendix 2. 15. Submission to the Commission in October 1955 of proposals based upon the supplementary applications received from Dr. Muir-Wood and Dr. Stubblefield respectively : On 12th October 1955, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, submitted to the Commission the following paper in which he set forth proposals designed to give effect to the supplementary applications received from Dr. Helen Muir-Wood and Dr. C. J. Stubblefield respectively and in which he took the opportunity to correct a minor slip in the original application regarding the manner in which the nominal species Conchyliolithus Anomites productus Martin, 1809, had become the type species of the nominal genus Productus Sowerby (J.), 1814 :— Supplementary proposals consequential on the validation under the Plenary Powers of certain specific names in the Classes Anthozoa and Brachiopoda originally published by Martin (W.), 1809, in the work ‘‘ Petrificata Derbiensia ’’, since rejected by the International Commission for nomenclatorial purposes By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The present paper is concerned with certain proposals of a procedural character which have been submitted by Dr. Helen Muir-Wood (British Museum (Natural History), London) and Dr. C. J. Stubblefield (Geological Survey and Museum, London) in relation to an application submitted by them for the validation under the Plenary Powers of certain specific names in the Classes Brachiopoda and Anthozoa which were originally published by Martin (W.) in 1809, in his work entitled Petrificata Derbiensia, which has since been rejected by the Commission for nomenclatorial purposes (Muir-Wood & Stubblefield, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 7—17). The relevant facts are set out below. OPINION 419 97 2. The application referred to above was approved unanimously by the Commission in 1952 in its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(52)42. The question which now arises is in connection with the form in which the foregoing decision is to be recorded. In the case of each of the ten specific names validated as from Martin, 1809, by the decision referred to above, the applicants asked that the Commission, when placing the names concerned on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, should give express directions as to how the nominal species in question were to be interpreted. In two cases, those relating to the names pugnus Martin, 1809, as published in the combination Conchyliolithus Anomites (pugnus), and productus Martin, 1809, as published in the combination Conchyliolithus Anomites (productus) no problem arises, for in these instances Martin’s holotypes are still in existence. In the remaining eight cases the Commission was asked to direct, and did so direct, that the species concerned should be identified by reference to certain specified previously published figures. 3. Although the Commission took its decision in this case in 1952, pressure of work made it impossible for this Office to prepare the requisite Opinion prior to the opening of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology at Copenhagen in 1953. After that Congress Dr. Muir-Wood and Dr. Stubblefield took the view that the formal situation had been changed by the decision of that Congress to include in the Régles provisions recognising the concept of neotypes as a cate- gory of type specimen and they notified this Office that they considered that in these circumstances it was desirable that in the Opinion embodying the decision taken by the Commission in this case the portion of that decision linking the specific names in question to particular published figures should be replaced by a decision that the species concerned should be interpreted by neotypes. Dr. Muir-Wood and Dr. Stubble- field have accordingly each submitted proposals to this end, so far as concern the names dealt with the portions of the original application for which they were respectively responsible. 4. Full particulars of the neotypes now proposed to be accepted are given in the supplementary applications received. The following is a summary of the principal points :— (1) In four cases it is proposed that the species concerned should be interpreted by reference to neotypes which were unofficially designated as such before the Copenhagen Congress gave official recognition to the neotype concept. The species concerned are duplicatus and floriformis (Class Anthozoa) and resupinatus and subconicus (Class Brachiopoda). The neotypes concerned are of long standing, those for the two first species having been designated by Stanley Smith in 1916, that for resupinatus by . George & Ponsford in 1938 and that for subconicus by North in 98 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 1921. In the first three cases the neotypes now proposed to be accepted are the specimens, figures of which the Commission has already agreed should be the standard of reference for the species concerned. In the case of subconicus, no figure was published by North and it was for this reason that in the original application it was proposed that this species should be inter- preted by reference to one of Davidson’s figures. Arrangements have now been made for the publication of a figure of North’s neotype and it is accordingly proposed that that neotype be substituted for the figure by Davidson originally proposed as the standard of reference. (2) In two cases Dr. Muir-Wood in the proposal now submitted has designated as neotypes the specimens, figures of which the Commission has already agreed should be the standard of reference for the species concerned. These species are :— trigonalis and striatus (Class Brachiopoda). In the case of the first of these species figures by Davidson of several speci- mens were cited in the original application. The specimen now selected as the neotype is the last of these, i.e. that figured on plate 50, fig. 4, which is also the same specimen as that pre- viously shown (1858) as fig. 33 on plate 5 of his Monograph. (3) In the case of the two remaining names, both of which are of species in the Class Brachiopoda, Dr. Muir-Wood designated neotypes in the application now submitted but in these cases, unlike those discussed under (2) above, the specimens so designated are not those on which were based the figures which in the original application it was proposed should be taken as the standard of reference for the species concerned, those specimens not being considered suitable in every respect for designation as neotypes. The species here concerned are :—(1) crumena, the neotype designated for which is the specimen figured by Davidson in 1863 as plate 54, fig. 18. (2) semireticulatus, the neotype designated for which is the specimen figured by Muir-Wood in 1928 as text fig. 19. (4) Of the eight neotypes here concerned, five (resupinatus, crumena, trigonalis, striatus, semireticulatus) are in the British Museum (Natural History), two (duplicatus, floriformis) are in the Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, and one (subconicus) is in the National Museum of Wales, Cardiff. 5. Full particulars have been furnished by Dr. Muir-Wood and Dr. Stubblefield respectively regarding such matters as the labels OPINION 419 99 attached to, or associated with, the neotypes concerned in the present application. 6. The present occasion is taken also to correct a minor error in the portion of the original application relating to the generic name Productus Sowerby, 1814. It was there stated that the species Conchylio- lithus Anomites productus Martin, 1809, had been selected as the type species of the foregoing genus by Thomas in 1914. This statement was correct, but by an oversight it was not noted that the type species of this genus was automatically the above species by absolute tautonymy under Rule (d) in Article 30 and that in consequence Rule (g) (type species by subsequent selection) was not applicable in this case. 7. In the circumstances I recommend the International Commission : (1) to approve the proposals submitted by Dr. Muir-Wood and Dr. Stubblefield respectively that in the case of the eight specific names originally published in 1809 in Martin’s Petrificata Derbiensia specified in paragraph 4 above, which the Com- mission by its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(52)42 has validated under its Plenary Powers as from the above author and date, the directions as to the interpretation of the species concerned by reference to previously published figures be replaced by a direction recognising the neotypes which, as explained in paragraph 3, have been established for those species, in the case of the two nominal species belonging to the Class Anthozoa, by Dr. Stanley Smith, and, in the case of the six nominal species belonging to the Class Brachiopoda, by George & Ponsford (one neotype), by North (one neotype) and Dr. Muir-Wood (four neotypes) ; (2) to insert in the Ruling to be given in the Opinion embodying the decision taken by the Commission in its vote on the Voting Paper specified in (1) above, a note to the entry relating to -the specific names productus Martin, 1809, as published in the combination Conchyliolithus Anomites (productus) and pugnus Martin, 1809, as published in the combination Conchylio- lithus Anomites (pugnus), which by that vote were validated under the Plenary Powers, stating that Martin’s holotypes of those species are now preserved in the British Museum (Natural History) in the White Watson Collection ; (3) to amend the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology relating to the generic name Productus Martin, 1809, to be made in the Ruling in the Opinion referred to above, so as to record that the nominal species Conchyliolithus Anomites productus Martin, 1809, became the type species 100 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS of the foregoing genus by absolute tautonymy under Rule (d) in Article 30 instead of by subsequent selection under Rule (g) in the foregoing Article as inadvertently stated in the original application relating to this name. 16. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)33 : On 12th October 1955 a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(55)33) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “ (a) the proposals submitted respectively by Dr. Helen Muir-Wood and Dr. C. J. Stubblefield summarised in Point (1) in paragraph 7 of the paper bearing the Number Z.N.(S.) 461 submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper [i.e. in paragraph 7 of the paper reproduced in paragraph 15 of the present Opinion], namely that the two nominal species belonging to the Class Anthozoa and the six nominal species belonging to the Class Brachiopoda specified in paragraph 4 of the above paper, the names of which have already been validated under the Plenary Powers by the vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(52) 42, be interpreted by the neotypes which have been designated therefore, this decision to replace the at present unpromulgated decision taken on the foregoing Voting Paper (a decision which was taken prior to the incorporation into the Régles of provisions recognising the concept of neotypes as a category of type specimen) that the nominal species concerned should be interpreted by reference to certain specified previously published figures, and (b) the proposals specified in Points (2) and (3) in paragraph 7 of the paper referred above submitted by the Secretary for the purpose of securing, in the one case, a clarification, and, in the other case, a minor adjustment of the proposals originally submitted in the present case ”’. 17. The Prescribed Voting Period for Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (55)33: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 12th November 1955. OPINION 419 101 18. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (55)33 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)33 was as follows? :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty- three (23) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Hering ; Holthuis; Lemche; Vokes; Stoll; Esaki; Boschma; Riley; Méiller; Bradley (J.C.); Prantl; Mayr ; Jaczewski; Tortonese ; do Amaral; Dymond ; lemmings’ Bonnet; Mertens; Cabrera; Key; Kuhnelt ; Hanko ; (b) Negative Votes, one (1): Sylvester-Bradley ; (c) On Leave of Absence, one (1): Bodenheimer ; 2 During the interval between the taking of the vote on Voting Paper V.P.(52)42 and of the vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (55)33, the Commission had suffered two losses in its Membership, Commissioner W. T. Calman having died and Commissioner Joseph Pearson having retired. During the same period the following nine zoologists had been elected to the membership of the Commission :— Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether- lands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organ- isation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. Miller (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand Prantl (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kiihnelt (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Professor F. S. Bodenheimer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954) Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico Tortonese (Museo di Storia Naturale ‘‘ G. Doria’”’, Genova, Italy) (146th December 1954) 102 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (d) Voting Paper not returned : None. 19. Declaration of Result of Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (55)33 : On 12th November 1955, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)33, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 18 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the fore- going Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 20. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘* Opinion ”’ : On 4th March 1956 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(52)42, as supplemented and, in part, amended by the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)33. 21. Original References: The following are the original references for the generic names placed or confirmed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in the present Opinion and of the specific names placed by that Ruling on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, and on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— conaxis, Strombodes, M°Coy, 1849, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 3:10, pl. 49 crumena, Conchyliolithus Anomites, Martin, 1809, Petrif. derb. : sign. R[1], pl. 36, fig. 4 Dictyoclostus Muir-Wood, 1930, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10) 3. 103 duplicatus, Erismatolithus Madreporites, Martin, 1809, Petrif. derb. : sign. N[4], pl. 30, figs. 1, 2 OPINION 419 103 floriformis, Erismatolithus Madreporites, Martin, 1809, Petrif. derb. : sign. V[1], pl. 43, figs. 3, 4 . Lonsdaleia M°Coy, 1849, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 3: 11 Productus Sowerby (J.), 1814, Min. Conch. 1 : 153 productus, Conchyliolithus Anomites, Martin, 1809, Petrif. derb. : sign. K[2], pl. 22, figs. 1—3 pugnus, Conchyliolithus Anomites, Martin, 1809, Petrif. derb. : sign. K[4], pl. 22, figs. 4, 5 resupinatus, Conchyliolithus Anomites, Martin, 1809, Petrif. derb. : sign. Z[4], pl. 49, figs. 13, 14 Schizophoria King, 1850, Mon. Perm. Foss. (Palaeont. Soc.) : 105, 106 semireticulatus, Conchyliolithus Anomites, Martin, 1809, Petrif. derb. : sign. O[3], pl. 32, figs. 1—3, pl. 33, fig. 4 semistriatus, Annomites [sic], Sowerby (J.), 1821, Min. Conch. 22:15 ‘ Spirifer Sowerby (J.), 1816, Min. Conch. 2 : 41 striatus, Conchyliolithus Anomites, Martin, 1809, Petrif. derb. : sen. E11), pl. 23, figs. 1, 2.et explic: subconicus, Conchyliolithus Anomites, Martin, 1809, Petrif. derb. : Z[2}, pl. 47, figs. 6—8 trigonalis, Conchyliolithus Anomites, Martin, 1809, Petrif. derb. : sign. Q[2], pl. 36, fig. 1 22. Family-Group-Name Questions: The application dealt with in the present Opinion was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature prior to the establishment of the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Fourteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. It has been ascertained that an addition, or additions, to the foregoing Official List and/or to the corresponding Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology will need to be made in order to complete the action, which, under the General Directives given to the International Commission by the Inter- national Congress of Zoology, is required to be taken in the 104 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS present case. This question is now being examined on a separate File to which the Registered Number Z.N.(G.) 128 has been allotted. 23. At the time of the submission of the present application the name applicable to the second portion of a binomen was “ trivial name’. This was altered to “ specific name ”’ by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, which at the same time made corresponding changes in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of names of this category. These changes in terminology have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 24. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 25. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Four Hundred and Nineteen (419) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Fourth day of March, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-six. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING OPINION 419 105 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1.—Request for the substitution of neotypes as the standard of reference for six nominal species belonging to the Class Articulata (Phylum Brachiopoda), the names published for which by Martin (W.) in 1809 have been validated by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in place of the figures previously proposed for adoption as such standards. By Helen M. Muir-Wood, D.Sc., British Museum (Natural History), London ‘APPENDIX 2.—Request for the substitution of neotypes in place of previously published figures as the standard of reference for identifying two species of the Class Anthozoa, the names published for which by Martin (W.) in 1809 have been validated by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature under its Plenary Powers. By C. J. Stubblefield, Sc.D., F.R.S., Geological Survey and Museum, London. Wil : > : H - re Ms i f : va t 7 . ” 7 at} ou i say eu ay “) ah pe es " ’ a n rte Gay i BR Sh as a SS. F ; : rt nh ah ; ; ; iy Ve, es ne ; me Fin) 3 ; & e } ' , . ‘ - . i z y ” ‘ . ¢ - ) eo OPINION 419 107 APPENDIX 1 REQUEST FOR THE SUBSTITUTION OF NEOTYPES AS THE STANDARD OF REFERENCE FOR SIX NOMINAL SPECIES BELONGING TO THE CLASS ARTICULATA (PHYLUM BRACHIOPODA), THE NAMES PUB- LISHED FOR WHICH BY MARTIN (W.) IN 1809 HAVE BEEN VALIDATED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, IN PLACE OF THE FIGURES PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AS SUCH STANDARDS By HELEN M. MUIR-WOOD, D.Sc. (British Museum (Natural History), London) The present is in the nature of a supplementary application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in relation to six of the nominal species of Brachiopoda named by Martin (W.) in his Petrificata Derbiensia, for the validation of which by the Commission under its Plenary Powers I submitted a request in 1950 in an application in which also Dr. C. J. Stubblefield (Geological Survey and Museum, London) asked for corresponding action in relation to the specific names for two species of Anthozoa published by Martin in the foregoing work (Muir-Wood & Stubblefield, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 7—17). This application, as I have been notified informally by the Secretary, has now been approved by the Commission but I understand that owing to the need for preparing Opinions embodying decisions taken by the Commission at earlier dates in regard to other cases it may be some time before it will be possible to prepare an Opinion embodying its decision in the present case. 2. At the time of the submission of the foregoing application the only means open to the Commission for linking in a definitive 108 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS manner a given specific name to a given taxonomic unit in cases where specialists in the group concerned were of the opinion that the establishment of such a link was desirable in the interest of nomenclatorial stability was for it to direct that the taxon represented by the nominal species concerned should be that represented by some previously published figure or description. Accordingly, in the present case I asked the Commission to adopt this procedure in the case of seven of the specific names originally published by Martin which I then asked should be validated under the Plenary Powers. Since the submission and approval by the Commission, of the application so submitted, the position has been altered by the decision by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, to incorporate pro- visions in the Régles recognising the concept of neotypes. The proposals previously submitted in regard to the Brachiopod names in question amounted in all but name to the designation of neotypes for those species and I feel that in the altered circum- stances it would be much more satisfactory that the Ruling to be given by the Commission embodying the decision which it has already taken in this case should provide that the specimens to be taken as the standard of reference for the identification of the species in question should be formally recognised as neotypes of the species concerned. As will be seen, this will involve in some cases minor adjustments in the proposals previously submitted. 3. With the exception of the neotype for Conchyliolithus Anomites subconicus Martin, 1809, which is in the National Museum of Wales, Cardiff, all the neotypes discussed in the present application are preserved in the collection of the British Museum (Natural History), London. 4. All the neotypes in the British Museum discussed in the following paragraphs are marked with a capital letter “N” enclosed in a circle. This mark is written in Indian ink on the green spot label of the specimen concerned. (1) Conchyliolithus Anomites resupinatus Martin, 1809 5. The proposal submitted is that the Commission should give official recognition to the neotype “ unofficially’ designated OPINION 419 109 for Conchyliolithus Anomites resupinatus Martin, 1809, by George (T.N.) & Ponsford (D.A.) in 1938 (Trans. Leeds geol. Ass. 5(4) : 288). The specimen so selected is a shell figured by Davidson in 1861 (Mon. Brit. Foss. Brach. 2(5)(4) : 130, pl. 29, figs. 1, la, 1b) from Bolland now in the British Museum (Natural History). This specimen was refigured by Bond (G.) in 1942 (Proc. geol. Ass. 52(4) : 289, pl. 21, figs. A—C). Bond’s figures are photographs and are probably more accurate than Davidson’s original drawings. 6. The labels accompanying the above neotype are the following :— (a) “‘ Orthis resupinata Martin sp., Carboniferous Limestone, Bolland. Davidson’s Mon. Brit. Carb. Brach. t. 29, f. 1. Gilbertson Coll. Regd. no. B.384” Note : Eleven specimens were originally given the number “ B.384”’. The specimen figured by David- son was later re-registered and given the number “* BB.2420 ”’. (b) The following are the labels on the front and back respectively of the tablet on which the specimen is mounted :— (1) On the front: As in (a) above, except that the word ** Yorkshire ”’ is added after the word “ Bolland ”’, together with the following reference: Mon. Pal. soc, 661, vol. 2, pl: 29, t. 1, p. 130, BB 2420. (11) At the back : “‘ Figd. G. Bond Proc. Geol. Assoc. LII, 1942, pl. xxi, figs. A—C, p. 289. Selected as neotype by George & Ponsford, Trans. Leeds Geol. Assoc. 5(4) 1938 : 228” 7. The following labels are affixed to the specimen :— (a) Oval yellow number label BB.2420 (Official Registration Number) ; 110 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (b) Round green spot indicating a figured specimen with a capital letter ‘“‘ N”’ written in Indian ink indicating that the specimen is a neotype ; (c) The number “‘ 279 ”’ written on the specimen in black ink. (This may possibly be the Gilbertson Coll. number.) (2) Conchyliolithus Anomites semireticulatus Martin, 1809 8. In my _ original application I recommended that Conchyliolithus Anomites semireticulatus Martin, 1809, should be interpreted by reference to the specimen numbered B.3685 in the British Museum (Natural History) which was illustrated in 1928 as figs. 2a—c on plate 4 (Muir-Wood, 1928, Mem. geol. Sury. Gt. Brit. 3(1)). This specimen has no locality and is cut into two halves. Dr. A. G. Cooper (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.), with whom I later discussed this matter, took the view that this specimen was not suitable for selection as a neotype and it is for this reason that I recommend that the other specimen figured in my 1928 paper as an outline only, namely the entire specimen numbered B.45691, should now be accepted as the neotype. This specimen is in every respect more suitable for this purpose than specimen B.3685, being far better preserved and showing the ornament characteristic of the species. 9. The specimen designated above as the neotype for this species which is in the British Museum (Natural History) has the following label : “* Dictyoclostus semireticulatus (Martin) NEOTYPE, Lower Carboniferous, Bolland, Yorkshire. Figd. Muir-Wood, 1928, Mem. Geol. Surv. Gt. Brit. Pal. 3(1) text-fig., 19 : 93, 94. B.45691 (re-registered from B.413) Gilbertson Coll”. (Originally four specimens were registered under the number B.413. As explained above the specimen now designated as the neotype was later re-registered under the number B.45691.) The following labels are affixed to the foregoing specimen :— (a) Oval yellow number label B.45691 (Official Registration Number) ; OPINION 419 111 (b) Round green spot, indicating a figured specimen with a capital letter ‘‘ N ” written in Indian ink indicating that the specimen is a neotype ; (c) Small oblong white label bearing the number 10la (or 141a) in faded ink. (3) Conchyliolithus Anomites crumena Martin, 1809 10. Davidson’s specimens of Conchyliolithus Anomites crumena Martin, 1809, were figured in volume 2 of his Mon. Brit. fossil Brach. on plate 25, figs. 3—8 and on plate 54, figs. 16—18. Not all the specimens figured by Davidson on his plate 25 are preserved in the British Museum (Natural History). The only specimens now extant are those shown as figs. 4 and 8 on the above plate. The former of these specimens (fig. 4) lacks the umbo, while the latter (fig. 8) is not quite typical. Of the two surviving Davidson specimens shown on plate 54 (figs. 16 and 18), that shown as fig. 18 more closely resembles Martin’s figure. This specimen is therefore here designated as the neotype of this species. 11. All the specimens of Davidson’s which are still preserved in the British Museum (Natural History) are in a glass-topped box mounted on a wooden tablet, bearing the following labels :-— (a) On the front: ‘“‘ Camarophoria [Stenoscisma] crumena Martin. Carb. Limestone, Settle, Yorkshire and Wetton, Staffordshire. B.5597. Figd. Mon. Pal. Soc. vol. 2, 1860, pl. 25, figs. 4, 8, p. 113, and 1862, vol. 2, pl. 54, fig. 16, 18. _Neotype pl. 54, fig. 18. BB.13025”. (All the figured specimens and eight others originally bore the number B.5597. The neotype has now been re-registered under the number BB.13025.) 112 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (b) On the back: On the back of the tablet there are the following labels of T. Davidson :— (1) “‘ Camarophoria crumena Mart. = Camarophoria schlotheimi v. Buch. Scar Limestone Carboniferous, Settle, Yorkshire ’” [with ‘“ Wetton, Staffordshire ”’ added in pencil] ; (ii) “* Camarophoria crumena Carb. limestone, Wetton, Staffordshire ”’. 12. The following labels are actually affixed to the neotype :— (a) Oval yellow number label BB.13025 (Official Registration Number) ; (b) Round green ticket bearing the number 18 in black ink ; (c) A capital letter “‘ N ” written in Indian ink indicating that this specimen is a neotype. (4) Conchyliolithus Anomites trigonalis Martin, 1809 13. In my original application I suggested that the Commission should give a Ruling that the nominal species Conchyliolithus Anomites trigonalis Martin, 1809, should be identified by reference to the following figures in vol. 2 of Davidson’s Mon. Brit. foss. Brach, :—fig. 25 on plate 5 published in 1858 and figs. 3—4 on pl. 50 published in 1863. Now that it is possible to secure a superior method for determining a species by designating a neotype for it, this recommendation requires re-examination. I have therefore selected as the neotype for this species one of Davidson’s surviving specimens in the British Museum (Natural History) which is also one of the specimens illustrated on the plates of Davidson’s which in my original application I suggested should be taken as the standard of reference for this species. OPINION 419 113 This is the specimen which was figured by Davidson in 1863 Vol. 2 (5)(5) as figure 4 on his plate 50. The same specimen had previously been figured by him in 1852 in vol. 2(5)(1) of the same work as figure 33 on plate 5. 14. The label affixed to the back of the wooden tablet on which the neotype now designated is mounted reads as follows: “‘ Spirifer trigonalis, Carboniferous Limestone from Courland near Dalkeith ’’. On the front of the tablet there is the following label: ‘‘ Spirifer trigonalis Martin Carb. Limest. Courland [sic], Dalkeith. B.7340. Fig. Mon. Pal. Soc. 1857, vol. 2, pl. 5, fig. 33, p. 29, also pl. 50, fig. 4. Neotype”’. (Note : Davidson spelled the name of this place incorrectly as **Courland’’, instead of “‘Cousland’’, on the legend of his plate 5.) 15. The following labels are affixed to the specimen :— (a) Oval yellow number label B.7340 (Official Registration Number) ; (b) Round green ticket, indicating a figured specimen, with a capital letter ““N’”’ in Indian ink indicating that the specimen is a neotype. (5) Conchyliolithus Anomites subconicus Martin, 1809 16. In my application regarding this name, I pointed out (: 13) that for many years there was doubt and confusion as to the species to which in 1809 Martin gave the name Conchyliolithus Anomites subconicus, and that it was not until 1858—1859 that the identity of this species was firmly established by the accurate description and illustration of that species given by Davidson in [1858—1859] (Mon. Brit. foss. Brach. 2(5)(1) : 48, pl. 9, fig. 3) and in 1863 (ibid. 2(5)(5) : 224, pl. 52, fig. 4). At the same time I noted that North (F.J.) in 1921 (Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond. 76 : 203) selected a neotype but did not give a figure of it. In that 114 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS paper North recognised two sub-species for this species : Martin’s sub-species, for which he selected the above neotype, thus became the nominate sub-species. 17. Since neotypes were not officially recognised at the time when I drew up my proposals in regard to the present name and there was no published figure of North’s neotype, I decided that the best course would be to ask the Commission to define this species by reference to the specimen figured by Davidson in 1859 in vol. 2(5)(2) of his Mon. Brit. foss. Brach. as figure 3 on his plate 9. In the altered circumstances now obtaining I consider that the better course would be for the Commission to recognise North’s neotype, provided that a figure of it is published at the same time. Direct correspondence on this subject has taken place, at my suggestion, between Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the Commission, and Dr. North, as the result of which it is now possible to attach to the present paper (plate 1, fig. 4) an illustration of the neotype selected by the latter in 1921. 18. The neotype of this species is in the National Museum of Wales at Cardiff. The following particulars regarding the labelling of this neotype (paragraphs 16 and 17 above) have been furnished by Dr. North :— (a) The number of the specimen in the National Museum of Wales Register is 19.246 G4 ; (b) The accompanying label is as follows: ‘“* Tylothyris subconica (Martin) subconica (North). Carboniferous Limestone (D2), Attermire, Yorkshire. Specimen re- ferred to in Q.J.G.S. Volume 76 (1920) p. 203 as Holotype of Tylothyris subconica subconica”’; (c) Dr. North has informed Mr. Hemming that a new label is being prepared for the above specimen, which will include the word “‘ neotype ” after the words “ Tylothyris subconica (Martin) subconica (North)”’ quoted in (b) © above. OPINION 419 115 (6) Conchyliolithus Anomites striatus Martin, 1809 19. When I drew up my original proposals, I recommended that the Commission should direct that the species named Conchyliolithus Anomites striatus by Martin in 1809 should be identified by reference to the specimen illustrated in 1820 by Sowerby (J.) as the upper figure on plate 270 (accidentally numbered as “170’’) in volume 3 of his Mineral Conchology. This specimen is discussed on page 125 of the foregoing volume. The same specimen had previously been described and figured by Sowerby in [1819] (Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 12 (vol. for 1818) : 514, pl. 28, fig. 2). This specimen I have now designated as the neotype of this species. 20. The neotype designated in the preceding paragraph is in the British Museum (Natural History). It is mounted on a tablet with a second specimen, the labels on the front and back of which are as follows :— (a) Label on front of tablet: “‘(Terebratula) Spirifer striatus Martin sp. Carboniferous Limestone 43425. [The number ‘43425’ has been crossed out and replaced by the later number ‘ B.61015—16’.] Trans. Linn. Soc. 1818 vol. 12, pl. 28, fig. 2, p. 514, Figd. Min. Conch. wolsAt pl. 270, pe 125.” (b) Labels on back of tablet: There are two labels on the back of the tablet, namely :— (i) a small original label “‘ Spirifer striatus M.C.170”’ ; (ii) an oval yellow ticket with the number “* 43425’, the original number of the specimen when first regis- tered. 21. The following labels are actually affixed to the neotype :— (a) an oval yellow ticket bearing the number “ B.61016” (Official Registration Number) ; 116 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (b) a round green ticket denoting that this is a figured specimen and marked in Indian ink with a capital letter ““N”’ indicating that it is the neotype of the species. (7) Conchyliolithus Anomites productus Martin, 1809 22. In my original application I recommended that the species named Conchyliolithus Anomites productus by Martin in 1809 should be identified by the entry for it in the Official List of a reference to the specimen numbered 32453 in the Geological Survey Museum which was illustrated in 1928 as figs. la—d on plate 1 in my paper on this subject (Muir-Wood, 1928, Mem. geol. Surv. Gt. Brit. (Paleont) 3(1)). Now, however, that Martin’s name productus has been validated by the Commission, it would, I think, be more appropriate that the entry to be made in the Official List should be related to Martin’s original specimen, which is preserved in the White Watson Collection in the British Museum (Natural History), for that specimen may now be regarded as the holotype of this species. The reference suggested in my original application was to a good typical figure of this species and not to an “ unofficial”’ neotype. Martin’s specimen has not been re-figured by any later author. It is now accordingly refigured as figs 1 to 3 on plate 1 annexed to the present application. 23. The holotype of productus Martin is in two parts, both of which are mounted on a wooden tablet, to which the following labels are affixed :— (a) On the front of the tablet : ‘‘ Anomites [Productus] productus Martin, Carboniferous, Derbyshire, Fig.Martin, Petrificata Derbiensia, 1809, vol. 1, pl. 22, figs. 1—3. White Watson Coll. B.40952 HOLOTYPE ” ; (b) On the back of the tablet : There are two labels on the back of the tablet, namely :— (i) ‘“‘ Anomites productus Martin, pl. 22, figs. 1—3 Ino; 992) 72 | OPINION 419 Gi (11) ‘“‘ Carboniferous Derbyshire, White Watson Coll. (W. Martin) Purch. A. Bingham 1914”’. 24. In addition, there are the following labels attached to the holotype itself :— (a) Affixed to both portions of the holotype: Both portions of the holotype bear the following identical labels :— (i) an oval yellow number label “ B.40952” (Official Registration Number) ; (ii) a round green ticket denoting that this is a figured specimen ; (b) Affixed only to the smaller portion of the holotype: The following label is attached only to the smaller portion of the holotype: a small oblong stained brown label with the printed number “‘ 922 ”’. (8) Conchyliolithus Anomites pugnus Martin, 1809 25. In the case of the species named Conchyliolithus Anomites pugnus Martin, 1809 (as in that of Conchyliolithus Anomites productus Martin, 1809, discussed in the immediately preceding paragraphs) Martin’s original specimen is extant and can serve as the holotype of this nominal species now that Martin’s name for that species has been validated by the Commission under its Plenary Powers. The only difference between these two cases is that, while Martin’s specimen of productus has never been re-figured, there is a recent figure of his specimen of pugnus. In my original application I asked that the Commission should insert in the entry on the Official List relating to the name pugnus Martin a note that the species so named be interpreted by reference to Martin’s type specimen preserved in the British Museum (Natural History) under the number “B.61451 ”’, which was re-figured by myself in 1951 (Muir-Wood, 1931, Ann. Mag. na Hist. (12) 4: 117, pl. 4, figs. 3a—c). This recom- mendation is now re-submitted. 118 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 26. The labels accompanying the holotype of this species are the following :— (a) On the front of the tablet :— Rhynchonella pugnus Martin sp. Conchyliolithus Anomites (pugnus) Carboniferous Limestone.—Derbyshire Figd. Petrif. Derbiensia, pl. 22, f. 4, 5 Sowerby Collection B.61451 HOLOTYPE (b) On the back of the tablet : Figd. Muir-Wood, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (12) IV, no. 38 Feb. 1951, pl. 4, figs. 3a—d 27. The following labels are affixed to the holotype :— (a)a yellow number label B.61451 (Official Registration Label) (b) a green spot indicating that this is a figured specimen. Recommendations 28. For the reasons set forth in the present application I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to approve the following revised proposals in place of those submitted in Point (2) at the close of my original application (Muir-Wood, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 15—16), namely that, when the eight names specified below are placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, following their validation under the Plenary Powets, the following directions be given as to the manner in which the nominal species concerned be inter- preted :— (a) Conchyliolithus Anomites resupinatus Martin, 1809, to be interpreted by reference to the neotype designated by George (T.N.) & Ponsford (D.A.) in 1938 (paragraph 5) ; 7 ar =e eT eer OPINION 419 119 (b) the under-mentioned nominal species to be interpreted by the neotypes severally designated therefore in the under- mentioned paragraphs of the present application :— (i) Conchyliolithus Anomites semireticulatus Martin, 1809 (paragraph 8) ; (ii) Conchyliolithus Anomites crumena Martin, 1809 (paragraph 10) ; (111) Conchyliolithus Anomites_ trigonalis Martin, 1809 (paragraph 13) ; (iv) Conchyliolithus Anomites striatus Martin, 1809 (para- graph 19) ; (c) Conchyliolithus Anomites subconicus Martin, 1809, to be interpreted by reference to the neotype designated by North (F.J.) in 1921 (paragraph 16 and pl. 1, fig. 4; (d) the under-mentioned nominal species to be interpreted by the holotypes thereof now preserved in the British Museum (Natural History) as severally indicated in the paragraphs noted below :— (i) Conchyliolithus Anomites productus Martin, 1809 (paragraph 22 and pl. 1, figs. 1 and 3) ; (ii) Conchyliolithus Anomites pugnus Martin, 1809 (para- graph 25). 120 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS EXPLANATION TO PLATE 1 Illustrations of the holotype of ‘‘ Conchyliolithus Anomites productus ’’ Martin, 1809 and of the neotype of ‘** Conchyliolithus Anomites subconicus’’ Martin, 1809 (a) The holotype of “‘ Conchyliolithus ee productus ” Martin, 1809 Note: Ail the illustrations of the above specimen are natural size Fig. 1 Ventral view of pedicle valve Fig. 2 Posterior view showing how the pedicle valve has fractured along the diaphragm, which is here seen as a crescentic plate round the visceral disk of the brachial valve Fig. 3. Posterior view, showing the part of the shell which has split off, namely the visceral disk of the pedicle valve together with the inner layer of the visceral disk of the brachial valve (b) The neotype of ‘‘ Conchyliolithus Anomites subconicus ” Martin, 1809 (Note: The illustration of the above specimen is enlarged by 14 diameters.) Fig. 4 Dorsal view of brachial valve showing also the flattened interarea of the pedicle valve. Opinions and Declarations, Vol. 14 Plate 1. Fig. 3. Fig. 1. Fig. 2. Fig. 4. For the explanation to this plate see opposite. OPINION 419 121 APPENDIX 2 REQUEST FOR THE SUBSTITUTION OF NEOTYPES IN PLACE OF PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED FIGURES AS THE STANDARD OF REFERENCE FOR IDENTIFYING TWO SPECIES OF THE CLASS ANTHOZOA, THE NAMES PUBLISHED FOR WHICH BY MARTIN (W.) IN 1809 HAVE BEEN VALIDATED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE UNDER ITS PLENARY POWERS By C. J. STUBBLEFIELD, Sc.D.,. F.R.S. (Geological Survey and Museum, London) I have been giving further consideration to the proposals for the validation by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature under its Plenary Powers of the specific names published by Martin (W.) in 1809 in his Petrificata Derbiensia for two species of the Class Anthozoa which I submitted in 1950 in a paper in which also Dr. Helen Muir-Wood (British Museum (Natural History)) submitted corresponding proposals for the validation of names published by Martin for ten species of Brachiopoda (Muir-Wood & Stubblefield, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 7—17). It will be recalled that in that paper I asked that the Commission, when validating the names in question, Should give directions that the species so named should be identified by reference to certain specified previously published figures. The position in this matter has, in my opinion, been materially altered by the decision by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, to insert in the Régles provisions recognising neotypes as a category of type specimen. If neotypes had been a recognised category at the time when I submitted my application in the present case, I should certainly have asked the Commission to give official recognition to the 122 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS neotypes which some fifteen years earlier had been “ unofficially ” designated for the two species in question and which form the - currently accepted basis for the interpretation of those species. In the altered circumstances now obtaining, [ now ask the Commission to adopt this course in place of directing (as in 1950 I asked should be done) that the species concerned should be interpreted by reference to the published figures of those neotypes. 2. The two species concerned are: (1) Erasmatolithus Madreporites duplicatus Martin, 1809; (2) Erasmatolithus Madreporites floriformis Martin, 1809. In each case, I asked that the Commission should use its Plenary Powers to validate the name in question and that, having done so, it should direct that those species be interpreted by reference to the figures published in 1916 in the paper in which Stanley Smith designated the specimens so figured to be the “ unofficial’ neotypes for those species (Smith (S.), 1916, Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond. 71). These neotypes which I now ask should be formally recognised by the International Commission are both in the collection of the Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University. For the information given in the present application regarding the registration and labelling of these neotypes, I am indebted to Mr. A. G. Brighton, Curator of that Museum. (a) Erismatolithus Madreporites duplicatus Martin, 1809 3. The neotype for Erismatolithus Madreporites duplicatus Martin, 1809, was designated under the name Lonsdaleia duplicata duplicata (Martin) by Stanley Smith on page 238 of the paper published by him in 1916, to which reference has been made in the preceding paragraph. It was illustrated as figure 1 on plate 17 of the same paper. This neotype, as preserved in the Sedgwick Museum, consists of a slide numbered A.2149. The specimen from which this slide was cut is not in the collection of the above Museum. 4. The following are the particulars relating to this neotype given in the Sedgwick Museum Catalogue :— A.2149. Slide. Fig’d Smith 1916 Q.J.G.S. Ixxi for 1915 p. 238 pl. xvii fig. 1 as Lonsdaleia duplicata duplicata (Martin). D, OPINION 419 123 Carboniferous Limestone ; top of Crick Hill, S.E. of Matlock, Derbyshire. “In the absence of the holotype, this may be accepted as the Neotype...” Coll. Prof. T. F. Sibly. S. The labels on slide A.2149 [neotype of E.M. duplicatus Martin, 1809] are as follows :— Sedgk. Mus. Cambridge A.2149 Lonsdaleia duplicata duplicata (Martin) D, L. Carb. Top of Crick Hill, Derbyshire. From Neotype. Coli. T. F. Sibly. Fig’d S. Smith Q.J.G.S. Vol. Ixxi 1916 pl. xvii fig. 1 Top of Crick Hill, Derbyshire. D, (b) Erismatolithus Madreporites floriformis Martin, 1809 6. The neotype for Erismatolithus Madreporites floriformis Martin, 1809, was designated under the name Lonsdaleia floriformis floriformis (Martin) by Stanley Smith on pages 247 and 124 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 259 of his paper published in 1916 and was illustrated as figures 1—3 on plate 19 of the same paper. This neotype is divided into five separate portions, all of which are preserved in the Sedgwick Museum. 7. The following are the particulars relating to this neotype given in the Sedgwick Museum Catalogue :— A.2359a-e. Described M©&Coy 1849 Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (2) iii p. 10, and 1854 Contrib. Brit. Palaeont. p. 78 as Strombodes conaxis MCoy. Fig’d M©Coy 1851 Brit. Palaeoz. Foss. Cambridge p. 102 pl. 3B fig. 4 (A.2359a) fig. 4a (A.2359b), fig. 4b as Strombodes conaxis M©Coy. Carboniferous Limestone ; near Bakewell, Derbyshire. Listed Woods 1891 Cat. Type Foss. Woodw. Mus. Cambridge p. 23 as Lonsdaleia floriformis (Martin). Pres. W. Hopkins. Tablet 50. Slides A.2359f-1 cut by S. Smith. Fig’d Smith 1916 Q.J.G.S. Ixxi for 1915 pp. 247, 259 pl. xix fig. 1 (A.2359f), fig. 2 (A.2359g), fig. 3 (A.2359a) as Lonsdaleia floriformis floriformis (Martin), and chosen as Neotype of this species. Listed Hill 1940 Mon. Pal. Soc. Carb. Rugose Corals Scotland p. 155 as neotype of Lonsdaleia floriformis floriformis (Martin). Fig’d Wang 1950 Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London B.234 p. 212 pl. v fig. 29 (A.2359f) as Lonsdaleia floriformis (Martin). 8. The following are the particulars given on the labels attached to the slides on which the various portions of this neotype are mounted :— (i) The 5 separate parts of the specimen (A.2359a-e) have : the. sindes each a label stuck on them, e.g. (A.2359f-i1) have -similar labels. Sedgk. Mus. Cambridge. A.2359a OPINION 419 125 (ii) A.2359a has stuck on it a label reading “‘ Figured M°Coy Pal. Foss. pl: 3B fig. 4”’. (iii) A.2359a-e are in trays or boxes stuck down on a blue tablet, on which are stuck five labels reading :— 50 W. Hopkins Coll. oie Sa: en le baa a Fr ee Genus Lonsdaleia Species floriformis floriformis (Martin). Neotype Rock Carboniferous Limestone Locality Near Bakewell, Derbyshire. A.2359a-e Figured M©Coy 1851 Brit. Palaeoz. Foss. Camb. p. 102 pl. 3B figs. 4, 4a-b as Strombodes conaxis M°Coy [Holotype]. Figured S. Smith 1916 Q.J.G.S. Ixxi p. 259 pl. xix fig. 3 as Lonsdaleia floriformis floriformis (Martin). Neotype. (iv) The labels on slide A.2359f are five :— Type specimen of Strombodes conaxis M©Coy. 126 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Genus’ Lonsdaleia Species floriformis floriformis (Martin) Rock [D,]. Carboniferous Limestone Locality Derbyshire. A.2359f NEOTYPE Sedg. Mus. No. 50 Fig’d S. Smith Figured Wang 1950 Q.J.G.S. vol. Ixxi Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. 1916 pl. xix fig. 1 B.234-p. 212-pl.5 fig. 199s Lonsdaleia floriformis. (v) The four labels attached to Slide A.2359g are :-— Figured S. Smith 50. TYPE SPECIMEN of Q.J.G.S. Vol. Ixxi 1916 Strombodes conaxis M©Coy. pl. xix, Fig. 2 Lonsdaleia Sedgk. Mus. floriformis floriformis (Martin) Cambridge. [D,]. Derbyshire A.2359¢g NEOTYPE A.2359g (vi) The three labels attached to Slide A.2359h are :—- Sedgk. Mus. Cambridge. A.2359h OPINION 419 a Type Specimen Lonsdaleia Strombodes conaxis floriformis floriformis (Martin) 50 M“Coy. [D.] Derbyshire. NEOTYPE. A.2359h (vii) The three labels attached to slide A.23591 are :— Sedgk. Mus. 50 TYPE specimen of Cambridge. Strombodes conaxis A.2359i M‘“Coy Lonsdaleia floriformis floriformis (Martin) [D,] Derbyshire NEOTYPE. A.23591 9. Mr. Brighton has informed me that, when the International Commission’s Opinion granting official recognition to the neotypes discussed in the present application is published by the Inter- national Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, appropriate entries recording the Commission’s decisions will be made in the Sedgwick Museum’s Catalogue and that labels regarding those decisions will be added to the neotype specimens so recognised. “e be a ee ere Printed in England by Metcatre & Cooper LimiTeD, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 14. Part 4. Pp. 129—168 OPINION 420 Addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the specific names for eleven species of the Class Brachiopoda and for two species of the Class Cephalopoda originally published by Martin (W.) in 1809 in the nomenclatorially invalid work entitled Petrificata Derbiensia and now available as from the first subsequent date on which they were severally published in conditions satisfying the requirements of the Régles LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1956 Price Twenty-Six Shillings (All rights reserved) : ¥ wd es: id Issued 17th September, 1956 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 420 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JoRDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BOSCHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr Wiysieie: (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 194 Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEY (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Jnstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitadt zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. DYMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezdégazdasagi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. HoLtHuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (AS5th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum vy Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KUHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) ee S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 195 Professor Ernest MAYR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ‘‘ G. Doria’’, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) OPINION 420 ADDITION TO THE ‘° OFFICIAL LIST OF SPECIFIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ” OF THE SPECIFIC NAMES FOR ELEVEN SPECIES OF THE CLASS BRACHIOPODA AND FOR TWO SPECIES OF THE CLASS CEPHALOPODA ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED BY MARTIN (W.) IN 1809 IN THE NOMEN- CLATORIALLY INVALID WORK ENTITLED ** PETRIFICATA DERBIENSIA ”? AND NOW AVAILABLE AS FROM THE FIRST SUB- SEQUENT DATE ON WHICH THEY WERE SEVERALLY PUBLISHED IN CONDITIONS SATISFYING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ** REGLES ”’ RULING :—(1) The under-mentioned specific names for species of the Class Brachiopoda! originally published by Martin (W.) in 1809 in the nomenclatorially invalid work entitled Petrificata Derbiensia are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below with priority from the first author by whom subsequent to 1809 they were severally published in conditions satisfying the requirements of the Régles :— (a) aculeatus Sowerby (J.), 1814, as published in the combination Productus aculeatus, the species so named to be interpreted by reference to the lectotype selected and figured by Muir-Wood (H.M.) in 1951 (: pl. 3, figs. 3a-d) (Name No. 744) ; - As has been explained in Opinion 419 (footnote 1) Dr. Helen Muir-Wood (the applicant for this portion of the present case) has notified the Office of the International Commission that in her opinion, the term Brachiopoda, should be reserved for use as the name for a Phylum. On this view, the Phylum Brachiopoda consists of two Classes, of which one is the Class Articulata, to which all the species of Brachiopoda discussed in the present Opinion should, Dr. Muir-Wood states, be referred. AAT 4«a 4Ara 132 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (b) acuminata Sowerby (J.), 1822, as published in the combination Terebratula acuminata, the species so named to be interpreted by reference to the lectotype selected and figured by Muir-Wood (H.M.) in 1951 (pl. 3, figs. la-c) (Name No. 745) ; (c) crassus Fleming, 1828, as published in the combina- tion Productus crassus, the species so named to be interpreted by reference to the neotype therefor designated by Muir-Wood (H.M.) in the Appendix to the present Opinion (Name No. 746) ; (d) cuspidatus Sowerby (J.), 1816, as published in the combination Spirifer cuspidatus, the species so named to be interpreted by reference to the lectotype selected and figured by Muir-Wood (H.M.)in 1951 (: pl. 4, figs. la-d) (Name No. 747) ; (e) giganteus Sowerby (J.), 1822, as published in the combination Productus giganteus, the species so named to be interpreted by reference to Martin’s specimen re-figured by Sowerby (1822: pl. 320) which was selected as the lectotype by Muir- Wood (H.M.) in 1951 (Name No. 748) ; (f) glaber Sowerby (J.), 1820, as published in the combination Spirifer glaber, the species so named to be interpreted by reference to the lectotype selected and figured by Muir-Wood (H.M.) in 1951 (pl. 3, figs. 2a-c) (Name No. 749) ; (g) lineata Sowerby (J.), 1822, as published in the combination Terebratula ? lineata, the species so named to be interpreted by reference to the lectotype selected and figured by Muir-Wood (H.M.)in 1951 (: pl. 5, figs. 4a-c) (Name No. 750); (h) punctatus Sowerby (J.), 1822, as published in the combination Productus punctatus, the species so named to be interpreted by reference to the lectotype selected and figured by Muir-Wood (H.M.) in 1951 (: pl. 4, figs. 2a, b) (Name No. yoo i OPINION 420 133 (i) sacculus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1824, as published in the combination Terebratula sacculus, the species so named to be interpreted by reference to the lectotype selected and figured by Muir-Wood (H.M.) in 1951 (: pl. 5, figs. la-c) (Name No. PO2) ¢ (j) scabriculus Sowerby (J.), 1814, as published in the combination Productus scabriculus, the species so named to be interpreted by reference to the lectotype selected and figured by Muir-Wood (H.M.) in 1951 (: pl. 5, figs. 5a-c) (Name No. 753); (k) triangularis Sowerby (J. de C), 1827, as published in the combination Spirifer triangularis, the species so named to be interpreted by reference to the lectotype selected and figured by Muir-Wood (H.M.) in 1951 (: pl. 5, figs. 3a-d) (Name No. 754) ; (2) The under-mentioned specific names for species of the Class Cephalopoda originally published by Martin (W.) in 1809 in the nomenclatorially invalid work entitled Petrificata Derbiensia are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below with priority from the first author by whom subsequent to 1809 they were severally published in conditions satisfying the requirements of the Régles :— (a) listeri Sowerby (J.), 1812, as published in the combination Ammonites listeri, the species so named to be interpreted by reference to the lectotype selected and figured by Stubblefield (C.J:) in 1951 (: pl. 7, figs. 2a-c) (Name No. 755) ; (b) sphaericus Sowerby (J.), 1814, as published in the combination Ammonites sphaericus, the species so named to be interpreted by reference to Martin’s holotype, now preserved in the British Museum (Natural History), figured by Stubblefield (C.J.) in 1951 (: pl. 7, figs. la-c) (Name No. 756). 134 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (3) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names iu Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) Buxtonia Thomas (I.), 1914 (gender: feminine) (type species, by original designation : Productus scabriculus Sowerby (J.), 1814, as defined in (1)(j) above) (Class Brachiopoda) (Name No. 1003) ; b) (b) Echinoconchus Weller (S.), 1914 (gender: mas- culine) (type species, by selection by Chao (1927) : Productus punctatus Sowerby (J.), 1822 as defined in (1)(h) above) (Class Brachiopoda) Name No. 1004) ; (c) Gigantoproductus Prentice, 1950 (gender: mas- culine) (type species, under Rule (f) in Article 30 through selection as the type species of Gigantella Sarycheva, 1928 (a junior homonym of Gigantella Ekman, 1905) by Muir-Wood (1930) : Productus giganteus Sowerby (J.), 1822, as defined under (1)(e) above) (Class Brachiopoda) (Name No. l . b (d) Pugnax Hall & Clarke, 1894 (gender: masculine) (type species, by original designation : Terebratula acuminata Sowerby (J.), 1822, as defined in (1)(b) above) (Class Brachiopoda) (Name No. 1006) ; 2 (e) Gastrioceras Hyatt, 1884 (gender: neuter) (type species, by selection by Foord & Crick (1897) : Ammonites listeri Sowerby (J.), 1812, as defined in (2)(a) above) (Class Cephalopoda) (Name No. 1007) ; b (f) Goniatites de Haan, 1825 (gender: masculine) (type species, by selection by Miller (S.A.) (1889) :. Ammonites sphaericus Sowerby (J.), 1814, as defined in (2)(b) above) (Class Cephalopoda) (Name No. 1008). OPINION 420 135 (4) It is hereby directed that, when in accordance with (1) and (2) above, the under-mentioned specific names are entered on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, an endorsement be made that the names in question are the specific names of the type species of the genera severally specified below :— (a) acuminata Sowerby (J.), 1822, as published in the combination Terebratula acuminata : specific name of type species of Pugnax Hall & Clarke, 1894 ; (b) giganteus Sowerby (J.), 1822, as published in the combination Productus giganteus : specific name of type species of Gigantoproductus Prentice, b] (c) punctatus Sowerby (J.), 1822, as published in the combination Productus punctatus : specific name of type species of Echinoconchus Weller (S.), 1914 ; &) (d) scabriculus Sowerby (J.), 1814, as published in the combination Productus scabriculus : specific name of type species of Buxtonia Thomas (I.), 1914; (e) sphaericus Sowerby (J.), 1814, as published in the combination Ammonites sphaericus: specific name of type species of Goniatites de Haan, 1825. (5) The under-mentioned specific names, each of which is invalid by reason of having been published in a work (Martin’s Petrificata Derbiensia) which has been rejected for nomenclatorial purposes (by the Ruling given in Opinion 231), are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) aculeatus Martin, 1809, as published in the com- bination Conchyliolithus Anomites (aculeatus) (Name No. 317) ; 136 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (b) acuminatus Martin, 1809, as published in the com- bination Conchyliolithus Anomites (acuminatus) (Name No. 318) ; (c) attenuatus Martin, 1809, as published in the com- bination Conchyliolithus Anomites (attenuatus) (Name No. 319) ; (d) crassus Martin, 1809, as published in the com- bination Conchyliolithus Anomites (crassus) (Name No. 320) ; (e) cuspidatus Martin, 1809, as published in the com- bination Conchyliolithus Anomites (cuspidatus) (Name No. 321) ; (f) giganteus Martin, 1809, as published in the com- bination Conchyliolithus Anomites (giganteus) (Name No. 322) ; (g) glaber Martin, 1809, as published in the com- bination Conchyliolithus Anomites (glaber) (Name INos323)% (h) /ineatus Martin, 1809, as published in the combina- tion Conchyliolithus Anomites (lineatus) (Name No. 324) ; (1) listeri Martin, 1809, as published in the combina- tion Conchyliolithus Nautilites (listeri) (Name Noy 325) (j) punctatus Martin, 1809, as published in the combina- Conchyliolithus Anomites (punctatus) (Name No. (k) rotundatus Martin, 1809, as published in the com- bination Conchyliolithus Anomites (rotundatus) (Name No. 327) ; (1) sacculus Martin, 1809, as published in the combina- tion Conchyliolithus Anomites (sacculus) (Name No. 328) ; (m) scabriculus Martin, 1809, as published in the com- bination Conchyliolithus Anomites (scabriculus) (Name No. 329) : OPINION 420 137 (n) sphaericus Martin, 1809, as published in the com- bination Conchyliolithus Nautilites (sphaericus) (Name No. 330) ; (0) triangularis Martin, 1809, as published in the com- bination Conchyliolithus Anomites (triangularis) (Name No. 331). (6) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 332: martini Fleming, 1828, as published in the combination Spirifer martini (a junior objective synonym of Jineata Sowerby (J.), 1822, as published in the combination Terebratula? lineata). (7) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 446: Gigantella Sarycheva, 1928 (a junior homonym of Gigantella Ekman, 1905). I. THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE Following the submission to the Commission by Dr. Helen M. Muir-Wood (British Museum (Natural History), London) and Dr. C. J. Stubblefield (Geological Survey and Museum, London) in 1950 of an application for the use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating certain specific names published in 1809 in the Petrificata Derbiensia of William Martin?, the same ‘specialists approached the Commission on the question of placing on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology certain names published in the foregoing work as from the first author The decision of the Commission’ on the application here referred to has been embodied in Opinion 419 (Part 3 of the present volume). 138 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS subsequent to 1809 on which they were validly published. This led to the submission to the Commission on 9th May 1951 of the following application :— Proposed addition to the ‘‘ Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ”’ of the trivial names of two species of the Class Cephalopoda and of twelve species of the Class Brachiopoda hitherto attributed to Martin, 1809, and matters incidental thereto By HELEN M. MUIR-WOOD, D.Sc. (Department of Geology, British Museum (Natural History), London) and CoS STUBBLEPIELD: ‘DiSeser Ris: (Geological Survey and Museum, London) 1. The present application for the addition of fourteen nomen- clatorially available trivial names to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology follows upon the decision taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature that names published in 1809 in William Martin’s Petrificata Derbiensia are not available in zoological nomenclature (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 450—452) and is submitted in response to the desire expressed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology that, when (as in the case of Martin’s Petrificata) the International Commission rule that a given work is not available for nomenclatorial purposes (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 310) the Commission should determine the future status of any new names published in such a work. 2. When giving its ruling against the availability of Martin’s Petrificata for nomenclatorial purposes, the International Commission recognised that there might be cases where the dropping of a trivial name published by Martin in that work would lead to confusion and accordingly placed on record its willingness to give sympathetic consideration to applications which might be submitted for the validation of such names. In response to that invitation we have, in a separate application (Z.N.(S.) 461), asked the Commission to use its Plenary Powers to validate ten of Martin’s trivial names (two, being the trivial names of species of the Class Anthozoa, eight, of species of the Class Brachiopoda). The present application is con- cerned with trivial names which it is important should be preserved for use for the species to which they are currently applied, but for which it is not necessary for this purpose to invoke the use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers, since, in each case, the name in question, on the first occasion on which it was used subsequent to Martin (1809), OPINION 420 139 was used in a manner consistent with that in which it had been employed by Martin. In consequence, the strict application of the Régles in these cases will not involve any change in the names used for the species concerned ; it will merely mean that in future these names will be attributed to some author, other than Martin, and will rank for purposes of priority from some date subsequent to 1809. The required stabilisa- tion of these names, as from the authors and as of the dates attributable to them under a strict application of the Régles can thus readily be secured by the Commission placing these names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, and this is what is here recommended should now be done. 3. From the point of view of the International Commission, the present application represents no more than a start in the process of determining the manner in which trivial names hitherto attributed to Martin (1809) should in future be used ; the present application is submitted, however, because each of the names with which it is concerned has been the subject of special study in the light of the Commission’s decision on the status of names in Martin’s Petrificata, the names of the two species of the Class Cephalopoda by Stubblefield (1951, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (12) 4: 119—124, pl. 7), the names of the twelve species of the Class Brachiopoda by Muir-Wood (1951, ibid. (12) 4 : 97—118, pls. 3—6). Full particulars in regard to each of these names are given in the papers referred to above, and, in consequence, it has not been thought necessary in the present applica- tion to do more than give those particulars which have an immediate bearing on the application now submitted. Each case is discussed briefly in the following paragraphs. (1) The trivial name ‘‘ sphaericus ’’ as published by Martin in 1809 in the combination ‘‘ Conchyliolithus Nautilites (sphaericus) ”’. 4. The trivial name sphaericus was published by Martin in 1809 (Petr. derb. : sheet sign.D[2], pl. 7, figs. 3—5) in the combination Conchyliolithus Nautilites (sphaericus). his trivial name (in the combination Ammonites sphaericus) was next used by Sowerby (J.) in 1814 (Min. Conch. 1 : 116, pl. 53, figs. 2 (left & right)), a reference being given to Martin’s figures. The species hitherto known as Goniatites sphaericus (Martin, 1809) will thus in future be known as Goniatites sphaericus (Sowerby (J.), 1814) ; it is proposed, therefore, that the trivial name sphaericus Sowerby (J.), 1814, should now be added to the Official List. \t would be convenient if a reference were there to be made to the fact that this nominal species should be interpreted by reference to the specimen numbered 43871 in the British Museum (Natural History), which is the specimen figured by Sowerby and which Foord & Crick (1897 : 159) and Bisat (1924 : 73) have suggested may well have been Martin’s type specimen. This specimen has recently been refigured by Stubblefield (1951: pl. 7, figs? la, 1b; le). 140 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 5. It must here be noted that the foregoing was one of the two nominal species originally included by de Haan in the genus Goniatites de Haan, 1825 (Specimen phil. inaug. exhib. Mon. Ammonit. Goniatit. : 159) and was selected as the type species of that genus by Miller (S.A.) in 1889 (N. Amer. Geol. Pal. : 438), by whom, however, the species was referred to as Goniatites sphericus, its trivial name being misspelt, as shown. It is desirable that the present opportunity should be taken to place the generic name Goniatites de Haan, 1825 (with the above species as type species) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (2) The trivial name ‘“‘ listeri’’ as published by Martin in 1809 in the combination ‘* Conchyliolithus Nautilites Ammonites (listeri) ’’. 6. The trivial name J/isteri was published by Martin in 1809 (Petr. derb. : sheet sign.P[4], pl. 35, fig. 3) in the combination Conchyliolithus Nautilites Ammonites (listeri). This trivial name was next used (in the combination Ammonites listeri by Sowerby (J.) in 1812 (Brit. Min. 5:97, pl. 455); the same species was described and more adequately figured, again under the name Ammonites listeri, by Sowerby’s son (J. de C. Sowerby) in 1825 (Min. Conch. 5 : 163, pl. 501, figs. 1, left and right hand). Both the older and the younger Sowerby referred in their descriptions of this species to C. Naut. Amm. listeri Martin. The species figured by the two Sowerbys which is that hitherto known as Gastrioceras listeri (Martin, 1809), will thus in future be known as Gastrioceras listeri (Sowerby, 1812) ; it is proposed therefore, that the trivial name J/isteri Sowerby (J.), should now be added to the Official List. The original specimen figured by Sowerby (J.)in 1812 cannot nowbe found, but the specimens figured respectively as the right hand and left hand figures 1 on J. de C. Sowerby’s pl. 501 are both now in the British Museum (Natural History). Stubblefield has selected (1951 : 123) the specimen numbered 439095 (which is the original of J. de C. Sowerby’s left hand figure) as the specimen by which this nominal species should be interpreted, and has refigured this specimen (1951: pl. 7, figs. 2a, 2b, 2c). It is suggested that a reference to this action should be added against the trivial name listeri Sowerby (J.), 1812, when that name is placed on the Official List. 7. The foregoing nominal species was the first of those cited by Hyatt when in 1884 (Proc. Boston. Soc. nat. Hist. 22 : 327) he published the generic name Gastrioceras, and was selected as the type species of that genus in 1884 (Cat. foss. Cephal. Brit. Mus. 3 : 327) by Foord & Crick, who referred to this species under the name Goniatites listeri Phillips, a method of citation which fulfills the requirements of Rule (g) in Article 30, since Phillips (1836, J/l. Geol. Yorkshire 2 : 235) expressly cited Ammonites listeri Sowerby in the synonymy which he then gave for this species. It is desirable that the present opportunity should be OPINION 420 141 taken to place the generic name Gastrioceras Hyatt, 1884 (with the above species as type species) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The trivial name ‘‘ giganteus ’’ as published by Martin in 1809 in the combination ‘‘ Conchyliolithus Anomites (giganteus) ”’. 8. The trivial name giganteus was published by Martin in 1809 (Petr. derb. : sheet sign.G[2], pl. 15, fig. 1) in the combination Conchyliolithus Anomites (giganteus), and in 1793 (Fig. Descr. Petrifactions Derbyshire : sheet sign.H[1], pl. 15, fig. 1) as C. Anomia (giganteus). The next occasion on which this trivial name was applied to Martin’s species was in 1822 (Min. Conch. 4 : 19, pl. 320) when it was figured as Productus giganteus by Sowerby (J.), to whom Martin had presented his specimen. This specimen is now preserved in the Sowerby collection at the British Museum (Natural History) under the number BB.936. This species which was formerly known as Gigantella gigantea (Martin, 1809) and more recently as Gigantoproductus giganteus (Martin, 1809) will in future be known as Gigantoproductus giganteus (Sowerby (J.), 1822); it is now proposed that the trivial name giganteus Sowerby (J.), 1822, should be added to the Official List. 9. The foregoing species is the type species, by subsequent selection by Muir-Wood (1930, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10) 5: 105, 106) of Gigantella Sarycheva, 1928 (Mem. geol. Sci. Res. Inst. Moscow 1928 (1) : 13); that name is, however, invalid, being a junior homonym of Gigantella Ekman, 1905 (Wiss. Ergeb. schwed. Siidp.-Exp. 5 (No. 4) : 20) and has been replaced by Gigantoproductus Prentice, 1950 (Geol. Mag. 87(6) : 436). It is proposed that this generic name (with the above species as type species) should now be placed on the Official List, the invalid homonym Gigantella Sarycheva, 1928, being at the same time placed on the Official Index. (4) The trivial name ‘‘ crassus’’ as published by Martin in 1793 in the combination ‘‘ Conchyliolithus Anomia (crassus) ’’. 10. Martin published the name Conchyliolithus Anomia (crassus) in 1793 (Fig. Descr. Petrifactions Derbyshire : sheet sign.H[2], pl. 16, figs 2, 3) and 1809 (Petr. derb. : sheet sign. G[3], pl. 16, fig. 2) he published a figure of another specimen of the same species under the name Conchyliolithus Anomites (crassus). The next author to refer to Martin’s species was Fleming, who in 1828 (Hist. brit. Anim. : 379) briefly described it under the name Productus crassus. Muir-Wood has recently (1951 : 101, pl. 6, figs. 1a, 1b) selected a specimen from Derbyshire (probably from the Upper Dibunophyllum zone) in the White Watson Collection, now in the British Museum (Natural 142 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS History) (specimen number B.40431) as the neotype of this species, as Martin’s and Fleming’s specimens have not been preserved. This specimen was figured by Muir-Wood (1951 : pl. 6, figs. la, 1b). It is proposed that the trivial name crassus Fleming, 1828, which now becomes the oldest available trivial name for this species should be placed on the Official List. (5) The trivial name ‘‘ aculeatus ”’ as published by Martin in 1809 in the combination ‘‘* Conchyliolithus Anomites (aculeatus) ”’’. 11. The trivial name aculeatus was published by Martin in 1809 (Petr. derb. : sheet sign.R[4], pl. 37, figs. 9, 10) in the combination Conchyliolithus Anomites (aculeatus). This species was next described by Sowerby (J.) in 1814 (Min. Conch. 1 : 156, pl. 68, fig. 4) under the name Productus aculeatus. Sowerby’s specimen is now in the British Museum (Natural History) (specimen No. B.60992) ; it is virtually certain that this specimen is also the original of Martin’s figure. This specimen has recently been selected as the lectotype of this species by Muir-Wood (1951 : 102), by whom it was at the same time refigured (1951 : pl. 3, fig. 3a, b, c). Itis proposed that the trivial name aculeatus Sowerby (J.), 1814 (as published in the binominal combination Productus aculeatus) should now be placed on the Official List and that in the entry to be made in that List reference should be made to the foregoing lectotype selection. (6) The trivial name ‘‘ punctatus ’’ as published by Martin in 1809 in the combination ‘‘ Conchyliolithus Anomites (punctatus) ’’. 12. The trivial name punctatus was published by Martin in 1809 (Petr. derb. : sheet sign. R[3], pl. 37, figs. 6—8) in the combination Conchyliolithus Anomites (punctatus). Martin’s species was redescribed and figured by Sowerby (J.) in 1822 (Min. Conch. 4 : 22, pl. 323) as Productus punctatus. This was the first occasion on which, subsequent to Martin 1809, the trivial name punctatus was applied to this species and it is accordingly from this usage that this name now takes priority. Four of the specimens figured by Sowerby on his plate 323 are preserved in the Sowerby Collection in the British Museum (Natural History), and of these, the specimen figured by Sowerby as the lower right hand figure (specimen No. B.60966) has been selected by Muir- Wood (1951 : 103) as the lectotype of Sowerby’s species and has been refigured (1951 : pl. 4, figs. 2a, b). It is proposed that the trivial name punctatus Sowerby (J.), 1822, as published in the combination Productus punctatus, should now be placed on the Official List, reference being made in the entry in question to the lectotype selection referred to above. 13. The species Productus punctatus Sowerby, 1822 (under its earlier, but, as is now known, invalid name Anomites punctatus Martin, 1809 (i.e. Conchyliolithus Anomites punctatus) was selected as the type species OPINION 420 143 of Echinoconchus Weller (S.), 1914 (Mon. State geol. Surv. Illinois 1: 138) by Chao in 1927 (Palaeont. sinic. 5(2) : 63). The name Echionoconchus Weller is an available name and is accepted as the oldest such name for the genus in question. It is accordingly proposed that this generic name with the above species as type species should now be placed on the Official List. (7) The trivial name ‘‘ scabriculus ’’ as published by Martin in 1809 in the combination ‘‘ Conchyliolithus Anomites (scabriculus) ’’. 14. The trivial name scabriculus was published by Martin in 1809 (Petr. derb. sheet sign. R[2], pl. 36, fig. 5) in the combination Conchyliolithus Anomites (scabriculus). This species was next described and figured by Sowerby (J), as Productus scabriculus, in 1814 (Min. Conch. 1 : 157, pl. 69, fig. 1) and this is the oldest available use of this name subsequent to Martin, 1809. The specimen figured by Sowerby, which is in the Sowerby Collection in the British Museum (Natural History) (specimen No. B.60954) has been selected by Muir-Wood as the lectotype of Sowerby’s species and has been refigured (1951 : pl. 5, figs. 5a, b, c). It is proposed that the trivial name scabriculus Sowerby (J.), 1814, as published in the combination Productus scabriculus, should now be placed on the Official List, a note being made in the entry thereon of the lectotype selection referred to above. 15. The above species (under the invalid name given to it by Martin in 1809) is the type species, by original designation, of the genus Buxtonia Thomas (I.), 1914 (Mem. geol. Surv. Unit. Kingd., Pal. 1(4) : 259) and, as that name is both an available name and also the oldest such name for the genus in question, it is proposed that it should now be placed on the Official List with the foregoing species as type species. (8) The trivial name ‘‘ acuminatus ’’ as published by Martin in 1809 in the combination ‘‘ Conchyliolithus Anomites (acuminatus) ”’. 16. The trivial name acuminatus was published by Martin in 1809 (ier. -derD.. sheet stan O[4], pl. 32; figs) 7,8 >. pli 33, figs. 5,- 6). Martin’s species was next figured and described as Terebratula acuminata by Sowerby (J.), in 1822 (Min. Conch. 4 : 23, pl. 324, fig. 1 (two upper figures and middle figure)). The specimen figured by Sowerby as the upper figure is missing but that figured as the middle figure is preserved in the Sowerby Collection in the British Museum (Natural History) (specimen No. B.61235) and has been selected (Muir-Wood, 1951 : 105) as the lectotype of Sowerby’s species and refigured (1951 : pl. 3, figs. la, b, c). Sowerby’s usage of the name acuminatus for this species is thus that as from which that name now ranks for the purposes of the Law of Priority. It is proposed that the trivial name acuminata 144 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Sowerby (J.), 1822, as published in the combination Terebratula acuminata, should now be placed on the Official List and that in the entry so made reference should be included to the lectotype selection noted above. 17. The above species (under the name Anomites acuminatus) 1s the type species, by original designation, of the genus Pugnax Hall & Clarke, 1894 (Paleont. New York 8(2) : 202). The name Pugnax is an available name and is accepted by specialists as the oldest such name for the genus in