m^^^

'J---i^^'*''':\i:-/,' • !\f.. '■•-'
t J, > .^ . ■■ ■' •

3

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

VOLUME

Edited by

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

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

LONDON ;

Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological

Nomenclature on instrucions recieved from the Thirteenth

International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948,

and

Sold on behalf of the International Commission by the

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

at the Publications Office of the Trust

41, Queen's Gate, London, S.W.7.

1950

(All rights reserved)

VOL. ;j A

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

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature on behalf

of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

have great pleasure

in

expressing their grateful thanks

to the

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL SCIENTIFIC AND
CULTURAL ORGANISATION

— U.N.E.S.C.O. —

for the financial assistance

afforded

towards the cost of producing

the present volume

IlVTERfVATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

A. The Officers of the Commission

Honorary Life Presidenl : Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kinn;doTn)
President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.)
Vic^- President : Honlior Dr. Afranio do Aniaral (Brazil)
Secretary : Mr. Francis Heniniiiijf (United KinjidoTn)

B. The Members of the Commission

{arranged in order of precedence by reference to date nf

election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed

by the International Congress of Zoology)

Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.) {President) (1st January 1944)

Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) {Vice-President) (1st January 1944)

Professor Lodovico di Caporiacco (Italy) (1st January 1944)

Professor J. R. Dymond (Canada) (1st January 1944)

Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) (28th March 1944)

Professor Harold E. Yokes (U.S.A.) ('2:ird April 1944)

Dr. William Thomas Caiman (United Kingdom) (1st January 1947)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. The staff of the Secretariat of the Commission

Honorary Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C).M.G., C.B.E.
Honorary Personal Assistant to the Secretary : Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming
Honorary Archivist : Mr. Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A.

D. The staff of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

Horwrary Secretari/ aud Manaqiriq Director : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G.,

C.B.E.
Honorary Registrar : Mr. A. S. Pankluirst
Publication Officer : Mrs. C. Rosner

£. The addresses of the Commission and the Trust

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

N.W.I, England.
Offices of the Trust : 41 Queen's Gate, London, fi.W.l, England.

MEMORANDA AND OTHER DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE AND BY THE SECTION ON NOMENCLATURE
DURING THE THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF
ZOOLOGY, PARIS, JULY 1948

Note by the President of the Section on Nomenclature, Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948

At their final Plenary Session held on Tuesday, 27th July 1948, the
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoolojjy approvefl a proposal sulimitted
by the Section on Nomenclature, on the recommendation of tlie International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, that the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature should be requested, inter alia, to publish in the
" Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature " the memoranda and other documents
which had been considered by the Commission and the Section on Nomenclature
during the Congress.

2. Immediately after the close of the Congress, the foregoing request was
submitted to the International Tru.st who decided to reserve the present vohune
(volume 3) for this purpose.

3. The memoranda and other documents now published formed the basis
for a large part of the discussions which took place both in the meetings of tlie
Commission and in those of the Section on Nomenclature. They form therefore
an essential part of the documentation of the work performed in Paris both bv
the Commission and by the Section on Nomenclature and constant reference
to them is made in the Official Record of the Proceedings both of the Com-
mission and the Section (shortly to be published in volumes 4 and 5 respectively
of the present journal).

4. In the course of discussion the proposals recorded in the present volume
were in many cases modified or expanded in various directions, while .some were
rejected. It is important therefore to realise that the documents published in
the present volume contain a record only of the propo.sals submitted to the
Commission and the Congress. They do not contain a record of the conclusions
reached by the Commission or of the decisions taken by the Congress. Every
decision that was ultimately so taken by the Congress was taken on the joint
recommendation of the Commission and of the Section on Nomenclature. A
detailed record of every such decision is given in the Official Record of the
Proceedings of the Commission, to which therefore reference should be made
])y zoologists anxious to ascertain the terms of any of the decisions in question.
The Official Record of the Proceedings of the Section on Nomenclature contains
a full record of the action taken by the Section on recommendations submitted
by the Commission. It will be seen that where in any given case the Section
on Nomenclature indicated its desire that a particular recommendation should
be modified, the matter was referred back to the Commission. Agreement was
reached in every case, and in consequence the final conclusion reached by the
Commission (as recorded in its Official Proceedings) represents the proposal
agreed upon .with the Section (as recorded in its Official Proceedings) and
subsequently unanimously approved by the Congress in Plenary Session.

FRANCIS HEMMING

President, Section on Noinenclature,

Thirteenth JntcrnntionaJ Conrjress of Zoology. Pari.i. Jnh/ 194S

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART 1. MEMORANDA AND REPORTS SUBMITTED TO
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE BY THE
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AT
THE SESSION OF MEETINGS HELD BY THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION DURING
THE THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CON-
GRESS OF ZOOLOGY, PARIS, JULY 1948

Document No.

Subject

Page

I.C.(48)1 AGENDA FOR THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN PARIS
IN JULY 1948

(1 ) Tlie work of the International Commission during the

period 1936-1948, witli special reference to the
administrative and financial problems of the
Commission . .

(2) Composition of the International Commission on

Zoological Nomenclature and method of nomi-
nating members

(3) Procedure of the International Commission on Zoo-

logical Nomenclature

(4) ]\Ieaning of the expression " nomenclature binaire "

as used in the Regies Internationales : Special
Report to be submitted to the Thirteenth Inter-
national Congress of Zoology

(5) Regies Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique :

proposals for consolidation and amendment . .

(6) Applications submitted to the Commission in regard

to individual problems of zoological nomenclature

(7) Report to be submitted by the International Com-

mission on Zoological Nomenclature to the
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology,
Paris, 1948

Document No. Subject Page

I.C.(48)2 REPORT BY FRANCIS HEMMINU, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
SECRETARY TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMIS-
SION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, ON THE
WORK OF THE SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMIS-
SION DURING THE PERIOD ] 936-1 948 .. .. 5

I.C.(48)3 THE COMPOSITION OF THE TNTEP.NATIONAL COM-
MISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE AND

THE METHOD OF NOMINATING ITS MEMBERS fi

T. iTitroductory . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

II. Historical Sketch 7

III. The Ivordnimciidations nf the Executive Committee 12

I.C.(48)4 THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN-
CLATURE 16

I.C.(48)5 THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION " NOMENCLAT-
URE BINAIRE " AS USED IN THE REGIES AND
ACTION PROPOSED FOR THE AMENDMENT OF
THE REGIES IN REGARD THERETO . . . . 20

I.C.(48)6 REGIES INTERNATIONALES DE LA NOMENCLA-
TURE ZOOLOGIQUE : PROPOSALS FOR CON-
SOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT 22

Part 1. Directions in which it is proposed that improve-
ments sliould be introduceil into tiie ReqU's Inter-

vMionales . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

{n) Incorporation in the Reqles of interpretations of
existing Articles given by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in
" Opinions " already rendered . . . . 23

(h) Important questions of nomenclature where the
meaning of the existing provisions in the
Regies is in dispute . . . . . . . , 24

Document No. Subject Paqe

I.e. (48) 6 (c) Minor questions on which there are either no

(continued) provisions in the Regies or where there are

provisions but there is doubt as to their
impUcations . . . . . . . . . . 25

{d) Matters on wliich the existing provisions in the
Regies are mandatory but which should
clearly bo in the nature of recommendations 26

(e) Matters connected with nomenclature and
nomenclatorial practice on which decisions
have been taken by the International Con-
gress of Zoology but those decisions have not
been incorporated in the Regies . . . . 27

(1) Matters connected with nomenclature 27

(2) Matters connected with nomenclatorial

practice . . . . . . . . 27

(/) Defects in the Regies due to careless or inexpert

drafting 27

(1) The relation of the " Appendice " to

the Regies 27

(2) Grammatical inconsistencies . . . . 28

(3) Drafting difficulties due to the confusion

of taxonomy with nomenclature . . 28

(g) Need for completion of the substantive French

text of the Regies . . . . . . . . 28

(/«)• Need for securing accurate translations in English
and other languages of the substantive
French text of the Regies . . . . . . 29

Part 2. Proposals as to the machinery to be devised for
securing the formal incorporation in the Regies of
such changes as may be decided upon by the Paris
Congress . . . . . . , . , , , . 29

Document No. Subject Page

I.C.(48)7 PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF PROVISO («) TO ARTICLE
25 OF THE REGIES IN REGARD TO THE MEANING
OF THE EXPRESSION "INDICATION" AS AP-
PLIED TO GENERIC NAMES 32

I. Petition from the Joint Committee on Zoological

Nomenclature for Paleontology in Amorica 33

II. Recommendation submitted . . . . . . 35

I.C.{48)8 PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF
ARTICLES 35 AND 36 OF THE REGLES IN RELA-
TION TO SPECIFIC HOMONYMS 37

I. Historical Introduction . . . . . , . . 37

II. Gaps and ambiguities in the existing provisions

of Articles 35 and 36 39

III. Analysis of the major types of homonyms . . 40

IV. Requirements of a satisfactory solution . . 41

V. Main solutions which have been suggested . . 41

Proposal (I). The permanent replacement
of all homonyms whenever they are
discovered . . . . . . . . 43

Proposal (II). The permanent replace-
ment of primary homonyms whenever
discovered, combined with the tem-
porary replacement of secondary
homonyms only if discovered when,
and for the period during which, homo-
nomy exists . . . . . . 45

Proposal (III). The temporary replacement
of both primary and secondary homo-
nyms if discovered when, and for the
period during which, homonymy exists 45

Proposal (IV). The permanent replace-
ment of both primary and secondary
homonyms, but only if discovered
when the condition of liomonymy
exists . . , , . , . , . . 46

Document No. Subject Page

I.C.(48)8 Proposal (V). The permanent replacement

(continued) of primary homonyms whenever dis-

covered, combined with the permanent
replacement of secondary homonyms,
only if discovered when the condition
of homonymy exists . . . . . . 47

VI. Conclusions and recommendations . . . . 48

(a) Suggested restriction of the term " nom
specifique " (specific name) and the
adoption of the term " nom speci-
fique trivial " (specific trivial
name) . . . . . . . . 48

(6) Definition of, and distinction between,

primary and secondary homonyms 48

(c) Procedure for replacement of homo-
nyms . . . . . . . . 49

(i) Primary homonyms . . . . 49

(ii) Secondary homonyms . . 49

((/) Subgeneric names in relation to specific

homonymy . . . . . . 50

(e) Treatment of subspecific names in rela-
tion to specific and subspecific
homonymy . . . . . . 51

(/) Exemption for the trivial name of a

nominotypical subspecies . . 51

{y) Deletion of the exjiression " of the same
origin and meaning " in paragraph
(3) of Article 35 51

Summary of principal conclusions and recommendations 52

I.C.(48)9 ON THE STATUS OF NAMES OF FORMS OF LESS THAN
SPECIFIC RANK: (REPORT SUBMITTED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH A DECISION TAKEN BY
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOO-
LOGICAL NOMENCLATURE AT LISBON IN 1935) 55

Document No. Subject PoAie

I.C.(48)9 I. Introductory 55

[continued)

II. Proposed distinction in the Regies between the
nomenclature of {a) subspecies and {b)
infra-subspecific forms . . . . . . 56

III. Proposed nonienclatorial status of names given

(a) to subspecies and (6) to infra-subspecific
forms respectively . . . . . . . . 57

IV. Method of application of the present proposals 59

V. Criteria for determining subspecific status for
names published (a) before, and (6) after,
the suggested prescribed date . . . . 60

VI. Suggested " Recommendation " as to tlie
method of citing new names proposed («)
for subspecies and (6) for infra-subspecific
forms . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

VII. The general effects of the present proposal . . 61
Summary of principal conclusions and recommendations 63

I.C.(48)10 PROPOSED CODIFICATION OF THE INTERPRETA-
TION OF THE REGIES GIVEN IN OPINIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMIS-
SION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE . . 69

I.C.(48)11 INTERPRETATIONS OF THE REGIES GIVEN IN
OPII^IONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION : PROPOSALS IN REGARD
TO CODIFICATION

(1) Article 4 {Opinion 141) 75

('2) Article 4 : proposed addition of a Recommaiulu-
tion to give effect to point (2) in the
" summary " to Opinion 141 . . . . 75

(3) Article 4 : proposed addition of a Recommanda-
tion to give effect to point (3) in Opinion
141 76

Document No.

I.C.(48)11

{continued)

Subject Page

(4) Article 8 {Opinion 183) 76

(5) Article 14, paragraph (1) {Opinion 64) . . 76

(6) Article 14, paragraph (3) {Opinion 8) . . . . 76
(7-9) Article 19 {Opinions 26, 27, 36, 41, 60, 63) . . 76

(10) Article 25 (status of a liame based ou a

hypothetical form) {Opinion 2) . . . . 78

(11) Article 25 (status of a specific name bestowed

conditionally) {Opinion 49) . . . . 78

(12) Article 25 (status of a name which, prior to

pubhcation, was manuscript name)
{Opinion 4) 78

(13) Article 25 (meaning of the expression " divul-

gue dans une publication ") {Opinions 15

and 51) 78

(14) Article 25 (status of names first appearing in

documents, etc., distributed to colleagues

or students) {Opinions 191 and 190) . . 78

(15) Article 25 (status of names appearing in proof

sheets) {Opinion 87) 79

(16) Article 25 (status of a name published as an

emendation of a previously published name)
{Opinion 148) 79

(17) Article 25 (status of names published iu

advance separates) {Opinion 59) . . . . 79

(18) Article 25, Proviso {a) (meaning of expression

" indication ") {Opinion 1) . . . . 79

(19) Article 25, Proviso (a) (status of specific names

published jointly with generic names)
{Opinion 43) 80

(20) Article 25, Proviso (a) (significance of citation

of a type locality) {Opinion 52) . . . . 80

Document No. Subject Pdqe

I.C(48)11 (21) Ai'ticle 25, Proviso (6) (status of names origi-

(coniinued) nally published before the publication of

the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae)
{Opinion 5) . . . . . . . . . . 80

(22) Article 25, Proviso (6) (meaning of expression

" nomenclature binaire ") {Opinions 20 and

37) 80

(23) Article 25, Proviso (c) (meaning of expression

" definite bibUographical reference ") {Opin-
ion 138) 80

(24) Article 26 {Opinion 3) 80

(25) Article 27 {Opinion 88) 80

(26) Article 30, Rule {a) (types of genera having

emended names) {Opinion 148) . . . . 81

(27) Article 30, Rule (a) (type of a genus pubUshed

with the formula " n.g., n.sp.") {Opinion

7) 81

(28) Article 30, Rule (c) (type of genus not intended

to be monotypical but for which only one
species is definitely cited by name) {Opinion
47) 81

(29) Article 30, Rule {d) (question whether a tauto-

nymous specific or subspecific trivial name
need be cited in the original publication of
a generic name in order to make Rule ((/)
apphcable to that generic name) {Opinion
18) 81

(30) .Article 30, Rule {d) (type of a genus established

without a designated type but containing
a species for which a pre-1758 univerbal
specific name consisting of the same word
as the generic name is cited as a synonym of
one of the included species) {Opinion 16) 81

(31) Article 30, Rule (/) (species eligible for selection

as the type of a genus established as a
substitute genus, where either genus, when
originally established, contained species

Document No. Subject Po^e

I.C.(4B)11 which are recognisable but which were not

(contmued) Q^ l^jja^^ occasion cited under binominal

names) {Opinion 35) 82

(32) Article 30, Rule {g) (interpretation parallel to

that given in Opinion 35 in relation to
Rule (/)) 82

(33) Article 30, Rule (g) (types of genera established

with identical limits) {Opinion 10) . . 82

(34) Article 30, Rule {g) (the type of one genus not

excluded from selection as the type of
another genus) {Opinion 62) . . . . 83

(35) Article 30, Rule {g) (types of genera not affected

on union of genera on taxonomic grounds)
{Opinion 164) 83

(36) Article 30, Rule {g) (type of a genus containing

only two species automatically fixed when
one of the species becomes the type of a
monotypical genus) {Opinion 6) . . . . 83

(37) Article 30, Rule (^f) (validity of a type desig-

nation not affected if the author making
the designation did so as the result of
having misidentified the species so desig-
nated) {Opinion 14) 83

(38) Article 20 (identity of included species assximed

to have been correctly determined by the
original author of a genus) {Opinion 168) 83

(39) Article 30 (species eligible for selection as the

type of a genus published with a definition
or description but with no species dis-
tinctly referred thereto) {Opinio7i 46) . . 83

(40) Article 30 (selection of types of genera in

abstracts, etc.) {Opinion 172) . . . . 84

(41) Article 34 (criteria to be observed in deter-

mining whether closely similar words are
to be treated as identical with one another)
{Opinion 147) 84

yoL. 3 B

Document No. Subject Page

I.C.(48)11 (42) Article 34 (status of a generic name which is

(continued) identical with a generic name which is an

emendation of an earlier generic name)
{Opinioti 148) . . . . . . . . 84

(43) Article 34 (a substitute generic name not to be

rejected on the ground that it is of the same
origin and meaning as the name which it
replaces) {Opiniov, 148) . . . . . . 84

(44) Article 34 (a generic name not invalidated by

prior use for an ordinal or higher category)
{Opinion 102) ". . 84

(45) Articles 34 and 35 (status of generic and specific

trivial names when those names have been
previously published in works rejected for
nomenclatorial purposes) {Ojmiion 145) . . 84

I.C.(48)12 MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS FOR THE AMEND-
MENT OR CLARIFICATION OF THE liEGLES :
FIRST INSTALMENT

Proposal (1). Article 8 (proposed insertion of a 86
provision to secure brevity in generic names)

Proposal (2). Article 13 (permissive use of a capital
initial letter for certain classes of specific trivial
names) . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Proposal (3). Article 14 (proposed insertion of a
provision to secure brevity in specific trivial
names) , . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Proposal (4). Article 24, Example . . . . . . 87

Proposal (5). Article 22, RecommandMion, .. 87

Proposal (6). Article 25 (proposed insertion of a
provision to secure that apparent new names
(generic or trivial) or apparent new combinations
due to errors in recording journals should have
no status in nomenclature) . . . . . . 88

Proposal (7). Article 26, proviso {b) . . . . 88

Document No. Subject Page

I.C.(48)12 Pinposfil (8). Articlo 30 (restriction of oertaiii

(amiinited) portions to nanu-s |)iil)]isliod boforo a certain

(late) 88

Proposal (9). Article 30 (need for drafting amend-
ments to make clear that the provisions in this
Article are concerned with nomenclature and
not with taxonomy) . . . . . . . . 88

PropnmJ (10). Article 30 (formal amendment

needed to correct inexpert draftin<i) . . . . 89

Proposal (11). Article 30, Rule {g) (case where a
type is selected for a genus by an author
without that author being conscious of so doing) 89

Proposal (12). Article 31 (first sentence) . . . . 90

Proposal (13). Article 35 (.status of a specific trivial
name whicli is identical with a name whi'.-li is
an emendation of an older name in the same
genus) . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Proposal (14). Terminology, etc., of types of species

and subspecies . . . . . . . . . . 90

Proposal (15). The trivial name of a nominotypical

subspecies . . . . . . . . . . 91

Proposa / ( Ifi ) . Proposed recognition of ' ' neoty pes " 91

Proposal (17). Proposed addition of an Article to
prevent the misuse of the Regies for the purpose
of ])olitieal. religious or personal ofFence . . 91

Proposal (18). Citation in the Regies, of nouns in

the singular . . . . . . . . . . 92

Proposal (19). Need for removal of verbal incon-
sistencies of drafting . . . . . . . . 92

Proposal (20). Need for deleting from the Regies

meaningless repetitive phrases . . . . . . 93

VOL. ."i 1.8

Document No. Subject Paqe

l.c.(48)13 PROPOSED INCORPORATION IN THE REGIES OF
DECISIONS TAKEN AT VARIOUS TIMES EITHER
BY THE CONGRESS OR BY THE COMMISSION
AND SUBSEQUENTLY EMBODIED IN DECLARA-
TIONS RENDERED BY THE COMMISSION . . 94

(a) Dechrations relating to conduct . . 95

(b) Dedaratians relating to nomenclatorial practice 95

I.C.(48)14 MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS FOR THE AMEND-
MENT OR CLARIFICATION OF THE REGIES :
SECOND INSTALMENT

Proposals (21). Article 8 (need for a provision to
cover cases of generic names which, though
complying with Section (k) of the Second
Recmmtmndation. are in fact Latin or Latinised
words in some case or number other than the
nominative singular) . . . . . . . . 97

Proposal (22). Article 14 (proposed addition of a

Recommandation) . . . . . . . . . . 98

Proposal (23). Article 15 (suggested deletion of the
alternative regarding the use of hyphens in speci-
fic trivial names consisting of compound words) 98

Proposal (24). Article 18 (nomenclature of hybrids) 98

Proposal (25). Article 25 (status of names pub-
lished anonymously or over initials only) . . 90

Proposal (26). Article 25 (meaning of the expression

" diviilgue dans une publication ") . . . . 100

Proposal (27). Article 25 (proposed addition of a
Ilecoitinutndatio)t regarding names first pub-
lished in abstracts) . . . . . . . . 102

Proposal (28). Article 25 (proposed addition of a
Recommandatian relating to generic and trivial
names first published in keys) . . . . . . 102

» Proposal (29). Article 25 (date of publication) . , 103

Oocumcnt No. Subject

Page

I.C.(48)14 Proposal (30). Article 25 (priority to be accorded

{conHmud) to a name published in a book or paper issued

in instalments in cases where the name appears

in one instalment and the description in

another) . . 10^

Proposal {:il). Article 25, Proviso (c) (status of a
specific or subspecific trivial name published
after 31st December 1930 in combination with
a generic name which does not satisfy the
foregoing proviso) 104

Proposal (32). Appendice (proposed addition of a
section indicating how names derived from
words belonging to languages using the Cyrillic
alphabet should be transliterated into the Latin
alphabet) . . , . . . , . _ io5

I.C.(48)15 MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS FOR THE AMEND-
MENT OR CLARIFICATION OF THE REGLES ■
THIRD INSTALMENT

Proposal (33). Article 27 (need for adaptations to
meet the nomenclatorial requirements of poly-
morphic Protozoa) . . lOy

Proposal (34). Article 35, paragraph (3) (proposed
addition of two further categories of names
differing shghtly from one another which
should be treated as identical with one another) 100

Proposal (35). Article 4 (situation where the appli-
cation of this Article would produce identical
family names in different groups) . . 100

Proposal (36). Article 5 (situation where two or

more families are united) 107

Proposal (37). Articles 3 and 4 (need for removing
ambiguities due (1) to the failure in Article 3
to define the expression " Latin " and (2) to
the ill-advised use in Article 4 of the highly
technical expression " radical ") . . io7

Proposal (38). Article 14, paragraph (1) (adjectival
trivial names to agree in gender with generic
iiames) lOg

Document No. - Subject ... Puqe

I.C.(48)15 Proposal (39). Second Scliednle (proposed insertion'
(conihuml) of an additional section) 109

Proposal (40). Article 25, proviso (c) (date as from

which effective) . . . . . . . . . . 109

Proposal (41). Seconil Schedule, Section G (pro-
posed correction) . . . . . . . . . . 109

Proposal (42). Article 14 (status of trivial names

consisting of unchanged modern patronymics) 110

Proposal (43). Article 14 (status of trivial names
consisting of phonetic reproductions of initials
of zoologists) . . . . . . . . 110

Proposal (44). Article 23 (use of round brackets
(parentheses) in cases where subgeneric names
are used as well as generic names) . . 110

Proposal (45). Article 25, proviso (a) (question
whether the description of the work of an
animal constitutes an " indication ") . . . . 110

Proposal (46). Article 25, proviso («) (generic names

based upon figures only) . . . . . . 110

Proposal (47). Article 25 (authorship of names

given conditionally) . . Ill

Proposal (48). Article 25 (question whether the
citation, in connection with a ])arasitic species,
of the name of its host constitutes an " indi-
cation ") . . . . . . . . . . . . Ill

Proposal (49). Article 25 (expression " le plus

ancienncment designe ") . . . . . . Hi

Proposal (50). Articles 22 and 23 (proposed rejection

of certain applications received) . . . . Ill

Proposal (51). Article 25 (authorship of a name
which, when first validly published, is either a
manuscript name or a name alreatly published
as a nomcii iiuduin) . . . . . . . . Ill

Proposal (52). Article 30, Rule (g) (interpretation) 111

Document No. Subject Paqe

I.C.(48)15 Proposal (53). Title of the Regies as amended 112

{continued)

Proposal (54). Recording of decisions by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature either (1) that a given work is not
available for nomenclatorial purposes or (2)
that a given name or class of name (e.g., the
class of name dealt with in Opinion VIA) is not
available) . . . . . . . . . . . . H^

Proposal (55). Article 4 (proposed amendment) 112

Proposal (56). Article 12 (proposed drafting

amendment) .. .. .. .. .. 112

Proposal (57). Article 7 (proposed drafting amend-
ment) . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Proposal (58). Articles 6 and 11 (proposed co-
ordination).. .. .. .. .. .. 113

Proposal (59). Article 8, Second Recommandution,

Section (6) (proposed amendment) .. .. 113

Proposal (60). Recomrnandation to Article 36

adopted at Padua, 1930 . . 113

Proposal (61). Opinion 124 (proposed extension of

application) . . . . . . . . . . 114

Proposal (62). Status of names placed on the

" Official List of Generic Names in Zoology" 114

Proposal (63). A suggested " Official List of Trivial

Names in Zoology " .. .. .. .. 114

I.C.(48)16 MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS FOR THE AMEND-
MENT OR CLARIFICATION OF THE REGIES :
FOURTH INSTALMENT

Proposal (64). Article 25 (proposal regarding

trivial names when totally misleading) . . 115

Proposal (65). Opinion 124 (proposal supplemen-
tary to Proposal (61)) . . . . . . . . II5

Doooment No.

I.C.(48)16

(continued)

Subject

Proposal (67). Status of a holotype or lectotype in
relation to a poor indication or dcacriptiou

Proposal (69). Proposed introduction into nomen-
clature of the term " pseudo-genus " . .

Page

Proposal (66). Proposed new Article relating to the
functions of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature . . .. .. .. 116

116

Proposal (68). New names published in works
appearing in parts : Proposal supplementary
to Proposal (30) in Paper T.C.(48)14 . . .'. 116

117

Proposal (70). Proposed adoption for certain frag-
ments (organites and sclcrites) of fossil inverte-
brates of a different nomenclature from that for
living species . . . . . . . . 117

Proposal (71). Interpretation of the Regies by the
International Commission on Zoological Nom-
enclature . . . . . . . . 117

Proposal (72). Method of amending the Regies . . 117

Proposal (73). Article 35 (proposal supplementary

to Proposal (34) in Paper I.C.(48)15) . . . . 118

Proposal (74). Article amending and embodying

the Plenary Powers Resolution, 1913 .. .. 118

Proposal (75). The problem of " neotypes " (pro-
posed cancellation of certain sentences in 118
Opinion 128)

Proposal (76). Article 8, Second Recptnntandation,
Section (b) (proposal supplementary to Proposal
(59) in Paper I.C.(48)15) . . " . . . . 119

Proposal (77). Proposed insertion of paragraph
numbers where an Article consists of more than
one paragraph . . . . . . 119

Proposal (78). Proposed subdivision into para-
graphs of Articles containing a number of
sentences, each prescribing a separate regulation 119

Docament No. Subject p^qf,

I.C.(48)16 Proixmil (79). Article 30, Kule (e) (meaning of the

(coniintud) expTessioii " species inquiretula ") .. .. 119

Proposal (80). Article 30 (proposed addition of a
Recamniandatimt urging authors not to use the
expression " genotype ") . . . , . . 120

I.C.(48)17 MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS FOR THE AMEND-
MENT OR CLARIFICATION OF THE REGIES :
FIFTH INSTALMENT

Proposal (81). The plenary powers in relation to

particular purposes . . . . . . . . 121

Proposal (82). The plenary powers in relation to
cases of confusion arising from uncertainty as to
how to apply the Regies 122

Proposal (83). The composition of the International

Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . 122

Proposal (84). The By-Laws of the International

Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . 123

Proposal (85). Article 28 as applied both to generic

and to trivial names . . . . . . 124

Proposal (86). First Schedule (scope) . . . . 125

Proposal (87). Second Schedule (supplementary

proposals) 125

Proposal (88). The Official Lists of Generic and
Specific Names in Zoology in relation to the
. Regks .. .. 126

Proposal (89). Proposed cancellation of certain
Opinions which contain no effective decision or,
by reason of their transitory character, have
lost all significance . . 126

Proposal (90). Supplementary decisions needed in
regard to matters dealt with in certain Opinions
before the contents of those Opinions can use-
fully be inserted in Schedules to the Regies . . 127

XXVI

Document No. Subject Page

I.C.(48)17 Proposal (91). Errors in certain Opiniom requiring

(continued) correction before the contents of those Opinions

are inserted in the Schedules to the Regies 129

Proposal (92). Gender of names on the '' Official List

of Generic Names in Zoology " . . . . . . 129

Proposal' (93). Date of entry into force of the

Regies as revised . . . . . . . . . . 129

I.C.(48)18 MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS FOR THE AMEND- •
MENT OR CLARIFICATION OF THE REGIES:
SIXTH INSTALMENT

Proposal (94). Case of identical trivial names
published in different genera bearing the same
name . . . . . . 131

Proposal (95). Article 25, proviso (a) (meaning of
the expression "' indication ") (proposal supple-
mentary to Proposal (18) in Commission Paper
T.C.(48)11) 131

Proposal (96). Consolidation of decision in Opinion
46 (proposal supplementary to Proposal (39) in
Commission Paper I.C.(48)11) 132

Proposal (97). Article 30, Rule {g) (to be applied

rigorously) . . . . . . . . . . 132

Proposal (98). Cases wliere a series of subspecies
is enumerated, each preceded by a serial
letter . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Propoml (99). Date of entry into force of the Regies

as anicndeil . . . . . . . . . . 133

Proposal (1(X)). Article 34 (generic names) ami

Article 35 (trivial names) ! a special case . . 133

Proposal (101). Article 25 (proposal supplementary
to Proposal (12) in Paper I. C. (48)11) {nomina
nuda) 133

Proposal (102). .-Vrticle 25 (status of generic names

cited in specific synonymies) . . . . . . 133

Document No. Subject

Page

I.C.(48)18 Proposal (103). Generic names first published in

(conunued) generic synonymies . . . . . . 13:3

I.C.(48)19 PARTICULARS RELATING TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL

CASES

Proposal (1). Proposed completion of " Opinions "
which fail to provide complete answers to
questions submitted . . . . . . 135

Proposal (2). Projjosed addition of Calliphara
Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Class Insecta, Order
Diptera) to the " Official List " (reference
Opinion 82) . . . . . . _ 135

Proposal (3). Type species of Mabuya Fitzinger,

1826 (Class Reptilia) (reference Opinion 92) 136

Proposal (4). Proposed use of the plenary powers
for Porina Walker, 1856 (Class Insecta, Order
Lepidoptera) . . . . . . . . . . 130

Proposal (5). Phlebotomus versus Flebotomus (Class

Insecta, Order Diptera) . . . . . . , . 13^

Proposal (6). Proposed use of the plenary powers
to determine the identity of PapiJio plexippus
Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidop-
tera) . . 137

Proposal (7). Type species of the genus Colymbm

Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves) I37

Proposal (8). Schistosome worms and Schistosome

monsters . . . . . . . . . . 13^

I.C.(48)20 DRAFT OF REPORT TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE
CONGRESS BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMIS-
SION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 139

I.C.(48)21 PRESS COMMUNIQUE ISSUED AT THE CLOSE OF
THE THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS
OF ZOOLOGY, PARIS, 21ST-27TH JULY 1948 154

PART 2. COMMUNICATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE
SECTION ON NOMENCLATURE. THIRTEENTH
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY,
PARIS, JULY 1948.

CommiuioR'a Subject ^^9^

reference :

Z.N.(S.)362 Uu point de nomenclature. Doit-ou dire Psodos et non pas
Psolos Tr. (Lep. Geometridae) i

Par H. Berthet (France) 157

Z.N.(S.)3SS Two proposed alterations in the Rules of Zoological Nomen-
clature

By Henning Lemche (Denmark) . . . . . . 158

Z.N.(S.)397 Les Protozoaires parasites de I'Homme (abstract)

By Enrique Beltran (Mexico) 162

Z.N.(S.)357 Sur la nomenclature des groupements supergeueriques

Par R. Jeannel (France) . . . . . . . . 164

ZJ<.(S.)363 Les notions de grade et de pseudo-genre

Par Georges Deflandre (France) 166

2LN.(S.)S64 La nomenclature des fragments fossiles (organites et
sclerites) d'lnvertebres

Par Georges Deflandre et Marthe Deflandre- Riga ud

(France) 167

Z.N.(S.)3€5 Quelle est I'espece type du genre Gryphaea Lamarck ?

Par Gilbert Ranson (France) 168

^rf***'*** ^^ ^^^ propositions diverses concernant des amehorations

dted for ^ apporter a certains regies en vue d'une designation

eedk reguliere des noms de genre et d'espece
prep<witi«n)

Par le professeur Pierre Bonnet (France) 171

Cammittioa't Subject PoQ^

raferanc* :

Propositions diverses (Proffessor F. Bonnett)

(continued)

Z.N.(S.)238 Proposition 1 (proposed amendment of Article 26

to provide availability for the names pub-
lished in Clerck's Aranei svecid in 1757) . . 173

Z.N.(S.)359 Proposition 2 (proposed new Article to follow

Article 27) 177

Z.N.(S.)359 Proposition 3 (proposed amendment of Article 34
and proposed addition of two new Articles to
follow that Article) 178

Z.N.(S.)352 Proposition 4 (proposed deletion from Article 13

of option to use capital initial letters for
certain classes of trivial name) . . . . 180

Z.N.(S.)352 Proposition 5 (proposed clarification of Article 14

in certain respects) . . . . . . . . 181

Z.N.(S.)3S2 Proposition 6 (proposed addition of a Recommandat-

ian to Article 11) . . . . 183

Z.N.(S.)352 Proposition 7 (proposed amendment of Article 15) 184

Z.N.(S.)390 Proposition 8 (proposed addition of three new

Articles to follow Article 15) . . . . . . 185

Z.N.(S.)352 Proposition 9 (proposed insertion after Article 18 of
a new Article regarding the grammatical agree-
ment of the trivial name of a species with the
name of the genus to which that species is
referred) 188

Z.N.(S.)356 Proposition 10 (proposed addition of a new Article

to follow Article 20) 190

Z.N.(S.)352 Proposition 1 1 (proposed addition of a new para-
graph to Article 32 and addition of a new
Article to follow Article 19) 191

Z.N.(S.)297 and 352 Proposition 12 (proposed addition of a new Article

to follow Article 8) 193

Z.N.(S.)3S2 Proposition 13 (proposed amendment of Article 22) 195

Commitsion's
reference :

Z.N.(S.)352

Z.N.(S.)391

Z.N.(S.)392

Z.N.(S.)393

Subject '! *

Propositions diverses (Professor F. Bonnet)

{contimied)

Proposition 14 (proposed substitution of a new
Article to follow Article 22 in place of the
existing Recommaridation to that Article)

Proposition 15 (proposed addition of a new Reconi-
inandation to Article 16)

Page

1%

107

Proposition 16 (proposed amendment of concluding

paragraph of Recammandalion to Article 20) 198

Proposition 17 (proposed addition of a new section
to the Apperidice)

199

Index

201

Particulars of dates of publication of tlio several
Parts of the present VohiTuo

237

PART I.

MEMORANDA AND REPORTS

SUBMITTED TO THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION

ON

ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

BY THE

SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION

AT THE SESSION OF MEETINGS

HELD BY THE

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION

DURING THE

THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS

OF ZOOLOGY

PARIS, JULY 1948

VOLUME 3. Parts 1/3 I4th March, 1950

pp. T.P. — XXX, 1 — 62

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
,^^- jNOMENCLATURE

" W*^ The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by

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

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Contents :

Title Page ; Composition of the International Com- Page

mission on Zoological Nomenclature ; Thanks
to U.N.E.S.C.O. ; Note by the President,
Section on Nomenclature, Thirteenth Inter-
national Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 ;
Table of Contents TP.— xxx

Part 1. Memoranda and Reports submitted to the
International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the Secretary to the Com-
mission at the Session of Meetings held by the
International Commission during the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Paris, July
1948 (first instalment) Half-Title,

1—62, 1 pi.

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological

Nomenclature on instructions received from the Thirteenth

International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948,

and

Sold on behalf of the International Commission by the

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

at the Publications OfBce of the Trust

41, Queen's Gate, London, S.W.7.

1950

Price One pound, eight shillings.

(All rights reserved)

(1)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

PAPER

I.C.(48)1

AGENDA FOR THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN PARIS IN JULY, 1948

Memorandum by the Secretary to the Commission

In view of the fact that there has been no meeting of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature since that held at Lisbon in 1935, the
Commission will be confronted with an exceptionally heavy agenda when it
assembles next month in Paris during the meeting of the Thirteenth Inter-
national Congress of Zoology. It is particularly important therefore that
during the Paris meeting the Commission should so organise its work as to
enable it to discharge the maximum amount of work in the Umited time
available.

2. The principal matters which wUl be brought before the Commission
during its Paris meeting are as follow : —

(1 ) The work of the International Commission during the period 1936-48,

with special reference to the administrative and financial problems of
the Commission.

A Report on the work of the Commission during the period
1936-48 will be submitted to the Commission by the Secretary as
Paper I.C.(48)2.

This Report will describe the transfer of the headquarters of
the Commission to London in 1936 consequent upon the election
of the present Secretary and the administrative and financial
problems which that transfer inevitably involved. It will give an
account also of the measures taken by the Secretary to secure
continuity during the difficult war years and the developments
which it was possible to achieve during that period. The Report
will also give an account of the formation since the war of a
corporation under United Kingdom Law for the purpose of con-
ducting the financial and business affairs of the Commission, the
Commission itself, as an unincorporated body, not being in a
position directly to undertake these duties.

It is suggested that the Commission, when making their Report
to the Congress, should attach to it the Report by the Secretary,
while themselves drawing the attention of the Congress to those
points in the Secretary's Report which they consider to be of
special interest or importance. This procedure will, it is hoped,
enadle the Commission to deal with this matter adequately, while

VOL. 3 c

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

at the same time avoiding the necessity of devoting too much time
to this subject, in view of the many other urgent matters requiring
consideration.

(2^ Composition of the International Commission on Zoologiad Nomen-
clature and method of nominating members.

There is clear evidence of a general feeling among zoologists
that the present fixed niembership of the Commission which
necessarily excludes many countries from direct representation on
the Commission is unsatisfactory and should be amended. It is
clear also that, in view of the growing importance of the work of
the Commission, there is a general desire among zoologists that the
leading scientific institutions of the countries concerned should l)e
brought into consultation whenever it is necessary to fill a vacancy
in the membership of the Commission.

This question has been carefully considered by the Executive
Committee of the Commission and their proposals will be submitted
in Paper I.C.(48)3.

(3) Procedure of the Internatiofwl Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature.

The most serious — because the most merited — of the criticisms
which have in the past been levelled against the International
Conunission have been («) that the period taken in obtaining
decisions on questions of nomenclature has often been much too
long (amounting in some cases to 20 years) and (6) that the
Liherum Veto imposed by the Commission on itself, when deaUng
with certain classes of case, has obstructed the work of the Com-
mission by making it impossibh? to secure any decision, where even
a single member of the Commission dissented from the action
proposed.

At the present time the Conxmission has before it a larger
number of applications than at any previous period in its history
and it is certain that it will be impossible to deal with these
promptly unless a thoroughgoing reform is introduced into the
procedure of the Commission. It is perfectly clear also that the
whole position of the Commissicju will be impaired in the eyes of
zoologists generally, unless it takes effective steps to enable it t/O
clear off existing arrears of work and in future to give decisions
quickly.

This question has been the subject of discussion between the
members of the Executive Committee and also between the
Secretary and leading zoological institutions and individual
.specialists. Proposals for dealing with this problem will be sub-
mitted in Paper I.C.(48)4.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 3

(4) Meaning of Ike expression '" nomenclature hinaire " as used in the
"Regies Internatiomles": Special Report to be submitted to the
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology.

The International Commission were instructed by tlie TwelftJi
International Congress of Zoology at its final Concilium Plenum
held in Lisbon in September, 1935, to prepare a Report on the
meaning of the expression " nomenclature binaire " as used in the
Reghs for submission to the Thirteenth International Congress.

Numerous discussions on this question have been held with
specialists, with a view to ascertaining what course of action would
be the most generally acceptable.

A draft Report embodying the conclusions reached as the
result of these discussions will be submitted as Paper I.C.(48)5, for
the consideration of the Commission.

(5) ' ' Regies Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique' ' ; proposals for

consolidation and amendment.

Proposals will be laid before the Commission :^

(a) to codify the interpretations of the Regies given at various

times in Opinions rendered by the International Com-
mission by the insertion in the Regies of express provisions
dealing with the problems involved ;

(6) to eliminate doubts as to the meaning of certain of the

provisions of the Regies by redrafting those provisions in
unambiguous terms ;

(c) to insert in the Regies provisions relating both (i) to
certain matters on which resolutions have abready been
adopted by the Congress but which have not been
incorporated in the Regies, and (ii) to certain other
matters as regards which there are no provisions in the
Regies and no decisions have as yet been taken by the
Congress ;

(d) to remove inconsistencies from the phraseology used in
the Regies.

It is recognised that neither the Commission nor the Congress
can hope to do more than record decisions in regard to many of
the questions which will fall to be dealt with under the foregoing
programme, and that other arrangements will need to be made
for the formulation of the texts to be inserted in the substantive
French text of the Regies. . It is proposed that the highly technical
task of formulating these drafts should be remitted to jurists.
It IS further proposed that the Commission should recommend
the Congress to follow the precedent set by the Fifth International
Congress of Zoology (Berlin, 1901), that is' to say that the Congress
should be invited to appoint a small Comite de Redaction charged
with the duty of examinmg the texts proposed by the jurists and
of satisfying itself that these texts give effect to the decisions taken
by the Congress. This Committee would be instructed to act with
all possible dispatch, in order that the Commission may be able

VOL. 3 c-

4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

to publish, as soon as possible after the close of the Congress, an
edition of the Regies as revised at Paris, containing both the
substantive French text and an English translation thereof.

A paper setting out the foregoing proposals in greater detail
is being circulated as Paper I.C.(48)6.

(G) Applications submitted to the Coininission in regard to individual
problems of zoological nomenclature.

A large number of applications in regard to individual problems
of nomenclature are at present before the Commission and the
texts of a considerable number of these have been pulilishcd in the
Bulletin of Zoological Nometiclature.

It is proposed that, so far as time })ermits, the Commission
should consider these cases and reach at least provisional decisions
thereon.
(7) Report to be submitted, by the InternMional Cotnmission on Zoological
Nomenclature to the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology.
Paris. 1948.

At the close of its deliberations, the International Commission
will have to submit a Report to the Congress to be considered,
first by the Section on Nomenclature, and later by the Congress
itself in Concilium Plenum. This Report will need to deal with
all the principal matters considered by the Commission during its
Paris meeting and in particular will need to set out the proposals
which the Commission may decide to submit, for adoption, to the
Section on Nomenclature and to the Congress. In addition, as
already explained under (1) above, the Report will need to refer
briefly to the principal developments which occurred in the work
of the Connnission between the end of the Lisbon Congress in 1935
and the opening of the present Congress.

The draft of this Report will be prepared during the Paris
meeting and will be submitted to the Commission for approval at
its final meeting.

3. Note on documents to be brought by Commissioners to Paris. — The files of
the Commission and other papers which it will be necessary for the Secretary
to the Commission to take to Paris will inevitably be bulky and heavy. It will
therefore not be possible to supply members of the Commission with additional
copies of documents after their arrival in Paris. Members of the Commission
are, therefore, particularly requested to ensure that they bring with them to
Paris both this and other memoranda relating to the Paris meeting circulated
by tlie Secretariat of the Commission and also the copies which have already
been furnished to them both of the Bidletin of Zoological Nomenclature and of
the Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission.

FRANCIS HEMMING.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.
Secretariat of the Commission,

London, England.
2eth June, 1948.

5)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

PAPER
I.C.(48)2

REPORT BY FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., SECRETARY TO THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, ON THE WORK
OF THE SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMISSION DURING THE PERIOD 1936-1948

I submit herewith for the information of the Commission the accompanying
Report which I have prepared on the work of the Secretariat of the Commission
from the time when in October, 1936 I was elected to be the Secretary to the
Commission up to the opening of the present Congress in July, 1948.

FRANCIS HEMMING,

Seorlari/ to the I ntenmtional Commission
oti Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretariat of the Coinniission,
London, England.

im July, 1948.

Editorial Note. — In accordance with a decision taken by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature, the report referred to above was submitted to the International
Congress of Zoology. The text of tliis Report will be published in Volume 5 of the present
journal, the volume reserved for the record of the proceedings of the Section of Nomenclature
of the Congress and the Reports on Nomenclature submitted to the Congress.

(6)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

PAPER
I.C.(48)3

THE COMPOSITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE AND THE METHOD OF NOMINATING ITS MEMBERS

Memorandum by the Secretary to the Commission

I. Introductory

The Executive Committee of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature; have had under consideration the question of the size and
composition of the International Commission and the method followed in
nominating its members. As the result of this review, the Executive Committee
are of the opinion that a stage has been reached at which it is essential that the
underlying principles should be re-examined and that certain changes should
be introduced in order to bring those principles into harmony with modern
conditions. In the opinion of the Executive Committee, such changes alone
will enable the International Commission to vindicate its claim to be a body
both genuinel}' international in character and truly representative of zoologists
and palaeontologists in all parts of the world.

2. The size and composition of a body and the method by which its members
are appointed necessarily exercise a considerable influence over the procedure
appropriate for the discharge by that body of the functions entrusted to it.
The International Commission is no exception to this general rule and the
Executive Committee recognise therefore that their proposals for the reform
of the composition of the Commission and the introduction of the representative
principle in the nomination of its members will inevitably involve certain
changes in the procedure of the Commission in dealing with matters relating
to zoological nomenclature brought before it for consideration or for decision.
In addition to consequential changes of this kind, there are other changes
which it is essential should be introduced into the procedure of the Commission
if it is to be put into a position in which it will be able promptly and effectively
to handle the large and growing volume of business passing through its hands.

3. For purposes of convenience, the proposals of the Executive Committee
in regard to the composition of the Commission and the method of nominating
its members are set out in the present paper, while the Committee's proposals
in regard to the reform of the procedure of the Commission are set out in another
paper (Paper LC.(48)4). The Executive Committee desire, however, to
emphasise their view that i he two sets of recommendations are complementary

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 7

in character and that t)ie acceptance of the rocommondations set ont in the
present paper will necessarily imply a vvillinfiness to amend the procedure
of the Commission on the lines suggested in l^iper I.C.(48)4, for. .juite apart
from the fact that, as experience has shown, the present rules of procedure are
inadequate to support even the present organisation, those rules would be
entirely inappropriate, if the composition of the Commission and the method
ot nominating its members were to be reformed in the manner recommended
hy the Executive Committee in the present paper.

II. Historical Sketch

4. In order properly to appreciate the nature of the proposals now sub-
mitted by the Executive Committee, it is necessary to trace briefly the
development during the last 50 years of the ideas of the Commission (and the
Congress) in regard to such questions as the proper size of the Commission the
nature of its composition and the methods to be followed in the nomination
and election of its members. A brief survey of the history of these ideas is
therefore given in the following paragraphs.

5 The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was established
by the Third International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Leiden
in 1895 It was not then the intention of the Congress that the Commission
should be a permanent body, the object in view being only to set up a botlv
which would discharge a limited task in the interval between that Congress
?QQo rru""^^^ Congress which was due to meet at Cambridge (England) in
1898. The task entrusted to the cul hoc Commission appointed at Leiden
was to review all the codes of nomenclature (unofficial as well as official) at
that time m use by zoologists and to submit to the next Congress recommenda-
tions for the adoption of a definitive international set of Regle.s. The
Commission so set up consisted of five zoologists, all members of the Leiden
Congress and each a national of a different country. With a l^ody consisting
ot so small a membership, it would clearly have been impossible to make it
representative of the zoologists of all the countries in which active zoological
work was being carried on. All that was possible-and clearly all that "was
attempted— was to secure that the zoologists selected to be members of the
Commission should be men who by reason of their personal attainments would
be accepted by the general zoological public as being qualified to perform the
tunctions then entrusted to them.

i«qq' ^^^ ^°"^^^ International Congress of Zoology held at Cambridge in
1898 was of particular importance from the present point of view, for the
decisions then taken involved the tacit acceptance of principles which for
nearly 40 years were to govern the attitude both of the Commission and of the
Congress. In the first place the Cambridge Congress decided that the Com-
mission should thenceforward be a permanent organ of the Congress char<yed
with the duty, on behalf of the Congress, of centralising, discussing and
elaborating all questions relative to zoological nomenclature. As part of this
decision the Congress decided to increase the membership of the Commission
from 5 to 15 members. What is significant from the present point of view is
that the Congress instructed the original Commission of five members forthwith
to elect the ten new members from among the zoologists present at the Congress

8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This decision naturally limited the choice of the Commission who were unable
to elect any zoologist who was not a member of the Congress even if on this
account they were forced (as in one or two cases they were) to elect men of
far less eminence than they could have secured if they had been able to draw
upon the whole field of zoologists engaged in active work at that time. Second,
the decision to limit the membership of the Commission to zoologists who were
actually present at Cambridge greatly narrowed the field of choice as regards
the countries to be represented on the Commission. An inspection of the list
of zoologists who were elected to be members of the Commission at that meeting
shows that very little importance was attached to the principle of geographical
representation, for, on the completion of the election, five countries monopolised
between them all except 3 of the 15 seats on the Commission. These countries
were Germany and the United Kingdom with three seats each, and France, the
Netherlands, and the United States with two seats each. The total number
of countries represented on the Commission had thus grown only from five to
eight, notwithstanding the fact that there had been a threefold increase in
the total membership.

7. Nothing of importance from the present point of view occurred at the
Fifth Meeting of the Congress held at Berlin in 1901, but at the Sixth Meeting
held at Berne in 1904 the decisions taken at Cambridge in regard to the method
of appointing members of the Commission were carried to their logical con-
clusion when the Congress decided that the membership of the Commission
should be divided into three Classes and that at each subsequent meeting of the
Congress the Class with the longest term of completed service should be
superseded by a fresh Class to be filled directly by election by the Congress.
From this time onwards the accepted view was that it was the Congress which
was directly responsible for the selection of zoologists to be members of the
Commission. It naturally followed from this that, when the Congress desired to
elect new Commissioners (as happened when any Commissioner did not offer
himself for re-election or when there were vacancies in the membership of the
Commission due to deaths or resignations in the preceding inter-Congress
period) they invariably restricted their choice to zoologists who were present
at the Congress. From the practical point of view there were conveniences
attaching to this course, for it rendered possible preliminary informal soundings
to ascertain whether zoologists whom it was proposed to put forward for
election to the Commission were in fact willing to serve, if invited to do so.
On the other hand, by this decision the Berne Congress made it clear that their
intention was that the membership of the Commission should be drawn
exclusively from the membership of the Congress rather than from the general
body of zoologists, irrespective of their attendance at the particular meeting
of the Congress or even of whether they had enrolled themselves as members
of that Congress.

8. The interval between the Graz Congress (1910) and the Monaco Congress
(1913) was one of great activity by the Commission, an exceptionally large
number of Opinions being rendered during that period. Nearly 20 years
had by now elapsed since the Commission had been first appointed and it was
only natural therefore that in the three years between the Graz and Monaco

1

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclnture g

pJedu?e^Xtcl«rnfupTrt°\h7S°^

tliP ,lnt,. ^f 1 \^^ ,P°" ^'^' ^'^^ *"0°^™ssion was given the riffbt ^^

filled by the Coiiaress and not hv fw' ^''6 resulting vacancies were

distmcL beclf rath" a fi^^^^^^^^ ^^ P-f-' .^^-er, the

to the new Class then estaMshe .tet S-b^^^^^

therefore be concluded that from "q/ ""'^^^^'^^ *» the Congress. It may
acquired the riffht to fil] .if ^'^^^V^^^l onwards the Commission virtuaUy

.t;!:r >• ™"" "-"- '- ^^^^^^^^<^^t:ti-x

to be .foi,„wfd';:tr:';:c"ti™'Vr„f; mrbrrrz ?= "-"""'r
tw tb. ti„e i. prop.- !;rrxr^^^^^^^^^^^ :„^s™i

10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

nomenclature and that it was therefore desired to add two entomologists to
the membership of the Commission. Two conclusions may be drawn from the
action taken by the Commission in this matter : first that there was still no
general recognition of the need to make the Commission representative in
the sense that its membership should reflect at least roughly the volume of
zoological work then being carried on in different parts of the world ; second,
that it marked the definite acceptance of the principle never previously stated
in public by the Commission that each of the principal fields of zoological
work should be represented in the Commission in the person of some leading
specialist.

12. For nearly 20 years no further formal changes were made in the
principles followed in the election of new members of the Commission. The
Commission continued as before to fill vacancies as they occurred and the
action so taken was reported to, and approved by, each successive meeting of
the Congress. It must not be supposed, however, that the attitude of the
Conmaission towards its own membership miderwent no change during this
period. The fact that, owing to the 1914-18 war and the subsequent confusion
in the countries of Europe, only one meeting of the Congress was held between
the close of the Monaco meeting in 1913 and the opening of the Padua Congre.ss
in 1930, inevitably diminished the part played by the Congress in the election
of members of the Commission. The steady stream of elections to the
Commission (consequent upon the death or retirement of members) which
occurred throughout the inter-war period and which were almost all conducted
by the Commission and not by the Congress inevitably reduced the importance
attached in the selection of candidates, to the qualification universally accepted
l>efore the 1914-18 war that candidates should be selected from among the
members of the Congress. Thus, by accident, the field of selection was greatly
enlarged and it was possible therefore for the Commission, in making elections,
to choose the best-qualified candidates that they could find. From a theoretical
standpoint this development was entirely in the right direction, but in practice
its value was largely dissipated by the fact that a body which seldom was able
to meet and which therefore had to conduct most of its business by corre-
spondence was not well-qualified to select the most suitable candidate in
every case. In making their selection of candidates, they were bound to
rely mainly upon the published record of the zoologists concerned and, while
this method secured the election of men with high records of achievement, it
did not always succeed also in providing Commissioners possessed of capacity
for business or the qualifications needed for effective participation in a joint
undertaking, where it is necessary at times to subordinate personal preferences
for the general good.

13. No doubt also during this period the Commission had become more
sensible of the need for securing that its membership should reflect the
geographical dispersion of zoological work as well as the differences in the outlook
and needs of specialists in the principal divisions of the Animal Kingdom.
For at Padua the Commission included in their Report to the Congress a
passage on this subject. In this passage the Commission expressly recognised
the need for securing an " equitable geographic distribution " of seats in the

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. H

Commission as well as the "representation of specialities." The view so
expressed was endorsed both by the Section on Nomenclature and by the
Congress Itself at ,ts Final ConciJnm. Pknum. The acceptance of this principle

ongmai conception of the Commission as a body of recognised soecialists
chosen for their personal qualifications and without'^regard toTatTonrty

for \t ?t 0"<^break of war in Europe in 1939 brought with it new problems
for the International Commission. Fortunately, the accident of Tiationah>v
and the course of the war were such that throughout the v^a all th oSS
t^^e Commission were able to communicate freely with one another by posf
rheExecutiveComnuttee was thus able throughout the war to discW^^
interruption the functions entrusted to it. Fortmiately, also, it w^s posSe
for myself, as Secretary to the Commission, at all times to coii^iriLwith
a majority of the members of the Commission. It was possiblT^iX way to
take all necessary steps to maintain intact the fabric of the ConLssion even
though It was judged better to postpone decisions on all matte^f 3S
nomenclature until, after the conclusion of hostilities, it would, as it was hoped
be possible freely to resume communications not only between all thrmember;
ofjhe Commission but also generally between zoologists in all parts of th"

15. Although, as explained above, communication was maintained through

the ItrXy tS f '''^''''-'^^V' ^^^^--tlve Coimmulrafdttwet
tne secretary to the Commission and a majority of the members of the Com
mission, the period required to conduct correspondence und^r war conditioT;

with the high risk (during parts of the war) that trans-ocean maH mSh.
lost by submarine action, made it necessary to confine consuSorto" fentia^

recuse tfomnfittt'^^^^ "^%'"'^^^ °' °^^^^ "'^'^ - possLrth
^xecutive Committee. This necessity was recognised by the members of the

Commission who constituted the accessible majority of the total membership

these members agreeing to confer upon the Executive Comnai^tee fo the

duration of the war responsibility for all matters concerned with thTmaTnten

ance of the existence of the Commission, other than a lin^ted Lmber of

ZX::ftt!^:'"''^'''' °^ the E t^ve Committee^'d Th" o her
members ol the Commission were agreed that prior consultation was essential
however great the difficulties involved or however long the resultlnt Sys '

16. Already before the outbreak of the war there was one vacancv in th.
membership of the Commission and it was not long before furZ; dl h!
deprived the Commission of three more of its membfrs S ar^'^^^^^^^

se ou^nrktall ttr"' T'^^'^' ''/''''' recruitment, 'there wa^^'
serious risk that, if the war were to contmue for a long time, the Commission
would emerge so greatly depleted in numbers that it lould k greatrhandT
capped in its efforts to re-establish international co-operationT iooEl
nomenclature whenever the war came to an end. In vierof Its Tat
importance, this subject was referred during the war to 7hTwll fl
membership of the Commission with which ^0:^^:^,^ It S V^ibt

12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

Fortunately, as already explained, that part of the membership constituted a
majority of the total membership, so that decisions taken unanimously by this
portion of the Commission possessed an alisolute liinding force, for even if all
the other members of the Conunission had been able to vote and had voted in
the opposite sense, those members of the Commission would have been in a
minority. On this particular matter two decisions were taken as the result
of the general consultation then undertaken, of which the first was concerned
with machinery, while the second recognised and affirmed a new principle of
the greatest importance and one which forms the foundation of the proposals
now about to be placed before the Commission by the Executive Committee
(.see paragraph 21, below).

17. In place of the previous system by which the members of the
Commission themselves had suggested the names of possible candidates, it
was now agreed that in future the process of electing new members of the
Commission should be divided into two parts. Henceforward the members
of the Commission would be concerned to decide not the candidate to be
elected but the country from which a suitable candidate should be nominated.
The actual process of selection should, it was agreed, be undertaken not by
the Commission itself but on behalf of the Commission by the National
Academy of Science or other leading scientific institution or institutions in the
country from which it was desired to secure a candidate. It was furtlier
agreed that it should be left to the Executive Committee, acting through the
Secretary to the Commission, to undertake the necessary consultations with
the national scientific bodies concerned. The Executive Committee were
authorised also formally to accept such nominations on behalf of the Com-
mission. All the elections made to the membership of the Commission have
since been conducted under the foregoing procedure.

III. The Recommendations of the Execntive Committee

18. The Executive Committee are firmly convinced that the introduction
during the war of the principle that it is the function of the zoologists of any
country themselves to take part, through their leading scientific institutions,
in the nomination of the zoologist who is to represent them on the International
Commission constitutes the most important single development which has
occurred in this field since the inception of the Commission. By this decision
the Commission has freed itself of the reproach that it was largely a self-
continuing body and has shown its determination to secure for itself a genuinely
representative character.

19. Now that the membership of the Commission has been placed on a
representative basis, there remain two directions in which further reforms are
required. The first is concerned to secure that the membership of the
Commission, while containing an adequate representation of workers in
systematic zoology, shall contain also an adequate representation of workers
in those of the applied sciences which are concerned with species belonging
to the Animal Kingdom and have an interest therefore in zoological nomenclature
and also of university and other teachers of zoology. Naturally, the scope of

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 13

the representation to be sought both in the systematic and applied fields must
cover not only living animal forms but also fossil forms and in consequence
arrangements must be made for the due representation of palaeontologists as
well as of workers concerned with living species. The second direction in
which further reforms are needed is that necessary to secure that representation
is afforded on the Commission to zoologists of any country who wish to par-
ticipate in its work.

20. The Executive Committee are accordingly of the opinion that the stage
has now been reached when it is desirable that the International Congress of
Zoology should accept the principle that, having regard to the great increase
in the number of Sovereign States which has occurred since 1913, the year in
which the composition of the Commission was fixed at 18 members, the rapid
development of work, both taxonomic and other, which has taken place during
the last three decades, and the great increase in the geographical dispersion
of workers in these fields, the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature should now be given a wider foundation, both territorially and
by reference to specialised knowledge of the problems of nomenclature affecting
different groups in the Animal Kingdom and of the needs of scientific men
whose work involves the study of organisms belonging to the Animal Kingdom.

21. In these circumstances the Executive Committee recommend that at
their forthcoming meeting in Paris the International Commission should submit
the following scheme of reorganisation to the Congress for approval : —

(1) that, subject to the simultaneous adoption of the revised rules of
procedure indicated in Paper I.C.(48)4, the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature should cease to be a body with a fixed
membership of 18 members and that in lieu of this system there should
in future be set a minimum membership of 18, but that there should
be no maximum upper limit to the membership ;

(2) that, consequent upon the adoption of the foregoing change, the
International Commission should be authorised to elect to its member-
ship a specialist or specialists to represent zoologists or palaeontologists
or workers in the applied biological sciences resident in any country
which is either unrepresented on the Commission or for which the
existing representation is, in the opinion of the Commission, inadequate,
])rovided that, in the former case, the Commission are satisfied that
a considerable body of zoological work is being conducted in the
country concerned or alternatively that there is a leading specialist
who is a resident national of that country, the election of whom to
be a member of the Commission would be to the general advantage ;

(3) that every application for the appointment to the Commission of a
national representative; or. where there is already such a representative,
of additional n'|)resentativ('s. sliould l)i' submitted to the Commission
either through the diplomatic representative of the country concerned
in the country in which the headcjuarters of the Commission are
situated, or direct by a Government Department of the country

14 Bulletin of Zoological No7nenclature.

concerned, or by the National Academy of Science or some other
leading Scientific Institution or learned Society in that Comitry ;

(4) that every application for the appointment to the Commission of a
national representative or representatives which may be received by
the Conunission shall be referred forthwith to the Executive Committee
of the Commission whose duty it shall be to satisfy itself, on behalf of
the Commission : —

(«) that the body signatory to the appUcation is adequately
representative of the coimtry concerned ;

(b) that, having regard to the conditions prescribed in (2) above,
there are grounds which would justify the appointment of a
national representative or, where there is already such a
representative, of an additional representative ;

(c) that the candidate proposed for election is personally possessed
of the technical knowledge, experience, energy and other qualifica-
tions requisite for the performance of the duties of a member of
the Commission ;

((/) that the election of the representative or additional representative,
as the case may be, would not conflict with the principle that the
membership of the Commission should be such as to secure, as
far as may be practicable, that the national representation thereon
shall bear an appropriate relation to the volume of zoological and
palseontological work ciirrently being conducted in different parts
of the world and that there shall be a like balance in the representa-
tion on the Commission of different types of knowledge and
experience as regards both work on the systematics of the
principal divisions of the Animal Kingdom and work in those
branches of applied science which are affected by changes in
zoological nomenclature ;

(5) that, where the Executive Committee are satisfied on all the matters
specified in (4) above, they shall thereupon elect the proposed candidate
to be a member of the Commission and shall forthwith promulgate
the said election in the BvlUtin of Zoological Nomenclature;

(6) that, where the Executive Committee are satisfied in regard to the
matters specified in (a), (b), and (c) of paragraph (4) but not in regard
to the matter specified in (d) of the same paragraph, they may never-
theless elect the proposed candidate to be a member of the Commission,
provided that at the same time they elect also another member or
members of the Coimiiission to maintain the balance prescribed in the
said sub-paragraph {d) of paragraph (4) above ;

(7) that, where, through death or resignation, a vacancy arises in the
membership of the Commission, the Executive Committee shall invito
the authority or authorities as the case may be specified in paragraph
(3) above to submit the name of a proposed candidate to fill the said
vacancy, and, having received the said nomination, shall satisfy
themselves regarding the personal qualifications of the said candidate,
as prescribed by sub-paragraph (c) in paragraph (4) above, and, having
done .so, shall elect the candidate to be a member of the Commission

BuUeltH of Zoological Nofnenclature. 15

and shall promulgate the election in the manner specified in paragraph
(5) above ;

(8) that, consequent upon the adoption of the recommendations specified
in paragraphs (I) to (7) above, the system by which the members of
the Commission are divided into three Classes, each Class consisting
of six members and serving for a term of nine years, subject to the
condition that the term of the oldest Class shall be automatically
closed at the end of each meeting of the Congress, should be modified
as follows : —

(a) In order to take account of the fact that under the new system
the total membership of the Commission will not always be
exactly divisible by three, every person elected to be a member of
the Commission (other than a person elected to fill a vacancy
caused through death or other cause, who shall be placed in the
same Class as his predecessor) shall be placed in whichever Class
has the smallest membership (})laces vacant for other causes being
treated for this purpose as thougli they were filled) and, if two
Classes have an equal menibership, that menibership being less
than that of the third Class or if the membership of all three
Classes is the same, the new member of the Commission shall be
placed in the Class, the term of service of which is first due to
expire.

(b) In view of the fact that every member of the Commission will
be a national representative duly nominated by the highest
scientific authorities in his own country, it is suggested that in
future the Congress should waive its right directly to elect the
Commissioners to fill the new Class to be constituted as from the
close of the Congress and, in lieu of the present system, the
Commission should l)e instructed to report to the Congress the
names of the national representatives whom it is proposed to
appoint to the new Class and to ask the Congress to signify its
approval of the action proposed.

22. The Executive Committee confidently conmiend the foregoing
recommendations to the favourable consideration of the International
Commission, being convinced that it is only by the adoption of these changes,
accompanied by the concurrent modifications in the rules of procedure
recommended in Paper I.C.(48)4 that the Commission will acquire a genuinely
representative territorial foundation and a wide range of technical and
professional knowledge and experience and will thus secure for itself the moral
standing to enable it to act as the final international authority in regard to all
matters connected with zoological nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING,

Secretary to the International Commission

an Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretariat of the Commission,

London, England.
\m July, 1948.

(16)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

PAPER
LC(48)4

THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION
ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Memorandum by t/ie Secretary to the Commission

The most serious — because the most merited — of the criticisms which have
ill the past been levelled against the International Commission have been
(a) that the period taken in obtaining decisions on questions of nomenclature
has often been much too long (amoimting in some cases to 20 years) and (b) that
the Liberum Veto imposed by the Commission on itself, when dealing with
certain classes of case, has obstructed the work of the Commission by making
it impossible to secure any decision where even a single member of the
Commission dissented from the action proposed.

2. At the present time the Commission has before it a larger number of
appUcations than at any previous period in its history and it is certain that it
will be impossible to deal with these promptly unless a thoroughgoing reform
is introduced into the procedure of the Commission. It is perfectly clear also
that the whole position of the Commission will be impaired in the eyes of
zoologists generally unless it takes effective steps to enable it to clear off
existing arrears of work and in future to give decisions quickly.

3. If these were the only considerations involved, the Commission would
clearly need to consider at its Paris meeting how best it could set its house in
order. But there are other reasons of a most cogent character which would
make it essential to revise certain of its rules of procedure even if (as we see is
not the case) those rules had so far proved adequate to meet the needs of the
Commission. I refer to the proposals of the Executive Committee for the
introduction of certain changes in the composition of the Commission which
have been laid before the Commission in Paper I.C.(48)3.

4. In the paper referred to above, the Executive Committee made it clear
(in paragraph 3) that the simultaneous reform of the rules of procedure of the
Commission is an indispensable condition to the adoption of their proposals for
reorganisation of the composition of the Commission anil indicjited that they
proposed to submit separately their proposals as regards the procedure of the
Commission. Those proposals are submitted in the present paper.

Bulletin of Zoological iJoineii.clalui('. 1 7

5. The proposals which the Executive Committee uow submit to the
International Commission are designed both to remedy the defects which
experience has shown to exist in the present rules of procedure and also to
secure that the revised rules now to be adopted shall be appropriate to the
practical needs of the Commission after the composition of the Commission has
been reformed and enlarged in the manner indicated in the recommendations
submitted in Paper I.C.(48)3. Most of the changes recommended by the
Executive Committee can be adopted by a simple vote taken by the Commission
itself, but that part of these recommendations which is concerned with
harmonising the '' plenary powers " procedure with modern conditions will
need to be submitted by the Commission to the Section on Nomenclature at
the Congress for approval.

6. The reconamendations on this matter which the Executive Committee
uow submit for the favourable consideration of the International Commission
are as follows : —

(1) that both at meetings of the Commission and when, during intervals
between meetings, decisions on questions of zoological nomenclature
are required : —

(a) a proposed Opinion or Declaration on any matter not involving
a change in the Regies or the use by the Commission of their
plenary powers to suspend the Regies shall be adopted as the
Opinion or Declaration of the whole Commission when all the
members of the Conmiission have voted or when, after a period
of six calendar months calculated from the date of the despatch
by the Secretary to the members of the Commission of final
voting papers in regard to the proposed Opinion or Declaration,
a majority of those Commissioners whose completed voting papers
shall have been received by the Secretary have voted in favour of
the proposed Opinion or Declaration ;

(6) a proposed Opinion or Declaration containing a recommendation
to the International Congress of Zoology for any change in, or
addition to, the Regies or involving the use by the Commission of
their plenary powers shall be adopted as the Opinioyi or
Declaration of the whole Commission in like conditions to those
specified in (a) above, save that every such proposed Opinion or
Declaration shall require to receive at least two out of every
three votes cast in order to secure its adoption ;

(2) that the International Congress of Zoology should be invited : —

{(t) to amend as follows the Resolution adopted by it at its Nintli
Meeting held at Monaco in March, 1913, under which, subject to
certain conditions, it conferred upon the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature plenary powers to suspend the Regies
where, in tlie opinion of the Commission, the strict application of
the Regies would clearly result m greater confusion than
imiformity : —

VOL. 3 l>

1 8 Bvlletin of Zoological Nomendatwr.

(i) Article 1, Jirat proviso: by the substitution of the words
" shall be given in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
and copies of the said notice communicated to the following
publications " for the words " shall be given in any two of
the following publications" ;

(ii) Article 1, second proviso: by the substitution of the words
" provided that the number of votes cast in favour of
suspension is at least twice as great as the nimiber of votes
cast against suspension " for the words " provided, also,
that the vote in the Commission is unanimously in favour
of suspension " ;

(iii) Article 1, third proviso: to be deleted.

(iv) Article 2 (" That in the event tJiat a case. . . is concerned'") :
to be deleted.

(v) Articles 3 and i: to be renumbered 2 and 3 respectively.

(b) to agree that the foregoing resolution, amended as recommended
in (a) above, be incorporated in the Regies. (See Recommendation
in paragraph 2(5) (c) of Paper I.C.(48)1).

(3) that, having regard to the importance of taking every practicable
step to secure that in future decisions on appUcations submitted to the
Commission are taken as rapidly as is consistent with due consideration
of the issues involved, the procedure to be adopted in dealing with
such appUcations should be as follows : —

(a) subject to the necessary funds being available, every application
submitted to the Commission or, in the case of a long paper, an
agreed summary thereof, shall be published in the Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature as soon as possible after its receipt by
the Secretary, subject to the Secretary first satisfying himself
(i) that the application is in appropriate form with all the bibho-
graphical and other data necessary to enable the Commission to
reach a decision thereon and (ii) that it is drafted in accordance
with the requirements of Declaration 4 ;

(b) each issue of the Bulletin containing the texts of applications
submitted to the Commission shall contain a notice displayed in
a prominent position drawing the attention of readers to the fact
that voting on the said applications will be started at the end of
six calendar months calculated from the date of publication of the
said issue of the Bulletin and inviting any reader who wishes to
submit comments on the proposals in question to do so in writing
to the Secretary to the Commission as quickly as possible and in
any case before the expiry of the six-month period referred to
above ;

(c) as soon as possible after the expiry of the period referred to in
(b) above, the Secretary shall report to the members of the
Commission any comments which he may have received in regard

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 19

to any such application and shall at the same time submit
recommendations as to the terms of the Opinion or Declaration
proposed to bo rendered by the Commission in regard to the said
application, together with voting papers to be used in connection
therewith ;
((/) in order to eliminate the delay inevitable between the completion
of voting and the publication of the Opinion or Declaration
embodying the decision of the Commission, the Secretary should
publish in the Bulletin the " summary " of each Opinion or
Declaration adopted by the Commission as soon as possible after
the conclusion of the voting thereon ;

(4) that, in order to assure the zoological and palajontological public of the
determination of the International Commission to do everything pos-
sible to speed up its procedure, the International Commission should
take all practicable measures to bring to the notice of zoologists and
palaeontologists the revised procedure set out in (3) above and should
at the same time : —

(a) explain that it is hoped that, when the existing backlog of
applications has been worked off, it will normally be possible
for the Commission to announce its decision on any given
apphcation within a period of about fifteen months froln the date
of its receipt ;

(6) express the hope that, where an application is concerned with
the proposed use by the Commission of their plenary powers for
the purpose of validating a name or nomenclatorial usage, which,
under a strict application of the Regies, would need to be sunk ia
synonymy or changed, as the case may be, speciaUsts in the group
concerned will recognise that, as the case is subjudice, it is desirable
to avoid any action which might prejudice the decision to be taken
by the Commission and will accordingly refrain from aggravating
the position until such time as a decision is given by the
International Commission ;

(5) that provision for the foregoing changes of procedure should be made
in the revision of the By-Laws which the International Commission
have already agreed should be undertaken as soon as possible.

FRANCIS HEMMING,

Secretary to the Intervational Commission
on Zoological Nomendaiure.

Secretariat of the Commission,
London, England.

mh July, 1948.

VOL. ■$ l>-

( 20 )

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

PAPER
I.C.(48)5

THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION "NOMENCLATURE BINAIRE" AS USED

IN THE "REGLES" AND ACTION PROPOSED FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE

"REGIES" IN REGARD THERETO.

Note by the Secretary to the Commission

The Commission wUl recall that at the Twelfth International Congress of
Zoology held at Lisbon in September, 1935, they accepted an invitation from
the President of the Section on Nomenclature to prepare a comprehensive
Report, for submission to the Thirteenth International Congress, in regard both
to the meaning of the expression " nomenclature binaire " as at present used
in the Regies and to the question whether any and, if so, what amendments of
the Regies were needed in regard to this matter.

2. Very briefly, the position at the opening of the Lisbon Congress was : —

(1) that the expression " nomenclature binaire " had been inserted in
Article 25 of the Regies in 1901 in place of the more precise expression
" nomenclature binominale " with the intention of leaving it an open
question whether or not generic names published after 1757 by non-
binominal authors should have rights under the Law of Priority, a
question on which at that time zoologists were divided ;

(2) that in Opinion 20, published in 1910, the International Commission
gave a ruling that the expression " nomenclature binaire " was to be
interpreted as covering generic names published by non-binominal
authors .:

(3) that for the next 20 years repeated efforts were made without success
to question the correctness of the interpretation given by the Com-
mission but these efforts were successfully resisted by the Commission ;

(4) that at the Padua Congress in 1930 the Section on Nomenclature
insisted on discussing this question and took a vote (by a majority)
declaring that the expression " nomenclature binaire " should l)c
interpreted in the narrower of the two possible senses, i.e., that it should
l)c interpreted as having a meaning identical with the expressioji
" nomenclature binominale."

3. The acute controversy which followed the Padua Congress at one time
almost threatened to destroy the rule of international law in zoological
nomenclature. It was to give a breathing space and to provide an opportunity

Bulletin of Zoological Nowenrhturc. ' 21

for more sensible views to make thejiiselves felt that at Lisbon the Comite
Permanent des Congrh Internationaux de Zoologie referred the whole question
back to the President of the Section on Nomenclature, who in turn invited the
International Commission to submit a Report thereon.

4. Two issues are involved : —

(a) What is the meaning of the expression " nomenclature binaire " as

at present used in the Ragles ?
(/>) Is the consequent meaning of Article 25 the meaning which it is

desirable that that Article should liave ?

f). Question (a) presents no difficulties, for on any logical interpretation of
the Regies it is clear that the expression " nomenclature binaire "' can have
no meaning other than that of " nomenclature binominale."

6. Question {b) might easily have proved controversial and up to 1939
certainly would have done so. I have, therefore, devoted a great deal of attention
to the question of finding a solution which will be generally acceptable to
zoologists in all parts of the world. I have had extensive correspondence with,
many zoologists on this matter and I devoted particular attention to it during
the numerous disciissions held during my visit to the United States last
December.

7. It is extremely gratifying, therefore, to be able to report that there are
solid grounds for believing that a solution on the lines now suggested will prove
generally acceptable to American zoologists, many of whom were formerly
opposed to a solution of the problem on strictly binominal lines. European
and other zoologists may certainly be expected to support the present proposals,
for these are in line with the view held by the large majority of those who
voted on this question at the Padua Congress.

8. The accompanying draft of a Report ^ on this subject to be submitted by
the Commission to the President of the Section on Nomenclature is accordingly
submitted for the favourable consideration of the Commission in the confident
belief that the proposals which it sets forth provide a means for reaching a
final settlement of this long-drawn-out controversy. I must emphasise that
the several points of the recommendations embodied in the draft Report are
of an interlocking character and that no one of these could be deleted without
destroying the balance of the proposal as a whole.

FRANCIS HEMMING,

Seerefan/ to the Iniernatianal Comnmsimi.
on Zoological Noyneiidalure.

Secretariat of the Comniission,
London, England.

Uh July, 1948.

^Editorial Note by the Secretary to the Commission. — The draft Report submitted to the Inter-
national Commission as the Annex to Paper I. C. (48)5 was adopted by the Commisaion without
amendment (Paris Session, Fourth Meeting, Conchision .3). The text of this Report will be
published in Volume 5 of the present jounial.

(22

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

PAPER

LC.(48)6

• REGIES INTERNATIONALES DE LA NOMENaATURE ZOOLOGIQUE " :
PROPOSALS FOR CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT

Memorandum by the Secretari/ to the Commission

The Regies Internationales, as they exist to-day, are substantially the same
as when they were first adopted 47 years ago by the Fifth International Congress
of Zoology at its meeting held in Berlin in 1901, for, with the exception of the
introduction of a new text for Article 30 at Boston in 1907 in substitution for
the text adopted for that Article at Berlin, the changes which have been made
in the Regies have been neither numerous nor important. This does not mean
that during the last half-century there has been Uttle progress in zoological
nomenclature, for, in fact, during that period the meaning of the Regies has
been elucidated in a large nimiber of directions. This has been achieved,
however, not by formal changes being made in the Regies but by the develop-
ment, side by side with the Regies, of a large body of case law derived from the
Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
from time to time on questions of interpretation submitted to them for decision.
The decisions so reached were not presented in any uniform fashion and in
many cases are difficult to follow. These difficulties are greatly enhanced by
the lack of an index to the decisions taken in this way. Quite apart from
the special difficulties which confront systematic workers as the result of the
confused and uncertain situation described above, the Regies themselves contain
numerous imperfections ; on the one hand they give no guidance on a mimber
of importiint points, whUe, on the other, the meaning of a mmiber of provisions
is not free from doubt.

2. From the consultations carried out since the close of the war, it is clear
that zoologists at large are agreed upon the need for an early effort to secure
both a simplification of, and an improvement in, the existing body of inter-
national law in regard to zoological nomenclature. Zoologists are undoubtedly
looking to the International Commission to uiitiate proposals to this end at
the forthcoming meeting of the Congress at Paris. It is the manifest duty of
the Commission to justify these hopes to the full extent in their power, for, if
they were to fail to do so, they would have failed in the principal of the duties
entrusted to them by the Congress, namely, that of centralising on behalf of
the Congress the study of all problems relating to zoological nomenclature.

JhilU'liii nf ZoolofjirnI NoniencJafurr. 2^

3. What is undoubtedly needed is an overhaul of the Regies, which is at
once both careful and thorougli. The proposals outlined in the present paper,
which are now submitted to the International Commission for consideration'
have been conceived in this spirit and are designed to secure this end.

4. The present proposals are divided into two parts : the first is concerned
with the nature of the improvements which it is desirable should be made in
the Regies; the second, with the machinery necessary for securing the incorpora-
tion in the Regies of whatever improvements may be decided upon at the Paris
meeting. These two subjects are considered separately in the present
memorandum.

Part 1. Directions in which it is proposed that improvements should be
introduced in the "Regies Internationales"

5. There are eight main directions in which the present Regies are defective.
In regard to each of these, it will be witliin the power of the Commission at its
Paris meeting to secure substantial improvements. These different types of
reform are discussed separately in the following paragraphs.

(a) Incorporation in the " Regies " of interpretations of existing Artides

given by the Internaliomil Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in

" Opinions " already rendered.

6. As every working zoologist knows from practical experience, nothing but
inconvenience arises from the fact that many important interpretations of
Articles of the Regies have been given at various times in Opinions rendered
by the International Commission, while no steps have been taken to incorporate
those interpretations in the Regies. The first and most urgent of the tasks
which require to he undertaken is the incorporation in the Regies of appropriate
provisions to give formal effect to decisions already taken by the Commission
and confirmed by successive meetings of the Congress. It is not proposed
that the questions concerned shoidd now be reopened, save in one or two special
cases noted below, where it is clear either that the interpretations given by the
Commission were misconceived or that there is now a general desire that the
Regies should be amended so as to convey a different meaning from that
conveyed by the present wording of the Articles in question. What is proposed
is no more than a formal consolidation into the Regies of the interpretations
which have abready been given and which have in consequence become part
of the general body of international law in regard to zoological nomenclature.

7. When, during the later part of the recent war, it was decided to publish
an authoritative edition of the Regies, as they now exist, it was decided also
that there should be attached thereto a paper "summarising the decisions taken
by the Commission in Opinions on questions relating to the interpretation of
the Regks. I accordingly prepared such a paper. It has never been published,
however, because, after I had completed it, I reached the conclusion that, in
spite of every effort to approach the task in an objective spirit, it was likely
that some of the conclusions reached might differ from the views held on the
same subject by other zoologists and that the latter might feel that their

24 BnlJelin nf Zonlofjiral J^oniPnclalure.

position had been prejudiced if what could be no more than a summary
prepared by a single indi\'idual were to be published by the zoologist who
occupied for the time being the position of Secretary to the International
Conunission. This document will provide, however, the material needed by
the Commission to decide at Paris on the matters already dealt with in Opinions
which should now be incorporated in the Regies. The document itself is too
long (having regard to the paper shortage) to circulate to the Commission, but
I hope to be able, before the meeting of the Commission opens, to provide
an abridged synopsis as a basis of discussion^.

(b) Important questions of nomenclature where the meaning of the existing

provisions in the '' Regies " is in dispute.

8. There are certain provisions in the Regies where there is at present dispute
as to the meaning which should be attached to the wording employed, which
it is of the highest importance should be settled with the least possible delay,
for, so long as these matters remain unsettled, it is impossible for any worker
in systematic zoology to know whether the names which he is using are the
correct names for the animals in question under the Regies as they exist
to-day. Of the problems falling in this class, three are of outstanding im-
portance, apart from the problem presented by the expression " nomenclature
binaire " as used in Article 25, on which (as explained in Paper I.C.(48)1
already circulated) a Special Report must be siibmitted to the Congress by
the Commission at its Paris meeting^. These three problems are : —

(i) What is the meaning of the expression " indication '" as used in
Proviso (a) to Article 25 and interpreted in Opinion 1 ? This is a
most important question, for it is clear that on what must be accepted
as the most natural interpretation of Opinion 1 a generic name pub-
lished without a designated type species or any explanatory matter
is available, only if the genus so named was monotypical at the time
when the name was first published. I have received a very large
nimiber of representations in regard to this matter and it is clear
from these that in practice the interpretation given above is not acted
upon by a large niunber of systematic workers in a wide field in the
Animal Kingdom. The first question which the Commission is
called upon to decide is what is the correct meaning imder Opinion 1
of the expression " indication." Having decided this question, the
Commission will next have to consider whether that meaning is the
meaning which it is desirable should attach to this expression.
Having reached decisions on these questions, the Commission will
have to decide what recommendation to put forward to the Congress
to clarify the present position.

(ii) What is the meaning of Article 36 in relation to the trivial name of a
species or subspecies where that name has been replaced as a homonym
(under Article 35) consequent upon the imion of genera or the transfer
of species from one genus to another, when later on taxonomic grounds

» See Commission Paper I.C.(48)11.
• See Commission Paper I.C.(48)5.

Hiilletin i>f /joologiral Nonicnchtiiiii'. 'ili

tlic species concerned is removed to another genus and its original
name ceases to be a homonym ? Is that name to be restored in such
circumstances or does Article 36 mean that, once a name has been
rejected as a homonym, it can never in any circumstances be brought
back into use ?

(iii) What is the status under the Regies of names originally proposed as
names for units of less than subspecific rank ? Have they rights
under the Law of Priority, either inter se or in relation to the trivial
names of the species or subspecies to which they are attached ? In
particular, if a name originally expressly given as the name for a unit
of less than subspecific rank is found to be the oldest name bestowed
upon any representative of the species or subspecies concerned, can
tliat name be elevated to become the trivial name of the species or
subspecies in question ?

9. Separate papers (Papers I.C.(48)7, 8, and 9) setting out the issues
involved and putting forward suggestions as to possible solutions will l)e
circulated for consideration by the Commission at Paris.

(c) Minor questions on which iliere are either no provisions in the " Regies "
or where there are provisions hut there is doubt as to their implications.

10. Cases where there are no provisions in the " Regies ".■ There is a consider-
able number of cases where there is no provision in the Regies and in consequence
there is at present no means of ascertaining what is the action which a
conscientious systematic worker should take. A considerable number of
applications in regard to cases of this kind has been received by the Commission
and, of these, particulars relating to about one dozen have been pubhshed in
Part 5 of Volume I of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. It is proposed
to seek decisions from the Commission at their Paris meeting on the cases of
this class.

11. Cases where there is doubt as to the implications of particular provisions
in the " Regies ": The fourth and fifth groups of Articles in the Regies (namely,
those comprising respectively Articles 11-18 and 20) contain a number of
provisions relating to the formation of specific trivial names. In these matters
the Regies state clearly what should be done but say nothing about the question
whether there are any penalties for non-compliance with these provisions. If
a name is incorrectly formed, is it to be corrected to comply with the Regies ?
For example, if a species is intended to be named after a woman called (say)
Mrs. Hutchinson, but the name is published as hutchinsoni, should that name
automatically be amended to htitchinsonae by later authors under Article 14(3),
while retaining priority as from the date of pubhcation as hutchinsoni, or does
the name ranlc for priority only from such later date as it was first published in
the correct form hutchinsonae ? Every working systematist has encountered
cases of this kind and it is high time that unnecessary obscurities of this sort
should be eliminated from the Regies,

2(> Bullet I II oj Zonlofjiral Nntnciirlafure.

(d) Mattern on which the existitig provisions in llie " Regies " are mandator
but which should cJearly he in the nature of recommendations.

12. It is clearly most important that the Regies should contain appropriate
provisions to secure the general adoption of the best nomenclatorial practice.
It is equally important, however, that those provisions should be so drafted
as to prevent some merely technical fault of a nomenclatorial character from
invalidating an otherwise properly published name. This problem arises only
in regard to Article 25 (Law of Priority), for it is that Article alone Avhich
prescribes the conditions which are to be satisfied in order to confer " avail-
ability " upon a given name as from the date of its first pubhcation. We must
look therefore with particular care at the wording used in this Article.

13. Two cases have already arisen where words have been inserted into this
Article (at Budapest in 1927) which have had the effect of invalidating a large
number of names for purely technical reasons. These cases are : —

(i) the expression " definite bibliographical reference " in phrase (2) of
Proviso (c), as interpreted (perfectly logically) by the Commission in
Opinion 138 ;

(ii) the expression " definite unambiguous designation of the type species "
in phrase (3) of the same proviso.

14. In the first of these cases the effect of the wording used is to invalidate
any name proposed as a substitute name for {nom. nov. pro) some invalid name,
unless the author proposing the substitute name cites not only the name to be
replaced and its author but also the date of pubhcation of the name to be
replaced, the title of the work or journal in which the name to be replaced was
first published and the page of that work or journal in which the name
appeared. It is clearly most desirable that such particulars should always be
given and it is highly desirable that there should be a " Recommandation "
attached to Article 25 enjoining this practice. But it is equally clear that
it is most undesirable that a substitute name should be rendered unavailable
under the Law of Priority if by chance the author proposing it fails to give one
of the detailed bibliographical particulars specified above. The Commission
and the Congress have been severely criticised by many zoologists for the
" ritualism " inherent in this provision. This criticism must, I think, be
accepted as well directed. The Commission will accordingly be invited to
recommend the Congress to amend the foregoing provision in Article 25 in the
sense indicated above.

15. In the second of the cases referred to in paragraph 13 above, the effect
of the wording used is to invalidate a name pubhshed after 31st December, 1930,
for any monotypical genus, if the author of that genus fails expressly to state
that the sole included species is the type species of the genus. This is another
example of unintentional ritualism which should be eliminated from Article 25.
It is suggested for the consideration of the Commission that in this case the most
appropriate solution would be : (i) to redraft phrase (3) of proviso (c) to Article
25 to read " in the case of a generic name, with a definite designation of the
type species effected under one or other of Rules (a), (b), (c) or (d) in Article
30"; and (ii) to add a "Recommandation" urging authors proposing new
generic names expressly to cite by name the species selected to be the type species
of the new genus.

Bulletin of Zonlnf/iral Nninoiclnfurc. 27

(e) Manors connected mth mimnclature and mmendalorial practice on

which decisions have been taken by the Intermtioml Congress of Zoologij

Imt where those decisions have not been incorporated in the " Regies."

16. MaUers connected with nomenckUure; On a number of important questions
relatmg to nomenclature decisions have been taken by the International
Congress of Zoology but those decisions ha^-e not been formaUy incorporated in
the Regies In two noteworthy cases of this kind it has been the practice to
embody the text of the Resolutions of the Congress in published editions of
the Regies, but this practice is no sufficient substitute for formal incorporation
These two cases are : (1) the Resolution conferring plenary powers upon the
Commission in certain cases and (2) the " Code of Ethics." An even more
important omission is constituted by the silence of the Regies in regard to the
functions of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature It is
essential that this should be rectified because it is an integral feature of the
settlements which will be proposed in regard (a) to the problem of the meaning
of the expression '• nomenclature binaire " and (b) to that of the status of names
applied to units of less than subspecific status that references to the Commission
should be inserted m the Articles dealing witli these matters.

17. Matters connected loith nommclatorial practice; At various times the
Congress (on the recommendation of the Commission) have adopted resolutions
m regard to nomenclatorial practice. The proper course in such cases is to
embody the texts of the resolutions in question in the Regies, as was done at
Monaco (191-3) when a resolution was adopted in regard to the terminology of
types. In a considerable number of other exactly similar cases this action
was not taken and in consequence the value of the resolutions in question has
been greatly unpaired. The texts of these Resolutions were rescued from obli-
vion by the action of the Commission in 194.3 in embodpng them in a series of
• Declarations, ' but the situation will not be satisfactory until the texts in
question have been formally incorporated at appropriate points in the Regies.

(f) Defects in the " RegUs " due to careless or inexpert drafting.

18 The text of the Regies exhibits many defects, the existence of which
must be attributed to careless or inexpert drafting. It is proposed that the
i'aris Congress should l)e asked to authorise the elimination of these blemishes
from the Regies. The type of blemish here referred to may be illustrated by
the loUowing examples :

(1) The relation of the '' Appendice • to the ''Regies'': Although the
• Appendice " has always been printed with the " Regie/" and
undoubtedly forms part of that document, there is not a word in the
Regies themselves about the " Appendice " and in consequence there
is nothing to show whether the provisions in the "Appendice" are
mandatory in character (and, therefore, whether contravention of the
provisions in the " Appendice " constitutes a breach of the provisions
of the Regies themselves) or whether the object intended to be secured
by placing certain matters in the Regies, while relegating other
provisions to an " Appendice," was to indicate that the last-named

28 MfillHin of Znoloffmil Nnntpnrlaturc.

provisions were intended to constitute a guide for conduct and were
not intended to be mandatory. An inspection of the provisions in
the " Appendice "" certainly suggests that this was the intention, but
doubts on the subject should be eliminated by the inclusion in tiie
Regies themselves of an express reference to the Appendice, the status
of the contents of which should at the same time be expressly defined.

(2) Grammalical inconsistencies; The substantive French text of the
Regies (and naturally also the English and other translations) are full
of grammatical inconsistencies. Of these the most conspicuous is the
random and haphazard use of tenses of the verb " etre " (= to be),
it being a matter of pure chance whether in any given case the Regies
state that such and such a thing '' est " (= is) done or whether such
anil such a thing '' doit etre " ( = should be) done. An example of the
fiurst type of provision is provided by Article 35, which states that
"Tout . . . nom est rejete . . . quand il a ete employe . . . ", while
Article 19 provides an example of the second type, where it states
■' L'orthographe originelle d'un nom doit etre conservee. a moins
qu'il . . ."

(3) Drafting difficulties due to the confusion of taxonomy with nomenclature:
A good example of this type of confusion is provided by Article 31,
which appears to give instructions on the '' subdivision d'une espece "
and the " subdivision d'un genre," both purely taxonomic operations,
with which the Regies of nomenclature are in no way concerned. The
intention of this Article was to provide for the nomenclatorial
consequences of these taxonomic operations and not for the operations
themselves. It would be much more logical and much less confusing
if this Article were to be redrafted correctly to convey the meaning
intended, namely, that where a nominal species is divided into two or
more species, the species to which the original specific name shall in
future apply is to be determined in accordance with the rules (in so
far as they are applicable) specified in Article 30 for determining the
type species of a nominal genus which has been divided into two or
more genera.

(g) Need for completing the substantive French text of the "' Regies.''

19. The sole substantive text of the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature is the French text, the texts in English and other languages
being no more than translations of the substantive French text . Unfortunately,
the proposals for the amendment of the code which have been adopted at various
meetings of the Congress since 1901 were drafted by the Commission in EngUsh
and no French text was submitted to the Congress. Accordingly, for these
amendments there does not at present exist a text in the French language
which can be incorporated in the substantive French text of the Regies. Both
the Commission and the Congress are to blame for this state of affairs, the
former for having failed to prepare texts of these amendments in the French
language for incorporation in the substantive French text of the Regies, the
latter for not having insisted upon the preparation of such text»s. As a result,

HuUeiin nj Zoologiad Momenclaiurr. 2'.)

wc are to-day in the absurd position that the great majority of the provisions
in the Regies have a substantive text in the French language but the few passages
which have been added to the Regies since 1901 have substantive texts in the
English language. There can clearly be no' possible justification for this
anomaly. Proposals will therefore be laid before the Commission for the
completion of the substantive French text of the Rigles.

(h) Need for securing accurate translations in English and other languages
of the substantive French text of the " Regies."

20. At the present time there exists no text of the Regies in any language
which embodies correctly all the changes in the text as originally adopted at
Berlin in 1901 which have been approved by later meetings of the Congress.
The publication of accurate and complete versions of the Regies in English
and other languages is therefore a matter of iixgency from the standpoint of
workers who desire to have a version of the Regies in their own language. It
must be noted, however, that, in addition to being incomplete in various
particulars, every version of the Regies hitherto published in English and other
languages contains mistranslations of various portions of the Regies. What
are wanted are texts in English and other languages which are accurate and
literal translations of the substantive French text.

21. In view of the fact that the French text is the sole substantive text
(i.e., that in any case of doubt "le texte fran§ais ferait foi"), no translation,
however carefully prepared, can ever safely be used to the exclusion of the
French text. It was for this reason that it was decided diiring the war to
pubUsh as soon as might be practicable an edition of the Regies in which the
French text and the EngUsh translation would be placed opposite to one
another and could thus be compared line for line, the French text appearing on
the left-hand pages of the volume and the English translation on the right-
hand pages. Extensive preparations for this edition have been made and a
special grant towards its cost has been obtained from the Royal Society of
London. The publication of this edition has, however, been deliberately
postponed until after the Congress in order to permit of the incorporation
therein of any changes which may be adopted at Paris.

Part 2. Proposals as to the machinery to be devised for securing the formal
incorporation in the " Regies " of such changes as may be decided
upon by the Paris Congress

22. The programme of reforms suggested in the preceding Part of tlic
present paper will constitute a heavy task both for the International Conmiission
on Zoological Nomenclature and for the Section on Nomenclature at the Paris
Congress. Nevertheless, I am confident that with goodwill on all sides and with
hard work it is a programme which is capable of achievement. If we are to
carry through these reforms, we must be extreiiiely careful to ensure that the
decisions which we ask the Congress to take are expressed in such terms as to
eliminate all possibility of tloubt <jr argument after the Congress has closed.

M) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

23. The question of procedure is thus one of particular importance. I
suggest that in this matter we should adopt the procedure which experience in
inter-governmental conferences lias been found to be the only method capable
of producing satisfactory results. By this I mean that we should draw a
sharp distinction between (1) the issues which are to be decided, and (2) the
phraseology to be found for giving formal effect to the decisions reached on
questions of policy. The first of these tasks is the task of the Commission and
the Congress, while the second is a matter for experts in the drafting of legal
documents.

24. 1 accordingly suggest for the consideration of the International Com-
mission that, when we meet in Paris, we should concentrate upon drawing up
clear and unambiguous recommendations in regard to all the matters relating
to the Regies on which we wish to obtain decisions from the Congress. Every
such recommendation will need to be submitted to the Section on Nomenclature
for consideration. I do not doubt that some of these recommendations will
be adopted by the Section in the form which we recommend, but it is possible
and indeed likely that the discussion in the Section will show, as regards others,
that some variation from our original recommendation is desirable. Where
any such variation is agreed upon, we must clearly take great care to ensure
that the proposed revision, as finally put to the Section for approval (like the
original recommendation), is worded in an absolutely clear and unambiguous
manner. After the Section has reached its conclusions, the propositions which
it has approved, together with the Commission's Report, will be brought in
due course before a Concilium Plenum of the Congress, but it is to be expected
that, in accordance with precedent, the resolutions adopted by the Section will
be put to the plenary session en bloc and that no discussion or voting on
individual items will be permitted.

25. If we get so far, there will still remain the task of giving effect to the
decisions of the Congress through the formal incorporation of those decisions
in the text of the Regies. This is a highly technical task, which can only be
carried out by expert jurists trained in the task of drawing up legal instruments.
Neither the Congress nor the Commission, either as bodies or as individuals,
possesses the requisite skill and experience for this task. If it is to be done
properly, it must be confided to professional persons possessing the qualifications
necessary for the task. On the other hand, it is essential that the Congress
should devise some means by which it can retain for itself the right to examine
the work of the jurists and satisfy itself that the task has been carried through
in strict conformity with the decisions taken in Paris.

26. How best to secure this end admittedly constitutes a difficult problem.
After giving the matter the best consideration which I can (and drawing for
this purpose upon my personal experience as Secretary-General at a number
of inter-governmental conferences, at which formal international agreements
were adopted), I desire to submit for the consideration of the Commission that
the end which we all have in view is most likely to be attained by the adoption
of the following procedure :--

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 3 1

(i) The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the
Section on Nomenclature of the Congress to take the greatest possible
care to secure absolute precision in the wording of the resolutions to
be adopted.

(ii) After the close of the Congress the resolutions adopted by the Congress
on the recommendation of the Commission and the Section on Nomen-
clature to be referred by the International ( 'ommission to their legal
advisers with instructions to prepare a revised text of the Regies and
a translation thereof in the English language, the revised text so
prepared to give precise effect to the resolutions taken in Paris.

(iii) The revised text prepared by the jurists to be submitted to a specially
appointed Editorial Committee (similar to that appointed by the
Berlin Congress for the purpose of editing the present Regies after
their adoption by that Congress), the duty of this Committee being to
satisfy itself that all the changes approved by the Paris Congress have
been incorporated in the Regies but that no other change has been
made other than purely consequential drafting changes, not affecting
the meaning of any provision in the Regies, and, having so satisfied
itself, to submit a Report to the Commission, acting for the Congress,
certifying that to the best of its knowledge and belief the revised
text of the Regies and of the accompanying English translation truly
and faithfully complies with the decisions taken at Paris by the
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology.

27. If the foregoing procedure were to be adopted, it would clearly be desirable
that the revised text of the Regies should be published with the utmost possible
speed, for, until such publication had taken place, systematists in all parts of
the world would be greatly handicapped, for they would know that changes
had been decided upon at Paris but they would not be in possession of an authori-
tative version of the Regies in which those decisions had been embodied.
Fortunately, owing to the special grant received from the Royal Society of
London, the Commission would be in a position to publish the revised text
with the utmost speed.

FRANCIS HEMMING,

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomendalure.

Secretariat of the Commission,
London, England.

■2m June, 1948.

(32)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

PAPER

I.C.(48)7

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF PROVISO (a) TO ARTICLE 25 OF THE

"REGIES" IN REGARD TO THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION

"INDICATION" AS APPLIED TO GENERIC NAMES

Memomndwn by the Secretary to the Commismm

It is laid down iu Proviso (a) to Article 25 of the Regies that, in order to
liavo any rights under the Law of Priority, a name, on being published, must
be accompanied by (1) an indication or (2) a definition or (3) a description.
The first of these conditions — that the name was pubhshed with an indication-
constitutes a minimimi condition for a name to be available under Article 25.
and it was therefore particularly important that the meaning of the term
" indication " should be clearly prescribed.

2. This matter was dealt with in Opinion 1 adopted unanimously by the
International Commission in 1907. The portion of the "simimary " of that
Opinion which is concerned with the status of generic names provides the
following interpretation of Proviso (a) to Article 25 :

[As respects names published on, or before, 31st December, 1930], the word " jtidicntion '"
in the proviso to Article 25 is to be construed as follows : —

(B) With regard to generic names, an " indication " is : —

(1) a bibUographical reference, or

(2) a definite citation of an earUer name for which a new name is i^roposerl. nr

(3) a definite citation or designation of a tyj)e species.

3. In Note 5 of the editorial notes incorporated in the re-issue of Opinion
1 (published in 1944) I pointed out that, according to this Opinion, any new
generic name published in the period 1st January, 1758, to 31st December.
1930 (both dates inclusive), (i) without a diagnosis, definition or description or
a bibliographical reference thereto and (ii) with two or more published species,
none of which (a) was designated as the type or (6) had a name tautonomous
with the generic name, was unavailable nomenclatorially under the Regies.
A nanie so rejected was a notnen nudvm, that is to say : it had no status (and
therefore no availabiUty) as from the date on which it was so published.

4. The publication of the re-issue of Opinion 1 with the accompanying
editorial notes drawing attention to the implications of that Opinion in relation
to the availabihty of generic names published iu the way described above
aroused widespread discussion iu zoological circles.

BidMv of Zoologrc/il .\o)HPnrlohnr. X^

5. For, although Opinion ] was adopted and published in 1907, zoologists
in general had largely overlooked the extremely narrow interpretation of the
expression " indication '' as used in Article 25 which it contained. A large
number of well-known generic names in common use in various groups of the
Animal Kingdom were suddenly discovered to have been unavailable for nearly
forty years under the interpretation placed on Proviso (a) of Article 25 l>y
Opinion 1.

I. Petition from the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for
Paleontology in America

6. An investigation was made under the auspices of the Joint Committee
on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America among representative
groups of taxonomists in the United States and Great Britain with a view to
assessing the extent of disturbance in established nomenclature and in existing
practice in the various sectors of the Animal Kingdom, which would result
from a strict application of the interpretation of Article 25 contained in Opinion
1. A questionnaire was submitted to taxonomists working in various
institutions in the United States and Great Britain, includmg the United
States National Museum, the American Museum of Natural History, Harvard
University, Stanford University, the United States Department of Agi-iculture.
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the United States Geological
Survey and the British Museum (Natural History). A few taxonomists
reported that no names in their specialities were affected and a few were
wholly uninterested, but 87 significant replies were received.

7. The question posed was the status of a generic name proposed before
1st January, 1931, without diagnosis or definition, or a bibliographic reference
thereto, without the citation of an earlier name for which a new name was
being proposed, and without designation of a type species, but with two or
more valid species included (absolute tautonomy and nionotypy being treated
as equivalent to the designation of a type species). Two alternative inter-
pretations were then put iPorward :

Interprptation A. (that expounded iii the editorial notes to the re-issue of Opinion 1).
If two or more species were referred to a genus uuder these conditions,
the minimum requirement of a fixed type species would not have
been met and the name consequently would have no availability as
from the date of its original publication.

InterprHatio)! B. (based on a broader interpretation of the words " indication '" or even
of " definition " or on Rule (g) in Article SO). r;eneri< names |)ublished
imder the conditions stated are available.

S. A reply was solicited to the following three questions :

(1) Is there to-day in your field imiformity of interpretation on this point!

(2) Which interpretation. A, B, or a third?

('^) If an alternative interpretation were to be employed would the restijt be disturbinj;
to establishefl nomonolature in your field?

9. The Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in
America submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature the following report on the answers received :

v.. I.. .-{ i;

M

HiiHHin of Zoological No^nendat/inc.

In tabulating the answers to this questionnaire some difficulties were met with. For
example, few gave a categorical answer to any question. Most answers to Question 1 were
in terms of the worker's personal procedure and not in terms of general practice in his
field of specialisation. On the whole the repbes to this question were too varied to permit
significant tabulation. Suffice it is to say that most of them were in line with the
accompanying reply to Question (2). On Question (2) the replies were extremely varied
in form but on analysis presented a remarkably uniform picture. Of the 87 significant
replies 76 indicated that Interpretation B, the Uheral interpretation, was employed in their
field of specialisation, was employed by them in their work or should be employed in
preference to Interpretation A under amendment oi Opinion 1 or of the Rules if necessary.
Some insisted that the liberal interpretation is technically correct. Only 1 1 of the 87 gave
similar answers in favour of Interpretation A, the strict interpretation, and some of these
appear to have been influenced largely by the recent re-issue of Opinion 1. The grounds on
which Interpretation B were favoured were various. Many expressed the opinion that
nomenclature in their fields would be seriously affected if the alternative interpretation
were to be employed.

It is possible to regard the replies as " votes '" for Interpretation A or Interpretation B.
Since many replies were discursive it is necessary to interpret them. Although it Ls possible
that a different interpretation than that employed in the following analysis might
conceivably be put on a few of them, it is thought that the results would not be altered
significantly. Of the 29 significant replies from British workers 24 favoured Interpretation
B and 5 favoured Interpretation A : of the 58 American replies 52 favoured B and H
favoured A.

The '■ votes " mav be tabulated as follows : —

Fiel.ls of

American

British

Totals

Replies

Specialisation

A B

A B

A B

Flat worms

P

11

1'

Insects

20

2 7

2 27

29

Other Arthropods

P 1

1 4

2' 5

71

MoUuscs

3 11

6

3 17

20

Brachiopods

2

1

1 2

3

Echinoderms

2

2

4

4

Bryozoa

U

2

2

2

Coelenterates ...

1 1

2«

1 3=

4*

Forarainifera ...

I 2

1

2 2

4

Mammals

U 3

1

4

4

Birds

4

1

U 5

5

Fi.sh

(t 4

1

U 5

5

Reptiles and Amphibia

1 ' ''

1 3'

41

6 52

5 24

11 70

87

' Includes 1 listed also in another field.
' Includes 2 listed also in another field.

Admittedly the number of replies is not suflScient to make percentage calculations in
each group significant, nevertheless the overall picture seems highly significant. To interpret
the returns in terms of the original questionnaire, there is no uniformity among zoologi.sts
(and paleontologists) as a whole. Where uniformity was found in any group it was in terms
of Interpretation B. A very large majority of the returns (approximately 7/8ths) are in favou r
of Interpretation B, the liberal interpretation. Most of those favouring interpretation B
stated that an alternative interpretation would be disturbing to established nomenclature
in their respective fields.

10. From the comments received on the questionnaire it was evident that
a particularly serious disturbance in nomenclature would arise from a strict
application of the terms of Opinimi 1 in the nomenclature of the two most
numerous and complex groups in the Animal Kingdom, insects and molluscs
(living and fossil), and that important disturbances in many well-known
generic names would be experienced also in the case of mammals, birds and fish.

Hiillf'liii ol Zonlof/iral XnnKuicldluir. -ir)

11. Supported by the evidence cited above of the serious degree and extent
of disturbance in established nomenclature which would follow from a strict
application of the terms of Opinion 1 , the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomen-
clature for Paleontology in America submitted, in June, 1946, a petition to the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, asking them :

•' to liberalise Opinion 1 by deleting Proviso 3 of part B of that Opinion interpretiiiL'
the meaning of _ the word ' indication ' in Article 25 of the Regle-i with regard to generic
names, and substituting a proviso to read : ' (3) the inclusion in the newly named gemis
of one or more validly named sy)ecies.' or hy modifying the Opinion in Home other wa\- tr)
obtain the same result."

II. Recommendation sabmitted

12. In a case of this kind clearly the first duty of the Commission is to
re-examine the relevant passages of the Regies for the purpose of determining
(le novo whether the interpretation of that passage given in their earlier Opinion
is the interpretation which on a due and proper construction of the words used
is properly applicable thereto. Not until they have reached a definite con-
clusion on this question can they usefully consider what action they should
take.

J 3. In the present case everything turns upon the meaning to be attached
to a single word, the word " indication " as applied to the conditions in which
a generic name is published. We have first to note that no definition of any
kind is given for this word in the Regies. Nor was any indirect guidance pro-
vided beyond the presumption that the content of this word was narrower
than that of the word " definition " which in turn was narrower than that of
the word " description " as used in the same sentence. In these circumstances
it must be agreed that when in 1907 the Commission came to consider this
([uestion, they were free to read into the word " indication " any meaning
which was narrower than that attaching to the expression " definition." In
the interpretation which they gave in their Opinion 1 the Commission certainly
complied with this requirement. Technically, therefore, no fault can be
detected in that Opinion.

14. If we grant this conclusion, we have next to consider whether it is
desirable that the expression " indication " should have, in relation to generic
names, the meaning which now attaches to it. The problems here involved
are of a very different order from those considered above. We have first t<i
note that, although for nearly forty years the word " indication ' used in Proviso
(a) to Article 25 has had, in relation to generic names, the very restricted
meaning prescribed in Opinion 1, that word has in fact been generally inter-
preted in a considerably wider sense by many specialists in many of the main
groups of the Animal Kingdom. A strict enforcement of the interpretation
given in Opinion 1 would, therefore, involve the immediate rejection of a large
number of generic names now in common use. which, though poorly established
by their original authors, can nevertheless be used without difficulty — and are
currently so used — once a type species has been designated under Rule (9) in
Article 30. The reversal of the present general (though not universal) practice
would thus considerably disturb existing practice and be prejudicial to the
■itabilitv of noraenclaturf.

'M\ Bulletin of ZonJngic/il Nonienclnttirr.

15. Looking at this question from a broader point of view, we have to
recall that the Regies constitute a code of international law which is backed
by no sanction other than voluntary acceptance by the general body of zoo-
logists. Where therefore a given provision, whether actually embodied in the
Regies or written into that instrument by an Opinion rendered by the Inter-
national Commission, is found in practice to be unnecessary (by reason of being
too restrictive or otherwise) and also to be repugnant to the practice and wishes
of large sections of zoologists, the question at once arises whether it is not in
the greatest interest that the provision should be so modified as to bring it
into harmony with the general will.

16. After examining the evidence submitted to the Commission both by
the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America
and by individual specialists, I have unhesitatingly reached the conclusion that
the interpretation of the word " indication " in relation to generic names given
in Opinion 1 is undesirably restrictive in scope and, if strictly applied, would
prejudice, rather than promote, stability in generic nomenclature. I think
that it is clear also that the interpretation given in Opinion 1 runs counter to
the wishes of the majority of zoologists as to the meaning which it is desirable
should attach to this part of Article 25. In these circumstances 1 strongly
recommend the International Commission to recommend the International
Congress of Zoology during its forthcoming meeting in Paris :

(1) to agree that Proviso (a) to Article 25 should be so amended as to
secure that a generic name published before 1st January, 1931, shall
be available under that Article as from the date of its original publica-
tion not only when (as at present) it was then accompanied by a defini-
tion or description but also if it was then accompanied by no verbal
definition or description, the only indication given being that provided
by the citation imder the generic name of the names of one or more
previously published species ;

(2) simultaneously with (1) above, to cancel the portion of Opinion ]
which relates to the status of generic names.

FRANCIS HEMMING,

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nonienrlature.

Secretariat of the Commission.
London, England.

lathJuly. 1948.

(^7)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

PAPER

I.C.(48)8

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 35 AND 36
OF THE "REGIES" IN RELATION TO SPECIFIC HOMONYMS

Memorandum by the Secretary lu the Coininisswu

I. Historical Introdoction

In the latter part of 1937 the late Professor T. D. A. Cockerell, of the Uni-
versity of Colorado, U.S.A., submitted a request to the International Commis-
sion on Zoological Nomenclature for an authoritative ruling on the interpretation
to be placed on the provisions in regard to specific homonyms of Articles 35 and
36 of the Regies Internationales.

2. The substantive French text of the Articles^in question reads as follows : —

35. (1) Tout nom specifique est rejete comme homonyme, quand il a ete employe
)jrecedemment pour quelque autre espfece ou sous-espfece du meme genre. Exemple :
Taenia ovilla Rivolta, 1878 (n. sp.) est rejete comme homonyme de Taenia ovilla Gmelin,
1790.

(2) Quand par suite de la reunion de deux genres, deux animaux ayant le meme
nom specifique ou subspeeifique se trouvent rapproches, le nom sp6cifique ou subspecifique
le plus recent doit etre rejet6 comme homonyme.

36. Les noms rejetes pour cause d'homonymie( ') ne peuvent pas etre employes de
nouveaii. Les noms rejetes pour cause de synonymie(') peuvent etre employes de nouveau,
dans le cas de restauration de groupes supprimes par erreur. Exemple : Taenia giardi
Moniez, 1879, a ete supprime comme sjTionyme de Taenia ovilla Rivolta, 1878 ; on a reconnu
ulterieurement que Taenia ovilla etait preocupe (T. ovilla Gmelin, 1790). Taenia ovilla,
1878, est done supprime comme homonyme et ne peut plus jamais etre employe ; c'etait
une denomination mort-nee, qu'on ne peut ramener k la vie, meme si I'esp^ce passe dans un
autre genre (Thysanosoma). Le nom specifique giardi Moniez, 1879, qui avait ete supprime
comme sjTionyme, devient valable, grace a la suppression de I'homonyme Taenia ovilla
Rivolta, 1878.

(') II y a homonymie, quand un seul et meme nom est appUque a deux ou plusieurs choses
difi'erentes ; il y a synonymie, quand deux ou plusieurs noms differents sont appliques a
un seul et meme objet.

3. The particxilar case on which a ruUng was requested by Prof. Cockerell
was the following : —

In 1903 Vachel united the genera Augochlora Smith, 1853. and Agapostemon Guerin-
.Vleneville, 1844, with the genus Haliclus Latreille, 1804, thereby causing Agapostemon
roloradensis Crawford, 1901, to become a homonym of the somewhat earlier Augochlora
roloradensis Titus, 1901. Vachel thereupon renamed Crawford's species Haliclus coloradinus
nom. nov. Subsequent writers considered Vachel to have been in error in uniting the three
genera, and separated them again. Recognising this separation, IMiss Sandhouse (1936,
J. Wash. Acad. Set. 26 : 77) referred to Crawford's species as Agapostemmi coloradinus
(Vachel) n. comb., giving Agapostemon coloradensis Crawford, 1901, as a synonym.

' The third paragraph which now appears in this Article was not inserted until the meeting
of the Eighth Meeting of the International Congress of Zoology held at Graz in 1910. This
jjaragraph was adopted in an Phiglish text. Thcro is at present no substantive French text.

."i.^ hulldiii <)J Zooloyical Aointiicldluii .

4. Professor Cockerell did uot accept JNliss Sandhouse's procedure, which he
described {in Hit., 28th August, 1937) as " a reductio ad absurdum of nomen-
clature," although he could not help admitting that it was a natural inter-
pretation of the literal wording of Article 35, paragraph (2), read in conj miction
with Article 36. After quoting these provisions (in litt., 4th October. 1937)
lie commented : —

" Now any lawyer coulil use tliis ti) skow that it a species was leteri'eil to the «roii{j
genus, and so became (its name became) a hononym — legitimately according to the usage
of the then author — that specific name would be lost for ever, even though all might agree
that the species did not belong to (and had not been described under) the genus m which
its name had been suppressed."

5. At the time when Professor Cockerells request reached the Commission
ii\ 1937. such little time as I had available from extreme pressure of official
work was entirely absorbed in estabUshing the Secretariat of the Commission at
its new headquarters and sorting the voluminous papers transferred from
Washington. Early in 1938 I accordingly in\dted the President of the Com-
mission to undertake on my behalf the task of making a preliminary sounding
of the views of the Conmiissioners on the matter, preparatory to the drafting of
an Opinion on the interpretation of Articles 35 and 36. This consultation was
completed by June. 1939, when the President handed to mc the results of his
enquiries.

6. The outbreak of war in September, 1939. led to a suspension of further
progress on this question until I was able to take up once more the work of the
Commission in 1942. Since that time I have been able to give a great deal of
further consideration to the matter and have received a large volmne of corres-
pondence and some extremely valuable contributions on the subject. These
convinced me of two things. In the first place, it was apparent that the general
opinion and practice of zoologists in the treatment of so-called secondary
homonyms was developing and changing, so that it seemed advisable to post-
pone further steps in approaching a settlement of the problem until after the
war was over and consultation on a wider and more representative basis became
possible. In the second place. I became convinced that the original plan of
(confining ourselves to securing an authoritative interpretation of the existing
text of Articles 35 and 36 (as requested by Professor Cockerell) w^as no longer
adequate to the situation and that a more radical treatment of the whole
problem was needed.

7. The necessity for a fresh approach was evident on two grounds, in the
first place, a closer examination of the text of Articles 35 and 36 disclosed a
number of gaps and ambiguities and failed to provide answers to a number of
essential questions, the most important of which are Usted in the following
section. In the second place, the preliminary consultations conducted by the
President (as well as Professor Cockerells apphcation) brought to light a
fundamental confusion of two distinct questions : first, what the Regies as they
stand really mean and, second, what zoologists in general would like them to
mean, which might well be. and in this particular case apparently was. entirely
different.

bulielm uj Zoological Noineiudalure. 39

a. This confusion no doubt arose from the unduly defeatist attitude then
prevalent towards the possibility of amending the Regies and the conviction
that the only way of giving effect to desirable changes was to persuade the
International Commission to give an Opinion interpreting the existing provisions
of the Regies in the desired sense, irrespective of the normal meaning of the
words used or of the intentions of their original authors. Such a procedure
cannot be regarded as satisfactory or likely to promote the general respect and
adherence which the Regies Internationales should aim to command. If
zoologists in general are not satisfied with the provisions of the Regies as they
stand, it is far better for these provisions to be amended in the direction
rccjuired than for the International Commission — or individual workers— to try
to read into the existing words a meaning which is obviously not there at
present.

II. Gaps and ambiguities in the existing provisions of Articles 35 and 36

9. The following list, without attempting in any way to be comprehensive,
may be useful as indicating some of the most serious gaps and ambiguities
which have already been found in the provisions of Articles 35 and 36. This
will serve both to underline the necessity for a thoroughgoing revision of these
Articles as well as suggesting the directions which such a revision should take.
The following are some of the main questions to which the existing wording
of Articles 35 and 36 provides no satisfactory answer : —

(1) Does the expression " nom specifique " in Article 35 mean nomen
specif icum (i.e. the binominal combination of a generic and a specific
trivial name) or nomen triviale (in the terminology of Linnaeus) ?

(2) Does the first paragraph of Article 35 refer only to original combinations
of generic and trivial names or is it intended to cover also the sub-
sequent combinations of trivial and generic names arising from the
union of genera or the transfer of a species to a different genus from
that in which it was originally described ?

(3) Does the expression " autre espece du meme genre " in the same
paragraph include also a species placed in a genus belonging to a different
group but having, through inadvertent homonymy, the same name ?

(4) Does the expression " la reunion de deux genres " in paragraph 2 of
Article 35 include the subjective union of genera with different type
species as well as the objective union of genera with the same species
as type ?

(5) What is the position of homonyms arising from the union of three
genera ?

(6) What is the position of homonyms arising from the transfer of one
(or more) species from the genus in which it was (or they were)
originally described to some other genus ?

(7) What is the meaning of the expression " se trouvent rapproches '' in
paragraph 2 of Article 35 ? Does it involve the actual citing of the
two species concerned in the same genus ? If not, does it apply only
to the type species or does it cover all the species originally described
(or subsequently placed) in the two genera concerned i

Hi BuUelix of Zoological M uinanclulure.

(8) What is the meaning of the participle ' rejetes " as used in Article
36 ? Is it confined to names which have been expressly rejected
(whether or not the species concerned was renamed) by some author
or does it cover all cases where homonymy has arisen under the
provisions of Articles 35 and 36, whether or not this has been noticed
and appropriate action taken ? For example, if it is discovered that
a name once became a homonym, through the union of genera or the
transfer of species, but this fact remained unnoticed at the time and
no action was taken expressly to " reject " the name, can this name
still be used if the two genera have subsequently been separated
or one of the species transferred to another genus ? Similarly, if two
species with identical trivial names were originally described in the
same genus (or in different genera having by the accident of homonymy
the same name), but this was not noticed at the time, and the species
liave subsequently been transferred to diiferent genera, should the
later published of the two trivial names be replaced, although it was
never actually " rejete pour cause d'homonymie,"' and the homonymy
(as defined in the footnote to Article 36) no longer exists i

(i)) Should a species of which the name has been rejected "" pour cause
d'homonymie '" always be given a new name, or is it sufficient to
replace the rejected name by a junior synonym, if such exists ? In
the latter case, what is the correct name of the species concerned if.
on a subsequent revision, the synonymy is no longer recognised ?

(iO) What is the implication of Article 6 of the Regies {" Les noms des
genres et des sous-genres sont soumis aux memes regies ; ils sont
coordonnes au point de vue de la nomenclature, c'est-a-dire de meme
valeur ") in relation to the provisions of Articles 35 and 36 ?

(11) What is the implication of Article 11 of the Regies (les noms speciliques
et subspecifiques sont soumis aux memes regies et recommandations;
ils sont coordonnes au point de vue de la nomenclature, c'est-a-dire de
meme valeur ") in relation to the provisions of Articles 35 and 36,
with special reference to the nomenclature of nominotypical subspecies ?

III. Analysis of major types of homonyms

10. The above questions suffice to show that the problem of homonyms is
(considerably more complex than appears to have been realised by the authors
of the Regies, and that any satisfactory regulation regarding them will need to
be both more precise and more comprehensive than are the provisions of Articles
35 and 36 as they now stand .

11. in approaching the problem afresh it will facilitate the discussion if we
adopt as a basis the schematic presentation of eight major types of homonyms
recently put forward by Dr. Richard Blackwelder. Dr. Blackwelder's schema
is reproduced in the appendix to the present paper.

12. in these diagrams two genera. "X" and " Y."' are represented in
parallel vertical columns. The history of each of two specific trivial names is
indicated by a vertical line with dates marked at various ])oints in its vertical

liulleliH uf Zoological Nomenclature. 41

course. The horizontal line at the bottom represents the time at which the
homonymy is discovered. In case " A " the name albus was proposed twice in
genus " X," producing unequivocal homonymy from 1900 onwards. Case " B "
is exactly the same except for the later removal of one of the species to genus
" Y." In case "C" the older name has been removed from genus "X"
l)efore the proposal of the second name. In case " D " the two names were
originally proposed in separate genera, but by the time the second was proposed
in genus " X " the older name had been transferred to genus " X," producing
unquestionable homonymy. Case " E " is the same except that the transfer
(jf the older takes place after the proposal of the younger. Cases " F." " G "
and " H " are the same cases as " D " and " E " except that the transfer of
the older name to genus " X " was temporary ; in case " F "' entirely prior to,
in case " G '" entirely subsequent to, and in case " H "" partly before and partly
after the proposal of the name albus Smith. 1900.

IV. Requirements of a satisfactory solution

13. Discussions of the problem of homonyms, both past and recent, have
tlisclosed wide divergencies of views and suggest that it is not likely to be
possible to find any solution which will give complete satisfaction to everyone.
The solution to be aimed at must satisfy to as high a degree as possible a nuniber
of different, and in part mutually inconsistent, requirements. It is the difference
in weighting attributed to these conflicting desiderata, rather than a difference
in views on the desiderata themselves, that it is responsible for the widely
divergent proposals advocated in different quarters.

14. The principal desiderata which any satisfactory solution must aim to
supply to the highest degree mutually compatible with one another may be
Usted as follows : —

(1) to avoid the confusion which would arise if the same name were used
for two different species of animal ;

(2) to avoid the confusion which would arise if one species of animal were
known by two different names ;

(3) to avoid the need for unnecessary time-consuming researches int<j
early literature :

(4) to avoid any subjective element in the interpretation of the Regies, so
that the trivial name which they prescribe will be independent of the
taxonomic views of individual workers ;

(5) to avoid unnecessary changes in trivial names now in use ;

(6) to avoid the risk of names being unnecessarily replaced through
deliberate misuse of the provisions of the Regies.

V. Main solutions which have been suggested

15. Although there is no mention of it in the Regies, a distin(,'tiou has been
drawn by many zoologists between prinuiry homonyms on the one hand and
secondarg homonyms on the other. Primary hotnonyms are pairs of specific
names consisting of identical combinations of generic and specific trivial names
'7/ (he lime of their original publicalion. Secondari/ homonyms arc all other

■42 Bulletin uj Zuuluijicul JSomtnduluir.

kinds, namely pairs of identical specific trivial names which were not originally
published in the same genus but subsequently came to be used in combination
with the same generic name through the transfer of one or both of the species
concerned to another genus or through the union of two or more genera.
Thus cases '' A '". " B "" and " C '" in the annex to the present paper are examples
of primary homonyms and cases " D ", " E ", " F ''. " G "' and " H " are
examples of secondary homonyms.

16. It is agreed by all concerned that where homonymy (in the sense of the
footnote to Article 36) directly exists (e.g. in cases "' A ". " D '' and " E ") the
later published of the two identical trivial names must certainly be replaced.
The main issues on which opinions (and practice) differ are the following : —

(1) Should a ])rimary homonym be replaced whenever it is discovered
or only when the condition of homonymy still exists (case " A ") but
not otherwise (cases " B " and " C ")?

(2) Should a secondary homonym be replaced whenever it is discovered
or only when the condition of homonymy still exists (cases " D " and
" E ") but not otherwise (cases " F", " G " and "H")?

(3) If a primary homonym has been replaced because a situation of
homonymy existed at that time, should the original name be restored
later when, through the transfer of one or both of the species to another
genus (or other genera) or through the subdivision of the original
genus into two or more genera, the condition of homonymy no longer
exists? (e.g. in case "B" if albus Smith had been replaced by a new
name some time between 1900 and 1920 w^hen it was in the same genus
as albvs Latreille, should the name albus Smith be revived after 1920
when the older species albus Latreille had been removed to another
genus?).

(4) If a secondary homonym has been replaced because a situation of
homonymy existed at that time, should the original name be restored
later when, through the further transfer of one or both of the species
to another genus (or other genera) or through the subdivision of the
genus in. which the homonymy occurred into two or more genera, the
condition of homonymy no longer exists? (e.g. if the name albus Smith
had been replaced between 1910 and 1920 in case " G '" or between
1900 and 1910 in case " H " when it was a homonym of albus LatreiUe,
should the name albus Smith be restored again in 1920 in case " G "
or in 1910 in case "H" when the condition of homonymy no longer
exists?).

17. The various permutations and combinations of possible answers to
these questions would give more than a dozen possible solutions, but it will
suffice to consider five main proposals which have been put forward or have
received consideration. These are : —

(1) The permanent replacement of all homonyms whenever they are
discovered, (i.e. rejection and permanent replacement of albus Smith
in cases " A ". " B ■. " C ". " D ". '' E ". *' F ", " G " and " H '"
whenever homonymy is discovered.)

linUdiii of Zooloyical Soinendaiuic. 4;i

(II) The permanent replacement of primary homonyins whenever
discovered, combined with the temporary replacement of secondary
homonyms only if discovered when, and for the period during which,
homonomy exists (i.e. rejection and permanent replacement of albu^
Smith in cases " A ", " B " and " C " whenever discovered, and the
temporary replacement of albus Smith if homonymv is discovered
between 1910 and 1920 in case " G " and between 1900 and 1910 in
case " H ■'. with its restoration after 1920 in the former case and after
1910 m the latter. In cases " D • and " E ' albus Smith must
necessarily be replaced after 1910 and 1920 respectively, since the
condition of homonomy in these two cases is assumed to persist.
In case " F '" there is no need to replace albus Smith at all.)

(Ill) 'Fhe temporary replacement of both primary and secondary homonyms
if discovered when, and for the period during which, homonomy
exists. (The same as proposal (II) except that in case '• B " albus
Smith would not have to be replaced permanently but only for the
[)eriod 1900-1920 if the homonymy were discovered during these
years, and in case " C ' would not need to be replaced at all.)

( I \' ) The permanent replacement of both primary and secondary homonyms,
but only if discovered when the condition of homonvmy "exists. "(The
same as proposal (I) except that the replacement" of" both primary
and secondary homonyms would take place only if discovered while
the condition of homonymy existed.)

(\) The permanent replacement of primarv homouvms whenever dis-
covered, combined with the permanent replacement of secondary
homonyms only if discovered when the condition of homonymy exists
(The same as proposal (II) except that replacement of secondary
homonyms, whenever it takes place, is to be permanent.)

;rhe mam arguments that have been advanced for and against these
arious proposals are listed in the following paragraphs.

PROPOSAL (I). The permuneni r"pUicemeul of all /lamuiiym.s
whenever they are discovered.

I«. The foUowing arguments have been advanced in favour of this proposal :

( 1 ) It appears to conform with the letter of .\rticles 35 and 3tj as those
-\ri:icles exist to-day. On this Miss Sandhouse commented (?» Hti
25th November 1938): "While a consistent adherence to the Rules
makes for inconvenience now, it seems the onlv way to attain
permanence in names ".

(2) The late Secretary Stiles supported Miss Saudhouse's view in the
following words: "'Primary homonyms are sriU-born. Secondary
homonyms are killed or die after birth. Neither a still-l)orn child nor a

44 tiullettn oj Zoologiail Is omencUilurc.

dead child cau be brought to life. Both are dead and should be buried
or cremated or embalmed. I agree in toto with Miss Sandhouse. Any
other interpretation will open this subject to unforeseen confusion in
nomenclature."
{'i) Under this proposal each species would be known by only one trivial
name, irrespective of the subjective taxonomic views of individual
workers as to the genus to which it belongs.

(4) Secondary homonyms would be eliminated for all time and could not
crop up again as a result of a change of view by a single worker.

(5) This proposal would tend to reduce the number of species with the
vsanie trivial name in allied genera and thereby avoid possible sources
of confusion.

19. The following argimients have been advanced against this proposal :—

(1) President Jordan commented at the time on Secretary Stiles' remarks
quoted in paragraph 18 (2) above : " Stiles is quite wrong in saying
that a secondary homonym is killed. It is imprisoned in consequence
of a faulty judgment and should be released as soon as the mistake is
found out." The only form of secondary homonym which he then
considered could be regarded as definitely killed and therefore as
requiring to be permanently replaced would be that resulting from the
objective union of two genera (i.e. the union of two genera with the
same nominal species as type). In this case the imprisonment would
have been based on a correct and not a faulty judgment so that
execution could confidently be allowed to take place.

(2) This proposal is open to abuse by any irresponsible or mahcious
reviser, who by placing aU species in one genus could cause untold
confusion by making necessary the renaming of many thousands of
species throughout the Animal Kingdom. To illustrate this point,
President Jordan submitted an imaginary example of a Mr. Mallocus,
adherent of the view formerly advanced by Dr. Borggreve that no
specific trivial name should be used more than once in Ornithology.
In this example Mr. Mallocus in 1940 " united all the birds in one
genus, rejected the few thousand homonyms thus created, renamed the
species affected, and after this purification, put, in 1941, the species
back into the genera where they had been in 1940."

(3) It would cause unending trouble and confusion to the systematic
worker who would need to be constantly on the watch to make sure
that no author had amalgamated some genus with another and thus
destroyed the availability of what had previously been a perfectly valid
name. He would require to make a close study of the works not
only of the best authors (as at present) but also of the worst authors,
for it would be mostly in the works of such authors that the limiping
of valid genera into large omnibus genera would be likely to be found.
Systematic workers would also have to extend their reading to
educational and semi-popular works where the nomenclature is often
extremely faulty.

Rvlhtiv ofZnologimI Nomcnrlnhm

45

PROPOSAL (II). The permanent replacement of primary
homonyms whenever discovered, combined
with the temporary replacement of secondary
homonyms only if discovered when, and for
the period durimj ivhich, homonymy exists.

20. The following arguments have been advanced im, favour of this
proposal : — ■'

(1) It is the practice that has been most widely followed in the past.

(2) The fact that the only example given in Article 36 of the Regies is of a
primary homonym has been cited as an argmnent that this Article
was mtended to apply to primary homonyms only.

(3) It avoids the necessity of renaming species whose names were once
secondary homonyms, but where the secondary horaonvmv has ceased
to exist (cases " F," " G " and " H ").

(4) It enables a species which has been renamed on account of secondary
homonymy to revert to the trivial name under which it was originally
described once the homonymy has ceased to exist.

(0) It does not open the way to deliberate creation of secondary homonym.s
by irresponsible or malicious writers (cf. (2) of paragraph 19 above).

(G) It avoids the necessity of replacing names which under the previous
proposal would be invaUdated by a careless or ignorant lumping
together of species and genera in popular or unscientific works and
avoids the need for taking account of such works (cf. (3) of paragraph
19 above). f n r

21. The following arguments have been advanced against this proposal :—

(1) The wording of the Regks makes no distinction between primary and
secondary homonyms.

(2) Where the name of a species has been replaced as a secondary homonym
but later that species has been placed in a different genus, the species
would be known by different trivial names according to the taxonomic
views of different workers as to the genus to which it belongs.

(3) The subsequent resurrection of names formerly rejected as secondary
homonyms when the condition of homonymy no longer exists leads
to unnecessary changes of names.

(4) The distinction between the treatment of primary and secondary
homonyms is illogical if our only interest is to reraedv a situation oV
homonymy existing at the present time.

PROPOSAL (III). The tmiporary replacement of both primary
and secondary homonyms if discovered when,
and for the period during which, hmimyniy
exists.

22. The following arguments havo been advanced in favmir of thi.s
propo.sal : —

4t> HulMi) of Znohfjunl Nnnirncldturc.

( 1 ) It is the logical procedure if our only interest is to avoid a situation
of homonymv at the present time (cf. (4) of paragraph 21 above).

(2) Where this has not already been done, this proposal would remove
the need for renaming species which are now placed in different genera,
even if thev were originally described in the same genus (cases " B "
and " C " as well as " F," " G." and " H ") (cf. (3) of paragraph 20 above).

(3) It would enable all species to be known by the trivial names under
which they were originally described except where such names were
currently being used for older species in the same genus.

(4) As in the case of Proposal (II) it would avoid any scope for the misuse
of the Regies for the deliberate creation of secondary homonyms (cf.
(5) of paragraph 20 above).

(5) It avoids the necessity for taking account of the lumping of species
or genera in popular or unscientific works (rf. (6) of paragraph 20
above).

23. Tlie following arguments liave been advanced against this proposal : —

( 1 ) The possibility of one species being known by different trivial names
according to the subjective taxonomic views of the individual worker
concerned would apply under this proposal to primary as well as to
secondary homonyms (of. (2) of paragraph 21 above).

(2) The subsequent resurrection of names formerly rejected as primary
and secondary homonyms when the condition of homonymy no longer
exists involves unnecessary changes in trivial names (not only in
cases " G '" and "' H " as under Proposal (II) but also in case " B
(cf. (3) of paragraph 21 above) ).

(3) Primary homonyms, unlike secondary homonyms, are independent
of the taxonomic views of subsequent authors. The original com-
bination is the only permanent and objectively ascertainable reference
by which a specific name can always be identified, and therefore con-
fusion will always arise if primary homonyms are not permanently
replaced, irrespective of any subjective taxonomic revisions to which
the species mav be subjected subsequent to its original description.

PROPOSAL {IV). The 'permanent replacement of both primary
and secondary hornmiyms, but only if dis-
covered when the condition of homonymy exists.

24. The following arguments have been advanced in favour of this
proposal : -

(J) If we are interested only in homonymy existing at the present time,
it is logical to replace both primary and secondary homonyms only
if discovered when the condition of homonymy still exists (cf. (1) of
paragrnph 22 above).

hiilh'lin of Znnlofjiml Ndinoirhihirr. i7

(2) As contrasted with Proposal (I) it would avoid the necessity of
renaming species, the names of which have once been primary or
secondary homonyms where they are no longer referred to the same
genus as another species with the same trivial name (cf. (3) of paragraph
20 and (2) of paragraph 22 above).

(3) As contrasted with Proposal (III) it would avoid the possibility of
one species being known by different trivial names according to the
subjective taxonomic views of the individual worker concerned (of.
(2) of paragraph 21 and (2) of paragraph 23).

(4) As contrasted with Proposal (HI) it would avoid unnecessary changes
in names due to the resurrection of names formerly rejected as primary
or secondary homonyms when the condition of homonymy ceases to
exist (cf. (2) of paragraph 23).

25. The following arguments have been advanced against this proposal : —

(1) Like Proposal (III) it ignores the objective nature of primary
homonyms, and fails to remedy the confusion arising from two species
being originally described by the same combination of generic and
specific trivial name (cf. (3) of paragraph 23 above).

(2) Like Proposal (I) it is open to abuse in the form of the deliberate
creation of secondary homonyms by irresponsible or malicious writers
(cf. (2) of paragraph 19 above).

PBOPOSAL (F). The permanent replacement of primary homo-
nyms whenever discovered, combined with the
permanent replacement of secondary homonyms
only if discovered irhen the condition of
h onimtomy exists .

26. The following arguments have been advanced in favour of this
proposal : —

(1) Like Proposals (I) and (IV), it avoids the possibility of one species
being known by different trivial names according to the subjective
taxonomic views of the individual worker concerned (cf. (3) of
paragraph 18 and (3) of paragraph 24 above).

(2) Like Proposal (II), it avoids the necessity of renaming species which
were once secondary homonyms but where the secondary homonymy
has ceased to exist (cf. (3) of paragraph 20 above).

(3) As contrasted with Proposal (II), it avoids the unnecessary change
of name of a species whose trivial name has been replaced as a
secondary homonym, once the condition of secondary homonymy has
ceased to exist (cf. (3) of paragraph 21).

(4) It recognises the objective nature of primary homonyms and removes
the confusion arising from the fact that two distinct species were
originally described under the same specific name (binominal combina-
tion) (cf. (3) of paragraph 23 and (1) of paragraph 25 above).

48 Hnlletin of Zoological Nmnefnclniurc.

27. The following arguments have been advanced against this proposal : —

(1) Like Proposals (I) and (IV), it is open to abuse in the form of the
deUberate creation of secondary homonyms by irresponsible or
maUcious ^vriters (cf. (2) of paragraph 19 and (2) of paragraph 25 above).

(2) As contrasted mth Proposal (IV) the replacement of a trivial name on
account of priraai;y homonymy when the condition of homonymy no
longer exists involves an unnecessary change of name (cf. (2) of
]>aragraph 24, but cf. on the other hand also (1) of paragraph 25).

VI. Conclusions and recommendations

28. It is apparent from the above survey that no solution is ideal : every
solution has some advantages and some disadvantages. Our object must be
to select the one which has the least important disadvantages, or disadvantages
which are most easily susceptible of remedy by other means. After careful
weighing up of the pros and cons of the various proposals considered above,
I am left with the impression that the balance of advantage lies with the last
proposal (Proposal (V)) discussed. One disadvantage of this proposal
(which it shares ^\Tith Proposals (I) and (IV)) could probably be remedied, as
suggested by the late Secretary Stiles, by the suppression of irresponsible
writings of the kind in question by the International Commission under its
plenary powers to suspend the Regies. The second disadvantage cited, that
of unnecessary name changes, is not of very great practical importance, since
the great majority of primary homonyms has already been replaced. Moreover,
this disadvantage seems to be far more than outweighed by advantage (4) with
which it is rigidly correlated, and by the fact that the permanent replacement
of primary homon^Tns has been the almost universal practice of the past.

29. The selection of Proposal (V) as the solution to be recommended, while
providing a valuable framework for a proposed amendment to the Regies,
would by no means clear up all the gaps and ambiguities in the existing provisions
of Articles 35 and 36, which have been listed in paragraph 9 above. The
following paragraphs contain suggestions for provnding answers to the remainder
of the queries contained in that list.

(a) Suggested restriction of the term " nam spedfiqve" {.specific name) and the
adoption of the term " nom specifique trivial" {specific trivial name).

30. It is recommended that the term '" nom specifique triviale " (specific
trivial name) should be used not only in Articles 35 and 36 but throughout the
Regies for the Linnean concept of the nomen trivial of a species, and that the
term " nom specifique " (specific name) should be reserved to denote the
nomen specif icfum, i.e. the binominal combination, which constitutes the specific
name. This proposal would remove the ambiguity indicated in question (1)
of paragraph 9.

(b) Definition of, and distinction between, primary and secondary homonyms.

31. A clear definition of primary and secondary homonyms along the lines
indicated in paragraph 15 above would remove all such ambiguities as those
referred to in questions (2). (3). (4). (5) and (6) of paragraph 9.

HuUetin of Zoological NntnencJntutT. 4!)

(c) Procedure for replacement of homonyms.

32. Primary homonyms. — The existence of primary homonymy (as in cases
"A," " B " and " C ") is an objective fact, and it is necessary whenever such
a situation is discovered to rename the species which bears the later published
of the two identical trivial names. Even if a generally recognised subjective
synonym exists, the nominal species should be given a new trivial name,
since this is the only name which adheres to it objectively, irrespective of the
taxonomic views of subsequent workers (cf. question (9) in paragraph 9).
The new name can then be sunk as a synonym if desired, but will always be
available for the nominal species should the synonymy at any time cease to
be recognised. The only circumstance in which the renaming of a primary
homonym is neither necessary nor desirable is when (as would only very
rarely happen) the nominal species which bears the later pubhshed of the two
identical trivial names has an objective synonym, that is to say when there is
a second nominal species based upon the same type specimen.

33. It is important that the new trivial name of a species whose name has
been rejected as a primary homonym should be well publicised, since it is
henceforth to become the permanent name of the nominal species concerned.
To this end I would like to propose that in such cases, as also in the case of
the naming of a new species, a copy of the publication in which the new name
first appears should be forwarded to the Zoological Record, so that the new name
may be recorded in the systematic section of the next annual volume of that
work. I should like also to suggest that an appropriate " Recommandation "
along these lines should be inserted in Article 25.

34. Secondary Aomon«//n^.— Secondary homonyms are necessarily subjective
in origin, depending on the subjective taxonomic views of individual workers.
Our aim must be to avoid the confusion to which secondary homonyms may
give rise, but at the same time somehow to translate their subjective origin
into objective provisions which are simple to apply and are capable of being
carried out in a uniform fashion by any worker irrespective of his individual
taxonomic standpoint. The provisions must permit no individual discretion
and must call for no laborious researches on the part of zoologists in general
and must be such as to create the maximum of imiformity and stability in
nomenclature. For this purpose the onus of establishing the existence of
secondary homonymy should be laid squarely on those from whose taxonomic
judgment such homonymy arises. It should be the duty of any reviser who,
by transferring a species from one genus to another, or by uniting two or more
genera, creates a secondary homonym : —

(1) expressly to cite the two species concerned in the same genus ;

(2) expressly to .sink the later published of the two trivial names as a
homonym ;

(3) to give a new name to the species, the trivial name of which has been
rejected.

He should further be recommended (cf. paragraph 33 above) to forward to the
Zoological Record a copy of the publication in which this threefold procedure
has been applied, in order that an appropriate entry may be inserted in the
next vohmie of that work.

50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature .

35. No name should be regarded as invalidated as a secondary homonym
unless the three above-mentioned steps have been taken, but once they have
been taken, the new name should adhere permanently to the nominal species
concerned, unless, after further taxonomic revision, it is once more rejected
(by a similar procedure) as a secondary homonym.

36. This procedure would establish a uniform system of nomenclature and
avoid the need for time-wasting researches by systematic workers into un-
scientific and popular books (cf. (3) of paragraph 19 above), though it could
not prevent the deliberate creation of secondary homonyms by an irresponsible
or malicious writer (cf. (2) of paragraph 19 above). (The latter danger could
be met only by a judicious use by the International Commission of its plenary
powers to suspend the Regies for the purpose of avoiding confusion and
promoting uniformity.) Provisions along these lines would remove the
ambiguities indicated in questions (7) and (8) in paragraph 9, since no species
not definitely cited as a secondary homonym would need renaming, and only
those names expressly sunk and replaced would be regarded as having been
definilely rejected and therefore as being excluded from all further use for
the species concerned.

{d} Subgeneric names in relation to specific homonymy.

37. The kind of questions that may arise in relation to specific homonymy

in regard to subgeneric names may be illustrated by the following examples :

(1) Is a specific name to be rejected as a homonym where two species with

id<;ntical trivial names are described or placed in the same genus although

referred to different subgenera? My own view (and the one which accords

with current practice) is that any two specific names consisting of identical

trivial and generic names are homonyms (and the later published of the identical

trivial names must be replaced) irrespective of whether they are placed in the

same subgenus or not : (2) Is a specific name to be rejected as a homonym

where two species with identical trivial names are described as belonging to the

same subgenus but that subgenus is referred by the same author at different

times or by different authors to different genera? My own view is that in such

a case the two trivial names are not homonyms and therefore that the later

published of these names should not be replaced : (3) Is a specific name to be

rejected as a homonym where the two species with identical trivial names are

described or placed in subgenera which, through the accident of homonymy,

have the same subgeneric names, although these subgenera are referred to

different genera? My own view is that, while in such a case the later pubUshed

subgeneric name must be replaced as a homonym (under Article 34 of the

Regies read in conjunction with Article 6), there is no need to replace the more

recent trivial name so long as the species concerned are referred to different

genera If these views are accepted, there is no need to allude to subgeneric

names in Articles 35 and 36. It will, however, be essential to insert a qualification

in Article 6 to indicate that subgeneric names are not to be regarded as

co-ordinate with generic names for the purposes of Articles 35 and 36 in respect

of specific homonymy. (cf. question (10) in paragraph 9).

RulUtin of Znological Nonwvrl/itvn- ."> I

(e) Trealtnent. of sribapecific names in relation to upedfie and a^ibs'pecific

hmnonymy .

38. Subject to the exception mentioned in paragraph 39 below, the pro-
vision of Article 11 that specific and subspecific names are co-ordinate, taken
in conjunction with Articles 35 and 36, is generally taken to mean that, as in
the case of two specific names, any two subspecific names or pairs of subspecific
and specific names constitute homonyms, if thev consist of combinations
containing the same generic and trivial names. This being the accepted, and
m my view essential, interpretation of Articles 35 and 36, when read in
conjunction with Article 11, it will be necessary to make clear in the revised
texts of Articles 35 and 36 that subspecific trivial names are to be subject
to the same rules as specific trivial names, in the determination of specific
and subspecific homonymy (of. question (11) in paragraph 9).

(/) Exemption for the trivial name, of a notn^notypical subspecies.

39. Although the Regies provide (Article 9) that the typical subgenus of a
genus having two or more subgenera is to have, as its name, the same name
as the genus itself, there is no corresponding provision in regard to the trivial
name of the nominotypical subspecies of a species having two or more subspecies.
I am proposing elsewhere* the addition to the Regies^ oi an Article to remove
this anomaly, but I think it necessary to allude to the subject here because it is
essential that the revised texts of Articles 35 and 36 shall secure that the
trivial name of a nominotypical subspecies shall not be liable to rejection and
therefore to replacement on the ground that it is a homonvm of the specific
trivial name of the species concerned (cf. question (11) in paragraph 9).

(g) Deletion of the expression - of the same origin and meaning " in
paragraph (3) of Artide 35.

40. It is desirable that in their revised form the Articles of the Regies
dealing with specific homonymy should retain the substance of the provisions
which now appear in paragraph (3) of Article 35 and are concerned with the
relationship of certain pairs of tri\dal names which differ from one another
only by small differences of spelling. The qualification in that paragraph which
hmits Its application to names which are "of the same origin and meaning"
should however be deleted, for this limitation makes this paragraph incapable
of being appHed in the majority of cases falling in the class specified in that
paragraph as " class (a) " owing to the impossibility of determining in many
instances whether any given pair of similar names are of the same origin and
meaning, while as regards names falling in the remaining classes this provision is
superfluous, for names falling in these classes are by definition of the same origin
and meaning. It is suggested that the opening words of this provision should be
redrafted simply to provide that, where any two specific or subspecific trivial
names differ from one another only by reason of the differences of spelling
specified m that paragraph, those names are to be treated as being identical
with one another.

' .See Point (15) in Commission Paper I.C. (48)12.

v>'i :t K-

52 Bulletin of Zoological NomPnclature.

SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

41. I summarise my principal conclusions and recommendations as
follows : —

(1) The present provisions in regard to specific homonyms, which are
embodied in Articles 35 and 36 of the Regies, are so obsciirely worded
and are marked by so many and such serious omissions that it is
manifest that order will never be introduced into this subject until
these Articles have been completely redrafted in such a way as both
to cover the whole subject and to deal expressly with each of the
numerous combinations of circumstances in which specific (and
subspecific) homonyms can arise.

(2) There are at present wide divergences of opinion both as to the
meaning of the existing provisions and also as to the nature of the
provisions which it is desirable that the Regies should prescribe.

(3) Before considering the form which the revised version of these Articles
should take, we must decide which of the main solutions which have
been suggested is to be adopted. None of these solutions is ideal,
each having some advantages and some disadvantages. We must
therefore seek to determine which of these solutions has the fewest
serious disadvantages or disadvantages which are most readily
susceptible to treatment by other means.

(4) After carefully weighing the relative advantages and disadvantages
of each of the five principal types of solution which have been suggested
(particulars of which are given in paragraphs 18-27 of the present
paper), I have formed the conclusion that the solution which on
balance offers the greatest advantages and the fewest and least serious
disadvantages and which corresponds the most closely with present
general practice is one which would embody the features specified in
(5)-(15) below. I accordingly recommend this solution to the
favourable consideration of the International Commission.

(5) In order to provide the necessary degree of clarity in the revised
version of the Regies, the expressions " specific trivial name," "primary
homonym " and " secondary homonym " should be introduced and
definitions should be given of the meaning to be attached to these
expressions and also to the expression " specific name."

(6) The expression " specific trivial name " should be defined as meaning
the second term of the binominal combination which forms the name
of a species, i.e. it should have the same meaning as the Linnean
expression " nomen triviale," and the expression " specific name "
should be defined as meaning the binominal combination of generic
and trivial names which together constitute the name of a species,
i.e. this expression should have the same meaning as the Linnean
expression " nomen specijicum.''

(7) The expressions "primary homonym" and "secondary homonym"
should be defined as follows : —

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 53

Primary homonym : A specific name is a primary homonym of
another specific name when at the time of its
original publication it consisted of the same
binominal combination of generic and trivial
names as that which constituted the specific
name of some other species at the time of its
original publication.

Secondary hontortym : The trivial name of a species (i.e. its specific
trivial name) is a secondary homonym of the
specific trivial name of another species, where
the two species having identical specific trivial
names, although originally described in different
genera, are subsequently placed, that is to say
actually cited, in the same genus as the result
either (1) of the union of two or more genera or
(2) of the transfer of either (or both) of the
species concerned from the genus in which it
was (or they were) originally described to some
other genus (or genera).

(8) Whenever the specific name originally bestowed upon any species is
found to be a primary homonym of the specific name originally bestowed
upon another species, the later published of the two names is to be
permanently rejected and is to be replaced by a new specific name
comprising a different specific trivial name.

(9) Whenever the specific trivial names of two species become secondary
homonyms of one another, the later published of the two specific
trivial names is to be permanently rejected and replaced by a new
specific trivial name, but where two species having identical specific
trivial names were at one time but are no longer secondary homonyms
by reason of being placed in the same genus and where in such a case
the later published of the two specific trivial names was not rejected
and replaced during the period in which it and the other specific
trivial name were secondary homonyms of one another, that name
shall not subsequently be rejected and replaced unless on a subsequent
revision the two species are again re-united in a single genus and their
respective specific trivial names once more become secondary homonyms
of one another.

(10) Subgeneric names should not be treated as co-ordinate with generic
names for purposes of specific (and subspecific) homonymy, and Article
6 should be qualified accordingly.

(11) Subspecific trivial names should be treated as co- ordinate with specific
trivial names for purposes of specific and subspecific homonymy,
except to the extent specified in (12) below. The rules applying to
cases where a pair of species having identical specific trivial names
are either originally described or subsequently united in the same
geims should, therefore, apply also to cases where of two species so
described or united : —

.34 Bulletin of Zoological J^amenckiture.

(a) the specific trivial name of one species is identical with the
subspecific trivial name of a subspecies of the other, or

(b) the subspecific trivial name of a subspecies of one species is
identical with the subspecific trivial name of a subspecies of the
other species.

(llJ) The subspecific trivial name of the nominotypical subspecies of a
species having two or more subspecies is not to be rejected on the
ground that it is a homonym of the specific trivial name of that species.

(I'd) In order to minimise the risk either of the publication of specific or
subspecific names which are primary homonyms of previously published
specific or subspecific names or of the rejection and renaming of
secondary homonyms which have already been rejected and renamed,
it is most important that the publication of every new specific or
subspecific name should be centrally recorded as soon as possible after
publication. It is accordingly suggested that a " Recommandation "
should be added to Article 25 urging every zoologist who publishes a
new Specific or subspecific name either for a new species or subspecies
or in substitution for a specific or subspecific name rejected as a
homonym to send a copy of the publication containing that name to
the Editor of the Zoological Record, c/o Zoological Society of London.
Regent's Park, London, N.W.I, England, in order that the name in
question may be recorded in the systematic portion of the next annual
volume of that work.

(14) It is suggested that, in order tu minimise the risk of the proposed
revised rules in regard to specific homonymy beiag misused by
irresponsible or malicious persons with the deliberate purpose of
creating secondary homonyms or providing opportunities for publishing
new names, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
should place on record their intention to use their plenary powers to
suppress any work in which, in their opinion, the pro\'isions of the
Regies have been deUberately abused in this way.

( 15) In the provision in paragraph (3) of Article 35 that trivial names which
differ from one another only by the slight differences of spelling there
specified are to be treated as being identical with one another, the
qualification that, as a condition to being so treated, such names
must be of the same origin and meaning, should be deleted. It is
suggested that the opening words of this paragraph should be redrafted
simply to provide that, where any two specific or subspecific trivial
names differ from one another only by reason of the differences in
spelling specified in that paragraph, those names are to be treated as
being identical with one another.

FRANCIS HEMMING.

Secretary to the, International Commitmion
on Zoological Nomenclature.
Secretariat of the Commission.

London. P^ngland.
■Mh June. 1948.

CASE A

Genus

IBOO uU"^ LlCr,

I90O

CASE "B

Genus x

Genub "^

i«O0 o/iuiLatr

900 a/6usbinit(l
I 900

CASE C

Genus X
i/i^ Latr
18OO

900 iiiOuzt Smith
1900

1

CASE D

CASE E

Genus V
laoo

Genus ^

Cen-js T

1 800

Smith

190a

1900 a/6»AS
Smith
1900

1920

CASE F

CASE G

CAS E H

Genus X
leoo

Genus Y

Latr
I800

Genus Y

L»lr,

leoo

Genus X

Genus Y

Latr.

laoo

>eao

,iB»0

I900 a/^a

Smith
1900

1900 Smith

I910 'a°°

1920

Smith
I900

(55)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

PAPER

I.C.(48)9

ON THE STATUS OF NAMES OF FORMS OF LESS THAN SPECIFIC RANK

lii'poii by ihc /Secretary tu the Com mission

I. Introductory

At its iSessiou liekl in cuuiiectiou with the Twelfth International Congress
ot" Zoology at Lisbon in 1935, the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature had under consideration the following resolution relating to the
status of varietal names, adopted (by a majority) by Section VIII, and
subsequently by a Plenary Session, of the Fifth International Congress of
Entomology at its meeting in Paris in 1932 : —

'' La Priorite d'un nuiii donne a line, forme quelcoiique (i'iiiseetes doit etre eonservee
dans tous le» cas."

2. The International Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, Fourth Meeting,
Conclusion 17) : —

(a) that in the time available it would not be jjos.sible at Lisbon to deal adequately with the
problems involved in this resolution :

(6) that the Secretary should confer with speeiahsts in representative branches of the
Animal Kingdom regarding the status to be accorded to names proposed as names for
forms of less than subspecific status, with a view to the formulation of an Opiniov
appropriate to each of the various circumstances in which this problem arises.

3. In accordance with the above Conclusion, 1 have been in correspondence
or have held personal consultations with a large number of specialists interested
in this problem in different parts of the world and in connection with different
groups of the Animal Kuigdom. I herewith present a Report on the conclusions
which I have reached. In accordance with the principles laid down in Paper
I.C.(48)6, however, I consider that the proposals here put forward, if adopted,
should be incorporated in the Regies themselves rather than, as contemplated
at Lisbon, being promulgated in the form of an Opinion.

4. The Regies recognise the existence of one class only of taxonomic unit
below that of species, namely the " sous-espece " (subspecies). The nomen-
clature of subspecies is subject under the Regies to provisions similar to those
governing the nomenclature of species. Article 11 provides that subspecific
names and specific names are co-ordinate, and Article 12 that a specific name
becomes a subspecific name when a species is degraded to the status of sub-
species, and vice versa. Subspecific names are treated as exactly on a par wdth
specific names in Article 25 (the Law of Priority) and Article 35 (the Law of
Homoiiymy).

56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

5. The problem with which the present Report is concerned arises from the
fact that, as contrasted with the provisions of the Regies, zoologists in general
recognise many different classes of infra-specific variations, ranging from those
appearing in a single individual at the one end to those characteristic of whole
populations at the other. While all zoologists recognise the existence of these
different classes of variations, they differ in the extent to which they think it
desirable to give scientific names to the units concerned. On the one hand are
those who hold that no varieties within a population should be named, that
they can be denoted, where necessary, by symbols or descriptions or technical
designations. On the other hand are those who employ a polynomial nomen-
clature for the naming not only of subspecies (e.g. geographical races) but also
of forms (seasonal, sexual, etc.), hybrids and even individual aberrations.

6. Since the Regies themselves provide no definition of a subspecies it has
remained a matter of doubt to which of the various infra-specific classes the
provisions regarding the nomenclature of subspecies quoted in paragraph 4
above apply. At the one extreme is the view that names proposed for all
categories of lower rank than that of species are available under the Regies if
properly proposed in Latin form and accompanied by an indication, definition
or description. At the other extreme is the \aew that the expression " sub-
species " as used in the Regies corresponds to a definite concept, related to a
population only, distinguished by constant heritable characteristics, and that
properly proposed trinominal names have therefore availability under the
Regies only if clearly appUed to whole populations (geographical, ecological,
etc.) and not if applied to sections of populations or to individuals only.

7. The question at issue is a far-reaching one. It not only affects the
availabihty of the names of all the varieties and forms of less than subspecific
rank, but, in so far as an animal originally named as representing a form is
.sometimes found to represent a good subspecies (or even a species), it affects
also the nomenclature of a considerable number of subspecies and species which
will remain in doubt until a definite ruling has been given on the subject.

8. Any satisfactory solution wdll clearly involve : —

(1) a recognition in the Regies themselves of the existence of more than
one infra-specific category ;

(2) a clear and workable definition of the category or categories, to be
covered by the expression '' sous-espece " (subspecies), the nomen-
clature of which would be co-ordinate with that of species ; and

(3) some provision regarding the nomenclatorial status, if any, of names
given to taxonomic units of less than subspecific rank.

II. Proposed distinction in the " Regies " between the nomenclature of
(a) subspecies and (b) infra-subspecific forms

y. Zoologists agree in recognising two distinct classes of taxonomiu uiut
below that of species :- -

(1) units based on constant variations characteristic of a whole population

differentiated thereby from other populations (geographical, ecological.

etc.) within the same species ;

Bulletin of Zoological Namendature. 57

(2) units based on variations occurring in individuals or groups, and not
necessarily confined to a single population.

10. The terms applied by zoologists to these two classes of taxononiic unit
l)elow the rank of species have varied widely, some terms such as " variety "
and " form "having been used indiscriminately for units in both categories.
For 'the purpose of defining the status of names proposed for units in these two
taxonomic categories respectively, it is suggested that the term " sous-espece "
(subspecies) should be restricted in the Regies to the first category of taxonomic
unit below the rank of species (that based on constant variations within a whole
population), while units of the second category (those based on variations
occurring in individuals or groups, and not necessarily confined to a single
population) should be classed collectively as " infra-snbspedfic forma."

III. Proposed nomenclatorial status of names given (a) to subspecies and
(b) to infra-subspecific forms respectively.

11. it is generally agreed that names given to " subspecies," as restricted
ill paragraph 10 above, should, subject to such amendments as may be
})roposed for other reasons, be governed by the existing provisions of the
Regies relating to subspecies, and that they should be treated as co-ordinate
with names given to species.

12. Differences have arisen, both in current practice and in proposals
advocated, only in regard to the status to be accorded to names given to units
in the second of the two categories distinguished in paragraph 10 above, namely
to the category of infra-subspecific forms. It is this question to which it is
the main task of the present Report to suggest a solution.

13. The differences referred to above can to a considerable extent be traced
back to differences in the zoological ends which the nomenclature of taxonomic
units below the rank of species is required to serve. We have to recognise the
existence of several distinct classes of zoologist, each with different, and to
spme extent mutually conflicting, interests : — ■

(1) There is first the systematist who is primarily interested in studying
subspecies, species and higher categories, and who would prefer the
scope of zoological nomenclature to be drawn no more widely than is
necessary to include the categories with which he himself is concerned.
He does not wish to take cognizance or keep records of all names
proposed for aberrational or other categories of infra-subspecific rank
(i) on the chance that such a name should later be found to be the
oldest name applied to a representative of a hitherto unnamed (or
invalidly named) subspecies or species, or (ii) in order to ensure that
any new name which he may select for a species or subspecies shall
not be invalidated as a homonym of an earlier published name proposed
for some unit of infra-subspecific rank.

(2) Secondly, there is the considerable number of zoologists, especially in
certain groups (e.g. in some Orders in the Class Insecta) who are
particularly interested in the study of forms (sexual, seasonal, dimorphic)
and aberrations, and seek the protection of the Regies to stabilise the

58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

uomenclature of these categories. If these names were to be declared
to be outside the scope of zoological nomenclature altogether and
hence of the Regies, there would be nothing to ensure that the same
form was always denoted by the same name (Law of Priority) or that
the same name was always used to denote the same form (Law of
Homonymy). Intercommunication and mutual understanding in
this branch of zoology would be seriously hampered.

(3) Thirdly, there are zoologists who are especially interested in the study
of forms based on parallel variations occurring in a mmiber of aUied
species, and who wish to use the same names or terms to denote the
forms in question in whichever species or subspecies they occur.
Such a procedure would be ruled out if the Law of Homonymy
(Article 35 of the Regies) were to be appUed to all names of infral
subspeciiic rank. An example of this situation is provided by the
names (obsoleta, arcuata, striata, etc.) proposed by the late Professor
L. Courvoisier for forms showing particular aberrational characters
found in each of a large number of species in the Family lyoaenidae
(Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera).

14. Consideration of these conflicting requirements suggests a possible
compromise which would safeguard the primary interests of each group without
seriously interfering with the essential needs of the others. The interests of the
hrst group require only that the nomenclature of subspecies and higher ranks shall
be entirely independent of, and unaffected by, names given to units of infra-
subspecific rank. The interests of the second group require above all the
protection of the Laws of Priority and Homonymy as applied to the nomenclature
of infra-subspecific categories. If therefore the basic provisions of the Regies
(in particular the Laws of Priority and Homonymy) could be made to apply
independently in the realm of subspecies and species on the one hand, and in
the realm of infra-subspecific forms on the other, then this should be
perfectly satisfactory to the workers interested in each of these realms. The
situation would be not dissimilar to that already obtaining as between
zoological and botanical nomenclature.

15. The realm of infra-subspecific categories on the one hand and the realm
of subspecies and species on the other are not however completely independent
of one another. Animals originally named as representing subspecies or species
are sometimes reclassified later as representing forms or aberrations ; and, on the
other hand, animals originally named as representing forms or aberrations may
later turn out to be representatives of good subspecies or even species. What is to
be the status of names originally proposed in the one realm when the animal
concerned is elevated (or degraded) to represent a unit in the other? It is obvious
that the concern of the first group of zoologists (those interested in subspecies
and higher categories only) not to be troubled with names given to units of infra-
subspecific rank requires that any unit of infra-subspecific rank promoted to
the rank of subspecies or above must be given a new name dating, and with
rights of priority (in the " new realm ") only as from the time when the animal
concerned was first elevated to represent a subspecies or species. If it is decided
to retain the original form name as a subspecific or specific trivial name (assuming
it is nut a homonym in the " new realm ' ) the name will need to rank for

fiiiJIctw of Zionlngical Nfrmpnclntvri'. ")(!

priority only as from the date on which the elevation to the status of subspecies
or species took place, and be attributed t<) the author responsible for this
elevation.

16. The same considerations do not apply in the case where an animal
originally named as representing a subspecies or species is treated by a later
author as representing only a form or aberration. For whereas some zoologists
are interested only in subspecies and species but not in lower forms, it need not
be assumed that those zoologists who specialise in the study of forms,
aberrations, etc., are uninterested in subspecies and species. It may be
assumed that they will wish to keep a record of names proposed for species and
subspecies in any case. There would appear therefore to be no need for animals
originally named as representing subspecies or species to be renamed if they
are later found to represent only forms or aberrations, assimiing, that is, that
the old name does not turn out to be a homonym in the realm of infra-
subspecific forms.

17. The above proposals would appear to meet the requirements of the
first and second classes of zoologists distinguished in paragraph 13 above.
There remains the problem of meeting the requirements of the third class,
those interested in the study of parallel infra-subspecific variations occurring in
a nimaber of allied species. Some exception to the operation of the Laws of
Priority and Homonymy in the realm of infra-subspecific forms seems to be
called for. Such a suspension of the Regies in the interests of promoting
uniformity and avoiding confusion could be secured by the use by the
International Commission of its plenary powers. The procedure would be for the
Commission, at the request of specialists in the group concerned, where it was
satisfied that greater uniformity than confusion would follow from the use of
standard terminology for certain infra-subspecific forms occurring in two or
more allied species, to prescribe, by Opinion, the terms to be used for such forms.
These terms (or technical designations) would have absolute priority both over
any names which may previously have been given to the forms in question or
which thereafter may be so given and over any other use of the prescribed
terms as names for other forms in the same genus.

IV. Method of application of the present proposals

18. In order to apply the proposals outlined in the foregoing section of
this Report, it would be necessary to establish a criterion for determining
whether any name given to a form of less than specific rank is applicable (a) to a
subspecies or (6) to an infra-subspecific form.

19. The first requirement for such a criterion is that it should be objective.
If the Regies are to promote uniformity and stability in nomenclature, it i.s
essential that their provisions should leave as little room as possible for any
subjective element in the interpretation of the way they are to be applied.
In this particular case the nomenclatorial status of names given to units of
less than specific rank must be independent of the taxonomic judgment of
individual zoologists as to the status of the taxonomic unit represented by the
animal to which the name in question was given. The only objective criterion
is that of the terms in which the name was originally published.

H(» Hulletw of Znolngiral Nnnienclahor.

20. The second essential requirement of the criterion to be used in determining
into which category any name given to a unit of less than specific rank falls is
that it shall be unambiguous ivithout being unduly narrow or " ritualistic." It
must not exclude from subspecific status a name clearly intended for a subspecies
solely on the groimd that that name was not proposed in accordance with a
certain fixed, narrowly defined procedure. At the same time the criterion to be
adopted must provide a clear and unambiguous guide as to the category to
which any given name of less than specific status belongs.

21. Two points arise from the above considerations : —

( 1 ) A more rigorous standard for the attainment of subspecific status can
properly be required from names published after some specified future
date than can be applied to names published in the past before
incorporation in the Regies of the distinction suggested in the present
proposals ;

(2) In the interest of maximum clarity, it is desirable to lay down an ideal
procedure to be adopted in proposing new names for subspecies and
infra-subspecific forms (or for re-naming organisms whose taxonomic
status is being raised from that of an infra-subspecific form to that of
subspecies), but this procedure must not be adopted as a minimum
standard, failure to attain which shall disqualify a name from acquiring
subspecific status.

V. Criteria for determining subspecific status for names published (a) before and (b)
after the suggested prescribed date

22. For the future it will be possible to lay down that no name pubhshed
as the name of a form of less than specific status, where it is not perfectly clear
from the terms of its original pubUcation that it is intended for a subspecies,
should be treated as having subspecific rank. All other names given to units
of less than specific status, whether clearly proposed for infra-subspecific
forms or not, would then have status only as infra-specific names.

23. Substantial notice would be necessary before bringing such a provision
into force, so as to enable workers to become familiar with its impHcations
and to make the necessary adjustments in their card indexes and their current
manuscripts. I consider that it would not be practicable to bring such a
pro\'ision into force before the end of 1950, and suggest therefore making it
apply only to names published after midnight G.M.T. of 31st December of
that year.

24. In the case of names of less than specific rank published in the past
and before 1st January 1951, a less rigorous standard must be admitted for
the attainment of subspecific status. For names published in this period I
suggest that all those should be treated as having subspecific status where it is
not perfectly clear from the terms of their original publication that they were
intended for infra-subspecific forms. This would include all names of less than
specific status clearly stated to be intended for subspecies (as in the case of
names pubhshed after 31st December 1950) and in addition all those not
clearly specified to be intended for some infra-subspecific form.

Hullelin of ZnolngicM NnmencJaiurc 61

VI. Suggested " Recommandations " as to the method of citing new names
proposed (a) for subspecies and (b) for infra-subspecific forms

25. Under the present proposals it would be highly desirable that authors
proposing new names for subspecies or for infra-subspecific forms should make
it absolutely clear which it is they are doing, by their method of citing the new
name in question. In the case of a new name proposed for a subspecies this
could be effected by (a) citing the new name in a trinominal combination
consisting of (1) the generic name, (2) the specific trivial name and (3) the
subspecific trivial name, and (6) adding at the end the expression " ssp.n." to
indicate both that the name is a new name and that it is intended to apply to
a subspecies. \Vhere an author is proposing a new name for an infra-subspecific
form, this should be clearly indicated by (a) inserting a comma followed by an
expression indicating the status of the infra-subspecific form (e.g. an expression
such as " form, vern.", "?-form," or " ab.") immediately after the subspecific
or specific trivial name and before the name of the infra-subspecific form, and
{h) adding at the end an expression such as " form, nov." or " ab. nov." to
indicate both that it is a new name and to which category of infra-subspecific
form the name is intended to apply.

26. While it would be extremely desirable that all authors should follow
the above procedure in proposing new names for units of less than specific
rank, it would clearly be a gross and inexcusable case of " ritualism " if a new
name clearly proposed for a subspecies were to be disqualified from subspecific
status because the above procedure had not been exactly or fully followed.
The course which I suggest therefore in this as in other cases where it is desired
to indicate an optimum procediure without estabhshing it as a minimum
requirement, is that the optimima procedure should be inserted in the Regies in
the form of a Recommandation appended to the relevant provision, while
only the mmimum requirement (i.e. that needed to secure availability under
the Regies) should be included in the operative provision of the Regies.

27. It is accordingly suggested that the actual requirements for the
acquisition of subspecific status for a name bestowed on a form of less than
specific rank should be drawn broadly, in the terms indicated in paragraph 22
above, but that this provision should be accompanied by a Recommandation
strongly urging authors proposing new names for forms both of subspecific
and of infra-subspecific rank, to do so in terms such as those .specified in
paragraph 25 above.

VII. The general effects of the present proposal

28. I have now described in broad outline the scheme which I recommend
for dealing with the problem of names for taxonomic units of less than specific
rank, and at the end of the present Report I set out those proposals in somewhat
greater detaU. Before I do so, it will, I think, be useful to pause for a moment
and, after looking at the scheme as a whole, to consider to what extent it meets
the problem with which we are faced.

62 BnUetin of Zoological Nomenciai/nre.

*

29. First, whatever view may be taken on this or that aspect of the present
scheme, it must, I think, be admitted that it offers a clear-cut and easily operated
method for dealing with the problem of names for taxonomic imits of less than
specific rank. It has therefore the merit that it provides a means of putting an end
to the state of chaos into which we have drifted as a result of allowing nearly 50
years to go by without making an attempt to insert provisions in the Regies
to deal with this subject. All of us who are workers in systematic zoology are
familiar with the difficulties which constantly arise from the complete lack of
guidance on this subject in the Regies. The fiist need of every such worker is
that an end should be put to the present state of uncertainty and that some
workable scheme should be clearly prescribed in the Regies. This requirement
will, I believe, be met by the adoption of the scheme now put forward.

30. No amount of study or discussion could serve to produce a scheme
which would be warmly welcomed by every class of zoologist, for the question
of whether names should be given to minority elements below the subspecific
level is one on which complete agreement can hardly be expected. From the
standpoint of some zoologists names for such forms are essential tools for their
work, while for others the needs of science would be met just as well and indeed
better by the adoption of some terminology for these forms which did not
involve the giving of trivial names. However much zoologists may disagree
on this or other questions, aU will however accept the view that in pursuance of
their general unity of purpose they should so conduct their affairs as to enable
every legitimate interest to be met. To this end a certain amount of give and
take and mutual forbearance is essential.

31. It is with this object in view that the present scheme has been
constructed, for it provides on the one hand a means of validating and regulating
the status of the countless thousands of names applied to forms of less than
subspecific rank, while on the other hand it relieves those workers who are not
concerned with the study of forms below the subspecies level of the immense
burden involved in recording and cataloguing names given to such forms.
The corner-stone of the whole scheme is the provision that the nomenclature of
subspecies and species on the one hand and that of forms of infra-subspecific
rank on the other are to be made independent of one another, though each
within its own field is to be subject to the same laws. I regard this provision
as of cardinal importance, for it alone provides a means of meeting the needs
and wishes of each of the two main classes of zoologists concerned, without
inflicting damage or serious hardship upon either.

32. I recognise that some sacrifice is entailed for each class : those zoologists
who attach importance to the naming of infra-subspecific forms will have to
forego the right of seeing the names bestowed on such forms being elevated to
subspecific or specific rank with their original date of publication and their
original authorship. On the other hand, those zoologists who are not concerned
with the study of forms of infra-subspecific rank will need to re-examine their
catalogues for the purpose of identifying those species and subspecies which are
to-day known by names which were originally pubhshed as names of infra-
subspecific forms and which may have to be replaced if some name now

THANKS TO U.N.E.S.C.O.

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, on behalf
of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have
great pleasure in expressing their grateful thanks to the UNITED
NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL
ORGANISATION (U.N.E.S.C.O.) for the financial assistance
afforded towards the cost of producing the present volume.

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Notice to subscribers regarding the arrangements made for the

completion of volume i and for the publication of

volumes 2, 3, 4 and 5

The following arrangements have been made for completing volume 1
of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and for the publication of
volumes 2, 3, 4 and 5 : —

Volume I : A concluding Part (Part 12), containing, inter alia, the Title
Page, Table of Contents, and alphabetical subject index, will be
published shortly.

Volume 2 : This volume, like Volume 1, will be devoted to the publica-
tion of applications in regard to nomenclatorial problems submitted
by specialists to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature for decision. Publication will commence at an early date.

Volume 3 : This volume will be devoted to the publication of the
memoranda, reports and other documents considered by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and by the
Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International Congress
of Zoology at their meetings held in Paris in July 1948.

Volume 4 : This volume will be devoted to the publication of the
Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in July 1948.
It is expected that publication of this volume will commence within
the next few weeks.

Volume 5 : At the request of the Bureau of the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, this volume will be devoted to the publication
of the Official Record of Proceedings of the Section on Nomenclature
of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948,
together with the Reports submitted to the Congress by the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the Section
on Nomenclature.

INQUIRIES

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

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

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : Secretariat of
the Commission, 28 Park Village East, Regent's Park, London, N.W. 1, England.

VOLUME 3. Parts 4 6 Wh March, 1950

pp. 63—158

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL

NOMENCLATURE

1

Mjlll,,'' The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by

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

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Contents :

Part 1. Memoranda and Reports submitted to the Page

International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the Secretary to the Com-
mission at the Session of Meetings held by the
International Commission during the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Paris, July
1948 (concluded) 63—154

Part 2. Communications submitted to the Section
on Nomenclature, Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (first
instalment) Half-Title,

157-158

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological

Nomenclature on instructions received from the Thirteenth

International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948,

and

Sold on behalf of the International Commission by the

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

at the Publications Office of the Trust

41, Queen's Gate, London, S.W.7.

1950

Price One pound, eight shillings.

(All rights reserved)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomendaiure. 63

regarded as a junior synonym is found to have priority over the currently
used name when that name is reclassified as from the later date from which
it will now rank for purposes of priority.

33. Against these sacrifices must be set the great advantages that will be
reaped by both classes of zoologist. Those who attach importance to the giving
of names to taxonomic units below the rank of subspecies will secure for such
names a definite recognition in the Regies and will be provided with a code of
rules by which the status of such names can in future be regulated. On the
other hand, those zoologists who are not concerned with the study of forms of
lower rank than subspecies will not only Ije able to disregard all such names as
may in future be published for forms of these categories, but will also be able
forthwith to discard many thousands of names which at present encumber
their catalogues.

34. In my view, the sacrifices to be made are infinitely less than the
advantages to be gained. Even if this were not so, these sacrifices and incon-
veniences would be a small price to pay for a settlement which put an end to
doubt and uncertainty and removed the reproach that zoologists would prefer
the continuance of a state of chaos rather than make the small mutual
sacrifices necessary to introduce order into this important field of zoological
nomenclature. It is therefore with confidence and hope that I place in the
hands of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature the
present Report on the subject which they entrusted to me at their meeting
held at Lisbon in 1935.

SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

35. I sunmiarise my principal conclusions and recommendations as
follows : —

(1) The lowest taxonomic category mentioned in the Regies is the '" sous-
espece" (subspecies). That term is not defined and many zoologists
claim that, in the absence of a definition, this expression, as used in the
Regies, should be interpreted as comprising every infra-specific category
and not merely populations which differ constantly from one another
within a given species. This view is rejected by many other zoologists,
who, however, do not agree with one another as to the criteria to be
adopted for determining whether a given trivial name should be
regarded as the trivial name of a subspecies or should be rejected as the
name of a form of infra-subspecific rank. The problem here is whether
this question should be determined (a) by the terms in which the name
was fiirst published or (b) by the subjective taxonomic views on the
status of the form concerned held by the worker using the name in
question.

(2) The lack of guidance in the Regies on the foregoing questions has led to
much confusion and diversity of practice. In order to put an end to
this state of affairs, it is essential that the Congress should agree to
insert words in the Rigles to make it clear : —

VOL. 3 F

64 Bulleti7i of Zoological Nomenclature.

(a) whether the lowest category of name to which those Regies apply
is the subspecies (as currently understood) ; or

(6) whether, on the contrary, the Regies apply to names bestowed on
any class of infra-specific unit down to, and including, a name
given to a unique individual aberration.

(3) It is clear that no solution would be acceptable which denied to the
names of infra-subspecific forms the rights conferred by the Law of
Priority (Article 25) or excluded such names from the scope of the
Law of Homonymy (Articles 35 and 36). It is equally clear that no
solution would be acceptable which granted an absolute parity to
names bestowed upon infra-subspecific forms with names bestowed
upon subspecies and species. The following proposals are designed to
meet the practical needs both of those zoologists whose requirements
are such that they should have at their disposal names for taxonomic
units of infra-subspecific rank and of those zoologists who feel no such
need.

(4) As a first step towards a settlement of the nomenclatorial problems
involved, it is essential that the Regies should expressly recognise the
existence for nomenclatorial purposes of two categories below the
species level and should give a clear definition of the meaning to be
apphed for nomenclatorial purposes to each of these categories. It is
suggested that the expressions to be applied in the Regies to denote
these categories and the definitions to be given to them should be
as follows : —

" Subspecies " A geographical, ecological or other population
within a species which differs constantly from
another such population within the same species.

" Infra-subspecific Any form of a species other than a " subspecies "

form " as defined above. This term would therefore

include seasonal forms and minority elements of all

kinds within a species, such as sexual forms,

transition forms, mutants, aberrations, etc.

(5) Great instability would inevitably arise if the nomenclatorial status
of a given name were to depend upon the subjective view of zoologists
on the question whether a given name applied to a subspecies or to an
infra-subspecific form. It is essential therefore that the Regies should
provide an objective criterion, namely, that provided by the terms in
which the name was originally published.

(6) It is not possible to devise a generally acceptable solution which would
apply not only to names given in the future but also to names given in
the past. It is therefore suggested that (as on the occasion in 1927
when a new proviso was added to Article 25) the Congress should
provide two standards for names published for units of less than
specific rank to acquire status as subspecific names, one, more lenient,
to be apphed to names already published, and another, more rigorous,
standard for names published in the future.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomertclaiure. 65

(7) It is desirable that adequate notice should be given to zoologists of
the new provisions and it is therefore suggested that the point of time
to be selected as that from which the more rigorous standard should be
applied should be midnight G.M.T., 31st December 1950/1 st Januarv
1951,

(8) In order to ensure against the risk of names being invalidated on purely
technical grounds, it is essential to avoid introducing unduly detailed
conditions into the standards to be prescribed. The standard to be
prescribed should therefore be a minimum standard. In order, however,
to provide a guide to the highest standard to be aimed at, a
Recommandation prescribing that standard should be added to the
relevant new provision in the Regies.

(9) It is proposed : —

(a) that any trivial name published, prior to the point of time specified
in (7) above, as the name of a taxonomic unit of less than specific
rank shall be classified for the purposes of the Regies as follows : —

(i) as the trivial name of a subspecies, when at the time of the
original publication of the name the author concerned either
(1) clearly indicated that he regarded the unit named as of
subspecific rank or (2) did not clearly indicate the status
attributed by him to the form so named, that is to say,
whether he regarded it as being a subspecies or as being a
form of infra-subspecific rank ;

(ii) as the trivial name of an infra-subspecific form, only when
at the time of the original publication of the name the author
concerned expressly indicated that he regarded the form so
named as being a form of infra-subspecific rank.

(6) that any trivial name published, after the point of time specified
in (7) above, as the name of a taxonomic unit of less than specific
rank shall be classified for the purposes of the Regies as follows : —

(i) as the trivial name of a subspecies, only when, at the time
of the original publication of the name, the author concerned
clearly indicated that he regarded the form so named as
being a subspecies ;

(ii) as the trivial name of a form of infra-subspecific rank, in
all cases where, at the time of the original publication of the
name, the author concerned either expressly indicated that
he regarded the form so named as being a form of infra-
subspecific rank or, if he did not so indicate the status of the
form, where he failed to indicate clearly that he regarded
that form as being a subspecies.

(c) that a Recommundation be added to the provision in the
Regies dealing with the matters specified in (b) above, strongly
recommending that an author when proposing a trivial name for a

VOL 3 F-

GG Bulletin of Zoological Notnetwlature.

previously unnamed subspecies or, when re-naming a subspecies,
the only published name for which is invalid imder Article 35,
should cite that name in a trinoniinal combination (consisting of
(1) the generic name (2) the specific trivial name and (3) the
subspecific trivial name) and further that, by using the expression
'■ ssp.n." or otherwise, he should clearly indicate both that the
name is a new name and that it is intended to apply to a subspecies.

(10) It is essential that the Regies should distinguish clearly between the
status of a name originally pulilished as the name of a subspecies and
that of a name originally published as the name of an infra-subspecific
form. It is therefore suggested that the Regies should provide : —

(a) that (as at present) the trivial names of subspecies shall be co-
ordinate with the trivial names of species ;

(6) that a name given to any infra-subspecific form shall be co-ordinate
with the name given to any other infra-subspecific form but not
with names of subspecies and species ;

(c) that a name originally published as the name of an infra-sub-
specific form, if elevated to subspecific or specific rank by a
subsequent reviser, shall rank in its new status for purposes of
priority as from the date on which it was so elevated and shall be
attributed to the author by whom it was so elevated ;

{d) that for the purposes of (c) above, an author need not expressly
state that he is elevating the status of a name originally published
as the name of an infra-subspecific form but he must so treat the
name as to make it clear that he is in fact treating that name as
the name of a subspecies ;

(e) that, in order to obtain as high a standard of clarity as practicable,
it is most desirable that every author, when elevating to sub-
specific rank a name originally published as the name of an
infra-subspecific form, should expressly state that he is so doing,
and a Recommaiidation to this effect should be inserted in the
Article of the Regies containing the provisions specified in (c)
and (d) above ;

(/) that, where a name, originally published as the name of an
infra-sulispecific form is elevated to subspecific rank under (c)
above but some other author does not recognise the taxonomic
validity of the action taken by the previous reviser and in
consequence continues to regard the animal in question as
representing not a subspecies but an infra-subspecific form, the
name for any such author shall retain its original priority and
shall be attributed to its original author ;

{g) that, where a name originally ]>ublished as the name of a species
or subspecies is treated by a subsequent reviser as apjjlying to an
infra-subspecific form, the name shall retain its original priority
and shall be attributed to its original author.

Bulletin of Zoological No^nendature. 67

(11) As regards tlic citation of names of infra-subspecific forms, it is
necessary that jirovisioii should be made in the Regies for some method
of citation difforcnt from tliat prescril)ed for subspecies. It is therefore
suggested tliat the Regies should provide that, when an author desires
to cite by name an infra-subspecific form, he should cite that name
immediately after the trivial name of the species, if no subspecific
name is to be cited, and immediately after the subspecific trivial name,
if a subspecific name is to be cited, provided : —

{a) that a comma be inserted immediately after the trivial name of
the species or the subspecies, as the case may be ; and

(/>) that an expression indicating the status of the infra-subspecific
form in question (e.g. an expression such as " form.vern.."
"^-form," or " ab.") be inserted immediately before the name
of the infra-subspecific form.

(12) Consequent upon the introduction into the Regies of a prescribed
manner of citing names of forms of infra-subspecific rank (as
recommended in (11) above), it is desirable that there should be inserted
in the Regies a Recommandation regarding the manner in which
such names should be originally published parallel to that suggested in
(9) (c) above in the case of names of subspecific rank. It is accordingly
suggested that there should be inserted in the Regies a Recominnv-
(lation strongly recommending that an author when proposing a
trivial name for a previously unnamed form of infra-subspecific ranlc
or when r'jnaming such a form, the only published name for which is
invalid under Article 35, should cite that name in the manner specified
in (11) above.

(13) Subject to (10) and (11) above, all the provisions in the Regies which
apply to the trivial names of species and subspecies should apply also
to the trivial names of infra-subspecific forms.

(14) In order to prevent the confusion which might arise (and to remove the
confusion which in certain instances has already arisen) when different
names are applied to parallel infra-subspecific forms occurring in two
or more allied species, it is suggested that the Regies should provide that
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting on
behalf of the International C'ongress of Zoology, may, on the application
of specialists in the groups concerned, use their plenary powers to
establish technical designations to be applied to such parallel forms,
such designations : —

(a) to consist of Latin or Latinised words or words treated as such ; and

{h) to comply with the provisions in the Regies relating to the

formation of specific and subspecific trivial names,
and that, where a given term has been prescribed under the foregoing
procedure to be the technical designation of a parallel form occurring in
two or more allied species, the term so prescribed shall have absolute
priority over ; —

^^ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

(i) any name which may already have been, or may thereafter be
given to that form in any of the species concerned, and

(ii) any other use of the same word as the name of any other infra-
subspecific form of any species in the same genus or, if more
than one genus is covered by the order made by the Internationa]
C!ommission, in the genera so covered.

FRANCIS HEMMING,

Secretary to the International Commission

on Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretariat of the Commission,
London, England.

lUh July, 1948.

J

(69)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

PAPER
I.C.(48)10

PROPOSED CODIFICATION OF THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE "R£GLES"

GIVEN IN " OPINIONS " RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION

ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Memorandum by the Secretary to the Commission

Since the year 1907 when the International Congress of Zoology conferred
upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature the right and
the duty to render Opinions on questions of nomenclature submitted to it,
the Commission has rendered in all 194 Opinions covering a wide variety of
subjects. In addition, the Commission has rendered 12 Declarations, embodying
decisions of a more general character, mostly concerned with nomenclatorial
practice rather than with nomenclature itself, which have formed the subject
of Resolutions adopted at successive meetings of the Commission and the
Congress.

2. Many of the Opinions rendered by the Commission are concerned either
with the status of individual names or with the addition of names to the
" Official List of Generic Names in Zoology." But when we put those Opinions
on one side (as being irrelevant to our present purpose), we are left with a
substantial body of Opinions, each of which contains an interpretation of the
meaning to be attached to some Article of the Regies. Some of these Opinions
were expressly drafted as interpretative Opinions but in most cases the inter-
pretation is given more or less incidentally in connection with an answer to a
question regarding the status of a particular name. In these cases the title of
t\i& Opinion relates to the name under discussion and gives no indication that a
decision of principle affecting every zoologist has been given in the Opinion
in question. Not unnaturally, therefore, some of these interpretations have
been widely overlooked.

3. At their Session held in Lisbon in 1935 the International Commission
reviewed their practice in this matter (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion
15) and unanimously agreed that, when in future the Commission reached a
decision of interest to the general body of zoologists, it was of the utmost
importance that that decision should be presented in such a way as to ensure
that it was most readily available to all concerned. This decision has been
strictly applied on every occasion on which since 1935 this problem has arisen.
An example of the application of this principle is provided by the case submitted
to the Commission in regard to the status of the Brachiopod name Rhynchonella

70 ■ Bvlletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

alto commonly attributed to Samuel Calvin and treated as having been published
in or about 1878. The qiiestion put to the Commission was concerned with the
status of the trivial name alfa. but in order to reach a decision on this question
it was necessary f()r the Commission to take a decision regarding the
interpretation of proviso (a) to Article 25 of the Regies in relation to a name,
the alleged " publication " of which consisted of its use in explanation of a
photograph or other illustration distributed by a zoologist to his students or
his colleagues. In this case the Commission gave their decision on the status
of the name Rlujncfwnella alta (a matter of interest only to students of the
Class Brachiopoda) in one Opinion {Opinion 190), while they gave their
interpretation of this particular aspect of Article 25 in another Opinion
{Opinion 191).

4. The reformed procedure instituted by the Commission in 1935 was
undoubtedly a great improvement on that previously followed, but it touched
only the fringe of the subject. Much more drastic steps will be necessary before
an end can be put to the chaotic situation which confronts zoologists who
desire to ascertain whether any particular provision of the Regies has been the
subject of an interpretative Opinion by the International Commission. The
first two tasks to be undertaken are first to make available the texts of the
older Opinions, most of which are out of print and are virtually unobtainable ;
the second to provide some guide by which zoologists can thread their way
through the jungle presented by those Opinions in their present unindexed
state.

5. When during the recent war the Commission endeavoured to take stock
of the problems with which they were faced and which they would need to
tackle iimnediately the war was over, they expressly included in their
programme the publication of an authoritative edition of the substantive
French text of the Regies. In making this announcement in their Report for
the year 1944 {Bull. zool. Nomencl.l: Ixvi-lxvii) the Commission added that they
proposed to include in the new edition of the Regies an analysis of those of
their Opinions which contained interpretations of Articles of the Regies. This
analysis was started in 1944 and was substantially completed some two years
later. Its preparation proved laborious and in some respects difficult owing to
the need carefully to distinguish the actual decisions taken by the Conunission
from the numerous oldter dicta embodied in the texts of many Opinions which had
the appearance of being views (expressed by the Commission but were in fact
no more than the per.sonal views of the draftsmen of the Opinions concerned.

6. Simultaneously with the preparation of the analysis of the interpretative
Opinions rendered by the Commission, a start was made with the re-issue of
the older Opinions which (as already explained) had for years been out of print
and which were unknown to the majority of zoologists, except through the
" summaries " which often failed to give a clear picture of the decision taken
in those cases where the ostensible object of the Opinion was to give a ruling on
the status of some particular name, while by far the most important part of the
Opini'm was the decision taken on the interpretation of some provision of the
Regies Attached to each of these re-issues were editorial notes prepared by
myself in my capacity as Secretary to the Commission.

BnUelin of Zoological Normnclaltire. 71

7. Both the projected analysis of the interpretative Opinions and the issue
ot" an annotated edition of the older Opinions represented steps in the right
direction but each fell short of the ideal solution, for neither the analysis nor
the annotations to the older Opiniom (-ould in the circumstances do more than
represent the views of the author by whom thev were compiled. However
careful and objective the approach " made to this task, it is obvious that
documents compiled in this way were liable to contain conclusions which
might be open to discussion. Obviously, it was desirable to secure, if possible,
an analysis and annotations which represented the views of the whole Commission
and whose authority could therefore not be called in question.

8. Within the last eighteen months the whole question has been carefully
reviewed by the Executive Committee who have come to the conclusion that
the right and proper course is to take advantage of the forthcoming meeting
of the International Congress of Zoology to seek the concurrence of the Congress
in a comprehensive codification of the interpretative Opinions rendered by the
Commission during the last forty years. In every country in which the law
consists partly of statute law and partly of case law built up from interpretative
judicial decisions it is the normal practice from time to time to take .stock of
the position and to codify the law by writing into the statute the provisions
which over the course of years have themselves become part of the general
corpus of the law through interpretations of the statute made in the Courts.
There is obvious advantage to be gained from periodical codifications of this
sort, for, unless action is taken on these lines, the law becomes so compUcated
(and often to the laymen so obscure) that it is impossible for any but skilled
jurists to interpret it with any confidence. Ultimately, even expert inter-
pretations so prepared themselves become open to an increasing measure of
reservation and doubt, owing to the fact that, as is inevitable over a long
period, judicial decisions taken at one date on a particular question are found
on close examination to be— or to have the appearance of being— inconsistent
with decisions taken at some earher date on some closely allied^ topic. There
is therefore a real danger that if matters are allowed to slide indefinitely the
state of the law will become so obscure as almost to defy interpretation'.

9. Fortunately, matters have not yet reached such a pass in the case of
the Regies Intenmtiomles de la Nmnenclature Zoologique, but signs are not
wanting that the Regies and the Opinions taken together are becoming so
complicated as to make their interpretation by working zoologists unnecessarily
time-consmiiing and burdensome. As a preliminary to bringing forward the
present proposal, I have held numerous consultations with leading specialists
and the answers received have been tmiformly encouraging. The Executive
Committee are confident, therefore, not only that a codification of the Opinions
by the makmg of appropriate additions to the Regies is long overdue and is
now urgently re(iuired, but also that a stocktaking of this kind will be generally
welcomed by zoologists.

10. A codification of the international law of zoological nomenclature of
the kind now proposed offers the further great advantage that when this reform
has been carried through, but not before, it will be possible for zoologists at

72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

large and for the Coniniission in particular to review the whole position and to
consider in what directions further elucidations are required. At the same
time zoologists will be able to consider, in conditions infinitely more favourable
than those obtaining today, whether any, and, if so, what, changes should be
made in the existing provisions of the law.

11. As explained in the Agenda Paper for the Paris Meeting (Paper I.C. (48) 1
already circulated), the proposal now put before the Commission is that
they should submit to the Section of Nomenclature of the Congress concrete
proposals regarding the interpretative decisions taken in Opinions by the
Commission which it is now desired should be incorporated in the Regies. It
is not proposed that those propositions should be put forward in the form of
suggested additions to the Regies, for the task of drafting such provisions in-
volves a technical skill which neither the Commission nor the Congress possesses
or could reasonably be expected to possess. Such a task can only properly be
performed by skilled jurists and it is part of the present proposal that this task
should be remitted to experts by whom alone it can properly be discharged.
It is essential, however, that the instructions to be given to the jurists should
be in the most unequivocal form and for this reason it is most important that
the propositions to be submitted by the Commission to the Section on Nomen-
clature should be drawTi in the clearest possible terms.

12. What has been done, therefore, is to take the interpretative Opinions
rendered by the Commission, to arrange them in order by reference to the
Articles of the Regies to which they refer, and to draw up in respect of each of
these Opinions a proposition to be submitted to the Section on Nomenclature.
These propositions are set out in Paper I.C. (48) 11. In each case a reference
is given to the Opinion or Opinions on which the proposition in question is
based.

13. The list of propositions given in the paper referred to above is intended
to be a complete list of all the interpretations of the Regies hitherto given by
the Commission in their Opinions, except for such interpretations in regard to
one or two particular provisions (for example, the meaning of the expression
" nomenclature binaire ") which will form the subject of separate proposals to
be submitted to the Commission during the Paris meeting. Where separate
action of this kind is contemplated, an explanatory note has been added at
the appropriate point in the paper now submitted as Paper I.C. (48) 11.

14. It is possible that it will be found either that the list now submitted is
not fully exhaustive or that there may be passages in some of the older Opinions
which have been treated by some zoologists as containing decisions on questions
of principle which have not been so regarded in the preparation of the present
list. I shall be particularly grateful to any member of the Commission who
may find an apparent omission of this kind if he will be so good as at once to
bring it to my attention so that I may have an opportunity of considering the
point raised and of putting before the Commission a proposal in regard thereto.

15. Once the proposed codification has been effected, it would clearly be
highly remiss if the Commission were ever again to permit a recurrence of the
present state of affairs. The Executive Committee accordingly propose that

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 73

for the future the Commission, when caUed upon to give an Opinion interpreting
a given provision of the Regks, should not only do so in the clearest and mosf
categorical terms (in accordance with the decision which they took at Lisbon
to which reference has been made in paragraph 3 of the present paper) but also
that they should expressly state that it is their intention to recommend the

]fl^ T^^^7^^f ""^ ^"^""^^ ^^ '^^ ""^^^ "^^^^^"g ^ ^PP^«^« the incorpora-
tion m the Ikgles of words to give effect to the interpretation given in the
Upinion m question. •r t> ^

fi ^^'i^^^ Executive Committee propose that the Commission should take
the follomng additional measures to prevent the recurrence of uncertainty
regardmg the state of international law in regard to zoological nomenclature :-

(1) As regards " Opinions " already rendered {that is to say, " Opinions "
1 to 194) : to repeal every such Ojnnion, in so far as that Opinion
contams an interpretation of the Regies and the present International
Congress of Zoology decides either that that interpretation be now
incorporated in the Regies or superseded by some other provision this
repeal to take effect as from the date of publication of the Regies
as amended by the present meeting of the Congress ;

(2) to request any zoologist who may consider that any Opinion, other
than an Opinion repealed for interpretative purposes in accordance
with (1) above, contams an interpretation of the Regies which through
inadvertence has either not been incorporated in the Regies as part of
the present codification or has not been expressly repealed to notify
the International Commission as soon as possible, so that they may
consider what recommendations in regard thereto to submit to the
next meeting of the Congress ;

(3) to place on record their intention : —

(a) to make proposals to the next (XlVth) meetmg of th^ Congress
for the incorporation in the Regies of any interpretation thereof
given in any Opinion so far rendered which they may find was
madvertently not incorporated in the Regies by direction of the
present meetmg of the Congress and which they may deem it
expedient should be so incorporated ;

(6) to repeal, in so far as concerns the interpretation of the Regies
every Opinion so far rendered which mav not aheady have been
repealed in accordance vnth (1) above, as from the date of the
pubhcation, subsequent to the next meeting of the Congress, of
the Regies, as amended at that Congress ;

(4) As regards any " Opinims " rendered after the present meeting of the

(a) to lay it down that the decision given in any such Opinion is to
be looked for only in the " summary " of that Opinion, that everv
such summary " is to be rigidly construed and that no deductions"
other than those expressly specified therein, are to be drawn
therefrom ;

74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

{/}) to place oil record that no new interpretation of the Re-gks is to
I)e drawn from any Opinion, other than an Opinion in which the
Commission expressly state, in the '" summary " thereof, that they
are giving such an interpretation ;

{c) to report to each meeting of the Congress any interpretation of
the Regies which they may have given in an Opinion rendered
since the last previous meeting of the Congress, with a recom-
mendation that every such interpretation be incorporated in the
Regies ;

{(I) to place on record their intention to repeal any Opinion the contents
of which shall have been incorporated in the Rkjles by direction
of a meeting of the Congress, acting on a recommendation sub-
mitted to it in accordance with (c) above, the said repeal to
take effect as from the date of the publication, subsequent to the
said meeting of the Congress, of the Regies, as amended at that
Congress :

(5) to incorporate in the By-laws of the Commission the provisions specified
in (4) above.

FRANCIS HEMMING,

Seerelary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclatun'.

Secretariat of the Commission.
London, England.

12th July, 1948,

(75)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

PAPER
I.C.(48)11

INTERPRETATIONS OF THE "RfiGLES" GIVEN IN "OPINIONS" RENDERED

BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION:

PROPOSALS IN REGARD TO CODIFICATION

Memorandum by the Secretary to the Gommisnion

The following is a list of the interpretations of Articles of the Regies given in
Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
together with proposals regarding the action to be taken in regard to their
mcorporation in the Regies. For reasons of convenience, the interpretations
in question are listed, by reference not to the order in which they were promul-
gated by the Commission but to the Articles of the Regies with which they are
concerned.

List of interpretations of the "Regies" promulgated in "Opinions'* rendered by
the International Commission

I. Artide 4: Words to be inserted to make it clear that, as laid down in
Opinion 133. as elaborated in Opinion 141, the following principles are to be
observed in interpreting this Article :

(a) The oldest available generic name in a family need not be taken as the

type genus of that family.
(h) An author establishing a new family is free to select as the type genua

of that family whatever generic unit he considers the most appropriate.

(c) The name of a family is based upon the name of its type genus. The
fact that a given generic name is selected to form the name of a family
constitutes ipso facto a definite designation of that genus as the type
genus of that family. Example: The genus Musca Linnaeus, 1758,
is definitely and unambiguously designated as the type genus of the
family muscidae l)y reason of the stem of the word Musca being used
in the formation of the family name.

(d) The foregoing principles apply to the names of subfamilies in like
manner as to those of families.

2. A Recommandalion to be added in the following sense to the provision
indicated in (b) alcove : •' So far as possible, the genus selected to be the type
genus of a family should be the best known and commonest of the taxonomic
units concerned, i.e. it should be the most central of the genera proposed
to be included in the family so established." (See note to point (2) in
summary of Opinion 141.)

76 BtiUetin of Zoological Notnendature.

3. A Recommandation to be added in the following sense to the provision
indicated in (c) above : "In view of the fact that there are well-established
family names proposed by early authors where the principle indicated in (c)
above has not been observed but where it is undesirable that existing practice
should be changed, authors should refer to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature any case which appears to fall in this class before
changing such a name." (See note to point (3) in summary of Opinion 141.)

4. Article 8 : Words to be inserted to make it clear that, as laid down in
Opinion 183 :

The provision in this Article that a generic name is to consist of a noun in the nominative
singular requii'es that no name is to be accepted as a generic name until it has been published
in that case and number and that a name first published in some other case and/or number
is therefore available as a generic name only as from the date on which it is for the first
time published in the nominative singular.

5. Article 14. paragraph (1) : Words to be inserted to make it clear that, as
laid down in Opinion 64, serial letters such as '"a," ''b," "c," etc., are not to
be accepted as constituting trival names of species or subspecies within
the meaning of this paragraph of Article 14.

6. Article 14, paragraph (3) : The ruhng given by the Commission in regard
to this paragraph in their Opinion 8 is the subject of a recommendation sub-
mitted in Paper I.C.(48)6 (paragraph 11).

7. Article 19 : Various proposals are under consideration for the amendment
of this Article. This is no reason, however, why decisions already taken by
the International Commission in Opinions rendered at various times should
not be incorporated forthwith in the Regies. Indeed, until this is done it
will not be possible to judge the nature and extent of the amendments (if any)
which are desirable.

8. In Opinion 26 it is stated in the text that: "In general, it seems clear
that the evidence [whether or not a f ante d'orthographe, afaute de transcription
or afaute d' impression is evident] must be contained in the original article and
must be of such a nature that it is apparent to workers imacquainted with
local conditions and local names " but this carmot be regarded as a definitive
interpretation of Article 19, for in the " summary " of that Opinion the
Commission ruled that it was " evident " that a given name (published by
Swainson) was incorrectly spelt and should be amended " in Naew of the number
of typographical errors in Swainson, 1838 and 1839." Moreover the proposition
quoted above from Opinion 26 was subsequently abandoned by the Commission
in Opinions 41, 61 and 63. It may be concluded however that in Opinion 26
the Commission ruled that, in deciding whether in any given case a " faute "
is " evident,'' particular attention should be paid to evidence contained in the
book or journal in which the name was first pubhshed. It is desirable that
words should be added to the Regies to make this clear.

9. The other rulings given by the Commission in regard to the interpretation
of Article 19 deal with particular cases {Opinions 27, 29, 36, 41, 60, 61 and 63).
Some of these rulings could conveniently be incorporated in the Regies as

Bvlletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 77

examples of cases where a faute d'orlhograpfie, or a faute de transcription or a
fante d' impression is " evident ^ But care will need to be taken to ensure that
the generality of the expression " evident " is not circumscribed by the insertion
of these examples. The rulings in question lay down the following propositions,
which it is suggested should now be incorporated in an appropriate manner in
the Regies:

(a) Where a scientific name is based upon a modern patronymic and
evidence of such dedication is " evident " and where the spelling of the
scientific name so published is not identical, except for the termination,
with the spelling of the name of the person to whom the genus or
species is dedicated, the spelHng of the scientific name is to be corrected
so as to correspond with the spelling of the name of that person.
Example: Ruppelia Swainson, 1839, and Rupellia Swainson, 1839,
are to be amended to RUppellia, in view of the fact that this genus
was dedicated to Riippell. (Opinion 27.)

(b) When the author of a new name expressly founds that name upon one or
more Greek words but inadvertently commits an error in transliterating
into the Latin alphabet one or more of the Greek letters comprised in
the word or words of which the name was composed, the error of tran-
scription is to be corrected. Example : The erroneous transliteration
of the Greek letter Zeta as though it stood for the Latin letter " x "
instead of the Latin letter " z " committed in the spelling " Pentoxocera "
is to be corrected and the spelling of this name emended to
" Pentozocera." {Opinion 36.)

(c) When an author founds a name upon one or more Greek words cited
in the original publication and where one of those words is there
incorrectly spelt and in consequence the scientific name founded
thereon is also incorrectly spelt, the spelling of that name is to be
corrected. Example: The authors of the generic name which origin-
ally appeared as " Athlennes " stated that that name was based upon
a Greek word similarly spelt (i.e., having the Greek letter Theta as
its second letter). In fact, however, the Greek word concerned had
as its second letter the letter Beta. This generic name should therefore
have been spelt Ahlennes and is to be emended accordingly. {Opinion
41.)

{d) When an author founds a trivial name upon the name of a locality or
district from which the type specimen was obtained but, as the result of
his misreading or miscopying that name from the label on the type
specimen, publishes as the trivial name of the species a Latinised word
which fails to indicate the locality or district intended, the trivial
name is to be corrected. Example: A fish was given the name Leuciscus
hakuensis by Giinther because he misread the label on the type
specimen as indicating that it had been taken in " Lake Hakou." In
fact, however, the name of the locality was " Lake Hakone." The
trivial name hakiiensis is therefore to be emended to hakonensis.
{Opinion 63.)

78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

(e) When the author of a new specific name selects for the tri^dal name
of the species a word wliich, though adjectival in form, is not a recog-
nised Latin adjective and where the author uses for the nominative
singular of that word the termination "-ms" (masculine) or
" -ia " (feminine), these terminations are to be corrected to " -eus "
and " -ea " respectively. Example: The word iridia published in
1855 as the trivial name for a new species of the genus Sabno is
to be emended to iridea or, in the masculine, to irideus {Opinion 60).

10. Article 25 {names based, upan hypothetical forms): Words to be inserted
to make it clear (as laid down in Opinion 2) that names based upon hypothetical
forms have no status under the Law of Priority. Example: PitJiecanthropus
Haeckel, 1866, being the name of a genus based upon a hypothetical species,
has no rights under the Law of Priority, and does not preoccupy the generic
name Pithecanthropus Dubois, [1894], which is based upon a known species.

11. Article 25 (a specific name bestowed conditionally): Words to be inserted
to make it clear that, where an author doubtfully identifies kuown material
with a described species but publishes for that material a new specific name
in case it is later found to be referable to an unnamed species, the specific
name, so given conditionally, is available for that species as from the date of
its being so published. Example: The name Siphonophara asclepiadifolii,
given conditionally by Thomas in 1879 to material doubtfully identified by
him with a previously named species {Aphis asclepiadis Fitch) is available as
from 1879 for the material so named by Thomas. {Opinion 49.)

12. Article 25 {names which prior to publication were manuscript names):
Words to be inserted to make it clear that a manuscript name acquires standing
under the Law of Priority when published in conditions which comply with
the provisos to Article 25, and that the status of such a name is not affected
by the question whether the author by whom it is pubUshed accepts it as an
available name or sinks it as a synonym. {Opinion 4.)

13. Article 25 {meaning of the expression ''divulgue dans une publication'):
Important interpretations of the expression "divulgue dans une publication "
have been given by the Comniission in Opinions 15 and 51. These interpre-
tations certainly need to be incorporated in the Regies. It is desirable, how-
ever, that these interpretations should be expanded slightly before this is done.
This question is accordingly not dealt with here but will form the subject of a
recommendation submitted in Paper I.C.(48)14.^

14. Article 25 {status of luiines in documents, etc., distributed to colleagues
or stwlents): Words to be inserted to make it clear that a new name introduced
in a note (whether printed or otherwise reproduced) in explanation of a photo-
graph or other illustration of an animal is not " divulgue dans une pubhca-
tion " where the author concerned does no more than distribute copies of such
a note and photograph or other illustration to colleagues or students or w^hen
he merely attaches copies of such a note and illustration to separates of a paper
dealing with the same subject l)ut not containing the new name in question.
{Opinion 191.) Example: The name Rhynchonella aha has no status under

'' See Point {2ti) in t'oninii.ssion Paper I.C. (48)14.

i

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 79

Article 25 as from the date (about 1878) on which it was distributed in a note
with accompanying photograph by Samuel Calvin but ranks for purposes of
priority as from 1890 when it was published with an indication by H. S.
Williams. {Opinion 190.)

15. Article 25 {status of names appearing in proof sheets): \^'^ords to be in-
serted to make it clear that the distribution of proof sheets does not constitute
publication and that a new name given currency in this way has no status under
the Law of Priority until such later time as it is duly published in accordance
with the provisions of Article 25. {Ojnnion 87.)

16. Article 25 {status of a generic name published as an emeyidation of a
previously published name): Words to be inserted to make it clear that a generic
name pubUshed as an emendation, other than a valid emendation made imder
Article 19, of a name of the same origin and meaning is to be rejected as
a synonym of the earlier name {Opinion 148). This decision carries with it
the corollary that, if the earlier published name is found to be a homonym,
the emended name is available as from the date on which it was published, and
it would be well to make this point clear. (The example given in Opinion 148
is that of Achatinus de Montfort, 1810, which is to be treated as a synon}Tn of
Achatina Lamarck, 1799, of which it is an invalid emendation.)

17. Article 25 {status of names published in advance separates): Words to
be inserted to make it clear that, where a new name appears in a paper published
in a journal, and separates of that paper are distributed in advance of the
pubhcation of the paper in the journal concerned, the new name ranks not
from the date of the distribution of the separates but from the later date on
which the paper was actually published in the journal. Example: The Trema-
tode name Amphimerus Barker does not date from the appearance of the tires
a part but from the date of issue of " Studies from the Zoological Laboratory,"
the University of Nebraska, No. 103 (which preceded the publication of the
paper in question in the Archives de Parasitologic, for which it was printed).
{Opinion 59.)

18. Article 25, Proviso (a) {meaning of expression "' indication "); This
question was the subject of an interpretation given in Opinion 1. In that
Opinion the Conmiission dealt separately with the question as it affects the
trivial names of species and as it affects generic names. In Paper I.C.(48)7
proposals as regards generic names are being put before the Commission to
insert a provision in the Regies in the opposite sense from that which would be
required if the interpretation given in Opinion 1 were now to be codified. It
is accordingly not proposed to deal with this question in the present paper.
The portion of Opinion 1 which relates to the trivial names of species should,
however, now be incorporated in the Regies. This will involve the insertion
of words to make it clear that the trivial name of a species is to be treated as
having been published with an " indication " when it is published with a
bibUographical reference to a previously published description or when it is
published with a figure (illustration) or when it is published as a substitute for
a previously published name.

vol.. ."J a

^80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

19. Article 25, Proviso (a) (status of specific names described jointly with
generic names): Words to be inserted to make it clear that, in accordance with
Opinion 43, a specific name published, prior to 1st January, 1931, jointly with
a new generic name is to be treated as having been published with an " indi-
cation," where the new genus and the new species are described jointly, no
separate description being given for either. (The terms of the actual decision
by the Commission in the foregoing Opinion are : '' The characters given for
Teleogmm Foerster, 1856, Isoplata Foerster, 1856, Alloderma Ashmead, 1904,
and Aphobetoideus Ashmead. 1904. cover the genera and the type species, and
the generic and specific names are published in the sense of the Code.") It is
necessary to limit this amendment to names published before 1st January,
1931, for names published in the foregoing manner would not satisfy the
requirements of proviso (c) added to Article 25 with effect from that date.

20. Article 25. Provi.-io (a) {significance of citation of a type locality): Words to
be inserted to make it clear that, as laid down in Opinion 52, the citation of a
type locality, unaccompanied liy any other particulars, does jiot constitute the
giving of an " indication "" for tlie purposes of Proviso (a) to Article 25, but
that, if specific characters are given in addition to the name of the type locality,
the type locality l)ecomes a part of the description and is to be considered an
important element in determining the identity of the species.

21 Article 25, Promso (b) {status of names originally published before the
publication of the lOth edition of the Systema Naturae).- Words to be added to
make it clear that a name which has no status under the Regies because it was
published prior to the starting point of zoological nomenclature in 1758 (Article
26) does not acquire status under the Regies if, when republished after the pub-
lication of the 10th edition of the Systetna Naturae of Linnaeus, it is simply
reprinteil with its original diagnosis, it being necessary, in order that such a
name should acquire rights under the Regies, that it should be re-inforced by
being adopted or accepted by the author responsible for republishing the
name {Opinion 5).

22. Article 25, Proviso (6) {meaning of expression " nomenclature binaire "):
This question is the subject of a special Report which has been circulated as
Paper I.C.(48)5. {Opinions 20 and 37.)

23. Article 25, Proviso (c) {meaning of expression " definite bibliographic
reference ").* This provision, which was the subject of an interpretation in
Opinion 138. is dealt with in a special proposal which has been submitted to
the Commission in Paper I.C.(48)6, paragraphs 13 and 14.

24 Article 26.- Words to be inserted to make it clear that, as laid down in
Opinion 3, any work published in 1758 is to be treated as having bepn published
subsecjuent to the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae of Linnaeus and therefore
subsequent to the starting point of zoological nomenclature.

. 25. Article 27; Words to be inserted to make it clear that, as laid down in
Opinion 88, a specific name is not invalidated if in the original description of
the species it.« r.uthor included descriptions of the bodily parts of more than

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 81

one species, and that the name of a genus having such a species as its type species
is available under the Regies, the identity of that species to be determined in
accordance with the provisions of Article 31.

26. Article 30, Rxile (a) (types of genera hainng emended names): Words to
make it clear that, as laid down in Opinion 148, where a generic name is
emended, the type species of the genus bearing the emended name is auto-
matically the same species as the type of the genus t)earing the name which has
been replaced.

27. Article 30, Rule (a) {type of a genus published mth the formula " n.g.,
n.sp."): Wordsto be inserted to make it clear, as laid downinOjnnion 7, that,
where a genus was established prior to 1st January, 1931, and no type was
otherwise designated, the expression " n.g., n.sp." is to be taken as designating
as the type species the species so indicated. (The proviso (proviso (c) ) which
was added to Article 25 by the Tenth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Budapest in 1927 applied new and more rigorous conditions to
names published after 31st December, 1930 (the date as from which that proviso
came into force), but the older and less rigorous conditions remained applicable
to names pubhshed before 1st January, 1931. The interpretation of Article
25 given in Opinion 7 would have been inconsistent with the express provisions
of that Article if it had been rendered after the date on which the new proviso (c)
had entered into force. It follows therefore that that interpretation applies
only to names published prior to 1st January, 1931.)

28. Article 30, Rule (c) {type of a genus not intended to be monotypical but for
which only one species is definitely cited by name): Words to be inserted to make
it clear, as laid down in Opinion 47 (case of Carcharias Rafinesque), that, where
a genus is established without a designated type and with only one cited
species, that species is the type under Rule (c) of Article 30, irrespective of
whether or not the author concerned intended the genus to be monotypical.

29. Article 30, Rule {d) (question whether a taulonymous specific or subspecific
trivial name need be cited in the original publication of a generic name in order
to make Rule (d) applicable to that generic name): Words to be inserted to make
it clear, as laid down in Opinion 18 (case of Hydrus Schneider), that, where a
genus is established without a designated type and one of the included species
has a synonym, of which the specific or subspecific trivial name consists of the
same word as the generic name, it is immaterial for the purposes of Rule (d) in
Article 30 whether that tautonymous trivial name is cited in the original descrip-
tion of the genus, in cases where the name of that genus was published prior to
Ist January, 1931. (The limitation of this provision to names published before
Ist January, 1931, is due to the same reason as that explained in the similar case
discussed in paragraph 27 above.)

30. Article 30, Rule (d) (type of a genus establislied without a designated type
but containing a species for which a pre-\lf)S univerbal specific name consisting
of the same word as tlie generic name is cited as a synonym nf one of the included

VOL. 3 Q*

&2 liulletin of Zoological Nomenclaiure.

species): Words to be inserted to make it clear, as laid down in Opinion W
(case of Equus Jiinnaeus, etc.), that, where a genus is established without a
flesignated type and where in the original description of one (but not more than
one) of the included species there is a synonymy containing a name which prior
to 1758 had been published as a univerbal specific name and that name consists
of the same word as the generic name, such citation is equivalent, for the
purposes of Rule (d) in Article 30, to the citation of a tautonymous specific
trivial name, in the case of a generic name published prior to 1st January, 1931 .
(The example cited in Opinion 16 is that of the genus Equus Linnaeus, 1758,
where in the original description of one of the included species iE.caballus)
there was a synonymy containing the pre- 1758 univerbal specific name " Equus,"
as usetl by Gesner, which signified " The Horse," i.e., the species named
E. cabaUus by Linnaeus.) (The limitation of this provision to names published
before 1st January, ]931, is due to the same reason as that explained in para-
graph 27 above.)

31. Article 30, Rule (f) (species eligible for selection as the type of a genus
established as a substitute genus, where either genus, when originally established,
contained species which are recognisable but which were not on that occasion cited
under binominal names): Words to be inserted to make it clear, as laid down in
Opinion 35, that, where a generic name, published prior to 1st January, 1931,
was published as a substitute for an earlier generic name and no type species
was designated for either genus, the species cited in the original description of
the genus, the name of which is being replaced, as well as the species cited in the
original description of the substitute genus, are eligible for subsec|uent selection
as the type of the substitute genus and it is immaterial whether the species in
question w-as originally cited under a scientific name. (The limitation of this
provision to names published before 1st January, 1931, is due to the reason
explained in paragraph 27 above.)

32. Article 30, Rule (g) {interpretation parallel to that given in Opinion 35
in relation to Rule (f) : Words to he inserted to make it clear, as laid
down in Opinion 35, that, where a genus was established prior to 1st January,
1931, without a designated type, any species originally included in the genus
is eligible for subsequent selection as the type, irrespective of whether that
s])ecies was originally cited under a binominal name or not. (The limitation
of this provision to names published before 1st January, 1931, is due to the
reason explained in paragraph 27 above.)

33. Article 30, Rule (g) (types of genera established with identical limits):
Words to be inserted to make it clear, in accordance with Opinion 10, that,
where, prior to 1st January, 1931, two genera with identical Hmits (i.e. with
the same includ<id species) were formed independently by different authors and
neither gtMUis had a de.signated type, any of the included species may be selected
as the type of either or Iwth genera. (The limitation of this provision to names
pul)hshetl before 1st January, 1931, is due to the reason exjjlained in paragraph
27 above.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 83

34. Article 30, I{ule (a) (t/ie li/jy of mn' genus not oxchided from selection as
the type of another genns): Words to be inserted to make it clear, as laid down
mOpimon 62, that a species may be selected as the type of a genus established
prior to 1st January, 1931, notwithstanding the fact that that species is already
the type of some other geiuis. (The limitation of this provision to names
published before 1st January. 1931, is due to the reason explained in paragraph
27 above.)

35. Artick 30, Rule (g) {(f/pes of genera not affected on union of genera on
taxonomtc grounds): Words to be inserted to make it clear, as laid down in
Opinion 164, that, when two or more genera are united on taxonomic grounds,
such action in no way affects the types of the genera concerned, the'"broader
genus thus formed taking as its name the oldest available generic name based
on any mcluded species and the genus bearing that name retaining as its type
the species previously so established.

M Article 30, Rule (g) {type of a genus containing only two species auto-
nrntically fixed when one of the species becomes the type of a monotypical genus)-
Words to be uiserted to make clear, as laid down in Opinion 6. that, where a
genus established prior to 1st January, 193J . contains onlv two included .species
and a subsequent author selects one of those species to be the type of a new
monotypical genus, that action automatically constitutes the selection of the
other species to be the type of the original genus. (The limitation of this
provision to names published before 1st January, 1931, is due to the reason
explained in paragraph 27 above.)

37. Article 30, Rule (g) {validity of a type selection not affected if the author
tnaktng the selection did so as the result of having misidentified the species so
selected): Words to be inserted to make it clear that a type selection is not
invahdated where the author making the selection misidentified the species
which he so selected. {Opinion 14.)

38. Article 30 {identity of included species assumed to have been correctly
determined by the original author of a genus): Words to be inserted to make it
clear, as laid down in Opinion 65 and again in Opinion 168, that it is to be
assumed that the author of a genus correctly identified the species referred by
him thereto. ' •'

39. Article 30 {species eligible for selection as the type of a genus published
With a definition or description but with no species distimtly referred thereto)-
Words to be inserted to make it clear, as laid down in Opinion 46. that where
prior to 1st January, 1931, a genus was established with a definition or descrip-
tion but with no species distinctly referred thereto, the genus is to be deemed to
contain all the species in the world, the characters of which agree with the
definition or de.scription. and the first species to be cited as being referable to the
genus automatically becomes its type. (The limitation of this provision to
names published before 1st January. 1931. is due to the reason explained in
paragraph 27 above.) ^

84 Bulletin of Zoological No^nenclatwe.

40. Article 30 {selection of types of genera in abstracts, etc.): Words to be
inserted to make it clear, as laid down in Opinion 172, that where the type of a
genus has been clearly selected in an Abstract, Record or similar publication,
that selection must be accepted as satisfying the requirements of this Article.

41. Article 34 {criteria to he observed in determining whether closely similar
%vords are to he treated as identical with one another): Words to be inserted to
make it clear, as laid down in Opinion 147, that a generic name is to be rejected
as a homonym of a previously published generic name if it is distinguished
therefrom only by the following differences in spelling : — (a) the use of " ae,"
" oe," and " e " ; the use of " ei," " i," and " y " ; or the use of " c " and
" k " ; (6) the aspiration or non-aspiration of a consonant ; (c) the presence or
absence of a " c " before a " t " ; {d) the use of a single or double consonant.
It should be noted that in Opinion 147 the foregoing interpretation of Article
35 was limited to cases where the names in question were " of the same origin
and meaning " but that for reasons explained in paragraph 40 of Paper I.C.(48)8
in relation to specific homonyms, it is proposed that this unworkable provision
should now be discarded.

42. Article. 34 {status of a generic name which is identical %vith a generic name
which is an emendation of an earlier generic name): Words to be inserted to
make it clear, as laid down in Opinion 148 (and in an individual case in Opinion
125) that a generic name is to be rejected as a homonym if it has previously
been published as an emendation of another generic name of earlier date.

43. Article 34 {a suhstitute generic name not to be rejected on the ground that
it is of the same origin and meaning as the name which it replaces): In Opinion
148 the Commission decided that a generic name published as a substitute name
{nomen noimm) for a name rejected by reason of its being a homonym is not
itself to be rejected on the ground that it is of the same origin and meaning as
the name for which it has been proposed as a substitute. As explained in
paragraph 41 above, it is proposed to discard the expression " of the same
origin and meaning " in the provision to be incorporated in the Regies. If
this recommendation is accepted, the provision here under discussion will no
longer have any relevance and need not be incorporated in the Regies, though
otherwise such incorporation would be necessary.

44. Article 34 {a generic name not invalidated by prior use for an ordinal or
higher category): Wonls to be inserted to make it clear, as laid down in Opinion
102 (relating to the relative status of Protocephalus (generic name) and
Protocephala (an earlier suprageneric name) ), that a generic name is not to be
rejected on the groimd that the same word has previously been published as
the name for a suprageneric group.

45 Articles 34 and 35 {status of generic and specific trivial names when those
names have been freviously published in works rejected for notnenclatorial
purposes) : Words to be inserted to make it clear, as laid down in Opinion 145,
that, where a work is rejected for nomenclatorial purposes, either under Article

Bulletin of Zoologiml Nomendaiure. ft5

25 or under the plenary powers conferred upon the International Commission
on Zoological Nonienclaturo, names (whether generic names or specific trivial
names) which first appeared in such works are to be treated as having never
been published and in conseciuence that, where an author subsequently
establishes a genus or species to which he applies the same name as one used
in the rejected work, the later published name is available nomenclatorially
and Ls not to be rejected as a homonym by reason of the earlier publication of
that name in the work so reject<;d.

FRANCIS HEMMING,
Secret ari/ to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretariat of the Commission,
London, England.

\m July, 1948.

(86)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

PAPER

I.C.(48)12

MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS FOR THE AMENDMENT OR CLARIFICATION
OF THE " R£GLES " : FIRST INSTALMENT

Memorandum by the Secretary to the Commission

In the course of correspondence and discussions with zoologists in many
parts of the world, I have received numerous suggestions for the amendment
of the Regle.s in various minor respects, for the addition of pro\dsions relating
to matters of different kinds on which the Regies are at present silent and for
the clarification of various passages in the Regies where the meaning is at
present obscure.

2. In preparing documents for the consideration of the Commission at its
Paris meeting, I had to concentrate my attention in the first place on those
matters of a constitutional and procedural kind on which immediate decisions
are necessary in order to ensure that the Commission may become a genuinely
representative body and one governed by a procedure which will enable it
effectively to discharge the duties entrusted to it. Next I marshalled in a
series of papers the considerations which appear to me to be relevant for the
consideration of a number of major prolilems on which it is essential that
decisions should be secured (e.g. the problem presented by the expression
" nomenclature binaire ") and outlined the proposals of the Executive
Committee for the codification of the present state of international law in
regard to zoological nomenclature through the incorporation in the Regies of
provisions giving effect to the interpretative Opinions rendered at various
times by the Commission. Unfortunately this has left me with insufficient
time to prepare a full list of the miscellaneous suggestions which I have
received for the improvement of the Regies in various directions. I have,
however, made a start with this part of the Agenda of the Conmiission and
submit in the present paper a list giving a first instalment of the suggestions
received. It is my hope that time will permit me, after my arrival in Paris,
to prepare a further paper or papers completing the list now submitted.

First instalment of suggestions for the improvement of the " Regies "
in various respects

A. Proposals relating to existing Articles

(1) Article 8 {proposed insertion of a provision to secure brevity in generic
names) : Professor J. C. Faure (Pretoria) has submitted a proposal for the
avoidance in future of imnecessarily long names in zoological nomenclature.

BuUetin of ZooloqicaJ Nomenclature. • 87

After discussion with him and other zoologists it is suggested that a
Recommandation in the following sense should be attached to Article 8 of
the Ragles:

It is recommended that authors establishing new genera (or Kubgenera) or re-naming
genera (or subgenera) the previously published names of which are invalid as homonyms
should avoid unnecessarily long names and that the words selected should, wherever possible,
consist of not more than 15 letters. (Z.N. (8)297.)

(2) Article 13 {permissive use of a capital initial letter for certain classes of
specific trivial mimes): Many zoologists have suggested to nie that in view of
the fact that, as compared with the time when the Regies were adopted, very
few authors use a capital initial letter when citing any specific trivial name, the
time has come when Article 13 should be re-drafted so as to prescribe the
uniform use of a small initial letter for such names. I have great sympathy
with this recommendation, which I commend to the favourable consideration
of the Int-ernational Commission. (Z.N.(S)352.)

(3) Article 14 {proposed insertion nf a provision to secure brevity in specific
Irivial names) : In accordance with Professor Faure's proposal referred to under
No. (1) above, it is suggested that a Recommandation in the following sense
should be attached to Article 14 of the Regies : —

It i.s recommended that authors describing new species (or subspecies) or re-naming
species (or subspecies) the previously published name.s of which are invalid as homonyms
should avoid unnecessarUy long names and that the words selected should, wherever possible,
consist of not more than 15 letters. (Z.N.(S)297.)

(4) Article 24, Example: A new example should be substituted for " Taenia
solium Linne, partim, Goeze," for it is clearly most misleading to give an
example which includes a reference to a non-binominal author. (Z.N.(S)352.)

(5) Article 22, " Recommandation. " This Recommandation advises
zoologists who wish to abbreviate the names of authors to follow the system
used in a list published in Berlin in 1896. As the list referred to is out of
print and virtually unobtainable, the utility of this Recommandation has
disappeared and I suggest therefore that it should be deleted. With the
enormous growth of the number of authors of zoological books and papers
since the adoption of the above Recommandation nearly 50 years ago, the
objection to abbreviating the names of authors has greatly increased, for this
practice often leads to minecessary confusion and waste of time in tracing
bibliographical references, since, obviously, it is an enormous handicap if, as
the result of the use of an abbreviation, it is not even possible to recognise the
name of the author of the paper to be consulted. I should like therefore to
suggest that the Commission should consider recommending the insertion, in
place of the existing provision, of a new Recommandation urging authors,
when citing previously published papers, to refrain from abbreviating the names
of any of the authors cited, except in the case of deceased authors whose names
by reason of the importance of their published work will be easilv recognised,
even if abbreviated. (Z.N.(S)352.)

88 Biilletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

(6) Article 25 (proposed insertiou of a provision to secure that apparent new
names {generic or trivial) or apparent new combinations due to errors in recording
journals should have no status in nomenclature): Dr. C-. W. Sal)rosky (Washington.
D.C.) has raised the question of the status of an apparent new name
(generic or t^i^'ial) or of an apparent new combination appearing in a recording
or abstracting publication in cases where reference to the original publications
shows the apparent new name or new combination to be clearly due to an error
in recording. Tt is suggested that words should be added to Article 25 to ensure
that an apparent new name or new combination, when clearly due to an error
in recording, should have no status in nomenclature and should not therefore
be held to pre-occupy the same name or combination published deliberately at
some lat«r date for the same or another genus or species. (Z.N.(S)334).

(7) Article 25, proviso (6). The expression " principes de la nomenclature
binaire " which, in Paper I.C-(48)5. it is now proposed, should be replaced by
the expression " principes de la nomenclature binominale " has been the
subject of a good deal of mismiderstanding, quite apart from the ambiguity
created by the use of the word " binaire "'. It is proposed that, in order to
remedy this, words should be inserted to make it clear that the words (which
in the English translation read) " has applied the principles ..." mean '" has
applied those principles throughout the work in question and not merely in a
particular section or passage in that work." (Z.N.(S)352.)

(8) Article 30 {restriction of certain portions to names published before a
certain date): In view of the addition at Budapest in 1927 of proviso (c) to
Article 25, Sections II and III of Article 30 are inapplicable to generic names
pubHshed after 31st December. 1930, while it is not clear if all the Rules included
in Section I of that Article apply to such names. In order to remove doubts on
this question, it is recommended that words should be inserted to make it clear
that, subject to the exceptions noted iu paragraphs 27, 29 to 34, 36 and 39 in
Paper I.C.(48)11, Rules {a), (b), (c) and {d) in Article 30 apply to all generic
names, irrespective of the date of their publication, but that the remainder of
this Article is appUcable only to names published before 1st January, 1931.
For the reason why it is proposed that, subject to the exceptions cited. Rules
(a) to (d). should apply to aU generic names, see paragraphs 12 to 15 of Paper
I.C>(48)6. The problem raised in this proposal was placed before the Commission
by specialists in the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (Z.N.(S)352.)

(9) Article 30 {need for drafting amendments to make clear that the provisions
in this Article are concerned with notnenckiture and not with taxonomy). The
Commission have always rightly insisted on the need for distinguishing
between nomenclature and taxonomy and for confining the Regies to the former.
There are however cases in the Regies where the two ideas are confused with
one another through inexpert drafting. Article 30 is full of illogicalities of
this kind. In order to make this Article readily intelligible, its wording should
he modified to make it clear that its purpose is to j^rovifle Rules by which, for
any given nominal genus (i.e. any genus for which a separate name has been
publi8he<l),one of the originally included nominal species (i.e. one of the species

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 89

cited by name by tJie original author of the genus as a species included by him
in that genus) shaU be designated as the type. It is strongly recommended
that this change should be mtroduced. SimUarly the opportunity should be
taken to remove the inconsistency arising from the misconceived use of the
expression genus^^ (as in Rules (a) to {d) and (e)) when what is intended
IS generic name (the expression correctly used in Rule (q)) What is
important is to make it clear that each Rule applies to the name of a given
nominal genus. It will then be possible to eliminate such absurd expre^ions
as publK^ation of a genus ", " In case of a generic name without originally
designated type ", etc. (Z.N.(S)352.) ^ ^

Tv^^V .^l'''''^ ^^ ^•^'"■""'^ a»i^>itiw^/i/ needed to correct inexpert draflina)-
This Artick at present consists of a single sentence which purports to enumerate
certam Rules ■ govermng the designation of the types of genera. In all
there are 20 of these ^ Rules ". On inspection however we find that only the
firs seven of these " Rules (Rules (a) to (g)) are in fact mandatory provisions
while the remammg thirteen " Rules " are not rules at aU but as exnresslv
stated m the title of the cross-heading '' III," are " Recamnu.Ma^' t
IS proposed that this anomaly due to inexpert drafting should be eliminated
by a re-wording which «all restrict the word " Rule " to the provisions (a) to (a)
which are m fact rules and will pro^^de for the remaining provisions which
L'^^' Tz ^(s'sl^r'''^^''''"' *' ""^^'^'^ '""^^ numbering as '' Reconmmn-

(11) Article 30 Rule (g) (case where a type is selected for a genus by an
author wtthout that author being cmisdmis of so doing). The attention of the

i^XM^Toflt" 3""" ""' """'" "'^'^^"'^ ^ '^^ '""^"^^^ ^"^'^-^-^

th^tSr.**'^ *'fP'^«{«n "select the type " .over a ,ase where an author expresalv states

butVf th^?"" / "^'^'If"^ "°?^l' '^'''''' ■■^-"' >"'" '^ *he type of the nomhXSus Y^.

but at the same time adds words whicli either make it clear or iniDlv that thp anther ^ i

the statement believed (erroneously) that the above species ha7lliadvbe«Ttle^^^^^
he type by some previous author or. in the case of pa^rs published beforeThe adonttfn nf
he present Begles, where the author beUeved the above species was automaicaUv the tv^

Icc^i^fe'dfa/sS'"" "^^'^^ -^"-"^^ (^"^ — '^*-^) "LarorFTSo?'^l^

It appears to me that in conformity with the principle that the ReaJes ara
concerned only with objective facts (as contrasted with subjective ta^onoi^c

weTe hf t'^r -^T^'r^^' ^'' 'T^'^^^ '"^ ^^'^ "^^ ^— * '^^ ideas wS

rtllt T J T''' '""'^^' ^"^^^ ^' ''^'''^ '^"^^ ^ P^rti^^la^ species
vas the type of a particular genus. Any other course would moreover invalidate
thousands of type selections now accepted as having been made prior to 1901
by authors who accepted the so-called " Law of Elimination " (not recognised
m the present Regies as a mandatory provision) and who, in stating thaf su^
and such a species was the type of a given genus thought that they were
doing no more than stating a fact. It is strongly recommended that the
question posed at the beginning of this paragraph shoiUd be answer d ^i the
l^N^mT '"^ '^^ '^""' '^'"^^ ^' incorporated in the ^ks.

'90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomendature.

(12) Article 31 (Jir}<l scDtmcc). This is a badly worded provision and it is
desirable that it should be replaced by words which would make it clear that,
where a nominal species, as originally established, is found to be a composite
species and it is necessary therefore to subdivide it, the subdivision shall be
effected in accordance with the provisions relating to the subdivision of a genus
specified in Article 29 and Rule {g) in Article 30 and that the original specific
name shall therefore adhere to whichever element in the original composite
species is so designated as its type. (Z.N.(S)352.)

(13) Article 35 [status of a specific trivial name which is identical with a name
which is an emerulation of an older name in the same genus): In Opinion 148
the Commission gave a ruling on a case parallel to that indicated above in
regard to a generic name and it has been proposed (paragraph 42 of Paper
I.C.(48)ll) that this decision should now be incorporated in the Regies. Clearly
any such provision in regard to generic names should apply also to specific
and subspecific trivial names, and it is proposed therefore that a corresponding
provision should be inserted in Article 35. (Z.N.(S)352.)

B. Proposed new Articles

(14) Terminology, etc., of types of species and subspecies: There is evidently
a widespread desire on the part of many zoologists that the terminology of
types of species and subspecies should be dealt with in the Regies in greater
detail than at present. As the Commission will recall, the only existing
provision in regard to this subject is that contained in the sentence inserted
between Sections "A" and "B" of the Appendice by the Monaco Congress
in 1913. It is suggested that this provision should be deleted and that a new-
provision should be inserted on the following lines : —

(1) A Recommandation should be added to Article 25 strongly urging
every author publishing a new specific or subspecific name clearly to
designate one specimen to be the type of the new species or subspecies,
to indicate the full locality and other data on the label of that specimen,
the sex of the specimen so selected, and the collection in which the
type is deposited ; and, in the case of fossil species, the geological age
of the species, measured, if possible, by the number of metres strati-
graphically above or below a well-established plane.

(2) A Recommandation urging every zoologist naming a new species
or subspecies clearly to mark as the " type " the specimen so selected
and either to deposit it in a Museum or otherwise to ensure both that
it is safely preserved and that it is accessible to students.

(3) A provision to be inserted at some appropriate point either in the
Regies themselves or in the Appendice recognising the existence of
the following categories of types for species and subspecies :—

Holotype the single specimen taken as " the type " by the original

author.
Syntype one of a number of specimens of equal rank which formed

part of the material before an author when describing a

species or subspecies for which lie did not designate a

holotype.

Bullelm of Zoological Notnetidature. 91

Lectotype tlie single specimen selected from a series of syntypes to be
" the type." (In order to be effective, the selection of a
lectotype must be made known by being announced in a
publication.)

Paratype a specimen other than the holotype which formed part of
the original material before an author when describing a
new species or subspecies. (Z.N.(S)352.)

(15) The trivial name of a nominotypical subspecies: The Regies contain a
))rovision (Article 9) regarding the name of the typical subgenus of a genus
liaving two or more subgenera. There is however no corresponding provision
regarding tlie name of the nominotypical subspecies of a species having two or
more subspecies, though the intention of the authors of the Regies to insert, such
a provision is implied by the second of the examples cited in Article 33. No
evidence is available to explain why effect was not given to that intention, and
it is proposed to remedy this defect by the insertion of an Article laying it down
that the trivial name of the nominotypical subspecies of a species having two or
more subspecies shall he the same as the trivial name of the species itself.
(Z.N.(S)352.)

(16) Proposed recognition of " neolypes ".■ There is clearly a widespread
desire especially among palfeozoologists for the recognition mider certain
conditions of " neotypes." There is great divergence of view, however, as to
what those conditions should be. There are also numerous zoologists who are
opposed to the recognition of neotypes on the ground that this would lead to
abuses (commercial and other) and would residt in greater confusion than
imifonnity. I have been unable so far to devise, for submission to the
Commission, any proposal which would be hkely to be generally acceptable to
zoologists. -Uthough I am very conscious of the possible dangers inherent in
the recognition of neotypes, I recognise the importance attached to this
({uestion by many workers, and I consider that the proposal is one to which
sympathetic consideration should be given by the Commission. I accordingly
suggest that the Commission should follow in this case a procedure similar to
that which (as explained in paragraph 2 of Paper I.C.(48)9) they adopted at
Lisbon in connection with the problem of the names of infra-subspecific forms,
that is to say that they should instruct the Secretary to the Commission to
confer with interested specialists, with a view to the submission to the
ComTuission at the next (XlVth) meeting of the Congress of a Report discussing
fully the issues involved and, if possible, formulating proposals for the insertion
in the Regies of comprehensive provisions relating to this matter. (Z.N.(S)24.)

(17) Proposed aMition of an Article to prevent the misuse of the " Regies "
for the purpose of giving political, religious or personal offence. A memorial was
recently submitted to the Commission by a large number of Brazilian
zoologists regarding a new generic name published by a certain Brazilian
zoologist with the intention, so the memorialists state, of being offensive to
another zoologist with whom he had been in dispute in the law courts, the new
name consisting of the name of his adversary combined with a vulgar Portuguese
term of abuse. The zoologists submitting the case asked for some means of

^ Bidletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

preventing the Regies being misused in this way. It is clearly highly
objectionable that persons should be free to pursue personal quarrels through
the protection afforded by the Law of Priority. At present there exists no
means of invalidating a name so given, and it seems to me highly desirable that
the Commission should be given power to act in such cases. I consider,
moreover, that if provision of this sort is to be made in the Regies, the wording
should be sufficiently wide to provide a ready means for the suppression not only
of names likely to give personal offence (as is alleged in the case referred to here)
but also of names consisting of words or combinations of words calculated to
woimd religious or political susceptibilities. I suggest that the best course
would be to secure the insertion of a new Article in the Regies with provisions
along the following lines : —

(1) The use for a generic or subgeneric name or for the trivial name of a species or
subspecies or for a form of less than subspecific rank of a word (whether simple or
compound) which can reasonably be regarded, in any language, as calculated to cause
political, religious or personal offence is prohibited.

(2) No name published in contravention of the provisions of the preceding sub-section in
to possess any rights under the Law of Priority, as defined in Article 25 of the Regies.

(3) It shall be open to any person who is of the opinion that a given name has been
published in contravention of the provisions of the present Article to refer the question
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, and it shall be the duty
of the said Commission promptly to consider every such case submitted to it and, if
satisfied that the submission is well grounded, to order the name concerned to be
suppressed for all purposes, under the immediately preceding paragraph. (Z.N.(S)348.)

C. Proposals relating to drafting changes

(18) Citation, in the " Regies," of nouns in the singular. It is a recognised
principle of drafting that clarity is assisted if in mandatory provisions every
noun is cited in the singular number and that the reverse is the case if the
plural number is employed. In many parts of the Regies this principle has been
followed but in others it has been neglected. It is suggested that the Regies
should be made consistent in this respect. Examples of awkward drafting
resulting from the failure to observe this principle are provided (1) by the
opening words of Article 20 ("In forming names derived from languages . . .")
which would read much better if the words used were " In forming " (or better
•' In the formation of ") "a name derived from a language . . ."and (2) by the
opening sentence of Article 30 which would be greatly improved if the opening
phrase were to read " The designation of the type species of a nominal genus ..."
instead of " The designation of the type species of genera . . .". (Z.N.(S)352.)

(19) Need for removal of verbal inconsistencies of drafting. The use in a code
of law of more than one expression to denote the same concept is well known
as likely to cause subsequent confusion and argument. It is suggested that
all such blemishes should be removed from the Regies. A flagrant example of
this kind of defect is to be found in Article 30, where the same concept is denoted
by no less than three different expressions, namely, " type species," " generic
type " and " type." Another example of this kind of defect is the use in
Article 30 in Rules (a) and (6) of the expression " publication " and in Rule (c)
of the expression " proposed " to denote exactly the same idea. (Z.N.(S)352.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 93

(20) Need for deleting from the " Regies " r}ieaningless repetitive phrases.
The Regies contain a number of repetitive phrases, a feature which is a weakness
in any code of law, for persons using the code naturally suppose that the words
have been inserted for some purpose and try to read differences of meaning into
the phrases concerned. Among blemishes of this kind which should be deleted
. are : —

(1) Article 25 proviso (c) (1) and (2): the unnecessary and undefined
expressions" sew diagnosis ; sew definition ; sew condensed description."

(2) Article 25 (c) (3) : the unnecessary and undefined expression " seu
genotype ; seu autogenotype ; seu orthotype." (Z.N.(S)352.)

FRANCIS HEMMING,

Secretary to the International Commission

on Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretariat of the Commission,

London, England.
lath July, 1948.

(94)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

PAPER
I.C.(48)13

PROPOSED INCORPORATION IN THE "REGLES" OF DECISIONS TAKEN AT
VARIOUS TIMES EITHER BY THE CONGRESS OR BY THE COMMISSION AND
SUBSEQUENTLY EMBODIED IN "DECLARATIONS" RENDERED BY THE

COMMISSION

Memorandum by the Secretary to ike Commission

111 the Agenda for the International Commission at its Paris meeting,
which has been circulated as Paper I.C>(48)1, there was included a proposal
(paragraph 2(5)) that the Commission should seek the approval of the Congress
for the incorporation in the Regies of interpretations of the provisions of that
instrument given by the Commission in Opinions rendered at various times,
together with certain resolutions of a more general character which had formed
the subject of resolutions adopted at various times by the Congress or the
Commission and which have since been formally embodied by the Commission
in Declarations. The proposals to be submitted to the Commission as regards
interpretations of the Regies given in Opinions have been set out in Paper
I.C>(48)11. The present paper contains corresponding recommendations as
regards the resolutions recorded in Declarations rendered by the Commission.

2. For the present purposes the 12 Declarations rendered by the Commission
fall into three groups : —

(1) Declarations dealing with matters which fall outside the scope of the
Regies:

(2) Declarations dealing with matters which have been the subject of
recommendations separately submitted to the Commission at its
present meeting ; and

(3) Declarations dealing with matters of direct concern to the Regies
and which have not been put before the Corainission in other papers
circulated for consideration at the Paris meeting.

3. Class (1) includes two Declarations, namely Declaration 9 ("On the
desirability of universities including zoological nomenclature in their courses
of general and systematic zoology ") and Declaration 10 (" On the importance
of forming specialist groups for the study of the nomenclature of particular
divisions of the Animal Kingdom '").

fill I let in of Zonloqiml Nontrnclalure. 05

1. (Jlass (2) contains one Declaration (Declaration 5), wliich <<ives the text
of the Resolution adopted by the Congress in 1913, which conferred plenary
powers upon the International Commission in certain cases to suspend the
Regies. Proposals for the incorporation in the Regies of this Resolution in a
slightly amended form have been submitted to the Commission in Paper
I.C.(48)4.

5. Of the nine remaining Declarations with which we are here concerned
three relate to the conduct of zoologists in relation to nomenclatorial questions
and six to particular points relating mainly to bibliographical aspects of
nomenclature. These two classes are considered separately below.

(a) "Declarations" relating to conduct.

(■). Code of Ethics : This is dealt with in Declarations 1 and 12. It is
proposed that at an appropriate place in the Regies there should be inserted
an Article which should lay it down {Declaration 1) that, when a zoologist
notices that a generic or specific name published by a living author as a new
name is invalid by reason of being a homonym, his correct course is to notify
the author concerned accordingly and to give that author ample opportunity
of proposing a substitute name before proposing one himself. To this provision
there should be added the further provision {Declaration 12) that it is no part
of the duties of the International Commission to consider and pass judgment
upon alleged contraventions of the foregoing provision, the observance of
which must be left to the proper feelings of individual zoologists.

7. Use of intemperate language in the discussion of nomenclature: This
subject is dealt with in the Commission's Declaration 4, which is of great value
not only as an exhortation to propriety of conduct but also as an aid to editors
who can point to it as the justification for the deletion of unduly controversial
matter in papers submitted for publication. An Article embodying the
substance of this Declaration, that is to say an Article laying it down that the
use of intemperate language is to be avoided in discussions of zoological
nomenclature, could appropriately be inserted in the Regies next to the Article
embodying the Code of Ethics which also is concerned with a question of conduct.
It is recommended that this should be done.

(/>) 'Declarations" relating to nomenclatorial practic?..

8. Issue of separates in advance of the publication of a paper in a scientific
jcmrnal: The Commission have already laid it down in Opinion 59 that a najue
ranks not from the date of distribution of advance separates but from that on
which the paper is actually published in a scientific journal (see paragraph 17
of Paper I.C.(48)11). It is proposed that there should be inserted in Article 25
of the Regies a Re-comrnandation embodying the resolution set out in
Declaration 2. that is t<i say a Recomnumdution urging editors not to make
available, and authors not to distribute, copies of papers ])rior to their being
actually published in the scientific journal for inclusion in which they liav(.'
been printed.

Vnl.. :{ 1(

96 Bulk'lin of Zoological Nouwudaluir.

9. Need for indicating neu- names as such and for avoiding tfie publicalion
of tmmes as new on more than one occasion : It is proposed that Recommanda-
lions dealing with these important matters, both of which are dealt with in
Declaration 6, should be inserted in Article 25. The first of these Recommanda-
tions would strongly recommend authors, when publishing new names,
clearly to indicate that they are so doing, the second urging authors not to
publish the same name as a new name in more than one paper and not to publish
the same paper in more than one journal without indicating that it has already
been published and giving a reference to the journal in which it has been so
published.

10. Need for itulicating the date of publication of zoological works : This
subject is dealt with in Declarations 3 and 8. It is proposed that a
Recommandation be added to Article 25 iirging (1) that the exact date of
publication (year, month and day) be clearly stated in every zoological work
and (2) that, in the case of journals and separate works issued in parts, each
part should bear the exact date of publication and that on the completion
of the volume concerned there should be added a statement giving the date of
pubHcation of each part and indicating its exact contents (both pages and
plates).

11. Need for citing bibliographical references : In order to bring to the
attention of zoologists the resolution embodied in Declaration 7, it is
recommended that a Recomynandation be inserted in some appropriate
Article of the Regies urging authors who cite generic, specific or subspecific
names in papers containing original observations to insert at least once in the
paper the name of the author and the date of publication of each name cited
or to give a full bibliographical reference to that name.

12. Neal for imlicating in new descriptions the systematic position in
the Animal Kingdom of the organism described : It is proposed that a
Recommandation be added to Article 25 to give effect to the resolution
embodied in Declaration 11. This Recommandation would urge authors
when publishing new descriptions clearly to indicate the systematic position
in the Animal Kingdom of the category or species described, and, in the case
of new genera and species, to indicate the Class and Order to which the organism
belongs and, if the Order is commonly divided into families, the name of the
family to which the genus or species belongs.

FTUNCIS HEMMING.
Secret arg to the Inlernotional Commission
on Zoological Nometuinfurr.

Secretariat of the Commission.
London, England.

Ibth July, 1948.

'M

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

PAPER
I.C.(48)14

MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS FOR THE AMENDMENT OR CLARIFICATION
OF THE "RfiGLES": SECOND INSTALMENT

Memorandum by the Secretary to the Cmnmission

In Paper I.C.(48)12 I circulated a first instalment of 20 miscellaneous
proposals for the amendment or clarification of the Regies. In the present i)apcr
1 submit a second mstalment of proposals of this kind. For convenience of
reference, these are numbered consecutively with those enumerated in Paper
I.C.(48)12.

Second instalment of miscellaneous proposals for the improvement of the " Regies "

in various respects

(21 ) Article 8 {need for a provision to cover cases of generic names which, thoxwh
complying utth Section (k) of the second - Becommandationr are in fact Latin or
nuimsed words m some case or number other than the nomhmtive singular)-
Paragraph 4 of Paper I.C.(48)11 contains a reconnnendation that the interpreta-
tion of Article 8 (need for generic names to be published in the nominative
singular before they can acquire rights under the Law of Priority) given in
Opinion 183 should now be incorporated in the Regies. Commissioner H
Boschraa (Z.N.(S)223) has pointed out that some additional provision is required
to meet the case of generic names which were published as though they were
nouns in the nominative singular and were so used by their original authors but
which are m fact Latinised Greek words in some case or number other than the
nominative singular. Examples cited by Stebbing ave—Kepon Duvernoy,
1840, a Latmised translation into Greek (as KrjTr„jv) of the name of the
French zoologist Desjardins and therefore a word in the genitive plural) •
Pota^non Savigny, 1816 (the genitive plural of the Greek noun "^ora^.;,''
(a river) ; and Taloipa Buckton, 1905 (a composite word consisting of the
Greek words " rd " and " Aoira " (the two words, when read together
meaning " the remainder ") which must therefore be regarded as a noun of
neuter gender in the nominative plural.

In order to cover the case of a name of the type discussed above, it is
proposed that a " Proviso " should be added to Article 8 making it clear that a
generic name which was treated by its original author as a Latinised noun in
the nominative singular is not invalid solely by reason of the fact that it consists
of a Latinised version of a word or a combination of words in any language
which, in the original, consisted of a word, or words, in some case other than
the nommative or some number other than the singular, or in both case
and number other than the nominative singular.

Vol, .} H-

98 Bulletin of ZonlofiimI Noincnrlalim'.

(22) Artide 14 (proposed addition of a " JRecomnmi^dation ") ; Professor
Pierre Bonnet has suggested (Z.N.(S)352) that a Recommandation should be
added to Article 11 urging authors not to select as the trivial name of a new-
species or subspecies a word which has akeadybeen used (1) in the same Family
or (2) in the same Order or (3) even in the same geographical region. Everyone
will agree in principle that the use of tri\'ial names such as vulgaris, domesticus,
silvestris, niger, griseus, etc., in allied groups is confusing and therefore open to
objection and that the insertion of a Recommandation on this subject in
Article 14 is therefore desirable. On the other hand, it would, in my opinion,
be going too far to include the conditions numbered (1) and (2), for a Family may
be, and an Order certainly would be, too wide to be appropriately embraced
in such a Recommandation. I consider that Professor Bonnet's proposal (8) is
unnecessary and serves no useful purpose, for no confusion could arise if (say)
a passerine bird and a heron or a Tineid moth and a Papilionid butterfly occurring
in the same zoo-geographical region had the same trivial name. I suggest that
a Recommandatimi should be added to Article 14 but that it should be in general
terms and should be to the effect that authors when selecting trivial names for
new species or subspecies should refrain from selecting names already published
for species or for subspecies of species in allied genera occurring in any part of
the world.

(23) Article 15 {suggested deletion of the alternative regarding the use of
hyphens in specific trimal names consisting of compound tvords) : Professor
Pierre Bonnet has suggested (Z.N.(S)352) that this Article should be amended
so as to eliminate the present choice of alternatives and therefore to require
that a compound specific or subspecific trivial name should be WTitten as a single
word without the use of h}Tphens. The course suggested by Professor Bonnet is
logical, and I feel that the Commission would be wise to agree to it.

(24) Article 18 {nomenclature of hybrids) : One of the longest outstamliiig
cases is a proposal submitted to the Commission before the Lisbon Congress
of 1935 by Dr. Hans B}'tinski-Salz in regard to this Article. This proposal
consists of four small points, of which the first and third are concerned with
slight additions which it is suggested should be made to this Article to cover
points not at present dealt with therein, while the second and fourth are
concerned only to secure a more logical form of words than that which at
present figures in the Regies. All four proposals are desirable and are
recommended for approval. They are as follows : —

(1) SccHon (a) at end add : "In the case of hybrids between species
l)elonging to the same genus, the trivial names of the two parents
united by the sign of raultiphcation may be placed in brackets and
cited immediately after the name of the common genus. Example :
Tetrao {fetrix x urogallus) ".

(2) Sl'C^i^>n (h) al cml : Substitute the words '" who first [niblLslicd and
described the hybrid as such" for the words "who fir-st recogiii.scd
the liyl)ri(l form as such' (u recounu comme telle la forme hyl)ride).

liiillrliii iif /j(tfil(u/irtif .\ri)))P)irhfiOT. 91>

(3) tSp/iwn {r) after I lie f.mntpli- nl j)rr.-<ciU rilnl : .V<M tho worrls ■

Tetrao letrix

X GaUus gaUits

Tetrao urogallus

H) Section {d) at the beginning : Substitute " ^Vllen either of the parents
of a hybrid is not unciuestionably established both as to species and
sex " for " When the parents of a hybrid are not known as such "
(Quand les procreateiirs H'nu hybride ne sont pas reconnus conime
tels). (Z.N.(S)21.)

(25) Article 25 (statun of names published anonymously or over initials only) :
The question has been raised (Z.N.(S)84) whether a name published anony-
mously or over initials only has rights under the Law of Priority (Article 25).
No one will dispute that this method of publication is highly undesirable
and I feel that there would be general agreement that as from some early future
date names published in this way should be ruled to be imavailable until
such later time as they appear in a book or paper pubUshed by an author whose
name is given. On the other hand, there is clearly nothing in the Regies which
at present invaUdates a name published anonymoiisly and a considerable
number of names pubUshed in this way are in current use (for example the
specific trivial names in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) pubHshed in the
celebrated " Vienna Catalogue " of 1775). I therefore suggest that the Com-
mission should now invite the Congress to agree to amend Article 25 in such a
way as to make it clear : —

(a) that any name published either anonymously or over initials only
prior to (say) midnight G.M.T. 31st December 1950 (the point of time
suggested in paragraph 23 of Paper I.C.(48)9 in connection with the
proposal there submitted in regard to the status of names of less than
specific rank) which satisfies the provisions specified in Article 25
has availability under this Article, but

(6) that no name published anonymously or over initials only published
after the point of time specified in (a) above is to have any availability
until such later time as it is republished by the same or some other
author in a book or paper in which that author's name is given ;

(c) that the fact of re-publication by a named author shall be sufficient
to validate such a name, provided either that in the publication
concerned that author complies with the requirements of proviso (c)
to Article 25 or, in cases where that proviso was complied with in the
original (anonymous) publication of the name, that the later author
gives a bibliographical reference to that publication ;

id) that, when a name is validated as in (c) above, it shall rank for purposes
of priority as from the date of such validation and shall be attributed
to tho author bv whom it was .so validated.

1("M> livllflw of Zoological Nomcnchfvrp.

(26) Article 25 {meaning of the expression ' divulgue dans une pMication '") ;
As explained in paragraph 13 of paper I.C>(48)11, the Commission have twice
given partial rulings regarding the meaning to be attached to the expression
" divulgue dans une publication "' but those rulings are not altogether suitable
for inclusion in the Regies without further amplification. The rulings in
question were not given as express decisions of the Commission and incorpo-
rated as such in the " Summary " of the Opinions concerned but were stated less
formally in the explanatory text of those Opinions. The two Opinions in
question were (1) Opinion 15 (which is concerned with the availability of the
name Craspedacu^ta sowerbii Lankester, 1880) and Opinion 51 (which is
concerned with the status of names published in 1797 in the Museum
Calonnianum). In Opinion 15 the statement appears that " Publication in
the sense of the Code consists in the public issue of printed matter ". The
statement in Opinion 51, which refers to, and qualifies, the definition given in
Opinion 15, reads as follows : —

"The qualifying word 'public' in this definition indicates that the printed matter in
question is not intended for special persons only or for a limited time, but that it is jriven to
the world, or used in the nature of a permanent lecord."

Thirty-six years have gone by since even the more recent of the foregoing
Opinions was rendered by the Commission and one development has occurred
during that period which was not anticipated by the Commission, namely
the publication of new names in books or papers reproduced by some process
(e.g. photographic or lithographic processes of various kinds and mimeographing
and similar methods) other than actual printing. All of these methods fall
outside the scope of the Commission's ruling, for they are excluded by the use
of the expression " printed matter ". Many names published in works repro-
duced by one or other of the foregoing or similar methods have however been
accepted by zoologists as from their appearance therein, and rightly so, for
many papers reproduced by these methods are fully as well reproduced as
papers produced by some actual method of " printing." Before the substance of
the principles enunciated l)y the Commission in the Opinions referred to above
can be incorporated in the Regies, it is essential that consideration should be
given to this aspect of the question.

If we grant (as we should) that actual " printing " is not an essential
condition, we must consider what were the objects of the Commission when they
originally insisted that, in order that a given book or paper should be accepted
as having been " divulgue dans une publication ", that publication must
consist of " printed matter." This subject was extensively discussed by the
Commission during the inter-war years and it is possible to deduce certain
important conclusions from the evidence so afforded (Z.N.(S)84). It is
accordingly suggested that the International Congress of Zoology should be
invited to amend Article 25 so as to provide a minimum standard to be complied
with by all publications irrespective of their date of issue and a more rigorous
standard to apply to names published after some near future date. It is further
proposed that a Recommandation should be added to Article 25 laying
dowti for guidance the ideal standard t<> be aimed at.

Jhillclin of Znolnfiirnl NoinrnrJafurc lOt

The following proposals jire acoordingly sijlunittfd fur the favoiirablo
consideration of the International Comiiiission :

(1) that a name made public prior to midnight G.M.T. 31st December
1950 is to be deemed to have been " divulgue dans une publication "
only if it complies with both of the following conditions : —

{(i) it must be included in a document reproduced either by printing
or by some other mechanical method of reproduction which
secures that every copy is identical with every other copy :

{h) the document in which the name is included must be a document
issued for purposes of record and therefore of consultation by
interested persons and must accordingly not be a document
issued for exclusive consideration by special persons or for particular
purposes or for only a limited time ;

(2) that, in order to be deemed to have been " divulgue dans une publica-
tion ■', any name made public after the point of time specified in (1)
above must comply with all the following conditions :—

(a) it must have been made pubUc in conditions which satisfy the
requirements of (a) and (6) in (1) above ;

(h) the document containing the new name must be reproduced
on paper, and with ink of quaUty and durability sufficient to
offer a reasonable prospect of permanency ;

(c) where a document is distributed by (or' on behalf of) its author
to certain selected persons, at least some copies must also be
placed on sale or made available for issue free of charge to any
institution or person who may apply for a copy ;

(3) that a Recommmidation be added to the relevant portion of Article
25 urging institutions and individuals responsible for the publication
of works and papers containing new names to secure that there appears
in the work or the part of the work or journal comprising papers
containing such names a clear statement :

(«) of the name of the institution or individual responsible for

publishing the work or journal concerned ;
{b) of the address from which the work or journal may be purchased
(c) of the price for which a copy may be obtained ;

(4) that the mandatory provisions to be added to the Regies to give
effect to the recommendations submitted in (1) and (2) above should
specify also that none of the undermentioned types of action constitute
publication : —

(a) the anonymous issue, or the issue over initials only, of a work
or paper after 31st December 1950 (see Point No. (25) of the
present paper) :

(b) the deposit of a document, however reproduced, in a public
Ubrary or in the library of a scientific institution ;

{(•) the distribution of printers' proof sheets (See Point No, (15) Id
Paper I.C.(48)11;

lO'J /iiillcliti iif Znnlotiiral .\<»iieiif'lal>irr-.

((/) tlic presentation of a piipci' hoforo a nnu^ting of any kind :

(c) the distribution of separata (pre-prints, off-prints, etc.) in advance
of the appearance of the paper in question in the journal, for
inclusion in which it was printed (see Point No. (17) in Paper
I.C.(48)11).

(/) the afl&xing of labels or tags on museum specimens ;

(5) that the recommendation regarding the languages in which alone
new systematic units should be proposed should be removed from its
present position in Section " A '" of the Appendice and, for greater
prominence, inserted as a Recommandation to Article 25.

(27) Article 25 (proposed addition of a " RecommoAidatiort," regardithy
names first published in abstracts) : Dr. Waldo L. Schmitt (Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.) has raised the question (Z.N.(S)262) of the
status of names first published in an abstract of a paper issued in advance of
the paper itself. This is a practice which was formerly followed by the
Zoological Society of London and other Societies but which was subsequently
abandoned because it was foiind to give rise to the publication of nomina nuda
or of names with an " indication " of doubtful adequacy. It gave rise also to
awkward questions such as that whether the " Abstract " containing the name
had or had not been published, i.e. whether the name had been " divulgue
dans une publication " in the sense of Article 25. Clearly whether a name so
published is available under Article 25 depends upon the fullness of the
description or indication given in the " Abstract." It is clear also however
that this method of publishing a new name is calculated to lead to doubt and
discussion as to the availability of the name in question and. is therefore a
method of publication wliich should be avoided. Similar criticisms apply to
names first published in abstracts which appear at the head of a paper and
which thus precede the main description of the new genus or species concerned.
It is therefore recommended that a Recommandation be added to Article
2.5 urging all institutions and individuals responsible for the publication of
papers containing new names to refrain from actually citing such names either
(1) in abstracts published in advance of the actual publication of the papers
themselves or (2) in abstracts placed at the head of the papers in which such
names are to be published.

(28) Article 25. {proposed addition of a " Recommandation " relating to
generic and trivial names first published, in keys) : Dr. Waldo L. Schmitt
(Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.) has asked (Z.N.(S)262) for a
ruling on the a^'ailability of names (generic or trivial) published in keys. We
all know of numerous cases of this kind in which it would clearly be illogical
and wrong to rule such names invalid solely by reason of their having been
first published in keys. On the other hand, it is difficult in a key to comply
mth the requirements of Article 25 and, in the case of specific names, it would
be virtually impossible in a key to comply with the terms of the Reeom'mundation
which it has been proposed, in paragraph (1) of Point (14) in Paper (I.C.4S)12,
should be added to that Article. It is accordingly suggested that a further

/{iillr/hi i>f Zonlnqnvl Xoiiinirlaliir' . lO;!

HeooiHmmHlation should Ix- iuUkd u> Articl.' lio urjiinu authors not to
pubhsh immes for the first time in keys or. if it is flosirod to publisli such names
ni a work or paper wliich contains, or consists primarily of. a key, to publisli
them at the beginning of the work or paper and before the key concerned.

(29) Article 25 (date of publication): At the same time as the Commission
considered the criteria to be adopted in determining whether a given book or
paper had been " divulgue dans une publication " they considered also the
question of the means by which the date of publication should be determined
(ZJN.(h)84). The conclusions then provisionally reached, which are now
submitted for final approval, were that a new provision should be inserted in
or near Article 25 which would lay down the following rules :—

(1) The date borne by a publication is to be assumed to be correct luilcss
and until it is shown in a published statement to be otherwise.

(2) A book or a journal or a part of a book or a journal which bears the
month and year in which it was published is to be assumed to have
been published on the last day of that month and a book or journal
or part thereof which bears the year of publication but not the month
shall be deemed to have been published on the last day of the last
month of that year, except in so far as evidence can be brought forward
from other sources to show that it, or a portion of it, was published on
an earlier date in the same year, in which case the portion concerned
IS to be treated as having been published on the latest date compatible
with the evidence so brought forward, the subsequent parts being
treated as having been published on the last day of the last month of
the year in question.

(3) Where the only evidence as to the date of publication available in a
given volume is a range of dates specified on the title page or otherwise,
the whole volume is to be treated as though it were published on the
last day of the latest month comprised in the latest of the years
specified, and, if evidence that some specified portion was, or specified
portions were, published at a given earlier date or dates, the dates ot
publication of the several portions of the yolunie shall be determined
in the manner specified in (2) above, save that the date of publication
of the last portion of the said volume shall be assumed to have taken
place on the last day of the last month of the period.

(4) Where a volume contains no direct evidence regarding the date on
which it, or on which parts of it. were published, the date of pubhcation
of the volume or of its several parts shall be determined by reference
to the dates of publication of the first-published volume or part of a
volume of any other work or journal containing a reference thereto.

It is further suggested that there should be added a Recommandatim
urgmg authors : —

(1 ) to refrain from placing brackets round the date of a name, if that date
is given on the title page of the volume containing the name or in an
express statement regarding the date of publication of the volume or
its parts where that statement is included in the volume itself ;

101 Hiilleihi of Zonlofjiral Nmufndafurr.

(2) to ciic-losc ill round braokots a date or a part, of a date where tJiat
date or that j)art of a date cannot he ascertained in the manner
indicated in (1) but can be determined by reference to other evidence
afforded by the vohmie itself, e.g. to evidence proAaded either by
dates printed on the first pages of individual signatures or on the
wrappers in which the parts were published ;

(3) to enclose in square brackets a date or parts of a date where that dat<;
or part of a date can be determined only by reference to some other
volume or work.

(30) Article 25 {Priority to be accorded to a name published in a book or paper
isNued in instalments in cases where the natue appears in one instalment and the
description in another) : Where a book is published in parts or a paper published
in a journal appears in two or more parts, it sometimes happens that a
new name appears in one instalment with little or no description and the
description or the larger part of it appears on the following page in the next
succeeding part. It has been suggested (Z.N.(S)352) that a provision should be
inserted in the Regies to make clear the date as from which such a name ranks
for priority. The question is of some importance, for there are cases where
the two parts containing portions of a given description have been published
at a considerable interval from one another. In consequence questions may
arise regarding the relative priority of the name in relation to some other name
for the same animal published during the intervening period. It is proposed
to clarify this matter by the insertion in Article 25 of a provision that, where a
new genus or species is described in a book or paper which is published in parts
and the description of that genus or species appears partly in one part and
partly in another, the name concerned ranks for the purpose of the Law of
Priority as from the later of the two parts, except where the portion of the
description contained in the earlier part is sufficient to comply with the provisos
of Article 25.

(31 ) Article 25, Proviso (c) {status of a specific or suhspecific trivial name
published after 31si December 1930 in combination with a generic name which does
not satisfy the foregoing proviso) : President Karl Jordan has suggested
(Z.N.(S)315) that, in order to prevent any possibility of misunderstanding, it
would be well to make it perfectly clear in the Regies that, where a specific
name published after 31st December 1930 comprises a generic name which is
invalid by reason of not complying with the requirements of proviso (c) to
Article 25, the availability of the specific trivial name concerned is not affected,
its status in this matter being exactly the same as that of a specific trivial
name which, when first published, formed part of a specific name (binominal
combination) which comprised a generic name which was invalid because it
was a homonym of a previously published generic name. The same subject
has also been considered by specialists in the Smithsonian Institution who
have asked that a definite ruling may be given.

It would clearly be " rituaUstic " in the highest degree to argue in favour
of rejecting a specific trivial name solely on the ground that the generic name
in combination with which it was originally published was an invalid name.

JhilJolhi of Znnloffir/il Ntttiwnflahirc. 105

It is equally dear tluit it is desirable tliat there should l)e tk) ambiguity in
this matter. It is accordingly recommended that words should be inserted in
the Regies to make it clear that the status of a specific trivial name is not
affected if the generic name in combination with which it was originally
published is invalid either because it was published in conditions which did
not satisfy the requirements laid down for generic names in Article 25 or
because it is invalid under Article 34 by reason of being a homonym.

(32) '■ Appendice "' {proposed addition of a section indicating how names
derived' from words belonging to languages using the Cyrillic alphabet should be
transliterated into the Latin alphabet); The present Appendice (which for reasons
given in paragraph 35 of the Annex to Paper I.C.(48)5 should in future be known
as the Second Schedule to the Regies) contains a section (Section F) which
indicates how names based upon words of Greek origin should be transliterated
into the Latin alphabet. There is however no corresponding section in the
Appendice relating to the transliteration of names derived from words belonging
to languages which use the Cyrillic alphabet. This is an obvious weakness, for
the latter rules are far less generally known than those which govern the trans-
literation of Greek words into the Latin alphabet. It is proposed that the
International Congress should be asked to agree to the addition to the Appendice
(=Second Schedule) of a section setting out the rules to be followed in
transliterating into the Latin alphabet names based on words belonging to
languages using the Cyrillic alphabet (Z.N.(S)310).

FRANCIS HEMMING,

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.
Secretariat of the Commission,

Paris.
mhJuly,]UH,

(UW)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

PAPER

I.C.(48)15

MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS FOR THE AMENDMENT OR CLARIFICATION
OF THE " R£GLES " : THIRD INSTALMENT

Memorandum by the Secretary to the Commission

In Paper l.C.(48)14 1 circulated a second instalment of 12 miscellaneous
j)r()posals for the amendment or clarification of the Regies. In the present pa])er
I submit a third instalment of proposals of this kind. For convenience of
reference, these are numbered consecutively with those enumerated in Paper
I.C.(48)14.

Third instalment of miscellaneous proposals for the improvement of the
" Regies " in various respects

(33) Article 27 (need for adaptations to meet the nomenclatorial requirements of
polymorphic Protozoa): This Article was drafted with reference to the Metazoa
and. as pointed out by Dr. C. A. Hoare (London) (Z.N. (S) 291), is not in its
present form altogether suitable for polymorphic species of Protozoa which have
both sexual and asexual forms. It is suggested that to pro\ade for cases of
this kind, a new category, which might conveniently precede the existing
category (a), should be inserted in this Article. It is suggested that this new
category should read : " irrespective, in the case of a polymorphic species, of
the form named.'"

(34) Article 35, paragraph (3) (proposed addition of two further caiegorie^ of
names, differtJig slightly from one another, tvhich should be treated as identical
iiith one another): It has been proposed that the following additions should be
made to the list of categories given in paragraph (3) of Article 35, as categories,
worfls in which are to be treated as identical with one another : —

(1) words having the terminations -costa and -costafa (Z.N.(S)309) ;

(2) words in which the semivowel or consonantal " i "' has been transcribed
as " ii," " y," " ei," "ej " or " ij " (Z.N.(S)198).

(35) Article 4 (situation where the application of this Article would jrroduoe
identical family names in different groups): Tliis question was considered by the
Commission at Lisbon in 1935 in relation to the family names to be formed from
the generic names Merops, Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves) and Merope Newman.
1838 (Class Insecta). The Commission gave a decision in that case designed
to prevent the establishment in two groups of family names consisting of the

Hulh'liit of Zoohiqicdl NdiiK'iidnliirr. 107

same word (see Opiniun 140). Cunmiissiouer Boschma has suggested (Z.N.(>S.)
210) that a definite ruling of a general kind should now be given. It is accord-
ingly proposed that, where compliance with the provisions of Article 4 leads,
or appears to lead, to the establishment of two or more families having the same
name, the case should be referred to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, whose duty it shall be to determine the name to be applied to
each of the families concerned.

(36) Article 5 {sitiiation when two or more faiiiilies are united): The late
Dr. Steven A. Corbet (British Museum (Natural History)) asked for a ruling
on the question as to the action which should be taken in regard to the names
of families when two genera, each the type of a family, are united iu a single
family by a subsequent reviser (Z.N.(S.)265). The question raised is whether
the name of the united family so established should be based (1) upon the older
of the two generic names in question or (2) upon the name of whichever of the
genera concerned was first made the type of one of the famiUes now united
together. It is suggested that in conformity with the principles underljang the
ruling given in Opinion 141 (see Point No. 1 in Paper I.C.(48)11) the Regies
should provide that, where two or more families are united by a reviser, the
name of the combined family so established should be based upon the name of
whichever of the type genera concerned was first selected to be the type genus
of a family.

(37) Articles 3 aiul 4 {need for removing mnbiguities due (1) to tlie failure in
Article 3 to define the expression " Latin " and (2) to the ill-advised use in Article
4 of the highly technical expression " radical "): Article 3 is defective since it
ignores the fact that there is no such language as " Latin "' pure and simple,
that that language (like many other languages) has had a long history, that
in the course of that history it has undergone numerous changes and therefore
that it would be incorrect to attempt (as some authors have done) rigidly
to apply to late-Latin and pseudo-Latin words the complex rules of grammar
and philology which specialists have worked out as appropriate for Latin
words of the classical period. When we turn to Article 4, we have to note that
at the Graz Congress in 1910, it was decided, on the recommendation of the
Commission, to substitute the word "stem" for the word "root" in the
Enghsh version of the Regies. There is nothing to show whether, in recom-
mending the foregoing change, the Commission thought that the English word
" stem " was a more accurate translation of the word " radical "' in the sub-
stantive French text (in which case they were in error) or whether their
intention was to recommend the substitution of the word " theme "' for the
word " radical " in the substantive French text. If (as has been generally,
though not nniversally, assumed) the action taken by the Graz Congress is to
bp interpreted in the second of these senses, it would, as pointed out by the
pininent scholar. Professor L. W. Grensted of Oxford (Z.N.(S)313), when applied
in connection with Article 4, produce such monstrosities in the way of family
names (in the CIh.ss Insecta) as i-Li'SiAiDAK and (jRVbLoiDAK. the "" st<>ni '" of
tlie first declension noun Phisia Ijcing Plusia- aiul that of the second declension
noun (hi/llu.s being (iri/llo-. The difficulties raised at present by these two

lOS liullelin of Zoological Notmndatwi'.

^irticles reside iu the fact :—

(a) that Article 3 fails to recognise that the Latiu language underwent
many changes between the time, during the first millennium B.C., when
it made its appearance and the close of the second millennium A.D.,
when at last it became a dead language for most purposes though not,
inter alia, for those of the zoological and botanical nomenclature ;
and

{b) that Article 4 employs without explanation or comment a highly
technical grammatical expression, the interpretation of which is
a matter of difficulty even to learned classical scholars, working on
the theoretical hypotheses of grammar and philology.

The only practicable way of overcoming these difficulties would be, as
suggested by Professor Grensted, to provide that a family name shall be based
upon the grammatical or classical " stem " or upon such part of it as would
both show most clearly the relation between the family name on the one hand
and on the other the name of the genus upon which it is based and would provide
the simplest and most euphonious form consistent with that relationship. A
solution on these lines would offer the great advantage that it would make it
possible in almost every case to determine the correct form of a family name
(1) by putting the name of the genus concerned into the genitive singular, (2) by
cutting off the termination {-ae, -i, -is or -us according to the ordinary rules of
Latin declension), and (3) by adding the termination -idae.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is here recommended that
the Commission should invite the International Congress of Zoology to approve
the following propositions :—

(1) that a provision on the following lines be inserted in Article 3 : —

Care is to be taken iu the interpretation of the present Article to pay due regard
to the fact that Latin as used for scientific purposes is, and particularly Latin so iised in
the eighteenth century was, a living language and therefore that, while classical Latin
is necessarily the standard to which scientific names should, so far as possible, conform,
that standard is not to be applied in such a way as to ignore later developments in
the language or as to override considerations of scientific accuracy, uniformity,
mtelligibility or practical usefulness.

(2) that a provision on the following lines be added to Article 4: —

For the purpose of the present Article the expression " stem " is to be
interpreted as meaning either (1) the grammatical or classical "stem" or (2) a
part of the " stem " the choice to be made in favour of whichever of the foregoing
methods both shows most clearly the relation between the generic name on the one
hand and the name of the family on the other and provides the simjJcst and most
euphonious form compatible with that relationship.

(38) Article 14, paragraph (1) (adjectival trivial names to agree in gender
with generic rmmes) : Article 14 requires that, when a specific trivial name is
an adjective, it shall agree in gender with the generic name. This is an essential
provision iu any system of nomenclature which involves the use of an inflected
language sucli as Latin. It was rigorously applied in the XVIIIth century by
Linnaeus and his contemporaries who found no difficulty in so doing, for the
words used as generic names by those authors were all words, the gender of
which was known or could be readily determined. In the period of 190 years

Bxllclin of Zoological Noiticnclalvir. lOO

which has ciapsed since the publication in 1758 of the tenth edition of the
Systema Naturae, the situation has been completely changed by the introduction
of thousands of generic names consisting of neo-Latin or pseudo-Latin words,
for which it is impossible to determme the gender which should be adopted.
In spite of this development, there has been no corresponding evolution in the
provisions of Article 14, in so far as those are concerned with the gender in
which adjectival specific trivial names should be placed. This is unfortunate,
for nothing is more calculated to bring a law into contempt than a failure to
keep it abreast of current requirements. The problem is a difficult one. The
following suggestions are necessarily not comprehensive but it is thought that
their adoption and incorporation in the Regies will go some way towards
bringing order into this difficult subject : —

(a) where a generic name is a classical Latin word, the specific trivial
name, if an adjective, should agree in gender with that name ;

(h) where a generic name consists of a word which is unknown in classical
Latin but is found in the later history of the Latin language, the specific
trivial name, if an adjective, should agree in gender with the ascertained
gender of the word selected as the generic name ;

(r) where a generic name consists of a word unknown in any stage of the
history of the Latin language except as used to-day for zoological
nomenclature, the following rules should be observed : —

(i) if the word ends with any of the terminations used for nouns in
classical or later Latin, the gender of the generic name shall be
assumed to be the gender normally applicable to a noun having
that termination ;

(ii) if the generic name has a termination not found in Latin other
than Latin as used in zoological nomenclature, the gender of that
noun shall be deemed to be masculine. (File Z.N.(S)35"2.)

(39) Second Schedule {proposed insertion of an additional section) : It is
further suggested that for the convenience of those zoologists who have not
had a classical education, there should be inserted in the Second Schedule of the
Reghs a concise statement of the rules which normally determine the gender
of a Latin noun and a list of the better known of thost? noims which are
exceptions to the normal rule (Z.N.(S)352).

(40) Article 25, proviso (c) {date as from which effective) : The Coiigr('s.s
agreed at Budapest that the operative date should iw. iniduight (t.M.T. ;^»l,st
Dcceanber 1930/lst January 1931. It is suggested that this should l)c inscrtcti
in this Article (Z.N.(S)352).

(41) Secord Schedule, Section G {proposed correction) : Commissioner Boscluua
has pointed out (Z.N.((t)10) that the statement (jjaragraph 16) that " The soft
aspirate may be used to represent the Arabic a'in '' is incorrect in tliat what is
inteiuled is not the soft aspirate but the spiritus asper or esprit rude. It is
proposed that this error should be corrected.

110 Ihdiefin of Zooloqicnl Nomcnchlmr.

(42) Article 14 {status of trivial names consisting of unchanged modern
patronymics) : (See Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 89) : It is proposed to make it
clear that a name such as " cerisy" is to be amended automaticallj' to cerisyi
and to retain the original author and date of publication (Z.N.(S)165).

(43) Article 14 {trivial names consisting of phonetic reproductions of initials
of zoologists) (see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 89) : It is proposed that words
should be inserted in the Regies:—

(a) to make it clear : —

(i) that a trivial name (like a generic name) may consist of a word

composed of an arbitrary combination of letters,
(ii) that, in consequence, a trivial name is not to be rejected on the
ground that it consists of a phonetic reproduction of the initials
of one or more zoologists (Z.N.(S)163) ;

(h) to insert a Recomniandation that, where an author selects as a
t^i^'ial name a word consisting of an arbitrary combination of letters,
the combination so made should not be such that, when pronounced.
it appears to be a word or combination of words in some language other
than Latin (tile Z.N.(S)352).

(44) Artide 23 {use of round brackets {parentheses) m cases where subgeneric
names are used as well as generic names) {See Bull. zool. Noniencl, 1 : 91) : It is
proposed to make it clear (1) that the provisions in this Article apply only to
cases where a generic name is changed and therefore that, where a subgeneric
name is either changed or omitted, or, if no such name was used in the original
description, such a name is later used, such a change does not lead to the use of
brackets (parentheses) round an author's name, provided that the generic name
remains unchanged (Z.N. (8)129) but that in every other case such a change is
required (Z.N.(S)128) ; (2) that this Article does not apply to changes in the
status of trivial names from specific to subspecific rank and vice versa.

(45) Article 25 proviso (a) {question whether tJie description of the work of an
animal constitutes an indication) (See Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 93) : Many
fossil species and also gall-producing living species have been described first
by their work. It is therefore proposed : — •

(1) to make it clear that a description of the work of an animal
unaccompanied by a description of the animal itself constitutes
an " indication " ;

(2) to add a Recommandation urging authors, so far as possible, ro
avoid establishing new taxonomic units, based solely upon the work
of the animals concerned (Z.N.(S)140).

(46) Article 25, proviso (a) (ge/teric names based upon figures only) (See BuU.
zool. Notnend. 1 : 94) : It follows from the decision taken by the Commission
during the ])resent session to widen the nieanhig of the expression " indication "
as aj)pli('d to generic names f)ul)lishe(l prior to 1st .lanuary 1931. that a generic
name pul)lishe(l before that date on a legend to a plate or plates l)ut without
explanatory matter is published with an " indication " (Z.N.(S)G8).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Ill

(47) Article 25 {authorship of names given coTiditionally) (See Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1 : 97) : It is proposed to make it clear that, where a name is given
conditionally and is later brought into use, the name dates from its original
publication and is to be attributed to its original author (i.e. it does not date
only from the later date when it was first definitely brought into use and is
not to be attributed to the reviser by whom it was so brought into use).
(Z.N.(S)45.)

(48) Article 25 {question whdJier the citation, in connection mth a parasitic
species, of the name of its host constitutes an "indication") (See Bull. zool. Nomencl.
1 : 97) : It is proposed to make it clear that the sole citation of a host species,
like the sole citation of a type locality, does not constitute an " indication,"
but that, in the former case (as in the latter case), such a citation becomes an
important part of the description of a species, where the name of that species
is published with an indication. (Z.N.(S)167.)

(49) Article 25 {expression " le plus anciennement designe ") .• It is proposed
to make it clear in the Regies : —

(1) that the foregoing expression is to be interpreted rigorously, that is
to say a name pubUshed on any given day of a given month has
priority over another name published on the immediately following day ;

(2) that, where two names for one animal are found to have been
published on the same day, the question of which name is to be given
priority over the other is to be referred to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature for decision. (Z.N.(S)125) {See Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1 : 102.)

(50) Articles 22 and 23 {proposed rejection of certain applications received):
Some years before the war the Commission received applications for the
deletion from the Regies of these Articles. These applications contained no
groimds in support of the action proposed. In order to clear the records of
the ComLmission, it is suggested that the Commission should now formally
reject both these applications. (Z.N.(S)12 on p. 90 of volume 1 of the Bulletin
and Z.N.(S)142 on page 93 of the same volume of the Bulletin.)

(51 ) Article 25 {authorship of a tiarne which when first validly published is either
a manuscript name or a name already published as a nomen nudum ) : It is proposed
to make it clear that in view of the fact that neither a manuscript name nor a
nomen nudum has any standing under Article 25, a name belonging to either of
these classes, when first published with an " indication ", should be attributed to
the author by whom it is so published. (Z.N.(S)352.)

(52) Article 30, Ride {g) {interpretation): It is proposed to make it clear that
for the purpose of this Rule, the type of a nominal genus has been selected not
only where an author states that he is making such a selection but also where he
clearly states that a given originally included nominal species is the tyjie of the
genus but at the same time indicates (incorrectly) that in making this statement
he is doing no more than recording a previously established fact. (Z.N. (8)352.)

VOL. 3 I

112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

(53) Title of the " Regies " as amended: In order that there may be no
ambiguity in the citation by authors of Articles of the Regies when these are
pubHshed with the revisions now agreed upon, it is essential that authors
should have a definite means of indicating that it is the revised edition to
which they are referring. It is proposed therefore to follow the normal course
in such a case and to insert at the end of the Regies a concluding Article stating
that the title of these Regies is the " Regies Internationales de la Notnenclature
Zoologique., 1901-1948 " and that they may be cited as such. (Z.N. (8)352.)

(54) Recording of decisions by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature either (1) that a given work is not available far nomenclatorial
purposes or (2) that a given name w class of name (e.g. such names as those dealt
with in Opinion 124) is not available: It is suggested that it would be more
logical ami would serve the convenience of zoologists if decisions by the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on matters falling in the
classes indicated above were to be recorded in a special schedule to be attached
to the Regies just as decisions taken under the plenarv powers are now so to
be recorded. The last-named group of cases is to be incorporated in a First
Schedule. It is now proposed : —

(1) that the class of decisions here under consideration should be
incorporated in a schedule to be known as the Second Schedule ;

(2) that the present Appendice should be known as the " Third Schedule "
(instead of as the Second Schedule, as hitherto proposed) (Z.N.(S)352).

(55) Article 4 {proposed amendment) : Article 4 provides that the name of a
family is to be formed by adding the ending idae, and the name of a subfamily
by adding inae to the stem of the name of its type genus. Professor Boschma
proposes an addition to Article 4 prohibiting the use of names ending in -idae
for supra-specific groups other than families, and names ending in -inae for
supra-specific groups other than subfamilies. (Z.N.(S)200.)

(56) Article 12 {proposed drafting amendment) : Article 12 provides that
" a specific name becomes a subspecific name when the species so named
becomes a subspecies, and vice versa." In view of the subjective nature of the
taxonomic revision referred to in this Article, it is suggested that it would be
more appropriate to re-word the Article as follows : —

" When an animal originally described as a species is treated by a later author as a
subspecies, the specific trivial name of the species becomes the subspecific trivial name of
the subspecies, and vice versa. (The substitution of " specific trivial name " and " subspecific
trivial name"' for "specific name" and "subspecific name" follows from the decision
on point (5) in Paper I.C. (48)8). (Z.N.(S.) 352.)

(57) Article 7 {proposed drafting amendment) : For reasons analogous to
those given in point (56) above, it is suggested that Article 7 should be re-drafted
as follows : —

" When a taxonomic unit originally described as a genus is treated by a later author
as a subgenus, the generic name of the genus becomes the subgeneric name of the subgenus,
and vice versa " (Z.N. (S.) 352).

bullelin of Zoological Noiiienclaturc. 113

(58) Articles 6 and 11 (proposed co-ordination): There is a discrepancy
between the French texts of Articles 6 and 11 which is undoubtedly due
to a drafting slip and which it is suggested should be corrected in the revised
edition of the Regies.

Article 6 states that " Les nonis des genres et des sous-genres sont soumis
aux memes regies; . . . ," whereas Article 11 states that "Les nonis specifiques
et subspecifiques sont soumis aux memes regies et recommandations ; . . . ."

It is proposed to add " et recommandations " after " regies " in Article G
(Z.N.(S)352).

(59) Article 8, Second Recammandation, Section (b) {proposed amendtneM):
This Recomniandation states that if a compound Greek word is selected as a
generic name, the attribute should precede the principal word. Examples
are then given of words correctly joined in this way, but these are followed by
the misleading and inaccurate statement quoted below : —

" On peut neanmoins admettre des mots formes aur le module du mot Hippopolavius,
c'est-a-dire dans lesquels I'attribut est apres le mot principal. Exemples: Philydrus.
Biorhiza."

Professor Grensted (Z.N.(S)253) has pointed out : —

(1) that the word " hippopotamus, though it does occur in late Greek,
appears to be a local or even slang word, wrongly formed and without
any parallel whatever in the Greek language . . . The word is at
monstrous as the animal it represents, and it is therefore no model at
all upon which to base intelligible generic names."

(2) Point (6) in this Recomniandation is philologically correct only when the
attribute is truly adjectival, as in Stenogyra (=narrow whorl), i.e.
narrow-whorled. But when the attribute expresses not a quality but an
action, being in principle a verb-form, it may either precede or follow the
other term in the partnership. Thus Hydrophihts means not a wat«ry
friend but a lover of water and Philydrus means exactly the same,
both being equally correct.

It is proposed, therefore, to amend Point (6) in the second Becommandaiion
to Article 8 as follows : —

(1) Omit the second paragraph (i.e. the paragraph quoted above) ;

(2) Amend the first paragraph to read :

" Compound Greek words in which, where the attribute expresses a quality,
that word should precede the principal word but if it expresses either an action or an
activity or a state, it may either precede or follow the word with which it is conjoined."

(60) " Recommandaiion " to Article 36 adopted at Padua, 1930 .• The
Eleventh International Congress at Padua adopted an additional Recomman-
dation to Article 36 stating that " when homon}^Tns are of the same date,
any name proposed for a genus takes precedence over a name (its homonym)
proposed for a subgenus. The same principle is applicable to homonyms of
species and subspecies of identical date." Clearly this provision should have
been inserted in the mandatory paragraphs of Articles 34 and 35 and not
adopted as a mere RecowmaiHlation to .Article 36. (Indeed, in Opimnt) 124.
it was (wrongly) referred to as an "amendment "' to Article 36.)

VOL. 3 i»

114 Butletm of Zoological Nomenclature.

It is proposed that the provision referred to above adopted at Padua in
1930 sliould be incorporated in the substantive parts of Articles 33 and 54
respectively. (Z.N.(S)352.)

(61) ■' Opinion "' 124 {proposed extension of application): Opinimi 124 states
that under the Regies the various subdivisions of genera published by Linnaeus
in 1758 are not to be accepted as of that date (1758) as of subgeneric value.
It is desirable that it should be made clear that this decision carries with it
similar treatment of names given to subdivisions of genera by Linnaeus in all
subsequent editions of the Systema Naturae. It implies also that names given to
subdivisions of genera by Fabricius should be treated in the same way, for the
method adopted by these two authors is identical. It is proposed that this
should now be made clear. (Z.N.(S)352.)

(62) Status of names placed on the " Official Li^it of Generic Names inZoology":
The names placed on the " Official List " are of two kinds : — (1) names validated
by the Commission under their plenary powers and (2) names which are believed
to be nomenclatorially available m every way but which have not been formally
conserved by the use of the plenary powers. No change can be made in regard
to entries relating to the first of these two classes but at present no special
sanction applies to names belonging to the second class. This is an unnecessary
weakness in the present system which impaii's the utility of the " Official
List.' It is suggested that this situation should be rectified by the insertion
in the Regies of a provision that, when a generic name has been placed on the
'■ Officifd List." that name is to be used for the t}^e species of the genus
concerned and for any other species regarded as congeneric therewith and is
not to be. replaced by any other generic name, even if later evidence shows
either that it is not an available name or is not the oldest name for the genus
concerned or has as its type species some species other than the species so
recorded in the " Official List " unless the Commission, on having the facts laid
before it. .shall so direct. (Z.N.(S)352.)

(63) ^1 suggested " Official List of Trivial Names in Zoology " .* The plenary
powers Resolution of March 1913 refers (Article 3) to trivial names as well
as to generic names, but no pro\'ision was made at that time for the recording
of deci.nions relating to the first class of name, although as regards the second
it was agreed to estalilish an " Official List of Generic Names in Zoology."'
It is proposed that this omission should be rectified by the establishment of an
'■ Official List of Trivial Names in Zoology," subject to the same general
conditions as those laid down in regard to the '" Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology."" (Z.N.(S)352).

FRANCIS HEMMING.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretariat of the Commission,
Paris.

tArd July, 1948.

(115)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

PAPER

I.C.(48)16

MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS FOR THE AMENDMENT OR CLARIFICATION
OF THE "REGIES": FOURTH INSTALMENT

Memorandum hy the Secretary to the Commission

In Paper I.C.(48)15 I circulated a third instalment of 31 miscellaneous
proposals for the amendment or clarification of the Regies. In the present
paper I submit a fourth instalment of proposals of this kind. For convenience
of reference these are numbered consecutively with those enumerated in Paper
I.C.(48)15.

Fourth Instalment of misceHaneous proposals for the improvement of the
" Regies " in various respects

(64) Article 25 {position regarding trivial names when totally misleaditig): In
some cases the trivial name of a species is so misleading that it has been suggested
that it should be changed. Examples : (1) A Philippine Hesperid butterfly,
wrongly labelled " California '" was later described under the trivial name
californica ; (2) the Eire subspecies of the common European butterfly Pieris
napi (Linnaeus) was given by a continental worker the trivial name britannicus,
a choice repugnant to Irish nationalist sentiment ; (3) a subspecies of the
butterfly Leptidea sinapis (Linnaeus) from Syria was given the name deserticola
in the mistaken belief that it occurred in the Syrian desert whereas in fact it
occurs only in the hot damp valley of the Dog River near Beirut. It has been
suggested by Mr. P. P. Graves (Eire) that there should be means for removing
such anomalies and therefore that there should l)e added to the Regies a provision
that where by reason of containing a reference to an erroneous locality or
habitat a trivial name given to a species or subspecies is so misleading as to
constitute a permanent cause of confusion, the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature may. on the application of specialists in the group
concerneil, direct that the luvme be suppressed for all purposes other than the
Law of Homonymy (Z.N.(S)205).

(65) " Opinion " 124 {proposal supplenwnlaiij to Proposal (61) ).• Conse-
t|uential upon the decision already taken to clarify the contents of Opinion
124, it is suggested that it should be made clear that the terms (consisting
of adjectives in the nominative singular) inserted between the generic
name and the specific trivial name of each species figured in the first volume
of Hiibner's Samnilung crolischer Schmetterlinge are not to be treated as
subgeneric names as from the date of publication of that volume (Z.N.(S)218i.

1 1 6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

(66) Proposed new Article relating to the functions of the International
Coynmission on Zoological Nomenclature : It has been proposed in paragraph 16
of Paper I.C.(48)6 that an Article should be inserted defining the functions,
in relation to zoological nomenclature, entrusted to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Congress of Zoology. In the
case of a number of Articles of the Regies, the Commission have now agreed
that reference should be inserted to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature and for this reason alone it would be necessary to
insert an Article defining the functions of the Commission. It is suggested
that this Article should be based upon the definition of duties adopted by the
Congress at its Fourth meeting held in Cambridge in 1898 supplemented by
such later decisions as have since been taken by the Congress. These will be
found set out on page V of volume 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.
It is accordingly suggested that the Article relating to this matter should be
on the following lines :

The centralisation, discussion and elaboration of all questions of zoologica nomen-
clature is entrusted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (hereinafter
referred to as the " Commission ") the duties of which include : —

(1) the submission, as may be required, to the International Congress of Zoology (herein-
after referred to as the (Congress) of lecommendations foi' the amendment or clarification
of, or for the insertion of additional provisions in. the Regies I nternat ionales de la Nomen-
clature Zoologiqiie (hereinafter referred to as the " Regies ") where, in its opinion, such
amendments, clarifications or additions are required ;

(2) the preliminary consideration on behalf of the Congress, for such period, not exceeding
«ine 3'ear, as the Commission may decide, of every proposition relating to a proposed
change in the Regies which may be submitted to the Congress from any source ;

(3) the rendering of " O'pinions " on questions of zoological nomenclature submitted to it,
such Ofiniona to become operative forthwith without further reference to the Con-
gress ;

(4) the compilation of the " Official List of Generic Names in Zoology " and of the " OfB^cial
List of Trivial Names in Zoology."

The Commission possesses also plenary powers to suspend any part of the Regies as
applied to the names in any book or to any individual name where in its opinion the strict
application of the Regies would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity provided
that the use of the said plenary powers shall be subject to the following conditions : —

[Here unll he inserted the co}iditions provided in the Resolution of March,
1913 (Declaration 5) subject to the incorporation therein of the amendments
thereto agreed upon during the present Congress.]

(67) Status of a holotype or lectotype in relation to a poor indication or
description : It is proposed to make it clear in the Regies tiiat, where a specific
ur subspocific name is published witli a poor indication or description, the holo-
type of the species or subspecies or the lectotype, in cases where the species or
subspecies concerned was originally based on a series of syntypes, is to be
regarded as available to supplement the characters noted in the original des-
cription of the species or subspecies concerned (Z.N.(S)291).

(68) Supplementary proposal on Point No. 30 in Paper I.C.(48)14. This
Point dealt with the status of names published in books or journals appearing
in parts, in those cases where a portion of the original description of a new
taxonomic unit appears in one part and the remainder in the next following
part. It was not made sufiiciently clear in that Point that, in the case of a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 117

nev/ generic name published subsequent to 31st December. 1930, it must be
provided that no matter how much of the description appears in the earlier part,
the name ranks for purposes of priority from the later part if the designation of
the type species is not included in the earlier part. It is proposed that this
should be made clear in the amendment to be made in the Regies.

(69) Proposed introduction into nomenclature of the term " pseudo-genus " •
It was proposed by M. Deflandre (Section on Nomenclature. Saturday
morning, July 24th, 1948) that there should be incorporated into the Regies
a term "pseudo-genus" to denote all genera already or in future to be
established where those genera are not monophyletic and that in future the
expression " genus " should be restricted to those groups immediately above
the species level which are monophyletic. A scheme of this kind would
introduce into nomenclature a subjective element of a peculiarly intractable
kind which could only give rise to argument and confusion. It is recommended
that this proposal be rejected but this should not be held to prejudice the
use of the expression "pseudo-genus " as a technical term. (Z.N.(S)363.)

(70) Proposed adoption for certain fragments (organites ami sclerites) of fossil
species of invertebrates of a different nomenclature from that for living species: Sucli
a system had been proposed by M. Deflandre (Section on Nomenclature.
24th July), but the study of the Animal Kingdom as a whole would be greatly
embarrassed if the nomenclature to be employed for identical grades were to
differ according to whether the species concerned were living species or fossil
species. Moreover, the introduction for palaeozoology of a nomenclature different
from that used for zoology would menace the unity of the present system of
nomenclature which applies equally to the whole Animal Kingdom and makes
no distinction between living and extinct species. It is suggested that the
proposal which has been submitted on this subject be rejected, without prejudice
to the use in this or other cases of a special technical terminology by wav of
supplement to, but not in replacement of, the rules of zoological nomenclature
(Z.N.(S)364.) "^

(71) hUerpretutions of the " Regies " by tlie Internatimal Cotnmission on
Zoological Nomenclature : It is proposed to make it clear in the Regies that
where at any time between meetings of the Congress the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of the judicial functions
entrusted to it, gives an interpretation of the meaning of a given provision in
the Regies, the interpretation so given shall immediately upon being publishefl
in a Declaration of the Commission have like force and vigour as though it had
been embodied in the Re<]les until the next succeeding meeting of the Congress.
at which meeting the question whether an amendment to the Re.gles shall be
made in the sense of the said interpretation shall be submitted for decision
(Z.N.(S)352.)

(72) Method of atnending the " Regies " .• There is a general desire for a
clear statement as to the manner in which amendments mav be made in the
Ragles. It is accordingly proposed that an Article should be inserted stating
that amendments in, or additions to, the Regies can only be made by the

118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

International Congress of Zoology on the recommendation of the Section on
Nomenclature at meetings at which such a Section is established but that no
decision on a proposition that such an amendment or addition be so made may
be taken unless the proposition has been submitted to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for a period of at least one year
from the opening of the Congress concerned or for such less a period as in any
given case the Commission may agree is sufficient (Z.N.(S)352).

(73) Article 35 (proposal supplementary to Proposal (34) in Paper I.C.(48)15) :
It has been suggested that the Commission should agree to recommend the
Congress to insert in the Regies a Recommandation that authors should
refrain from publishing in the same genus trivial names differing from one
another only by the terminations -costa and -costafa. It is proposed to add
to this " Recommandation " a corresponding recormnendation in regard to the
use of trivial names differing from one another only by the terminations -Cauda
and -caudata (Z.N.(S)309).

(74) Article amending and embodying the Plenary Poivers Resolution, 1913 :
Through inadvertence it was proposed in Paper I.C.(48)4 (paragraph 6(2) (a) )
that the resolution relating to the establishment of co-operation between the
Commission and specialist bodies which was added by the Monaco Congress as a
final paragraph to the Plenary Powers Resolution should be incorporated in the
Article now to be inserted in the Regies. The subject matter of this paragraph
has no relevance to the grant to the Commission of plenary powers and it was
never intended to recommend that it should be incorporated in the Regies. It is
accordingly proposed that the foregoing paragraph in Paper I.C.(48)4 and the
decision tliereon should be amended accordingly.

(75) The problem of " neotypes'' [proposed cancellation of certain sentences
in " Opinion " 128) : No decision on this question has ever been reached
by the Commission and they have agreed during the present meeting that this
problem bUctll be made the subject of a special study by the Secretary to
the Commission in consultation with interested specialists. As has been
pointed out by Commissioner Harold E. Yokes, it is unfortunate therefore
that there should have been inserted in Opinion 126 (relating to the new
names in d'Orbigny's " Prodrome ") the series of obiter dicta by the author of
that Opinion which appears on page 21 of the edition published by the Smith-
sonian Institution, Washington, D.C., on behalf of the Commission in 1936 and
which have the appearance of constituting a decision by the Commission on
this important question, whereas in fact the only matter on which a vote was
taken by the Conmaission in this, as in other Opinions, was the matter indicated
in the draft '" Summary " then submitted. That " Summary " dealt with the
matter which alone was at that time under consideration by the Commission
and rightly contained no reference to the views expressed in the passage which
occurs on page 21 of the printed edition. This misleading way of recording the
individual views of the draftsman of an Opinion has already caused a certain
amount of inconvenience in the consideration of the problem whether, and, if
so, under what conditions " neotypes " should be recognised. In order to

Btiiletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Il9

prevent any further harm being done by Opinion 126, it is now proposed that
the Commission should (1) confirm the decision as recorded in the " Summary "
oi Opinion 126 and (2) cancel, so far as concerns the interpretation of the Regies,
all observations contained in the body of that Opinion but not in the
" Summary."

(76) Article 8, second " Recomtnanchtion " section {b): When considering Paper
LC.(48)15, the Commission adopted the proposals in regard to this matter sub-
mitted under Point No. (59). A new wording for the Recommandation was then
agreed upon but no examples were included in the draft then adopted. It is
proposed to insert the name Stenogyra as an example of the first part of section
{b) of tliis Recommandation and to insert the names Hydrophilus and Philydrus
as examples of the second part of this section of this Recommendation
(Z.N.(S)253).

(77) Proposed insertion of paragraph numbers tvhere an Article consists of
more than mie paragraph : The foregoing recommendation, which is purely a
matter of presentation, is submitted since experience (including experience at
the present Congress) has shown that the discussion of a given Article consisting
of more than one paragraph is seriously hampered unless the paragraphs in
question are referred to in this way. Moreover in the case of at least one Article
(Article 14) the most ludicrous misquotation is commonly made as the result
of the paragraphs bemg at present unnmnbered. This Article consists of three
paragraphs of which the first is a sentence subdivided into three phrases lettered
" a," " b " and " c." As a result both paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) are
commonly referred to in the Uterature as paragraph (c), though, as explained
above, the phrase lettered " c " is not a paragraph at all, being no more than a
fragment of paragraph (1).

(78) Proposed subdivision into paragraphs of Articles containing a number of
sentences, each prescribing a separate regulation : For reasons similar to those
explained in (77) above, it is proposed to treat as separate paragraphs provisions
dealing with separate matters which now appear as separate sentences in a
single Article. Example : Article 1 of the substantive French text contains
three separate sentences, each dealing with a different question. These are
compressed into two sentences in the incorrect English translation now
currently in use. Under the present proposal each of those three sentences will
become a separate paragraph in this Article. (Z.N.(S)352.)

(79) Article 30, Ride (e) {meaning of the expression " species inquirenda ").•
In order to aUay a doubt which has been expressed to the Commission
(Z.N.(S)236), it is proposed that it should be made clear in the Regies that for
the purpose of this Rule a species is a " species inquirenda " if the author of a
genus is doubtful of the taxonomic status of the nominal species concerned
(either because the species is unknown to him or because of difiiculties of
identifying it). This expression does not mean that the author was doubtful
whether the species in question was correctly referable to the genus concerned,
that question being provided for in the immediately following subsection of
this Rule,

120

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

(80) Article 30, proposed addition of a " Recommatidation " urging authors
not to use the expression " genotype " ; The expression genotype is now widely
used by geneticists in a sense totally different from that in which it is sometimes
used in zoological nomenclature (i.e. in the sense of the type species of a genus).
The use of this expression in zoological nomenclature is much less frequent than
formerly and, in order to avoid confusion, it would be useful if a Recommanda-
tion were added to Article 30 urging authors not to use that expression when
referring to the type species of a genus. It is recommended that the Com-
mission should now agree to the insertion of a Recommandation in this
sense. (Z.N.(S)352.)

FRANCIS HEMMING,

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretariat of the Commission,

Paris.
2ith July, 1948.

(121

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

PAPER
I.C.(48)17

MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS FOR THE AMENDMENT OR CLARIFICATION
OF THE " REGLES ": FIFTH INSTALMENT

Memorandum by the Secretary to the Commission

In Paper I.C.(48)16 I circulated a fourth instalment of 17 miscellaneous
proposals for the amendment or clarification of the Regies. In the present paper
I submit a fifth instalment of proposals of this kind. For convenience of
reference, these are numbered consecutively with those enumerated in
Paper I.C.(48)16.

Fifth instalment of miscellaneous proposals for the improvement of the
" Regies " in various respects

(81) The plenary powers in relation to particular purposes : It is very clear
from the discussions in the Section on Nomenclature and from the communica-
tions received from various sources (including the communications received
from the Danish and Austrian zoologists) that there is a very widespread
desire that steps should be taken to include in the Regies provisions to prevent
the upsetting of well-known and commonly used names solely upon biblio-
graphical grounds. The Commission have undertaken to study this question
and submit a report to the next meeting of the Congress. On the main issue
involved, clearly no action is possible at the present Congress but there is one
direction in which it is in the power of the Commission to meet the general
wish of zoologists. This would be by recommending the Congress to include
in the Article in which the plenary powers resolution is to be incorporated a
new provision (analogous to that agreed upon at the meeting of the Section on
Nomenclature held on Friday, 23rd July in relation to names of importance
to medicine, veterinary science, agriculture, etc.) in which the Commission
would be enjoined to give special consideration to applications for the use of their
plenary powers when those applications are concerned either : —

(1) to suppress for nomenclatorial purposes some old long-forgotten work
containing new names the introduction of which would sink in
synonymy names that are well established in current use ;

(2) to suppress any old but hitherto forgotten name in any book where
the introduction of that name at the present time would sink in
synonymy some well-known name in current use. (Z,N.(S)352,)

122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This is a modest proposal but it is. I am convinced, of a nature calculatefl
to strengthen the hands of tlie Commission in dealing with cases of this kind.
As such it is of value and it would, I lielicve, l)e widely welcomed. I accordingly
recommend it to the Commission for adoption.

(82) The plenary powers in relation to cases of confusion arising from
uncertainty as to how to apply the "Regies " .• At the time when the plenary powers
were granted to the Commission, the preoccupation of all zoologists was
centred upon the question of the strict application of the Regies and of the
effects of such an application in given cases. It had not at that time been as
fully apparent that, even where all concerned were agreed in favour of the
strict application of the Regies, cases would occasionally arise where owing to
the impossibility of determining with certainty to which of two or more species
a given trivial name should be applied, a serious and irremediable state of
confusion would arise imless powers were given to the Conmiission definitely
to remove all such doubts by declaring under their plenary powers to which
species in such a case a given trivial name should apply. Now that some 35
years later a general effort has been made in many groups strictly to apply the
Regies, it has been found that in a number of important cases it is impossible
to apply those Regies with precision owing to the doubts which exist as to the
correct application of some well-known specific trivial name.

These doubts are to-day a potent source of uncertainty and instability
and every zoologist with whom this matter has been discussed is agreed that
authority should be given to the Commission to use their plenary powers to
settle such cases or, if it is held that this authority has already been gi-anted
under the existing powers, that that authority should be more explicity expressed.

It- is accordingly recommended that the Commission should invite the
Section on Nomenclature and, through it, the Congress to approve an extension
of the existing plenary powers to cover not only (as at present) cases where
greater confusion than imiformity would clearly result from the strict applica-
tion of the Regies but also cases where, in the absence of the use of such powers,
confusion is likely to persist through the impossibility of determining the manner
in which, under a strict application of the Regies, a given specific trivial name
should be applied. (Z.N.(S)352.)

(83) The composition of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature : Now that it has been decided to include in the Regies an
Article relating to the functions of the Commission, it is necessary also to
include an Article dealing with the composition of the Commission and the
method of electing its members. It is suggested that this Article should be in
general terras and should provide : —

(1) that the Commission shall consist of such number of persons not
being less than 18 as the Congress or the Commission acting on its
behalf may from time to time determine ;

(2) that one third of the members of the Commission shall be elected by
the Congress at each of its meetings for such periods and subject to
such conditions as may from time to time be imposed by the Congress :

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 12§

(3) that the Congress may determine from time to time the number of officers
ot the Commission and the titles and <iuties of such officers and may
elect members of the Commission to hold the offices so established ;

(4) that during periods between meetings of the Congress the Commission
inay, subject to maintaining the number specified in (1) above vary
the number of members and may elect zoologists to fill additional
places so created and may also fill casual vacancies which may occur
during such periods through death, resignation or otherwise, such
elections being made for such periods and subject to such conditions
as the Commission may from time to time prescribe ;

(5) that, if, as the result of an emergency, the Congress is prevented from
holding its normal periodical meetings, the Executive Committee of
the Commission (consisting of the officers of the Commission) may
assume and exercise such extraordinary powers as it may consider
necessary to secure the continued existence of the Commission
provided : — '

(a) that the powers so assumed shall not include the power to varv

the Regies ; -^

(6) that at the first meeting of the Congress after the end of such

emergency the Commission shall submit a report to the Congress

regarding the extraordinary powers assumed during the emergencv

and the action taken by the Executive Committee thereunder";

(6) that in filling places in the Commission due regard is to be paid by

the Congress or the Commission, as the case may be, to the need for

securing (a) that there is an appropriate balance in the membership

ot the Commission as between different parts of the world and (6)

that there is an appropriate representation of different types of

knowledge and experience (i) in the various branches of the Animal

Kmgdom as respects both living arid fossil species and also (ii) of

the needs of workers not only in the field of systematic zoology but

also m the applied fields concerned with biological subjects.

(84) By-Laws of the Intermtioml Commission on Zoobgiml Nometidature-
1 he insertion in the Regie, of an Article relating to the composition and functions
ot the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature makes it necessary
also to insert an Article regarding the manner in which the Commission is to
conduct Its business. It is suggested that this should be done by the insertion
ot an Article providing : —

(1) that the procedure and other matters concerned with the conduct
ot the affairs of the Commission shall be governed by By-Laws to be
adopted by the Commission ;

(2) that these By-Laws shall contain provisions giving effect to every
provision included in the Regies which prescribes either the composition
or tunctions of the Commission and that the Articles dealing with those
matters are to be Organic Articles and therefore not subject to change
except in so far as the Congress may from time to time vary the
provisions in the Rigles relating to the composition and functions
ot the Commission ;

124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

(3) that, in addition to the Organic Articles, the Commission may include
in their By-Laws such provisions as they may consider necessary
relating (i) to the election of officers and the duties to be assigned to
each such officer, (ii) to the election of members of the Commission,
(iii) to the election of an Executive Committee, its composition and the
functions to be entrusted thereto, (iv) to the methods to be followed in
voting on matters requiring decisions and (v) generally to any other
matter concerning the conduct of the business of the Commission ;

(4) that, subject to (2) above, the Commission may at any time vary its
By-Laws to such extent and subject to such conditions as it may from
time to time decide ;

(5) that the Commission should arrange for the International Trust on
Zoological Nomenclature, the corporation formed to carry out all
financial duties on behalf of the Commission, to print its By-Laws and
at all times to place supplies thereof on sale.

(85) Article 28 as applied both to generic and to trivial names^. There is so
much doubt in the minds of zoologists as to the position under the Regies in
this matter and there is in consequence such diversity of practice that it is, I
think, essential that the Commission should agree to insert words into this
Article expressly stating either what is the position or, if the Regies are to be
altered, what the position is to be. At present this Article leaves it to the
first reviser to choose which of any two or more generic names should be
accepted in preference to the other or others when all the names in question
are published in the same book or journal and the parts of that book or journal
containing the narnes in question are published simultaneously. This Article,
read in conjunction with Article 31, appears to mean that, where two nominal
species are united on taxonomic grounds and the names of these nominal species
were published in the same book, the choice as to which of the trivial names in
question shall in future be the name of the combined species rests with the
first reviser.

On the other hand, we know : —

(1) that the determination of the question who is the first reviser often
involves a laborious search of the literature and that, even when
this search has been made, it is often a matter of doubt whether a given
passage in a given work constitutes an act by a " first reviser " ;

(2) that a large and increasing number of zoologists ignores the present
provisions of Article 28 as applied to a combined species by calling in
aid the principle of page precedence and, if necessary, that of line
precedence, a method which gives a quick and clear-cut answer to the
question of the name to be adopted ;

(3) that the Commission itself has inclined towards the principle of page
precedence, having thought it necessary in two cases to use its plenary
powers to protect a generic name, in the first of these cases (Opinion

• Point (85) constitutes the Rei)ort on thi.s subject which at the Ninth Meeting of tlieir
Paris Session the Commission requested the Secretary to prepare for their consideration.

Bulletin of Zoological Nonieficlatute. 125

156) {Vanessa Fabricius) against another generic name (Cynthia
Fabricius) published higher up on the same page of the same work,
and in the second case (Opinion 167) to protect a name {EtUhaUa
Hiibner) against a name {Symp/iaedra Hiibner) published on an earlier
page of the same work.

In these circumstances it cannot be claimed that the position as it exists
to-day under the Regies is free from doubt. In my view, the factors calling
for special consideration are : —

(a) that a large and increasing number of zoologists applies the principle of
page and line precedence ;

{b) that this system is infinitely easier to operate than that of the first
reviser, and

(c) that on two occasions the Commission have used their plenary powers
on the assumption that page and line procedure constitute the rule.

These are grounds in favour of the insertion in this Article of a clear-cut
provision stating definitely that, where the names of two or more nominal genera
or of two or more nominal species are published simultaneously in the same
book or journal and a later reviser decides to unite the nominal genera or
nominal species as the case may be, the name to be adopted for the combined
genus or species so established is to be determined by the application of the
principle of page precedence and, if necessary, that of line precedence, it being
understood that if the application of this rule creates a really hard case, that
case will be remedied by the use of the plenary powers. If the Commission
take the opposite view, then they should, I think, state clearly in Article 28
that the principle of page and line precedence is not to be invoked. In that
case they should, I think, be prepared to use their plenary powers to remedy
any hard cases so created. My belief is that the number of hard cases is likely
to be smaller if the principle of page and line precedence is invoked than if the
opposite principle is affirmed. For this reason and because of the much greater
simplicity and certainty secured by the principle of page and line precedence,
I hope that the Commission will adopt this principle. In any case, a clarification
of Article 28, in one direction or another, is absolutely essential.

(86) Regies, First Schedule {scope) : We have agreed to include in the First
Schedule particulars relating to all cases where the Commission use their plenary
powers. It is just as important, however, formally to record cases where the
use of the plenary powers has been refused. It is therefore proposed :

(a) that the scope of the First Schedule should be enlarged to this extent ;

and
(6) that the Standing Orders of the Commission should provide for the

automatic cancellation of Opinions relating to the use of the plenary

powers as and when the decisions recorded therein are inscribed in the

First Schedule.

(87) Regies, Second Scfiedide {supplementary proposals): This has been
established for the reception of particulars of decisions taken by the Commission

136 Bvttetin of Zoological Nomenclature.

when not acting under their plenary powers when those decisions relate to the
status of books. It is recommended : —

(o) that the scope of this Schedule should be extended to cover also all
decisions in regard to individual names taken by the Commission in
Opinions other than under the plenary powers ;

(b) that the Standing Orders of the Commission should provide for the
automatic cancellation of every Opinion falling in the class specified in
(a) above as from the date on which the decision recorded therein is
inscribed in the Second Schedule.

(88) The Official Lists of Generic and Specific Names in Zoology in relation
to the"' Regies ".• It is proposed : —

(a) that there should be two further Schedules to the Regies established
forthwith, namely :

(i) a Fourth Schedule for the reception of the Official List of Generic

Names in Zoology ;
(ii) a Fifth Schedule for the reception of the Official List of Specific

Names in Zoology :

(6) that, in order to prevent the Regies from being unduly bulky the Fourth
and Fifth Schedules should be published separately from time to time
in Parts ;

(c) that on the forthcoming pubhcation of the Official List of Goxeric
Names in Zoology the volume so published shall constitute the Fourth
Schedule to the Regies, and that, as from the date of its publication,
all the Opinions rendered by the Commission in relation to the names
recorded in the said Schedule as ha^dng been entered upon the Official
List should be cancelled ;

{d) that as and when a sufficient number of specific names has been placed
on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, that Official List shall
be published in hke manner to that prescribed in (c) above and the
relevant Opinions thereupon cancelled.

(89) Proposed cancellation of certain " Opinions " which contain no effective
decision or, by reason of their transitory character, have now lost all significance:
It is proposed that the following Opinions falling in the above classes should
be cancelled in whole or in part : —

(a) Opinion 9. (No effective decision.)

(b) Opinions 23 Both these Opinions should be cancelled, as each states

and 24 that a certain generic name proposed by the non-
binominal author Conimerson is an available name. If
so desired by specialists, the Commission can later
vaUdate the names in question under their plenary
powers.

(c) Opinion 32. The statement in this Opinion is correct but is now

irrelevant in view of the fact that the Commission has
since designated Sphexflavipennis Fabricius as the type
species of the genus Spkex under their plenary powers.

RnVffin of Zoological Nomenclnturf.

127

(rf) Opinion 44. The Opinion falls to the ground owing to the suppression

of Gronovius 1763, by Opinion 89.
(e) Opinion 74. This is concerned only with the rejection of a proposal

on procedure submitted by Commissioner Apstein.
(/) Opinion 76. The following action is needed : —

(1) cancel the first sentence :

(2) insert the content of the second sentence in the
Fourth Schedule :

(3) cancel the third sentence because the conclusion here
indicated has already been superseded by Opinion 80 ;

(4) cancel the remainder of the " Summary."

ig) Opinion 83. The first sentence will now be clearly stated in the Rexjlen
and should be omitted from the Foiirth Schedule.

(h) Opinion 88. The interpretative portion is now to be incorporated in
the Regies. The remainder should be inserted in the
Fourth Schedule, subject to the substitution of the word
" available " for the word " valid."

(0 Opinion 102. The interpretative element is now to be incorporated in
the Regies. The remainder is concerned with taxonomy
and not nomenclature and for this reason and because it
does no more than state the obvious, it should not be
included in the Fourth Schedule.

('/) Opinion 107. It is proposed that, as regards this very bad Opinion, the
only portion to be entered in the Fourth Schedule should
be the last two lines of the " Summary."

(h) Opinion 113. The date " 1802 " should be corrected, for Latreille's
volume is dated according to the French Revolutionary
Calendar (running from September to September).

(/) Opinion 133. This Opinion is unnecessary as it is completely covered
by the general principles enumerated in Opinion 141.

I

(90) Supplementary decisions needed in regard to matters dealt with in certain
" Opinions " before the contents of those " Opinions " can nsefuUy he inserted in
Schedules to the " Regies " : —

(a) Opinion 31. The decision in this Opinion which was published in 1910
is incorrect. This was pointed out in 1911 by Stejneger
in a footnote incongruously inserted at the foot of the
first page of Opinion 38. The error in Opinion 31 has
never been formally corrected and this needs now to bt-
done.

(6) Opinions 68 These Opinions are concerned with the tjrpes of the

and 69. genera Pleuronectes Linnaeus, 1758, and Sparus Linnaeus.

1758 (Class Pisces). These Opinions are most unhelpful.

for they state only that an author (Fleming, 1828) did

not fix the types of these genera. It is recommended

128

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

that immediate steps should be taken by the Commission
to determine, in consultation with specialists, what are
the types of these genera and that, having done so, they
should insert these particulars in the Third Schedule, at
the same time cancelling Opinions 68 and 69.

(c) Opinion 97. Hiibner's Tentamen: It would be impossible to include
in the Third Schedule the tortuous and evasive statement
given in the " Summary " of this Opinion. It is proposed
therefore clearly to state that Hiibner's Tentamen was
not published within the meaning of Article 25 and that
therefore the new names in it have no availability as
from the date (1806) on which this sheet was distributed
by its author. (The decision in this Opinion is agreeable
now to the vast majority of speciaUsts, there now being
only a minute handful who support the Tentamen and
these only in respect of a few of the names included in it.)

{d) Opinion 78. Name of the Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever Tick
and and

(e) Opinion 99. Etidamoeba versus Entamoeba: Both these Opinions are

very poor, have been the subject of much criticism, and
have been re-submitted by specialists for further con-
sideration. It is accordingly proposed : —

(a) that the Commission should announce that the
matters dealt with in these two Opinions should be
treated as sub judice: and

(6) that, pending a review of the problems involved, the
contents of neither of these Opinions should be
entered in the Fourth Schedule to the Regies.

(f) Opinion 129. This Opinion suppresses Bipinnaria, etc., as generic

names but adds that they are available as technical
designations for developmental stages of the Echinoderms
concerned. It is recommended that the Commission
should make it clear that, although Bipinnaria and the
other names concerned as proposed by Sars are suppressed
as generic names, they retain their status under Article
34 and therefore make it impossible for these names to be
vaUdly used for other genera in the Animal Eongdom.

{g) " Opinions" In some Opinions the Commission have suppressed a

suppressing generic name in order to clear the way for the validation

generic of the same name as used at a later date, while in other

names Opinions they have suppressed a generic name in order

under (he to validate some other name for the same genus. It is

plenary recommended that in every case falling in the first class

powers the name suppressed should be suppressed absolutely so

far as concerns its publication by the author and in the

work cited, but that a name falling in the second class,

while being suppressed for purposes of availability,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclafnrp. 129

should nevertheless retain its position under Article 34.
thus making it impossible for the name to be vaUdly
used for some other genus (a course which would clearly
give rise to confusion and run counter to the intention of
the Commission at the time when they took the decisions
in question).

(91) Errors in certain "Opinions" requiring correction before the contents
of those " Opinions " are inserted in the Schedules to the " Regies." It is pro-
posed : —

(a) that when any name on which a decision has been given in an Opinion
is transferred to one of the Schedules to the Regies :

(i) the name should be correctly cited and its bibliographical reference

inserted ;
(ii) in the case of a specific trivial name, the original generic name
(frequently omitted in the older Opinions) should be inserteil.
(l)) that if, when the Secretary to the Commission re-examines the Opinions
with a view to the transfer of their contents to the Schedules, he should
find other errors or obscurities than those specified in Points (89) and
(90) above, the Commission should treat as a matter of urgency the
correction of such errors in order not to hold up the publication of the
revised edition of the Regies and that to this end all procedural delays
should be eliminated under suspension of the by-laws.

(92) Gender of mimes on the " Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ".■ It
is suggested that the Commission should agree : —

(1) that the gender of every generic name placed on the " Official List "
should be indicated in the alphabetical index to that list when pub-
lished ;

(2) that it be a standing instruction that whenever in future a generic
name is placed on the '" Official List," its gender be at the same time
recorded therein.

(93) Date of entry into force of the " Regies ' as revised: When the Regies
were adopted in 1901, it took three and a half years before the text was pub-
lished. It is proposed on this occasion to act with the utmost despatch.
All zoologists will naturally wish to know as soon as possible, and also to act as
soon as possible on. the changes and other modifications which have now
been agreed upon.

It is accordingly proposed : —

(1) that the Minutes of the meetings of the Paris Session setting out in
detail all the decisions taken shall be published at the earhest possible
moment in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature together with (1)
the supporting I C.(48) papers and (2) the Report, now to be submitted
to the Congress by the Commission ;

VOL. 3 .1-

1 30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

(2) that when the foregoing documents are published as in (1) above, they
should be prefaced by a short note explaining the arrangements in
hand for the early publication of the revised Regies and advising all
authors thenceforward to proceed as though the revised Regies con-
taining the said changes were already published ;

(3) that the Regies, as amended by the Paris Congress, shall formally enter
into force as from the date on which they are published on behalf of
the Congress by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature ;

(4) that an Article be inserted in the Regies prescribing the date of entry
into force as in (3) above.

FRANCIS HEMMING,

Se(^etary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretariat of the Commission.

Paris.
■l^th July, 1948.

I

(131

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

PAPER

I.C.(48)18

MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS FOR THE AMENDMENT OR CLARIFICATION
OF THE "REGLES": SIXTH INSTALMENT

Memorandum by the Secretary to the Commission

I circulate herewith for the consideration of the Commission a sixth instal-
ment of miscellaneous proposals, some of which are concerned with the amend-
ment of the Regies, while others relate to matters of a more general character.
The fifth instalment was circulated as Paper I.C.(48)17.

Sixth instalment of miscellaneous proposals for the improvement of the
"Regies" in various respects

(94) Case of identical trivial names published in different genera bearing the
same name: Commissioner Bradley has raised the question of the treatment
to be accorded to two identical trivial names given to species in different genera
when those genera bear the same name. In Paper I.C.(48)8 these cases were
covered in the definition of " primary homonym," i.e., by the words " the same
combination of generic and trivial names," though the definition of secondary
homonyms was restricted to cases of identical trivial names placed in the same
genus (i.e., it does not cover the case of identical trivial names placed in different
genera which have the same name). It seems to me that specific homonyms
(whether primary or secondary) which arise solely through the existence of
generic homonyms (i.e., through the fact that Article 34 has not been compUed
with) constitute a special case and should not call for the replacement of the
jimior trivial name, since once Article 34 has been comphed with, this would
be totally unnecessary. It is suggested therefore that the definition of specific
homonyms (both primary and secondary) for the purposes of the proposals
contained in Paper I.C.(48)8 should be restricted to cases of identical trivial
names either originally published, or subsequently placed, in the same genus,
and that a provision should be added stating that, where species bearing
identical trivial names are either originally published, or are subsequently
placed in different genera and those genera bear the same name, the junior
generic name should be replaced (as required by Article 34) but that the junior
trivial name is not to be replaced (Z.N.(S)80).

(95) Article 25, proviso (a) (meaning of the expression " indication ") {pn posal
supplementary to Proposal (18) in Commission Paper I.C>(48)11) : At the
very end of this paragraph there is a loophole. As things now stand, it would

1 32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

be possible validly to replace an invalid trivial name without giving any des-
cription or figure or a reference to such figure even if the name to be replaced
was a nomen nudum. This is of course no more than a slip and it is proposed
to remedy it by inserting at the end of the sentence the words " where that
name was a name which had originally been published with an indication."

(96) Consolidation of decision in " Opinion " 46 {proposal supplementary to
Proposal (39) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)11): There is another slip here.
As drafted, the " summary " of Opinion 46 contemplates a situation in which,
when species are first placed in a genus which was originally published without
any species being cited by name, only one such species is cited. In that
case, as stated in the words used, that species would automatically become the
type of the genus concerned. But this form of words leaves unprovided for
the case where on the first occasion on which any species are cited by name as
belonging to the genus the names of two or more species are cited. It is
proposed to remedy this defect by inserting words to the effect that where, on
the occa.sion on which for the first time the name of a species is cited as being
referable to a genus in which, when first estabhshed, no species was cited by
name or recognisably described without a name and on that occasion two or
more nommal species are so cited, these nominal species become for purposes
of nomenclature the originally included species and are therefore the species
from which alone a subsequent author, acting under Rule (g) of Article 30, can
select the type species of the genus.

(97) Article 30, Rule (g) {to be applied rigorously): It has sometimes
happened that a given generic name was introduced in a particular book but that
for some reason contemporary authors treated the use of the name either by the
same author or by some other author in some other book published either after
or earlier (e.g., in the case of pre- 1758 names) as the place where the name was
first published or, where they have not actually done this, they have proceeded,
when selecting the type under Rule {g) in Article 30, to argue that account can
be taken of species included by the author in books other than that in which
the name was first validly published under Article 25. Alternatively, it has
been argued that, where an author states that species " X " is the type of
genus A-us Linnaeus, 1735, that action constitutes a valid type designation for
A-us Linnaeus, 1758. On a number of occasions, illogicalities of this kind have
led to confusion and error and it is proposed that the Regies should make it clear
that, where an author selects a species to be the type of a genus as of an author
and/or as of a date other than the original author of the genus or other than
as from the book in which the name was first validly published, the so-called
type-selection so made does not comply with the requirements of Rule {g)
in Article 30, it being necessary for the purpose of that Rule that a subsequent
author selecting the type of a nominal genus should have under consideration
for this purpose only the first occasion on which the generic name in question
was validly published under Article 25. (This is necessary, since otherwise
it might be possible to select as the type of a genus a species not included in
the original (post-1757) publication of the generic name or to ignore a valid
type designation by some other author on the ground that the species so selected
was not an originally included species.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 133

(98) Cases where a series of subspecies is enumerated, each freceded by a
serial letter: Old authors used sometimes to list (usually as " varietates ") the
subspecies of a species, and, when doing so, place a letter (" a," " b," " c,'" etc.)
before each " var." in turn. It has sometimes been argued that these letters
form part of the name of the subspecies, where that name was first introduced
in such circumstances. This is a misconception and it is proposed that this
should be made clear in the Regies.

(99) Date of entry into force of the " Regies " as amended: A proposal on
this subject is included in I.C>(48)20 (draft report). It is suggested that the
Commission should reach a decision on this question when they come to con-
sider that paper.

(100) Article 34 {generic names) and Article 35 {trivial names), a special
case : An implicit result of the Commission's ruling in Opinion 116 is that
a generic name ending in " -nus " is not to be treated as being identical with
one ending in " mu^." This implication was inadvertently not noted when
I.C.(48)11 was being prepared. It is suggested that this decision (which would
cover also generic names ending in (1) -ma and -na, and (2) -mum and -7ium)
should be incorporated in the Regies and Opinion 116 at the same time cancelled
for interpretative purposes.

(101) Article 25 {Point (12) in I.C.(48)11 {nomina nuda,)): It would be
well to make it clear that (i) a name which has been published without an indi-
cation or (ii) has been published in a work found not to be available is, on being
later published with an indication, in exactly the same position as a manuscript
name when so published.

(1 02) Article 25 {status of generic tmmes cited in specific synonymies) : We have
now made clear the position as regards trivial names previously not vahdly pub-
lished or previously not published at all, when those names are published in
synonymies and it is possible therefore to attach a definite meaning to them.
There remains one other class of case, namely, where in the synonymy of a species
an author cites, but does not adopt, a binominal combination (specific name), the
nomen genericum comprised in which has either never been pubhshed or is a
name which has been published only by a non-binommal author (either before or
after 1758). We have already covered the second of these classes (names by
non-binominal authors) in Point (20) in Paper I.C.(4S)11. Names of genera
belonging to the other class (generic names cited in specific synonymies where
the generic name has either not previously been published or has been published
in conditions which do not satisfy Article 25) are usually ignored, and, I think,
rightly so. I accordingly recommend that the Regks should make it clear that
generic names published in such circumstances acquire thereby no rights under
the Law of Priority.

(1 03) Generic names first published in generic synonymies: It is not at present
clear in the Regies what are to be the included species of a genus the name of
which is first published in a generic synonymy. To take an example : (1) an
author validly established a genus " A-us " with (say) 20 included species,

134 Bulletin of Zoological Nonuinclature.

(2) a later author dealing with the same genus cites in it 10 species, of which
some were different from those cited by the original author and in addition
cited the unpublished generic name " Y-us " in the synonymy of X-us. The
question is : (a) are the originally included species for Y-us the 20 species placed
in A-us by its original author or (6) are the 10 species placed in that genus by
the latter author alone to be regarded as the originally included species'? I
think it important that we should give a clear answer to this question. I
recommend answer (a) ; for the later author clearly regarded the MS. name as
equal in content with the genus as originally established.

FRANCIS HEMMING,

Secretary to the Internatiofial Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretariat of the Commission,
Paris.

'MhJuhj, 1948.

135)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

PAPER
I.C.(48)19

PARTICULARS RELATING TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL CASES

Memwmtdum by the Secretary to the Comnmniou

In the present Paper 1 submit particulars relating to certain individual
eases which have been before the Commission for some time and on which 1
Uesirc to have their opinion.

(1) Propoised completion of • Opimons ■ tvhtch Jail to pwvule iomulele
answers to questions submitted: One of the defects of a number of the older
(pinions IS that they provide an answer to part only of the question submitted
1 have been in correspondence with Professor Harold Kirby on the subiect of
Opinion 95 (in which 3 out of 5 generic names in the Phylum Protozoa submitted
or inclusion in the Official List were " tabled " for further consideration, which
they never received) and Commissioner Boschma has raised the question of
supplementing the incomplete decision given in Opinion 82 (see Point No (2)
below). I suggest that the Secretary to the Commission be instructed to
examine the past Opmions with a view to ascertaining all instances where part
ot an apphcation was not dealt with, and to submit proposals for completing
these Opinions as soon as possible. (Z.N.(8)201).

.. ,(2) Pro;po6f;(/ addition o/ Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Class Insecla
Order Diptera) to the "Official List " {reference Opinion 82).- One mstance of
the type of omission referred to in Point (1) above has been raised by Com-
missioner Boschma (Z.N.(S)201). In the application dealt with in Opinion 82
the Conmussion were asked to take a two-fold action as regards each of two
names of genera in the Order Diptera (Class Insecta). They were asked :-
(A)(1) to validate the name Musca Linnaeus. 1758, with Musca dotnestica
Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species ;
(2) to place the name Musca Linnaeus, with the above species as type
species, on the Official List;
(ii)(l) to validate the name Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidv. 1830. with
Musca vomitoria Linnaeus. 1758. as type species ; and
(2) to place the name Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy. 1830. with the
above species, as type species on the Offimil List.
In Opimm 82 the Commission dealt only with the first of these four re-
quests. It has smce been ruled in connection with Opinion 137 that where
(as m the case of Musca Linn.) the Commission use their plenary powers to
vahdate a given generic name or to fix its type species, this decision carries

136 Bulletin of Zoological Nmnendatnre.

with it automatically a decision to place on the Official List the name so vali-
dated, irrespective of whether the latter decision is recorded (as it should be)
in the Opinion concerned. No further action is necessary therefore as regards
request (A)(2) above.

The decision as regards Musca Linnaeus cleared away all difficulties as
regards the name CaUiphom Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, and it is proposed that
the Conmiission should now place that generic name (with Musca vomitoria
Linnaeus, 1758, as type by original designation) on the Official List.

(3) Type of Mabuya Fitzinger, 1826 (Class Reptilia) [referoice Opinion
92).- In Opinian 92 in which the above name was placed on the Official List, the
type species of the genus was erroneously cited as Scincus sloanii Daudin, 1803.
This was due to a gross piece of carelessness, since the above species was not
only not one of the species originally included in Mabuya by Fitzinger but was
actually cited by that author in another genus on a different page of the same
paper. Actually, Lacertu^ mabouya Lacepede, 1788, is the type of Fitzinger's
genus by absolute tautonymy and is so recognised by specialists in this group.
It is proposed to correct this mistake in the edition of the Official List shortly
to be published. (Z.N.(S)203.)

(4) Proposed use of the plenary powers for Porina Walker, 1856 (Order
Lepidoptera): This name is of importance as this genus has a species which is
a serious pasture pest in New Zealand. It is invaUd, however, because it is
pre-occupied by Porina d'Orbigny. 1852, the name for a genus of cretaceous
Bryozoa. Recent species have also been referred to this genus which is regarded
as one of the principal genera of Bryozoa. It would seem to me to be quite a
wrong use of the plenary powers to employ them to validate a name in one part
of the Animal Kingdom, if (as here) this means upsetting a well-known generic
name in some other part of the Animal Kingdom. It appears to me, therefore,
that the present application should be rejected and that the next name for
" Porina," i.e., Oxycanus, Walker, 1856, should be used in its place, as in fact
is ah-eady being done by some authors in New Zealand. It is suggested that
concurrently with the rejection of the present appUcation the name Oxycanus
should be placed on the Official List. (Z.N. (S.) 194.)

(5) Phlebotomus or Flebotomus {Class Insecta, Order Diptera): This name
was published by Rondani in 1840 with an " F- " but was emended to " Ph- " by
Agassiz in 1846. This emendation is in general, though not imiversal, use and it
is generally agreed by the authorities who have approached the Commission
(C. T. Brues ; G. B. Fairchild ; Marshall Hertig) that it would cause confusion if
(as suggested by William F. Rapp, Jr.) the original " F- " spelling were to be
re-adopted. It has been suggested by some of the Commission's correspondents
that the original spelling was afaute d'orthographe or afaute de transcription or a
fante d' impression. It is clear, however, from Rondani's paper that his spelling
is intentional. This would indeed have been the natural spelhng for an ItaUan
to adopt, having regard to the Italian word " Flebotomia " (meaning " lancet ").
If. therefore, the " Ph- " spelling is to be continued, the Commission will have
to use their plenary powers to secure this end. In view of the very wide use

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 137

of this spelling in medical works and also of the views of specialists who have
approached the Commission, it is suggested that action in this sense should be
taken. The case was advertised last November and not a single objection has
been raised against the adoption of this course. It is suggested that at the
same time as the " Ph- " spelling is validated, this generic name should be
placed on the Official List (type : Bibio jxipatisi Scopoli, 1786, by monotvpy).
(Z.N.(S.)169.)

(6) Proposed use of the plenary powers to determine tlie identity of Papilio
plexippus Linnaeus, 1758 {Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera): No final settlement
will ever be reached on the question whether the above name was given to (1)
the North American " Monarch " Danaid or (2) to the Chinese species of Danaid
named Papilio genutia by Cramer, unless the Commission use their plenary
powers to put an end to this controversy, for there are good arguments in support
of either view (though personally I think those in favour of the " Monarch " to
Ije the stronger of the two). Great confusion has arisen in this case, a fact
which is particularly unfortunate (a) because of the large non-systematic
literature regarding the " Monarch " (in relation to its migratory habits) and
(6) because it is particularly objectionable to be in doubt regarding the identity
of the type species of a genus {Danaus Kluk, 1802) which forms the basis of a
family. I recommend that this problem which was submitted to the Commis-
sion by the late A. S. Corbet (British Museum (Natural History)) should now
be settled by the use of the plenary powers to determine the matter by declaring
that the species to which the name Papilio plexipptis Liim. applies is the
North American " Monarch " and not the Chinese species. This would be
done by reference to some figure of the first of these species. (Z.N.(S.)323.)

(7) Type species of Colymbus Linnaeus, 1750 (Class Aves): This case has
been on the books of the Commission for over twenty years, and the only reason
why it was not settled long ago was that, whatever decision was taken, it was
certain that that decision would displease some section of ornithologists. As the
result of this cowardly action on the part of the Commission, the situation has
become more difficult, rather than less difficult. It is essential, therefore, that a
decision should be taken with the least possible delay. Owing to the fact that
there is a wide divergence of practice in this case, one group of workers taking
as the type of this genus a species which is the type of one family and another
group a species which is the type of another family, nothing would be gained
by the use of the plenary powers. It seems to me. therefore, that the proper
course is to determine definitely what is the type species of this genus under
the Regies and to render an Opinion giving the answer. Owing to the divergence
of practice referred to above, this is not a matter on which it is possible to
obtain any material assistance from ornithologists, for all the specialists con-
cerned are committed in their own work to one view or the other. It is accor-
dingly proposed that, in view of the negative results obtained from the consul-
tations carried out since the Lisbon Session of the Commission, the Secretary
to the Commission should be instructed to prepare for the consideration of the
Commission an objective statement of this case, together with his conclusion
as to the type species of this genus on a strict application of the Regies, that an

138 Bidlelin of Zoological Nomenclature.

immediate vote should be taken on this statement when it is available
and that, on the completion of the voting, an Opinion setting out the decision
of the Commission should be published, the genus Colymbus being at the same
time placed on the Official List, with whatever species the Commission may
have found to be the type under the Regies. (Z.N.(S.)78.) I recommend also
that the Commission should place on record their disapproval of the use of
delay as a means of avoiding difficult decisions and their determination in
future to provide an answer without fear or favour in regard to every matter
submitted to them for decision.

(8) Schistosome worms and iSchistosome monsters: In 1832 Gurlt {Lehrbuch
(ler pathologischen Anatmnie) gave an account of the various types of Monsters
and classified them in "genera" and "famiUes" according to the Liimaean
system. It is an obvious abuse of the Linnaean system of nomenclature for it
to bo applied to teratology in this way and it is proposed that the Commission
should decide that for this reason the names of the so-called genera and species
proposed for Monsters by Gurlt in 1832 (I.e.) have no standing in zoological
nomenclature. The same appUes to the name Schistosoma reflexum as used
in the foregoing sense by Eisenbarthe in 1908 and to a similar use by Notter
jn 1927 (both of which latter papers have already unfortunately found their
way into bibliographies of Schistosomiasis). (Z.N.(S.)285.)

FRANCIS HEMMING,

Secretary to the International Corrmdssion
on Zoological Nomenclature
Secretariat of the Coumiission,
Paris.

'2bth July, 1948.

139)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

PAPER
I.C. (48) 20

DRAFT OF REPORT TO BE SUBMIHED TO THE CONGRESS BY
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Note by the Secretary to the Commission

I circulate herewith for the consideration of my colleagues, the attached
draft of the Report to be submitted by the Commission to the Congress for
approval bv the final Concilium Plenum, to be held on Tuesday next. •27tti
Julv. 1948.'

FRANCIS HEMMING,

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological N omenclotnre .

Secretariat of the Commission.
Paris.

■mh July. 1948.

Editorial Note : — The text of the Report, as unanimoiisly adopted by the International
(."ommission on Zoological Nomenclature and similarly approved by the Section on Nomenclature
on Monday, 26th July, 1948, will be published in volume 5 of the present journal. The chief
differences between the draft as submitted with Commission Paper I.C.(48)20 and the text as
unanimously approved and adopted are : — (1) the insertion of a new paragraph (paragraph ti)
between the paragraphs numbered 5 and 6 in the draft, for the purpose of recording that at the
later meetings of the Paris Session the International Commission reached decisions on a large
number of applications on individual problems of zoological nomenclature, the subsequent para-
graphs being renumbered accordingly ; (2) the insertion in paragraph 18 of the Report (paragraph
17 of the draft) of a reference to a change in the Danish representation on the Commission made
subsequent to the preparation of the draft ; (3) the expansion into two paragraphs (paragraphs
20 and 21) of the description given in paragraph 19 of the draft of the arrangements proposed
to be made to fiU vacancies in the Commission consequent upon the expiry of the term of service
of members of the Commission, the purpose of these changes being (a) to make a consequential
correction in regard to the Danish representation on the Commission and (6) to explain the
arrangements agreed upon in substitution for the existing system of three 9-year Classes ; (4) the
redrafting of paragraph 45 of the draft (paragraph 47 of the Report as adopted) for the purpose
(a) of recording a decision then agreed upon that the title of the proposed new " Official List "
of names of species should be changed to that of " Official List of Specific Trivial Names in
Zoology " and (6) of expanding the reference to this " Official List "' in order to make it comparable
with that given in the preceding paragraph (paragraph 44 of the draft) which related, to the
existing " Official List of Generic Names in Zoologj' "" ; (5) the redrafting of paragraph 47 of the
draft (paragraph 49 of the Report as finally adopted) for the purpose of recording a decision then
taken that the task of examining the draft of the Rigles as revised by the Paris Congress, when that
draft was received from the jurists, should be entrusted not to the Executive Committee of the
Commission, as previously agreed, but to an ad hoc Editorial Committee of three members.

(140)

DRAFT OF REPORT

BY THE

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

TO THE

THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY

INTRODUaORY

We, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, assembled
in Paris in July, 1948, have the honour to submit to the Thirteenth Inter-
national Congress of Zoology the following Report in which we deal both with
the developments which have occurred in the work of the Commission since our
last meeting held at Lisbon in 1935 during the Twelfth International Congress
and with the decisions of outstanding importance which have been reached
during the present Congress by the Commission and the Section on Nomen-
clature.

2. The present Report is divided into three parts. In the first of these
parts we deal with changes which have occurred in the composition of the
Commission since 1935 and we ask for the covering approval of the Congress
for the measures taken on our behalf by the Executive Committee during and
since the war to secure the continued existence of the Commission as a body.
In the same section, we submit important proposals which we have agreed upon
during the present Congress for the introduction of certain changes in the com-
position of the Commission and the method to be followed in electing zoologists
to be members of the Commission, together with consequential changes which
we are agreed it is necessary should be introduced into our procedure. The
combined effect of these changes will, we are confident, secure to the Commission
an unassailably representative and international character which wiU greatly
heighten its moral authority as the body which has been entrusted by the
Congress with final authority for all matters relating to the regulation of inter-
national law in the field of zoological nomenclature.

3. In Part 2 of our Report we indicate very briefly the administrative and
financial developments which have marked the period since the close of the
Lisbon Congress thirteen years ago. It is not possible within the compass of
the present Report adequately to deal with the many important innovations
introduced during this period. We have therefore thought it valuable to submit
with the present Report a detailed Report which has been prepared by our
Secretary, Commissioner Francis Hemming.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 141

4. In Part 3 of the present Report, we turn to the position of the Regies
Internationales and indicate in broad outhne the far-reaching reforms which
we now recommend should be introduced. These proposals are based upon
extensive consultations with representative zoological institutions and with
leading specialists in many groups, both in the Old World and the New. The
plan now submitted constitutes by far the most extensive and significant con-
tribution to the advancement of zoological nomenclature since the adoption
of the Regies at the meeting of the Congress held in Berlin in 1901 . The success-
ful issue of our discussions at the present Congress is due very largely to the
great interest displayed in matters of nomenclature by many members of the
present Congress and to the scientific and objective spirit which they have
brought to the discussion of the many complex problems involved. To a
considerable extent also this happy result is due to the decision of the Commis-
sion to throw its meetings open to all members of the Congress, thereby enlisting
at every stage the accumulated knowledge and experience of a wide range of
specialists in many fields. The Commission desire to thank all those who
participated in their meetings for the valuable assistance and advice which they
brought to the elaboration of the present plan.

5. The changes now proposed will enormously simplify the task of zoo-
logists in applying the Regies in the course of their special studies and as such
will be warmly welcomed by them. Everything in the Regies which experience
has shown to be wisely conceived and of permanent value has been most care-
fully conserved. On the other hand, everything which is time-worn or obscure
has been placed on one side and replaced by provisions which are clear, definite
and explicit. The provisions agreed upon by the Commission which are now
submitted for the approval of the Congress are designed to meet the expressed
views of leading zoologists in all parts of the world and to further the attainment
of that stability in nomenclature which it is the aim of every zoologist
to secure.

PART 1.

DEVELOPMENTS IN THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION DURING THE PERIOD
1935-1948, AND PROPOSALS DESIGNED TO SECURE FOR THE COMMISSION
THE MOST TRULY REPRESENTATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL CHARACTER AND
TO ENDOW THAT BODY WITH THE HIGHEST MEASURE OF MORAL

AUTHORITY

(a) Changes in the composition of the Commission since 1935

6. Losses through death and resignation. Deaths and resignations through
ill-health have, as was to be expected, led to heavy losses in the membersliip
of the Conamission since its meeting held at Lisbon thirteen years ago.

7. We have lost through death no less than seven of our colleagues,
Commissioners Fantham, Stone, Stiles, Stejneger, Chapman, Arndt, and Pel-
legrin. Every one of the colleagues whom we have lost made a valuable
contribution to the work of the Commission during his period of office, and we
deeply regret — as we do not doubt the Congress will also regret — that they

142 RulMin of Zoological Nomenclature.

should have passed from among us. We feel bound to express a particular
sense of loss arising from the death of our Vice-President, Commissioner
Charles Wardell Stiles (U.S.A.), who at the time of his death had served
continuously as a niember of the Commission for forty-five years, during
thirty-eight of which he had held the ofiice of Secretary, and of Commissioner
Leonhard Stejneger (U.S.A.), who served as a member of the Commission for
forty-four years, and by his wide experience and judicial temperament had made
a most notable contribution to the work of the Commission.

8. We feel bound also to express our particular regret at the death of
Commissioner W^alther Arndt (Germany) who lost his life during the war in
circumstances which constitute an ineffaceable outrage against the whole body
of men of science. Denounced to the Gestapo apparently for no other reason
than his intellectual integrity and his attachment to the conception of co-
operation between scientific men, irrespective of nationality, Commissioner
Arndt, the most gentle and inoffensive of men, was hurriedly arrested in January
1944 and shortly afterwards suffered death by the headsman's axe. We deeply
deplore the loss which we have sustained as the result of this abominable crime
and we ask the Congress to join with us in emphatically condemning this
disgraceful murder.

9. In addition we have lost four other Commissioners through other
causes. Three Commissioners (Apstein, Silvestri, Bolivar) have resigned on
account of advancing years and ill-health or for other reasons, while Commis-
sioner Jaczewski (Poland) has been unable to continue to discharge his duties
as a Commissioner as the result of circumstances arising out of the late war. and
his place has accordingly been treated as having been vacated.

10. Election of Commissioner Francis Hemming to be Secretary to the
Commission. At the close of the Lisbon Congress in 1935, the post of Secretary
to the Commission was vacant, Commissioner C. W. Stiles having resigned that
Ofiice but no election of a successor having been made. A year later, in October.
1936, Commissioner Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) was unanimously
elected to be Secretary to the Commission and the headquarters of the Commis-
sion were accordingly transferred from Washington to London.

11. Steps taken to fill vacancies. In accordance with the powers conferred
on them by the Congress at their meeting held at Monaco in 1913, the Commis-
sion have taken the following steps to fill the vacancies which have arisen in
their body and they ask for the approval of the Congress for the action so taken:

(1) Elections in 1937.

Senhor A. do Amaral (Brazil) vice Dr. A. Handlirsch (Austria) :
Professor Bela Hanko (Hungary) vice Dr. Geza Horvath (Hungary) ;
Dr. Walther Arndt (Germany) vic^ Professor Karl Apstein (Germany).

(2) Elections in 1939.

Professor Lodovico di Caporiacco (Italy) vice Professor F. Silvestri
(Italy) ; Professor J. R. Dymond (Canada) vice Dr. H. B. Fanthani
(Canada): Dr. T. Jaczewski (Poland) vice Dr. C. Bolivar y Pieltain.

HulMiv of Znologiml NnwoncJahirc. I4S

(3) Elections during the War.

Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) mce Dr. Witmer Stone (U.S.A.) ■
Professor Harold E. Vokes (U.S.A.) vice Dr. Leonhard Stejneger
(U.S.A.) ; Dr. Norman R. Stoll (U.S.A.) vice Dr. C. W. Stiles (U.S.A.) ;
Dr. Joseph Pearson (Australia) mce Dr. Frederick Chapman (Australia).

4) Elections since the end of the War.

Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands) vice Dr. W. Arndt (Germany) ;
Dr. Th. Mortensen (Denmark) vice Professor Jacques Pellegrin (France):
Dr. Paul Rode (France) vic^ Dr. T. Jaczewski (Poland).

12. We ask the Congress to approve and confirm the elections set forth
above.

13. At the same time we have to report that, in accordance with the powers
delegated to us by the Congress, we took steps, as each of the Classes of which
the body of the Commission is composed completed its term of service, to replace
it with a new Class and to elect to that Class the retiring members of the time-
expired Class. The Classes so constituted were : Class 1946 vice Class 1937 ;
Class 1949 vice Class 1940 ; Class 1952 vice Class 1943 ; Class 1955 vir^ Class 1 94(i.
We ask the Congress to approve and confirm the action so taken.

14. German and Japanese representation on, the Commission. At our
present meeting we have reviewed the action taken in this matter as respects
two Commissioners, namely Professor Teiso Esaki (Japan) and Professor
Rudolf Richter (Germany). We have a high regard for the professional
eminence of both of these colleagues and value the important services which
they have rendered to the Commission during their term of office. We feel,
however, that in the circumstances arising out of the late war, we should be
correctly reflecting the general sentiment of zoologists as a whole in recommend-
ing that the zoologists of Japan and Germany respectively should now be given
an opportunity of deciding for themselves whether their present representation
should remain unchanged or whether it would be their wish to nominate other
zoologists to represent them. We accordingly recommend to the Congress
that they should release Professor Esaki and Professor Richter from service
as members of the Commission and should declare their places to be rendered
vacant.

15. Re-election of the Officers of the Commission during the War. We have
also to report that on the expiry of the term of service of the Class 1940, the
Ofiices of President and Secretary fell vacant owing to the completion of their
terms of service by Commissioners Karl Jordan and Francis Hemming, while
three years later the office of Vice-President similarly fell vacant consequent
upon the completion of the term of service of Class 1943 of which Commissioner
James Lee Peters was a member. In each case we invited the retiring officer
to resume his functions for a further period, being convinced that this would
be in accordance with the wishes of the Congress. We ask that our action
in this matter be approved and confirmed.

VOT.. 3 K

144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

16. Attendance of Commissioners at present meeting : Five members of
the Commission have attended the present Session of meetings : namely Com-
missioners Hemming, di Caporiacco, Bradley, Boschma and Rode. The remain-
ing members, including our President and Vice-President, were unavoidably
prevented from being present. In the absence of the President and Vice-
President, our meetings during the present session have been presided over by
our Secretary, Commissioner Francis Hemming.

17. Election of Alternate Members of the Commission for the duration of the
Congress : In accordance with the power conferred upon the Commission
by the Congress at its meeting held at Budapest in 1927, we invited the under-
mentioned members of the Congress to serve as Alternate Members of the
Commission during our present Paris Session :

Senor Enrique Beltran (Mexico) vice Senor A. Cabrera (Argentina).

Dr. Edward Hindle (United Kingdom) vice Dr. Karl Jordan (United King-
dom).

Professor Arturo Ricardo Jorge (Portugal) vice Senhor A. do Amaral (Brazil).

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

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

Professor Z. P. Metcalf (U.S.A.) vice Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).

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

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

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

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

18. We desire to express our sense of indebtedness to the foregoing zoo-
logists for consenting to assist us by serving as Alternate Members of the
Commission and for the long hours which many of them have devoted to our
proceedings, often at considerable personal inconvenience and always at the
cost of not participating in other activities of the Congress.

19. Formation of Class 1958 vice Class 1949 .• The Class 1949 expires on
the last day of the present Congress and we recommend that the following four
members of that Class should be elected to be members of the new Class 1958 :—
Cabrera, Hemming, Jordan, Pearson. Much to our regret our old friend and
colleague Dr. Th. Mortensen has asked to be permitted to retire from the service
of the Commission on account of ill-health and we feel unable to resist his
request in this matter. We recommend that he should be replaced by Professor
Dr. R. Sparck (Denmark) who, as already reported (paragraph 17), has acted
during the present Congress as an Alternate Member in place of Dr. Mortensen.
The sixth place in this Class should, we recommend, be left vacant until such
time as information is available regarding the wishes of German zoologists
on the question of their representation on the Commission.

20. Resignation of President Karl Jordan : It is with the deepest regret
and with a profound sense of loss that we have received a letter from our Presi-
dent, Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom), expressing the hope that, having
regard to his age and to the fact that he is now totally deaf, he may be released
from the duties of President of the Commission. Dr. Jordan has been a Member

finllHin of Zonlogicul NnmemUUurc. 1 4o

of the Commission continuously for a period of thirty-five years during nineteen
of which he held the office of President, having been elected thereto in 1929.
consequent upon the death of the eminent Italian zoologist, the late Professor
F. S. Monticelli. Throughout his long term of office. Dr. Jordan has brought
to the service of the Commission a wealth of knowledge, a wisdom of counsel,
and a high sense of judicial impartiality which have been of the greatest value
to the Commission. In particular, the Commission owe to Dr. Jordan a special
debt of gratitude for the devotion which he has brought to his duties as our
President and to the judgment with which he has guided our labours during
many difficult periods. We sincerely regret that Dr. Jordan has found it
necessary to take the present decision and we thank him most warmly for
the eminent services which, while President of the Commission, he has rendered
to zoological nomenclature. Our regret would be all the keener were it not for
the fact that Dr. Jordan has felt able to accede to our request that, although
no longer our President, he should continue to serve as a member of our body.
We feel that it will be the unanimous wish of the Congress, as it is of the Commis-
sion, that a special tribute should be paid to our old friend and colleague and
we have therefore great pleasure in recommending the Congress, as an excep-
tional measure, to estabhsh the post of Honorary Life President of the Commis-
sion and to offer this post to our retiring President.

21. Proposed election of Vice-President James Lee Peters to be President :
We unanimously recommend that our Vice-President, Dr. James Lee Peters
(U.S.A.), be elected President of the Commission in succession to Dr. Karl
Jordan. Dr. Peters is well known not only to us but also to a wide body of
zoologists and we feel confident that in his hands the impartiality and dignitv
of the Presidency of the Commission will be upheld and maintained.

22. Proposed election of Commissioner A. do Amaral to be Vice-President
of the Commission : We have pleasure in recommending that the vacancy
caused by the election of Dr. Peters to be President should be filled by the
election of Dr. A. do Amaral (Brazil) to be Vice-President of the Commission.

23. Proposed re-election of Commissioner Francis Hemming to be Secretary
to the Commission : The term of office of Commissioner Francis Hemming
as Secretary to the Commission expires on the last day of the present Congress
consequent on the expiry of the period of service of the Class 1949. We
recommend that Commissioner Hemming should be re-elected to this Office for
a further period.

24. Office of Assistant Secretary : We recommend that this Office should
be allowed to lapse as an office to be held by a member of the Commission and
should be made available for the chief Assistant to the Secretary in the Bureau
of the Commission.

(b) Proposed enlargement of the Commission and introduction of changes in the
manner of nominating members of the Commission

25. We recommend that in order to provide an opportunity for any country
in which any considerable amount of zoological work is being done to be
represented or for the election of any zoologist of outstanding qualities who

\V>i.. 3 K-

1 4fi Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

would be pre-eminently suitable to be a member of the Commission, the members
ship of the Commission should be enlarged, there being in future no upper
limit to the nimiber of members, the present nimiber of 18 being retained as a
minimum. We propose also that certain safeguards should be introduced
to secure that there shall at all times be an appropriate balance in the member-
ship of the Commission as between different parts of the world and as between
different types of knowledge and experience both in the field of systematic
zoology (including palaeozoology) and in those of the applied sciences which
are concerned with organisms belonging to the Animal Kingdom.

26. We recommend also that certain changes should be made in the manner
by which zoologists may be proposed for election as members of the Commission.
We think it necessary that the Commission should retain the right and the duty
of itself inviting individual zoologists in certain cases to serve as members of the
Commission, but we consider also that, parallel with this method of selection,
there should be introduced a system by which the views of zoologists in any
particular country should be sought, through appropriate channels, in regard to
the selection of a zoologist of their country to be their national representative
on the Commission.

27. We have discussed both these proposals at a meeting held jointly
with the Section of Nomenclature which is in full agreement with the line of
development which we advocate. We do not consider it necessary therefore
to set out here the detailed machinery by which we propose that the new scheme
should be operated, for we feel that it will be the wish of the Congress that
matters of this kind should be settled in the Section on Nomenclature and that
only the broad outlines of the scheme should be brought to the attention of the
Congress in plenary Session. Full particulars of both schemes will however be
recorded in the minutes both of the Commission and of the Section for purposes
of record.

28. We ask for the approval of the Congress for the proposed enlargement
of the Commission and for the changes in the method to be followed in the
election of members of the Commission outlined above.

(c) The procedure of the Commission

29. In consequence of the recommendations for the enlargement of the
Commission submitted in the preceding paragraph, changes are needed in the
procedure of the Commission. Further, even if no change had been proposed
in the size of the Commission, we should have felt boimd to ask the Congress to
withdraw the rule by which in certain types of case absolute unanimity is
required at present, for experience has shown that the Liberum Veto is a definite
hindrance to the work of the Commission and is open to strong objection, quite
apart from the objections generally entertained towards this outworn rule of
voting. The Commission consider, however, that as regards cases involving
either the suspension of the Regies or a proposed amendment to the Regies
a more rigorous rule of voting should be required than should be necessary to
secure the approval of the Commission on other matters. In their present

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 147

proposals therefore the Commission have made provision for a distinction of this
kind, the more rigorous of the two standards requiring (1) that as a minimum
one quarter of the membership of the Commission shall record their votes, and
(2) that two out of every three votes cast shall be in favour of the action pro-
posed.

30. We have discussed our proposals in detail with the Section on Nomen-
clature by whom they are approved and supported. Full particulars will be
given in the minutes of the meetings both of the Commission and of the Section.
We believe that in view of the heavy calls upon its time the Congress will regard
the foregoing summary as adequate for their purposes and we accordingly
invite the Congress to give their approval to the plan for the reform of the Com-
mission's procedure proposed by the Commission and unanimously approved by
the Section on Nomenclature.

'M . We should add that we have decided also upon various administrative
reforms which will, we believe, greatly reduce the period required to obtain an
Opinion from the Commission on any given question of nomenclature and thus
materially enhance the value to zoologists of the work of the Commission.

PART 2.
ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL DEVELOPMENTS DURING THE PERIOD

1936-1948

32. The detailed Report prepared by our Secretary, Commissioner Francis
Heteming, which, as already explained (paragraph 3 above), we propose to lay
before the Congress, gives a full account of the administrative and financial
developments which have occurred in the work of the Commission during the
period from October, 1936 (when Commissioner Hemming was elected to be
Secretary to the Commission), up to the opening of the present Congress. It
will be sufficient, therefore, if here we confine ourselves to the briefest outline of
these developments. We think it necessary, however, to include this short
summary, partly because the Congress is entitled to be informed of the work
of the Commission during the long interval which has elapsed since its last
meeting and partly because we wish to take the opportunity of expressing our
concurrence in the various developments in question and of securing the approval
of the Congress for the action taken.

33. The principal developments which we have to report, are as follows :■

( 1 ) A critical situation arose immediately upon the transfer of the Secre-
tariat of the Commission to London, since at that time the Commission
possessed no funds at all and was naturally unable to look for the
assistance which, while located in Washington, it had received from the
Smithsonian Institution. At the outset, therefore, it was necessary
to raise a small fund from leading scientific institutions in the United
Kingdom and the United States.

148 Bulletin of Zoological Natnenclature.

(2) By June, 1939, the Secretariat had been firmly established at its new
headquarters and the publication of Opinions directly by the
Commission itself began in August of that year.

(3) The outbreak of war in September, 1939, put a temporary stop to the
work of the Commission, as, owing to the threat of air raids on London,
it was thought best to evacuate the records of the Commission to a
place of safety in the country. In the summer of 1942 these records
were brought back to London and the work of the Secretariat was
resumed.

(4) No new nomenclatorial decisions could be taken during the war owing
to the interruption of all communications between the Secretariat
in London and those members of the Commission who were nationals
of Germany and the countries associated with her and also with those
members of the Commission who were nationals of countries then in
German occupation. There was however at that time a large number
of apphcations on which decisions had already been taken and also a
certain number on which every Commissioner had had an opportunity
of voting but on which the voting had not been completed. It was
accordingly decided first to prepare and pubHsh Opinions on all the
cases falling in the first of these classes and second to secure enough
additional votes from the available Commissioners to complete the
cases that were still incomplete.

(5) The publication of Opinions was re-started in October, 1942, and con-
tinued steadily until all the decisions taken at Lisbon had been formally
rendered by the issue of 48 Opinions and 3 Declarations. In addition,
during the same period 13 Opinions were completed and published and
Declarations 1 to 9 and Opinions 1 to 16 were republished, the earher
edition having become out of print. The titles of aU these publications
are given in Commissioner Hemming's detailed Report. In all, 3
Declarations and 61 Opinions have been rendered and pubUshed since
the outbreak of war, the total number rendered to date amoimting
to 12 Declarations and 194 Opinions.

(6) In 1943 the Commission established a journal, the Bulletin oj Zoological
Nomenclature, as a medium for the publication of the texts of applica-
tions submitted for decision, thereby providing an opportunity for
zoologists all over the world to ascertain what proposals are before
the Commission at any given time and to comment thereon before any
decision is taken by the Commission.

(7) An appeal for a fund of £1,800 was issued in 1943 and a number of
generous donations was received in response.

(8) Nevertheless, the financial position of the Commission remained
extremely precarious, even though all the work of the Secretariat was
done for the Commission by an unpaid spare-time Secretary and the
Secretariat itself was housed in the Secretary's house.

(9) In 1947 U.N.E.S.C.O. came forward with a generous offer of a condi-
tional grant of £10,600 and a similar grant (also conditional) has been
made for the current year.

Bulletin of Zoological NotnencUUwe. 149

(10) In 1947 also a Corporation was formed under United Kingdom law
under the title " International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature ",
which took over from the Commission the responsibility for the conduct
of its financial afifairs. This was essential, for only by this means
could the Commission's financial affairs be placed upon an assured basis.

M. The immediate difiiculties have been relieved by the grant made bv
Lf.N.E.S.C.O. but the central problem facing the Commission and the Congress
remams unsolved. For the volume of work passing through the Secretariat
of the Commission has grown so greatly that a whole-time permanent Secretary
IS requu-ed, it being beyond the capacity of any honorary Secretary who (like
the present one) can devote only his spare time to the work of the Commission,
his day time being necessarily taken up with earning a livelihood. Such an
appomtment cannot be made until the Commission has an assured income of
$25,000 to $30,000 a year, or some two and a half times as great as the grant
received from U.N.E.S.C.O. during the past year. In the meantime the Com-
mission must do the best it can with the help of a spare-time Secretary who. by
providing his services free, hea^^ly subsidises the Commission and gives it an" an
of financial soundness which it does not possess.

35. It is the intention of the Commission to seek additional means of
financial support, for it realises how easy it would be for a situation to arise
in which with its present income it would be impossible for it to continue its
work. The situation is extremely difficult and is a source of constant anxiety.
It will not be remedied until the leading zoological institutions of the world,
realismg (as they ah-eady do) that the Commission is an institution, the continued
existence of which is essential for their work, take steps to provide the Commis-
sion with an assured income sufficient to enable it to provide the service
in regard to nomenclature which is essential to all zoologists and which it
alone is in a position to offer.

PART 3.

THE PROPOSED CODIFICATION AND AMENDMENT OF THE "REGIES"

36 At the present time the state of international law in respect to zoo-
logical nomenclature is extremely unsatisfactory, zoologists having to rely on
the one hand upon the Regies adopted nearly 50 years ago and now in serious
need of re-examination and on the other hand upon an ill-digested mass of case
law built up over more than 40 years in Opinions rendered by the Commission.

37. Inspired by a desire to make an advance towards substituting order
tor the present chaos, the Commission drew up plans prior to the opening of the
present Congress for the incorporation into the Regks of the interpretative
decisions ab-eady given by the Commission in Opimons, for the settlement of a
number of unportant individual nomenclatorial problems which were either
not dealt with m the Regies or were there dealt with in a piece-meal, incoherent
and obscure fashion and for the incorporation in the Regies of a number of long
overdue mmor corrections, clarifications and additions. On assembling in

ibO Bulletin of Zoological Nmnenclature.

Paris, we quickly found that the general temper of zoologists attending the
Congress was strongly in favour of a more thorough-going reform than had
previously seemed practicable. Encouraged by these favourable conditions,
the Commission have devoted every effort to securing the maximum benefit
from the present Congress and now, after holding fourteen meetings during a
period of five working days, have drawn up a far-reaching but carefully balanced
scheme of reform.

38, Codification of the " Opinions relating to the " Regies ' . We have
drawn up, and the Section on Nomenclature has approved, a plan for the imme-
diate incorporation into the Regies (subject to certain exceptions and modifica-
tions) of all the interpretations of various of its Articles which have been given
by the Commission at different times. We recommend also the incorporation
into the Regies of the important resolutions of a more general character, which
are embodied in certain of the Commission's Declarations. Lt is part of our
purpose that on their incorporation into the Regies, the Opinions and Declara-
tions on which the newly incorporated provisions are based, should be repealed
and cancelled for all except historical purposes.

."59. The problem of the meaning of the expression " nomenclature binaire ' .'
This problem, which gave rise to such serious difficulties at Padua in 1930, was
(as the Congress will recall) referred back to the Commission in 1935 by the
President of the Section on Nomenclature, to whom the matter had been
submitted by the Comite Permanent. During the present meeting we have
unanimously adopted a Report in which (1) we find that the foregoing expression
as at present used in the Regies has a meaning exactly equivalent to that of the
expression " nomenclature binominale " and (2) we recommend that, subject
to certain safeguards for generic names published by non-binominal authors,
the expression " nomenclature binominale " should now be incorporated in the
Regies in place of the expression " nomenclature binaire ". We submitted
this Report to the President of the Section on Nomenclature by whom it was
laid before the Section. It is a matter of great satisfaction to us that the Section
gave their unanimous approval to our Report, which is accordingly submitted
to the Congress for final approval.

40. Three major problems of zoological nomenclature . We have suDmitted
detailed reports to the Section on Nomenclature on three major problems of
zoological nomenclature, of which the first is at present dealt with in the
Regies in a manner contrary to the general washes of zoologists, the second is
dealt with so obscurely and incompletely that the present state of the law is
open to the greatest doubt, while the third deals with a question on which the
Regies are absolutely silent. These questions are :

(i) the meaning of the expression " indication as used in proviso (a) to
Article 25 ;

( 2 ) the rules relating to honujny my m specific and subspecific trivial names ;

(3) the problem of names for forms of less than subspecific rank.

Bulletin of Zoological Notnenclature. 151

41. On our proposals for dealing with each of these important questions
the Section on Nonienclature has expressed its unanimous and enthusiastic
support.

42. Miscellaneous aniefidments in, additians to, and clarifications of, the
" Regies " ; We have submitted a large number of proposals for amending the
Regies, for making additions thereto and for inserting clarifications in regard
to passages which were either obscure or badly drafted. These proposals also
have been warmly acclaimed by the Section on Nomenclature.

48. Incorporation in the " Regies " of decisions at present embodied in
" Opinions " and the consequential repeal of the " Opinions " in question : We
propose that all decisions in regard to individual names should be incorporated
in Schedules to be attached to the Regies and that, when this has been done, the
Opinions in question should be repealed and cancelled except for historical pur-
poses. In the case of the " Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ", we
propose that the Schedule concerned should be issued separately as a companion
volume to the actual Regies. The reform constituted by this plan will aiford
an immense relief to zoologists and naturally therefore won for itself warm
support in the Section on Nomenclature.

44. " Official List of Generic Names in Zoology " : In view of the very wide-
spread wish expressed both inside and outside the Section on Nomenclature
that the Official List should be used as a means of promoting stabiUty in nomen-
clature, we agreed to recommend that the status of names on the Official List
should be enhanced by providing that, even if a name is found to have been
placed on the List in error, it should remain the correct name for the genus in
question unless and until the Commission shall otherwise direct. In view of the
enhanced status now to be given to all names on the Official List, the Commission
hope that specialists will be stimulated to co-operate actively in securing the
addition to the Official List of all the more important generic names in the groups
with which they are concerned, thereby achieving a far-reaching measure of
stability in the nomenclature of the groups in question.

45. The " Official List of Specif ic Names m Zoology "' : The establishment
of an " Official List of Specific Names in Zoology " is an essential corollary to the
existing Official lAst of generic names and we recommend that such a List
should now be established. The Section on Nomenclature, realising the impor-
tance of this question, warmly supports our proposal in this matter.

46. The " pleins pouvoirs " to sitspend the " Regies " granted to the C-^mmis-
ion by tlie Congress in 1913 .• We propose that the " pleins pouvoirs "

Resolution of 1913 shall be amended in various respects to meet the requirements
of the changes in procedure recommended in the earlier part of the present
Report (paragraph 30). We propose also that words should be added to make it
dear that these powers are intended for use, especially, inter alia, (1) to preserve
names of importance in medicine, agriculture, veterinary science and horti-
culture and in the teaching of zoology at imiversities and elsewhere, (2) to

152 Bxdlelin of Zoological Nomenclaiure.

prevent existing nomenclatorial practice from being thrown into confusion
by the unearthing of forgotten works or of forgotten names in well-known
works, and (3) to stabiUse the application of well-known names where, in the
absence of such intervention by the Commission, it is likely that it would always
be a matter of dispute to which of two or more species a given name is properly
applicable under the Regies. Of these proposals, the first two were suggested
to us by the Section on Nomenclature, while the third, which we put forward
ourselves, secured immediately the enthusiastic support of the Section. Finally,
we recommend that this Resolution, as amended above, should now be incor-
porated in the Regies, in order to make it clear to every zoologist that the pro-
visions embodied therein are of force and vigour equal to that of any of the
provisions of the Regies. In this matter also ,we have the full-hearted support
of the Section on Nomenclature.

47 . Tfie preparation of the substantive French text of the ' ' Regies ' ' as now pro-
posed to be amended : The task of preparing the substantive French text of the
Regies will involve highly technical problems, the solution of which will call for
the employment of experts. The Commission have accordingly proposed to
the Section on Nomenclature, and the Section has agreed, on the following
course of procedure. The record of the decisions of the Congress in so far as
these relate to changes in the Regies, together with the supporting memoranda
on which these decisions were based, should be referred to jurists with instruc-
tions to prepare the draft of the new substantive French text together with a
literal English translation, and that these two drafts should then be circulated
by the Secretary to each member of the Commission to provide him with an
opportunity for examining the texts to ensure that they faithfully embody the
decisions of the Congress, and neither add anything to, nor omit anything from,
these decisions. At the end of three calendar months from the date of the
texts being so circulated, any comments falling within the above field should,
we reconmiend, be referred to the Executive Committee for decision. When
any such matters have been decided, the Regies, as amended, should be pro-
mulgated with the least possible delay.

48. The revised Regies should, we propose, enter mto force as from the
date on which they are published. We anticipate, however, that it will be
possible, at a considerably earUer date, to pubUsh in the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature the minutes of the meetings of the Commission at its Paris
Session and we propose that the Congress should recommend all zoologists
thereafter to take as their guide the record of the Paris decisions as contained
in these minutes during the, as we hope, short period which will elapse between
the publication of the Paris minutes and the formal promulgation of the revised
Regies.

49. Conclusion : The Paris meeting of the Commission marks a turning-
point in the history of zoological nomenclature, for the Commission, with the
active support of the Section on Nomenclature, has both carried through a
complete codification of the law as it stood at the opening of the Congress and
has also put forward new proposals of the greatest importance and value on
questions which previously found no mention in the Regies or only provisions of

Bulletin of Zoological Notrtenclaturc. 15;i

the most inadequate character. At the same time, as part of the process of
codiiication, nearly one quarter of the body of Opinions has been deprived of
all but a historical interest and this process will be virtually completed on the
publication of the Regks as amended at the present meeting and of the volume
containing the 0#imZ List of Generic Names in Zoology. Finally, the status of
that List has been materially enhanced and with it the prospect of securing
stability in generic nomenclature. As for the trivial names of species an
important advance in the direction of stabilisation has been achieved by the
decision to establish for such names an Official List paraUel to that already in
existence tor generic names.

50 Much remains to be done, but with the help of the revised Regies
adopted at the present Congress zoologists will be in an incomparably better
position to judge in which directions further improvements are still required
than if they had still to thread their way through the maze of independent
decisions by which hitherto they have had to guide themselves in their daily
work. Ihe Commission are determined that, so far as it lies in their power to
prevent It, zoologists shall never again be required to struggle with an undigested
mass of decisions built up over a long period. To this end, the Commission
have decided, and they now give their assurance to the Congress, that at each
subsequent meeting of the Congress they will submit recommendations for the
mcorporation m the Regies of any conclusions which they may have reached
since the previous meeting of the Congress, so that bv thus harvesting the
results of their work, they may be able at every such meeting to secure' that
every zoologist shall be able to find within the covers of a smgle volume a full
detailed and authoritative record of the entire body of international law on
zoological nomenclature.

51. The Paris Congress of 1948 has been a meeting of outstanding achieve-
ment in the field of zoological nomenclature and it is fitting that this achievement
should have been secured in the same city as that in which almost 60 years ago
the first important steps were taken to establish an international code of nomen-
clature for living creatures.

52. In submitting our Keport to the Thirteenth International Congress of
Zoology, we desire to express in the warmest terms our sense of gratitude for the
interest help and support which we have throughout received at the hands both
of our French hosts and of aU other members of the Congress and to place on
record our conviction that it is to this spirit of co-operation and the strength
which It gives that must be attributed the outstanding results achieved

(154

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION onZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

PAPER
I.C. (48) 21

PRESS COMMUNIQUE ISSUED AT THE CLOSE OF THE THIRTEENTH

INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY,

PARIS, 21st-27th JULY, 1948

Note by tfui /Secretary to the Commission

In view of the far-reaching decisions in regard to zoological nomenclature
taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology on the recommenda-
tion of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, it was clearly
of great importance that an authoritative summary of those decisions shoiild be
issued to the scientific press of the world at the earliest possible moment.
Accordingly, I spent part of yesterday afternoon in preparing the draft of a
communique to be issued to the press by the Commission for this purpose. I
took copies of this draft with me to the final banquet of the Congress last night
and submitted it for approval to as many of the members of the Commission as
I could find. In this way I was able to obtain the comments of the majority
of the members (including Alternate Members) of the Commission who had
taken part in our discussions during the past week. The majority of the
members consulted approved the draft as it stood, but some were kind enough
to offer various suggestions of a drafting or verbal character. So far as possible,
I have adopted these suggestions and have incorporated them in the text
now prepared for release to the press.

2. I circulate herewith for the information of my colleagues a copy of the
communique in the form in which it is being issued.
FRANCIS HEMMING,

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretariat of the Commission.
Paris.

mh July, 1948.

Editorial Note: — For the text of the Commiinique referred to above, see N'olume o of
the j)re8ent journal.

PART 2.

COMMUNICATIONS SUBMITTED

TO THE

SECTION ON NOMENCLATURE,

THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS

OF ZOOLOGY,

PARIS, JULY, 1948

( 157 )

UN POINT DE NOMENCLATURE.
DOIT-ON DIRE PSODOS ET NON PAS PSOLOS TR. (LEP. GEOMETRIDAE) ?

Par H. Berthet (France)

(Commission's Reference Z.N. (S.)362)

En grec ' O^'^OAO^ veut dire la fumee, la suie, et il suf&t d'examiner une
collection de ce genre de Geometrides, ou a defaut de jeter les yeux sur les
admirables planches de Culot, Vol. IV des " Noctuelles et Geometres d'Europe "
par exemple pour se rendre compte de ce que cette couleur de suie, de fumee
est la teinte generale de toutes les especes actuellement comprises dans le
genre de Treitschke. De fait, il y a grande difficulte a se procurer ces differentes
especes dont la majorite ne vit qu'en haute montagne, voire au-dessus de
4.000 atteignant en France 4.100 m. sur des rochers presque inaccessibles,
souvent dangereux a atteindre. ou en tout cas il y a toujours peril a chasser
au filet.

Si maintenant on se reporte au texte raeme de Treitschke au 6'^ tome des
" Schmett. v. Eur." (suite a I'ouvrage d'Ochsenheimer) ", p. 254 de la l''^
edition, on Ut au Gen. XCVII ce que je traduis litteralement : " La couleur de
fond de ces papillons '" est noire. Leur corps est d'lm noir profond . . ." ; suit
le nom donne: " Psodos, Ho-oSo?. aussi bien que (rn-oStos couleur de cendre ".
ajoute-t-il.

Or ce qui est exact pour (nroStos est quant a i/'oSos un horrible barbarisme
provenant d'un lapsus calami, erreur de copie ou de typographic, sinon de
lecture par I'Econome du Theatre Imperial de Vienne !

On peut aisement I'expliquer du fait que si Ton ecrit le mot en majuscules,
comme je I'ai fait en tete du present article, ainsi qu'on le trouve sur certains
dictionnaires, il suffit que le A lambda ait les deux tirets du bas des j ambages
un peu trop accuses ou erapates, pour former A un delta tres exactement.

Dans ces conditions, le Code zoologique le permettant dans son art. 19,
je propose que le nom de ce genre soit retabli dans sa propre forme correcte
de la pensee de son auteur Treitschke et s'ecrive Psolos Tr.

' ' r^s especes comprises au temps de Treitschke dans ce genre etaient :

cUpinala Hbn. SV 197 (nee Scop.) = quadrifaria Sulzer 1776. Cest la premiere nommee
et par consequent le type du genre ;

torvaria Hbn. = tenehraria Esp. 1806 qui est une Orphne Hbn. Autre designation poetiqut-
de la couleur sombre, obscure, foncee.

korridaria Hbn. actuellement confondue avec la precedente.

venetaria Hbn. qui faisait si joUe image rappelant la mantiUe noire des Venitiennes avec
ses broderies = fusca Thbg. (nee Hw.), qui est une Pygmmna Bdv. 1840.

trepidaria Hbn. = canaliculata Hochw. 1785.

Ainsi les 2 especes quadrifaria Sulz.= alpinata Hbn., qui est le type, et carwlicvlaia Hochw.
= trepidaria Hbn. sont les seules citees par Treitschke subsistant dans son genre Psolos. aucune
n'avant conserve le nom donn^.

(158)

TWO PROPOSED ALTERATIONS IN THE RULES ON

ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

By Henning Lemche (Denmark)

(Commission's Reference Z.N. (S.)359)

Proposal 1.

It is proposed that the provisions of the Resolution relating to the suspension
of the Rules in certain cases should be amended to read as follows. The words
proposed to be inserted in addition to. or in place of, existing words are printed
in italics.

Resolved. — That plenary power is herewith conferred upon the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting for this Congress,
to suspend the Regies as appUed to any given case, where in its judgment
the strict application of the Regies will clearly result in greater confusion
than uniformity, provided, however, that no less than half a year's notice
shall be given in the Bulletin of the Commission and in some other selected,
suitable journals, that the question of a possible suspension of the Regies
as applied to such case is under consideration, thereby making it possible
for zoologists, particularly speciahsts in the group in question, to present
arguments for or against the suspension under consideration, and provided,
also, that the vote of the Commission is at least a two-thirds majority of the full
Commission, and provided, further, that if the vote is not a two-thirds majority,
may it be for suspension or for application of the " Regies'' the case is to be
presented to the section on Notnenclature of the next International Congress
of Zoologists, which after discussion of the case shall endow the Cotnmission
with the power to revise the case once more and then to make a final decision
by simple majority. This decision shall be without appeal ; and

Resolved. — That the foregoing authority refers especially to cases of
names of larval stages and the transference of names from one genus or
species to another, but also to any other case where the strict application
of the " Regies " will clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity: and

Resolved. — That the Congress fully approves the plan that has been
inaugurated by the Commission of conferring with special committees from
the special group involved in any given case, and that it authorises and
instructs the Commission to continue and extend this poUcy, and also, to
present its votes as fast as possible vnthout impairing the solicitude necessary
for the decisions.

9='

Made and printed by
Metchim & Son, Ltd.,
at their Press in Westminster.

THANKS TO U.N.E,S.C.O.

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, on behalf
of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have
great pleasure in expressing their grateful thanks to the UNITED
NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL
ORGANISATION CU.N.E.S.C.O.) for the financial assistance
afforded towards the cost of producing the present volume.

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Notice to subscribers regarding the arrangements made for the

completion of volume i and for the publication of

volumes 2, 3, 4 and 5

The following arrangements have been made for completing volume 1
of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and for the publication of
volumes 2, 3, 4 and 5 : —

Volume I : A concluding Part (Part 12), containing, inter alia, the Title
Page, Table of Contents, and alphabetical subject index, will be
published shortly.

Volume 2 : This volume, like Volume 1 , will be devoted to the publica-
tion of apphcations in regard to nomenclatorial problems submitted
by specialists to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature for decision. Publication will commence at an early date.

Volume 3 : This volume will be devoted to the pubUcation of the
memoranda, reports and other documents considered by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and by the
Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International Congress
of Zoology at their meetings held in Paris in July 1948.

Volume 4 : This volume will be devoted to the publication of the
Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in July 1948.
It is expected that pubhcation of this volume will commence within
the next few weeks.

Volume 5 : At the request of the Bureau of the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, this volume will be devoted to the publication
of the Official Record of Proceedings of the Section on Nomenclature
of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948,
together with the Reports submitted to the Congress by the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the Section
on Nomenclature.

INQUIRIES

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

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature : 41, Queen's Gate, 41

London, S.W.7, England.
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : Secretariat of
the Commission, 28 Park Village East, Regent's Park, London, N.W.I, England.

VOLUME 3. Parts 7/9 21 5/ April, 1950

pp. 159—237.

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
UPCH^SElHOMENCLATURE

m ^3^

19

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by

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

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Contents :

Part 2. Communications submitted to the Section on Page
Nomenclature, Thirteenth International Congress

of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 {concluding instalment) 159 — 199

Subjea Index 201—236

Particulars of dates of publication of the several Parts

in which Volume 3 was published 237

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological

Nomenclature on instructions received from the Thirteenth

International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948,

and

Sold on behalf of the International Commission by the

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

at the Publications Office of the Trust

41, Queen's Gate, London, S.W.7.

1950

Price One pound, eight shillings.

(/I// rights reserved)

i

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. I59

Recommamlation: In such cases of transference of names to other species,
which mil clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, the question
IS to be placed before the Commission without delay. The Commission is
to investigate the problem immediately and to present a vole on the case if
necessary by suspension of the " Regies:' In the meantime, the species
involved are to be named as if the error had not been detected.

Proposal 2.

./V'* P^^PJ^f d that the following new paragraph (paragraph (h) ) should be
added to Article 34 of the Rules :—

Article 34 {b).—A name of a genus or species, given before the year 1850
and not used m scientific literature since January 1st, 1850, is to be rejected
m favour of such other name which has been in general use for the genus or
species m question since that date.

SCANDINAVIAN ZOOLOGISTS SUPPORTING EITHER OR BOTH
OF THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY DR. HENNING LEMCHE

{A cross denotes signature of petition supporting the Proposal specified
at head of column)

PiojMsa
1. 2.

AV///)e

Title

InstUidion

Town andjor

Country

X X

0. Bakkendorf

—

—

Copenhagen,

X X

H. Blegvad

dr. phil.

Biologisk Station

Denmark.
Charlottenlund.

X X

Paul Bondesen

inag. soient.

Natui'histori.sk

Denmark.
Aarhus,

X X

Hans Boiei

fil. dr.

Museum.
Wennergrens Institut

Denmark.
Stockholm,

X X

Prosper Bovieii

dr. phil.

Statens plantepatho-

Sweden.
Lyngb\',

X X

Hans Brattstioni

fil. dr., doccnt.

logiske Forseg.
Zoologiska

Denmark.
Lund, Sweden.

X

Hjaliuar Broth

prof, filler., dr. (iliil.

Institutionen.

Oslo, Norway.
( 'openhagen.

X X

Anton Fr. Briiun

<lr. pfiil.

Zoologisk Museum

X X

Jens Braendcgaard

dr. phil.

—

Denmark,

Cojienhagen,

X X

F. W. Braestruj)

dr. pliil.

Zoologisk Museum

Denmark.
Copenhagen,

X X

Stig Diding

lil. mag.

Zoologiska
In.stitutionen.

Denmark.
Lund, Sweden.

X

K. Ditlevsen

(•and. mag.

Carlsberg

Copenhagen.

X X

Harry Federley

|>rof.. fil. dr

Laboratorium.
Genetiska Institute!

Denmark.
Helsingfors,

X X

Torkel Weis Fogh

mag. .seieiit.

Finland.
Charlottenlund,

X .

Torsten Gisli'n

prof., fil. dr.

Zoologiska

Denmark.
Lund, Sweden.

Institutionen.

X X

1

Hans Ove Greve

stud. mag.

Copenhagen,
Denmark.

VOL. 3 L

160

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

SCANDINAVIAN ZOOLOGISTS SUPPORTING EITHER OR BOTH OF
THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY DR. HENNING LEMCHE

{A cross denotes signature of petition supporting the proposal
specified at head of column)

Proposal

Xame

Title

Institution

Tou-n and j or

1. 2.

Country

X X

Guniiar Gustafson

fil. dr.

Kristiiieberg

zoologiska station.

Fiskebackskil,
Sweden.

X X

Victor Hansen

—

—

Copenhagen,
Denmark.

X X

Bertil Hanstrom

prof., fil. dr.

Zoologiska
Institutionen.

Lund, Sweden.

X X

A. Heintz

prof., dr. phil.

Paleontologiske
Museet.

Oslo, Norway.

X X

Axel M. Heramingsen

dr. phil.

Nordisk Insulin-
laboratorium.

Copenhagen,
Denmark.

X X

Bengt Hubendick

fil. dr.

Naturhistoriska
Riksmuseet.

Stockholm.
Sweden.

X X

Aage I. C. Jensen

dr. phil.

Commis. intern.
Explor. Mer

Charlottenlund,
Denmark.

X X

P. Jespersen

dr. phil.

Commis. intern.
Explor. M^r

Charlottenlund,
Denmark.

X

Palle Johnsen

mag. scient.

Zoologisk Museum

Copenhagen,
Denmark.

X X

Erik Jorgensen

cand. mag.

Pharmaceutisk
Laereanstalt.

Copenhagen.
Denmark.

X X

Johannes Keiding

mag. scient.

Statens Skadedyrs-
laboratorium.

Springforbi,
Denmark.

X X

J. B. Kii'kegaard

cand. mag.

Biologisk Station

Charlottenlund,
Denmark.

X X

Jiiigen Knudsen

cand. mag.

Biologisk Station

Charlottenlund,
Denmark.

X X

P. 1^. Kramj)

dr. i)hil.

Zoologisk ]\Iuscum

Copenhagen,
Denmark.

X X

J. P. Krygcr

—

—

I.olland,
Denmark.

X X

Karl Lang

fil. dr.

Naturhistoriska
Riksmuseet

Stockholm,
Sweden.

X X

Kmid Larsen

mag. .scient.

Biologisk Station

Charlottenlund,
Denmark.

X X

Dan Laursen

cand. mag.. Lektor

—

Haslev,
Denmark.

X X

Henning Lemche

dr. phil.

Kgl. Veterinaer og
Landbohojskole

Copenhagen,
Denmark.

X X

Carl H. IJndroth

fil. dr.

■ —

Djursholm.
Sweden.

X X

Alex. Luther

prof., fil. dr.

Zoologiska Museet

Helsingfors.
Finland.

X X

B. Loppenthin

mag. scient.

Universitets-
biblioteket.

Copenhagen,
Denmark.

X X

F. Jcnseniiis Madsen

mag. scient.

Zoologisk Museu7n

Copenhagen,
Denmark.

X X

Holger Madsen

mag. scient.

—

Copenhagen,
Denmark.

X X

0. Mandahl-Barth

mag. scient.

Danmaiks .Akvarium

Charlottenlund.
Denmark.

X X

Th. Morten sen

dr. i)hii.

—

Copenhagen ,
Denmark.

X

L. R. Xatvig

dr. phil.

Zoologisk Museum

Oslo, Norway.

X X

Egili Nielsen

dr. phil.

Jlineralogisk Museum

Copenhagen.
Denmark.

Bulledn of Zoologiml Nmnenclature.

Ifil

SCANDINAVIAN ZOOLOGISTS SUPPORTING EITHER OR BOTH OF
THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY DR. HENNING LEMCHE

{A cross denotes signalure of petition supporting the Proposal
specified at head of column)

Proposal

Xnme

Title

I II Mi tut ion

Town andjor

1. 2.

Country

X X

Erik Tetens Nielsen

dr. i>hil.

—

Frederiksvaerk,
Denmark.

X .

Peder Nielsen

—

—

Silkeborg,
Denmark.

X X

Nils Odhner

prof.. HI. .Ir.

Naturhistoriska
Riksmuseet.

Stockholm.
Sweden.

X X

Frei Ossiannilsson

fil. dr.

Statens Vaxtskydds-
anstalt.

Stockholm,
Sweden.

X X

C. V'. Otterstrom

mag. scient.

Biologi.sk Station

Charlottenlund,
Denmark.

X X

Bjorn Petersen

fil. dr., decent.

Zoologiska
Institiitionen.

Uppsala,
Sweden.

X X

J. R. Pfaff

mag. scient.

Zoologisk Musetim

Copenhagen,
Denmark.

X .

Christian Poulsen

prof., dr. phil.

.Mineralogisk Museum

Copenhagen,
Denmark.

X X

C. J. Rasmussen

cand. mag.

Biologisk Station

Charlottenlund,
Denmark.

X X

Finn Salomonsen

dr. phil.

Zoologisk Mu.seuni

Copenhagen.
Denmark.

X X

Oscar Sjoberg

—

—

Loos, Sweden.

X X

Christina Sperher

fil. dr.

Zoologiska
Institutionen.

Uppsala.
Sweden.

X X

[var Sperber

fil. dr.. docent.

Zoologiska
Institutionen.

Uppsala,
Sweden.

X X

R. Sparck

l)rof.. dr. jihil.

Zoologi.sk Museum

Copenhagen,
Denmark.

X .

Hans Tambs-Lyche

konsei'vator

Bergens Museum

Bergen.
Nonvay.

X X

l']llen Thonisen

dr. phil.

Kgl. Veterinaer og
Landbohojskole.

Copenhagen,
Denmark.

X X

Math. Thonisen

prof., dr. ])hil.

Kgl. Veterinaer og
Landbohojskole.

Copenhagen,
Denmark.

X X

Gunnar Thorson

dr. phil.

Zoologisk Jluseuni

Copenhagen,
Denmark.

X X

Bror Thunblad

fil. mag.

Statens Vaxtskydds-
an.stalt.

Stockholm.
Sweden.

X X

Bo Tjeder

fil. dr.

—

Falun, Sweden.

X X

Johannes Troelsen

dr. phil.

Mineralogisk Museum

Copenhagen,
Denmark.

X X

S. L. Tuxen

dr. i)hil.

Zoologisk Museum

Copenhagen,
Denmark.

X X

Karen Vestergaard

canil. mag.

Statens Skadedyrs-.
laboratorium.

Sjiringforbi.
Denmark.

X X

H. Volsoe

dr. pliil.

Zoologisk Museum

Copenhagen,
Denmark.

X X

August West

—

—

Copenhagen,
Denmark.

X X

H. Wichmand

forstander

Statens Skadedyrs-
laboratorium.

S)iringforbi.
Denmark.

X X

X. L. Wolff

—

—

Copenhagen,
Denmark.

VOL. 3 l2

(162)

LES PROTOZOAIRES PARASITES DE L'HOMME

(abstract)
By Enrique Beltran (Mexico)

(Commission's reference Z.N. (S.)397)

Lista de nombres de protozoarios parasites del hombre, preparada Enrique
Beltran, como una sugestion para presentarse en el Congres Internacional de
Zoologia, que se reunira en Paris en 1948. No tos los nombres mencionados
tienen el mismo valor, sino que pueden divdirse en las siguientes categorias :
(1) nombres que se suponen absolutamente correctos ; (2) nombres de facto
cuya adopcion oficial se propone ; (3) nombres sobre los cuales el autor no
tiene una opinion definitiva ; y (4) nombres que no se ban podido completar.
con el nombre del autor Cj[ueliizo la nueva combinacion, y de los cuales se
pidese dato. El autor desea la mas amplia opinion, critica y correccion de
8U8 colegas en cada uno de esos puntos.

List of names of parasitic protozoa of man, prepared by Enrique Beltran,
as a suggestion to be presented at the International Congress of Zoology, to
be held at Paris in 1948. Not all the names have the same value ; they may
be divided in the foUowmg groups : (1) names supposed to be absolutely
correct ; (2) de facto names proposed for official adoption ; (3) names about
which the author has not a definitive opinion ; and (4) names that have been
impossible to complete with the names of the author who made the new
combination ; information about that would be appreciated. The author
respectfully invites expression of the views, criticism and corrections of his
colleagues about every one of those subjects.

Lista de nombres — List of names.

ENDAMOEBA LEIDY, 1879.

E. coli (Grassi, 1879) Hickson, 1909.

E. histolytica (Schaudinn. 1903) ffickson, 1909.

E. gingivaUs (Gross, 1849) Smith y Barrett, 1915.

ENDOLIMAX KUENEN Y SWELLENGREBEL, 1917.
E. nana (Wenyon y O'Connor, 1917) Brug, 1918.

lODAMOEBA DOBELL, 1919.

/. inlliamsi (Prowazek, 1911) Taliaferro y Becker, 1922.

DIENTAMOEBA JEPPS Y DOBELL. 1918.
D.fragilis Jepps y Dobell, 1918.

TRICHOMONAS DONNE, 1836.
T. vaginalis Donne, 1836.
T. hominis (Davaine, 1860) Grassi, 1888.
T. tenax (0. F. Miiller. 1773) Dobell. 1939.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 163

GIARDIA KUENSTLER, 1882, emend. ALEXEIEFF, 1914.
G. lamblia Stiles, 1915.

CHILOMASTIX ALEXEIEFF, 1910.

C. mesnili (Wenyon, 1910) AlexeiefT, 1912.

ENTEROMONAS DA FONSECA, 1915.
E. hominis da Fonseca, 1915.

RETORTOMONAS GRASSI, 1879.

R. intestitmlis (Wenyon y O'Connor, 1917) Wenrich, 1932.

TRYPANOSOMA GRUBY, 1843.
T. gambiense Button, 1902.
T. rhodesiense Stevens y Fantham, 1910.

8CHIZ0TRYPANUM CHAGAS, 1909, emend. DIAS, 1934.
S. cruzi Chagas, 1909, emend. Dias, 1934.

LEISHMANIA ROSS, 1903.

L. donovani (Laveran y Mesnil. 1903) Ross, 1903.
L. tropica (Wright, 1903).
L. brasiliensis Vianna, 1911.

PLASMODIUM aiARCHIAFAVA Y CELLI, 1885.
P. vivax (Grassi y Feletti, 1890).
P. malariae (Grassi v Feletti, 1890).
P. falciparum (Welch, 1897).
P. ovale Stephens. 1922.

TOXOPLASMA NICOLLE Y ]VL1NCEAUX, 1909.
T. chagasi (Torres, 1927), Beltran (no publicado).

SARCOCYSTIS RAY LANKESTER, 1882.
S. lindemanni (Rivolta, 1878) Dobell, 1919.

ISOSPORA SCHNEIDER, 1881.
/. hominis Fantham, 1917.

BALANTIDIUM CLAPAREDE Y LACHMANN, 1858.
Balantidiwn coli (MaLmsten, 1857) Stein, 1863.

El autor agradeceria infinite que las observaciones, criticas y correcciones
que se hagan a la lista anterior, vengan acompanadas de las referencias
bibliograficas completas, que permitan localis los trabajos originales. Como
el Congreso Internacional de Zoologia se reunira en Paris en la primavera de
1948, se agradecera la may prontitud en la contestacion.

The author would appreciate remarks, criticisms, and corrections to the
list accom])anied by complete bibliographic references to allow him to locate
the original papers.

(164)

SUR LA NOMENCLATURE DES GROUPEMENTS SUPERGENERIQUES

Par R. Jeannel (France)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)357)

Tous les zoologistes s'accordent pour reconnaitre aux auteurs des classifica-
tions le droit de prendre un neologisme quelconque pour nommer les grandes
categories systematiques : classes, ordres, sous-ordres, divisions des sous-
ordres.

En ce qui concerne la nomenclature des families, sous-families et tribus, on
s'accorde au contraire pour vouloir adopter, par priorite, le nom de groupement
de genre le plus anciennement propose, a la condition qu'il soit forme au moyen
du radical d'un nom de genre contenu dans ce groupement et actuellement
valable. A ce radical, on ajoute une desinence latine particuliere.

Le code de nomenclature a precise que ces desinences sont -idm pour le.s
families, -ime pour les sous-families, -ini pour les tribus, ce qui est absurde :
car -inae est le feminin de -ini, et cela a pour consequence que les citations
des sous-families sont entachees de barbarismes. On ecrit naturellement :
" les Carabinae sont nombreux " alors qu'il faudrait dire " nombreuses,"
tandis qu'il est d'usage d'employer, dans le langage courant, les noms zoologiques
au masculin.

C'est pourquoi nous avons propose de remplacer, pour les sous-families, la
desinence feminine -inae par la desinence masculine -itae {Oritae, les Orites).

Pour le choix des noms de groupements de genres (famille, sous-famille,
tribu), il n'est pas possible de formuler des regies absolues strictement basees
sur la priorite, comme cela pent se faire pour les noms de genres et d'especes.
II faudra pour eux tenir compte de deux facteurs : 1° la priorite, 2° la legitimite.

La priorite. — La priorite appartient non pas au nom forme avec le radical
du genre le plus anciennement decrit, mais bien au nom le plus anciennement
propose pour designer le groupement, a la condition, bien entendu, que ce
nom soit forme avec le radical de celui d'un genre faisant partie du groupement
et actuellement valable.

Contrairement au principe enonce par Bradley {Science, LXVII, 1928,
p. 103), la priorite doit jouer pour les noms supergeneriques, meme lorsqu'ils
n'ont pas etc donnes sous une forme latine plurale, a la condition qu'ils aient
ete formes avec le radical du nom d'un genre contenu dans le groupement et
actuellement valable. Le contraire eliminerait injustement I'oeuvre des granda
entomologistes du debut du xix*^ siecle, a qui on doit le fondement de la
systematique des Insectes (par exemple Lacordaire pour les Coleopteres).

I

Bulletin of Zoological Nomemlature. 165

La legitimite.— Un nom de genre une fois donne est immuable. II ne peut
pas en etre de meme pour les noms de groupements supergeneriques, qui
n ont rien d'obligatoire. car la constitution de ces groupements est conven-
tionnelle et variable. La definition des groupements peut changer, au point
que la conservation d'mi nom ancien ayant la priorite puisse presenter de
grands inconvenients. Par exemple :

Schaum, en 1870, a cree la tribu Mormolycini pour le Mormolyce phyllodes
dont les formes etranges lui faisaient douter qu'il soit reellement un Carabique.
Plus tard, Chaudoir a demontre que le Mormolyce entre. sans aucun
doute, dans la famille des Thyreopterides, qu'il a parfaitement definie. Faut-il
pour cela donner le nom de Mormolycidae a la famille definie par Chaudoir ?
Ce serait faire une application illegitime de la priorite.

On ne peut pas dire en eifet que les Thyreopterides de Chaudoir soient des
Mormolycini (sensu Schaum) ; par contre les Mormolycini Schaum sont reelle-
ment des Thyreopteridae (sensu Chaudoir). C'est done le nom de Chaudoir
qui est legitime et qu'il faudra adopter.

II est done necessaire, dans un code de nomenclature equitable, que des
articles particuliers soient edictes en ce qui concerne les groupements super-
generiques.

Le Code pourra dire, par exemple, quun nom de groupement supergenerique
ayant la priorite pourra etre rejete comme " illegitime," lorsque son adoption
entramerait un desaccord evident entre la diagnose du premier descripteur
et celle du groupement tel qu'il doit etre defini. Bien entendu, il entrera un
element subjectif dans I'application de ce principe de " legitimite." Mais
qu'on veuille bien remarquer que tout code doit etre fait pour etre appHque
par un tribunal jugeant selon I'esprit et non selon la lettre. Le code de
nomenclature zoologique est le seul de tous les codes edictes par les hommes
dont I'application soit directe, " a la lettre." Ne faudrait-il pas reconnaitre
aux monographes un pen du pouvoir d'un tribunal et admettre qu'ils puissent
prendre des decisions auxquelles I'usage, plus tard, donnerait force de loi ?

let)

LES NOTIONS DE GRADE ET DE PSEUDO-GENRE

Par Georges Deflandre (Frauce)
(Commission's reference Z.N. (S.)363)

Dans un travail relatif a la notion tie genre chez les Silico-flagellides
(Deflandre, 1941, C.R. Ac. Sc, p. 100), j'ai, en conclusion, retire a Naviculopsis
Frenguelli son acception de genre pour le qualifier de grade, lui appliquant
exactement un texte de L. Cuenot (L'espece, Paris, 1936, p. 189) : " le pseudo-
genre etant polygenetique doit done etre considere non comme un genre, mais
comme un grade (mot de Bather 1927)." J'avais demontre que Naviculopsis
etait fonde " sur des caracteres qui se sont developpes independammcnt sur
des lignees divergentes ." Dans un Rapport presente ici (Section III), j'evoque,
a propos de revolution des Silicoflagellides, plusieurs cas analogues a celui
de Naviculopsis (" genres " Vallacerta, Lyramula, Cornua, Mesocena). Mon
attention a ete attiree sur le fait que la signification que j'ai donnee au grade,
en suivant fidelement L. Cuenot, n'est pas celle con^ue par Bather. L. Cuenot
(I.e. p. 273) le definit : Grade (Bather, 1927) Certaine forme d'organisation qui
pent apparaitre separement dans plusieurs lignees paralleles ; c'est un pseudo-
genre. Ex. Gryphaea . . . Bather (1927, Quart. J. Geol. Soc, p. XC) ecrit : As
subdivision of this genus, there may be : (a) subgenera . . . (b) gentes . . . (c) grades
or evolutionary stages, separated by horizontal lines indicating time-limits and
denoted by an epithet or phrase not interfering with the systematic hierarchy ;
{d) seriations. ... II remarque, plus loin, que les evolutionistes declares,
eux-memes, ont hesite a considerer les genres sous un jour purement phylo-
genetique. " Consequently more genera represent grades of organisation rather
than lines of descent."

Le grade de Bather ne correspond done pas exactement au grade de L.
Cuenot et il parait preferable de ne pas detourner ce mot de son sens originel.
Cependant, la definition de L. Cuenot correspond a une notion precise,
s'appliquant a de nombreux cas, et qui devrait etre concretisee par un terme propre.
Plutot que de creer un mot nouveau, je propose de donner au terme pseudo-
genre un sens restrictif correspondant a la dite definition. Ce terme etait
employe, jusqu'ici, sans discrimination, pour designer des genres non naturels
(non monophyletiques), quelles que soient les conceptions ou les preoccupations
de leurs createurs et de leurs utihsateurs. L'une de ses utilisations est men-
tionnee dans une autre communication.

»

( 167

LA NOMENCLATURE DES FRAGMENTS FOSSILES (ORGANITES ET
SCLERITES) D'INVERTEBRES

Par Georok.s Dkflandrk et Marthk Di.;j.LANj)RE-lii(;Aui. (France)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)364)

La tendance a I'utilisation, en nncropaleontologic applique, cle la totalite
des vestiges organiques contenus dans les roches sedimentaires, conduit a un
probieme de nomenclature generale, auquel Croneis a propose une solution
Le probieme se pose conjointement dans les domaines zoologique et botanique •
11 s agit de la specification et de la classification des fragments microscopiques
d organismes : organites ou sclerites sensu lato (p. ex. machoires d'Annelides
tonodontes, sclerites d'Holothurides, spicules divers). Un organite ou un
sclerite peut parfois caractenser une espece et recevoir un nom specifique iustifie

I his souvent, il y a incertitude-ou meme certitude opposee : I'objet considere

II est pas special a une espece. parfois pas meme a un genre (certains spicules
ou sclerites . Par necessite pratique et en vue d'une utilisation stratigraphique
1 y a heu de designer ces objets en leur appliquant les principes de la nomen-
clature bmominale latine linneenne. Cependant, pour repondre aux obiections
motivees de certains biologistes, pour eviter aussi des interpretations erronees
(p. ex. attribution a un genre, d'une anciennete inverifiable. a la suite de I'emploi
de son noni generique pour un microfossile), il y aurait lieu de bannir les termes
r especes. de genres, etc . . . et d'eviter d'employer inconsiderement des noms
de genres actuels. Croneis a propose (1938, 1941, Bull. Amer. Ass. Petrol. Geol
p. 1245) de substituer aux divers termes de la nomenclature biologique les
appellations en usage dans YOrdo militaris romain : a la succession hierarchique
Llasse— Ordre— Famille- Genre-Espece, correspondrait exactement • Exer-
cttus-Legio—Cohors-Manipulus—Centuria. En pratique, les trois derniers
termes, la Cohorte, le Manipule, la Centurie, equivalant respectivement au rang
de la famille, du genre et de I'espece, sont appeles a etre les plus usites. Avec
troneis, nous pensons qu'il est meme plus commode de parler d'un manipule
que d un genre artificiel, d'un genre morphologique ou d'un pseudo-genre Une
acception restrictive de ce dernier terme est d'ailleurs proposee d'autre part
Les appellations nouvellement introduites seront suivies respectivement de
cohors nov.^ >namp. nov. ou cent. nov. II est souhaitable quun manip. nov
morphologiquement apparente a un genre vivant, prenne son nom, avec la
desinence -ites.

Dans I'ordre de recherches poursuivies par Tun de nous (M.D.-R.. sclerites
d Holothurides), celui-ci propose des a present les manipules nouveaux suivants ;
Unroditites, Cucumantes, Myriotrochites. Stichopites et Synapses Defl.-Ria.
nianip. nov., dont la diagnose sera donnee ulterieurement. "

(168)

QUELLE EST L'ESPfiCE TYPE DU GENRE GRYPHAEA LAMARCK ?

Par Gilbert Ranson (France)

(Commission's reference Z.N. (S.)365)

Ce sujet a fait I'objet de maintes discussions. II est neannioins necessaire
d'y revenir parce qu'un accord n'a pu encore se faire entre les auteurs.

En 1801, dans " I'Addition " a son " Systeme des Animaux Sans Vertebres",
Lamarck cree le Genre Gryphaea. Dans I'Avertissement a ce " Systeme,"
I'auteur dit : " Pour faire connaitre d'une maniere certaine les genres dont je
donne ici les caracteres, j'ai cite sous chacun d'eux une espece connue, ou tres
rarement plusieurs, et j'y ai joint quelques synonjTnes que je puis certifier;
cela sufiit pour me faire comprendre."

Pour le genre Gryphaea, Lamarck cite les especes suivantes : —

Gryphaea anguhta Lmk.
Gryphaea suborhiculata Lmk.
Gryphaea cymbula Lmk.
Gryphaea arcuata Lmk.
Gryphaea africana Lmk.
Gryphaea mririata Lmk.
Gryphaea latissima Lmk.
Gryphaea depressa Lmk.
Gryphaea arigusta Lmk.

II ajoute en Nota : "... Dans mon tableau general des especes, je carac-
teriserai toutes celles dont je donne ici simplement le nom." Lamarck conside-
rait done cette liste comme provisoire et il semble bien, d'apres les citations qui
viennent d'etre faites, qu'il n'accordait qu'une valeur " d'exemples " aux
especes citees.

La notion de " type " n'etait pas encore con9ue a cette epoque. Mais des
1823, nous voyons Children selectionner les "types" de 1' "Histoire Naturelle
des Animaux Sans Vertebres".

Malgre tout, Lamarck donne comme premier exemple de son genre, I'espece
Gryphaea angulata. II ne fait pas de doute que Lamarck le crea apres I'examen
de I'unique exemplaire de cette espece qu'il venait de recevoir. Cet echantillon
se trouve actuellement dans les collections du Museum de Paris et a ete figure
par Delessert en 1841.

En efFet, en 1819, dans son • ' Histoire Naturelle des Animaux Sans Vertebres, ' '
Lamarck decrit conmie premiere espece du genre, Gryphaea angulata Lmk.
Mais en ce qui concerne les autres especes, la plupart des noms originaux sont
modifies et trois autres especes introduites. Voici les noms correspondant aux

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclaiure. 169

especes citees en 1801 :—

Grypham angulata Lmk.
Gryphaea cohunba Lmk.
Gryphaea cymhium Lmk.
Gryphaea arcunta Lmk.
Gryphaea secunda Lmk.
Grypham plicata Lmk.
Gryphaea latissima Lmk.
Gryphaea silicea Lmk.
Gryphaea angusta Lmk.

Entre 1801 et 1819 plusieurs auteurs ont publie des travaux sur les
Mo lusques se referant aux Huitres : Bosc en 1802, Roissy en 1805 et Cuvier
en 1817. Mais ces auteurs ne selectionnent pas de " types " et citent seulement
des exemples. II ne peut etre tenu compte de ces travaux pour fixer le " type "
du genre Gryphaea. Finlay. en 1928. remarque judicieusement que le fait de
citer ou meme de figurer un echantillon d'un genre n'est pas retenu par les
regies pour etre la selection definie d'un " type."

Ainsi nous sonmies amenes au travail de Children (1823) ou, pour la premiere
fois, Gryphaea angulata est designe comme " type "' du genre.

Cependant M. Wmckworth de Londres me fait remarquer, dans une lettre
que Children se refere a V " Histoire Naturelle " de 1819 et non au " Systeme " de
1801 ; cette selection du " type " ne serait done pas valable. II ajoute " the
next selection of type is by Anton (1839), where G. arcuata is given as type
(compare page VI, where he says that he prints the type species of each genus
m small capital print)."

La question se pose done maintenant de savoir si le '■ type "" du genre
Gryphaea doit etre pris dans le "Systeme des Animaux Sans Vertebres" (1801)
ou dans 1' "Histoire Naturelle des Animaux Sans Vertebres" (1819). S'il doit etre
selectionne dans le " Systeme " nous nous trouvons en presence du fait suivant :
dapres nos conceptions modernes de la nomenclature. Gryphaea angulala
premiere espece citee par Lamarck, n'y etant ni decrite ni figuree est un normn
nudum. II importe done de prendre comme "type" la premiere espece
suivante bien decnte ou bien figuree dans les references donnees par Lamarck.
C est pourquoi les auteurs ont choisi G. arcuata Lmk.

^ Mais peut-on prendre en consideration le " Systeme " pour selectionner des
' types " ? Cette question a ete soulevee a d'i verses reprises et posee a la

Commission Internationale de Nomenclature Zoologique. Dans deux de ses
Opinions " (79 et 81) cette Commission repond negativement et se resume

ainsi : " Rigidly construed. Lamarck's (1801 A) Systeme des Animaux sans
Vertebres is not accepted as designation of type species." s'expUquant de la

maniere suivante dans •' I'Opinion " 79 : " In the view of the Commission.

Lamarck cites a ' known species or very rarely several ' as examples, in order to

illustrate the genera, but rigidiv construed, he does not fix the types

170 Bullelin of Zoological Noiiienclatufe.

This interpretation is supported by an examination of Lamarck's (1816 b)
Histoire NatureUe des Animaux Sans Vertebres, in which lie does not even cite
certain species mentioned in 1801. For instance, in 1801, p. 293, he cites only
P. rufipes under Peutatoma : if he had intended this as type designation he
would. presumal)ly. have cited this species under Peutatoma in 1816 b, 492-494,
but he does not do so ; he stated that Peutatoma contains a large nundxT of
species, of which he cites : acuminata, baccarum and prasina."

En ce (|ui concerne le genre Grijphaea, si Lamarck a cite chatiue fois en
premiere ligne Tespece Gryphaea angulata, il a modifie les noms de la plupart
des especes suivantes de la liste de 1801. II est done bien ose de choisir parmi
les autres especes celle devant etre prise comme " type."

D'autre part Lamarck a non seulement change les noms de certaines
especes mais il a modifie les references pour deux d'entre elles. C'est ainsi
qu'en 1801 on trouve : —

Gryphaea cymbula n. Knorr, Petrif. Vol. 2e, part 1, pi. 20, fig. 7. Esp. fossile.
Gryphaea aramta n. Encyclop. pi. 189, fig. 1, 2.

KnoVr, Petrif. Vol. 2e, p. 1, pi. 60, fig. 1. 2.
Bourg. Petrif. No. 92, Esp. fossile.
Et en 1819:—

Gryphaea cymbium. Knorr, Petrif. part 2, B.I.. d.. pi. 20. fig. 7.

Encyclop. pi. 189, fig. 1, 2.
Gryphaea arcuata. Bourguet, Petrif. pi. 15. No. 92.

Knorr. Petrif. part 2, D IIL pi. 60, fig. 1, 2.
Gryphaea iiicurva. Sowerby, Conch. Min., No. 20, t.ll2, f.l.
La reference, en 1801, de G. arcuata a V Encyclopedic est passee, en 1819, a
G. cymbium. On ne pent done pas dire (ju'en 1801 le G. arcuata de Lamarck
soit bien defini.

Pour toutes ces raisons nous ne clevons done pas choisir le type de Gryphaea
dans le " Systeme " de Lamarck, mais dans son " Histoire NatureUe " comme
Ta fait Children en 1823. Cet auteur est le premier a avoir designe Gryphaea
angulata Lmk. comme type du genre.

Nous ne pouvons pas suivre Dall qui, en 1898, ne semblaut pas connaitre
le travail d' Anton, selectionne de nouveau G. arcuata comme type. Gryphaea
arcuata Lmk. est le type du genre Liogryphaca P. Fischer, 1886.

BihUograpliie

1801 — Lamakck. iSystemc des Animau.x sans Vertfebre.s.

1802— Bosc. L. A. G. Histoire NatureUe des CoquiJles. T.ll.

1805 — RoissY. Histoire NatureUe des Mollusques, T.VI.

1817 — CuviER. Regne Animal.

1819 — Lamakck. Histoire NatureUe des Animaux sans Vertebres, T.VI.

1823^-Children. Lamarck's Genera of shells. Art. V. Quart.J.Sc.Lit. and Arts. Vol. 15.

1839 — Anton. Verzeichniss der Conchvlien.

I88f> — Fischer, P. Manuel de C'onchyliologie.

1898 — Dall, W. H. Contribution.s to the tertiary Fauna of Florida. Fart IV. Trans. Wagner

Free Institute of Sc. of Philadelphia, Vol. 3, Part IV.
1924 — Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Opinions

78 to 81 (publication 2747). Smithsoniaji Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 73, No. 2.
1929 — FiNLAY, H. J. The recent Mollusea of the Chatham Islands. Trans, and Proceed. New

Zealand lnstitut<>, \'ol. 59.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 171

SUR DES PROPOSITIONS DIVERSES CONCERNANT DES

AMELIORATIONS A APPORTER A CERTAINES REGLES

EN VUE D'UNE DESIGNATION REGULIERE DES

NOMS DE GENRE ET D'ESPECE

Par le jnofesseur PIERRE BONNET (France).

A la suite d'un important travail de Bibliographic arachnologique [Biblio-
graphiu Araneorum, tome I, Toulouse, 1945), j'ai revu toute la systematique du
groupe des Araneides.

En reprenant dans tous les travaux parus, tous les noms des Araignees qui
ont ete donnes, puis cites par la suite un nombre de fois plus ou moins grand
pour chacune d'elles, et souvent avec de nombreux changements dans leur
appellation ou dans leur graphic, je n'ai pu que constater une diversite tellement
grande, que Ton serait tente de croire a I'inefficacite des Regies de Nomenclature.

Car s'il y a beaucoup de fautes dont les auteurs sont eux-memes responsables
par leur manque de soin a bien finir leurs travaux et surtoiit a en corriger les
epreuves d'imprimerie. ... si beaucoup d'erreurs sont dues a la meconnaissance
que l)ien des auteurs manifestent pour le grec et le latin, . . . il y a aussi une
certaine responsabilite des Regies de Nomenclature actuelles.

En eflfet ces Regies ont, dans un cas, commis I'erreur de faire ce qu'elles
disaient ne pas vouloir faire, dans d'autres cas elles ont laisse des alternatives
inadmissibles en Nomenclature, dans d'autres enfin elles manquent de precisions
pour renseigner les auteurs sur la fa§on de former des noms corrects et de les
accorder.

C'est ainsi qu'il est vraiment desesperant aujourd'hui de voir qu'une
Araignee tres commune, le Dolomede admirable, peut dans les travaux parus
ces dix dernieres annees, etre appelee indifferemment :

r Pisaura mirabilis CLERCK (ou OLIVIER)
"S ou Pisaura listeri (ou listerii)
Lou Pisaura rufofasciata (ou rufo-fasciata ou rufifascmta)

Une autre Araignee s'appeUe :

Evarcha (ou Euarcha) arcuata CLERCK (ou OLIVIER)
ou Evarcha (ou Euarcha) Marcgravi (ou marcgram, ou marc-gravi)
ou Evarcha (ou Etmrcha) Marcgravii (ou marcgravii, ou marc-gravii)

Une troisieme, dont I'appellation ne change pas cependant, Meta degeeri,
voit son nom specifique couramment ecrit de dix fa§ons differentes :

{De geeri De Geeri de Geeri Degeeri degeeri,

De geerii De Geerii de Geerii Degeerii degeerii,

nombre que Ton peut porter a 16 si Ton tient compte du trait d'union que Ton
met aussi entre la particule et le nom principal {De-Geeri) et auquel Ton peut
ajouter les formes geeri et geerii, qui ont ete aussi quelques fois employees.

1 72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

Et Ton pourrait multiplier les exemples.

C'est pour mettre de I'ordre, de la clarte, de la regularite et une certaine
aiiiformisation dans I'appellation des Araignees afin d'arriver a cet heureux
resultat, que nous souhaitons tous, d'appeler chaque animal par uu seul et
meme nom, reconnu de tous et semblablement orthographie, c'est pour arriver
a ce resultat, dis-je, que j'ai envisage les 17 propositions ci-jointes.

Je vous les presente avec I'espoir qu'elles retiendront votre attention et
qu'elles pourront etre adoptees par le Congres.

Bulletin of Zoological Nmnenclature 173

PROPOSITION 1

(proposed amendment of Article 26 to provide

availability for the names published in

('lerck's Aranei svecici of 1757)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)238)

Completer Tarticle 26 en ajoutant a la fin du libelle :

" excepte pour Vordre des Araneides, pour lequel Vouvrage de CLERCK,
' Aranei Suecici ' (1757) a priorite."

On bien, Tarticle 26 n'etant pas modifie, ajouter un article 26 bis (ou una
Remarque a la suite), disant : '' Par mesure exceptionelle, V article 26 est
suspemlu pour Vordre des Araneides et la priorite remonte a Vouvrage de CLERCK
' Aranei Suecici,' 1757. uniqueitient pour le genre Araneus et les 66 espev.es qui y
sont citees."

Explication. — J'ai fait, au sujet de cette proposition, quejejuge de premise
importance, une Petition que je vous adresse et dans laquelle j'etablis avec la
plus grande clarte, le bien fonde de la position des Araneologistes pour reclamer
la priorite des noms des Araignees de CLERCK. Je veux croire que le bon
sens de notre argumentation ne vous echappera pas, et qu'a elle seule cette
argumentation doit pouvoir obtenir votre approbation unanime.

J'insiste sur le fait que c'est une exception a I'article 26 que nous demandons.
Mais que cette exception soit obtenue par la modification de I'article 26 ou
par un article additionnel a cet article 26 ou par tout autre moyen que vous
pourrez juger preferable, il importe peu pour nous ; I'essentiel c'est que vous
nous accordiez, d'une fa§on, ou d'une autre, la possibilite d'utiliser officiellement
les noms des Araignees de CLERCK.

Je pense, a ce point de vue, que si le grand arachnologiste SIMON, au
lieu de reclamer la substitution de la date de 1751 a celle de 1758, s'etait borne,
entre le Congres de Moscou (1892) et celui de Berlin (1901), a reclamer unique-
ment la reconnaissance de I'ouvrage de CLERCK, il aurait eu satisfaction,
comme obtiennent satisfaction tous ceux qui ont fait valoir la priorite
d'usage de noms anciens tres employes sur des noms nouvellement ressuscites,
mais prioritaires d'apres les Regies.

Independamment de toutes ces bonnes raisons qui, a elles seules, doivent
entrainer votre adhesion a notre cause, j'ai voulu savoir ce que pensaient mes
collegues, aussi ai-je fait, au sujet de cette Petition, une enquete parmi les
62 Araneologistes actuels du Monde entier. Voici les resultats de cette en-
quete ; je crois qu'elle est aussi significative que la Petition elle-meme.

174 BuUetin of Zoological Notnenclature.

48 ont repondu favorablenieat. approuvant pleinement et souvent
avec enthousiasme cette petition, certains ajoutant me me cles commentaires
qui renforcent mon argumentation (MM. RABAUD, BERLAND, FAGE.
MILLOT, DENIS, DRESCO, BALAZUC. MEQUIGNON, SAVORY,
UM SCHERRIFFS, BRISTOWE. COLLART, THOMAS, VAN DER
HAMMEN. SCHENKEL, Mme. HOLZAPFEL, DI CAPORIACCO,
MONTEROSSO, DE BARROS-MACHADO, BR^NDEGAARD,
NORGAARD, PALMGREN, CHARITONOW, GERHARDT, WIEHLE,
R(EWER, KASTNER, STRAND, KOLOSVARY, DE MELLO-LEITAO,
BIRABEN, PETRUNKEVITCH, CHAMBERLIN, BISHOP, BAERG,
CHICKERING, GERTSCH, KASTON, MUMA, FRINGS, VAN RIPER.
FOX, GOODNIGHT WALLACE. WRIGHT, BROWN. HICKMAN,
LAWRENCE).

4 sent opposes a ce que Ton fasse I'exception demandee (MM. TULGREN,
MUSGRAVE. HLLL et Miss BRYANT) ; je vais revenir sur leur cas dans
un instant.

. 2 lie se croient pas suffisamment experimentes en Arachnologie pour
prendre position (MM. CHRYSANTHUS et HUZUM).

8 n'ont pas repondu ; la nationalite de 6 de ces naturalistes (MM. SPASSKY,
DRENSKY. ROSCA, STOJICEVIC, MILLER, KRATOCHVIL) laisse
comprendre que leur silence tient a une cause qui n'est certainement pas la
manifestation de leur abstention ; pour les deux autres (MM. IVIE et
MULAIK) il se peut que ma lettre ou leur reponse se soient egarees, comme
cela s'est produit pour la premiere reponse du professeur PETRUNKEVITCH.
J'ajoute que sur ces 8 araneologistes, 6 sont " clerckistes '" et 2 " linneistes,"
d'apres leurs ecrits.

En ce qui concerne les 48 reponses favorables, vous verrez que tons les
signataires sont pleinement d'accord avec moi et que la plupart vous demandent
aussi avec la plus grande conviction de reconnaitre la validite des noms des
Araignees de CLERCK.

Mais ie mentionnerai plus particulierement les reponses des "linneistes"
(MM. BRISTOWE, COLLART, VAN HAMMEN, KOLOSVARY, ROEWER,
KASTNER et STRAND) qui souhaitent aussi que Ton revienne officiellement
aux noms de CLERCK, noms qu'ils acceptent d'employer avec joie, des que la
Commission de Nomenclature leur en donnera la possibilite, par cette recon-
naissance officielle que nous reclaitions. Je fais remarquer plus specialement
encore la reponse du Prof. STRAND, le grand fautif en la matiere, car c'est lui,
qui le premier, a applique I'article 26 aux Araignees " plus par loyaute que par
conviction a I'egard de la regie en vigueur " dit-il ; et c'est lui qui a determine la
resurrection ou I'apparition d'une quarantaine de noms laisses dans I'oubli
depuis cent ans, pour les opposer aux denominations de CLERCK, si souvent
utilisees ; sans lui, vous vous trouveriez peut-etre aujourd'hui en presence d'un
refus total des Araneologistes d'appliquer cet article au seul ouvrage de CLERCK,
bien entendu. Mais laissons le passe, et remercions aujourd'hui ces auteurs
"linneistes " pour leur correction et leur honnetete scientifiques qui seront, j'en
suis sur, d'un grand poids dans votre decision.

Bulletin of Zoological Notnenclature. 1 75

Pour ce qui est des 4 opposants, je traiterai chaque cas separement :

1. Le prof. TULLGREN ne donne aucun motif de son refus de se joindre a
nous. II est impossible de ce fait de discuter sur son cas. Je crois cependant
entrevoir I'ennui qui resulterait, pour lui, de I'adoption officielle des noms de
CLERCK en rapport avec le traite des Araignees suedoises qu'il est entrain
de publier.

2. Monsieur MUSGRAVE, de 1' Australian Museum, n'est pas a proprement
parler un araneologiste ; n'ayant publie que 6 notes sur les raoeurs des
Araignees, il n'a pu se rendre compte de la valeur des noms de CLERCK ; je
I'avais consulte parce qu'il avait particulierement connu le grand arachnologiste
australien RAINBOW. Mr. MUSGRAVE traite la question d'un point de vue
general et en entomologiste, s'opposant surtout a toutes les exceptions que Ton
pent faire aux regies c[uelles qu'elles soient. De plus, je le regrette pour lui,
il a mal lu ou mal compris le sens de ma petition puisqu'il ecrit " therefore little
is to be gained by reverting back to those names of Clerck so long discarded."
Ou diable a-t-il vu que les noms de Clerck etaient depuis si longtemps abandonnes,
alors que c'est tout le contraire que je montre !

3. Miss BRYANT est irrevocablement " linneiste." Sa reponse, qui parle
du bon fondement et de I'utilite des Regies de nomenclature (ce dont nous
sommes tons persuades), est fausse quand elle dit que ces Regies " have proved
sufficient for their purpose," si Ton envisage le cas des Araignees de CLERCK.
Non la, les regies non seulement n'ont pas atteint leur but, mais ce sont elles
qui ont entraine une grande perturbation dans la Nomenclature arachnologiste.
D'autre part je regrette que Miss BRYANT n'ait vu dans ma Petition que le
point de vue sentimental en faveur de CLERCK, sans se rendre compte de
mon " argumentation materielle " qui doit en eflfet entrainer votre decision.
Enfin, je ne saurais mieux repondre a notre collegue qu'en luiadressant la lettre
du Prof. SAVORY, qui, en quelque sorte, lui avait repondu par anticipation.

4. Quant au Rev. HULL, sa reponse negative se comprend difficilement, car
notre collegue est " clerckiste " ayant toujours utilise les noms d' Araignees de
CLERCK. Mais il ne veut pas du nom d'Araneus pour remplacer le genre
Epeira, de la meme fafon qu'il ne veut pas du genre Aranea LINNE qu'il faut
employer cependant quand on est " linneiste." Le Rev. HULL ne repond done
pas a la question, car, ce qu'il reproche a CLERCK, il faudrait aussi le reprocher
a LINNE ; et Ton ne comprend plus une argumentation qui, par le fait, rejette
les noms de CLERCK (qu'il utilise) pour valori.ser les noms de LINNE qu'il
n'utilise pas !

En definitive, I'opposition est tres faible et par le nombre et par la valeur
des arguments employes. L'argument d'ordre general, invoque par Miss
BRYANT et Mr. MUSGRAVE, de ne pas creer un precedent, ne justifie pas
leurs craintes, puisque dans chaque cas c'est la Commission de Nomenclature
qui approuve, ou non. I'exception demandee. Et si toutes les exceptions
presentees sont aussi valables que la notre, il n'y aura que justice et bon sens
a le faire, et une fois de plus ce sera I'exception qui confirmera la regie !

Finalement, la Commission de Nomenclature se trouve sur ce sujet, en
presence des points suivants :

Vol. 3 m

176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

1. line petition, solidenient argumentee, pour niontrer qu'il est du meilleur
bon sens et de la plus grande justice en meme temps, de valoriser les " Aranei
Suecici " de CLERCK, pour que les noms des 54 Araignees les plus anciennement
connues, ties communes et dont les appellations sont constamment utilisees
aujourd'hui, soient officiellement reconnus.

2. En repondant favorablement a notre Petition, les Membres de la Com-
mission Internationale de Nomenclature donnent satisfaction a la grande
majorite des Araneologistes qui utilisent les noms de CLERCK, et determinent
conformement au but essentiel que poursuivent les Regies, une seule denomina-
tion de toutes les Araignees nommees par CLERCK, puisque les " linneistes "
(MM. STRAND, BRISTOWE, ROEWER, KASTNER, KOLOSVARY,
COLLART) acceptent avec joie d'utiliser ces noms, des que leur emploi aura
ete officiellement reconnu. D'autre part il y a peu de cas a faire des quatre
opposants, car, en plus de la faiblesse de leur argumentation, il y a lieu de
remarquer que Mr. MUSGRAVE n'est pas interesse par les Araignees de
CLERCK, que le Rev. HULL, a 84 ans, ne s'occupe plus d'Araignees ; quant a
Miss BRYANT et au Prof. TULLGREN, ils auront surement a coeur de se
plier a la nouvelle reglementation.

3. Si notre Petition est rejetee, c'est I'anarchie qui continue dans la nomen-
clature araneologique ; car il n'y a pas de doute que les 49 " clerckistes " purs
actuels (en comptant les 6 qui n'ont pas repondu et moi-meme) continueront a
utiliser les noms de CLERCK, et resteront ainsi en rebellion avec I'article 26 ;
pendant que 8 ou 9 linneistes (dont 6 peu enthousiastes) emploieront des noms
differents, avec I'obligation pour eux de mettre entre parentheses les noms de
CLERCK, pour que Ton sache de quelles Araignees ils parlent ! Bien plus,
je mettrai ces " linneistes " dans la nouvelle obligation, pour qu'ils soient
logiques avec eux-memes, d'appliquer I'article 26 jusqu'au bout, et de changer
encore une fois les appellations de 9 de ces Araignees, et d'en attribuer 15 autres
a MARTINI & GOEZE au lieu d'OLIVIER ! MARTINI & GOEZE, deux
compilateurs sans grande importance et inconnus en Araneologie depuis 170
ans !

Je veux finalement esperer avec tons nos coUegues arachnologistes, que les
Membres de la Commission internationale de Nomenclature sauront prendre la
seule decision qui s'impose en cette circonstance, la reconnaissance des noms
des Araignees de CLERCK, pour le plus grand bien de la Nomenclature et de
I'Arachnologie et le plus grand honneur des Nomenclateurs de 1948.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 177

PROPOSITION 2

(proposed new Article to follow Article 27)
(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)359)

Ajouter un article 27bis ainsi con9u :

Article 27bis.— " Loi de prescription : tout nom qui sera reste ignore durant de
nombreuses annees ne pourra, pour cause de priorite, remplacer un nom de genre ou
despece depms longtemps utilise ; s'il y avait lieu de le faire les specialistes en
decideront. '

Explication. -Ainsi dans un article de DUGES de 1836, je trouve, en 1944
la description d'une Salticide formiciforme appelee : Salticus cinctus, espece
que personne n'a relevee jusqu'ici. Or cette espece est le Leptorchestes
muttlloides de LUCAS, 1846. Salticus cinctus a done priorite et I'espece, d'apres
1 article 25, devrait s'appeler maintenant Leptorchestes cinctus. Tl serait insense
de faire une telle modification et de remplacer aujourd'hui par ce dernier nom,

vif ""^^ ^® ^- ^'^^'^^^^■^^^ cite ainsi une cinquantaine de fois par vingt auteurs
difterents depuis cent ans.

Autre exemple : DENIS, en 1938, apres avoir etudie les Araign^es d'un
article de RISSO de 1826, reconnait dans VAtypus limbatus de RISSO 1826
le Sitticus floricola de C. L. Koch, 1837. Cette espece devrait done s'appeler
maintenant Sitticus limbatus. Or cette Araignee, fort connue, a ete citee, sous
le nom defloricola, 198 fois ; il paraitrait ridicule aujourd'hui de changer ce'nom.

D'autre part il faut aussi envisager qu'un jour, un autre auteur pent trouver
que cette identification est inexacte, et qu'en realite ce limbatus de RISSO est
le Sitticus pubescens, encore plus commim, cite 350 fois jusqu'ici. et de nouveau
il faudrait tout changer !

Enfin, ce n'est pas le cas ici, mais il pourrait arriver que le nom ressuscite,
soit deja utilise dans le meme genre, il entrainerait done en meme temps le
changement de nom d'une autre espece.

Tout cela demontre amplement la necessite d'adopter la loi de prescription
que je propose. EUe se confond d'ailleurs avec une proposition BRAUER,
mais elle evite, dans chaque cas d'en referer a la Conmiission de Nomenclature.

Vol. m-

] 78 Bulhtin of Zoological Nomenclature.

PROPOSITION 3

(proposed amendment of Article 34 and proposed
addition of two new Articles to follow that
Article)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)359)

Modifier rarticle 34 comme suit, et ajouter les articles 34bis et 34ter.

Article 34. — " Homonymie : tout nam generique n'est rejete comme homonyme
que s'il a ete utilise pour un autre genre dans un meme grand groupe d'animaux
ou dans un meme pays ; les grands groupes d'animaux sont : Protozoaires,
Spongiaires, Coelenteres, Plathelminthes, Annelides, Nemathelminthes, autres
Vers, Crustaces, Myriapodes («-/.)• Insecles, Arachnides, Echinodermes, Pro-
cordes, Vertebres."

Article 34bis.— " On ne reviendra pas sur les cliangemenls fails jusqu'en
1920 ; mais a partir de cette date seront maintenus contre le nom nouveau propose
tons les noms ayant dejd une grande vogue et qui, depuis de nombreuses annees
etaient employes sans la moindre confusion avec un homonyms meconnu d'un
autre groupe."

Article 34ter. — " Cependant, a partir de 1940, il ne sera plus tolere qiCon
utilise pour un nouveau genre un nom dejd existant et se trouvant dans le Nomen-
clator Zoologicus de NEAVE (1939-1940).

Explication. — L'adoption de I'article 34, tel que je le propose, mettrait fin
a I'auctorisnominomanie. Plusieurs auteurs, souvent sans reflexion et sans
aucune etude approfondie des deux homonyines, ont mute le nom du deuxieme
en date, avec la seule idee de creer un nom leur appartenant.

En fait, il importe peu que deux homonymes existent lorsque I'un d'eux
est un nom qui n'est jamais utilise ; si ce nom, jamais utilise, est" le second,
cela n'a pas d'importance si Ton change son vocable ; mais s'il est le premier,
il est tres grave de venir changer le nom du deuxieme.

Ainsi, SIMON a cree, en 1864, chez les Araignees, un genre Argyrodes, sans
savoir que ce terme etait preoccupe et sans que personne ne s'en doute pendant
de nombreuses annees ; d'autre part, il se trouve que ce genre est important et
tres repandu puisque Ton en connait une centaine d'especes reparties dans le
Monde entier, et pendant 70 ans tous les Arachnologistes de citer et de decrire
de nombreux Argyrodes. Puis subitement, en 1928, STRAND decouvre que
ce nom d' Argyrodes est preoccupe par un Microlepidoptere de Hongrie, nomme
ainsi par GUENEE, en 1 845 ; et STRAND de creer le nouveau genre Argyrodina
STRAND pour remplacer V Argyrodes de SIMON. Bien que le nom nouveau ne
soit pas tres eloigne du precedent, et que I'operation soit conforme au texte de

Bulletin of Zoologia.ll Nomemlahire. 179

I'article 34, il vient deranger toute une grande serie d'appellations d'Araignees
tort connues, sous ]e pretexte qu'un tout petit papillon dp HoiHTie a deia
port^ ce nom. Or cet Argyrodes- Papillon n'a jamais ete rovu depuis sa
creation, on ne sait plus ce qu'il est ; pourquoi venir alors changer le nom gene-
nque de [Argyrodes-Araignee, avec lequci pendant 70 ans, il n'v aN-ait jamais
eu confusion ? • jcnnai.-.

D'autre part, Argyrodina etait inutile, car ^r^^/o./^.-Araignee tient en
reserve deux autres genres synonymes : Conopistha KARSCH 1882 et
Belhnda Km^^^Um, 1884. Et voila une centaine d'^^.r. qui
devraient s appeler mamtenant Conopistha, ce qui entrainerait le changement
du nom de la sous-famille et de la tribu.

II y a de tres nombreux exemples dans ce cas, et si I'article 34 n'est pas
modifie, cela porte un tort immense a la Nomenclature, deja si decriee par tous
changements de noms successifs et souvent bien inutiles.

Aussi, de la meme fa§on que les Regies admettent qu'un meme nom puisse
etre utilise en Botamque et en Zoologie (tout en recommandant de I'eviter)
de meme qu on admet qu'un nom specifique peut-etre employe un nombre
considerable de fois (domesticus. vulgaris, etc.) dans des genres differents, il est
possible d admettre que des noms de genre, deux fois employes autrefois
peuyent etre maintenus, pourvu qu'ils appartiennent a deux grands groupe-s
<l.fferents. surtout lorsque le changement de Fun d'cux entraine de trop grandes
modincations. "

Mais on pent decider aussi que I'on ne reviendra pas sur les changements
faits avant 1920, et que d'autre part on ne tolerera plus que I'on se serve a
partir de 1940 dun nom de genre deja employe se trouvant dans le Nomemhior
^oologicus de NEAVE.

180 Bulletin of Zoological Nmmndature.

PROPOSITION 4

(proposed deletion from Article 13 of option to use capital
initial letters for certain classes of trivial name)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)352)

Modifier 1' article 13 comme suit :

Article 13. — " Tous les noms spccifiques, sans exception, s'ecrivent avec urie
petite lettre initiale."

Explication.— II y a lieu, en effet, de generaliser cette regie, en supprimant
la possibilite de mettre une capitale aux noms specifiques de personne.

De nombreux zoologistes agissent ainsi aujourd'hui ; quelques uns s'y
opposent encore ; mais un grand nombre, indifferents et qui ne demandent qu'a
suivre une vegh fixe, ne savent que faire. C'est pour cela que Ton voit actuelle-
ment dans de nombreux articles, cette indecision des auteurs qui, par exemple,
ecrivent a un moment donne Cuvieri, andreae et quelques lignes plus bas cuvieri,
Andreae, ce qui donne I'impression d'un travail fait sans soin.

II y a interet a mettre to uj ours une minuscule aux noms specifiques parce
que, dans un texte, ou Ton cite, a la suite les uns des autres, un certain nombre
d'animaux, on distingue facilement les noms de genres des noms d'espece, si
les premiers sont tous avec une majuscule et les seconds avec une minuscule.
Dans le longues listes alphabetiques, cet interet apparait avec plus de nettete
encore.

Le pretexte qu'invoquent les defenseurs de la majuscule (diminution de
I'honneur que Ton fait a une personne en ecrivant son nom avec une petite
lettre) ne repose sur rien de bien serieux. En effet, Ton n'a jamais pense
minimiser la valeur d'un grand honmie en creant des adjectifs, comme
napoleonien, cornelien, wagnerien, linneen ou cuvieranus. linnaeanus, simonianus,
etc. . . .

II n'y a pas de doute que Ton arrivera un jour a ecrire tous les noms
specifiques avec une minuscule ; autant hater cette uniformisation, en I'imposant
aujourd'hui par la regie proposee.

Bulletin of Zoological Noinendature. 181

PROPOSITION 5

(proposed clarification of Article 14 in certain respects)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)352)

Modifier, en le precisant, le paragraphe (c) de I'Article 14.

Article 14 (c). — Quand il s'agit d'exprimer une dedicace a une ou plusieurs
personnes, leurs noms prennent la mar que du genitif.

1. Si ce sont des personnes de I'Antiquite ; ou si la dedicace s'adresse aux
prenoms des personnes, prenoms qui ont une origine latine, ces mots suivent les
regies de la declinaison latine, en prenant leur genitif correct (tnais avec des
initiales minuscules) :

plinii, aristotelis, ciceronis, senecae, cinnae, victoris, simonis, antonii,
petri, ludovici, elisabethae.

2. Si ce sont des personnes portant un nom moderne ou un prenom comme
nom patronymique, le genitif est toujours forme par I'addition (au nom exact
et complet de la personne, ecrit normalement dans sa langue, avec ses accents),
d'un i quand cette personne est un homme, de ae quand c'est une dame, orum
quand il s'agit d'un menage ou de deux freres, arum s'il s'agit de deux soeurs :

cuvieri, anieli, pecastaingi, schimkewitschi, sjostedti, mobiusi,

simoni (non simonis), victori (non victoris),

pierrei (non petri), louisi (non ludovici),

latreillci, fagei, kishinouyei, madeei,

racovitzai, feai, garciai, bhattacharyai,

scopolii, pavesii, silvestrii, kulcynskii,

gestroi, saitoi, puyoi,

bureaui, arnoui, raimui,

kolosvaryi, levyi, miirrayi,

meriatiae, bryantae, bacelarae, racovitzaei^) , pavesiae,

peckhamorum, berlandorum, bonnelarum.

Exceptions :

(a) pour LINNE : linnaei (au lieu de linnei)

„ FABRICIUS : fabricii ( „ „ „ fabriciusi)

,, PODA : podae ( ,, ,, ,, podai)

„ DE L'ECLUSE : dusii ( „ „ „ I'eclusei)

car Ton ne peut modifier ces noms couramment employes.

(') Quand le nom d'une dame se termine par a, on change le a en ae ; racovitzae [etj^^non
racovilzaae. *^

182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

(6) pour les uoms sc tenninant par q faire la terniinaison en : ui, uae,
iiorum :

DUBOSCQ : duboscqui (non duboscqi)
LECLEECQ : leclercqui (non leclercqi)

3. Pour les nonis ayant une particiile nol)iliaire separable (de, dii, del, di,
do, van, von, etc.) la supprimer :

DE LESSERT: lesserti. DE DALMAS : ihlmasi. DEL PINO:
pinoi. DI CAPOEIACCO: caporiaccoi. VAN HASSELT : hasselti.
VON DER TRAPPEN : trappeni.

Exceptions :

(a) Si la particule est soudee au noni ou si, par longue habitude, elle fait
partie integrante du nom, elle est niaintenue :

DUJARDIN : dujardini DE GEER : degeeri

MACCOOK : maccooki {^) O'CONNOR : o'connori

(b) En fran§ais, les articles le, la, les precedant les noms doivent etre
maintenus : LE SUEUR : lesueuri ; s'ils sont jirecedes de la particule de,
seule la particule disparait :

DE LA ROCHE : larochei ; DE LA MARTINIERE : latmrtimerei

4. Pour les noms ayant un vocable double n'utiliser qu'un seul nom en
choisissant le plus important :

PICKARD-CAMBRIDGE : cambridgei ;
GADEAU-DE-KERVILLE : kervillei ;
GUERIN-MENEVILLE : guerini ;
DE BARROS-MACHADO : tmchadoi.

II est bien evident cependant que Ton pent aussi utiliser le premier nom
{pickardi, gadeaui, menevillei, barrosi).

5. Correlativement, tons les noms composes avec Saint, Sainte, Sanct,
Sancto, San, etc., ne doivent pas voir de prefixe figurer dans leur nom :

SAINT REMY : remyi. SANZ DE DIEGO : diegoi..

(*) Pour les noms avec MAC, il y a lieu do retablir le a, meme lorsqu'il est noremaleinenfc
suppiim^ dans lo nom : AlC COOK.

BuUelin of Zoological Nomenclature. 183

PROPOSITION 6

(proposed addition of a Recoiniiiandation to Article 11)
(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)352)

Ajouter a lartifle 11 . la recoiumandatiou suivaute.

Article 11. — Recoimnaudation : "' On doit eviter d' employer un meme nom
spedfique soil pour des genres voisins. soit dans line meme famille ou un meme
ordre d'animaux, soit encore dans une meme region geographiqiw."

Explication. — II existe des termes qui sont souvent utilises {vulgaris,
dotnesticus, silvestris, riirestris, pusillus. niger, griseus, etc.). Quand ces termes
sont employes dans des genres systematiquement et geographiquement eloignes,
cela n'a eflFet. aucune importance ; mais si un meme terme est souvent utilise
dans un meme groupe ou dans un meme pays, cela peut occasionner de serieux
ennuis.

Ainsi : Misumena californica et Misumenops californica, appartiennent a
deux genres voisins, dont Ic second s'est forme aux depens du premier.

Trocliosa floridana, Pardosa floridana, Lycx)sa floridana, appartiennent a
trois genres voisins qui sont pris parfois les uns pour les autres, si bien que
pour ces especes on ne sait plus de quelle il s'agit. surtout qu'elles ont ete
decrites par le meme auteur.

De meme. il y a un gros inconvenient a trouver dans un meme pays des
quantites danimaux t|ui portent le nom dc ce pays ; c'est ainsi que pour ne
parler que des Araignees, sur 277 especes connues de Californie. il y en a 31 qui
portent le nom de californicus, a. urn, ce qui est vraiment exagere. Si dans
tous les groupes nous avons la meme proportion, le nombre de californicus doit
etre eflfrayant et bien incommode pour la faune de ce pays.

Enfin il faut se garder aussi d'utiliser trop souvent le nom dun auteur
illustre. malgre tout I'honneur qu'on veut lui faire ; i' y a bien une cinquantaine
de simoni chez les Araignees. autant de strandi. si ce n'est pas davantage ; un
jour ou I'autre certains de ces noms preteront a confusion.

Aussi les auteurs feront bien de se demander a Favenir, si le nom qu'ils
veulent utiliser pour nommer une nouvelle espece n'est pas deja plusieurs fois
employe, surtout pour des genres voisins ou une meme region.

184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

PROPOSITION 7

(proposed amendment of Article 15)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)352)

Modifier rarticle 15, comme suit :

Article 15. — " Des denominations specifiques a vocable double ne font pas
exception a Farticle 2 ; mais pour cela ils doivent toujours Stre ecrits en un seul
nwt, sans trait d'union {sanctaecatharinae,janmayeni, cornupastoris, coranguinum,
cedonulU)^

Explication. — II y a lieu tout d"abord de supprimer, de rarticle actuel, la
possibilite de se servir du nom d'une personne a vocable double pour designer
une espece. De meme qu'on a demande, pour la creation d'un genre, de
n'utiliser que I'un des termes (paragraphe E de Farticle 8) on doit faire de meme
pour les noms specifiques, comme je I'ai indique dans le paragraphe 4 de Farticle
14 (Proposition 5) ; cela repond aussi a I'idee exprimee plus haut, qu'un nom
specifique doit etre court. S'il existe deja des noms specifiques d'auteurs a
vocable double, on doit les maintenir mais les ecrire en un seul mot
( pickardca mb ridgei , milneedwardsi ) .

D'autre part Farticle actuel prevoit que, dans les mots composes, Fon peut
mettre un trait d'union ou non. II faut supprimer cette alternative et interdire
tout a fait le trait d'union, pour deux raisons :

1. le trait d'union n'existait pas en latin ; les Romains ecrivaient
quadrimmius, dentiscalpium, tauricornis, etc. Nous devons de la meme
fa§on ecrire sanctaecatharinae, cornupastoris, cinereofasciata, etc. ;

2. le terme specifique ecrit en un seul mot, repond davantage a Fidee
que I'on avait de s'opposer a toute designation polynominale.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 185

PROPOSITION 8

(proposed addition of three new Articles
to follow Article 15)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)390)

Ajouter trois articles 15bis, ter, qiiater. sur la fa9on de former les mots
specifiques composes.

Article 15bis. — Les noms specifiques composes, formes de deux mots grecs ou
de deux mots latins, devienmnt generalement des adjectifs ; le deuxieme terme,
seul declinable, s'accorde avec le nom generique. lis peuvent etre formes :

1. par la juxtaposition a un adjectif d'une preposition, d'un prefixe courant
on d'un adjectif numeral invariable (subaequalis, pseudomonticola, unicornis,
himacidatus, triguttatus, decemnotatus, ingintipunetatus).

Recammandation : Ladjectif numeral en composition avec un adjectif
s'ecrit en toutes lettres ; on ne doit pas ecrire 10-notatus, \Z-gultatus, 18-
punctatus. (Car beaucoup de personnes ne sauraient peut-etre pas prononcer
sur le moment decemnotatus. tredecimguttatus ou duodexngintipunctatus. ce qui
est essentiel.)

2. par la juxtaposition de deux adjectifs le premier etant reuni au deuxieme
par une voyajle de liaison o ou i [fuscorufus. albogilvus, rubicoloratus).

Recommandation : C'est loreille qui guide dans le choix de cette voyelle
de liaison ; quand un mot supporte Tune ou Tautre {alhomaculata. albimacidata),
ij vaut mieux mettre o.

3. par juxtaposition d'un adjectif a un substantif reuni a lui par une voyelle
de liaison ; I'ensemble devient un mot adjective qui pent avoir :

(a) une seule forme invariable pour les trois genres {longipes, meluno-
gaster, et tous les mots composes avec pes. frons, dens, thorax, ceps. gaster,
color, etc.)

(b) une forme declinable de la premiere classe {quadrimanus, a, um ;
melanocephalus, a, um ; et tous les mots composes avec manus, carpus,
tarsus, barbus, spinus, comus, stylus, ophthalmus. etc.)

(c) une forme declinable de la deuxieme classe {flavipalpis, e ; tenuitarsis
e ; et tous les mots composes avec palpis. tarsis, barbis, rostris, cornis,
ventris, collis, formis. etc.).

Recomnuindation : Quand un terme supporte d'etre un adjectif de le
premiere ou de la deuxieme classe {longitarsus ou longitarsis ; fhvipalpus ou

186 BuUetin of Zoological Noinoiclaturc.

Jhvopulpis ; rujibarbus ou rifobarbis) il vaut luieux prendre la forme en in, e,
qui a ete la plus employee.

4. par juxtaposition de deux substantifs :

(«) le premier, complement de I'autre, se met au genitif ; le douxieme,
c'onsidere comme apposition, est au nominatif {tanricormi. equisetuin,
nienthaefolia)

(6) I'inversion peut ne pas exister, et, de ce fait, le uiot compose a unc
t«Tminaison au genitif [dendeonis, cornncopiae, conmpastoris)

(c) mais le deuxieme nom peut prendre une forme adjective, et dans ce
cas il s'accorde avec le nom generique {vermiformis, e ; formicaefannis, e ;
fronticornis, e ; anguicomus, a, um ; ferrequinus, a, urn. ; etc.).

5. par justapoxition d'un verbe et d'un substantif ; le substantif est devaut
le verbe, reuni a lui par une voyelle de liaison ; le verbe prend une forme
adjective declinable.

(a) les verbes genere, fugere, vorare, gradi, vagari donnent des formes en
us, a, urn {genus, a, um ; fugus, o, um ; vorus, gradus, vagus) (Exemples :
montigenus, ludfugus, omnivorus, herbigradus, montivagus).

(b) les verbes gerere etfene donnent des formes ger, a, um etfer, a, um
(Exemple : crucifer, a. um ; dentiger. a, um). Les formes gerus et ferus
sont tres incorrectes, et ne doivent pas etre employees

(c) le verbe colere donne la forme invariable cola {silvicola, agricola,
montieola, floricola. ruricola, etc.). C'est done une grosse erreur que
d'accorder ces termes avec le nom generique, on ne doit pas dire silvicolus,
ni agricolum, etc.

(d) les verbes grecs phoreo (je porte) et phileo (j'ainie) donnent des
terminaisons latinisees en phorus, a, um et philus, a, tim {stylophorus, a, um ;
hydrophilus, a, um). Les formes en phoreus et phileus sont a rejeter.

Recommandotion generale : Dans la formation de ces mots composes il est
formellement interdit de former des mots liybrides en combinant un mot latin
et un mot grec : nigrocephalus, isopes, etc., ne sont pas admissibles.

Cependant si certains de ces hybrides ont ete formes et employes sans que
personne n'ait jamais songe a les rectifier, il y a lieu de les conserver aujourd'hui
en application de Farticle 32.

Article l^tei .— Dam la composition de ces mots composes, Vhiatus doit
toujours Mre evite.

L'hiatus est tres desagreable a I'oreille et les Remains en avaient horreur ;
il faut done I'eviter autant qu'il est possible. On supprime l'hiatus :

(a) par la syncope de la voyelle finale du premier terme, ou de la voyelle
do liaison ; mais on ne touche jamais a la premiere Icttre du deuxieme terme :

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclahirr. 187

pseiuloagricoki doit devenir pseudagricola
quadriangulatus ,, ,, quadrangulalus

nigroolivacea ,, „ nigrolivacea
Psetuloicius ,, ,, Pseudicinn

{microarganisme est un mot affroiix <|uo Ton doit reni])lacor par micror-
ganisme).

(b) par rintroduction d'uno lettre euphonique entre les deux voyolles de
r hiatus :

reeniptus deviant redeniptus ; reiniitiis devient redimitus.
(le terme protandrie pour proandrie est tres bien form^).

Articlel5quater. — Dans les mots composes avec une lettre qui rappelle un signe
d'ornementation, il y a lieu d'indiquer, entre crochets, la prononciation de cette
lettre grecque on laiine.

X [lambda] — signata ; m [em] — nigrum : x [ils] — notatxis.

Ici le trait d'union doit etre maintenu.

188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

PROPOSITION 9

(proposed insertion after Article 18 of a new Article regarding

the grammatical agreement of the trivial name of

a species with the name of the genus to

which that species is referred)

(Commmission's reference Z.N.(S.)352)

Apres I'article 18. aj outer un nouvoau paragraphe intitule :

ACCORD DU NOM DE LESPECE AVEC LE NOM DU GENRE.

L'accord du nom de I'espece avec celui du genre n'est pas aussi simple qu'on
le pourrait croire ; c'est encore la un chapitre important qui n'est pas
suffisamment traite dans les Regies de nomenclature. De ce fait, il y a trop
d'auteurs qui font des accords epouvantables en realisant d'une fa^on simpliste
C[u'il suffit de mettre us, a, um. a la fin du nom d'espece, quand le nom de
genre se termine lui-meme par its. a, um.

Article 18bis. — Regies d'accord du nom specifique avec le nom generique.

1 . Le nom de I'espece est un substantia

(A) s'il est en apposition, il est au nominatif :

Felis leo, Lycosa venator.

(B) s'il est determinatif, il est au genitif :

Lycosa silvarum, Zodarium hispaniae.

C'est aussi le cas des noms des personnes auxquelles une espece
est dediee :

Saliicus listen, Argiope briinnichi, Cyrha peckhamorum.

2. Le nom de I'espece est un adjectif ou une forme adjectivee ; elle s'accorde
avec le sexe du nom generique, done au nominatif masculin, feminin ou neutre,
suivant le cas.

I. — II importe a ce moment la de determiner le sexe des noms generiques ;
il faut pour cela consulter les lexiques grecs et latins qui donnent
le genre des mots.

(A) Generalement les noms latins en us sont du masculin, en a du
feminin, en um du neutre. Mais il ne faut pas s'y fier.

BtiUetin of ZooJogicnJ Noweiidahire. 189

Exception : (a) les genres composes avec tmutu et cold
voulent le nom d'espece au masculin :

Argonauta majus, Agricola fultms

(6) certains noms en us veulent le feniinin (Fagus silca(ica)
ou le neutre (Genus novum).

(B) Les noms se terminant par as, ax, es, et; is, or, eto.. peuvent
etre de I'un des trois genres ; consulter le dictionnaire.

(C) Certains mots grecs termines par a (pebna, omma, soma, gramma)
que Ton pourrait croire du feminin, sont du neiitre et appellent
ime terminaison en consequence :

Porrhomma pygmacum, Eurypelma forte. Ox y soma nudum.

(D) Si Ton a employe comme nom de genre un nom mythologique,
il apporte avec lui son sexe :

Venus verrucosa, Apollo decorums, Triton littoralis.

(E) Si le nom de genre a ete forme du nom d'une personne, avec
terminaison en us, a, urn, ou ius, ia, ium, ou d'un nom quelconque
ayant une de ces terminaisons, I'espece s'accorde en suivant la
desinence du genre :

Vandelius lucidu,s, Simonia cuprea, Merleum cristatum,
Anzacia insulana, Nomisia exorrmta, Algerius novus.

II. — Le sexe du nom gen^rique determine, il faut savoir de quelle classe
est I'adjectif pour faire des accords convenables, en us, a, urn ou en
is, e. La, il faut prendre garde aux formes irregulieres comme ger
et fer (qui ne veulent ni gerus m ferus au masculin) ou comme cola
qui est invariable {Araneus agricola. Theridium silvicola).

190 Bullefin of Zoological No)nenchlnir.

PROPOSITION 10

(proposed .addition of a new Article to follow Article 20)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)356)

Aj outer un article 20bis, ainsi con9n.

Article 20bis. — " Polymorphisme de certains mots. Si certains mots out ete
ecrit^ de plusieurs fagons on doit adopter celle qui a une priorite originelle.''
Exeinples : silva non sylva ; tirol non tyrol ; littoralis non litoralis ; pyrenaeus
non pireneus ; caeruleus non coeruleus et surtout non ceruleus ; sulfur
non sulphur : compta non comta : hihernalis non kybernalis ; pirum non pyrutn.

Explication. — II y a un gros inconvenient a maintenir des noms polymorphes
dont les deux graphies sont correctes. En effet il aurait fallu, suivant I'article
19, pouvoir maintenir rorthographe originelle, et c'eut ete tres bien. Mais
coinnie, dans la pratique, il n'est pas possible de se souvenir, chaque fois, de la
fa§on dont le mot a ete ecrit par Fauteur-createur d'un genre ou d'une espece
il s'en suit cjue les auteurs subsequents I'ecrivent tantot d'une fa§on, tantot de
I'autre, suivant leur inspiration du moment, sans se soucier de Forthographe
originelle qu'il faudrait chaque fois verifier.

C'est ainsi que BLACKWALL a decrit Drassus sylvestris et Neriene sylvaticus,
mais KOCH a decrit Tegenaria silvestris et KULCZYNSKI Trneticus silvicoh
(pour ne citer que ces quatre cas, car il y en a bien d'autres) ; ce sont des especes
citees tres souvent, mais les sylvestris et les sylvaticus de BLACKWALL sont
ecrits un grand nombre de fois silvestris et silvaticus, de la meme fagon que le
silvestris de KOCH et le silvicola de KULCZYNSKI sont aussi souvent ecrits
sylvestris et sylvicola.

Et certains de ces auteurs sont exciisables, car celui qui dans un catalogue
ou dans une liste de captures donne le nom de ces especes, ne pent en effet
ecrire tous ces silvestris, silvicola, silvaticiis, silvarum que d'une meme fa§on, tons
avec un i, ou tous avec un y.

Tant que Fon laissera subsister ce polymorphisme, on n'arrivera a rien de
bon ; uniformisons, decretons cjue silva (ses derives et composes) s'ecrira toujours
avec un i, et jamais avec un y, et toutes ces anomalies disparaitront.

II y a lieu de rechercher s'il n'y a pas d'autres mots, en plus de ceux que
j'ai cites, qui ont aussi une double graphie.

Bulletin of Zoologicul Nomenclature. 191

PROPOSITION 11

(proposed addition of a new paragraph to i\j:ticle 32

and addition of a now Article to follow

Article 19)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)352)

Completer I'article 32 et ajouter iin article i9bi.s qui en decoule.

Article 32. — Apres le libelle de cet article ajouter " Main cda ne veut pas dire
que ' tout nom une fois puhlie ne pent pas etre inodifie ' ; ee serait contraire a la
logique et a Vesprit de Varticle 19 qui prevoit la correction des ))onis renfermanl une
faute de transcription, d'orthographe on d' impression:'

Article 19bis. — " Tmit nom de genre ou d'espece rectijie continue a appartenir
au premier auteur qui a decrit et nomme ce genre ou cette espece ; en aucun cas le*
correct eur ne pent s'en attrihuer la paternite."

Explication. — II est tres important d'aj outer cette remarque, car beaiicoup
d'auteurs, ces derniers temps, maintiennent, en partant de cet article 32, cju'ils
generalisent " qu'un nom une fois publie ne peut plus etre ni change ni modifie;
bien plus, ils retablissent les fautes d'orthographe primitives qui avaient ete
corrigees depuis ! "

L'article con9u connne le comprennent ces auteurs, serait une absurditt
et Ton ne peut que s'indigner de voir des auteurs, sous ce pretexte, retablir la
graphic inexacte d'un mot.

C'est ainsi que le grand arachnologiste SIMON a ecrit son ])remier ouvrage
sur les Araignees a I'age de 16 ans ; il a cree dans ce livre un certain nombre de
noms et fait c[uelques fautes de transcription de lettres grecques, fautes qu'il a
corrigees lui-meme par la suite : ainsi Ozijptiki (1864) qu'il a rectifie en Oxyptila
en 1875, et depuis a ete toujours employe sous cette graphic correcte. II est
alors inadmissible que BANKS, (suivi en cela par quelques auteurs americains
et Embrik STRAND), vienne retablir. en 1907, le mot Oz;/ptila qui n'etait
quune faute d'orthographe d'un enfant de 16 ans !

De meme on doit corriger le Micromata initial de LATREILLE en Microm-
mata, le dromaderius initial de WALCKENAER en dromedarius, Y Argyope
initial de SAVIGNY en Argiope, etc.

D'ailleurs je fais remarquer qu'en generalisant la portee de cet article reduit
a son sens " qu'une fois publie tout nom ne peut plus etre modifie," cela rendrait
inutiles toutes les autres regies de Nomenclature, puisque deviendraient valables
tous les noms qui seraient contraires a ces regies !

Vol. 3 n

192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

II est bien evident que le nom rectifie appartient toujours a Tauteur c^ui a
cree le nom incorrect et nou a celui qui a fait le rectification, nieme si la rectifi-
cation, assez importante, transforme serieusement le nom.

Ainsi LAWRENCE a cr6e, en 1937, le genre Paranetella pour le Paranetus
distinctus ; or ce nom de genre c'est Panaretus ; je retablis la correction en
disant que le nouveau genre s'appelle PanareteUa, mais avec LAWRENCE comme
nom d'auteur, car c'est toujours lui qui a cree et decrit ce genre, malgre la faute
nominale dont il I'a dotee a sa naissance.

A ce menie propos, si dans le changement des noms de genre pour homonymie,
on avait su decreter a I'origine, que le nom nouveau propose continuerait a
appartenir a I'auteur qui avait cree le genre, cela aurait porte un rude coup a
rauctorisnominomanie naissante. Cette fa9on de faire aurait eu Tavantage de
ne })as changer la date reelle de la decouverte d'un genre (ou d'une espece),
car il serait anormal, par exemple, que Y Argyrodes de SIMON, 1864, ne date plus
que de 1928 si Ton acceptait son changement en Argyrodina. D'autre part,
I'auteur qui a le veritable merite d'avoir decouvert et cree une nouveaute ne
verrait pas cette place d'honneur usurpee par un auteur qui n'a eu que le souci
de trouver un autre nom.

Ainsi le Latona de L. KOCH, 1866, est change en Lampona par THORELL eu
1869, parce que Latona est deja occupe. J'envisage qu'on aurait pu designer ce
genre comme suit :

Lampona (L. KOCH, 1866 ; sub Latona).

Cette perspective est bien seduisante ; mais comme elle est tres grosse de
consequences (on devrait changer le nom d'auteur d'un grand nombre de genres
et d'especes) je n'ai pas voulu prendre I'initiative d'une telle modification, sans
avoir prealablement provoque une discussion de la Commission de Nomenclature.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 193

PROPOSITION 12

(proposed addition of a new Article to follow Article 8)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)297 and 352)

Ajouter un article 8bis, ainsi con^-u :

Article Sbis. — Les noms de genre et d'espece ne doivenl avoir de signification
bizarre dans aucune langue ; leur longueur ou lew complexite ne doit pas exceder
six syllabes. Les noms deja. formes et qui contreviennent a ces dispositions ne sont
pas valables.

Explication. — Si bon nonibre de naturalistes travaillent avec gout, methode
et conscience, n'ayant d'autre but que la recherche de la verite et le souci du
travail bien fait, il en est d'autres, malheureusement, dont Fesprit s'embarrasse
de considerations moins elevees.

L'article 8 indique bien dans ses recojnmandations, connnent il faut faire
pour creer des noms de genre, mais il oublie de dire ce qu'il ne faut pas faire ;
c est une lacune, car il y a heu d'inviter les auteurs a eviter les noms malsonnants
et surtout a ne pas creer des termes comiques ou trop longs.

Noms malsonnants : c'est peut-etre difficile de I'eviter, car ce qui est choquant
pour une oreille frangaise (comme Cucumaria ou Thaumatoncus), pent ne pas
I'etre pour les Anglais, des Allemands ou des Japonais. Enfin dans chaque
langue, on doit eviter de creer des termes ayant une consonnance facheuse.

Noms comiques : Cela peut etre evite et doit etre interdit. Ainsi
KIRKALDY (Entomologist, 1904, pp. 279-283) a cree des noms comme
Ocliisme et Marichisme, qui sont une graphic des expressions anglaises kiss me
et Mary Mss me. C'est exactement comme si un Frangais creait des vocables
dans le genre de Vienferdodoleon, Prentoncafelea ou Fepipizoe ! A partir de ce
moment la fantaisie et le grotesque peuvent se donner libre cours.

Noms trop longs : Dans un article, DYBOWSKI " Synoptisches Verzeichnis
mit Kurzer . . . der Baikalflohkrebse " {Bidl. intern. Acad. pol. sci. let., 1926,
pp. 1-77) a cree un grand nombre de genres d'une longueur et d'une complexite
remarquables, comme :

Nematoceroechinogammarus
Gammaracanthuskotylodermogammwus
Parapallaseakotylodermogammarus, etc.

II y a un manque de bon sens a creer de semblables termes, et je ne saurais
mieux le montrer qu'en exagerant la chose, en pro])osant un nom comme •

Polichinellobizarrocamicburlescarnagicaraneus 1
Vol. 3 n»

194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalure.

L'iudignation que nous pourrions eprouver a voir de tels vocables ue
pourrait ricn contre le fait qu'ils sont parfaitement valables si quelqu'uu a
I'idee de les creer, rieu dans nos reglements ue I'interdisant. C'est pour cela
que je propose de fixer la longueur des noms de genres et d'especes a un maxi-
mum de six syllabes.

Bullelin of Zoological Nomenclature. 195

PROPOSITION 13

(proposed amendment of Article 22)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)352)

Modifier 1 'article 22 comme suit :

Supprimer dans son libelle " ou une parenthese " et I'exemple " on Primates
LINNE (1758) ". — En effet la parenthese doit etre reservee pour I'indication
du noni d'auteur et de la date, quand I'espece a change de genre (article 23).

Ajouter a la suite: "Si Vauteur du nouveau nom n'est pas Vauteur de
Varticle oil ce nom parait, on inscrit d'abord le nom du createur, puis, precede de
' in ', le nom de Vauteur de Varticle avec la date de parution. Exemple :

Coelotes gasperinii SIMON in GASPERINI, 1891 ".

" Si Vauteur d'un nouveau nom est Vun des deux signataires d'un article on
Vindique comme ceci :

Sitticus hungaricus (KULC'ZYNSKI in CHYZER & KULCZYNSKI,
1892)."

Si I'espece a change de genre on met aussi entre parentheses I'ensemble de
ces noms d'auteur (exemple precedent).

Pour les articles signes de deux noms d'auteurs, remplacer les conjonctions
utilisees dans les differentes langues {et, and, und, y. i, e, etc.) par la conjonction
latine et sous la forme & qui devient ainsi un signe international.

La recommandation de I'article 22 est a supprimer (voir proposition 14).

196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

PROPOSITION 14

(proposed substitution of a new Article to follow Article 22 in place of the
existing Recommandation to that Article)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)352)

Supprimer la recommandation de I'article 22 et la remplacer par un article
22 bis.

Article 22 bis. — " // u'est pas possible aujourd'hui d'avoir des abbrhations
conventionnelles des noms d'auteurs, pour Vensemble de la Zoologie. Ces abre-
imtions doivent etre determinees dans clmque groupe."

Conseils pour abregor convenablement les noms d'auteurs :

(1) Pour les noms composes de plusieurs syllabes, prendre la premiere
syllabe avec la consonne ou les consonnes d'appui de la deuxieme syllabe.

LINNE: Lin.; SIMON: Sim.; KULCZYNSKI : Kulcz.
BLACKWALL: Black.; WALCKENAER: Walck. ; SCOPOLI : Scop.

(2) Si le nom ne comprend qu'une seule syllabe :

(A) S'il ne comprend que 2. .3 ou 4 lettres, I'ecrire en entier : PY, ROC,
FOX, HULL, HOGG, etc.

(B) S'il se compose de 5, 6 ou 7 lettres, le reduire a 3 ou 4 lettres, en
prenant la premiere et les 2 ou 3 dernieres : BANKS : Bks. ; HENTZ : Htz. ;
GERTSCH : Gsch. ; WRIGHT : Wght.

(3) Si le nom est double, abreger seulement le nom principal :

GUERIN-MENEVILLE : Guer. ; FRANGANILLO-BALBOA : Frang.
MELLO-LEILAO : Leit. ; GADEAU DE KERVILLE : Kerv.

(4) Si ces noms sont precedes de particules, les supprimer :

DE LESSERT: Les. ; VAN HASSELT : Hass. ; DI CAPORIACCO : Cap.

(5) Si des auteurs ont le meme nom, n'utiliser que les initiales de leurs
noms et prenoms :

Octavius PICKARD-CAMBRIDGE : O.P.C.
Frederic-Octavius PICKARD-CAMBRIDGE : F.O.P.C.
Carl Ludwig KOCH : C.L.K.
Ludwig KOCH : L.K.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 197

PROPOSITION IS

(proposed addition of a new Recommandation to Article 16)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)391)

Ajouter a I'article 16 una nouvelle recommandation sur la formation des
adjectifs geographiques en ensis.

Article 16.— Recommandation : Pour former les adjectifs geographiques en
ensis, au nom latinise {ou non) des pays et des miles, ajouter ce suffixe ensis si
le nom se termine par une consonne, et s'il se termine jxir une voyelle remplacer
rette voyelle par ensis. Exemples :

Timor : timorensis Tirol : tirolensis

Burdigala : burdigalensis Canada : canadensis

Massilia : massiliensis Brasilia : hrasiliensis

Paraguay : poraguayensis Guadeloupe : guaMoupensis

Explication.— Cette recommandation est necessaire car de nombreux
auteur.s ne savent que faire en I'occurence, et il importe par cette regie tres
simple de montrer que Ion ne doit pas dire canadiensis, ni hrasilensis.—
Finalement, la terminaison en iensis n'existe que s"il v a deja un i dans la
terminaison du nom geographique.

Exception : Athenae a donne atheniensis.

198 Bullet i» of Zoological Noinencl'Oture.

PROPOSITION 16

(proposed ainendment of concluding paragraph of Recommandation to Article 20)
(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)392)

Modification an dernier paragraphe de la Recommandation de I'article 20.

Article 20. — Recommandation : Dernier paragraphe. Pour les noms
jHitronymiques comprenarit des Idtres a, 6, it, que Von pent ecrire aussi ae, os, ue
il est recomnmnde, si Fan utilise ces noms pour former des noms de genre on
d'espece, d'adopter Vecriture a, o, ii. Exemples :

bdbleri {non haebleri) ; Donitzia {noti Doenitzia) ; Mulleriu {non
Mtielleria) ; briinnichi {non bruennichi).

Explication. — II semble que I'usage le plus coiirant soit d'employer ces
lettres avec le trema. — De plus si la prononciation a, ae d'une part, o, oe d'autre
part, sont identiques, il n'en est pas de meme de il (que Ton doit prononcer
comme un u franfais) et de ue que Ton risque de prononcer ue, ce qui modifie
la prononciation reelle du nom.

Enfin I'ecriture avec ae, oe, ue deplace serieusement la position des termes
ainsi orthographies, dans des listes alphabetiques ; si Ton ne prend pas soin
de regarder ces listes aux deux graphics possibles, on risque parfois de croire
qu'un nom est oublie, alors qu'il est inscrit a un autre endroit.

Bulletin of Zooloyiail Nomenclature. 199

PROPOSITION 17

(proj)osed addition of a new section to the AppewUce to the Regies)

(Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)393)

Ajouter a TAPPENDICE, un paragraphe ' F ' intitule :
Transcription du r et du i latins.
Leu letfres v et i deriennent u et i devanl tine consionne, et r oii ; derant nne

vojjeUe. Exemples :

Premier cas : ifrbs, ventws, illustris, iniperiah's.
Deuxieme cas : dives, ventus, jugum, _;'ucundis.

En appliquant cette regie an prefixe En, elle donne en effet Eiispamssus,
Eugnalha. Euphoresia, etc., et doit donner Emgrus, Evetria, Evatldiis, Evan-
gelmni, etc. (et non Euagrus, Euetria, Euathlus, Euangeliura).

Explication. — Les Romains n'avaient qu'une lettre pour le v voyelle et
pour le V consonne ; une seule lettre aussi pour le i voyelle et le i con-
sonne ; mais la pratique a voulu par la suite que le v voyelle devienne
un u et le i consonne un j ; il y a lieu de se conformer a cette pratique et de
I'appliquer integralement en interdisant les ecritures iugiim, iucundis, iujnter
et en obligeant les auteurs a ecrire le prefixe en soiis cette forme devant une
consonne : Eusparassn.s. Eugnatha, et I'ecrire ev devant une voyelle : Evagrus,
Evetria, termes qui sont jjIus euphoniques que Euagrus ou Euetria, bien que
cette derniere ecriture soit etymologiquement plus correcte.

Bulletin of Zoological Notmadalure. 201

INDEX

Amendment of the Regies, proposed insertion of an Article governing Page
procedure for .. .. .. .. .. .. 117-1 is

By-Laws of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

proposed insertion in the Regies of an Article relating to . . 123-124

Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, proposed addition of, to the
" Official List of Generic Names in Zoology " with Musca vomi-
loria, Linnaeus. 1758, as t}^)e species (reference Opinion 82) . . 135-130

Clerck, 1757, Aranei svecici, proposed amendment of Article 20 to

validate names in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173-170

Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, proposal regarding procedure to l)e adopted

for reaching a decision on long-outstanding application relating to 137-138

Commission, International, on Zoological Nomenclature, jiroposed

reform of the composition of (Paper I.C.(48)3) 0-15

The proposals submitted include proposals relating to :

the removal of the upper limit hitherto imposed on the
membership of the Commission, the present upper limit
of eighteen being retained as a minimum . . 13

the institution of a system providing for the direct repre-
sentation on the Commission of zoologists in anv countrv
in which any considerable amount of zoological work is
being conducted . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

the institution of a revised method for the election of members

of the Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-15

the publication in the " Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature "
of announcements relating to the election of new
Commissioners . . . . . . . . . . 14

202 BuUetin of Zoological NotnenckUure.

tlie arrangements to be made for filling casual vacancies in Page
the membership of the Commission 14-15

Commission, International, on Zoological Nomenclature, proposed

reform of procedure of (Paper I.C.(48)4) 16-10

The proposals submitted itidude proposals relating to :

voting procedure in cases not involving either a suggested
change in the Regies or the use by the Commission of its
plenary powers . . . . . . . . . . ■ • 17

voting procedure in cases involving a suggested change in the

Regies . . . . . . • ■ ■ • • • • • 17

voting procedure in cases involving the use by the Commis-
sion of its plenary powers . . . . . . . . . . 17-18

time-table to be aimed at by the Commission in dealing with

applications submitted . . . . . . . . - 18-19

issue to zoologists of an announcement in regard to reform of

procedure . . . . . . • • • • 19

amendment of Bv-Laws to take account of revised procedure 19

Commission, International, on Zoological Nomenclature : Report to
be submitted bv. to the Thirteenth International Congress
of Zoology, draft of (Paper I.C.(48)20) 139-153

Communique issued to the scientific press of the world at the close of
the Thirteenth Internation Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948
(Paper I.C.(48)21) IM

composition of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, proposed reform of (Paper I.C.(48)3) 6-15

Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature : proposals for incorporation in the Regies of recom-
mendations contained in :

Declaration 1 (Code of Ethics) : substance to be incorporated in

a new Article in the Regies . . . . • . • • • . 95

Bulletin of Zoological Nofnenclalure. 203

Declaration 2 (issue of separates in advance of publication of Page
paper concerned) : insertion in the Regies of a Recommanda-
tiati deprecating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Declaration 3 (need for recording exact date of publication of
books and journals) : insertion in the Regies of a Recom-
mandation regarding . . . . . . . . . . 96

Declaration 4 (use of intemperate language in discussions on
zoological nomenclature) : insertion in the Regies of a
provision prohibiting . . . . . . . . . . 95

Declaration 5 (the plenary powers of the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature) : proposed incorporation of,
in the Regies subject to certain amendments . . . . 17-18, 95

Declaration 6 (need for giving a clear indication that new names
are such and for avoiding publication of a name as new
more than once) : proposed insertion in the Regies of a
Recommandation regarding . . . . . . . . 90

Declaration 7 (need for citing bibliographical references) : pro-
posed insertion in the Regies of a Recmnmandation regarding 96

Declaration 8 (need for publication of exact date of publication of
books and papers on zoological subjects) : substance of, to
be incorporated in the Recommandation embodying substance
of Declaration 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Declaration 11 (need for indicating systematic position of taxo-
nomic units when first named) : proposed insertion in
the Regies of a Recommandation regarding . . . . . . 96

Declaration 12 (supplement to Code of Ethics) : proposed inclu-
sion of substance of, in new provision embodying the suIj-
stance of Declaration 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Flebotomus Rondani, 1840, proposed emendation of, to Phleboloinus 130-137

Fossil fragments (organites and sclerites) of Invertebrates, proposed

introduction of new system of nomenclature for . . . . . . 117, 167

Grade, proposed recognition of, and definition of, in the Regies as a

new category . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . 166

204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

Gryphaea Lamarck, question whether avaihiblc from 1801 or from Page
1819, and tA-pe species of 168-170

Gurlt, proposal tliat the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature should rule that the so-called generic names and
specific trivial names published by, in 1832 for >Schistosome
Monsters possess no status imder the Regies . . . . . . 138

homonymy. proposed revision of provisions in the Regies in relation

to the names of species (Articles 35 and 36) (Paper 1.0.(48)8) . . 37-54

infra-subspecific forms, proposed insertion in the Regies of provisions

governing the nomenclature of (Paper I.C.(48)9) . . . . . . 55-68

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, see Commis-
sion, International, on Zoological Nomenclature . .

nuibouya Lacepede. 1788, Laceiiiis, proposed insertion of, in the
" Official List of Generic Names in Zoology " as the type species
oi Mabuya Fitzinger, 1826, in place of erroneous entry of »S'a«<;MS
sloani Daudin, 1803 (proposed correction of an error in Opinion
92) 136

Mabuya Fitzinger. 1826. proposed correction of erroneous type citation
for, in ■' Official List oi Generic Names in Zoology " (propo.sed
correction of an error in Opinion 92) . . . . . . . . 136

neotypes, question whether recognition of, as a category of type

specimen, should be granted in the Regies . . . . . . . . 91

" Official List of Generic Names in Zoology " :

gender of names placed on, proposal to record in . . . . . . 129

names proposed to be added to :

Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Class Insecta, Order

Diptera) . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Oxyco'nus Walker, 1856 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) 136

Phlebotomus (emend, of Flebotomus) Rondani, 1840 (CUiss

Insecta, Order Diptera) . . . . . . . . . . 136

Bulktin of Zoological Nomenclature. 205

" Official List of Generic Names in Zoology " {continued) :

status of names placed on, proposed definition of 114

" Official List of Trivial Names in Zoology," proposed establishment of 1 14

Opinions rendered by the Liternational Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature : proposals of a general character relating to :

proposed incorporation in the Regies, in whole or in part, of
mterpretations of individual provisions given in Opinions
already rendered 23-24, 09-74

proposed repeal of Opinions for interpretative purposes after
the mcorporation in the Regies of interpretations thereof

given m

73

proposed issue to zoologists of invitation to draw the attention of
the Commission to any apparent new interpretations of the
Regies contained in Opinions not cancelled by the Paris
Congress on the incorporation in the Regies consequent upon
the proposed codification of the interpretations given in
Opinions already rendered ^3

proposal that, after the close of the Paris Congress, decisions in
Opinions should be looked for only in the " summaries "
prefixed thereto . . . . . . yo

proposal that certain Opinions already rendered should be
cancelled, in whole or in part, except for historical purposes,
owing to the decisions recorded therein having lost all
practical significance, by reason of their transitory character 126

proposal that decisions in regard to individual nomenclatorial
problems given in Opinions should be recorded in Schedules
attached to the Regies, the Opinions concerned being there-
upon cancelled for all except historical purposes . . 112, 125-126

proposals for the amendment or clarification of certain Opinions
prior to the decisions recorded therein being recorded in
Schedules to the Regies 227

proposal that the Secretary be requested to transfer to Schedules
to the Regies decisions on individual nomenclatorial prob-
lems given in Opinions akeady rendered, except where those

206 Bullelin of Zoological Nomenclature.

Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Page
Nomenclature : proposals of a general character relating to
(continued)

decisions in his opinion do not appear to be in harmony
with the Regies, in which case the problems concerned to
be re-submitted for decision by the Commission 129

proposal that the Secretary be requested to examine bibliographi-
cal and similar references to individual names and books cited
in Opinions already rendered, prior to the incorporation in
Schedules to the Re-gles of the decisions recorded therein, and
to fill up gaps and make any corrections which may be
required . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

proposal that supplementary decisions should be taken in regard
to certain matters on which Opinions had already been
rendered, prior to the incorporation in Schedules to the
Regies of the decisions recorded therein . . . . . . 127

proposal that interpretations of the Regies by the Commission
in Opinions during inter-Congress periods should be reported
to the next meeting of the Congress for incorporation in
the Regies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

proposal that, on interpretations of the Regies in Opinions
adopted during an inter-Congress period being incorporated
in the Regies, the Opinions in question should be repealed
for all except historical purposes . . . . . . . . 74

proposal that it sliould be made part of the procedure of the
International Conmiissiou on Zoological Nomenclature in
using its plenary powers to suppress names, that, where the
object of the action taken is to make available for one genus
or species a name which has previously been appUed to some
other genus or species, the earlier of the names in question
should be suppressed both for the purposes of the Law of
Priority and also for those of the Law of Homonymy but
that, w^here the object of suppressing a name is to make
another name available for the genus or species concerned,
the name to be suppressed should be suppressed for the
purposes of the Law of Priority only, its status under the
Law of Homonymy remaining unaffected . . . . 128

proposal that care should in future be taken to include in every
Opinion an answer on each nomenclatorial problem sub-
mitted in the original application and that, where in the case
of any Opinion already rendered it was found that incomplete

I

BuUetin of Zoological Nomenclat'ure. 207

Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Page
Nomenclature : proposals relating to individual Opinions
(continued)

answers had been given, the problem concerned should be re-
submitted to the Commission with a view to its to its taking
decisions on the issues previously left undecided . . . . 135

proposal that the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature place on record its disapproval of the practice of
postponing the adoption of Opinions on the ground solely
that the question at issue is controversial . . . . 138

Opinion 1, proposal to amend the interpretation of the expression
" indication," as used in Article 25 in relation to generic
names given in . . . . . . . . . . 32-36

proposal to incorporate in the Regies interpretation given
in, relating to the meaning of the expression
" indication '" as used in article 25 in relation to
generic and trivial names, subject in the former case,
to certain modifications . . . . . . . . . . 79

proposal to remove an inconsistency in the interpretation
of the expression " indication " as used in Article 25
given in Opinion 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Opinion 2, proposal to incorporate in Article 25 interpretation
given in, relating to the status of a name based upon a
hypothetical form . . . . . . . . 78

Opinion 3, proposal to incorporate in Article 26 interpretation
given in, regarding the relative priority to assigned to the
10th edition of the Sy sterna Naturae of Linnaeus and other
works pubhshed in 1758 80

Opinion 4, proposal to incorporate in Article 25 interpretation
given in, relating to the status of names which, prior to being
vahdly published with an indication had obtained currency
either as manuscript names or as nomina nuda . . . . 78

Opinioti 5, proposal to clarify and incorporate in Article 25
interpretation given in, relating to the status of names
originally published prior to 1758 and subsequently repub-
lished . . . . . . . . . _ " gQ

Opinion 6, proposal to incorporate in Article 30 interpretation
given in, relating to the type species of a genus having a name

VOT,. 3 o

208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Page
Nomenclature : proposals relating to individual Opinions
{continued)

published prior to 1st January 1931 originally published
without a designated type species and with two (but not
more than two) included species, where one of those species is
later designated as the type species of a monotypical genus 83

Opinion 7, proposal to incorporate in Article 30 the interpretation
given in, relating to the significance to be attached to the use
of the expression " n.g., n.sp." at the time of the publication,
prior to 1st January 1931, of a name for a genus for which
no species was designated as the type species . . . . . . 81

Opinion 8, proposed cancellation of, because incorrect . . . . 25, 76

Opinion 9, proposal to cancel, as containing no effective decision 126

Opinion 10, proposal to clarify the interpretation given in, of
Article 30 in relation to the type species of two or more
genera estabhshed with identical limits and to incorporate
in that Article the interpretation so clarified . . . . . . 82

Opinion 14, proposal to clarify the interpretation of Article 30
in relation to the validity of the selection of a type species in
a case where an author, when selecting a type species,
misidentifies the species so selected and to incorporate in
Article 30 the interpretation, so clarified . . . . . • 83

Opinion 15, proposal to amend and extend the interpretation of
Article 25 given in, in relation to the meaning of the expres-
sion " divulgue dans une publication " . . . . 78, 100-102

Opinion 16, proposal to clarify the interpretation of Rule (d) in
Article 30 given in, regarding the type species of a genus
estabhshed without a designated type species, where in the
synonymy of one of the included species there was cited a pre-
1758 univerbal specific name consisting of the same word as
that selected for the generic name and to incorporate in
Article 30 the interpretation so clarified . . . . . . 81-82

Opinion 18, proposal to clarify the interpretation of Rule {d) in
Article 30 given in, regarding the type species of a genus
where one of the originally included species of a genus had a
Kynonym, the trivial name of which was a tautonym of the
generic name but that tautonymous trivial name was not cited

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 209

Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Page
Nomenclature : proposals relatincr to individual Opinions
(continued)

at the time of the original publication of the generic name,

and to incorporate in Article 30 the interpretation so clarified 81

Opinion 20, question whether the interpretation of the expression
" nomenclature binaire," as used in Article 25, given in, is
correct ' 20, 80

Opinion 23, proposal to cancel, as containing an incorrect inter-
pretation of the Regies j26

Opinion 24, proposal to cancel, as containing an incorrect inter-
pretation of the Regies . . . . . . 29g

Opinion 26, proposal to amend the interpretation of Article 19
given in, regarding the significance to be attached to the
question whether evidence of an error of orthography or
transcription or a printers' error is contained in the original
publication, and to incorporate in Article 19 the interpretation
so amended yg

Opinion 27, proposal to incorporate in Article 19 the interpre-
tation given in, relating to the emendation of names based
upon modern patronymics . . . . . . 77

Opinion 29, proposal not to incorporate in Article 19 the inter-
pretation given in on the subject of the emendation of names 7G

Opinion 31, proposal that the erroneous decision in regard to the
type species of the genus Columbina Spix given in, should be
corrected in the manner acknowledged by the Commission
m 1911 as being necessary, before the decision in that
Opinion is transferred to the appropriate Schedule to the
Regies . . . . . . . . 197

Opinion 32, proposal to cancel, because decision regarding the
type species of the genus Sphex Linnaeus given in, super-
seded by later decision to vary the type species of that genus
under the plenary powers jog

Opinion 35, proposal to clarify the interpretation of Article 30
given in, regarding the species eligible for selection as the
type species of a genus for which no species was included
under a binominal name by the original author and of a
genus established as a substitute for such a genus, and to
incorporate in that Article the interpretation so clarified . . 82

Vol. 3 o'

210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Page
Nomenclature : proposals relating to individual Opinions
(continued)

Opinion 36, proposal to incorporate in Article 19 the interpreta-
tion given in, relating to the emendation of names . . . . 77

Opinion 37, proposed review of, in connection with the examina-
tion of the meaning of the expression ' ' nomenclature binaire ' ' 80

Opinion 41, proposal to incorporate in Article 19 the interpreta-
tion given in, regarding the emendation of names . . . . 77

Opinion 43, proposal to clarify the interpretation of Article 25
given in, regarding status of a specific name described jointly
with a new generic name and to incorporate in that Article
the interpretation so clarified . . . . . . . . . . 80

Opinion 44, proposal to cancel, because superseded by decision in

Opinion 89 127

Opinion 46, proposal to clarify interpretation of Article 30 given
in, regarding the species to be regarded as ehgible for selection
as the type species of a genus established without any clearly
specified included species . . . . . . . . . . 83, 132

Opinion 47, proposal to clarify the interpretation of Rule (c) in
Article 30 given in, regarding the type species of a genus not
regarded by its author as monotypical but for which one
species only was cited by that author . . . . . . 81

Opinion 49, proposal to incorporate in Article 25 interpretation

given in, regarding the status of names given conditionally 78

Opinion 51, proposal to amend and extend the interpretation of
Article 25 given in, regarding the meaning of the expression
" divulgue dans une publication " . . . . 78, 100-102

Opinion 52, proposal to incorporate in Article 25 interpretation
given in, regarding the significance to be attached to the
citation of a. type locality in the description of a new species 80

Opinion 59, proposal to incorporate in Article 25 interpretation
given, regarding the status of names appearing in advance
separates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Opinion 60, proposal to incorporate in Article 19 interpretation

given in, regarding the emendation of names . . . . . . 78

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 211

Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Page
Nomenclature : proposals relating to individual Opiiiions
{continued)

Opinion 61, proposal not to incorporate in Article 19 interpreta-
tion given, regarding the emendation of names . . . . 76

Opinion 62, proposal to incorporate in Article 30 interpretation
given, regarding the eligibility of a species to be selected as
the type species of more than one genus 83

Opinion 63, proposal to incorporate in Article 19 interpretation

given, regarding the emendation of names 77

Opinion 64, proposal to incorporate in Article 14 interpretation
given in, regarding the eligibility of single letters as trivial
names

Opinion 65, see Opinion 168

76

Opinion 68 (type species of Pleuronectes), proposal that decision in,

should be completed as soon as possible 127

Opinion 69 (type species of Spams), proposal that decision in,

should be completed as soon as possible '. 127

Opinion 74 (Apstein's list of proposed notnina comenmula), pro-
posal to cancel, except for historical purposes, the decision
therein no longer having any practical relevance . . . . 127

Opinion 76 {Pyrosoma, Cyclosalpa, etc.), proposal to modify,

because decision therein, in part, incorrect 127

Opinion 78 (name of Rocky Mountain Fever Tick), proposal that
decision in. should not be transferred to a Schedule to the
Regies, pending further examination of the problem by the
Commission, the matter in the mean time to be regarded as
subjuxlice . . . . . . . . _ _ 228

Opinion 82, proposed completion of, by the addition of Calliphora
Robmeau-Desvoidy to the " Official List of Generic Names
m Zoology " 135

Opimon 83, proposal to cancel for interpretative purposes
because interpretation of the Law of Homonymy given in,
will be covered by the new text of Article 35 now agreed upon 127

212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Page
Nomenclature : proposals relating to individual Opinions
(continued)

Opinion 87, proposal to incorporate in Article 25 interpretation
given in, regarding the status of names appearing in proof
sheets . . . . . . ■ • • • ■ • ■ • 79

Opinion 88, proposal to clarify the interpretation given in, re-
garding the status of a generic name based upon a composite
nominal species . . . . . . . . • ■ • ■ 80-81, 127

Opinion 92, proposal to correct the erroneous entry regarding the
generic name Mabuya Fitzinger in the " Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology " specified in . . . . . . 136

Opinion 97, proposal to clarify interpretation of Article 25 in
relation to the names in Hiibner's Tentamen given in, and
to incorporate in the appropriate Schedule to the Regies
interpretation so clarified . . . . . . . . • • 128

Opinion 99 {Endameoba and Entamoeba), proposal that decision in,
should not be transferred to a Schedule to the Regies, pending
further examination of the problem by the Commission, the
matter in the mean time to be regarded as sub judice . . 128

Opinion 102, proposal to incorporate in Article 34 interpretation
given in, regarding the status of a generic name which is a
homonym of a previously published name for an Order or
higher category . . . . . . • • • • . . 84, 127

Opinion 107, proposal to incorporate in the Regies a part only of

the decision in . . . . . . • • • • 127

Opinion 113, proposal to correct erroneous date cited in . . . . 127

Opinion 124, proposal to extend ruling in, relating to status of
terms intermediate between generic and specific trivial
names used by Linnaeus in 1758 to similar terms published
by Linnaeus in other works and by Fabricius .. .. 114

proposal to extend ruling in, to terms used by Hiibner (J.)
between generic and specific trivial names in the
Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge (vol. 1) . . . . 115-116

Opinion 125, see Opinion 148

Ojnnion 126, proposed deletion from, of misleading observations

on the subject of neotypes . . . . . ■ • • • • 118

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 213

Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Page
Nomenclature : proposals relating to individual Opinions
{continued)

Opinion 129, proposal that the name Bipiniiaria 8ars and other
generic names specified in, should retain their status under
Article 34 (and thus be ineligible for use in any part of the
Animal Kingdom), although suppressed for the purposes of
Article 25 128

Opinion 133, proposal that this Opinion be repealed in view of
the more complete restatement in Opinion 141 of the decision
recorded therein . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Opinion 138, proposed cancellation of, consequent upon the
repeal of the provision of the Regies, of which this Opinion
gave an interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . 20, 80

Opinion 141, proposal to incorporate in Article 4, partly as a
substantive provision and partly in the form of two Recom-
mandations of the interpretation of that Article given in . . 75-76

Opinion 145, proposed incorporation in the Regies of word^?
giving effect to, and amplifying decision in, relating to
Articles 34 and 35 84-85

Opinion 147, proposed incorporation in Article 34 of the inter-
pretation given in, subject to the deletion of the words " of
the same origin and meaning " . . . . . . . . 84

Opinion 148, proposal to incorporate, in a modified form, in
Articles 25 and 30 the rulings given therein in relation to the
status of a generic name proposed as an emendation of a
previously published name and the relation, under Article
34, of such a name to another identical name . . . . 79, 81

status of such a name in relation to a later published name

consisting of the same word . . . . . . . . 84

words " of the same origin and meaning," as used in, proposed

not to be incorporated in the Regies . . . . . . 84

Opinion 164, proposal to incorporate in the Regies provision in,
that the type species of a genus is not liable change when a
genus is united with another genus on taxonomic grounds . . 83

Opinion 168, proposal to incorporate in the Regies provision in, that
the author a genus is to be assumed to have correctly identi-
fied the species referred by him thereto . . . . . . 83

214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Page
Nomenclature : proposals relating to individual Opinions
{contimied)

Opinion 172, proposal to incorporate in Article 30 the provision
in, relating to the significance to be attached to the selection
in a recording journal of the type species of a genus, the
name of which was published prior to 1st January 1931 . . 84

Opinion 183, proposal to incorporate in Article 8 of the provisions
in, relating to the need for a generic name to be published in
the nominative singular in order to acquire rights under
Article 25 76

Opinion 191, proposed to incorporate in Article 25 of provision in,
relating to the meaning of the expression " publication "
with example drawn from Opinion 190 . . . . . . 78

Organites, see Fossil fragments (organites and sclerites)

Oxycanus Walker, 1856 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), proposed

addition of, to the " Official List of Generic Names in Zoology " 136

papalasi ScopoU, 1786, Bibio, type species of Phlebototnus (emend, of
Flebotomus) Rondani, 1840, proposed to be added to the " Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology " . . . . . . . . 137

Phlebotomus, proposed emendation to, of Flebotomus Rondani, 1840 136

plenary powers of the International Commission of Zoological
Nomenclature proposed amendment and extension of

17-18, 95, 118. 121-122, 158-159, 159-161

plexippus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination
Papilio plexippus). proposed use of the plenary powers to desig-
nate species to which the name, applicable . . . . . . 137

Porina Walker, 1856, proposed rejection of appUcation for validation

of, under the plenary powers . . . . . . . . . . 136

Prescription, proposed recognition in the Regies of a Law of

158-161, 177, 178-179

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 215

Press Communique issued by the International Commission on Zoo- Piuje
logical Nomenclature at the close of the Thirteenth International

Congress of Zoology . . . . . . . . . . I54.

Primary Homonyms, see Homonymy

Procedure of the International Conmiission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, see Commission, International, on Zoological Nomen-
clature, proposed reform of procedure of

Protozoan parasites of Man, nomenclature of, proposals relating to . . 162-163

Pseudo-genus, proposed recognition of, and definition of, in the Regies

as a new category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 166

Psolos Treitschke, j)roposed emendation of, to Psodos . . . . . . 157

Regies I nlernationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique : proposed
amendments of general application :

proposed elimination of grammatical inconsistencies . . 28

proposed eUmination of confusion in certain cases between

nomenclature and taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . 28

proposed substitution of the singular, for the plural, number used

for nouns employed in the Regies . . . . . . . . 92

proposed removal of verbal inconsistencies of drafting . . 92

l>roposed removal of meaningless repetitive phrases . . . . 93

proposed insertion of paragraph numbtvrs in any Article consisting

of more than one paragraph . . . . . . . . . . II9

proposed subdivision into numbered paragraphs of any Article
consisting of two or more sentences, each prescribing a
separate provision . . . . . . . . 119

216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

Regies Internatio)iahs de la Nomenclature Zoologique, proposals for Page
tlie amendment or clarification of particular provisions :

Article 3 (Latin the language of scientific nomenclature) : pro-
posed insertion of a Recommandation reminding zoologists
that, while classical Latin is necessarily the standard to
which, so far, as possible, scientific nomenclature should
conform, Latin remained a living language for many cen-
turies after the close of the classical period and that later
developments in the language should therefore be taken into
account in interpreting this Article 107-108

Article 4 (family names) : proposed substitution of the word

" theme " (z=stem) for the word " radical " (=root) . . 107

proposed insertion of a Recommandation indicating how a
family name should be formed from the stem of the
name of the type genus . . . . . . • • • • 108

proposed incorporation in, of interpretation given in Opinions
Ul

Article 6 : proposed amandment to provide that generic and
subgeneric names are not to be treated as co-ordinate for the
purposes of the Law of Homonymy . .

75

proposed addition of Recommandations drawing attention to
two recommendations included in the " summary "to
Opinion 141 . . • • • • • • • • • ■ 75-76

proposed addition of a provision prohibiting the use of words
having the termination " -idae " or " -inae ", except
for family and subfamily names 112

proposed insertion of provisions dealing with the situation
where application of this Article leads to the formation
of two or more families with identical names . . . . 106

proposed insertion of provisions dealing with the family
name to bs adopted when two or more famihes are
united on taxonomic grounds . . . . . . • • 107

50

proposed drafting amendment to co-ordinate text with

Article 11 H^

Article 7 : proposed drafting amendment for the purpose of

eliminating confusion between nomenclature and taxonomy 112

ll

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 217

Regies hUernationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, proposals for the Page
amendment or clarification of particulars provisions {continued)

Article 8 : proposed incorporation of interpretation given in
Opinion 183 (regarding the need for generic names to be
published in the nominative singular) . . . . 70

proposed addition of a Recommamlation urging authors to

select short words as generic names . . . . . . 86-87

proposed insertion of a })rovision to deal with names which,
though published as though in the nominative singular,
are in fact words in some other case or number . . . . 97

proposed insertion of a Recommandation urging authors to
avoid choosing for a generic name a word which, when
pronounced, appears to be a word or combination of
words in some language other than Latin . . . . 110

proposed amendment of section (b) of the second Recom-
mandation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

proposed insertion of a corrected " example " illustrating

section {h) of the second Recommandation . . . . 119

Article 11, proposed insertion of a Recommendation urging authors
not to select as a trivial name for a species a word previously
so published for a species in an allied genus . . . . . . 183

Article 12, proposed drafting amendment to eliminate confusion

between nomenclature and taxonomy . . . . . . 112

Article 13, proposed redrafting of. to eliminate the option to use

capital initial letters for certain classes of trivial names . . 87, 180

Article 14, proposal that a name formed in contravention of, be
automatically corrected by later authors, retain its original
priority and be attributed to its original author . . . . 25

proposed incorporation in. of interi)retation given in Opinion
(31, regarding the status of trivial names consisting of
single letters . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

proposed insertion of a R.ecominu)ulalion urging authors to

select short words as trivial names . . . . . . 87

proposed insertion of a Recommandation urging authors not
to select as trivial names words already so published
for species in aUied groups . . . . . . . . 98

218 Bulletin of Zoological Nottiendature.

Regies I ntenialionahs de hi Nomenclature Zoologique. proposals for Page
the amendment or clarification of particular provisions :
Article 14 (continued) :

proposed insertion of a provision to assist authors in deter-
mining the gender of generic names, so as to secure
correct grammatical agreement therewith of adjectival
trivial names . . 108-109

proposed definition of the status of trivial names consisting

of unchanged modern patronymics . . . . . . 110

proposed insertion of a provision prescribing that a trivial
name (like a generic name) may consist of an arbitrary
combination of letters . . . . . . 110

proposed definition of the status of a trivial name consisting
of a phonetic representation of the initials of two or more
persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

proposed insertion of a Recommandation deprecating the
selection, as trivial names, of words which, when pro-
nounced, appear to be a word or words in some language
other than Latin . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

proposed insertion of a provision making it clear that, where
a subspecific name is published in a list in which the
trivial name is preceded by a serial letter, that letter
does not form part of the trixaal name in question . . 133

proposed insertion of provisions clarifying the procedure to
be followed in forming trivial names based upon various
classes of patronymics . . . . . . . . . . 181-182

proposed insertion of a provision clarifying the rules relating
to the grammatical agreement of adjectival trivial names
with generic names . . . . . . . . . . 188-189

Article 15, proposed insertion of a provision that a name formed
in contravention of, be automatically corrected by later
authors, retain its original priority and be attributed to its
original author . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

proposed eUmination of existing option to use hyphens for

trivial names consisting of compoimd words . . . . 98, 184

proposed insertion of pro\'isions relating to the orthography

of trivial names consisting of compound words . . . . 185, 187

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 219

Ragles Internation<tles de la Nomenclature Zoologique, proposals for Page
the amendment or clarification of particular provisions
(continued)

Article 16, proposed insertion of a provision that a name formed
in contravention of, be automatically corrected by later
authors, retain its original priority and be attributed to its
original author . . . . . . . . 25

proposed insertion of a Recommamlation relating to the

formation of geographical adjectival trivial names . . 197

Article 18, proposed insertion of a provision that a name formed
in contravention of, be automatically corrected by later
authors, retain its original priority and be attributed to its
original author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

proposed insertion of a drafting amendment at the end of

section (a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

proposed insertion of a drafting amendment at the end of

section (6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

proposed insertion of an additional example at the end of

section (c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

proposed insertion of a drafting amendment at the beginning

of section {d) . . . . . . . . 99

Article 19, proposed clarification of the interpretation of, given
in Opinion 26 regarding the importance in the emendation of
names, of evidence afforded by the original pubUcation, and
proposed incorporation in, of interpretation so clarified . . 76

proposed incorporation in, as examples or otherwise, of
interpretations of, given in Opinions 27, 36, 41, 60 and
63 (examples of cases where names should be amended) 77

Article 20, proposed insertion of a provision that a name formed
in contravention of. be automatically corrected by later
authors, retain its original priority and be attributed to its
original author . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

proposed clarification of provisions of Recommandation . . 198

220 Bullet iy> of Zoological Nomendattire.

Regies I nleniatiomdes de la Nomsnclature Zoologique, proposals for Page
the amendment or clarification of particular provisions {continued)

Article 22, proposed rejection of a proposal submitted by the late

Dr. Arthur P. Jacot that this Article be deleted . . . . ill

proposed deletion of the Recommandation relating to the
abbreviation of the names of authors and the substitu-
tion therefor of a revised Recommandation . . . . 87

l^roposed amendment of provisions relating to the use of

round brackets (parentheses) .. .. .. .. 195

proposed insertion of an additional provision relating to the
method to be followed in citing the author of a name,
where the taxonomic unit named is described by one
author but the description is published by another
author 195

Article 23, proposed rejection of a proposal submitted by the

American Malacological Union that this Article be deleted 111

proposed insertion of a provision making it clear that this
Article appUes only to changes of generic names and
that, for the purposes of this Article, the use of, or the
omission of, subgeneric names is irrelevant . . . . 110

proposed insertion of a provision making it clear that round
brackets (parentheses) are not to be placed round the
name of an author, where a name originally published
as a specific trivial name is later cited as the subspecific
trivial name of a subspecies of a species in the same
genus and vice versa . . . . . . . . . . 110

Article 24, proposed substitution in the " example " of a name
published by a binominal author for the name published by
a non-binominal author at present cited . . . . . . 87

Article 25, proposed insertion of a Recommandation urging authors

to notify to the Zoological Record particulars of new names . . 49

proposed definition of the status of a name based on a hypo-
thetical form {Opinion 2) . . . . . . . . . . 78

proposed definition of the status of a name published con-
ditionally {Opinion 49) . . . . . . . . . . 78

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclatiire. 221

Regies Internatio>udet> de la Nonienclaturc Zoologique, proposals for Page
the amendment or clarification of particular provisions : Article 25
{continued)

])roposed definition of the status of a name which prior to
being published with an indication was in currency as a
manuscript name (Opinion 4) or as a nomen nudum 78, 1 33

proposed definition of the status of a name introduced in a
note in explanation of a photograph or figure distributed
by an author [Opinion 191) . . . . . . . . 78

proposed definition of the status of a name appearing in a

proof sheet {Opinion 87) 79, 101

proposed definition of the status of a name appearing in an

advance separate {Opinion 59) . . . . . . . . 79, 102

proposed definition of the status of a name pubUshed as

an invalid emendation of an earlier name {Opinion 148) 79

proposed definition of the status of a specific name, where
the species so named is described jointly with a new
genus {Opinion 43) . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

proposed definition of the expression " divulgue dans une
publication," in relation {a) to names published prior to
31st December 1950 and (6) to names published after
that date 78, 101

proposed insertion of a Recommandation urging authors and
editors to affix certain particulars to all zoological books
and journals to facilitate determination of question
whether work or journal concerned has been duly
published . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

proposed transfer to, as a Recommandation, of the pro\'ision
in Appendice relating to languages to be used for
papers containing descriptions of new taxonomic units 102

proposed insertion of a provision that apparent new names
arising from errors in recording journals possess no
nomenclatorial status as such . . . . • • 88

proposed insertion of a RecomnuDidation deprecating the

distribution of advance separates {Declaration 2) 95

proposed drafting amendments to eliminate meaningless

repetitive phrases . . . . . . . . . • • ■ 93

222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

Regies Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, proposals for Page
the amendment or clarification of particular provisions : Article 25
(conHntied)

proposed insertion of a Recommandation urging that new

names should be distinguished as such {Declaration (i) 90

proposed insertion of a Recommandation deprecating the
publication of a name as a new name on more than one
occasion {Declaration 6) . . . . . . . . . . 96

proposed insertion of a Recommandation urging the insertion
of exact particulars of date of publication of all zoo-
logical works and of all parts of zoological journals
{Declarations 3 and 8) 96

proposed insertion of a Recommandation urging authors to
give particulars of the position in the Animal Kingdom
of all new taxonomic units described (Dec Waiiow 11) .. 96

proposed definition of the status of a name published either

anonymously or over initials only . . . . . . 99, 101

proposed insertion of a Recommandation dealing with the

question of the publication of new names in abstracts 102

proposed insertion of a Recomnmndation dealing with the

question of the publication of new names in keys . . 102

proposed insertion of provisions prescribing the method to be
adopted in determining the dates of publication of
zoological works and zoological journals . . . . 103

proposed insertion of a Recommandation advising authors as

to manner of citing dates . . . . . . . . 103-104

proposed insertion of provisions for determining the date of
publication, for the purposes of priority, of a name where
part of the description was published on one date and
the remainder on a later date in the case of books or
journals issued in parts . . . . 104, 116-117

proposed insertion of a provision prescribing the authorship to

be attributed to a name published conditionally . . Ill

proposed definition of the expression " le plus anciennement

designe " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ill

Bullelin of Zoological Xotncnclatuie 223

Regies I nleniationales de la Nonieiiclaturc Zoohguptc, proposals for Page
the amendmeut or clarification of particular provisioua : Article 25
{coidimied)

proposed insertion of a provision prescribing the authorship
to be attributed to a name which, when first published
with an indication, was already in currency as a manu-
script name or had been previously publishwd as a
nomen nudum . . . . Ill

proposed insertion of a provision for suppressing trivial names

found to be totally misleading . . . . . . 115

proposed insertion of a provision defining the status of a

holoty|)e or of a lectotype in relation to a poor description 1 IG

proposed insertion of a provision prescribing the status of a

generic name first pubUshed in a specific synonymy . . 133

Article 25, Proviso (a), proposed amendment of definition of

expression " indication " given in Opinion 1 24, 32-3G, 79, 131-132

proposed insertion of a provision prescribing the significance
to be attributed to the citation of a type locality given in
an original description {Opinion 52) . . 80

proposed insertion of a provision prescribing that the
description of the work of an animal, as contrasted with
the animal itself, constitutes an indication . . . . 1 lU

proposed insertion of a Recommandation urging authors, so far
as possible, to avoid establishing new taxonomic units
based solely upon the work of an animal . . . . 110

proposed insertion of a provision prescribing that a generic
name based on a figure is to be accepted as having been
pul:)Hshed with an indication in the case of names
pubHshed prior to 1st January, 1931 . . . . . . 110

proposed insertion of a provision prescribing the significance
to be attributed, in the case of a parasitic species, to the
citation of the host species without any other particulars HI

Article 25, Proviso (b), meaning of expression " nomenclature
binaire," draft Report stating that this expression has the
same meaning as the expression " nomenclature binominale "
and recommending that the latter expression should be
substituted for the former . . . . . . . . . . 20-21

VOL. 3 P

224 liulletin of Zoological Nomenclatui'e.

Regies lute mat io Hales de la Nomendature Zoologique, proposals for Page
the amendment or clarification of particular provisions : Article 25
(continued)

meaning of the expression " principes de la nomenclature
binominale," proposed definition of . . . . . . . . 88

status of a pre-1758 name when subsequently republished

{Opinion 5), proposed definition of . . . . . . 80

Article 25, Proviso (c), proposed amendment of the expression

" definite bibliographic reference " . . . . . . . . 2(3, 80

proposed amendment of the expression " definite un-
ambiguous designation of the type species" . . . . 2G

proposed insertion of a Recommamlation regarding method of

citation desirable when a new generic name is published 20

proposed insertion of a provision making it clear that the
status of a specific trivial name is not adversely affected if
the generic name in combination with which it is
published is an invalid name . . . . . . . . 104-105

proposed clarification of the point of tune as from which

Proviso (c) operative . . . . . . . . . . 109

Article 26, proposed substitution of the expression " nomenclature

binominale " for the expression " nomenclature binaire " . . 20-21

proposed insertion of a provision clarifying the relative status

of books published in 1758 {Opinion 3) . . . . . . 80

proposed insertion of a proviso securing availability for names

published in 1757 in Clerck's Aranei svecici . . . . 173-176

Article 27, proposed insertion of a provision making it clear that
a specific name not invalidated by reason of the inclusion in
the description thereof of descriptions of parts of two or
more animals {Opinion 88) . . . . . . . . . . 80-81

proposed adaptation of, to meet the nomenclatorial needs of

polymorphic Protozoa . . . . . . . . . . 106

Article 28, Report on the relative advantages of the " first reviser "
and " page precedence " principles prepared by the Secretary
at the request of the Commission . . . . . . • . 124-125

i

BulletiK of Zoological Nonumdalun'. 225

RegJen I nlernationale.i de la Nomenclature Zuologiqui', proposals for Page
the aiuendmeiit or clarification of particular jirovisions {continued)

Article 30, proposed insertion of a provision making it clear that
a nominal species originally described from parts of two
or more animals eligible to be the type species of a genus
{Opinion 88) ' 81

proposed insertion of a provision that the type species of a
genus, the generic name of which was published as an
emendation of a previously published generic name is
automatically the same species as that which is the type
species of the genus, the name of which is so emended
{Opinion 148) 81

proposed insertion of a provision that an author selecting
a type species for a genus is to be assumed correctly to
have identified the species so designated or selected
{Opinion 14) . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

proposed insertion of a provision prescribing the method to be
adopted for determining the species eligible to be selected
as the type species of a genus established prior to 1st
January, 1931, with no species distinctly referred
thereto (provision corresponding to clarified version of
Opinion 4:6) 83, 132

proposed insertion of a provision prescribing that a selection
of the type species of a genus made in a recording journal
is to be accepted {Opinion 172) . . . . . . . . 84

proposed insertion of a provision making it clear that the type
species of a genus is not liable to change when the genus
concerned is united with another genus on taxonomic
grounds {Opinion 164) . . . . . . . . 83

proposed insertion of provisions making clear the extent to
which this Article applies to generic names piiblished
subsequent to 31st December, 1930 . . . . . . 88

proposed adoption of drafting amendments for the purpose of
eliminating confusion between nomenclature and
taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . 88-89

proposed elimination of the word " Rule " as applied to non-
mandatory provision included in the Recanunandafion to
this Article 89

VOL. 3 p«

226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalwe.

Ragles Inlrrnalionales de la Nomendahire Zoologiqiw, proposals for Page
the aiueuclment or clarification of particular provisions : Article 30
{continued)

proposed elimination of difficulties in drafting consequent

upon using nouns in the plural rather than the singular 92

proposed eUmination of inconsistencies in drafting . . . . 92

proposed insertion of a Reconmuindation deprecating the use

of the expression " genotype " . . . . . . . . 120

proposed insertion of a provision prescribing the method to
be adopted for determining the species eligible to be
selected as the type species of a genus, the name of which
was first published in a generic synonymy . . . . 133-134

Article 30, Rule (a), proposed insertion of a provision prescribing
the significance to be attached to the use of the formula
" n.g., n.sp " {Opinion 7) . . . . . . . . . . 81

Article 30, Rule (c), proposed insertion of a provision that a genus
is to be treated as monotypical when one species only is
definitely referred by name thereto, irrespective of the
intentions of the original author {Opinion 47) . . . . 81

Article 30, Rule {d), proposed insertion of a provision that this
rule applies to a generic name where one of the originally
included species has a synonym, the trivial name of which is
tautonymous with the generic name, even if that synonym was
not cited in the original description of the genus {Opinion 18) 81

proposed insertion of a provision that this Rule applies to a
generic name when there was cited in the synonymy of one
of the originally included species a pre- 1758 univerbal
specific name consisting of the same word as the generic
name {Opinion 16) . . . . . . . . . . . . 81-82

Article 30, Rule (e), proposed definition of the expression " species

inquirenda " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Article 30, Rule (/), proposed insertion of a provision prcscril)ing
the species to be regarded as the type species, or as eligible for
selection thereas, of a substitute genus, where either genus,
when originally established, contain species which were
recognisable but which were not on that occasion cited under
binominal names where the names in question were published
prior to 1st January, 1931 {Opinion 35) . . . . . . 82

Bulletin of Zoolof/ical Nonirnrkihirc. 227

R<'(fle,s Internationales de la Nomenclature ZooUxjique, proposals lor Page
the amendment or clarification of particular provisions : Article 30
{continued)

proposed insertion of a provision that, wliere prior to Ist
January, 1931, a generic name is pul)lished as a substitute
for a previously published generic name and no type
species has been designated or selected for the genus
l)earing the earlier name, any of the species included in
either genus is eligible for selection as the type species of
the substitute genus {Opinion 35) 82

Article 30, Rule {g), proposed insertion of a provision that, in the
case of a name published prior to 1st January, 1931, an
ongmally included species not then cited under a binominal
name is eligible for selection as the type species of the genus
{Opinion 35) . . . . . . 09

proposal that in the case of generic names published prior to
1st January, 1931, for genera with identical limits, where
no type species was designated for either genus, any of
the included species may be selected to be the type
species of both or all of the genera concerned {Opinion 10) 82

proposed insertion of a provision that, in the case of two
genera established prior to 1st January, 1931, a species
mcluded in both genera and which is the type species of
one of those genera is eligible for selection as the type
species of the other genus {Opinion 62) 83

proposed insertion of a provision that, where a genus is
established prior to 1st January, 1931, with only two
included species, neither of which was designated as the
type species and one of those species is later designated
as the type species of a monotypieal genus, that action
automatically constitutes the selection of the remaining
species as the type species of the original genus {Opinion 6) 83

proposed insertion of a provision tliat the author of a genus
is to be assumed correctly to have identified the species
referred by him thereto {Opinions 65 and 168) . . . . 83

proposed insertion of a provision making it clear that an
author is to be treated as having selected a species to be
the type species of a genus where he clearly states that
the species in question is the type species, irrespective of
whether the author concerned regarded himself as
selecting a type species or believed that the species in
question had previously been designated or selected
''^^s'l^'i 89, 111

228 Mullet i» of Zoological Nomenclature.

Regies Inlernalionaks dc la Xoiiicnrlrihirr Zoologique. proposals for Page
the amendment or clarification of particxilar provisions : Article 30
(coniinued)

proposed insertion of a provision further defining the meaning
of the expression " select the tvpe species "" as used in
Rule(^) " 132

Article 31, proposed redrafting of, to provide a substantive
provision in place of the existing provision by reference to
Article 30 90

Article 32, proposed co-ordination of, with Article 19 . . . . 191

Article 34, proposed insertion of a provision prescribing the criteria
to be adopted in determining whether one generic name is a
homon^nn of another generic name (Opinion 147) . . . . 84

proposed insertion of a provision that a generic name is to be
rejected as a homonym where it has previously been
published as an emendation of another generic name
{Opinion 148) 84

proposed deletion from the provision prescribing the criteria
to be adopted in determining whether one generic name
is a homonym of another of the words " of the same
origin and meaning " introduced into that proxasion on
the appUcation by Opinion 147 to generic names of the
provisions in relation to trivial names prescribed in
Article 35(3) 84

proposed insertion of a provision that a generic name is not to
be rejected as a homonpn on the ground that it has been
previously published as an Ordinal name or name of
a unit of higher rank {Opinion 102) . . . . . - 84

proposed insertion of a provision that a generic name is
not to be rejected as a homonym on the ground that it
has previously been published in a work rejected for
nomenclatorial purposes {Opinion 145) . . . . 84-85

proposed insertion of a provision that a generic name is not
to be rejected as a homonym by reason of the same
word having previously been published as a generic
name through an error in a recording journal . . 88

proposed incorporation, as a substantive provision, of the
Recommandation relating to the relative precedence to be

Hiilldiii of Zoolof/iral Nnmnirlaliuc. 229

Jicf/le.-, Iidcrmtionah'.s ,h' la N,m,<'nrlahirr Zonlo>,ir/m'. proposals lor Awe
the amendinent or clarification of particular provisions : Article 34
(conttmied)

accorded to homonyms of identical date, when pubhshed
as generic and subgeneric names respectively, at present
attached to Article 36 " 213

proposed insertion of a provision defining the position of
names differing from one another onlv bv the termina-
tions " -m\is " and " -nus " .... 133

Article 35 and Article 36, review of problem of specific homonymy ;
proposed cancellation of existing provisions and substitution
therefor of comprehensive amended pro\dsions . . 24-25, 37-54

proposed introduction and definition of the expressions
" primary homonym " and "secondary homonym"
and definition of the expression " homonym " 48. 52. 53. 131

proposed definition of the expressions " specific name " and

" specific trivial name " 48 52

proposed provision that the later published of any pair of
primary homonyms should be permanentlv rejected and
replaced ' . . 49, 53

proposed provision that the later published of any pair of
secondary homonyms should be permanently rejected and
replaced but that a name should not be so rejected and
replaced if the species concerned are no longer considered
to be congeneric 49-50, 53

])roposed insertion of Recommandatioiis urging authors
rejectmg and replacing primary or secondary homonyms
to notify such rejection and replacement to X\\e Zoological
Record ■ ^Q 5^

])ropo.sed insertion of a provision that subgeneric names
should not lie treated as co-ordinate with generic names
for the purposes of specific homonymv and should
therefore be disregarded in determining whether specific
names are homonyms of one another 50 53

proposed insertion of a provision that subspecfic trivial
names are subject to the same rules as specific trivial
names both inter se and as between one specific, and one
suKspecific, trivial name . . 51^ 53-54

230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomendature.

Regies Intemotionales de la Noncnclature Zoologique, proposals for Page
the amendment or clarification of particular provisions : Articles
35 and 36 (continued)

proposed insertion of a provision excepting the subspecific
trivial name of the nominotypical subspecies of a
polytypic species from the rules governing subspecific
trivial names in relation to homonymy . . . . . . 51, 54

proposed deletion from paragraph (3) of Article 35 of the

words " of the same origin and meaning " . . . . 51, 54

proposed insertion of a provision that a trivial name is not to
be rejected as a homonym by reason of the same word
having been so employed in the same genus in a work
rejected for nomenclatorial purposes [Opinion 145) . . 84-85

proposed insertion of a provision that a trivial name is not to
be rejected as a homonym by reason solely of the same
combination having been published by error in a recording
journal . . . . . . . . . • • • • • 88

proposed insertion of a provision that a trivial name is to be
rejected as a homonym where previously the trivial name
of a species in the same genus has been emended so as to
form a word identical with that of which the later
published trivial name consists . . . . . . • • 90

proposed extension of the list given in paragraph (3) of
Article 35 of names differing slightly from one another
which should be treated as homonyms of one another 106

proposed incorporation, as a substantive provision, of the
Recommandation hitherto attached to Article 36 regard-
ing the relative precedence to be accorded to homonyms
of equal date where one is a specific, and the other a
subspecific, name . . . . . . • ■ • • 113

proposed insertion of a Recommandation urging authors not
to publish trivial names differing from trivial names of
other species in the same genus solely by reason of being
in a noun form or adjectival form, as the case may be 118

proposal that the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature should place on record its intention to use
its plenary powers to suppress for nomenclatorial
purposes books or papers published by irresponsible or
malicious persons for the deliberate purpose of creating
secondary homonyms or providing opportunities for
publishing new names . , . , . . . , • • 50, 54

Bulletin of Zoological Natnenclature. 231

Ragles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoohjfjique. proposals for Page
the amendment or clarification of particular provisions (continued)

Appendice, proposed insertion of an additional section relating to

the transliteration of the Latin letters " v " and " i " 199

proposed transfer to Article 25 of provisions relating to
languages recommended for use when describing new
taxonomic units . . . . . . . . . . 102

f^econd Schedule (formerly Appendice), proposed deletion from, of
provisions relating to type specimens hitherto placed between
Sections A and B, consequent upon insertion in the Regies of
an Article containing expanded mandatory provisions in
regard thereto . . . . . . . . . . . . go

proposed insertion of a Section prescribing the method by
which words originally written in the C\Tillic alphabet
should be transliterated into the Latin alphabet when
such a word is made into, or made part of, a scientific
name 105

proposed drafting amendment in Section G . . . . 109

proposal that the Second Schedule should be renumbered as

the Third Schedule 112

Regies Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique. proposed
addition of New Articles and New Schedules :

(1) New Article recognising for nomenclatorial purj)oses the
category " infra-subspecific form " and laying down rules
governing this category of name and clarifying its
relationship to the names of subspecies (Report prepared
by the Secretary in accordance with request of the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
at its Session held at Lisbon in 1935) 55-68

The foregoing proposed new Article includes proi'isions on
thefollomng matters :

definition for nomenclatorial purposes of the ex-
pressions •• infra-subspecific form " an<l *' sub-
species " . . . . . . . . . . . . 04

infra-specific names to be classified as subspecific
names or as infra-subspecific names by reference
to the objective criterion provided by the manner
of original pubUcation . . . . . , 64

232 Bullet in of Zoological NomencUihire.

lieijk's: iHtenxidoirnh's ilc hi Nonwiiclalun' Zioolotjiquc, proposed l\vje
addition of New Articles iiiul New Schedules : First New Article
{continued)

standard to be adopted for determining whether a
given name is a subspecific name or only the
name of an infra-subspecific form to be less
rigorous in the case of names published prior
to the entry into force of the proposed new
Article than for names pubUshed after that date,
the dividing line proposed being midnight,
G.M.T., 31st December, 1950/lst January, 1951 64-65

standard to be laid down for determining whether a
given name is a subspecific name to be a mini-
mum standard, in order to prevent names from
being invalidated for technical reasons but a
Recommandation to be inserted specifying ideal
procedure to be aimed at . . . . . , 65

insertion of a Recommendation regarding the method
to be adopted in citing a subspecific name at the
time of original publication, in order clearly to
distinguish such a name from an infra-
subspecific name . . . . . . . . . . 65 66

definition of relationship of infra-subspecific names

to subspecific names and vice versa . . . . 6(5

rules governing the transfer of a given trivial name
from being the name of a subspecies to being the
name of an infra-subspecific form and vice versa 66

method to be followed in citing the name of a

previously published infra-subspecific form . . 67

insertion of a Recommandation regarding the method
to be adopted in citing an infra-subspecific
name at the time of original publication . . 67

application, subject to certain exceptions, to tlie
trivial names of infra-subspecific forms of
provisions in the Regies relating to the trivial
• • names of subspecies . . . . . . . . 67

grant to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature of power to prescribe the use of
uniform technical designations for parallel infra-
subspecific forms occurring in groups of allied

fhdlrliti (if Z(/()l(H/iral Nonti-nchiiitrc. 2;3:i

Rajhx Inlcnmlhnaivs ,lr la NnmnuUiur Zo,>l,„f{,jm'. projjoscd />„<,,■
addition of New Articles and New Scliodules : First New .Vrticle
{continued)

species, such technical designations to be used
in preference to any trivial name previously
pul)Hshed for such a form of any one of the
species concerned and to render the words
constituting those terms ineligible for use for
other infra-subspecific forms in the genera to
which the species concerned are referred . . 67-68

(2) New Article defining the concepts " holotype/' '• syntype."
"lectotype" and " paratype " (Article to replace" non-
mandatory provisions hitherto placed between Sections
A and B of the Appendice) 90-91

The foregoing New Article to inchde :

a Reconitnandation urging authors describing a new
species or subspecies clearly to designate one
specimen to be the " holotvpe " and at the same
time to publish certain specified particulars
regarding that specimen 90

a Recommandation urging zoologists naming new
species or subspecies clearly to mark the hoTotype
and to deposit that specimen in a Museuni or
otherwise to provide that it is safelv preserved
and accessible to students .... . . 90

(3) New Article prescribing the method of naming the nomino-

typical subspecies of a polytypic species 91

(4) New Article declaring that Latin " generic " and " trivial "

names given to monsters (e.g. Schistosome monsters) have

no status in zoological nomenclature . . . . 138

(5) New Article embodying the Plenary Powers Resolution of

1913, subject to certain amendments 95, 118

Supplementarg proiyisions proposed to he inserted i)i the
foregoing Article :

special consideration to be given to applications sub-
mitted for the use of the plenary powers in
relation to names of importance in medicine,
veterinary science and agriculture . . . . \'2l-\ti

234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

Ragles I nternationah's dc la Nomenclature Zoologique, proposed Page
addition of New Articles and New Sciicdules (continued)

plenary powers to be available for removing doubts
as to how the Regies should be applied in par-
ticular cases as well as for modifying their
application. . . . . . . . 122

(6

New Article recognising and defining a Law of Prescription
(proposals submitted by Dr. H. Lemche and Professor
P. Bonnet) 158-161, 177. 178-179

New Article providing for the formation and orthography of
names consisting of compound words of Greek or Latin
origin 185-186

New Article providing against the use of a hiatus in the

formation of trivial names consisting of compound words 186-187

New Article prescribing the procedure to be followed in the
case of compound trivial names, where the first portion of
the name consists of a letter of the Greek alphabet . . 188

New Article relating to the orthography to be adopted in the

case of a trivial name consisting of a polymorphic word 190

New Article relating to the authorship to be attributed to

emended names . . . . . . . . . . . . 191-192

New Article prohibiting the use of names having a bizarre or

otherwise objectionable meaning in any language . . 193-194

New Article prescribing the maximum length to be permitted

for names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

New Article prescribing the procedure to be followed in

abbreviating the names of authors . . . . . . 196

New Article embodying the substance of the Code of Ethics

{Declarations 1 and 12) . . . . . . . . . . 95

New Article providing for the prevention of the misuse of the
Regies for the purpose of giving political, religious or
personal offence . . . . . . . . . . . . 91-92

New Article deprecating the use of intemperate language in the

discussion of zoological nomenclature {Declaration 4) . . 95

New Article prescribing the functions of the International

Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . . . 116

Bulletin of Zoological Nontenctature. 235

Regka InlenuUionalcs de la Nommdalure Zuologiqnc, [n-oposcd Pauc
addition of New Articles and New Schedules {conlinued)

(19) New Article prescribing the composition of the International

Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . . . 122-123

(20) New Article prescribing the form and scope of the By-Laws of

the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 123-124

(21) New Article providing for the automatic cancellation of

Opinions relating to individual names, on their contents
being transferred to the Schedules established for the
recording of such decisions 125 12G

(22) New Article prescribing the status of interpretations of the

Regies given by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature in Declarations . . . . 117

(23) New Article specifying the procedure to be adopted in

amending the Regies 117-118

(24) New Article prescribing the title of the R^les, as amended by

the Paris Congress . . . . . . JI2

(25) New Article prescribing the date of entry into force of the

Regies, as amended by the Paris Congress 129-13U

(20) New Schedule in which to be recorded all decisions taken by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature under its plenary powers 18 125

(27) New Schedule specifying the gender of Latin and Latinised

Greek nouns for the guidance of zoologists in determining

the gender of generic names 109

(28) New Schedule in'which to be recorded decisions on individual

cases, taken by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature, otherwise than under its
plenary powers 112,125-120

(29) New Schedule containing the " Official List of aeueric Names

in Zoology " ^20

(30) New Schedule containing the " Official List of Specific Names

in Zoology " 120

Regies Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, proposed insertion
at an appropriate point of a Recommnndation urging authors to
cite at least once in any given paper a bibliographical reference for
names mentioned therein 9g

236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomendahire.

Regies Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, proposals for the Page
completion of substantive Frencli text, the preparation of an
accurate Enghsh translation, the arrangements to be made for the
preparation of revised text embodying decisions taken by the
Paris Congress and for the verification and promulgation of that
text . . 28-31, 129-130

Report by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
to the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology on the
meaning of the expression " nomenclature binaire " as used in
the Regies and action proposed for the amendment of the Regies
in regard thereto, draft of . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-21

Report by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
to the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology on the work
performed during the Congress, draft of . . . . . . . . 139-153

Secondary Homonyms, see Homonymy.

sloani Daudin, 1803, Scincus, incorrectly stated in Opinion 92 to be the

type species of the genus Mahuya Fitzinger, 1826 . . . . 136

Schistosome monsters, proposed issue of a ruling that the use by Gurlt
in 1832 of Latin " generic " and " specific trivial " names for, not
in accordance with the Regies and that such names have no status
in zoological nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Sclerites, see Fossil Fragments (organites and sclerites).

supergeneric groups, nomenclature of (communication by Professor

R. Jeannel) 164-165

Trivial Names in Zoology, suggested establishment of an " Official

List "for 114

type specimens, terminology to be used for . . . . . . . . 90-91

varieties, nomenclature of, see Regies Internationales de la Nontenclature
Zoologique, first proposed New Article

votnitoria Liimaeus, 1758, Musca, type species of the genus Calliphora

Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 . . • • 135

work of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

during the period 1936-1948, Report by the Secretary on . . 5

Butletiii uf Zoological Nontendature. 237

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

Part No.

Contents of Part

Date of publicidioi

1/3

T.P.— XXX, 1— 02

14th March, 195U

4/G

03—158

14th March, 1950

7/9

159 237

21st April, 1950

PURCHASED

19 APR 1950

Printed in Great Britain by
Metchim & Son, Ltd.,

at their Press at

8, Princes St., Westminster,

London, S.W.L

rt ^^ THANKS TO U.N.E.S.C.O.

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, on behalf
of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have
great pleasure in expressing their grateful thanks to the UNITED
NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL
ORGANISATION (U.N.E.S.C.O.) for the financial assistance
afforded towards the cost of producing the present volume.

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Notice to subscribers regarding the arrangements made for the

completion of volume i and for the publication of

volumes 2, 3, 4 and 5

The following arrangements have been made for completing volume 1
of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and for the publication of
volumes 2, 3, 4 and 5 : —

Volume I : A concluding Part (Part 12), containing, inter alia, the Title
Page, Table of Contents, and alphabetical subject index, will be
published shortly.

Volume 2 : This volume, hke Volume 1, will be devoted to the publica-
tion of appHcations in regard to nomenclatorial problems submitted
by specialists to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature for decision. Pubhcation will commence at an early date.

Volume 3 : This volume, which was issued in nine Parts, is now complete.
It contains the memoranda, reports and other documents considered
by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and
by the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology at their meetings held in Paris in July 1948.

Volume 4 : This volume will be devoted to the publication of the
Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in July 1948.
Parts 1-3 have already been published and the remainder is in the press.

Volume 5 : At the request of the Bureau of the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, this volume will be devoted to the publication
of the Official Record of Proceedirtgs of the Section on Nomenclature
of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948,
together with the Reports submitted to the Congress by the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the Section
on Nomenclature.

INQUIRIES

All inquiries regarding publications should be addressed to the Internationa]

Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, and all inquiries regarding the scientific work of

the Commission to the Secretary to the Commission at the following addresses : —

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature : 41, Queen's Gate,

London, S.W.7, England.
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : Secretariat of
the Commission, 28 Park Village East, Regent's Park, London, N.W.I, England.

'■:■' "^-;.'.- :;■ v i-^ i ,'.-cV>''